A.I don't know that.
Q.Can you state when Steimle left Sonderkommando 7a?
A.I already said about the middle of December.
Q.Why?
A.In order to go on leave.
Q.Who granted his leave to Germany?
A.I did.
Q.Did Steimle return after this leave to Sonderkommando 7a?
A.No, Steimle did not return; when Steimle had not returned after his leave I either inquired in Berlin or was informed by Berlin that Steimle would not return because he had become ill meanwhile.
Q.Can you tell us to which Army Sonderkommando A was attached, during Steimle's time?
A.Always the 9th Army.
QAre you in a position to describe approsimately the territory in which Sonderkommando 7-A was active on the map?
AYes. The 9th Army in the territory of Sonderkommando 7-A were the same. The 9th Army was on the left wing of the Army Group Center. Therefore, Steimle was always furthest to the north of the northern commands. In the norht of this territory, there was Kalinin. Then the border ran along the front 'til just before Moscow. The south frontier of this territory was the division line of the 9th Army and the 4th Tank Division, which was 20 or 30 kilometers north of the top point from Smolensk to Moscow. The western border was the division line between the Rear Army and the rear territory. In general, it went from north to south approximately like the Dnjepr that is from east of Smolensk up to the Valday Mountains to the south of the Ilmen Lake, which is blue on the map and there again along the front, which ran from west to east there.
QWitness, do you have Document Book II-B infront of you, still?
ANo, I have not.
DR. MAYER:Your Honor, the witness will got the document book. BY DR. MAYER:
QI ask you, witness, to look at Document Book II-B, Document NO-2824, Exhibit 62. It is the operation report No. 148 of 19 December 1941. During the examination it had already been discussed... In this document, in the territory of Einsatzgruppe B places are named but it is not stated which Einsatzkommando or Sonderkommando was assigned for these places. Please tell me, as Chief of Einsatzgruppe B - whether the following places, which I will read to you, were in the territory and were under the competency of Sonderkommando 7-A. The places are mostly on page 36, 37 and 38 in the German Document Book. I name the locations: Gshatsk.
AGshatsk was not there. Gshatsk was near to Moscow.
QKurhle?
ANo Kurhle was some where else.
QOrel.
AOrel also further south; did not belong to 7-A.
QGomel.
AGomel is in the south, in the area of the Commando 8.
QMogilew.
AMogilew was the garrison of 8.
QOn the next page there is Bobruisk.
ABobruisk is south of Mogilew. It belongs to Einsatzkommando 8, not to 7-A.
QRudnja, near Smolensk.
ARudnja, near Smolensk, is on the high road from Smolensk to Vitebsk. In general, west of Smolensk. But since the border of 7-A was east of Smolensk it cannot have belonged to 7-A.
QGomel, Rogatschow and Kormu.
AThese three -- the first two, they were further east and belonged to 8; Kormu is also down there, near Gomel -- I don't know the exact situation - but it is not under 7-A.
QOn the next page the following locations: Ljubawitschi.
ALjubawitschi - I know the exact situation not very well. It is west, or southwest, of Bobruisk or Gomel, near Marinagorka, on the northwest border of the swamp region.
QBorissow.
ABorissow is west of the territory on the high road to Minsk. That belongs to 9 or 8.
QMay I add another question. According to the situation of Ljubawitschi, 7-a cannot have anything to do with it, either.
ANo it belonged to another kommando.
QKritschew.
AKritschew is along Roslawl and Bobruisk, and belongs to Einsatzkommando 8.
QRoslawl.
ARoslawl is east of Smolensk. It could not belong to 7-a.
DR. MAYER:Your Honor, I only have a few questions as defense counsel for defendant Klingelhoefer.
THE PRESIDENT:Vary well, proceed. BY DR. MAYER:
QWitness, since when have you known defendant Klingelhoefer and on what occasion did you meet him.
AI also net Klingelhoefer in Russia.
QOn what occasion, and where?
AIn Smolensk, in my office.
QWhat position did Klingelhoeffer have at that time?
AKlingelhoeffer was in charge of Vorkommando Gruppenstaff in Gshatsk -- not far from Moscow.
QWhat did the commando have to deal with, and what was the purpose.
AI heard about this from Nebe, later from Klingelhoefer himself that Vorkommando Gruppenstaff had the task, when Moscow was attacked to set up billets, to look after the staff of the Einsatzgruppe for a command which wanted enter Moscow.
QDo you know what Vorkommando Gruppenstaff actually did while they were in Gshatsk?
ADuring the time when I was there it was only a short time that it existed. Afterwards it was dissolved because I had realized that we would not get to Moscow vary soon.
QDid the Vorkommando Gruppenstaff in Gshatsk give you any reports about measures or actions as contained in the indictment?
ANo, I already said that it was dissolved by me because they had no more work for them. They had no space, either, because in Moshaesk there was part of Kommando 9.
QCan you remember when Klingelhoeffer went on leave and when he returned?
AShortly after I started Klingelhoeffer went on leave because I travelled together with Klingelhoeffer. I had met him in Smolensk while I stayed in Gshatsk. I visited him in his billets. I left him there.
I travelled on to Wjasma and to Kalinin, and then again to Smolensk. Meanwhile, Klingelhoeffer had already gone on leave.
QWhen did he return?
AHe returned on Christmass.
QWhat tasks did Klingelhoeffer have after he returned from his leave?
AI had dissolved Vorkommando Gruppenstaff and then used Klingelhoeffer on my staff. Klingelhoeffer had been born in Moscow. For many years he had lived in Moscow. He therefore know he Russian language very well. He could treat Russian people very Well. He was the most suitable man. I needed him in particular for the necessary SD work because I could not use an interpreter who could just conduct conversation at a very low level, but he had to know the language so well, in writing and speech, so that material found in the Archives, or reports, could be translated by him; he could conduct conversations with some Russians whose knowledge was of importance to us, with professors, older gentlemen from the Czarist day and so forth.
QWhy did you give those jobs to Klingelhoeffer although his rank was Sturmbannfuehrer?
AFor those tasks which were given to Klingelhoeffer the rank itself did not matter, but his linguistic ability, and his mental ability apart from that, when I considered the entire work of Klingelhoeffer and the very valuable work he has done for the SD, the rank Sturmbannfuehrer in adequate with the way in which he solved his task.
QWas Klingelhoeffer always active in Smolensk after he returned, or did you also give him tasks which took him to other places?
AKlingelhoeffer was always in Smolensk, except when he was away for about two weeks. This exception consisted of the fact that Klingelhoeffer got an order from me to make inquiries about partisans in Drasnin, that is about 25 kilometers to the west of Smolensk. The reason why Klingelhoeffer got this order was actually not in Klingelhoeffer' field; the reason was that as far as I remember the Chief of the staff in the Rear Army territory called, and reported that now the partisans had approached Smolensk and were getting dangerous, and that they were already 25 kilometers away.
He asked me to send a suitable man who could find out what the position was in Krasnin and in the woods south and east of it. This order I gave to Klingelhoeffer although Kraesnin was in the territory of Einsatzkommando 8.
QWas this order supposed to be carried out in collaboration with the local commander in Kraesnin, and why?
AThis had to be done because it was ordered; and secondly, General Schenkendorf, the commander of the Rear Army, had ordered that in all these cases when Security Police commanders were put in charge of some limit they would report to the competent army officer.
QDid the activity of Klingelhoeffer change after he returned from Krasnin to Smolensk?
ANo, he worked in the same manner as before.
QWhat was the reason that in January 1943 you suggested him for the Iron Cross first class?
ADistinctions were given by the commander -- not very many of them were given out. Einsatzgruppe B was given one or two such distinctions. Since Klingelhoeffer at the time was one of the few leaders who had been in the east from the beginning, and apart from that, his reports were extremely valuable, and as the officers appreciated this I recommended Klingelhoeffer for this distinction: The Iron Cross with Guards first class.
QWhat can you say about Klingelhoeffer's personality?
AKlingelhoeffer was formerly a singer. He has an artistic manner which is very evident. He is a soft, sensitive, a decent man, a good comrade and a good, cooperative worker.
DR. MAYER:Thank you, witness, I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT:The Tribunal will be in recess until tomorrow morning at nine-thirty.
(Tribunal recessed until 0930 hours 17 October 1947,)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Otto Ohlendorf, et al, defendants sitting at Nuernberg-Germany, on 17 October 1937, 0930-1630, Justice Michael A Musmanno, presiding.
THE MARSHAL:Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal II-A.
Military Tribunal II-A is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the Court.
THE PRESIDENT:If no other defense counsel intends to cross-examine the witness the Prosecution may now begin with its cross-examination.
ERICH NAUMANN -Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION - Continued BY DR. LUMMERT (For Defendant Blume):
QIn order not to loose the connection, I would like to ask you first of all, Witness, when did you become the successor of Nebe as the man in charge of Einsatzgruppe B?
AAround the 30th of November, 1943.
QDo you know the Defendant Blume?
AYes, indeed.
QDo you know that he was in charge of Sonderkommando 7-A?
AI do, and I know that from Nebe. He told me that. That was prior to my time.
QI can mention on my own that the Defendant Blume was in charge of Sonderkommando 7-A from its establishment, in other words, from June, 1941, until approximately the middle of August, 1941. I would like to ask you, Witness, did you at any time hear anything from your predecessor Nebe about the way in which Dr. Blume lead the Sonderkommando 7-A?
AYes, indeed. Nebe spoke to me about Blume. He told me that Blume did too much for his men and that very, very often he spent the time with his men at Lakeside Places. I can very well remember the name of the Lake Roswita which I got to know myself later.
QDid Nebe by that try to show his dissatisfaction with Blume's inactivity as the man in charge of that kommando?
AI drew from Nebe's words that wanted to express his dissatisfaction.
DR. LUMMERT:Thank you very much. No further questions.
THE PRESIDENT:Very well. I take it that no other defense counsel desires to cross-examine the witness. Mr. Ferencz, you may now begin.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. FERENCZ:
QNaumann, I believe your last statement yesterday was that you never committed any crimes. Please explain to the Tribunal why you assumed an alias and moved from farm to farm as a common laborer after your discharge from a P.W. camp?
AOn the 7th of May, 1945, I still believed in the official announcement that the Germans would be given the possibility to continue their struggle against Bolshevism.
On the evening of the 7th of May, 1945, I realized that this would no longer be possible. That, for me, as an old National Socialist within a matter of minutes a whole world collapsed, can only be comprehended by someone who experienced those minutes or hours in a similar situation. It was a spontaneous decision, not having been considered previously that as an officer to avoid, if possible, being taken P.W. That was the reason why I wrote myself out a false release paper, and I received false papers altogether on a false name.
QIn your direct testimony you stated that you took command of Einsatzgruppe B on 30 November 1941, and not on 1 November, 1941, is that correct.
ADid I understand you correctly, was it the 30th? Yes.
QYes, You said that for a few weeks there was confusion whether Rasch or Thomas would be assigned instead of you, and that explains why the 1 November date was wrong.
AI explained yesterday that my transfer order was dated the 1st of November, 1941. The first which I learned about my commitment to Russia was a telephone call from Streckenbach, which also took place on the 1st of November, probably. During that telephone call Streckenbach told me about the fact that I was being sent to Russia as an Einsatzgruppe chief, and at the same time he told me that I had to prepare myself but that I had to await additional orders. A few days later, maybe two, three or four days afterwards, I can't remember the exact number of days, Streckenbach again called me up and he informed me that it was not quite clear whether I was to be transferred to Smolensk or Kiev. Whether at the time it was discussed that Rasch or Thomas was to be sent to Smolensk I don't know, because it was quite a mix-up, and it is still all mixed up. I still can't find my way around. In any case, the situation was such, that I was being discussed back and forth whether I was to be sent to Smolensk or Rasch was to be sent to Smolensk, or Thomas. At the same time it was also stated that Rasch was to be sent to Kiev and I was to be sent to Smolensk, or Thomas was to be sent to Smolensk. At the same time it was also discussed that Rasch was to be transferred to the Continental Oil Company in Berlin or that I was supposed to go there.
This back-and-forth discussion ended to the effect that I was finally told that I was to be transferred to Smolensk; Rasch was to be transferred to Berlin; and Thomas was to be transferred to Kiev.
QHow long did the confusion last? I mean, when were you certain as to the time you were to take command?
AThat must be approximately - of course I have to count retroactively - starting on the 20th or the 21st, which date I probably departed. I believe that we were clear about everything around the 15th or 16th.
QThen you say it is wrong to say that you were chief of Einsatzgruppe B from 1 November on?
AI had been appointed according to a special decree. I started my service, as stated before, on the 30th of November, and of course there might be a difference of one or two days in that.
QI ask you simply, is it right or wrong that you were chief of Einsatzgruppe B from 1 November on?
AThe transfer order that I was being appointed the chief of the Einsatzgruppe B is dated the 1st of November. However, the actual starting of service, and therefore taking over the power of command as chief of Einsatzgruppe B, only took place around the 30th of November. Those differences between the transfer order and actual taking over of the service can always be found. You can see that from my personnel file as well. I would like to refer you, for instance, to my transfer date from Holland to Nuernberg, which was dated 1944. I know even today, and I know that very well, that I started my service on the 9th of June 1944, here in Nuernberg, and that my order of transfer was dated, I believe, May. I can't remember the correct date, but anyway, it was May, and now you can see, there was a certain lapse of time, between the order of transfer and actual starting of service.
QYou have seen your personnel questionnaire here which you filled out on the 10th of January, 1942, which was two or three months after your assignment, and you stated in that personnel questionnaire, and you confirmed to the best of your knowledge, at that time that you were chief of Einsatzgruppe B, from 1 November on. Why didn't you qualify it there and point out that you only were chief from 30 November on?
AFirst of all I would like to state that yesterday when I was asked one of the first questions by my defense counsel, that there was a mistake in the document book, and it was not on the 10th of January 1942, but on the 10th of January, 1943, that therefore, the questionnaire does not contain a difference of two or three months but a difference of one year. But that does not make any difference really. I have put the date of my transfer at the time, which was correct at the time. Of course, 1 had no idea at that time, that I would have to use this date or I would have to answer for that date at any time here. Had I known that then I am quite sure that I would have written a different thing, namely the transfer order or transfer on that date, and actually taken over service on another date.
QIf I tell you that the Defendant Steimle has sworn to this, that he reported to you in the middle of November, would you say that he was lying or mistaken?
AThen Steimle will have been mistaken in the date.
QAnd if he swore that you inspected his position in Reshev at the end of November, would that also be incorrect?
AI left Smolensk two days after I started service there, together with Sturmbannfuehrer Klingelhoefer, and I went to Vyasma, and from Vyasma I went to Chatsk and from Chatsk back to Vyasma, and from Vyasma I went to Rshev and Kalinin; from that can be seen that I was present in Rshev only a few days after taking over my assignment.
QIn other words, and furthermore, it is correct that you did inspect his position toward the end of November?
AIt could not have been towards the end of November. It must have been early in December.
QWhen you were assigned to command Einsatzgruppe B, what orders did you receive specifically?
AI didn't understand the question. Would you repeat please?
QWhen you were assigned from Berlin to Einsatzgruppe B, specifically what orders did you receive?
ADuring the time between the 15th or the 16th of November, 1941, and my departure on the 20th or on the 21st, I was ordered to Heydrich and I received clear orders from him for Russia. Now, first of all I received the Fuehrer order concerning the killing of Jews, gypsies and Soviet officials. No. 2, I received a general order for the Einsatzgruppen and for the Einsatzkommandos to maintain order and security in the rear area of the combating forces.
QYou were told specifically then that at least part of your function was to kill defenseless people, is that correct?
AHeydrich had given me the order, or rather I had been informed that there was a Fuehrer order, and according to that Fuehrer order all Jews, gypsies and Soviet officials were to be killed.
QDid he tell you that women and children were to be killed too?
AHe spoke of all the Jews, including women and children.
QWhat was your reaction?
AI asked him certain questions in between, and when Heydrich for the first time used a sentence that all the Jews were to be shot and all gypsies and all Soviet officials, I asked him clearly that this only dealt with human beings who had done something criminal and which fact could be proved.
Whereupon Heydrich interrupted me quickly and said, "That is a clear Fuehrer order. This Fuehrer order has been issued for the security of the rear of the combating forces and of the entire Army area. There is no discussion whatsoever about this Fuehrer order. It can only be understood in one way, and it has to be carried out accordingly. All Jews, both male and female, all gypsies, and all Communist officials fall under the Fuehrer order." He repeated, "There is no discussion. The order must be carried out. The Fuehrer issued the order for reasons of security of the Army areas."
QDo I understand then that you did not pretext this order?
AI objected, as stated before, but then I accepted the order as it had been issued, and I took it, as an order of my supreme commander and of the head of the state, and, of course, I also took knowledge of the fact there was not discussion about it.
QWere you told at that time to change the function of Einsatzgruppe B in any way or to improve their operations?
AWould you repeat, please?
QWere you told at that time to change the function of Einsatzgruppe B in any way or to improve their operations?
AThat I had to improve my operations?
QNo, the operations of Einsatzgruppe B, this command you were about to take over.
AThat I was to improve them, is that it, that I was to change it in any way? No, no, I knew nothing about it.
QTo change them or improve them?
AYou mean to improve my activity or the activity of the Einsatzgruppe-B? I was told that Gruppenfuehrer Nebe, at the time, was in charge of the Einsatzgruppe, and that Gruppenfuehrer Nebe and the Kommando leaders had exactly the same orders as those issued to me, and that Einsatzgruppe B and their kommandos had to act according to those orders; furthermore, that I would have to receive certain instructions from Nebe.
QYou are telling us now that at the time you took command you knew that units of Einsatzgruppe B were killing defenseless people, is that correct?
AI knew that the order existed, and of course already in Berlin I had to assume that people were being killed, and I had that confirmed by Nebe
QSo your answer to the question is yes?
AYes.
QDid you know that units of Einsatzgruppe B were going to continue killing defenseless people after you took command?
AThe Einsatzkommandose and the Sonderkommandos had already received those orders in Schmideberg Ant Thueben or Pretsch and the leadership of Einsatzgruppe B could not possibly change anything in the orders or in the execution of those orders.
QWould you answer my question, please? I will repeat it. Did you know that units of Einsatzgruppe B were going to continue killing defenseless people after you took command, yes or no?
AI believe that my answers exactly your question. Of course, I didn't say yes or no, but I went into details.
QBut your answer then is yes, with an explanation?
AMy answer was the way I said it, that the Einsatzkommandos and Sonderkommandos, based on the orders which they had received, would continue their activities as they had done so far, and therefore they had to act according to those orders and continue their activity,
QYou said in direct testimony that you received reports from your units. Did you read these?
AI received reports from the Einsatzkommandos and Sonderkommandos, and I read part of them. Of course, I didn't read all of them, I don't believe, because they arrived sometimes in large bundles, and apart from that I wasn't present all the time, but as I stated yesterday, during the first six weeks I was traveling all the time in order to gain some sort of an impression about the areas of my assignment, about the units at my disposal, etc.
, etc.
QDuring these six weeks when you were going from unit to unit, what did you discuss with then?
AWith the leaders of the kommandos and with the leaders of the sub-kommandos we discussed all sorts of things. I know you want to know whether we spoke about the execution of the Fuehrer-order, the execution orders. I shall give you that answer before you are going to put it to me directly. Of course I spoke with the kommando leaders and the sub-kommando leaders about it, for the very simple reason because the kommando leaders, should I not have started to speak about it, would have addressed me about it, because this order was very harsh, terribly harsh for the Einsatz Kommandos and others who were involved in it. Everyone knew that it was not pleasant but was very much against one's inner feelings.
These discussions concerning this order, its seriousness and its terrible burden when executing it who had something to do with it directly or indirectly were confronted, on the the other hand, however, with another discussion namely that this order had been issued by the Fuehrer, that is to say, by the man in supreme command, the supreme head of the State. We were now faced with the problem of our personal feelings and this order. Each one of us had to make up his mind whether during the war we had to decide according to our own personal feelings or whether we had to obey an order which was issued during the war by the Supreme Commander of the State. The decision was for us, as obedient soldiers, not easy, but it was clear we had to carry out the order, for the very simple reason that the soldier during the war has to carry our orders. If every soldier would only carry out an order after having considered whether as likes it or not, then there would be no more soldiers.
Q:Did you discuss it with any of these defendants?
A:I surely spoke about it with Steimle. I surely also spoke about it with Out. I also discussed it with my codefendant. Whether I spoke about or discussed those things with him I don't know. It is possible. I am not quite sure Defendant Klingelhoefer had nothing to do with the execution of those orders and noon of the other defendants here were with me at the time.
Q:When you discussed it with these defendants did you impress upon them the fact that it was a Fuehrer Order and had to be carried out by them without question?
A:That was known to the Kommando leaders as well as to me by the order. It was known and there was no need to point it out again, because the Kommando leaders would not have acted if they had not known the Fuehrer Order.
Q:Did any defendant ever come to you and say he couldn't or wouldn't, or didn't want to carry out the execution of defenseless people?
A:Nobody approached me in that form. No, nobody spoke to me about that.
Q:As Chief of Einsatzgruppe B, what would you have done to any defendant who refused to carry out the Fuehrer order?
DR.GAWLIK (Attorney for the Defendant Naumann): Your Honor, I have to object to this question. The witness can only be questioned about what he did, what he heard, and what he saw. However, beyond that he cannot be asked what he would have done, because it is nothing but an assumption. It is a hypothetical question. It is furthermore to be considered here that we would receive possibly a wrong reply which would lead to a wrong conclusion, for the witness possibly at the time would not have had time to think it over, because the circumstances were severe -- but anyway, this is not a question to put to a witness anyway.
THE PRESIDENT:What did you intend to establish by this question, Mr. Ferencz?
MR. FERENCZ:I intend to establish, Your Honor, that the defendant did, in fact, Enforce the Fuehrer Order and that, had any defendant discussed it with him, he would have ordered them shot or he would have let them go and that his position either coerced other defendants or did not coerce the defendants. The plea of superior orders is an important defense in this case and each defendant says he received the order from a superior. I would like to establish whether he could have evaded that order by going to his immediate superior and stating that he objected to the killing of defenseless people. I would like to know what this defendant would have done either to enforce that order or to allow his subordinates to evade the order.
THE PRESIDENT:The objection i s overruled.
Q: (By Mr. Ferencz): Would you answer the question, please, Naumann. What would you have done as Chief of Einsatzgruppe B to any defendant who refused to carry out the order?
A:I have stated before that nobody had come, but had someone come to see me, then, first of all, I amy trying to place myself back in that time -- I would have thought about the objection of that respective man then I would have made my decision. The decision would have been unmistakable; if it was a simple refusal to obey an order, I would immediately have had to report him to my superior officers.
Q:You said in you direct testimony that your units worked very independently, is that correct?
A:Yes, I said, "independently", yes.
Q:Does that mean that they could have failed to execute Jews and gypsies and others and no one would have been the wiser?
A:I know of no such thing. That Komandofuehrer acted thus
Q:I am asking you would it have been possible, because of their independence to do that without having any disciplinary action brought against them?
A:I told you that nothing of the kind came to me, nor nothing of the sort had happened -- that a kommando leader had done what you said.
Q:Could he have done it because of his distance from Smolensk or because of the independence of the kommandos, could they have avoided the killings of Jews without that coming to your attention?
A:Theoretically speaking, that might have been possible.
DR.HOFFMAN (Attorney for the Defendant Nosske): Your Honors, the defendant already stated that he knew nothing at all about it.
With that he pointed out that he knew nothing correct about certain facts and the question whether hypothetical things could be possible according to my opinion prejudices the defense of the other defendants and I would appreciate it if this question would not be admitted, as I believe that each defendant himself would have to answer this.
THE PRESIDENT:The fault lies in the very question itself. The question is could anything have happened without the defendant having known about it. It is very obvious that anything could have happened without the defendant knowing about it, so therefore, the objection is sustained.
MR. FERENCZ:I will rephrase the question, Your Honor.
Q: (By Mr. Ferencz): Because of the independence of these units and their distance from Einsatzgruppe B, were you able to control their acts so closely that the failure to kill Jews would have become apparent to you?
A:Due to the distances of that area, should it have happened, it would have hardly been possible, but still I would like to repeat that I know of no such case.
THE PRESIDENT:The question, Witness, is whether you had direct control over these inferior commands and whether your line of communication was such that you were currently informed of what was taking place in the field. Did you keep a check on them, in other words.
THE WITNESS:The connections between the Kommando leaders and myself was the following: The commandos reported every two weeks to me or to the staff of Einsatzgruppe concerning what incidents we controlled, that is to say, administrative, personnel, executive, and other measures. Apart from that once in a while the Kommando leaders would come to see me if they had some sort of a reason to do so and if they had a reason to discuss certain matters with me or then to discuss certain things with members of the staff of Einsatzgruppe B. Furthermore, until the month of April 1942 I would drive out currently to the kommandos and sub-kommandos and I would visit them, That meant, of course, that I went to see a kommando very seldom, because according to my recollection in 1942 there were approximately 24 garrisons of the Security Service Police and so within my area.
From the month of April, 1942, I had a plane at my disposal. Then, of course, I no longer drove to those kommandos but I flew there. That is what the direct contact was like between the kommando leaders and myself.
THE PRESIDENT:I think that is a full answer to your question, Mr. Ferencz.
Q: (By Mr. Ferencz): Yesterday you examined Document Book II-B, page 15, which was Document NO-2825 and this reported the killing by Einsatzgruppe B and its units of over 45,000 people in four or five months. This was before you took command. What is your best estimate of the number of persons killed by Einsatzgruppe B during the 15 months that you were in command?
A:I was already asked about that figure during my examination by Herr Wartenberg. Mr. Wartenberg for two hours wanted me to tell him the exact figure. He made all sorts of proposals to me. He started with 1,000 and then went up to half a million. I should name a definite figure. I told him that I could not mention any figure, because any figure I mentioned would be wrong.
Q:In Exhibits USSR 48 and 56 before the International Military Tribunal it was reported by a commission investigating atrocities in the Smolensk area that during the German occupation there and it was your area over 135,000 peaceful citizens were killed. Do you think that figure is too high or is it too low?