THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. RATZ(ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT VON RADETZKY): I would like to ask that the Defendant Von Radetzky be excused today and tomorrow afternoon from attendance in court so that he can visit his wife. This has been approved already for special reasons and I would like instructions to be given that the defendant be brought to Room 57 at 1:30.
THE PRESIDENT: When you say that Von Radetzky will be excused that he may visit his wife, you mean that his wife may visit him. Mrs. von Radetzky to visit von Radetzky this afternoon in Room 57 and the same privilege will be accorded tomorrow afternoon.
DR. RATZ: Thank you, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: You are welcome.
DR. KOESSL: My colleague, Dr. Ulmer, asked me to make an application that the Defendant Six be excused tomorrow, Tuesday, the 6th of January, -- that he may be excused for the afternoon only tomorrow and that he be brought to Room 57 so that the closing brief for the Defendant Six can be written.
THE PRESIDENT: The Defendant Six will be excused from attendance in court tomorrow afternoon for the purposes indicated.
DR. KOESSL: (ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT SCHUBERT) I ask permission to continue with the questioning of the Defendant Schubert in his own case.
Q (By Dr. Koessl) Witness, please clarify again which figures you knew and which figures you did not know. but I did not know any possible total figures about the total period of the work of Einsatzgruppe D. I never knew of these at any time. the various reports?
A No, I never did anything like that. I never had orders to do that. In addition those figures, for example, which were with Einsatzgruppe D documents existed for that period.
I don't think either that unless customs were changed, lists previously had been kept; I know nothing killed; which operations were you referring to here at this point of the affidavit?
as they were made known to us for the territory of Einsatzgruppe D. These against partisans.
Here, of course, localities were destroyed during combat and also people were killed.
This is what I was referring to and "Reports about the civilian sector"?nothing.
I regretted this and pointed this out to Mr. Wartenberg at the time.
If I had had the opportunity to word this myself, it probably population in the occupied territory.
That is what was meant.
Q Mr. Warenberg said in the English transcript, page 390 to 391, Figure 7 in your First affidavit.
Why, on 21 April, or on 24 April, did you not do so?
A May I correct you first? You mean 21 February and 24 February. I
A This statement by Mr. Wartenberg here on the witness stand was given Mr. Wartenberg at the time did not tell me that he would interrogate me again, or, if this should occur, when.
I did not know whether I would be interrogated again. He never let me know at any time that at a later date I would be able to give further explanations concerning this affidavit. I mentioned to him that there were some points which were not clear in this affidavit and he told me that if something had been formulated unclearly, it could only mean the same thing, as I had explained it. This was merely a compilation, a summary of this previous interrogation.
4 February?
rewritten, on 24 February it was signed again. This affidavit merely had been discussed.
Therefore, for me it was not supplementary affidavit affidavit with new subjects.
Apart from that, if I may mention it here.
on the wording of these texts in these affidavits. I could not have any influence.
The interrogation was conducted entirely by Mr. Wartenberg and I could not interfere here and say, "Stop here.
We can't do it that way," for any executions?
Q Did you yourself ever see an execution?
Q How did this come about? Was this part of your task as Adjutant?
with the executive task. Why this order was given to me, I would like Einsatzgruppe D at the time.
This was the execution which has been discussed here repeatedly.
It was the execution for which the 11th time.
This deadline, as far as I know, was Christmas or the end of the year, 1941.
Einsatzgruppe D, in as far as I understand about events carrying out the executions by that time.
The Army was informed about this personnel and technically was not able to cope with this matter.
The actual execution did not change, so it had to be carried out.
In this Einsatzgruppe, my codefendant, Mr. Ohlendorf, under those circumstances, matters carried out in a clean and thorough manner.
Herr Ohlendorf and also the local kommando leader of Simferopol, Dr. Braune, themselves
THE PRESIDANT: I didn't quite catch that distinction which you Q (By Dr. Koessl) Which differentiation did you make, whether they were carried out at all or how they were carried out?
That is what you
A Yes, I understood. What I was trying to say was: my instructions
THE PRESIDENT: Do we understand that you say that you yourself the orders issued by Ohlendorf?
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I would not like to say here that they by Mr. Ohlendorf, because the words, "that they were carried out" carry out the executions to carry it out.
I did not get such an order.
DR. KOESSL: You only mean the manner, Witness. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Let us suppose that the execution was not being by the Chief of the Einsatzgruppe?
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I could not have done this. I would have a different manner.
I might have tried to tell the officer who was
THE PRESIDENT: Well, if you saw a flagrant violation of the order of the execution with that violation, would you not?
THE WITNESS: Of course, Your Honor, in an emergency I would, of
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
Q (By Dr. Koessl) What instructions did Herr Ohlendorf give you at the time for your work?
MR. WALTON: If Your Honors please, I want to object to that question as putting the answer in the witness month.
If you will note, could have received his instructions.
I should like very much for the
THE PRESIDENT: The point is well taken.
DR. KOESSL: I believe that the prossecution merely objects to the Defendant Seibert gave instructions I shall bring up later.
I shall ask that.
I don't know whether I understood the prosecution correctly.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, well, why make it so difficult? Just ask him "Who gave you instructions?"
DR. KOESSL: I shall do that now.
Q (BY DR. KOESSL) Witness, who gave you the instruction to be present during this execution?
Q What instructions did Herr Ohlendorf give you? phases of the entire events. That was what Herr Ohlendorf told me to do. executions?
A Yes. I knew those directives and that is written directives they had been issued to the kommandos and as part of may work in the office. I also heard about these directives. any other missions? German page 256, the affidavit by Ohlendorf of 2 April 1947 was mentioned. This affidavit is in Document Book III-D, page 1, as Document No. 2856, Exhibit 148. The prosecution says, and I quote, "In paragraph 3 of the same document, Ohlendorf says that he had sent Schubert as his deputy in order to inspect executions. These inspections of executions, the Defendant Schubert in his own affidavit of 24 February 1947 admits." What I mean is the affidavit Schubert Document Book I, English page 108, German, 141, No_3055, Exhibit 28. What can you say to this statement by the prosecution and the affidavit by Ohlendorf?
A. This wording by the prosecution, in my opinion, is wrong, mentioned in the plural.
Concerning the affidavit by Herr Ohlendorf that is several.
He says that as far as he remembers I carried out one inspections in Simferopol.
Later in his affidavit he says, however, Defendant Seibert and Herr Gabel.
If the Prosecution wants to charge of executions.
In fact in my life I only saw one executions, the
Q. Please describe how you carried out your mission and
A. Hay I summarize first briefly and later explain it in detail?
phases of the entire events took place as I was ordered. I inspected the manner in which the execution was carried out.
In no manner did I
Q. Who had to supervise those executions?
A. The supervision was carried out by a person who hold the
Q. Were any other officers present and what rank did they have?
A. Apart from this officer who hold the rank of a major, there were two other officers who had the rank of a captain.
Apart from that
Q. Could you supervise these officers in carrying out the missions given to these officers?
A. Of course, I could not supervise any missions of these
Q. It has just been pointed out to me that the comparison
A. The person in charge of the execution is a Sturmbannfuehrer,
Q. In the SS, therefore, the major was a Sturmbannfuehrer and
A. Hauptsturmfuehrer.
Q. Did you have any influence in choosing the location where the execution was to be carried out?
A. No, I could not influence this. The location which was nothing to do.
I merely had the instruction to look at conditions of
Q. How long did you stay at that place where the valuables were collected?
A. As far as I can remember or estimate now, I would like to say about a quarter of an hour.
I remember that during my presence at valuables.
I witnessed this. I saw how these valuables were collected.
As far as I remember, this event took about a quarter of an hour.
Q. Did you have any special mission concerning the valuables and the collection of them?
A. I did not have a special instruction for this, merely the instruction as I described before, that is, to watch this and to inspect it. whether it was carried out according to the rules laid down by Herr Ohlendorf, that is, whether the collection and the listing had been done in the proper manner.
Q. Had the execution already started when you got there?
A. Yes, it had already started.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Koessl, is he now describing one certain execution or is he describing generally executions which he inspected?
DR. KOESSL: Your Honor, the witness already testified that he only inspected on one occasion. That is the inspection mentioned in his affidavit and being talked of just now. BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Well, Witness, I understood you to say that although you only witnessed one execution, you did make some preliminary arrangements in other executions. That is to say, to see that the place was secured so that no one might look in on the executions.
A. Your Honor, I did not carry out any kind of preparations, but
Q. I did not mean that you actually made any physical preparations, but I understood you to say that in your capacity as Adjutant and acting under the instructions of Ohlendorf that from time to time you would inspect locations and sites where executions were to take place and to observe that the necessary security regulations were met and other things which you could make certain were entirely in accordance with regulations.
A. Your Honor, I would like to emphasize again, that except this one execution which I now described, I did not see any other executions and as Adjutant on no occasion did I receive the mission to
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q. The President asked you whether you made preparations, general preparations for inspections?
A. No, I did not make any preparations for any such inspections,
DR. KOESSL: Your Honor, I have just been informed that the interpreter translated "inspect" and "supervise" with the same English word.
What I mean by "inspect" this does not mean "supervise", but to inspect may receive a report about this.
That is all one has to do when inspecting, while "supervising" means a kind of work which includes
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Koessl, it isn't necessary to amplify this any further; so long as the witness uses the words, "inspect" and "supervise". I am sure the interpreters will give us those words in
DR. KOESSL: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Because we don't have any possibility of con fusion between "inspect" and "supervise" as we had between "fehler" and "irrtum."
Who supervised this incident?
persons to be executed at the collecting place in Sinferopol?
merely had to look at this, too. I myself did not load guard, it was not up to you?
A No, I was not in charge of the supervision. I did
MR. WALTON: If it please the Tribunal, I have not
THE PRESIDENT: You want to make a differentiation
MR. WALTON: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You think he is dragging him.
MR WALTON: By the bridle, yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Please don't drag the witness.
DR. KOESSL: It was only meant to be a summary of what BY DR. KOESSL: getting ready the execution in any way?
English page 108, German page 141, Document No. 3055, Exhibit No. 28.
Are the events as you described them during the execution, correctly related in this affidavit?
my mission is incorrect. This refers in particular to the expressions "supervise" and "Inspect," I think it is the same in English.
I think the word "supervise" means those two words in the German language; also the formulation of "I took care of it."
These wordings do not correspond with my actual signing your affidavit?
A Before signing my affidavit I talked to Mr.Wartenberg for some time about these wordings.
I told him that in place of "supervise", which is obviously deducted from the English, it would be better to use the words, " To inspect" because In English I would express it, "To look at".
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Koessl, I, of course, don't recall now whether you questioned Mr. Wartenberg on this subject.
DR. KOESSL: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you question Mr. Wartenberg?
DR. KOESSL: I asked why the witness did not correct And now the witness is about to say why he didn't make those corrections, I myself questioned Mr. Wartenberg for a long
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Would you please give me the look at it when we recess?
DR. KOESSL: Yes.
MR. WALTON: I shall get a copy of the transcript during
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, Mr. Walton will get me the English transcript.
That will be allright, Dr. Koessl?
DR.KOESSL: Yes, your Honor.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q Why did you not correct this, witness?
A I was not able to make these corrections. During our conversation Mr. Wartenberg gave me repeatedly to he used and my explanations in his opinion.
He said that I had to tell Mr. Wartenberg about these beforehand, and, Mr. Wartenberg had declared repeatedly, "you can only make such corrections which I allow you to make", and thus, I was not allowed to make, but Mr. Wartenberg told me that
Q When did you sign this affidavit?
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Koessl, opposite paragraph 3 in that affidavit there appears a note, "handwritten corrections initialed H/ScH, 24/2/47."
Witness, what correction did you make in that paragraph?
or did it refer to a correction on that page, generally?
paragraph 3, namely, the date "in December 1941." I believe "in January or February 1942."
this is - and I shall come date, why couldn't you insist upon changing the word "Supervise" if you did not like the word "Supervise."
if Mr. Wartenberg would have permitted me to do so. It is the wording, "I was assigned for this by Ohlendorf or by Seibert," right at the beginning.
At the time I pointed out to Mr. Wartenberg that this wording "or by Seibert" could the Einsatzgruppe at all, but he was on leave.
I, therefore, would have liked to cross it out, but Mr. Wartenberg told questioned me that "Herr Ohlendorf or Seibert gave me that order."
I told him thereupon that possibly I might have said that at first, but when considering this I had to correct myself. Of course, I knew exactly at that time that Herr Seibert was not present.
THE PRESIDENT: Would you think that this might be an appropriate time to recess. For Lunch-Time, Dr. Koessl?
DR. KOESSL: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess until 1:45.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will recess until 1345 hours.
(Recess until 1345 hours, 5 January 1948.)
(The session began at 1345 hours, 5 January 1948.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. KOESSL: May I go on?
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed. BY DR. KOESSL: discussed before? which is contained in the Document Book was signed by me 24 February 1947 but I would like to draw the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that as early as 21 February 1947 I signed an affidavit of the same contents. In this affidavit I had 8 corrections which I made before I signed it. After it had been signed by me and I returned it to Mr. Wartenberg, in 8 copies, Mr. Wartenberg informed me that now he would have this affidavit re-written owing to the fact that so many. corrections in handwriting had been made and that he would then give it back to me for signature. 21 February 1947, ask Mr. Wartenberg whether you might be able to correct these sentences and what did he say to you when you asked him? he saw no reason for any corrections as the corrections and limitations which I had made he only regarded as a game with words and, therefore, he was not willing to have this correction made and he also added that at the proper time I could give the proper explanations and make any statements I would like to make.
Therefore, this correction never came about.
THE PRESIDENT: Let me understand this clearly. One affidavit was signed 4 February, is that correct?
THE PRESIDENT: Then which one was it in which the 8 corrections were made, the one of 4 February or the one dated 24 February? affidavit of the 21 February in which the corrections were made in handwriting and these corrections which were made in handwriting were then contained in the affidavit of 24 February except one particular part.
MR. WALTON: Owing to circumstances surrounding the affidavit which is not before the Tribunal and which has not been introduced in evidence I think such testimony is immaterial.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, which one is before the Tribunal? which number?
MR. WALTON: The one of the 4th of February and one of the 24th and now he speaks of one of the 18th which has nothing to do with the affidavit in the hands of the Tribunal as a prosecution exhibit.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, calling your attention, witness, to the affidavit which was signed on 24th day of February we see opposite paragraph 3 the words "handwritten correction - initials H.Sch. 24/2/47". Was this written by you after the affidavit had been rewritten by Wartenberg? at the moment I have not seen but I may assume that it is the original of the affidavit which I made out on 24 February in 8 copies and which I signed but I myself have not seen the affidavit since then.
I only know the cyclostyled copy in the Document Book.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. An affidavit was submitted to you and you made numerous corrections or a number of corrections. Mr. Wartenberg then said he would have it rewritten, is that correct?
THE PRESIDENT : And he brought it back to you and you signed it?
A First I read it through. Mr. Wartenberg submitted it to me making the remark that this was the affidavit of the 21 February newly issued but unfortunately I had to establish the fact that it was not the same wording - it was not like the affidavit of the 21. Therefore, I was a bit suspicious and I looked at the affidavit and I was very much shaken because this particular point had meanwhile been changed in the text. I had trusted that this, the copy which had already been made out, would be submitted to me again without the text being changed.
THE PRESIDENT : Well, you did even on this re-written affidavit then make a correction? was referring to the change in the text of the affidavit of the 21st. In this affidavit of the 21st it had said under # 3 "In December 1941" and if I remember correctly this date December 1941 in the affidavit on 21 February was put in by me in handwriting and after it was put in its final form on the 24, now, in the new edition, the wording appeared "In January or February 1942."
THE PRESIDENT: And you made the correction?
which in this connection is most important. I was not
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Wartenberg brought you the re-written affidavit.
He handed it to you and you read it. After reading it you made a change in the date.
That's correct, isn't it?
THE PRESIDENT: Now, why didn't you also make whatever correction?
A Your Honor, I think that Mr. Wartenberg said when
THE PRESIDENT: Now, just a moment. We are through with the date.
You have made that correction. Let's not talk about that date any more.
you have made that correction.
Now we ask you why didn't you correct the word 'supervise# if you didn't like that word?
A I didn't like it on the 24, and I uttered my
THE PRESIDENT: I don't understand you saying you were not permitted.
You had the paper in your hands. you crossed out "January - February 1942". you wrote in "December". Why didn't you then go over to the word "supervise", cross that out, and write in another word.