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.
you had it physically in your possession - why didn't you do that?
something. Theoretically, one can see that after the event I said I wanted to change that but Mr. Wartenberg said "Any corrections you want to make you have to discuss with or not."
And this permission - - -
THE PRESIDENT: Well, did you tell him, "Mr.Wartenberg, I would like to change the word 'supervise'"?
A Yes, your Honor. The word supervise as well as
THE PRESIDENT: Did you say "Mr. Wartenberg, I want to change this word 'supervise'?" Did you call that specifically to his attention?
THE PRESIDENT: You can dwell on possibilities. We must know definitely whether it did or did not happen.
Did you specifically call to Mr. Wartenberg's attention the word "supervise"?
THE PRESIDENT: And did you call to his attention the word Seibert,the name Seibert?
A Yes, your Honor. And I would like to say here the answer that I got from Mr. Wartenberg concerning this
THE PRESIDENT: What was the answer?
A I don't know literally but I thin, I can give its drift. when I told Mr. Wartenberg that the date had been changed and the passage "or Seibert" is also contained again Mr. Wartenberg told me words to this effect - "Yes, but in January or February Seibert was there again". I told Mr. Wertenberg that that of course was correct, but...
THE PRESIDENT: Listen, witness. We are going over ground which you have tilled a number of times. Now we have cultivated that ground and we have got the harvest - mainly the correction. Don't go back to the date. Let's go back to the other things. We understand the conversation you had about the date - that is settled. you called it to his attention, you convinced him that the correction should be made, and you made the correction as evidenced by the fact that it does appear corrected and your handwritten corrections are here. Well, now why didn't you go through the same procedure on the matter of the word "supervise". That's the question.
A your Honor, I should like to be very brief on this point. I asked for this change to be made on various occasions and was not permitted to make it.
THE PRESIDENT: Not on various occasions but on this one occasion when you corrected this date, why didn't you correct "supervise"? to this word. If I have changed the wording of the dage, if I succeeded in doing so, it may be so because I was particularly obstinate on this point because I didn't want a co-defendent of mine to be indicted by a negligent remark in this document. All other wordings referred to my own person and after Mr. Wartenberg told me that at the proper time I would be able to explain everything as I meant it, I thought, in the state I was in at the time, that I could no longer resist, that I thought I would have to sign this statement being able to explain later because I did not want to appear in dubious light in case I would resist too long and trusting that I
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it you feared that you would be put in what you intended.
Wasn't that the occasion to correct the dubiosity of the situation?
Wasn't that the time to make the correc tion?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, now just a moment, did Mr. Wartenberg threaten you in any way?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, please answer that, did he threaten you?
THE PRESIDENT: Did you read this? "I had the opportunity to make changes and corrections in the above statement.
I made this statement jected to any threat or duress whatsoever". Did you read that?
A yes, but I may say the following, Your Honor. This way of putting position to make all corrections.
When it says "I read this statement and" that "I had the opportunity to make corrections" then it is in a way not false, not wrong, but it doesn't explain everything.
THE PRESIDENT: You were allowed to make 8 corrections but not 9 corrections?
Is that what you are telling the Tribunal?
A I had to ask for the permission of Mr. Wartenberg for everyone of these 8 corrections but I did not receive permission for this owrding "supervise". I do not know at the moment whether those are the only corrections which I wished to make on that occasion .
The PRESIDENT: Suppose you do this witness. You indicate to the Tribunal the corrections which you actually made end then indicate the corrections which you want to make now and then we will have it on the record just what this statement should be. Tell us what corrections you did make and what corrections you want to make now. Dr. Koessl, will you please take him over that field? BY DR. KOESSL:
Q I will. witness, please state on what passages of your affidavit of 24 February you wanted to make any corrections on your own behalf? I do not want to make out a new affidavit now, but that I only want to carry out what Mr. Wartenberg had promised me that is to explain what I mean and what unfortunately he worded incorrectly.
Q Tell us, therefore, very briefly, what words you want to correct?
A Wherever it says "supervise" it would say "inspect" or "to look at". contained under #3 of the German, the fourth line, paragraph 3-A at the beginning of 3-B, the first expression. Furthermore again at #3 C. Then under paragraph 4, line 3, in the German and then in the next line -
THE PRESIDENT: Well, just a moment, are you making these corrections?
DR. KOESSL: The witness has already stated that all these points where it says "supervise" instead of "look at" or "inspect" - that all these points should be changed. Personally I have marked these points in my affidavit. I therefore wanted to tell you briefly. The witness is in position to do so himself - it would be the same.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Now, you said that 3-A was wrong but you didn't indicate how it was wrong.
Suppose you let the witness do it Dr. Koessl. Let him point out in the affidavit where it is wrong. Now, what is wrong with 3-A?
DR. KOESSL: Tell us, witness, under #3 any passages, what passages you want to be changed? I would like to say -BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q Well, tell us why it doesn't make sense. It seems to read very clearly to us. It makes sense. "To see that the location of the shooting be remote enough so that there could be no witnesses to the shootings". I don't know how it reads in German but it is clear in English. why is it so obscure in German?
A I don't know, your Honor, whether you are quoting now from the English, and whether it says there "to see". It says in the German "beaufsichtigen". That would be "supervise" in the English. If it says there "to see" I am in agreement, as I approve of the wording this way, although to "confirm" would be quite correct. I only had to convince myself of the actual order. sentence: that you would go to the location to make an observation and make certain that the location of the shooting was far enough away that people who might be in the vicinity would not see the shooting. That, in other words, is what we gather from this 3-A. is the thought you intended to convey? according to the wording in the affidavit it means that I had to supervise this particular place where executions took place. I cannot have a supervision of a place. therefore I object to the way of putting it here. certain that the shooting scene would be far enough away that witnesses might not see the actual shooting. in a proper state and that is what I think I have said in my statement. The wording of the affidavit means something else, in my opinion. shooting place, is that what you want to emphasize?
Q All right. This does not say that you selected it. It says that you went there to make certain that the place selected for the shooting was so located that it would fall within the regulations, namely that there would not be any unnecessary witnesses to the shooting.
THE PRISIDENT: Yes. Let's proceed to the next one. We understand that.
DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR. KOESSL: did not like.
A Then the next figure,Paragraph 3-B, there again it says "to supervise" so that.....
THE PRESIDENT: So that -- proceed, proceed. BY DR. KOESSL:
Q What was the wording that you approve? I convinced myself that the collection of money and valuables of people to be shot was not done by force, etc. The next passages, 3-0, here it says again "to supervise that executions were carried out as far as possible in a humane and military fashion."
Q And what should it be?
A It should say "to convinced myself" or "to look" or "see" that matters would be carried out like that.
Q Any further corrections?
A Yes, under figure 4 it says in the second sentence "I went into the Gypsy quarter of Simferopol and I supervised the loading into the trucks of people to be executed". Again it should say "I convinced myself" that this was to be done and not what it says here in the affidavit.
Q What next?
A The same sentence in the next paragraph "I took care that people were loaded as fast as possible and that no unrest and no disturbances should take place on the part of the native population. Furthermore, I took care that people who were to be executed should not be beaten while they were loaded into the vehicles.
Q What should it say?
A There again it should say "I convinced myself" of the fact of that, etc., there it could not even be formulated "I saw to it." I could only have meant "I convinced myself", because there is nothing else that could have been meant, and I could not have said anything to a different effect during my interrogation. In the last paragraph of No. 4 it says "as it was my task to supervise the whole execution I could only remain a short time at each of the different phases". There again "supervise" is wrong. Again it should say "to inspect" here or "to see", in order to get the true meaning, in order to be able to cope with my task.
THE PRESIDENT: Are those the corrections you want to make in the affidavit?
THE WITNESS: No, unfortunately, they are not all,
THE PRESIDENT: All right, let's have them all.
THE WITNESS: In No. 5 of the affidavit again there is the word, "I supervised". On page 3 of the original, the second sentence begins, "I supervised the SS and regular police that these people should not keep any of the valuables that were collected. Again there was nothing to supervise but only to convince myself, and I had to supervise how these things were carried out and whether they were in agreement with the orders which were given. Again it should not say "supervise". Under No. 5 again, the next hit one sentence, there it says. "This stage was supervised by me in detail so that all valuables should be turned over to the Einsatzgruppe for the purpose of passing them on to Berlin at a later date". This wording might permit the conclusion that it was my assignment to supervise and to take care that everything that was to be taken, actually was taken, so that everything would actually be transferred to Berlin. I think that Mr. Wartenberg thought of this way of constructing it when he formulated the sentence, but again I can only say that it was not my task to supervise these people taking the valuables, that it was not my assignment, but only, and that is what I said this morning, the stage of events, while I was there, to look at it and see to it that it was complied with, according to orders given.
I did not have to actually supervise this procedure. but I only had to see to it that it was done. BY DR. KOESSL:
Q Any further corrections?
A Under paragraph 6 it says "a short while when these executees were already in position in the ditches I supervised the shooting". This supervision again is wrong because I have already stated this morning that the task of supervision was the task of an officer who held the rank of a major. Therefore, there was nothing for me to supervise because there was already somebody who was supervising it who had a much higher rank than I had, and I did not have the executive power that these things were carried out. to Seibert. In the compiling of your corrections I think it would be a good thing if you now mentioned this particular point again.
A It is No. 3 where it is said that "in December, 1941 - I do not remember the exact date - I was detailed by Ohlendorf or Seibert to supervise the execution of seven hundred to eight hundred people". This wording "or Seibert" is completely wrong for the mere reason that Seibert at that time was not present in Simferopol at all. I think I have already clarified this point by saying that I told Mr. Wartenberg that this was wrong, but he did not permit me to make any corrections concerning Seibert because, allegedly, I had said in the interrogation "Ohlendorf or Seibert". This possibility I could not contest at the time, but I do not want to contest it today, that in the first moment when this question was put to me whether I ever or "what would you say, Herr Schubert, if we had proofs that you had actually to inspect executions?"
that was the question that was put to me at the time.
It was put by Mr. Wartenberg. I think that it is "Ohlendorf or Seibert". I cannot and do not want to contest that, 24th of February, I drew the attention of Mr. Wartenberg to the fact in Berlin.
Therefore, it would have to be crossed out, but unfortuna
THE PRESIDENT: Does that cover all the corrections now?
DR. KOESSL: I just wanted to put that same question to the witness.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q Have you now made all the corrections which you wanted to make?
which is inessential but which should be corrected. It is the last but one sentence of paragraph 1. "On the 9th of May, 1934, I was transferred from the Hitler Youth to the Party". It should say "on the 1st of May". I do not know whether I made this statement at the
Q And now let's just discuss again Paragraph 2. Is Paragraph 2 correct as it is put here, or do you have any other remarks to make?
A Under Figure 2 it says in this second sentence, "Otto Ohlendorf was chief of the Einsatzgruppe his deputy was Willy Seibert". I should understood and put down by Mr. Wartenberg in this very general form, the case could have happened in which Seibert would have been the deputy of Ohlendorf for the entire Einsatzgruppe D. Therefore I would like to explain this particular wording "Seibert was his deputy", and that is what I said, I think, in my interrogation very clearly, and I certainly did not put it into this very general form.