. NMT04-T0539
Volume IV · Page 539
"Q. So you know that of your own knowledge that people were sentenced to be shot without any investigation or trial? |
| Seibert admits that he passed on to the
commanders of Einsatzgruppe D any orders from army headquarters which should
arrive during Ohlendorf's absence. The Tribunal finds that Seibert was in fact, if not in name, Ohlendorf's deputy in the Einsatzgruppe D. It finds further that he was thoroughly aware of the activities of Einsatzgruppe D and participated as a principal as well as an accessory in its operations which violated international law, and falls within the provisions of Control Council Law No. 10. The Tribunal finds from all the evidence in the case that the defendant is guilty under counts one and two in the indictment. The Tribunal also finds that the defendant was a member of the criminal organizations SS and SD under the conditions defined by the judgment of the International Military Tribunal and, therefore, is guilty under count three of the indictment. |
| EUGEN STEIMLE |
| SS Colonel Steimle studied history, Germanic
languages, and French at the Universities of Tuebingen and Berlin. In May 1935
he qualified as instructor of secondary schools, and in March 1936 he passed
the examination as Studienassessor. In April 1936 he entered the security
service and on 1 September 1936 was appointed leader of the SD Regional
Headquarters in Stuttgart. From 7 September to 10 December 1941, Steimle was chief of Sonderkommando 7a of Einsatzgruppe B. During this time his unit executed 500 people. Report No. 92. (NO-3143, II B-53); Report No. 108. (NO-3156, II B-18, 21); Report No. 125. (NO-3403, II B-12); and Report No. 133. (NO-2825, II B-14-15). From August 1942 to January 1943, the defendant was chief of Sonderkommando 4a of Einsatzgruppe C, which unit also participated in liquidating operations. It is the contention of the defendant that all executions ordered by him were in the nature of punitive actions falling under established offenses against the laws of war, such as sabotage, looting, and partisan activity. It is evident that this defendant, like the defendant Blobel, has a distorted view of what constitutes established offenses when he states, as he does in his pre-trial affidavit, that under his leadership his Kommando executed even "persons suspected of being partisans." [Emphasis supplied.] Defense counsel in his trial brief complains that the prosecution did not submit any evidence to contest the defendant's assertion |
