THE MARSHAL: The Tribu*el is again in session.
DR. FICHT: Dr Ficht for the defendant Biberstein. Your Honor, I ask that the defendant Biberstein be excused from the afternoon session since on advice of doctors he is supposed to lie down because of his heart condition.
THE PRESIDENT: We will not only excuse him for this afternoon, but at any time and for whatever period the doctor and his counsel believe he should be absent from the courtroom, I trust you will inform the Tribunal. The defendant Biberstein will be excused from attendance in court this afternoon.
DR. MAYER: Your Honor, before the recess, the witness was discussing those documents which he mentioned in order to show which Einsatzcommandos were already active in the Crimea in his future district before he got there. On the basis of excerpts from the operational reports which I have in my Document Book and which I shall submit as evidence, I shall ask the witness to mention the dates, especially when his own subcommandos became active in the Crimea, when they first became active. ing: The Operational Report 138 of 26 November 1941 reports my Commando XI-B still enroute to Simferopol. The next operational Report no. 139 of 28 November has the typewritten note, still enroute to Simferopol, sofar as my Commando is concerned, but here the two words "marching towards" are crossed out in the original, which would mean just Simferopol. That means the Commando would have had to be there. Whether this penciled correction, which I don't know by whom it was made, or the original text corresponds to the truth, I can not say today after six years. Here at the same time subcommandos of mine are first mentioned in Alustchka, Karasubasar; furthermore, it says Juschon and this Juschon is also situated on the isthmus near Perikop. May I emphasize the fact that no subcommando of mine was ever there, but Jaschon was the last place where we spent the night,and there most of my vehicles had remained and were gradually brought forward later.
That is how I explain the mention of Juschon in this report. The next Operational Report No. 141 of 3 December 1941 still reports the Commando XI-A, that is not my Commando with a subcommando in Eupatoria where later one of my subcommandos came to be stationed, and my commando is again reported in Simferopol in this report with subcommandos in Alustchka, Karasubasar and again Juschon. That is, the forces in Juschon had still not been brought forward. The report of 8 December reports these same garrisons unchanged. That is, still no subcommando of mine is reported as being in Eupatoria, but it is not until the Operational Report No. 144 of 10th December, that is two days later, that a subcommando of mine is first mentioned in Eupatoria. I am through.
Q Before you, was another subcommando active at Karasubasar? but I assume that 10-B during the advance on Feodosia briefly was active in Karasubasar. mandos?
A I didn't have to give any specific orders to the subcommando leaders, outside of telling them where their garrisons were, and telling them generally about their missions, for the missions had been set up from the beginning, and in Odessa I came into this situation when I took over the commando. and Krimchak executions with which you have been charged, and, first of all, sofar as the figures mentioned are concerned. About the executions in Simferopol on the order of the Army I shall speak later, Your Honor. Witness, will you please look at the following documents: In Document Book II-D, page 26 of the German, page 21 of the English text; Document NO-2828, Exhibit No. 86. Furthermore, in volume II-C, pages 61 and 64 of the German, pages 55 and 58 of the English text.
This is Document No. 2832, Exhibit No. 79, and, finally, in Document Book III-D, page 36 of the German, and page 18 of the English, Document No. NO-4538, Exhibit No. 153?
A (continuing) This is NO-2828, Exhibit No. 86. Here it says on page 11 of the original about Jews, the total number of Jews is about 40,000, approximately one-forth of whom lived in Simferopol. It is an Operational Report of 12 December. In my opinion these figures can only represent the original number of Jews in the Crimea in time of peace, and, here, this does not include Sebastopol, which was then still occupied by the Russians, and, that, therefore, we had no way of getting any material. I remember how we got these figures, and I remember also that this original figure of about 10,000 in Simferopol was no longer there when we got to the city; a considerable number had fled, sofar as I remember it was more than half, and, as one document shows, they fled because rumors had been spread in the Crimea, which reported about the fate which awaited the Jews. Therefore, at considerable number from the entire Crimes,and carefully from Simferopol, had fled to the harbor cities, that is Sebastopol, Kertch, Feodosia and Jalta, in order to get away by ship. How large this flight was in the East can be seen in Document Book II-C, German page 61, which is NO-2832, Exhibit No. 79. There it says for the town of Ghernikov for 23 October 1941, that is about at the same time, that of about 10,000 Jews no more than 260 were left. Three pages further in the same volume, this is Document NO-2832, page 23 of the original, it says, and I quote:"Of the original 1,000 Jews in Dniepropatrovs, about 70,000 escaped before the German troops entered the town."
THE PRESIDENT: The translation came through "1,000". Should it have been "100,000"?
THE WITNESS: Yes, of 100,000, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
THE WITNESS: That this flight was very considerable in the beginning is shown in Volume III-D, German page 36 and English page 18. This is Document NO 4538, Exhibit No. 153. Here it says, and I quote: This is a report of 25 August 1941, that is considerably earlier. In Kishenev before the war there were about 60 to 80,000 Jews, and a great number of these fled, when the Russians withdrew. when the town was occupied there were approximately 4,000 Jews left. Even if the escapes from Simferopol were not as strong as shown in these three documents, still I remember very exactly that a considerable number had fled, more than half so for as I remember. The number quoted before of about 10,000 could only be the figure before the war.
DR. MAYER: Your Honor, at this time may I make a statement which I consider necessary. It is not the intention of the defense, to prevent all misunderstandings, to try to bargain with figures here. on the other hand, however, it seems to me necessary to exonerate the defendant who confesses to the carrying out of the orders, from what he had not done and what he therefore cannot take responsibility for otherwise, the Tribunal may get the impression that it would have been all the same to my client whether he had to take more or less lives on his conscience. Therefore, I have to discuss these tiresome matters to this extent. I ask that you consider this and pardon me for it.
THE PRESIDENT: The defense counsel always has the right, privilege and duty to present his case in such a way as he deems best for his client, and, we will say, Dr Meyer, that up to this point there is nothing you have done which would lack of intelligence, and any lack of consideration in the way you have presented your case. BY DR MAYER:
Q Witness, please look at operational Report No. 150, 2 January 1942. It is also in Volume II-D, page 33 of the German, page 28 of the English.
It is Document NO-2834, Exhibit No. 87. Furthermore, I ask you --
A May I interrupt a minute. I had to look for the volume, and could not get the pages.
Q Also look at Operational Report No. 157, of 19 January 1942, which is available here in a photostat, and, finally the Operational Report No. 149, of 22 December 1941, and also in photostat. It is in Volume III-B pegs 24 of the German, and NO, 2833, Exhibit No. 114, which is only here in an excerpt, and, please read the brief passages into the record, and comment on these documents? is Document NO-2834, Exhibit No. 87, on page 20 of the original, page 7 of the excerpt. There it says, on page 28 of the English, Simferopol, Eupatoria, Alutska, Kertsch, Feodosia and Karasubasar and other districts of Western Crimea have been cleaned of Jews. From 16th November through the 15 December 1941, 17,645 Jews, 2,504 Krimchaks, 324 Gypsies, and 212 Communists and Partisans have bean shot. The Prosecution has charged me with these figures, by claiming that Kertsch and Fedosia belonged to my Commando. By means of documents, I shall prove later that this is not the case. I assume that the Prosecution made a mistake here.
tially part of Commando XI-A. So much for the area. Sofar as time is concerned, I have just show by the Operational Reports When my commando Came to the Crimea; when the subcommandos ware activated, and may I call your attention to the fact that in Alutska and Karasubasar only at the beginning of December, and in Eupatoria, only from 10th December, subcommandos of mine were present. That is even from the point of view of the time I can not be Charged with these events, because they refers to the period of 16 November to 15 of December, whereas my commando and my subcommandos were in any case active in the second part of this period; that during this period other subcommandos carried on Jewish executions in my later area I can show by means of Operational Report No. 149 of 22 December 1941. This is Document No 2833. From it on page 9 it says and I quote from the photostatic copy: "Einsatzgruppe-D garrison at Simferopol, activity of the special commando XI-A." On the next pages this activity is described, and on page 14 it says under the paragraph "Jews": "After the appointment of a Jewish Council of elders and the registration of the Jews, whose number amounts to 750, their concentration was carried through on 21 November 1941 in one area." This is the proof that three weeks before my subcommando, the subcommando XI-A had collected the Jews in Eupatoria, and that meant practically their executions only a few days later, for the concentration was only carried out when it was known that the executions would follow within a few days.
Now may I say something about the figures 17,645 and 2,504? that is altogether about 20,000, Even though this figure does not fully concern me as for as location and time are concerned, and even though it cannot be seen exactly to what extent I am charged with these figures, still I consider it my duty to point out that even these figures cannot be correct. 1942. This is NO-3338. This is two weeks after the one which mentioned the figures in Volume II-D and here it says, I quote, "The resettlement of the Jews, Krimshaks, and Gypsies can be seen as almost a complete liquidation, almost without exception -- "I beg your pardon, I just see that I took the wrong quotation. It must be on the preceding page and it says on page 6 of the photostat, When in the beginning of December, the preparations for the resettlement -- "and it can be seen from the context that this refers to the entire Einsatz area of the Crimea -"the resettlement of the 12,000 to 13,000 Jews, Krimchaks, and Gypsies has been started." Here two figures are opposed to each other. On the one hand it is reported that in the beginning of December in Einsatz area of the Crimea the execution of the Jews, Gypsies and Krimchaks had been prepared and that these amounted to from 12,000 to 13,000 and in the report which wasmade out two weeks before,about 21,000, that it, to 7,000-8,000 more, are reported as being executed there. I cannot resolve the contradictions. I merely consider it duty to point them out and to express my serious doubts about the figures, 17,000 and so forth. Operation Report 170, Volume II-D, page 51 of the German, page 47 of the English text. This is Document NO-3339, Exhibit 93. of the excerpt, that is page 47 of the English, it says, in the last paragraph: "In Simferopol, from the 9th of January to the 13th of February, more than 300 Jews were arrested and executed.
The number of persons executed in Simferopol increased, therefore, to almost 10,000 Jews, about 300 more than the numbers of Jews registered," I already said, I cannot mention any other specific figure opposed to this 10,000, because I do not know any specific figure. I can only assure you again that this figure cannot be correct for the reasons mentioned before. How it came to be calculated I cannot say. Whether it is a typographical error or whether a mistake was made during transmission by the Einsatzgruppe or in Berlin, I do not know. Perhaps I may mention one example, in which mistakes came to be made in figures: December 1941 from 700 to 300 people were executed in Simferopol. The prosecution in its charges against me has mentioned 7,000 to 8,000. I assume that this is a mistake also. May I just point out that it is possible that wrong figures can be obtained. with which you are charged?
Q How did these executions come about? officer of the 11th Army came to see HerrOhlendorf and told him that the Army demanded the carrying out of e executions before Christmas.
Army told this to Herr Ohlendorf? present too.
Q How did you conduct yourself in the face of this Army order? would be impossible to carry out these executions before Christmas. strength of your unit.
but all told, including drivers, interpreters, auxiliary forces, etc. In Simferopol, outside of an administrative officer and two aides on my staff I had no other people, outside of an officer who took care of the SD reports temporarily for two months and at times I had a non-com who helped me in the handling of partisan questions which had become so extensive that I could not handle them myself. Everything else was assigned to the sub-kommandos, that is, the sub-kommando Simferopol, including the guard personnel and drivers who were necessary. Certainly it was not more than 25 to 30 men strong and the other sub-kommandos also were about the same strength. Enpatoria was a little stronger than Karasubasar and Aluschta. I know that in the sub-kommando in Simferopol there were about three or four,trained police and interrogation officials. With these forces it waspractically impossible for me to carry out the required executions in Simferopol. were too weak to carry out the execution which was demanded by the Army? his agreement I went to see the G-2 of the Army, Colonel Hauch and described the situation to him.
Q What was the result? number o trucks with drivers, to furnish the gasoline, and a certain number, I don't remember how many, of field police, all of whom were placed at the disposal to help in this execution.
Q Another question, Witness. Isn't it a mistake on your part when you say that Col. Hauch wasthe G-2 of the Army?
A I beg your pardon. I made a mistake. Colonel Hauch was the Chief Quartermaster of the Army.
Q Therefore, he was the 20A?
Whether he was the 2-A, I do not know. of your conference with the G-2? conference, did they also take part in the executions?
Q Who then carried out the executions? responsible for carrying out the details. He had at his disposal the people furnished by the Army, the newly arrived police company who was to relieve the company so far in operation and who had not yet been distributed among the subkommandos. Furthermore, I think I recall that the 11-A kommando, or the 10-B, or even both, furnished forces by order of Ohlendorf. Finally there were the forces of the subkommando and my guard personnel.
Q Who carried out the execution itself? furnished mostly by the police company, but here I cannot give any specific details, who was used for the transport, who was used to block off the area, and who was used to do the shooting. I believe that people rotated.
Q Witness, did you supervise the execution?
A Yes, I did. It took place under my responsibility. Once I was at the place of execution with Mr. Ohlendorf and there we convinced ourselves that the execution took place according to the directives laid down by Ohlendorf at the beginning of the assignment. I personally was there several times more, and I supervised. As I heard, the adjutant of Ohlendorf was there once, and saw that everything was carried out according to the instructions. Furthermore, my subkomman do leader, Sturmbannfuehrer Schulz, was always present, the company commander of the police company, and, I think, another captain.
THE PRESIDENT: Who was the adjutant, please?
THE WITNESS: That is the co-defendant Schubert, your Honor.
Q (By Dr. Mayer) Witness, did your supervision extend to blocking off the area and the transporting of the victims?
Q In these executions were Krimtschaks shot also?
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Mayer, just on a point of Krimtschaks?
DR. MAYER: Your Honor, I was just going to come to
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
Q (By Dr. Mayer) Dr. Braune, please tell the Tribunal Krimtschaks.
They were of Jewish race and of Jewish faith, Jews.
Therefore, they came under the Fuehrer Order.
a Jew, particularly also who was a Krimtschak and who was not? was the only Jewish execution which I saw personally. Even Council of Elders and carried out the registration.
According to what I heart this took place in the following. manner: The Jewish council of Elders was installed, a number of locally well-known and respected people,and this council of Elders itself called the Jews up for the registration. Whether in its own name or on the orders of the Subkammando or Kommando, I don't know, but they proclaimed that the Jews would have to register. That is two say, the Jews registered themselves as Jews. They identified themselves. Furthermore, the Council of Elders established it. That was two-fold control,and that is also how it was done with the Krimtschaks as far as I recall.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't understand what do you meant by two-fold control. You mean the subkommando and the council?
THE WITNESS: Once that way, namely that the persons concerned reported themselves and said, "We are Jews".
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, I see.
THE WITNESS: Furthermore the Council of Elders which was locally known.
THE PRESIDENT: Usually how many were on the council?
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I cannot give you an exact number, but it could have been eight, ten or fifteen. I don't know exactly.
THE PRESIDENT: When you used the phrase that they were usually well-known and respected people, I understand that you mean that they were Jews well-known and respected in the community.
THE WITNESS: Yes, your honor. Among the Jews were well-known and respected people, who were locally known.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Thank you. Q (By Dr. Mayer) Witness, what happened with the Tartars?
before the Bolshevik revolution. They were Mongols, an Asiatic tribe, and they were of Mohammedan faith. From the first day on these were in favor of the German occupation and their liberators. The Tartars had to suffer very much under Bolshevism. Of about 450,000 at the time of the Bolshevist revolution, only 220,000 were left. All the rest had been deported or liquidated. They were oppressed in every respect, and we restored to them their opportunity to worship and we gave them the opportunity to speak their own language, to continue in their customs and usages, so that I can claim that particularly Einsatzgruppe D under Ohlendorf had a very positive relationship to the Tartars. I think the most moving proof of the favorable attitude of the Tartars is that after the capitulation I read in the papers in Norway that the rest of these Tartars were also deported by the Bolshevists because of their friendly attitude toward the Germans. Not only did nothing happen to the Tartars from our side, but they collaborated closely with us. I recall that when the military situation had become hopeless in the Crimea that the Tartars put themselves at our disposal spontaneously in order to fight Bolshevism, that they came on their own accord and asked to be allowed to fight with us, and I was personally in small villages and I saw it, and I recall a very old Tartar who could not grasp that we refused him because he was too old. Within a few weeks more than 10,000 Tartars reported for battle, and in the shortest time the Einsatzgruppe had set up 18 Tartar companies which were armed and supplied and equipped by the Army, and whom we sent to the most endangered villages on the edge of the Jaila Mountains, and in the Jaila Mountains themselves, those villages which had to suffer the most from the partisans.
I think that this is the best repudiation of the contention of the prosecution that we had exterminated Asiatics. Here we had more than 200,000 Asiatics in the Crimea, and I can only assure you that neither did I ever get an order to exterminate Asiatics nor did my kommando exterminate any Asiatics.
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, dod you know that in some of the reports a reference is made to liquidation of Asiatics, are you familiar with that?
THE WITNESS: I read it, your Honor. I cannot explain the statement. I don't know who made it or whether actually something like that happened. I only know that we didn't have such an order or that anything.
DR. MAYER: Your Honor, I think this would be a proper occasion to have a recess. I come to a new subject.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I might announce that we will recess shortly after three and then not reconvene today, that when we recess this afternoon, which will be between three and three-thirty, we will recess for the entire day and then reconvene next Monday. moment until 1:45.
(A recess was taken until 1345 hours.)
(The hearing reconvened at 1345 hours, 26 November 1947).
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, the prosecution new wants to offer Document NO-4997 as Prosecution Exhibit 183.
DR. FIGHT (FOR THE DEFENDANT BIBERSTEIN): Your Honor, in view of my statement yesterday, may I say the following now Having been able to study this document, I withdraw my objection of yesterday against the submission of this is evidence without recognizing the correctness of the statements by Herr Biberstein which are contained in there; may I only point out the following dates: are 29 June 1947, 10:00 to 11:15, taken by a reporter, Margarete Fritsche. On the last page here it says in the text.
"Question: You are the same Biberstein whom I have interrogated under oath before? May I point out to you that you are still under oath.
"Answer: Yes. was made from former interrogations. The date contained is the same date, 29 June 1947, at ten oclock. If the basis of the affidavit was taken between ten and eleven, considering the facts contained, cannot have been made at the same time.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, it seems apparent from the document that this document contains two different interrogations, one interrogation during which information was obtained from the defendant which was the basis of the affidavit, so, if I am not mistaken, I haven't got my document book with me -- the affidavit was sworn to and signed on the 2d of July and it is the contention of the prosecution that this second interrogation which is the last page of the document was carried out on this day. The correct date of the second interrogation appears certainly on the affidavit which is in Document Book I, as far as I remember.
THE PRESIDENT: All the Tribunal has before it now the offer by the prosecution of Document NO-4997, Prosecution Exhibit 183. Yesterday the defense objected to the introduction of this document. Today it withdraws its objection. In view of the fact, therefore, that both sides are agreed that the document is to be accepted as an exhibit, it will be accepted. Both sides, of course, have the right to comment on this document or to attack it in any way that they feel is in order.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: Very well, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. ERICH MAYER (ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT BRAUNE): Your Honor, I ask to be able to continue with the direct examination of the Defendant B raune.
DR. ERICH MAYER: I now come to a new set of questions, namely those questions to the witness which refer to the case in chief and to the document which are submitted. BY DR. ERICH MAYER ( ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT BRAUNE):
Q. Dr. Braune, in the Report of Events No. 156 of the 16th of January, 1942 it was reported that in Aluschta on 21 November 32 Jews and 32 Communists were shot. This report of events was not submitted against you, but still please make some statements about this, because you were in charge of a sub-kommando in Aluschta.
DR. ERICH MAYER: Your Honor, I want to mention that this report of events was only submitted by the prosecution in in excerpt. It is in Document II-A as Document No. 3405, Exhibit 42, page 72 of the German and page 57 of the English text.
Q. (Continued) Witness, would you please comment on that report of events, referring to the photostatic copy?
A. I have the photostatic copy of this document before me, the complete photostatic copy, and I quote from page 54. Only the first paragraph is contained in the prosecution documents. It says - this first paragraph shows that on the 23rd of November, '41, partisans northwest of Aluschta, attacked a column with hand grenades and the German Army suffered three deaths, and 6 wounded; apart from that, three trucks were badly damaged. It then says as retaliation, and now it says on the photostatic copy, in the German copy, 21 November; perhpas I may correct this here, because this never could have happened on the 21st and no retaliation could have been carried out then for an action which only occurred on the 23rd of November by the partisans. The photostatic copy here shows me that the figure is printed so badly that could read it as "21" but doubtlessly it is meant to be 24. I think one could read this with a magnifying glass. reprisals concerning the investigations on my arrival in the Crimea, I have already explained that on the 23rd of November, no sub-kommando of mine was in Aluschta yet, but a sub-kommando of 10B was in Aluschta. The second paragraph confirms this beyond doubt which is not contained in the prosecution documents. There it says that on the 26th of November, that is, three days later, that a tank fighting battalion, which was in Aluschta, supported by anti-aircraft and part of a Rumanian Mountain Brigade, carried out an action against those partisans and that the Kommando 10B had prepared this action. The second paragraph of the document itself shows that this was a sub-kommando of 10B and not my men.
DR. ERICH MAYER: Your Honor, may I mention that this report of events, insofar as it concerns this part, which is the report of events for this part, I shall introduce in my Document Book No. 11.
On this occasion, I would like to make supplement. It is a supplement to a reply of the witness to a question by the President before the recess. The President asked the witness how the Krimchacks differed from the others and the witness only answered that the Krimchacks are of the Jewish origin, but of Mosaic creed.
This alone does not make them different from other Jews in the Crimea. The fact which makes them different from the other is that for reasons that are not known here they speak a language similar to the Turkish language and therefore they were different from the rest of the Jewish population. I merely would like to say this in order to explain this to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: We are glad that you have offered that further explanation Dr. Mayer.
DR. ERICH MAYER: Thank you, Your Honor.
Q. (By Dr. Mayer) Witness, did it happen repeatedly that in the reports of events measures were reported which were carried out by the Wehrmacht?
A. I presume that the reprisal measure, which was just mentioned was carried out by the Wehrmacht, because I do not remember that such retaliation measures were ever carried out by us in such a form, but in order to reply to your question, of course, constantly events were contained in our reports which concerned the Army. It does not say here, "Report of Events of a Kommando" or an Einsatzgruppe, but they are reports of events of the entire territory and may I just point out that there are numerous reports about partisan combatting contained in these reports of events and that these were events in 95% of the cases which were handled by the Army.
Q. The prosecution also maintains in their prosecution statement that according to Document 2828 Exhibit 86, contained in Document Book II-D, page 25 of the German and page 20 of the English text, the executions of 2,910 Jews and 19 Communists in the area of Simferopol, that is, in the territory of your kommando, were carried out there. Witness, will you please look at this document and comment on it?
A. I have this document in front of me and may I ask you to look at page 1 of your excerpt. It is page 11 of the original, and it says, "Einsatzgruppe D, Garrison Simferopol," and too in three paragraphs it is reported about shootings of Communists and Jews. All three paragraphs obviously and evidently refer to the entire territory Of the Einsatzgruppe under the heading over to the left, under "Shootings" it says "2,910 more Jews and 9 Communist officials were shot after summary proceedings.
Thus the sum total of executions has risen to 54,696." This total figure alone shows that this is a summary report of the Einsatzgruppe and not of my kommando. I cannot say either why the prosecution deduces that these 2,929 persons were shot by my kommando, because it all comes under Einsatzgruppe D, Garrison, Simferopol. Kommando 11B is not mentioned at all, but may I also say that the report of events dates from the 12th of December 1941, The events which are mentioned here must therefore have at least occurred few days before this date. This morning I explained when my kommando went to the Crimea and when the sub-kommandos started to move. It will be understandable that a sub-kommando did not carry out executions the first or second day. From a more time point of view I consider it impossible that among these figures executions for my sub-kommando are contained. I know at least concerning Simferopol that from the day of my arrival, no executions were carried out, which was mentioned here this mornings. I therefore considered it impossible that these figures, all of which I am charged with, concern my kommando at all from a mere time point of view. On this occasion, may I point out how questionable these reports are and how incorrect. That is shown by the fact that it says on the top of t Report of Events 145, under "Garrison and Signal Communications" it says, I quote, "The Garrison and Signal Communications reported in Operational Situation Report No. 156 of 16 January, 1942, have remained unchanged." I believe it is evident that a Situation Report of 12 December cannot refer to a Report of Events of the middle of January. That is one month later.
Q. The prosecution charges you in their case in chief with the fact that you had sub-kommandos in Kersch and Feodosia and therefore you are responsible for the shootings which occurred there. Witness, this morning you already touched upon this question and answered it in the negative, but on the basis of the prosecution documents, please comment on this question.