to present permission from General Ohlendorf, did he?
MR. WALTON: Your Honor, it is a convenient place for me to stop.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, very well. The Tribunal will be in recess (An adjournment was taken until 6 January, 1942, at 0930 hours.)
America, against Otto Ohlendorf, et al., defendants,
THE MARSHAL: The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal II.
Military Tribunal II is now in session. God save the United States
MR. GLANCY: May it please the Tribunal-
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Glancy.
MR. GLANCY: The Prosecution is in receipt of the original of counsel for Dr. Strauch objected to its authenticity and requested that and defense counsel.
I expected Dr. Gick to be present in Court but I see he is not here.
I will give it to the Secretary General for the perusal of the Court and will notify Dr. Gick that it is present.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you made arrangements to photostat this document?
MR. GLANCY: The photostat is now in evidence - the photostat of
THE PRESIDENT: Well, what I had in mind was that this document being
MR. GLANCY: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: We cannot exclude the possibility that argument you now have and it wouldn't hurt any one to have this photostat
MR. GLANCY: Yes, sir. I shall make arrangements to have it photostated.
At the present time we need it for the archives but will
THE PRESIDENT: When you contact Dr. Gick inform him what transpired
MR. GLANCY: Yes, sir, very well.
BY MR. WALTON:
Q Mr. Schubert, yesterday at the close of the session we were Exhibit #4. I would appreciate it very much if you would turn to
THE PRESIDENT: He is very familiar with that Document I don't think you need to wait any time until he locates it.
I think he could locate BY MR. WALTON:
Q Yes, sir. Now you state in this document and I quote, or rather, other things and I quote:
" number of places destroyed and number of persons killed". Would these reports contain information that a Jewish synagogue was burned by units of the Einsatzgruppe?
Book - that a synagogue was burned. I never said that.
number of persons killed. Now you said that, didn't you?
was burned by units of the Einsatzgruppe?
A NO, Mr. Prosecutor, that isn't how it is meant and apart from this wording I don't know any report where any such report might be contained.
I don't know of any such reports. Something quite different is meant here.
This wording refers to that part of the reports territory where Einsatzgruppen D was active during certain times.
I according to the reports which we received.
Part of this was, for had been completely destroyed and did not exist any longer.
But this there were those persons killed.
Them in fact it would have been right?
A I don't refer that only to the enemy who was killed but to any persons killed.
That might have been civilian people or enemy soldiers or might have been our own losses.
I only speak of casualties here and
Q I can understand what you said about casualties. It is in the very next sentence of that paragraph.
But I was speaking particularly about the phrase " total amount of persons killed". Now would that phrase include executions as well as people killed in open combat?
A Mr. Prosecutor, this wording here does not refer to executions to mean the same as executions mentioned before.
This was never
Q All right. Let's consider the operational situation reports of which you had personal knowledge.
I believe you stated yesterday that them.
did you not?
AA total figure for a certain period of reporting. Of course, you are right.
I cannot exclude the fact that in these reports communica of the Einsatzgruppe, didn't you?
A Mutilated, I never heard that Mr. Prosecutor. I merely know the
Q Let me repeat the question. I think the translation was a little bit different from what I meant.
From reading the copies, knew that thousands of people were being executed monthly, didn't you?
A Mr. Prosecutor, that monthly thousands of people were executed I would not like to say.
Here I can only stick up for the fact that I
Q Would you say hundreds of people were executed monthly?
A I believe, Mr. Prosecutor, you asked whether I would say hundreds?
monthly according to reports which you saw?
A Mr. Prosecutor, I cannot determine this for a certain figure fro a month.
Occasionally I saw figures and heard of figures which were cannot determine this for a certain period of time.
I am unable to do by units of the Einsatzgruppe, weren't there?
filled?
A There was no special order for this Mr. Prosecutor. This was
Q Mr. Schubert, I am asking you for the name of the person in the uation report for you to file.
Who was this person?
A Mr. Prosecutor, perhaps I may briefly explain the way we worked.
Q Who was that person?
without trying to dodge the question. I merely asked who the man was who left these copies in your office.
Let's pay attention and answer promptly.
Now, in paragraph 8 of this affidavit you make a statement to headquarters you, as you state there, and I quote:
"looked after the house". Approximately how long did these inspection trips last?
A That varied very much, Mr. Prosecutor. These official trips days.
That varied.
looking after the house?
A I do not recall any such case, Mr. Prosecutor. Of course, I
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed Mr. Walton.
BY MR. WALTON:
would you have done with this order?
A Mr. Prosecutor, in such a case, that is an emergency situation contacted him then, too?
A If he was enroute it was very difficult, Mr. Prosecutor, because in his vehicle he did not have a radio instrument to keep up contact with the gruppenstaff but I knew in general where Herr Ohlendorf went to and could always try to reach him and that was a technical possibility. accompanied General Ohlendorf to Prague at one time. Suppose during that time the same emergency had arisen, to whom would you have referred this order for action? It took a long time to get from the Crimea to Prague, and you know they are on their way and you get an order which demands immediate action, to whom would you refer?
A Mr. Prosecutor, in every case, in each and every case, there was one definite way of receiving instructions from Berlin, from the chief of the Security Police himself if any such emergency arose. There was always their radio communication. The distance didn't make any difference. In a short period of time through the radio a decision can be reached from Berlin to the Crimea in a very short time.
and that General Ohlendorf and Seibert were gone? Would Heydrich's decision come back to you over the radio?
A I don't think that the Chief of the Security Police would have
Q No, I don't mean that. We take our same example. Fro purposes of this example General Ohlendorf and Seibert cannot be reached.
You receive an order which demands immediate action.
You acquaint the Chief gruppe D. Now, the question I ask you is this, after the Chief of the is to whom this matter would be referred, come back to you over the radio?
A Mr. Prosecutor, it would not have come to me personally, but it
Q That is the answer that I wanted. If this matter was a matter which concerned Einsatzkommando 10a and Heydrich said, "Refer that to the area where 10a is," you would then have taken Heydrich's answer and referred it to Seetzen, the commander of 10a, would you not?
A In practice it probably would have been different, Mr. Prosecutor, fore they never had to be informed about this.
The kommando chief of 10a was a Standartenfuehrer.
I cannot imagine that any officer in Berlin in
Q All right, we will take another example. Suppose that in the first instance orders came from Berlin, from Heydrich's office, which ward.
Now, both General Ohlendorf and Seibert are away, and they cannot be reached.
This is a matter which you open and you decide and which ions what to do with this order.
Now, I ask you, would instructions come to forward this order to the commanding officers of the various kommandos?
A Mr. Prosecutor, such instructions were never received and theoreti Einsatzgruppe at that time.
Such a situation, however, never arose.
units, would consider himself bound by orders form Heydrich at Berlin?
A That is not what I am trying to say, Mr. Prosecutor.
Q Wouldn't the commander of the 11th Army say, "This is a Security Police order; it means nothing to me.
My commanding general is the only man who can order me to do anything," and he refuses to help, and you various Einsatzkommandos, wouldn't it?
Q All right. I will go back to our same example. Heydrich has gruppe D shall be freed or cleaned of Jews.
General Ohlendorf and Seibert are both away from headquarters.
We will state even this order comes in over the radio marked "Urgent". Would you sit down and inform cannot concern himself with.
I am asking you, would you then dis mandos, the various commanders of the Einsatz and Sonderkommandos?
DR. KOESSL: Your Honor, I object against this question which in practice could not have been practiced at all.
The hypothetical questions from one day to another.
This is so entirely impossible, and entirely
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Koessl, you are indicating that it is im possible, but you weren't with the Einsatzgruppe D. You are arguing factually.
You are not arguing legally or logically now. It is up to the witness whether such a situation is impossible.
How do you know whether it is impossible or not?
DR. KOESSL: Your Honor, the order is the same as the Fuehrer Order had not been carried out completely.
I, therefore, think it is quite
THE PRESIDENT: But, Dr. Koessl, the witness stated that in any given general of the 11th Army.
Now, the witness has stated that. Mr. Walton went one step further and said, which is not impossible, "Suppose the it did not fall within the purview of his activities."
What is impossible about that?
If the commanding general says, "This is not my field; this is a Security Police measure," what is impossible about that?
DR. KOESSL: The order based on this hypothetical question is the is, they are to be executed in that territory.
It only differs from the Fuehrer Order by the word " immediately" and the word " immediately" makes the Fuehrer Order logically impossible.
In practice, therefore, the
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it is not unimaginable. You say that the only change is that the word "immediately" is added.
Well, that is a very important change.
A program may be outlined for a period of time, and then or should be achieved at once, and furthermore, Dr. Koessl, the important know what would happen in the event the commanding general said, "This is not my problem; it is the Einsatzgruppe's problem."
So, let us hear
DR. KOESSL: Yes.
THE WITNESS: May I answer to this now, your Honor?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
by me. I could not have decided at all.
Q (By Mr. Walton) Suppose when you handed it back to Berlin you got subunits of Einsatzgruppe D, would you have done so?
A If I had received orders from Berlin to hand on this order?
Q Yes, would you have done so?
mando chiefs and I would not have had to forward it. It would have been
Q. Now you have an order. There is no point in them sending closer to the kommandos than Berlin.
So an officer on the staff of Heydrich radios you personally, "Pass the order on to the five kommandos, of the subunits."
Would you do so?
A. Mr. Prosecutor, here again I would like to point out that it was technically impossible to do so in such a case.
In such a case one radio massage would have been sent to everybody.
That is, all the they are being addressed at the same time over the radio.
In this case
Q. You haven't answered my question yet. I am not talking about the feet that it never happened.
I ask you the simple question if an officer on Heydrich's staff, in view of the fact that General Ohlendorf and Seibert were away, radioed you to pass on Heydrich's order done so?
Now, you can answer that yes or no. You have given your
A. Mr. Prosecutor, If all other possibilities which I have
Q. Thank you very much. Now, when General Ohlendorf was every would you give it?
A. You now talk about the order, if I had received that, the order we just discussed?
Q. Not particularly any order. Suppose that you get an order men, will be paid henceforward on the 28th of the month.
General Ohlendorf is away from his headquarters.
This is a matter which affects the whole Einsatzgruppe from the general on down.
Nobody is in To whom would you give this information?
A. Mr. Prosecutor, in that case I would have made a difference, that it had to be handed on immediately.
Then Ulrich, the administrative who required it.
I would not have been needed for this.
Q. Suppose this request came from Berlin to the effect that the ten days of the month, they have lost the report in Berlin.
To whom would you have handed this matter?
A. May I repeat the question in order to make sure that I understood it correctly?
Berlin gives me an order to inform them how of the Einsatzgruppe, is that right?
Q. That is right. Now, you are in your office and you open the mail and that request is in front of you.
I want to know to whom you would give that letter for action on that request?
A. I would not have been able to hand it on to anyone because it was addressed to the Einsatzgruppe.
Probably I would have submitted
Q. You mean to say that if that order had come down the last until he returns?
A. Of course I would have done something. If Herr Ohlendorf had
Q. That is what I want to know. Now, did General Ohlendorf ever issue any written orders to any of the kommandos?
A. I cannot remember any definite order but already yesterday about the manner of carrying out executions.
Surely there were other instructions, only I don't know whether I could call them orders.
Q. All right. Did he ever issue any written instructions or orders to a particular kommando leader?
A. I cannot say that any more now, Mr. Prosecutor. I cannot
Q. Well, it is possible, isn't it?
A. I cannot exclude that possibility.
Q. Now, you had the responsibility to see that these orders group staff headquarters?
A. For the fact that they were sent off or that they had been conscience because that was my work.
That was the task of the office
Q. Would you keep a copy in the file of this order?
A. Of course.
Q. Now, if the general was away and Seibert was in the head orders, or instructions to a kommando leader?
A. Mr. Prosecutor, If Herr Ohlendorf was absent and Herr
Q. Then he had -
A. And in that capacity he also conducted correspondence with
Q. Can you recall any subjects which he treated in his orders during the time when General Ohlendorf was absent?
A. I cannot remember any definite case, Mr. prosecutor, but I
Q. I am not talking about the reports now. I am talking about communications with the kommandos.
I am not talking about his reports either to the Army or to Berlin.
I am talking about his separate communi cations with the komnmando fuehrers.
Do you recall any subjects which he treated in his instructions or orders to the kommando leaders?
A. Here I cannot remember any definite case at the moment, Mr. Prosecutor.
I really don't know what I could tell you here.
Q. You have answered the question I asked you. Do you remember its location or its base of operations?
A. I do not remember any such order nor do I remember that
Q. Did you ever see any orders or instructions issued by this acting commander which concerned the Jewish question at all?
A. May I ask to have the question again, please? I did not
Q. Did you ever see any orders or instructions issued by Herr Seibert which concerned the Jewish question?
A. Such orders I do not know of.
Q. Did any kommando leader over call at group headquarters when the general was away and Seibert was there?
A. That certainly occurred, Mr. Prosecutor.
Q. With whom did they discuss official business?
A. The kommando chief? With whom?
Q. General Ohlendorf is away and Seibert is there. I asked
A. Mr. Prosecutor, I still don't quite know what you are aiming at.
I think you are trying to ask with whom the kommando chief discussed
Q. That is right.
A. These kommando chiefs in such case discussed the affairs
Q. When both the General and Seibert was present in staff there request to see the general?
A. The kommando chief, of course, could ask me to report him
Q. Who made the decision that the matter upon which he came was important enough to be discussed with the general?
A. Mr. Prosecutor, I don't know any case where there might not be led to him.
He certainly came to him and then discussed his
Q. If such a matter did not need the general's decision, if he didn't particularly want to see the general, he wanted to see anybody the adjutant?
A. If it was part of my task he could have talked to me. For
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Walton, just a moment, please. We didn't quite get that word, Miss Juelich, if he wanted to have a "term". I don't understand a "term".
DR. HOFFMANN: That means the English word -- it is the German word "termin"
INTERPRETER JUELICH: I am told it is "appointment, " not "term."
I said "term." I meant to say "appointment".
DR. HOFFMANN: It is the German "termin" "appointment".
MR. WALTON: An "appointment", Sir, an "appointment" with General
THE PRESIDENT: I see. Thank you.
(By Mr. Walton) I have been informed that one duty of an adjutant, wanted or frivolous visitors.
Now, you were such an adjutant in Berlin for second time.
Wouldn't some of your duties, at least in Berlin include chief?
A. Of course, Mr. Prosecutor. The person who asked for such an he wanted to discuss with him.
I had to tell Herr Ohlendorf this.
Q. Now, did you perform the same service for General Ohlendorf when you were sitting outside his office in the Einsatzgruppe staff?
A. You mean in my former work?
Q. I thought your previous answer referred to the time when you sat in his anti-room in Berlin.
Now my next question, did you inquire when a to see him about such and such a subject?
A. Of course, Mr. Prosecutor, I did that.
Q. Now, after you talked to this man, and you found out that even Ohlendorf was rather a busy man that this matter did not need the General's decision, to whom would this visitor be referred by you?
A. Mr. Prosecutor, in no case could I have decided, or overlooked whether the visit was so important or so unimportant that I could have stopped the visitor from seeing H err Ohlendorf. I think I never had that right and I think I never used any such authority.
Q. Well, let's take one other example. Here is a man that arrives hot foot with what he considers a very important matter concerning the morale of the Russian population. Now you a re sitting there and he says I want to tell this to someone who can handle it. I think I can improve the morale of the opoulation. You know that, according, at least, to Seibert's testimony here, he took care of those matters as Chief of Department III. You know that General Ohlendorf is extremely busy, Wouldn't you have the right to say, "Look, maybe that's not a matter which you need to worry the General with. Seibert's taking care of this in these headquarters. Suppose I make an appointment with him for you?' Could you have told him that?
A. No, Mr. Prosecutor. I would have done something else.
DR. GAWLIK (ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANTS NAUMAN AND SEIBERT): Your Honor, I object, Your Honor, I object to this question. I consider this question irrelevant, because I think the subject of this trial is not to get reports on morale. Making reports on morale among the opoulation, I cannot consider that a punishable act and therefore it does not matter what would have been done in such a case.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you hear the witness* reply? Did you hear the witness' reply?
DR. GAWLIK: Yes, I heard it.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, did it hurt your case any?
DR. GAWLIK: I only heard the first few words, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: That's because you were doing a very rapid race.
DR. GAWLIK: What I wanted to say was I believe that in that manner that contact is to be made with the prosecution with the subject of Jewish executions. If the prosecutor refers the question to the subject which is the with this at all.