. NMT04-T0540
Volume IV · Page 540
| that every execution of partisans was preceded by a thorough examination on the basis of a regular procedure. The defendant himself gave one highly illuminative demonstration on his idea of regular procedure. He was asked what he would do to a man he came upon lecturing on communism, and he replied that, after taking a look at him — |
"If I was under the impression he would put his theoretical conviction into deed in that case I would have him shot." |
| Another example of his idea of justice arose out of his voluntary narrative of an episode involving the shooting of three girls who, according to the defendant, were about to form a partisan group. He explained that the case of these three girls was investigated for eight days. Whether such an investigation actually took place or not can only depend on the credibility of the defendant himself. In this respect it must be remarked that, if his concern for the girls' civil rights rose no higher than his regard for their spiritual comfort, the victims could not have had much of a chance to defend themselves. Steimle himself commanded the firing squad, and he was asked if the girls were afforded any religious assistance before the shots were fired. He replied that, since they were Communists, they could not have had a religious conviction. Then the question was put to him as to what he would have done in the event they were religious. His reply was — |
"If the wish had been uttered I can imagine that this would have been done. I, myself, wouldn't have bothered." |
| The defendant undertook to deny
responsibility for various executions performed by his two units by stating
that the alleged investigations were conducted by his subordinates. His
admission, however, that he reviewed investigations and ordered death sentences
makes him coresponsible with the persons in charge of the examinations. A
superior may not delegate authority to a subordinate and then plead
noninvolvement for what the subordinate does. Especially, when the superior
reserves the right of supervision, as Steimle testified he did. The Tribunal is satisfied from the evidence in the case that the defendant understood his responsibility in this regard but failed to meet it. The Tribunal further finds that the credible evidence in the case does not support any conclusion that all Jews admittedly executed under Steimle's orders were accorded a trial and judicial process guaranteed by the rules of war and international law. The defendant then claims that no Jews were executed by either of his sub-Kommandos while he was chief. In his pretrial affidavit he stated — |
