"The Einsatzgruppe reported in two ways to the Reich Security Head Office. Once through radio, then in writing. The radio reports were kept strictly secret and apart from Ohlendorff, his deputy Standartenfuehrer Willi Seibert and the head telegraphist Fritsch, nobody with the exception of the radio personnel was allowed to enter the radio station. This is the reason why only the above mentioned persons had knowledge of the exact contents of these radio reports. The reports were dictated directly to Fritsch by Ohlendorff or Seibert. After the report had been sent off by Fritsch I received it for filing. In cases in which numbers of executions were reported, a space was left open, so that I never knew the total amount of persons killed. The written reports were sent to Berlin by courier. These reports contained exact details and descriptions of the places in which the actions had taken place, the course of the coperations, losses, number of places destroyed and persons killed, arrest of agents, reports on interrogations, reports on the civilian sector, etc." Here the defendant -
DR. GAWLIK: Dr. Gawlik for the Defendants Naumann and Seibert. the Prosecution in every case indicates against which defendant the material is offered and what it wishes to prove by it so that we are not unclear about this.
THE PRESIDENT: What it wishes to prove by a document is certainly superfluous because the document itself, if it means anything, will show what it intends to prove. Now, insofar as identifying the defendant himself is concerned, I should like to hear from the Prosecution in that regard.
MR. FERENCZ: Your Honor, this is another illustration of a case in which the defense counsel have made a motion, received a written reply from the Prosecution and have received a court order and have brought up the same motion again in court. I will only repeat what I said in my reply to their original motion. Most of those documents are reports Which concern many of the defendants. Several of them concern all of the defendants. To stop at each point and recite the roster of the men in the dock would add very little to the case. One portion of cour case is devoted to proving the individual responsibility of each defendant. At that time we will refer back to the documents already received in evidence and point out exactly how each defendant is connected with that document. That is the procedure we intend to follow here and it seems to us to be very clear as to which documents will implicate which defendants.
THE PRESIDENT: That would seem to cover the situation, Dr. Gawlik. If, however, you find later on you are confused as to what defendant is charged with the contents of any particular document, then you may make whatever motionsyou desire to the Tribunal and they will be ruled upon, for it seems go us at this moment that the procedure outlined by the Prosecution is entirely reasonable and will be entirely clarifying to the defense.
MR. FERENCZ: In Document NO-2890, which was just introduced as Prosecution Exhibit 5, the Defendant Ohlendorff tells us in Paragraph 7, found on Page 23 of Document Book I, Page 26 of the German copy, and I quote: "The reports of the Einsatzgruppen went to the Army or Army Groups, to theChief of the SIPO and SD." Your Honor, the SIPO is the security police, "Normally, weekly or bi-weekly reports were sent to the Chief of the SIPO and SD by wireless and written reports were sent to Berlin approximately every month. The Army Groups or Armies were kept currently informed about the security in their area and other current problems. The reports to Berlin went to the Chief of the SIPO and SD in the Reich Main Security Office. After the founding of the Commando-Staff of the Chief of the SIPO and SD in about May 1942, this staff prepared the subsequent reports.
The Commando-Staff consisted basically of Gruppenfuehrer Mueller, Chief of Office IV and Obersturmbannfuehrer Noski, Group Leader in Office IV, to which specialists from Offices III, IV and V were available for coordinating the composition of the reports. Questions which had to do with the personnel of the group and with garrisons, came to Office I. Administrative questions and matters concerning equipment were taken care of by Office II. Information about the spheres of life (SD) went to Office III. The Chief of Office IV received reports on the general security situation, including Jews and communists. Information about the unoccupied Russian areas went to Office VI." book as Prosecution Exhibit 6. This is Page 29 of the German copy. This is an affidavit of an SS leader, Kurt Lindow, who states as follows:
"In October 1941, till about middle of 1942, I first was deputy chief and later on chief of sub-department IV A 1. This sub-department dealt with communism, war crimes and enemy propaganda; moreover it handled the reports of the various Einsatzgruppen until the Headquarter Staff was set up in 1942. The Einsatzgruppen in the East regularly sent their reports to Berlin by wireless or by letter. The reports indicated the various locations of the Gruppen and the most important events during the period under survey. I read most of those reports and passed them on to Inspector Dr. Knobloch of the Criminal Police who made them up into a compilation which at first was published daily under the title 'Operational Situation Reports USSR'. These reports were stencilled and I corrected them; afterwards they were mimeographed and distributed. The originals of the reports which were sent to the Reich Security Main Office were mostly signed by the commander of the Einsatzgruppe or his deputy.
"The reports 'Operational Situation Reports USSR', No.'s 114, 115 118, 121, 122, 128, 138, 141, 142, 144, 159, as shown to me, are photostats of the original reports drawn up by Dr. Knobloch in subdepartment IV A 1 of which I was the chief." evidence. They were a sampling. They were shown to the affiant for the purposes of identification. Lindow continues:
"I recognize them as such by the red bordering discernible on the photostat, by their size, the types and partial bordering. I identify the handwritten initials appearing on the various reports as those of persons employed with the Reich Security Main Office, but considering that six years have elapsed since, I cannot remember the full names of these persons whose handwritten initials appear on the documents. From the contents of the handwritten notes I conclude that these were made by Dr. Knobloch, and moreover I notice that various parts of the abovementioned reports are extracted from the original reports of the Einsatzgruppen to the Reich Security Main Office.
"On the strength of my position as deputy chief and, later on, chief of subdepartment IV A 1, I consider myself a competent witness, able to confirm that the Operational Situation Reports USSR which were published by the chief of the Security Police and the Security Service under file mark IV A 1 were compiled entirely from the original reports of the Einsatzgruppen reaching my sub-department by wireless or by letter." of facts officially reported by the Einsatzgruppen themselves. Einsatzgruppen. The Defendant Ohlendorff has given us a careful exposition of the formation of the Einsatzgruppen before the Russian campaign and how they were organized. This affidavit is Document NO-2890, found on Page 21 of Document Book No. I, and was received as Prosecution Exhibit 5, Page 23 of the German Document Book. It reads as follows:
"1. The Einsatzgruppen for the Eastern Campaign (Russia 1941) began as a result of an agreement between the Chief of the Security Police and Security Service on the one hand, and the Chiefs of the OKW and OKH on the other," This, your Honors, refers to the Army High Command, "As I remember it, this agreement was signed by Heydrich and a representative of the OKH. On the basis of this agreement between the chief of the Security Police and Security Service, the OKW and OKH, the Einsatsgruppen were to take over the political security of the front areas, which, up to the time of the Russian campaign, the army units had carried out themselves. The Secret Field Police were to occupy themselves only with security within the groops to which they were assigned.
"2. As far as I remember, this agreement took effect about three weeks before the start of the Russian campaign and was as follows:
"a) The Chief of the SIPO and SD formed his own motorized military units in the form of Einsatzgruppen, which were divided into EinsatzKommandos and Sonderkommandos and were to be assigned in their entirety to the Army Groups or Armies. The Chief of the Einsatzgruppen was the deputy of the Chief of the SIPO and SD, who was assigned to Commander in Chief of the Army Group or Army.
"b) That the Armies or the Army Groups had to supply the Einsatzgruppen with quarters, food, repairs, gasoline and the like. Each Army Group and the 11th Army, the latter as nucleusof another Army Group for the Caucasus, was assigned an Einsa tzgruppe, which in turn was divided into Einsatzkommandos and Sonderkommandos.
"During the Russian campaign there were four Einsatzgruppeh, which bore the identifying letters A, B, C, and D, The area of operation of each Einsatzgruppe was determined by the fact that the Einsatzgruppe was assigned to a certain Army Group or Army, and marched with it. The Einsa tzkommandos or the Sonderkommandos formed from them were assigned from time to time to area designated by the Army Group or Army. The Einsatzkommandos were divided into Sonderkommandos in order to have more small units available for the size of the area of operation.
"The areas of operation of the Einsatzgruppen were as follows: The Einsatzgruppe A operated from the center Latvia, Lithuania, and Esthonia towards the East. The Einsatzgruppe B operated in the direction of Moscow in the area adjoining Einsatzgruppe A to the south. Einsatzgruppe C had the Ukraine except for the part occupied by Einsatzgruppe D. At a later time, when the Einsatzgruppe D advanced towards the Caucasus, Einsatzgruppe C was in charge of the entire Ukraine, in so far asit was not under civil administration.
"Einsatzgruppe D had the Ukraine south of the line Czernowitz, Mogilew-Podolsk, Jampol, Ananjew, Nikolajew, Melitopol, Mariupol, Taganrog, Rostow. This area also included the Crimean peninsula. At a later time Einsatzgruppe D was in charge of the Caucasus area.
"All of the Einsatzgruppen were made up of a number of Einsatzkommandos and Sonderkommandos. For example, Einsatzgruppe D, of which I was chief, had the Sonderkommandos 10A, 10B, 11A, 11B, and Einsatzkommando 12." Tribunal the breakdown of Einsatzgruppen.
I'll continue:
"(5) The personnel strength of the Einsatzgruppen varied. It usually consisted of a total of 500 to 800 men. Einsatzgruppe D belonged to the smaller Einsatzgruppen. The officers and non-commissioned officers of the Kommandos were composed of men on detached service from the State Police, Criminal Police, and in limited numbers, from the Security Service, Aside from these, the troops were largely made up of 'Not dienstverpflichtete' (Compulsory service) of companies of the Waffen-SS and Order Police."
will return to it shortly when we deal with the subject of the function of the Einsatzgruppen which is the topic of that paragraph. 27 of Document Book #1, which is Document NO 4134 and offered as Prosecution Exhibit 7. This is on page 31 of the German book.
DR. ASCHENAUER (Defense Counsel for defendant Ohlendorf): I object against the submission of the Document NO. 4134. This document contains obvious errors. On page 31 of the German document book, Report USSR, No, 42 126, dated 29 October 1941. On page 36 of this copy, German document book, I find the following: "Situation report, USSR, #126, 27th October 1941." On the same page, the following text is to be founds "On daily report #110, 27 October 1941 the communication report remains unchanged." Daily report is evidently confused with situation report. Then 110 and 126 are not correct. It is also completely out of the question that from the 22nd of October to the 27th of October, 16 situation reports or daily reports should be made out and passed on. Here there is a question of mistakes and I therefore ask that this document be refused.
MR. FERENCZ: As I understand the objection, Your Honor, it is to either a poor translation whereby something was translated as "daily report" instead of "Operational report" and there is a number on the report which confuses the defense counsel. In the absence of a showing here of exactly what the defense counsel is talking about, I don't feel competent to comment on the particular objection. However, as a general matter, if there is such an error, I will certainly be glad to correct it. I am certain that there must be several errors in the presentation as we will give it. If there is anything more than purely formal objection, I wish the defense counsel would make that clear.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Aschenauer, is the document, as you read it, at least clear as to intent, and you find objection only to some detail which perhaps later can be straightened out?
DR. ASCHENAUER: No, Your Honor, I have the original in front of me now and here there are no typographical errorsand this is not a matter of typographical errors nor of details. My objection refers to the probative value of the document. First of all, in the operational report 126, there are two different dates given. One date, the 29th of October 1941, on the first page of the document. In one of the further pages, the date 27th of October 1941.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you reading now from the original? That is, the photostat?
DR. ASCHENAUER: No, this is the original document which the prosecution is offering.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, that's what I say. You are reading now from the original?
DR. ASCHENAUER: Yes,
THE PRESIDENT: And the objections, I take it, are to the original document and not to the translation?
DR. ASCHENAUER: Yes, that's right. And if I say "operational report" is confused with "daily report" or "situation report", then it's completely out of the question that the number 110 is correct.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, if you have no objection to the translation itself, then we don't see how your objection to the original can have any value, because the prosecution submits it as it is and if it is defective in any way then, of course, it's to your advantage that it's defective and, at the proper time, you will point that out in argument to the Tribunal when the issue must be decided. So, therefore, it does not go to the authenticity nor to the relevancy of the document. It's up to the prosecution to determine whether they wish to present in evidence a document which may be defective.
DR. BERGOLD (Defense Counsel for defendant Biberstein): I believe my colleague would have to object to something else. It isn't really the actual original, but the photostat of the original and, anmely, that copy which the prosecution is submitting as evidence to the Tribunal. The objection of my colleague could, if I understand him correctly mean that this is something which is not authentic and which perhaps, at the first look at it, might look like a forgery. Therefore, it seems necessary that the prosecution in this case does not submit the photostat, but the originals, so that it can be objected to or not.
THE PRESIDENTS: Well, the photostat is always taken at its face falue unless it can be shown that there was some mechanical difficulty in the actual photographing of the document. Do I understand you to say, Dr. Bergold, that you insist on the presentation of the original report itself, and how would that help you any more than the photograph would?
DR. BERGOLD: No, the photostat isn't always the same. Sometimes one can see, by looking at an original, that, for example, different kinds of paper were used so that the original might be composed of different reports. Or that various typewriter ribbons were used. But you can only see that by looking at the original. The photostat does not show those color differences nor does it show the differences in the quality of paper.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Mr. Ferencz, what have you to say to this?
MR. FERENCZ: Your Honor, there are two different objections to this document. The first objection made is that document which we have offered as a photostat of the original has, on the first page, the date 29 October 1941, whereas, on one of the pages next to the end, it has the date 27 October 1941. It seems quite immaterial to me whether the date was 29 October or 27 October, We have offered the document for a completely different purpose.
you pointed out, is a matter which will be seen by the Court and which will be given weight in judging the probative value of this particular exhibit. The second objection made, however, is that this photostat copy may not be a true copy of the original. Either because...........
Pardon me, I'd understood it as being an objection that there may have been some error in copying the original. However, I see that defense counsel does not agree with me.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Bergold, just what is your objection? The Tribunal had also understood it that way.
DR. BERGOLD: No, I merely say that the photostat is surely correct, but sometimes one can only judge a doubtful document if one looks at the original and see if the original in itself is a closed document or doesn't consist of several reports. The photostat is, of course, always correct. The photostat is unimpeachable. My request is merely to submit the original. Then we can decide whether we can maintain the objection or not.
MR. FERENCZ: I would like to point out that the certificate which goes with every exhibit certifies that it is a true photostatic copy of the original. In most other cases it has not been necessary to present the original. However, in order that these defendants are convinced that they have been given every opportunity, I have had the originals brought here from Berlin. They are available in my office and defense counsel are welcome, at any time, to compare the photostatic copy with the original and I will be very glad to correct any errors.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. That answers it very completely.
DR. BERGOLD: I thank the prosecution for their graciousness.
MR. FERENCZ: The Operational Situation Report of 29 October 1941, found on page 27 of Document Book #1, which is the report we have just been discussing, shows the breakdown of Einsatzgruppen, Einsatzkommandos and Sonderkommandos, as charged in paragraph 4 of the Indictment, and as shown on the chart now before the Court.
We come now to the purpose or function of the Einsatzgruppen. There was a definite reason why the Nazis considered it important, before the Russian campaign, to organize these special groups. There were special aims in the Nazi program which could not be fulfilled by the army alone and which would require battalions of SS men. Throughout the reports, letters, orders, affidavits, and other documents which will be presented here, the Court will find one persistent and ghastly thing:
Execution of Jews because they were Jews; execution of political functionaries because they were Communists; execution of Gypsies because they were regarded as anti-social; and execution of others because their arrogant murderers considered them inferior. Einsatzgruppen was.... What the function was. Document NO 4762 is a copy of portions of the judgment and is found on page 34 of Document Book #1. Page 39 of the German copy. It reads as follows:
"The murder and ill-treatment of civilian populations reached its height in the treatment of the citizens of the Soviet Union and Poland. Some four weeks before the invasion of Russia began, special task forces of the SIPO and SD, called Einsatz Groups, were formed on the orders of Himmler for the purpose of following the German armies into Russia, combatting partisans and members of Resistance Groups, and exterminating the Jews and communist leaders and other sections of the population. In the beginning, four such Einsa tz Groups were formed, one operating in the Baltic States, one towards Moscow, one towards Kiev, and one operating in the south of Russia."
And further the judgment says:
"The plan for exterminating the Jews was developed shortly after the attack on the Soviet Union. Einsatzgruppen of the Security Police and SD, formed for the purpose of breaking the resistance of the population of the areas lying behind the German armies in the East, were given the duty of exterminating the Jews in those areas."
NO 4762 as Prosecution Exhibit 8: NO. 2620-PS, found on page 35 of Document Book 1, and offered as Prosecution Exhibit 9, that - I quote. It's found on page 40 of the German book:
"Himmler stated that an important part of our task consisted of the extermination of Jews - women, men and children - and of Communist functionaries." formed, as stated in paragraph 3 of his affidavit, Document NO. 4145 which appears on page 37 of Document Book #1, and which is now offered as Prosecution Exhibit 10, as follows. Page 43 of the German book.
"During the setting-up of the Einsatzgruppen and Einsatzkommandos during the months of May/June 1941 I was at Dueben. During June, Heydrich, Chief of the Security Police and Sd, and Streckenbach, Head of Office I of the Reich Security Main Office, held lectures on the duties of the Einsatzgruppen and Einsatzkommandos. At this time we were already being instructed about the tasks of exterminating the Jews. It was stated that Eastern Jewry was the intellectual reservoir of Bolshevism and therefore, in the Fuehrer's opinion, must be exterminated. This speech was made to a small, selected audience. Although I cannot remember the individuals present, I assume that many of the Einsatzgruppen chiefs and Einsatz and Sonderkommando chiefs were present. I heard another speech by Heydrich in the Prinz Albrecht Palais in Berlin, in the course of which he again emphasized these points." addressed a letter to the chiefs of all Einsatzgruppen concerning the Jewish question. This letter, which is found on page 40 of Document Book #1, which is Document EC 307-1, is offered as Prosecution Exhibit 11, Page 48 of the German book.
point, I would like to point out the practice of other Tribunals. When there were objections of defense counsel to particular documents, the practice was to permit the prosecution to present its case in chief and then give the defendants every opportunity in their presentation of their case to point out errors in the documents, to emphasize different paragraphs of the document, and to make such corrections as they see fit.
DR. ASCHENAUER (Defense Counsel for defendant Ohlendorf): Your Honor, that was not the usage before other Military Tribunals.
I object to this document. It does not at all refer to the subject of the Indictment before this Tribunal. The document merely refers to the commitment of Einsatzgruppen in Poland. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the Einsatzgruppen in Russia. In Russia, in 1939, there were no German Einsatzgruppen yet.
MR. FERENCZ: Your Honor, this is exactly the type of objection I refer to. When the Court has a document before it, the defense counsel may attack its probative value or the reason it is being Introduced. I would like, however, to continue introducing the document, as planned, without interruption, and the defense may make their objection at any time in the presentation of their case and point out any facts which may impeach the document at that time.
May I proceed?
THE PRESIDENT: Defense counsel certainly may object to the authenticity or relevancy of a document at the time it is being presented, because, if it is obviously irrelevant and obviously not authentic, there is no reason why the Tribunal should take up its time in even considering it. But, as to minor details - not necessarily minor details - but, as to itmes in the document itself which can easily be presented after the prosecution has terminated its case, I would suggest that that be the procedure to be followed. understand that he objects to its relevancy. Is that right, Dr. Aschenauer?
DR. ASCHENAUER: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, I'd like to hear you on the relevancy, Mr. Ferencz.
MR. FERENCZ: Your Honor, this document is a letter sent to all the chiefs of Einsatzgruppen of the Security Police.
THE PRESIDENT: All of them?
MR. FERENCZ: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Regardless of locality or geography?
MR. FERENCZ: The heading is: "To the Chiefs of all Einsatzgruppen of the Security Police. Re: The Jewish question in the occupied territory."
THE PRESIDENT: Well, that seems to be sufficiently broad to cover the categories into which the defendants fall.
MR. FERENCZ: If Your Honor please, I think I can anticipate the objection here. The date is September, 1939, and the question may arise, how is it related to these defendants? We are introducing this document not to show what any of these defendants did, but to emphasize what the Gruppen were doing, what the Chief of the Security Police and SD was doing. The same man who was Chief of the Security Police and SD when these defendants were in command, and the report shows that he discusses the terrible measures planned in the final solution of the Jewish question. It certainly seems relevant to me to see what the man who ordered these defendants to go into combat was talking about shortly before he did so, on a question which is very relevant to this case.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Your Honor, the objection made by the prosecution can be removed quite easily, be merely referring to a Prosecution Document itself. That is, Exhibit #8. That is the excerpt which was quoted before COURT II-A CASE IX from the judgment of the IMT.
This disproves the opinion that has just been expressed by the prosecutor now,
MR. FERENCZ: That is correct, Your Honor. This is another letter from a different source, further substantiating the point we are making. as such, it seems to me to be very relevant.
THE PRESIDENT: As background material it seems quite relevant to the case. We have introduced in other trials, speeches by Himmler which may not have been made directly to the defendants involved but which certainly indicated the pattern of activity of the SS group involved.
DR. BERGOLD: Yes, I understand the point of view, Your Honor, but this document is of a certain importance for us because Einsatzgruppen are addressed in this document. It is addressed to the Chiefs of all Einsatzgruppen. Therefore, the great possibility exists that the Einsatzgruppen which are under indictment here should be confused with these Einsatzgruppen. The Einsatzgruppen which are indicted here did not yet exist on the 21st of September, 1939. To be sure, they had not even been planned yet and, for that reason, I understand our objection that this must be cleared up because, otherwise, the impression is created from the very beginning that in this document, this type of Einsatzgruppen is referred to.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there anything in the document which would indicate the life of the order? Would it not be continuing until such time as these Einsatzgruppen came into being,and, therefore, would apply to all Einsatzgruppen?
DR. BERGOLD: No, Your Honor. They are quite different types of Einsatzgruppen. They never had anything to do with these here. They had quite a different organization and structure. Therefore, this order could never be applied to these.
DR. GAWLIK (Defense Counsel for Haumann & Seibert): Your Honor, I raise another objection. This concerns the document. It is a simple copy which does not bear any signature whatsoever. It isn't signed at all. This is apparent from the photostat. Therefore, I have to raise an objection to the authenticity of this document. It is only certified for the correctness of the copy "Major, General Staff" and it does not have a handwritten signature or initial.
MR. FERENCZ: Your Honor, the document is offered by the prosecution in order to show what Heydrich's thoughts were about the final solution of the Jewish question. That is all. We ask the Court not to consider the document for any other point. That being so, I don't think it worth while to delay at this time to discuss the authenticity of the document. This, as every other document we shall introduce, will bear the certificate that it is a true copy of a captured document. Therefore, it is admissible if half is missing, or if the signature is missing, or whatever condition it may be in. We offer it for that simple point.
THE PRESIDENT: With the limitation that the prosecution has now volunteered, the document will be received and given such probative value as it will merit in the final consideration of the case.
DR. GAWLIK: Your Honor, I ask you to reconsider this decision because a document cannot have any probative value which is unsigned. It is completely valueless. This original document reads this way. "Signed: Signature, written with typewriter. A copy has merely been made of it. It's completely out of the ordinary.
MR. FERENCZ: Your Honor, lest this problem continue COURT II-A CASE IX to arise, I think it worth while to take a moment to answer this objection.
signed personally by Heydrich. They copy has typed in "Signed: Signature". Immediately under that: "Certified True Copy, Signed: Major, I.G." This is obviously a copy made by the Germans themselves of a true copy and that is why it is being introduced.
DR. GAWLIK: Your Honor, the situation is not this way. I don't object that Heydrich didn't sign it, but it would have to be signed by whoever made out the certified copy. Namely, the Major in the General Staff, but even this major did not sign it. It says literally "no signature" and literally is typed in. "Signed: Signature" and this was written with typewriter and this is completely unusual. The initials of the major would have to be present or the signature of the major. And this document could have been written in any way and has not the slightest probative value. And my objection isn't that it is not the intials of Heydrich, but there are no initials at all, not even of the person who made up the certified copy. Up above it says "copy" and down below "Signed" with typewriter. There is no such thing.
THE PRESIDENT: If counsel will let the Tribunal have the photostat during the recess period, we will render a decision definitively when we reconvene at 1:50. May I have that now?
We would ordinarily have reconvened at 1:45, but since we have gone five minutes over the period, it will be 1:50. Ten minutes to two.
Now what page is that?
MR. FERENCZ: Page 40 of the document book.
(A recess was taken until 1350 hours, 29 September 1947) (The Tribunal reconvened at 1350 hours.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: The certificate which accompanies Exhibit 11, Document EC-307-1, indicates that the document was found in German archives, records and files captured by Military Forces under the command of the Supreme Commander, Allied Expeditionary Forces. Since the document was found in the German archives, that fact in itself would argue against spuriousness or forgery because since the document would appear to be detrimental or inimical to the interests of those who possessed it, it is scarcely possible that one would hold in his possession a forged document against his own interests. Therefore, under the rules of procedure, the exhibit will be accepted for whatever probative value the Tribunal will give to it eventually in consideration of the entire case.
You may proceed, Mr. Ferencz.
MR. FERENCZ: Thank you. function of the Einsatz Gruppen and had just introduced Document EC-307-1 where Heydrich emphasized that the total measures planned and the final aim were to be kept strictly secret, and that the measures planned required the most thorough preparation both from the technical and economic points of view. The defendant, Ohlendorf, in his affidavit, which was offered this morning as Prosecution Exhibit 5, stated in paragraph 6 which is on page 22 of the English document book and page 25 of the German document book, and I quote:
"The Einsatzgruppen had the following assignments: they were responsible for all political security tasks within the operational area of the army units and of the rear areas insofar as the latter did not fall under the civil administration.