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.
III - domain proper - neither the right nor the possibility of checking such matters or even of giving orders and directives in connection therewith. The two activity reports mentioned on page 9 of the Prosecution's final plea, which partly fall into the time of Ohlendorf's absence, therefore cannot be regarded as incriminating Seibert, particularly because due to the absence of the chief of the Einsatzgruppe only the Kommando leaders as the letter's appointed substitutes might be mentioned in connection with the events described in the activity reports. ordered the co-defendant Schubert to inspect the executions in Simberepol in December 1941. In this connection the Prosecution referred to Schubert's affidavit dated 24 February 1947. In this affidavit Schubert declared that he had received an order from Ohlendorf or Seibert for the inspection of the executions in Simferopol in December 1941. Even the contents of this declaration make it doubtful as to who gave this order. To this must be added that Schubert when questioned in the witness box declared unequivocally that this order could have come, not from Seibert, but only from Ohlendorf. During his interrogation in the witness box Ohlendorf testified that it was he himself, not Seibert, who gave the order for the inspection of the executions in question. Moreover, the order cannot have come from Seibert for the mere reason that he had not been in Russia at all during the time in question. Seibert, in the period from mid-November till about end December 1941 was on recreation leave, which he spent in Berlin. This follows from Schubert's testimony in the witness box. Schubert's testimony further shows how the wording came about, according to which Ohlendorf or Seibert had destined Schubert to supervise the shooting of 700 to 800 human beings.
Schubert stated;
"Where it is said that "in December, 1941 - I do not remember people."
This wording "or Seibert" is completely wrong for feropol at all.
I think I have already clarified this point by saying that I told Mr. Wartenberg that this was wrong, but he because, allegedly, I had said in the interrogation "Ohlendorf or Seibert". November and December 1941 Seibert had been on leave in Berlin for about 4-5 weeks.
I make further reference to the statement made by the codefendant Braune to this point. In addition there are two more affidavits which confirm that the defendant Seibert was on leave in Berlin at the time in question. order to supervise the executions from the defendant Seibert. the Prosecution quoted also Ohlendorf's affidavit dated 2 April 1947 in which Ohlendorf declared that the only people whom he committed in genera to inspection duties had been, besides Schubert, Willy Seibert and Hans Gabel. There is no mentioning of any executions. The Prosecution has arbitrarily added this to its quotation on page 5 of the final plea. to Seibert in connection with executions. dated 2 April 1947, as follows:
"This formula was no doubt the result of long discussion with "that I did not know anything whether, or to which executions I sent the two persons named last.
The inspection task I refer also carried out regularly; he inquired about order in the thing he had to deal with, or of any event occurred."
Upon my question put after this to Ohlendorf:
"Is it therefore correct that in this sentence you wanted to express that Seibert did not inspect any executions?"
I received the following answer from Ohlendorf;
"I expressed that I do not remember any such executions, there fore, I do not remember that Seibert inspected any."
satzbruppe D answered in the negative to the question I put to them as to whether the defendant Seibert had inspected an execution carried out by their units. did not supervise any executions. or Sonder Komnandos or for their further commitment. In the reports presented by the Prosecution as evidence, Seibert only passed suggestions and plans of the Kommandos on to the 11th Army without having himself any power of decision. It should be noted in this connection that the suggestions made in these reports were not originated by Seibert, but by the Einsatz and Sonder Kommandos. The only reason why Seibert passed on these reports was that he had been entrusted with the task of collaboration of the staff of the group with the 11th Army. nection as the Prosecution tries to imply on page 7 of its final statement. If Seibert stated on page 2587 English: "Decision rested solely with the Army", he was referring to the assignment of the Kommandos. On pages 2588 and 2589 of the English Record, however, no more mention is made of these assignments. The point at issue was the power of decision in case of necessary local transfers of Kommandos.
interview on 11 October 1941, he did so within his sphere of work and not by any means as Ohlendorf's Deputy-General. In this capacity, he accordingly signed the report "I.V." on behalf of, that is acting as deputy in his sphere of work, The respective comments on page 7 of the closing brief of the Prosecution to the effect that he had admitted having signed as deputy of the group chief, is incorrect for it says on page 2578 of the Record, quoted by the Prosecution itself, that Seibert was with regard to the staff (Stab), the permanent deputy of the Group Chief in his sphere of work, and, as such, signed these reports, This is also proven by the affidavit of General Woehler.
Woehler was Chief of Staff of the 11th Army and it was with him that Seibert had the interview, referred to in the document. That an interview with General Woehler did take place is proven by the photostat copy of Document NOKW-629Exhibit 159, Volume III D, which shows Woehler's initials and the handwritten annotation: "Took place on 11 October in Novnikolajewka. W". Woehler stated in his affidavit that Seibert whose sphere of work comprised economy, administration, public health, ethnic and cultural questions, never reported to him about executive measures or executions, nor about executions of Jews. It had not come to his knowledge, he states, that the defendant Seibert acted or had been appointed as deputy of the Chief of the Einsatzgruppe D. of the Kommandos of Einsatzgruppe D, between 1 February and 16 April 1942 deals with executions of Communists and the burning down of the village of Laki, that does not prove at all that the defendant Seibert had any influence whatsoever on these actions. The measures described in the report could not, by any means, be based on an order or on instructions by the defendant Seibert, because Seibert was never informed about the activities of the Kommandos until afterwards. In this connection I would refer in particular, to the deposition of the chief of the Einsatzgruppen, Oh lendorf, These reports in no way supported or promoted the carrying-out of executions as per Hitler's orders.
In particular, no connection can be proved between these report and the carrying-out of the Hitler-orders. This was not possible, alone for the reason that these reports were made only after the aforementioned events had taken place. The reports, therefore, cannot have any bearing on the carrying-cut of the aforementioned measures. the defendant is blamed by the Prosecution is just a summary of Kommando reports. In regard to the executive powers of the Kommandos, Seibert neither had the right, nor was it his task, to make any further enquiries, to check on matters or to pass decisions. It is therefore incomprehensible how the Prosecution proposes to deduce from the contents of the two documents Seibert's responsibility for the events mentioned in the reports. davit by Generaloberst Halder, formerly Chief of Staff of the Army, submitted by me. In this affidavit, Halder pointed out that in putting his name to a report, the undersigning staff officer does not assume responsibility, for the acts referred to therein, but only for the correct rendering of the report.
In view of the fact that Seibert was a "Referent III", viz. an intelligence officer and reporter - I wish to mention this fact because it was under discussions during his interrogation - it is not possible to connect him with the collection and realization of the objects taken from persons selected for execution, The Prosecution has not been able to present any incriminating evidence against the defendant in connection thereto. The Prosecution probably was laboring under a misapprehension because it cannot possibly have been one of Seibert's function to have dealt with confiscated objects. had been formed at the order of the 11th Army cannot, in any way, be con nected with the executions carried out by the Einsatz and Sender Kommandos, These companies had nothing whatever to do with executions carried out on the basis of the Fuehrer-order.
These companies had been quartered in ondangered villages, as a protection against raids by partisans; that was their only function, as shown by the documents presented by the Prosecution itself,
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Gawlik, shall we suspend now, and, Dr. Link, you will be ready to follow Dr. Gawlik?
DR. LINK: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, the Tribunal will be in recess until 1:45.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will be in recess until 1345 hours.
(Noon recess taken, to 1345 hours 10 February 1948.)
(The hearing reconvened at 1345 hours, 10 Feb 1948)
THE MARSHAL; The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. GAWLIK: I shall continue on page 32; supervised the military training of the Group been proved. With regard to this question the Defendant Seibert stated that he had carried out one or two driving manoevures with the drivers in Dueben, shortly before the departure of the Einsatzgruppe and that he had nothing to do with this any more after the arrival at the point of departure of the Einsatzgruppe in the East. Moreover, it is to be pointed out, that there is no proof whatever that the Defendant Seibert had participated in the screening of Communists or other persons in Russian Prisoner of War Camps. This is proved not only by his own affidavit, but also the statements made in direct and cross-examination through the Prosecution leave no doubt, that Seibert has never been implicated nor that he had any knowledge of those cases of screening during his stay with the Einsatzgruppe D. During cross-Examination Seibert testified convincingly to his affidavit.
"I told Mr. Wartenberg at the time clearly that I cannot give any detail, and I do not know at the moment whether this general knowledge was based on an order which I read or whether I heard it through conversation. I do not know exactly." order from the Army to the Einsatzgruppe for the execution of hostages. He merely informed the Einsatzgruppe of a remark made by the General von Schobert, who was dissatisfied with the situation in the army area and had therefore made the remark, that he had ordered or was going to order the taking of hostages and that he would have them shot, if anything happened. But it was not the case of transmitting an order, ashas been stated convincingly by the Defendant Seibert in cross-examination by the Prosecution.
in addition, even the absence of Ohlendorf and on his own initiative, issued the necessary orders for the murder and mistreatment of Russian citizens, the Prosecution has not even attempted to submit any evidence. had never been carried out by instruction or order of the Defendant Seibert, The activity of the Defendant Seibert in the staff of Einsatzgruppe D, which I have analyzed in detail, did in not way support the carrying out of executions either.
As for question 3: ordered the execution of Jews, Gypsies and Communist functionaries, Seibert was not present at the meeting in Pretsch, where Gruppenfuehrer Streckenbach informed the Chiefs of the Einsatzgruppen and the Chiefs of the Einsatz- and Sonder-Kommandos, who were present, of the Fuehrer order, because his sphere of activity in the Staff of the Einsatzgruppe D had nothing to do with the ordered executions, For this reason and I want to stress it particularly, he was not even invited to take part, when the order was issued. He only heard of this order, as he explained convincingly on the witness stand, on the journey to the Einsatz area. as a criminal participation in carrying out the order. First of all, it would have to be proved, that Seibert knew of the respective executions, before these measures had been carried out. carried out, because the executions, as I have explained in detail, did not belong to his sphere of activity. He can only have hoard afterwards of the respective executions through the incoming reports of the Einsatz- and special Kommandos.
Besides, even knowledge before the carrying out of the respective executions would not be sufficient to warrant a conviction of Seibert. This opinion is generally acknowledged by the literature of criminal law and jurisdiction. I refer in this matter to the expositions of Wharton in his publication, which I have mentioned already, Criminal Law, Volume II, Page 1236, Par. 734. It is stated there:
"The knowledge that a crime is being or is about to be committed cannot be said to constitute one accomplice." power and the opportunity to prohibit the carrying out of the order or to halt it, and that he criminally neglected to do so. This proof had not been brought by the Prosecution. Quite to the contrary, there can be no doubt in view of the submitted evidence, that Seibert Could not prevent the carrying out of this order in the course of his reporting duties, and that neither his position within the Einsatzgruppe nor his rank gave him the necessary power or authority to do so. one of Hitler's orders, the execution of which was supervised by the men, Himmler and Heydrich, who were among the most powerful people in Germany? question. But if that question remains unanswered, then it cannot be stated either that Seibert had the power and the chance to prevent the execution of the order issued by Hitler. In conclusion the above may be summed up as follows:
1. It has not been proved that Seibert knew in advance of measures to be carried out.
2. Seibert had neither the authority nor the chance to prevent these executions from being carried out or to halt them. Nor can, for the same reasons, a responsibility of Seibert be deduced from the fact that he failed to prevent the carrying out of the executions.
recognized as proved that Seibert took part in any of the crimes of which he is accused by the prosecution, it would be unjustified to find him guilty: for Seibert acted on orders. Here, I am refering to my general arguments in so far as they deal with the fact that, according to general principles of international law, a person having acted on higher orders cannot be found guilty. In any case, however a considerable mitigation of punishment would he justified.
Within Einsatzgruppe D. Seibert did not hold a position of command. He was a subordinate of the Chief of the Einsatzgruppe who alone was responsible for the actions of the whole Group. including the actions of the Staff of the Einsatzgruppe, and whose orders Seibert was bound. to obey. Seibert could not fell any independent decisions. In particular, he had no authority to make decisions with regard to executive measures. Seibert, while on the witness stand, declared credibly and convincingly that, according to his inner conviction, he thought the Fuehrer's order to be wrong. (Records: page 2551 English, page 2602 German). In the course of the subsequent interrogation, Seibert reaffirmed his attitude towards the Fuehrer's order and declared that be would not have carried out an order, if conveyed to his through military channels, to shoot two persons only because they were Jews (Records: page 2725 German). furthermore, he has stated that, as an officer, he would not have been bound by duty to obey such an order. Under Count 3) of the indictment the prosecution has asked to find Seibert guilty of membership in the A. the SD and B. the SS, organizations which were found criminal by the verdict of the International Military Tribunal.