(The hearing reconvened at 1125 hours.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Durchholz.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: Durchholz for the defendant, Schulz. Your Honor, I would like the defendant , Schulz, to be excused tomorrow morning from participation in this session because I would like to have a talk with him.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant, Schulz, will be excused from attendance in court tomorrow morning. Dr. Gawlik, are you ready to proceed?
DR. GAWLIK: Gawlik for the defendant, Seibert.
DR. GAWLIK (Attorney for the defendant Seibert): D from the middle of July 1941 until June 1942. He did not volunteer for the assignment to the group staff in the capacity as Leader III, but was ordered to the group staff of Einsatzgruppe because of his former activity in Office III of the RSHA. Neither did Seibert work voluntarily in Office III during the war. with the Wehrmacht and was recalled from there without his knowledge and without his volition. I refer to the affidavit of Arthur Bau which has been submitted by me. This affidavit proves that, at the beginning of the war, the defendant Seibert was serving with a Wehrmacht unit where he held the rank of officer. Against his wish, he was recalled from his unit to Berlin, to the RSHA, Office III. This is likewise confirmed by the then leader of the department "Personnel" in Office I of the RSHA, Gottfried Klingemann. His affidavit proves that the department for mobilization orders in Office I, on 1 September 1939, the date of the outbreak of the war, sent orders for their immediate return to the RSHA to all members of the RSHA who were serving with Wehrmacht units at that time, and that Seibert numbered among the re-called, and that Klingemann himself had seen and welcomed him in the RSHA, on which occasion, in early September 1939, he was still wearing the army uniform of a lieutenant. fore, was not a voluntary one, but was based on the Reich Defense Law. The affidavits of Dr. Ehlich and Hennicke which were submitted by me, prove that the defendant Seibert did not volunteer afterwards for Einsatzgruppe D, but was officially assigned there in the capacity of Leader III. The statements of the said persons tally with the findings of the IMT, namely that members of the SD had no possibility of choosing freely their fields of activity, during the war, and that refusals of accepting definite positions, in particular in the occupied territories, could have entailed severe punishment.
For this reason it is not a matter of voluntary transfer to Einsatzgruppe D as the Prosecution asserts in its Closing Brief on page 2. Seibert worked as Leader III, and his work consisted in making reports, in particular about the various fields of daily life, such as about economy, administration, folkdom and culture and about the mood and situation in general. It was therefore not merely a matter of making economic reports as the Prosecution will have it on pages 2 and 3 of the Closing Brief, where, by the way, some mistakes are made as regards the denominations and the activities of Seibert in Office III and as Leader III in field service. The intelligence work of Department III was one of the tasks of the Einsatzgruppen and Einsatzkommandos which fact has been proved by the hearing of the evidence. addition, been commissioned with the task of "liaison with the 11th Army", i.e. with the Wehrmacht, by the Chief of the Einsatzgruppe D, owing to his being an officer in the Army. While the defendant Seibert was a member of Einsatzgruppe D he never exercized any functions in either an Einsatz- or a Sonderkommando which alone, as has been clearly proven by the evidence submitted.,- had the task of carrying out executions. Seibert for part of the executions carried out by Einsatz- and Sonderkommandos of the Einsatzgruppe D. A decision on the Question as to whether the defendant is guilty within the sense of the indictment, depends upon an answer to the following 5 questions, namely which I have already mentioned in my plea for Naumann. These are:
1. Did the defendant personally participate in executions?
2. Were these executions. carried out by his directives or orders?
3. Before the executions were carried out, was he aware of this fact?
4. In case the answer is in the affirmative, did he either have the power or the opportunity to prevent or stop them?
5. Should this also be answered in the affirmative, did he neglect to act and thus became particeps criminis and co-principle?
Concerning question 1: Neither did the Prosecution contend that he did, in fact, do so. However, he neither participated at executions. persons having committed acts of plunder and sabotage. His presence was, however, merely due to chance and was in no way postulated by his tasks with the Staff of Einsatzgruppe D. These tasks merely demanded the carrying out of trip of inspections pertaining to his sphere of work as Leader III, but did not include superintending of executions. On the occasion of these journeys of inspection, it was the task of Seibert to talk to the expert III of the Kommando he was visiting, to give him directions and to visit, jointly with him, the offices of the Army Command or Division of the letter. On most of those trips Seibert was accompanied by the Chief of the Einsatzgruppe. When accompanied by the Chief of the Einsatzgruppe, Seibert's activities or tasks did not differ from the ones he usually undertook when he was alone. That is to say, when he was accompanied by the Chief of the Einsatzgruppe, he merely executed tasks pertaining to his sphere of work, namely that of reporting events. Twice, on trips undertaken jointly with the Chief of Einsatzgruppe, Seibert happened to arrive in time to witness executions, carried out by Kommandos. anything beforehand of these executions. Their presence at these executions was therefore not the purpose of their trip, Whilst en route, Seibert and Ohlendorf merely happened to come upon these execu tions.
Only after the lender of the Kommandos had talked to the Chief of the Einsatzgruppe, did Seibert learn of the details. In this connection the defendant Seibert learned in both cases that the persons about to be executed had committed acts of plunder and sabotage. These, therefore, were not executions based on the Fuehrer Order, The defendant Seibert never admitted, as is contended by the Prosecution in their Closing Brief, page 9, that possibly the victims had only been executed because they were Jews. On the contrary, Seibert has stated (records page 2526 Engl.) that he learned that these persons had committed acts of plunder and sabotage. Neither did the defendant Seibert in his cross-examination by the Court state, as is contended by the Prosecution, referring to the record, page 9 of their Closing Brief, that he knew what the purpose was. Seibert's testimony pertaining to this point, according to page 2523 Engl., is as follows: "Beforehand, I know nothing at all of the execution." Seibert as a subordinate officer could not very well stay in the car, but had to accompany him. Under those circumstances, the presence of the defendant Seibert at the executions does not render him a party to the crime. This is the generally accepted principle of the penal code of laws of all civilized states. I refer in this connection to the arguments of Wharton in his book on "Criminal Evidence" 1935, Vol. II, page 1237, where he says:
"Mere presence at the time a crime is committed without interfering, does not make one a party to a crime, unless his interference was a duty by reason of some position held by him, or unless non-interference operated ans was designed to operate as encouragement or protection." This corresponds also to the judgments regularly passed by the American Courts. For this, I refer to the decisions of the tribunals in the individual states of the USA, listed under note 16 on page 1237 of the quoted work, I further refer to the decision of the British Military Court for the Trial of War Criminals, held at the Court House, Almelo, Holland, on 24-26 November 1945, printed in Low Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Vol.
I, pa, 35. From this decision of the British Military Court the fact emerges that the mere presence does not suffice, but that, according to the Established Rules of Criminal Law of civilized Countries, only those are responsible as aiders, abetters, accessories, etc., who in some way supported the action. Hence there must be added a support of the crime by some kind of action in order to create a responsibility as aiders, abettors, accessories, etc. with the judgments regularly passed by German Courts according to which complete inactivity never suffices to make somebody responsible as an accomplice in a crime of commission, not even if the inactive person knew about and approved of the punishable action of the other. Especially his mere presence at the place of crime is not sufficient. realization of the crime (I here refer to Eber-Mayer-Lobe-Rosenberg, Reich Penal Code 1929, Article 47, Note 2b and decisions listed there of the Reich Supreme Court in penal cases). Also the rendering of assistance as an accomplice is a crime of commission in German Penal Law and therefore cannot be found in a purely passive attitude (Sec Olshausen, Commentary on Penal Code, 1927, article 49 Note 10). happened to witness as a spectator, were not measures on the basis of the Fuehrer Order, but measures which probably had been taken in accordance with the law after carrying out proceedings against plunderers and saboteurs. During his presence, Seibert neither had the right nor the obligation to interfere with the carrying out of the executions, because he only accompanied Ohlendorf on his two journeys, owing to the great distances between the locations of the Kommandos in order to take advantage of the Einsatzgruppen-Chief's car, and because his presence at executions did not belong to the service tasks which were incumbent on him in the Staff.
Moreover, it would not have been possible for him to prevent the executions in the presence of his superior Ohlendorf. His non-interference therefore does in no way mean a support of the Kommandos who carried out the executions.
Covering paragraph 2: of Einsatzgruppe D never gave directives or orders for the carrying out of executions. reason that the Fuehrer's Order had been transmitted by Gruppenfuehrer Streckenbach in Pretsch to the Sonder- and Einsatzkommandos already before the beginning of the Russian campaign. Neither would Ohlendorf's temporary absence have given any cause, owing to the order which in Pretsch had been clearly transmitted to all Kommandofuehrers for giving any execution orders or making decisions in this field. In this connection I quote the statement of Einsatzgruppen Chief Ohlendorf (page 533 of the German, 523 of the English transcript) "The orders for the executions in the East given in Pretsch, went to all Einsatzgruppen commanders or Einsatzkommando leaders who went along during the beginning of the Russian campaign.
They were never revoked. Thus they were valid for the entire Russian campaign as long as there were Einsatzgruppen. Thus it was, therefore, unnecessary at any time to give another order of initiative. Therefore, I did not give any general order of initiative and did not give any individual order to kill people." ing to Ohlendorf's own statement, had been transmitted in writing by himself to the Kommandos. I also refer to the statement of defendant Schubert on this point, who testified that there existed written directives by the Einsatzgruppen Chief to the Kommandos.
authority in the Kommandos under his charge to decide whether a person was a Jew, a Gypsy or a Communist and to order his execution, Ohlendorf declared: "That was a matter of the Kommandos". Also codefendant Braune has testified during the cross-examination by the Prosecution that the final establishment of the fact whether a person was a Communist or a Soviet functionary rested with the Teilkommandos. not the responsible deputy in charge of the Einsatzgruppe during the absence of Ohlendorf. February 1947, 24th February 1947 and 7th of December: 1945 to which the Prosecution has referred as evidence, that the defendant Seibert had been the deputy general of Ohlendorf. In the statement dated 24th February 1947 Schubert testified:
"In October 1941 I was assigned to the Einsatzgruppe D. Otto Ohlendorf was the chief of the Einsatzgruppe and Willy Seibert was his deputy, I was assigned as adjutant to Ohlendorf, and stayed in this position from the time of my arrival until the end of June 1942". conclusion by the Prosecution that Seibert had been the responsible deputy of Ohlendorf within the entire Einsatzgruppe. Schubert stated merely, as is evident from the context of his testimony, that Seibert represented the Chief of the Einsatzgruppe Ohlendorf within the Group Staff. During his hearing on the witness stand Schubert has made it absolutely clear, that he wanted to state only this, when making his statement, and that his explanations could only be understood in this sense. Schubert testified to this as follows:
"What can be meant here is only that Herr Seibert in the Staff of Einsatzgruppe D and only for the staff of the Einsatzgruppe D was the deputy of Ohlendorf, only in this one function, but never, and that is what I said, the ease could have happened in which Seibert would have been the deputy of Ohlendorf for the entire Einsatzgruppe D. Therefore I would lie 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."
proof as compared with the affidavits. For this reason the oral statements are to be given preference. When analyzing the affidavits of Schubert, it should be taken into consideration also, that the statements dated 4th and 14th February 1947 were not composed by Schubert. Rather, they were drawn up by the interrogator Wartenberg on the basis of Schubert's statements and were merely given to Schubert for his signature, as has been confirmed by Wartenberg in the witness box. In the index dated 7th December 1945, Seibert is listed under the heading "staff". Schubert stated with regard to this in the witness box:
"I mean to express by this phrasing, what I actually expressed was what was the actual case. Seibert was the Permanent Representative in the Group Staff of Einsatzgruppe D." justify the assumption that Seibert was the deputy general for the Einsatzgruppe D. The statements of Jonas are much too general. The statements of Jonas are hearsay, which, according to the general rules of evidence, are not admissible. Jonas has only voiced his opinion, that Seibert had been the representative of Ohlendorf in the Einsatzgruppe D, without giving the least indication, how he came to have this "opinion". Jonas was at that time officer in the Company of the Police and - as he himself stated in his affidavit - was assigned to the Sonderkommando 11 B, which up to November 1941 was never stationed at the location of the Group.
He was with the Kommando 11 B in Simferopol, the location of the Group, only at the time, when the defendant Seibert was on leave in Berlin (November/December 1941), and he himself left the Sonderkommando 11 B and with it the Einsatzgruppe in the middle of December 1941, according to his own statements. These statements have been confirmed also by the testimony of the former Kommando Leader 11 B, B raune, during cross-examination. during cross-examination and to the affidavit of Bekhof. the statements of Ohlendorf in his affidavit dated 2 April 1947, in order to substantiate its claim, that Seibert was the responsible plenipotentiary for the entire area of the Einsatzgruppe. Ohlendorf did not have a Deputy General, but the four Group-Leaders of his office represented him each in his sphere of activity. This is evident from the affidavit of Dr. Ehrlich, who knew from the way in which Ohlendorf used to conduct his work and command in RSHA, that Ohlendorf during the 6 yea rs of his activity as Amtschef had never had a deputy. Dr. Ehrlich mentions in particular with regard to this question:
"In his absence, even if lasting for a longer period of time, he was represented by the competent Group-Leader in matters pertaining to his specific sphere of activity. This ruling applied also for the long period of absence of Ohlendorf as Chief of the Einsatzgruppe D in Russia. In the absence of Ohlendorf, the Group-Leader signed with "I.V." (by order, in Vertretung), if it was a matter of letters from the Amtschef, without, however, thus being or becoming the Deputy general for the entire Amt III. This applied also for the time, when Ohlendorf was present as Amtschef III and the Group-Leader signed a letter concerning his Group-area."
Spengler find the affidavit of Dr. Roessner. appointed as deputy of Ohlendorf by the ESHA. Ohlendorf himself has never appointed him as his deputy for the entire area of the Einsatzgruppe D nor has in fact permitted him to be active as such. He could not even have done it without the ESHA. I refer in this matter to the statements of Ohlendorf in the witness stand. he was the senior officer after him, had been entrusted with the duties of a deputy during his (Ohlendorf) absence. These statements however refer only to the position of Seibert within the Staff, but not to his position within the entire area of the Einsatzgruppe. This has been indicated very clearly by Ohlendorf in his hearing as witness. In this connection, Ohlendorf testified as follows:
"Seibert was the senior officer after me, in my staff out, not in the Einsatzgruppe, but in the Einsatzgruppe there were at least two people who were senior to him in rank, and at least two others who had the same rank as he held; therefore, it means that he was my deputy on the staff of the Einsatzgruppe, but not deputy for the entire sphere of the Einsatzgruppe." prosecution. To be sure, on page 5 of the Closing Brief, the prosecution, referring to page 727 of the record, makes such assertions. But this is not true. Ohlendorf merely said as follows:
"The co-defendant Seibert was my deputy in the staff of my group". (Record p. 737 German). Brief: "He supervised the smooth running of the affairs" (Record page 728 Engl.) On page 5 of the Closing Brief, the decisive phrase "in the staff" is missing.
on the witness stand, are a better proof, too, then the written statement of Ohlendorf.
According to Ohlendorf's additional credible statements Seibert could never have deputized for Ohlendorf in the entire spheres of the Einsatzgruppe because he had no authority over commanders whose rank was superior to his, as for instance, Seetzen, who commanded 10 A, or Standartenfuehrer Mueller of Kommando 12, This very fact proves that Seibert was not Ohlendorf's deputy in all the spheres of the Einsatzgruppe, and not a deputy with authority over the Einsatzkommandos and Sonderkommandos. This would also have created conditions which were entirely impossible from military aspects, as it would hardly be possible to make a Major the superior of a Colonel or Lieutenant Colonel - if we want to make comparisons with military life.
This proof is in no way invalidated by Seibert's own statements. Seibert has never admitted that , in absence of Ohlendorf, he could have forwarded orders to the Kommandos with the notation "for your compliance". This fact does not become evident from the page of the Record as quoted by the Prosecution on page 8 of its Closing Brief (page 2616 German). Seibert has only stated that he forwarded such a communication "with the request to take official notice", which does not mean "for your compliance". There is a considerable difference between forwarding orders "to take notice" and "for your compliance". The phrase "for your complance" at the same time, has a commanding meaning, which the phrase "to take notice" has not. This invalidat es also the conclusions which the prosecution wants to draw from this unproven assertion of Seibert's having been an important link in the chain of command. the situation with the leader of the Kommando in an urgent case and that he took steps at once, it is unmistakably proven by the Record that this statement of the defendant Seibert had nothing to do with immediate steps in connection with executions, as the Prosecution would like to have it, but referred to circumstances like the example of the surprise attack of partisans, as mentioned by the Presiding Judge.
The statements of the defendant Seibert about the interrogation of PW's have likewise not the meaning which the Prosecution, on p. 8/8a of the Closing Brief, wants to attribute to them. The defendant unmistakably said that it would have been impossible for him to conduct police interrogations for the gathering of information from a PW, in the framework of an investigation, but that he, just as any other soldier, could have asked only general questions of a prisoner who had been taken to his presence, in order to learn which agency would have jurisdiction for the questioning of the PW. relevance as to Seibert's guilt. Only what Seibert did can have decisive value, and not what he would have done. in rank within the staff of the Einsatzgruppe and that he therefore took over all the tasks "within the group", whenever Ohlendorf was absent from the group, In this respect, the fact must be stressed that Seibert did not formulate the affidavit himself. As Seibert testified on the witness stand, he did not alter this formulation beca use, in the usual phraseology, the group staff too was meant when the term "group" was used. This interpretation of the term "group" clearly emerges from the affidavit, because Seibert, in the same affidavit, but shortly before, stated that he was never declared as the deputy of Ohlendorf as regards the Einsatzgruppe D. This sentence would make sense only if the staff of the group is meant too by the germ "group". That the term "group" was frequently used when the staff of the Einsatzgruppe was meant, has been repeatedly proven in the hearing of the evidence.
Thus the defendant Graf said for instance, on page 4769:
"Current reports went to the Kommando Leader first who then passed them on to the competent agency or to the Einsatzgruppe itself," "Around the end of September 1942, I was to take over a sub-commando too.
I rejected this, saying that I had only been ordered to set up Department III, that I had been furnished by the group for this purpose and I was only man who dealt with SD reports," On p. 4895; to the question:
"Did you know that the commando leader made reports to the group", the defendant Graf, cross-examined by the Prosecution, replied as follows:
"Yes, I knew that because my reports wont through my commando leader to the group". put the following question to Graf:
"Would you say that your position in the commando corresponds to the same position in the group?" in his cross-examination, according to page 36-6:
"Who wrote these reports to the group?"
And his answer contains the following sentence:
"But it is also possible that, at that time, reports were submitted to the group directly from there, from the sub-commando, because it was nearer."
The Defendant Noske once used the word "group" and another time the word "staff" though in both instances he meant the staff of the group (Gruppenstab). According to page 3607 of the German text of the record, the Defendant Noske in cross-examination, was asked the following question by the Prosecution:
"......, thus you would have omitted to mention this in your report to the Einsatzgruppe D?" mitted to him shortly afterwards, in the following manner:
"The report was sent by my Kommando, and I know, that the report was approximately 3 to 4 times as voluminous.
That is has now been cut, I perceive.
As to who has done the cutting, whether cannot say."
the questions, used the word "Einsatzgruppe" in the sense of staff. During the cross examination of the Defendant Schulz two pages of the records mention "Einsatzgruppe" seven times, though they can but refer to the staff itself; this applies both to the questions of the Prosecution and the replies by Schulz. It is to be noted in this connection, that in the German Military parlance it is common usage to talk of the "Regiment", though only the Regimental Staff is meant. I do not believe that the arguments of the Prosecution concerning the interpretation of the word "group" as used in the affidavit of Seibert could be refuted more precisely. Finally, the documents submitted by the Prosecution do not in any way prove that Siebert was Ohlendorf's deputy-in-toto. If Seibert signed these reports with the letter i.V. on behalv of Ohlendorf, he did this merely in matters pertaining to his sphere of work: namely that of making reports for the Army. As regards his sphere of work Seibert also acted as deputy for the Chief of the Einsatzgruppe when the latter was on duty. In this connection, I refer to the statement made by Ohlendorf, that the letters "i.V.", on behalf of, do not mean that Seibert had, in effect, been his deputy.
Ohlendorf testified as follows:
"But it was the general, habit that chiefs of certain branches signed "By order of". That was the usage in the RSHA and par ticularly in my office III.
Therefore he signed "by order of" my deputy in his branch."
This very lucid statement of Ohlendorf's proves that the conclusions drawn by the Prosecution from his affidavit in its closing brief pages 4 and 6, are erroneous. I furthermore refer to the testimony of the witness Dr. Spengier. These statements are confirmed by affidavits given by the following persons: Dr. Ehlich and Dr. Roessner. In addition, the then Chief of Staff of the 11th Army, General Koehler, to which the Einsatzgruppe D was assigned, stated in his affidavit that he was not aware of the fact that Seibert had been a deputy of the Chief of the Einsatzgruppe or had been designated as such. Koehler was the 11th Army officer who had received the reports in question signed by Seibert. He therefore would have known if Seibert was Ohlendorf's deputy in the latter's capacity as Chief of the Einsatzgruppe. been the deputy-in-toto of Ohlendorf, we must not forget to consider the fact that Seibert accompanied the Chief of the Einsatzgruppe on most of his duty trips. The questions directed to defendants Ohlendorf, Schubert and Seibert by the Prosecution were based on this fact. Among others, the defendant Seibert thus visited Prague to attend, jointly with Ohlendorf, a congress there at the end of April/beginning of May 1942, as is evident from the statement of Seibert and also from the affidavit by Dr. Ehlich. This fact in particular refutes the assumption that Seibert was the deputy in-toto of Ohlendorf. If Seibert had in fact been Ohlendorf's deputy-intoto for the entire Einsatzgruppe, then his presence with the Einsatzgruppe during the absence on duty of the Chief would have been absolutely and particularly necessary.
the statement made by Ohlendorf and the information that Schubert has given us each Kommandofuehrer had to make his own decisions necessary for his sphere of work during Ohlendorf's absence. He became thus a do facto deputy of Ohlendorf in matters pertaining to his own section. If a decision concerning the entire sphere of action of the Einsatzgruppe would have become necessary, then the ranking Kommandofuehrer would have had to make it. This ruling corresponded to the actual situation, as anyhow, the Kommandofuehrer had to act independently owing to the enormous size of the area occupied and the great distances between their location and the group. entire sphere of action of the Einsatzgruppe cannot be concluded, as it is done by the Prosecution, by the fact that he had access to the secret files of the Einsatzgruppe. All files and orders, inclusive of secret reports and secret orders were, as has been evidenced by Ohlendorf, Schubert and Seibert filed in the office. Neither had the defendant Seibert been commissioned with the task of keeping special secret files of of safeguarding them. If the reports filed in the office were accessible to Seibert in his capacity of Leader III and for his duties connected with the making of reports, it remains incomprehensible how anyone could deduce from these facts that Seibert had held a special position with the sphere of action of the Einsatzgruppe as a whole. while being cross-examined by the Prosecution, immediately confirmed that naturally he had access to the secret files. Without considering this unequivocal statement of Seibert concerning this matter and by incorrectly reproducing Seibert's statement, page 5, closing brief of the Prosecution the latter tries to prove that Seibert has denied this fact.
In reality, however, the defendant Seibert even on page 2590 English, 2639 German, of the record quoted by the Prosecution itself, states that he naturally had access to the secret documents. The remark of the Prosecution that in this connection Seibert had given a very sly reply indeed, is completely out of place. assertion that the cooperation between Seibert and the Chief of the Einsatzgruppe Ohlendorf was of necessity close and complete and that the defendant even knew about top secret matters with which the Einsatzgruppe was engaged. During the cross-examination of the Prosecution, Ohlendorf replied to the question whether Seibert was one of his few close friends in the Einsatzgruppe D:
I quote:
"I do not consider military connections as friendly connections." During the cross examination of the Prosecution Ohlendorf was likewise unable to corroborate the statement that he trusted Seibert to be the man who would see to it that all orders and instructions from Berlin as well as from the Army would be carried out as conscientiously as he himself would have done it, had he been present. Seibert discussed the execution of Jews, gypsies, Communists, with Ohlendorf etc., is incorrect in this form. According to the page of the Record quoted above, Ohlendorf said that he did not recall any concrete discussions. on page 5 - page 730 of the English Records, that Seibert would have had the power and authority to remedy abuses in the Kommandos or Tartarean companies, I refer to Ohlendorf's statement who literally said the following:
"I have just said that I do not remember that he was sent by me to inspect any executions.
If I sent him on any inspection trips, had special authority to remedy bad conditions there.
That was the purpose of the trip."
more contained on page 3 and 10 of the Closing Brief of the Prosecution:
Defendant Seibert never stated that he was Ohlendorf's representative in questions concerning economy (Department D III). On page 2474 of the English Record which was quoted by the Prosecution itself, Seibert merely said, that he was not deputy chief of the Einsatzgruppe. At another passage Seibert declared that he represented Ohlendorf in the staff, in his sphere of work III, that is in all matters relating to SD-reports (which does not refer exclusively to economy) and in matters concerning communication with the Army. This points to the incorrectness of the statement on page 10 of the Closing Brief of the Prosecution, according to which Seibert is said to have defended himself by stating that he was in charge only of the administration and business routine.
Not even the enumeration of Seibert's duties, which, as I have pointed out, are represented incorrectly and one-sidedly, entitles the Prosecution to draw the conclusion that these duties are "the normal and official duties" of a deputy chief of the Einsatzgruppe. Because then even a staff officer, as for instance the administrative officer, or the transportation officer, who makes inspections, could be called a deputy chief.
This might be sufficient proof that Seibert never was Ohlendorf's deputy for the entire area of Einsatzgruppe D, and consequently had no authority to issue any commands whatsoever for any execution measures.
1.) the affidavits of
a) Ohlendorf, who, to use the very words of the Prosecution should be able to judge Seibert's duties better than anyone else.
b) Schubert
c) Seibert
d) Braune
e) Nosske
f) Ruehl
g) Spengler well as Schubert do not revoke in any point their affidavits which have been submitted by the Prosecution against Seibert, but only elucidated them when standing in the witness box,
2.) In order to prove the correctness of the statements made by defendant Seibert himself, I submitted the following affidavits:
a) Dr. Ehlich
b) Beckhof
c) Dr. Roessner
d) Woehler by Ohlendorf are completely in accord with these made by the defendants Braune, Noske, Schubert and Seibert and that there were no contradictions during the cross-examinations by the Prosecution either. lendorf's chief of staff for security problems. Concerning this Ohlendorf declared that this was a mere imaginative denomination. staff for security problems. The staff of Einsatzgruppe B itself never dealt with executive tasks. This was clearly shown by the statements made by Ohlendorf, Seibert and Schubert, True, a specialist for executive questions had been attached to the staff at the time of the activation of the Einsatzgruppe; however, Ohlendorf requested the Reich Main Security Office to remove him already at the beginning of the operations because the staff of Einsatzgruppe D itself had no executive tasks, a specialist for this subject thus being unnecessary. So this specialist was subsequently relieved. If the defendant Seibert accepted also reports from the Kommandos dealing with executive matters, he had, however, - in contrast to his reporting on the Dept.