The defendant Steimle tells us that he received these instructions from his superior officer. In the next breath he denies he ever passed on this order, He likewise denies in both of his affidavits that his kommando shot any Jews. of the German, NO-3842, where he even denies that workers were sent to Germany while he was in command, He admits that his unit had a gas van or gas chambers as he called it, and he just adds to it that it was never used. He does admit in his second affidavit that he carried out executions, in fact, he says, they numbered between 100 and 250, but the persons executed were partisans, persons suspected of being partisans, and members of the Russian Army, who had refused to surrender. He was quick to point out however, that even in those executions orders never came from him but were already in existence. The defendant Steimle also said in Document Book III-B, page 45 of the English, page 73 of the German, "It can be assumed that a Captain or 1st Lieutenant folt is in Sonderkommando 7-A, had been shooting people but it was on his own initiative. The defendant does not know that Foltis carried out executions of Jews," anyway. All of this makes interesting reading, However, let's now turn to the facts. page 71 of the German, we have Steimle's affidavit NO-4459, which was Prosecution's Exhibit No. 120. It tells us that COURT II CASE IX he was in command of Sonderkommando 7-A until the middle of December 1941.
page 63 of the German, we have prosecutions Exhibit No. 107, Document NO-4533. This report gives the correct listing of the leaders of the kommando, and clearly list Steimle as commander of Sonderkommando 7-A, on 1, February 1942, two months after Steimel swears he was back in Stuttgart. This is further corroborated by the following document in Document Book III-B on page 53 of the English, and on page 82 of the German, I offer Document NO-4784 as Prosecution's Exhibit No. 122. This report again show Steimle as commander of the Sonderkommando 7-A 30 January 1942. In Document Book II-A, on page 104 of the English, page 112 of the German, we have Exhibit No, 51, which was Document NO-3278, and shows Steimle in command on 12th of January. page 42 of the German, we have prosecution's Exhibit No. 64, NO-3143, which is the report of 23 September 1941, and states on page 53 of the English, and page 47 of the German, that executions totaled for Sonderkommando 7-A up to 13 September 1941, were 1011. English, and page 15 or the German, which is Document NO 3156, which is prosecution's Exhibit No. 60.
This report states on page 18, page 17 of the German, "The Sonderkommando 7a also reports of juvenile communists who were liquidated as they had had the intention of blowing up a railway bridge, nearing completion. Explosives had already been supplied and were at hand.
"In Welikije Luki a group of juveniles who had the intention of blowing up a railway bridge was also rendered harmless. The ringleader of the group had persuaded the others to participate." executions by Sonderkommando 7a, up to 28 September 1941 as 1252, an increase of almost 250. man. This is Prosecution Exhibit 63, Document NO-3403, This report dated 26 October 1941 gives the execution total for Sonderkommando 7a as 1344 persons. man. This is Prosecution Exhibit 59, Document NO-2825, here on page 14, page 13 of the German. After a long description of liquidations by Einsatzgruppe B for trivial offenses the report states that'Sonderkommando 7a carried out 173 liquidations during the report period.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Ferencz, would it be convenient for you to suspend at this point.?
MR. FERENCZ: Yes, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, the Tribunal will be in recess for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom please take your seats.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Ferencz, before you begin I should like to make an announcement to defense counsel. Yesterday afternoon two of the attorneys, I presume speaking for all of the defense counsel, came to my chambers and again requested for some time in which to prepare the defense and the opening statements. The Prosecution has proceeded much more rapidly than I originally thought they might so that we will have some time available, and your request is not an unreasonable one. What is reasonable is apparent to the world and what is unreasonable is also apparent to the world, so therefore, we will allow you the balance of the week after the Prosecution terminates its presentation, which, it seems possible, may even happen this afternoon. In fact we will remain in session until the Prosecution has finished today so that, therefore, you will have Wednesday, Thursday and Firday and Saturday, of course, and Sunday also, to make whatever preparations you need to proceed with the case next week. before them, it is necessary that at least eight of the opening statements be ready by Friday afternoon. Now, eight attorneys, and it will be most convenient naturally, if they ware the first eight defendants, if those attorneys could have their speeches ready by Friday afternoon, they will be delivered to Room 106, to Mr. Hodges, who is the head of the translation section. The balance of the opening statements will be ready by Monday noon and will also be submitted to Mr. Hodges in Room 106. not have his opening statement ready by either one of those two dates? I hear no comment. Therefore, the Tribunal will assume that by Friday afternoon, by that we mean no later than four o'clock this Friday, the first eight opening statements will be in Mr. Hodges' hands, and the remainder in his hands by Monday afternoon.
than we will proceed to the taking of evidence on behalf of the defendants.
MR. FERENCZ: Before I proceed, your Honor, I would like to make an additional request of defense counsel. Yesterday the question was raised about having the original documents available to the defense counsel so that they might compare them with the photostatic copies. The Prosecution received permission from the Deputy Military Governor to have the original documents which were used in the case brought here by Colonel Helm, who is the custodian of the documents and the commanding officer of the Berlin Document Center. These documents are now in my office, but they must be returned to Berlin as quickly as possible. Inasmuch as considerable care is exercised with those documents and they must be guarded at all times, I would therefore request the defense counsel come to my office this afternoon if possible and compare the documents with the photostats to assure themselves that all the photostats are true copies and have not been altered in any way so that Colonel Helm may return to Berlin with the documents tomorrow if possible.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Ferencz, would it be agreeable to Colonel Helm, who is the custodian of these documents, to allow them to remain in Nurnberg for ome more day, that is to say, all of tomorrow? Defense counsel will then be free to make whatever comparisons they desire, and then he could leave on Thursday if that is satisfactory.
MR. FERENCZ: Yes, your Honors, I see it is satisfactory to Colonel Helm to leave on Thursday with the documents.
THE PRESIDENT: Then defense counsel will understand they will have all the rest of today and all tomorrow to make those comparisons. The documents will not be available after tomorrow night, and the Tribunal will not after that time hear any complaint about comparisons between photostats and originals.
MR. FERENCZ: To continue, your Honor, we were discussing the responsibility of the defendant Steimle, and I have referred to Document Book II-B, page 12, page 10 of the German, Prosecution Exhibit 59, where on page 14 of the English, page 13 of the German, there is a long description of liquidations by Einsatzgruppe B for trivial offenses, and the report states that Sonderkommando 7a carried out 173 liquidations during the report period. The total number of executions by Einsatzgruppe B up to the 14th day of November 1941 is then given as 45,467 and the total for Sonderkommando 7a as 15l7. This is on page 15 of the English, page 14 of the German.
Now by comparing Exhibit No. 64 with Exhibit No. 59, we can see that from the 13th day of September 1941 to the 14th day of November 1941, which is only part of the period during which the defendant Steimle admits he was in command, the total of executions increased from 1011 to 1517 giving an increase of over 500 persons killed in that time. In his affidavit the defendant Steimle conveniently forgot more than half of that.
Book 11-B, page 30, also page 30 of the German. This is Prosecution Exhibit 62, Document NO-284, This is the report of 19 December 1941, describing the general activities of Einsatzgruppe B without breading it down into particular units and describes executions in 14 different localities, resulting in the death of over 17,000 Jewish men, women, and children, but the Defendant, SS Colonel Steimle says he knows nothing about this. This is Prosecution Exhibit 65, Document NO-3160. In this report, dated the 25th of October, 1941, at a time when the Defendant Steimle was admittedly in command, it was reported that Sonderkommando 7-A gave special treatment to 63 communists, functionaries, NKBG agents, and agitators.
The description of the Kommando's activities follows in numerical order and it also states on page 54, page 48 of the German --Sonderkommando 7a and before its description of Sonderkommando 7a -- that -and I quote on page 48 of the German.
"The Jews partly resisted the turning of the village of Belowschtschina into a ghetto for the Jews of Sadrudubs and 272 Jews and Jewesses were liquidated consequently, most of them members of the Communist Party, publicaly dangerous elements and political agitators, amongst them a political commissary who had instigated the Jews in their opposition." parted by a document in Document Bock II-A, page 46, page 45 of the German, This was Prosecution Exhibit 39, Document NO-2656 and was an activity report sent by Heydrich, confirming these facts. The Defendant Steimle firmly denies that Jews were ever shot by his Kommando. I will not take up the time of the court by going into a lengthy examination of Steimle's activities as Commander of Sonderkommando 4a. It is clear that he was held in sufficiently high esteem by his superiors to assign him to that important position from 25 August 1942 to 15 January 1943.
part but in paragraph 4 of his affidavit, Document NO-4459, which is in Document Book III-B, on page 44 of the English, page 71 of the German, and prosecution Exhbit 120, he says that a deputy leader, Major Schmidt, was attached to Colonel Steimle and directed the executions independently. from the Defendant Blobel will be shown in greater detail in the presentation of the case against Blobel. It will be in the light of this total picture of death, despair, and destruction that the credence of Defendant Steimle's statement must be weighed.
We come to the responsibility of the Defendant Ott. Ott is seated fifth from the left in the second row of the dock. His affidavit was introduced previously in Document Book IIb, page 64, page 57 of the German. It is Document NO-2993 and prosecution Exhibit 67. It tells us that he became the commanding officer of Sonderkommando 7b on the 15th of February, 1942, and remained the head of this Kommando until about a year later in January 1943.
Let us turn to the defendant's own words to see what occurred while he was head of Kommando 7b. I quote from paragraph 4 of his affidavit, which is on page 64 of the English, page 57 of Document Book IIb. Quote:
"During the time I was Kommando Head of the Kommando 7b, about 80 to a 100 executions were carried out by this Kommando. I remember one execution which took place in the vicinity of Bryansk. The people to be executed were handed over to my unit by the local commandant. The corpses were temporarily buried in the snow and later buried by the army. The valuables which were collected from these people were sent to Einsatzgruppe B. This was ordered by command of Naumann, the head of Einsatzgruppe B, and the same was true for other executions."
In Document IIIb on page 66, page 124 of the German, we have Ott's SS Personal record. We offer that document, NO-4747, as prosecution Exhibit 123. I will read from page 71, which is a sketch of his life history prepared by Ott himself in 1934.
Ott states:
"In fall 1922 I joined the Party. I was an SA man until I resigned, together with a number of comrades because of the irregular conditions and the discord in the continuously changing administration of the Ortsgruppe at that time. I rejoined the Party on 1 September 1931. Since then I have been permitted to serve my Fuehrer also in the SS. During the period of my temporary withdrawal I remained faithful to Adolf Hitler's ideals. I have been a National Socialist since 1922 and never belonged to any other party. job with the SD of the Reichsfuehrer SS. The defendant's membership in the SS and SD has been charged against him in Count 3 of the indictment.
I refer now to a document in Book II-A. on page 66, page 92 of the German. This is Document NO-3236 and was Prosecution Exhibit 109. This report gives us the location and leaders of the Kommandos as of 27 March 1942 and clearly shows Ott as Chief of Sonderkommando 7b, located in Bryansk with detachment in Orel. This confirms the defendant's location and position in connection with his admis sion of executions in Bryansk; Document NO-3276, which is Prosecution Exhibit 66.
This states on page 62, page 56 of the German, that Sonderkommando 7b gave special treatment to -- which means executed -- 82 persons during the period 6 March to 30 March 1942. I quote:
"19 among them for collaborating with partisans, 22 for engaging in Communist propaganda and for proved membership of the Communist Party, 14 for making incendiary remarks, 27 Jews."
This was one month after the Defendant Ott took command. In this report also, each of the Einsatzgruppe Kommandos of Einsatzgruppe B reported executions totaling thousands of persons killed including thousands of Jews given special treatment. 80 to 100 executions. We have corroborated the fact that he was in command of 7b in Bryansk here he directed one execution. we have in addition presented the official report of another execution by Ott's commands while he was responsible and during which 82 persons were killed, some for membership in the Communist Parties, others merely for being Jews. We accept Defendant Colonel Ott's own statement of 80 to 100 executions committed under his command as adequate explanation of his later activities. is seated sixth from the left in the second row. I refer to Document Book III-B, page 57, page 112 of the German copy, and I offer Document NO-4235 as prosecution Exhibit 124. This is an affidavit of the Defendant SS Major Waldemar Klingelhoefer. In it he tells us that he joined the Nazi Party in 1930 and became a member of the SS in 1933.
DR. ASCHENAUER (Attorney for Defendant OHLENDORF): Your Honors, I am sorry to interrupt, but the exhibit number did not come through,
MR. FERENCZ: Exhibit No. 124. Party since 1930 and his membership in the SS since 1933. In Document Book III-B on page 61, page 116 of the German, we have Klingelhoefer's SS personnel record. This is Document NO-4809 and offered now as Prosecution Exhibit 125. Here the defendant in 1944 sketched his life history and tells us further on page 65 of the English, page 123 on the bottom of the page of the German translation, quote:
"Since 1 December 1934, I have been doing full time duty in the Security Service (SD) of the Reichsfuehrer SS." Count 3 of our indictment. different times a member of one Sonderkommando, the leader of another Kommando, and finally a staff officer of Einsatzgruppe B Headquarters. His affidavit states that he became a member of Sonderkommando 7b when the Einsatzgruppe was formed in Dueben. The major says he was assigned as an interpreter. He remained with Sonderkommando 7b until August 1941 when Nebe, who then commanded Einsatzgruppe B ordered him to replace the Defendant Six. As the leader of Vorkommando Moscow, Klingelhofer tells us that Vorkommando Moscow disbanded for a short period in September 1941 and in October, it was reformed in two parts, one of which was commanded by Klingelhofer until December 1941. On the 20th of December, 1941, Major Klingelhofer was assigned as an interpreter, he says, to the staff of Einsatzgruppe B and he held that position for the next year. doing when he was not serving merely as an interpreter. I read from paragraph 3 of his own statement found in Document Book II-B, on page 58, page 113 of the German. Quote:
"..... 3. While I was assigned by Nebe to the leadership of the Vorkommando Moscow, Nebe ordered me to go from Smolensk to Tatarsk and Mistislawl to get furs for the German troops and to liquidate part of the Jews there. The Jews had already been arrested by order of Hauptsturmfuehrer Egon Noack. The executions proper were carried out by Noack, under my supervision. Those Jews, who were going to be executed, were led to the edge of a pit, which had already been prepared for this purpose, and shot from behind while they were standing there. There was no physician present during these executions. Due to their standing position at the edge of the pit these people mostly fell into the grave after they had been hit by the bullets. In case it was noted that someone in the pit was still alive, he received the coup do grace. Approximately 50 Jews were shot during these two executions."
"..... 4. Approximately one month later, at the end of September or the beginning of October, Nebe ordered me to go again to Tatarsk for the purpose of a Jewish action, because the remaining Jews had left the ghetto in Tatarsk contrary to orders given them. Nebe ordered me to establish an example. When I arrived in Tatarsk I found out that this report was correct."
"Thereupon I had the remaining Jews, approximately 30, shot. I carried out this order to prevent these people from joining the partisans. Although I had orders to shoot women and children too. I did not comply with this part of the order." apparently have escaped the defendant's memory. Let us recall that from August 1941 to September 1941 he admits having commanded all of Vorkommando Moscow and from October to December he admits having commanded part of it. In Document Book II-B, on page 26, page 27 of the German, we have Document NO-2844, as Prosecution Exhibit 61, and I quote from the bottom of page 27 of the German, on page 26 of the English, quote:
"The Vorkommando 'Moskau' was forced to execute another 46 persons, amongst them 38 intellectual Jews who had tried to create unrest and discontent in the newly established Ghetto of Smolensk." German, that the staff of Einsatzgruppe B and the Vorkommando Moscow by the 20th of August had liquidated 144 persons. I refer now to Document Book II-B, page 47 of the English, page 42 of the German. This is Document NO-3143, which was Prosecution Exhibit 64. On page 53 of the English, page 47 of the German, it gives the execution total for Vorkommando Moscow up to 13 September as 312, an increase of more than 150 persons executed since the 20th of August. Document NO-3156, which is Prosecution Exhibit 60. This is an Operational Report of 9 October 1941 and states on page 18 of the English, page 17 of the German and I quote from paragraph 3:
"Operations against functionaries, agents, persons committing sabotage and Jews. ding to reports by the Russian population, tried to create a panic by spreading false runours to the effect that the Bolchevists were supposed to be advancing. They furthermore threatened to take revenge after the return of the Bolchevists. The FKM thereupon sent a Kommando and liquidated 114 Jews." the total liquidation by the Group Staff and Vorkommando Moscow by September 28, 1941, increased to 2,029 persons killed. This represents an increase of about 2,000 since the 20th of August and during the time the Defendant Klingelhofer was in command. Document NO-3160. This is Prosecution Exhibit 65 and gives us the offi cial report dated October 25, describing the execution of the Jews in Tatarsk.
The defendant told us about this execution in his affidavit. His statement there that contrary to the orders he had received, he did not shoot women and children is refuted by the official report that at least three Jewish women were shot. I quote from page 54 of the English, page 43 of the German:
"The Gruppenstab and the Vorkommando Moscow (Advance units) undertook an action against the Jews in Tatarsk. The Jews had begun to leave the Ghetto on their own authority and to return to their old quarters trying to expel the Russians billeted there in the meantime. The village was combed through systematically and the Jews were herded together on the market square. Some of them had fled and had to be driven out of the nearby woods. As punishment for not following the orders of the German Security Police all male Jews and three women who were in Tatarsk at that time were shot." 45 of the German. This is Prosecution Exhibit 79, Document NO-2656. This is an Activity and Situation Report of the Einsatzgruppen sent by Heydrich to Ribbentrop and confirms exactly on page 50 of the English and page 50 of the German the quotation given.
have Document NO-3403. This is Prosecution Exhibit 63. It reports that the total executions by the Gruppenstab and Vorkommando Moscow as of 2 6October, 1941, increased to 2, 457. There is nothing in the reports to substantiate the defendant's contention that the Vorkommando Moscow was divided into two parts; or, that his authority was at any time limited to only one part of this commando.
Thus, we have seen even the defendant has been unable to deny.
Klingelhoefer in his preter in Sonderkommando VII-B. We will not contest his role there for 22, page 23 of the German.
This is Document No. 2844, and is Prose cution Exhibit 61.
This report, dated 4 September 1941, gives the execution total for Sonderkommando VII-B as 886.
Can the defendant Major Klingelhoefer deny that he was connected with those crimes?
was a member of the Einsatzgruppe B staff. All of the crimes attributed We come now to the responsibility of the Defendant Six.
The De fendant Six is seated in the first row, fifth from the right.
In con page 79, page 145 of the German.
This is Document NO-4807, and is offered as Prosecution Exhibit 126.
DR. ULMER(Attorney for the Defendant Six): as it admittedly contains, in contrast to the photo copies which are in my hands, questionable remarks. It is not quite the photostat of the original itself; it does not quite agree with it.
MR. FERENCZ: I wish Defense Counsel would make it clear what the remarks are that do not agree with the original.
THE PRESIDENT: Please be a little more specific.
DR . ULMER: I wish to express that I question the probative value of this document as far as my defendant, my client, is concerned.
THE PRESIDENT: If you are merely questioning the probative value, that is something which the Tribunal will determine in due course; but, if you wish to point out some discrepency between the photostat and the German reproduction in your book, that is another matter and I shall be glad to hear from you on that score.
DR. ULMER: The photostat of theoriginal, which is in my hands at the moment, contains no entry concerning the promotion to Brigadefuehrer, while the document itself which has been introduced as Document 4807 contains such an entry.
THE PRESIDENT: MR. Ferencz, you have both sheets before you. Will you please clarify this situation?
MR. FERENCZ: Yes, Your Honor. I am introducing this document at this point to show that the Defendant Franz Alfred Six was a section chief in the SD headquarters in 1941. On the first page of the photostatic copy of this record, which comes from the official German archives in Berlin, it says that this is the record of Dr. Six and shows him as being Amtchief, which is Section Chief, in SD Hauptamt, which is the SD main office. That is the reason why this document is offered. I am not sure that I understand the objection to it.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you note any discrepancy?
MR. FERENCZ: There is no discrepancy between the English translation on this point and the German copy. I think the objection is to the point of Brigadefuehrer, the rank of the defendant which is not shown here. It shows him as Oberfuehrer. However, that is not the point we are making.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Ulmer, if the Prosecution does not make the point against which you have an observation to make, then no harm results.
DR. ULMER: I have merely this one objection to this document, and I would like the Tribunal to allow me to come back to this when my case is beginning.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, that right will be reserved to you.
DR. ULMER: Thank you.
MR. FERENCZ: Returning to tis Document NO-4806 - 4807, I beg your pardon, it is offered as Prosecution Exhibit 126, and shows that the defendant was a section chief in SD headquarters in 1941. have Document ND-4546, which is offered as Prosecution Exhibit 127. This is the affidavit of the Defendant Six. In in he tells us that he became a member of the Nazi Party in 1930, when he was only twenty-one years old. Five years later he joined the SS, after having been a member of the Brown Shirted SA. In 1935 he became a member of the SD, and four years later became head of an SD office in Berlin. Count III of our indictment charges the defendant with his membership in the SS and SD. Then, like many of his associates, the Defendant Six, too, acquired a sudden interest in agriculture; and at the end of the war assumed an alias and went to work as a farm hand. The defendant admits that in June, 1941, he was ordered to Berlin where Heydrich, chief adjutant, assigned him to Vorkommando Moscow. He admits that he was the commanding officer of Vorkommando Moscow until the 20th of August, 1941; and that the kommando operated in Smolensk and Tolotshino.
We saw in the affidavits of several of the other defendants the nature of the instructions and orientation lectures given to Einsatzgruppe Kommando leaders in Berlin in June of 1941. General Six tells us, however, that his kommando was much different from the others. General Six was only supposed to collect files and documents, he says. a document which through an error is not in the document book. I have the document, NO-2956, here in loose form, and it is ready to be introduced as an exhibit. We wish to introduce it solely to corroborate the defendant's statement that he was in Tolotshino at a certain time, and to give the total executions of Einsatzgruppe B at a certain period. With the Court's permission, I would like to introduce this now loosely, and I will distribute it to the defense counsel at this time and to the Court at this time.
THE PRESIDENT : Very well. You may introduce it.
MR. FERENCZ: This document, NO-2956, is now offered as Prosecution Exhibit 128. Here under the heading of Einsatzgruppe B it lists the Vorkommando Moscow and gives its location as Tolotshino, confirming the defendant's statements. It also says that the total liquidations carried out by Einsatzgruppe B up to the time of reporting, 23 July, 1941, was 7, 620, with 3, 386 of these having been killed between the 14th and 19th of July. we have Document NO-2949, which is Prosecution Exhibit 118. This gives the location of Einsatzgruppe B as Smolensk, and we recall that the defendant deposed that he was stationed at Smolensk. It also states on page 38 of the English, page 62 of the German, that the Einsatzgruppe execution total up to 31 July was 11, 084, which meant that Einsatzgruppe B and its units killed about 4,000 people in eight days.
There is no mention of archive collections. German, we have Document NO-2837, which was introduced as Prosecution Exhibit 5 8. I noticed in checking the document that it is an extract and one pert has been omitted, which I would now like to include. The original exhibit, of course, is the complete document, and is in the record. However, I have an errata sheet which includes a small portion giving the location of Vorkommando Moscow, and, with the Court's indulgence and permission, I would like to distribute that to be added before the document on page 7 of Document Book II-B. This document, which is Prosecution Exhibit 58, is the report dated 24 August. It shows us on the errata sheet that Vorkommando Moscow, located in Smolensk, is listed under Einsatzgruppe B, and that the Wehrmacht had turned over to the Vorkommando Moscow 740 persons, presumably partisans, who had been arrested on the highways. There still is no mention of any collecting of documents.
Vorkommando Moscow. This is in Document Book II-B, page 27, and is Document NO-2844, introduced as Prosecution Exhibit 61. This gives us, on page 27, page 29 of the German, the numbers executed by every unit under Einsatzgruppe B. It gives us the total liquidation for the groups up to the 20th of August, 1941, and the defendant admits he commanded Vorkommando Moscow 'till then, and it shows that Einsatzgruppe B executed 16,964 persons up to the 20th of August; and a total for the Gruppenstab and the Vorkommando Moscow together was 144. On page 26, page 27 of the German, of this document, this is further broken down and shows clearly that Vorkommando Moscow executed 46 persons in Smolensk, and I quote: "The Vorkommando Moscow was forced to execute another 46 persons, among them 38 intellectual Jews who had tried to create unrest and discontent in the newly established Ghetto of Smolensk." Still no mention of document collections. Vorkommando Moscow, It is interesting to note, however, that Vorkommando Moscow, which the defendant swore was only an archive collecting unit, reported that the execution total had gone up -- I will repeat. It is interesting to note, however, that Vorkommando Moscow which the defendant swore was only an archive collecting unit, reported that its execution total had gone up to 312 by 13th September. This was in Document Book II-B, page 47, page 42 of the German, in Document NO-3143, which was Prosecution Exhibit 64. Prosecution Exhibit 60, which gives the total executions by the Gruppenstab and the Vorkommando Moscow up to 28th September, 1941 is over 2,000 persons killed. have Document NO-3403, which is Prosecution Exhibit 63, and gives the total executions up to 26th October for the Gruppenstab and Vorkommando Moscow as 2,457 persons killed.