Greetings, ya'll

[wajdi]

yep, that's the one.
bill

[Klaus]

I wonder where he has got this scar from. Battle? Accident? Or was he a lousy swordsman in a fraternity?

[wajdi]

yep, that's the only one I could find.

bill

[Klaus]

I'm still looking for pictures. But there is little information on him in the net too.
I've seen you were at feldgrau too. Any luck?

[wajdi]

All I've got is his service record, plus the fact that he died in 1962.

bill

[Klaus]

How are you related to him?

[wajdi]

He was the son of my grandfather's brother.

bill

[515]

welcome

[The Oz]

It seems that this thread has been dead for some time, but I happened upon it while random-internet-search-fact-checking a passage for my masters thesis in modern German history, which deals with the trial of the Einsatzgruppen in the Soviet Union, and I figured I might post some information in case you ever come back to check this thread again.

For my one-paragraph bio on Seibert, I currently have, "Born in 1908 in Hannover, Willi Seibert studied economics at Göttingen University until 1931. After graduating, he joined the army in Göttingen, where he served from 1932 until 1935. In 1933, while still in the army, Siebert became a member of the Nazi party. Seibert entered the SD in 1935 as an economics expert, though he remained a reserve officer in the army. In 1939 he was promoted to Chief of Department III D in the SD Inland of the RSHA, dealing with domestic economics (commerce, transportation and trade), where he worked under Ohlendorf. Perhaps due to his established relationship with Ohlendorf, Seibert was assigned to Ohlendorf’s staff in Einsatzgruppe D, where he served from the opening of the campaign until August 1942."

As some of the other posters have already stated, Seibert was sentenced to death in the Einsatzgruppen Case. The sentence was commuted to 15 years, but he was released in 1955 after only 7 years, due to cold war pressures.

If you are really interested in what he did, I suggest looking into Otto Ohlendorf's Einsatzgruppe D, which killed 90,000 Jews in the Crimea during Ohlendorf and Seibert's tenure.

Here are a few choice tidbits from Seibert's testimony at Nuremberg:
"I might say that it was not the job alone of the Einsatzgruppen or the Einsatzkommandos to execute the Fuehrer Order [to execute all Soviet Jews], there certainly would have been Einsatz-agencies, as in every occupied area which was occupied by the German army. The commission of the Einsatzgruppen outside of executing this Fuehrer Order was quite unambiguous, the ones which exists in every occupied area namely, first of all, the Security Commission for order, as was quite common in occupied areas, and, secondly, the SD commission, namely, the reports about the morale and the situation in the fields in which I have mentioned, and, thirdly, orders which resulted from the liaison with the army, and which came from the Army. That is, from the harvest down to the front assignments; so that there were possibilities to gain some merit in other fields."
-Here Seibert is trying to make a case for his non-involvement in Jewish executions, arguing that there were many other tasks which took up the majority of his time.
"Q: [Prosecurtor Walton] Wasn't it known to you from your studies that the killing of civilians in occupied areas without trial is considered by international law and the laws of recognized warfare to be murder?
A: [Seibert] I cannot reply to that, Mr. Prosecutor, because I simply don't know where murder starts and murder ends. It was no war of man against man. There were only exceptions. Tens of thousands of defenseless people were killed in all countries, and by all means. I, therefore, cannot say whether this is murder or whether this is not murder" And later, "I did not consider this murder because of a clear order by the commander in chief, the group commandor, and by the commander of the army."
-Here Seibert begins by arguing that what he did was no different from, say, strategic bombing. Then he goes on to appeal to superior orders to try to get off the hook.
"I considered this order incorrect because it provided for the killing of defenseless people and because I considered the killing of defenseless people generally as incorrect no matter with what weapons it is carried out."
-Here Seibert is expressing moral rejection of his orders, which was common for all the defendants who testified, while once again taking a none-so-subtle shot at strategic bombing.
In October 1941, While in the Soviet Union, Seibert was present at a dinner in Nikolajew for his Einsatzgruppe attended by Himmler and 20-25 others. The prosecution asked Seibert why he didn't protest his orders to Himmler when he had the chance. His response: "After the dinner Ohlendorf addressed Himmler concerning this order, mentioning especially the difficulties of carrying it out; the difficulties for the men who had to carry out this order. I was sitting across the table, Ohlendorf was sitting next to Himmler, and I waited with great expectancy of what Himmler would answer to this, but Himmler did not react at all to this. I personally saw no possibility of speaking to Himmler. He was constantly surrounded by high ranking officers.... He didn't say anything, but he turned to his righthand neighbor in order to discuss something with him."
-Here Seibert is arguing for the futility of resistance.

I hope this helps shed some light on who your ancestor was, what he did, and how he tried to defend himself. If you have any questions feel free to contact me at co223404@ohio.edu.

[Klaus]

Thanks. This was very informative.