DR. DURCHHOLZ (for the defendant Schulz): Your Honor, I am sorry that I have to interrupt. But the defendant Schulz has been suffering from a bladder ailment for some time. If possible, I would like him to be excused from the present court session at the present time.
THE PRESIDENT: In view of the representation made by counsel, the defendant Schulz will be excused from attendance at the present moment. He will be secorted from the Court. BY MR. FERENCZ:
Q. Have you finished your answer, Naumann?
A. Yes.
Q. Do I understand you correctly, the, to say it was not necessary for you to issue any instructions concerning the details of executions?
A. Yes, that is correct. I say that because the Commando leaders reported to me as to how they had carried out these executions so far, and I had no objections to that.
Q. Yesterday you pointed out that several Prosecution documents which listed killings by Einsatzgruppe B were inaccurate because it was before your time. I hand you now, from Document Book II-B, page 62, Document NO-3276. This reports thousands of liquidations by the units of Einsatzgruppe 3 between 6 and 30 March 1942, including the killing of thousands of Jews and Gypsies. Were you the commanding officer of Einsatzgruppe B and its units at that time?
A. During that period of time, yes.
Q. Did you personally ever order anyone to be executed?
A. No, not individually. As I stated before, orders already existed; they didn't have to be issued again.
Q. Did you ever order anyone to be "Sonderbehandeit" - or, to be given special treatment?
A. No.
Q. You are sure of that answer?
A. Yes, I am quite certain.
Q. Allow me, to refresh your memory. Did you ever hoar of the special Camp Wissokoje? W-i-s-s-o-k-o-j-e.
A. Yes, I know Wissokoje, indeed. There are several Wissokojes. I am assuming you are referring to the Estate of Einsatzgruppe B near Smolensk.
Q. I am asking you now if you have heard of the Camp Wissokoje.
A. Camp Wissokoje? There was no such thing as Camp Wissokoje.
Q. Did you ever order anyone executed near Wissokoje?
A. No.
Q. Were you in the vicinity of Wissokoje on the 5th of December 1942?
A. I don't know that. If you are referring to the Wissokoje I am referring to, then it was the Estate of Wissokoje, near Smolensk, approximately 17 kilometers east of Smolensk. Whether I was there on the 5th of December 1942, I really don't know, I was there quite often.
a man on it and ask you if that refreshes your recollection of having ordered an execution.
A What am I to know about this document? executions? connection with executions.
Q Then it does not refresh your recollection, is that correct?
AAgain I don't see what this has to do with it. namely the name of the enterprise of Zeppelin. But this is the first thing in the three documents which means anything to me. people, that you ever ordered executions? just given to the defendant.
MR. FERENCZ: I have just handed to the defendant three pages which appear to be a questionnaire or life history of three men. Each contains a picture of the man. It states when he was born, his name etc. These are part of a file to which the last note attached is as follows, to your memory the execution of certain people by your order:
"SS Special Camp Wissokoje. Dated 5 December 1942. Memorandum. As a result of various things which"-
DR. GAWLIK: I have to object, your Honor. I have to have a German copy of that document so I can tell whether this document is relevant before I can let it be accepted into the record, your Honor.
MR. FERENCZ: Your Honor, I have copy of the document. The objection is a matter of relevance. I think the objection can be over-ruled. I will show the document to the defendant and to the defense counsel and introduce it in the court as soon as I am finished reading a short paragraph.
THE PRESIDENT: That answer your objections, Dr. Gawlik.
DR. GAWLIK: Yes, but your Honor, I still ask that I be given a copy prior to the introduction of the introduction of the document because I can't judge whether the part that is being read is relevant, the reason it is being read, and whether it has anything to do with Naumann. I can't check it if I don't have the copy, the copy should be shown to me in advance. And we always used to do it that way before. We always received the German copy first.
MR. FERENCZ: I am just trying to refresh the defendant's recollection, your Honor. I will show the relevance of this document in the first sentence.
THE PRESIDENT: You see, Dr. Gawlik, Mr. Frencz is not introducing a document in evidence at this moment. He is cross-examining the witness. He asked him if he recalls certain episodes, and the defendant has stated he has no recollection of any such episodes. Now, the prosecution is endeavoring to refresh his memory. Naturally, you have the right to see this document, but Mr. Ferenzc has the right to put the proposition to him before exposing the document to anybody, because it is only for the purpose of refreshing the recollection of the defendant.
MR. FERENCZ: I repeat my question. I will read to you a certain document to refresh your recollection about having ordered executions: "Special Camp Wissokoje. 5 December 1942. Memorandum. As a result of various thinhs which happened in the meantime at the special camp Wissokoje, "K" was given the special treatment on 25 November 1942 by order of SS-Brigadefuehrer Naumann of Einsatzgruppe B." Does that refresh your memory?
Q I will read a little further: "Here can be seen from the reports of SS-Hauptsturmfuehrer Sauckel, to the RSHA, Amt VI, Department VI-CZ, signed Goebel, SS-Unterscharfuehrer."
Do you remember anything having ordered executions now?
DR. FICHTE( for the defendant Bieberstein): Your Honor, for the defendant Bieberstein I would like to object to this manner of introducing evidence. It was usual at all times that before a document was introduced at least no one could read anything from the document During cross-examination it may be brought on that something is stated in the document, but not the whole document can be read. I an objecting to this on principle, for any further such cases.
DR. GAWLIK: And now I would like to see the document which was just read. the document.
MR. FERENCZ: You may show it to the defendant. Perhaps he will then remember.
THE PRESIDENT: Up to this point there is nothing incorrect in the procedure so Mr. Ferencz may continue.
Is there a question pending now? BY MR. FERENCZ:
Q Does that refresh your memory, Naumann? gruppe B - in the Estate of Wissokoje there was a house which had been placed at the disposal of an official of Office VI, and this representantive of Office VI received three to six Russians who stated that they were against the Bolshevists, and that by order of the Germans they wanted to carry out certain actions against the Germans. This agency of Office VI was not subordinated to me. It was subordinated to the competent department of the RSHA, Reich Security Main Office.
It received these instructions from there which did not concern me and with which I had nothing to do. The leader of this Commando, a Hauptsturmfuehrer, conducted independent negotations, without having to report to me and without reporting to me. As, for execution of a man of this organization - I never did order such a thing because I didn't have the right to do so. It was up to Office VI. around Camp Wissokoje?
A No, I don't know that, either. killed by order of SS-Brigadefuehrer Nuamann of Einsatzgruppe B. Is that you? Are you the person referred to? than myself.
Q But you don't know anything about those killings?
MR. FERENCZ: Thank you. Your Honor, this document has just been received from Berlin. We have not yet had it processed, as soon as we can put it into the hands if the Court we shall do so and introduce it as an exhibit at that time. We have three such documents.
THE PRESIDENT: I would suggest you expedite the processing so that the Tribunal may be entirely current on these documents.
MR. FERENCZ: We will do it as rapidly as possible, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now be in recess for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. FERENCZ: Before the recess we were discussing some documents which stated that the defendant Neumann ordered the execution of certain peopl. For purposes of idnetification I ask that these documents be given Prosecution's Exhibit No. 175, and we will introduce them as soon as they can be processed.
DR GAWLIK: I object to these documents being permitted to be presented, and I ask that the originals be submitted. First of all the connection of these documents is not evident, what I have been handed -and I only was given a part of them, and the Prosecution still the other part, are three questionaires of three Russians, but what they have to do with it, and the connection with these documents, is not at all evident and for that reason the Prosecution has not shown in how far these questionaires are at all relevant. In the last document which was given, to me it concerned a memorandum from a document and it seems strange why the Prosecution does not submit the entire document. I, therefore, must contest the authenticity ox these documents, unless the original be submitted. If the Prosecution has a copy, they must be in the position to get the original also.
MR. FERENCZ: If your honor please, at the time we introduce the document into evidence we will introduce the complete document, certified the same as every other document introduced in Nurnberg, and the defense counsel may raise their objections at that time. Now we are just asking that it be given a number for purposes of identification.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Gawlik, the Prosecution at the present moment is merely asking that numbers be assigned to these documents. You will receive copies of the documents. That is copies of the entire documents, before they will be admitted into evidence. When he is about to introduce the documents into evidence you will have an opportunity to object to their relevancy or to their authenticity. He has merely asked that we give numbers for the purpose of maintaining the continuity.
DR. GAWLIK: But I ask that the original be submitted for identification because I contest the authenticity of this last document. It does not show at all from where it originates. I talked to some of the defendants. I am not allowed to talk to Defendant Naumann during crossexamination. None of the defendants know the persons mentioned there.
THE PRESIDENT: What have you to say to this, Mr. Ferencz?
MR. FERENCZ: The original is in Berlin, your Honor, and we have only received photostatic copies. This is the practice with all documents introduced. We have seen at the beginning of this trial that documents are processed in a certain way to assure their authenticity. The only objection I can understand is that the Prosecution has fabricated this document. If that objection is actually raised we will bring the original here. However, we must request that a photostatic copy be adequate, inasmuch as it is the usual practice, and to bring originals down in every case would completely disrupt the custody of the documents and the great care with which they are handled now.
DR. GAWLIK: I did not quite understand the question.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Gawlik, when you receive the copies, please look them over quickly and then decide whether you will insist upon the originals being brought here from Berlin.
At the present moment we well allow the numbers to be assigned. The Secretary-General may indicate what numbers.
MR. FERENCZ: 175, Prosecution's Exhibit 175.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you intend to give only one number?
MR. FERENCZ: He will give one number to the group of documents. your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, that number will be assigned to the group of documents.
Q (By Mr. Ferencz) Naumann, you have made several statements here this morning, which you, of course, insist are true, isn't that correct? of the other defendants to or careful about what they tell the interrogator and not be fooled, and further try to tip them off about what you had said in order to avoid, contradictions? prison about my interrogation.
Q About what? it to the Court and identify it. Would you read it out loud, please?
Q Will you please read this, return the other document, please? I will hand you the original.
DR. GAWLIK: Your Honor, I want to know about the contents, as is customary, before the document is discussed here. I cannot look after my clients interest as defense counsel if matters are discussed here about which I have no knowledge, matters which are between the Prosecutor and the Defence. The usual thing is that when a document is discussed that the defense counsel gets a copy.
MR. FERENCZ: If your Honor please, I have only one copy, but I give it to the defense counsel.
Q (By Mr. Ferencz) Would you please continue and read the document slowly and clearlytto the Court?
A "Do not be bluffed during interrogations. Always be careful, even if they smile at you. My statements so far you Were leader of the VKM first of all in Moshaisk, then in Roslawl. I cannot give the dates. Whether you carried out executions I do not know. My service started at the and of November, 1941. At that time there were no more ghettos in my region. The larg executions of the first time occurred during Nebe's time. I then got you into my staff, first of all because of your linguistic ability. Secondly, I had to be open here as it seemed to be wiser - because of your inclination to drink occasionally. I then assigned you to my staff, firstly because of your linquistic knowledge -
DR. GAWLIK: Your Honor, I object. First of all it should be shown who wrote this letter. The Prosecution would have to prove this. Secondly, I don't see the purpose of reading it out. The Prosecution could submit this document. Why should it be read out?
MR. FERENCZ: If your Honor please, we introduced first a typewritten copy of the document. The defendant said he was not sure that this was his own note, whereupon I handed him the original.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it the contention of the Prosecution that this is a note written by the Defendant Naumann?
MR. FERENCZ: Yes, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, and have you handed him a document which purports to have been written in his own handwriting?
MR. FERENCZ: Yes, your Honor; he has it now before him.
THE PRESIDENT: Defendant Naumann, is this your own note?
THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Then I don't see any objection to his reading it.
DR. GAWLIK: It could be submitted in evidence. The Prosecution can state what they want to prove by it. I don't see the purpose of reading it out, why the witness should read it. We can read that ourselves, and so can. the Tribunal.
MR: FERENCZ: Your Honor, we will submit it as evidence. However, it is his own handwriting, and there are some parts that are difficult to read, and it is a short statement, about a page and a half, and it is all very pertinent and I am unable to read his handwriting, and that is one of the reasons I have asked him to read it himself and, to explain it to the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I would recommend that the defendant read it, as he has been doing it, but read it slowly so that we can got the benefit of the translation.
Q (By Mr. Ferencz) Continue, please.
THE PRESIDENT: May I ask, Mr. Ferencz, if you have a typewritten copy for the interpreter. It might be easier to give us the translation if she had the German before her.
MR. FERENCZ: We have just made a translation, your Honor, and it now is in the hands of the interpreter.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Now please, witness, read the document slowly.
THE WITNESS: Where from, Mr. President?
THE PRESIDENT: I would suggest from the beginning. First, to whom is this directed?
THE WITNESS: I addressed it to Klingelhoeffer.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
THE WITNESS: "Don't let them bluff you. Always be careful, even with the friendliest face. My statements until now, you were the leaders of the VKM, at first in Gsaitsk or Moshaisk, later in Roslawl. I cannot give dated. Whether you carried out executions, I don't know. The beginning of my duty, and of November, 1941. At that time there were no ghettos left in my area.
The large-scale executions fell into Nebe's time. I then brought you to my staff, firstly, because of your knowledge of the language; second, I had to be frank here, because your inclination to drink deemed it necessary. You then spent sometime with the preparation of a plan for Moscow and you worked for the SD in the staff, mainly because of your knowledge of the language. Troop Smolensk was led by some small Sturmscharfuehrer or Untersturmfuehrer whose name I do not know any mor. Troop Smolensk belonged to the EK 9. The number of persons executed by Einsatzbruppe B was not registered in the group staff. I therefore could make no statements on this. I did not give any execution orders because these were already given by Heydrich and Nebe to the SK and EK. B received two or three gas vans from Berlin which were not used by B and were, therefore, under directions of the RSHA given to C.
"Written reports went to Berlin about every three weeks. There was no count of executions contained therein, but it contained mainly a description of the situation from a security police point of view and a voluminous SD report. Beginning in spring, 1942, the main activity of Einsatzgruppen B changed to partisan reconnaissance and to the formation of police forces of indigenous persons (OD). This court has no original report of Einsatzgruppe B nor other records, only information reports issued by the RSHA, and these are not complete. These reports were first issued in 1942. About your activity in Gsaitz and Smolensk the court has no records.
"I have identified the following persons as belonging to Einsatzgruppe B and stated that I knew them:
"Staff: Schroeder, Schirme, Hoele, Eckstein, Rath, Mueller, Kiesewalter, Mahnke, Koch, Holste, Fischer, Pfeiffer, Gatz, Siegling, Lehmeyer.
"7a. Steimle, Rapp, Matschke "7b. Rausch, Ott, Schiefner "8. Bradfisch, Richter, Schindhelm.
"9. Schaefer, Wiebens, Burchardt "VKM Klingelhoeffer, Blume.
"There names were known here already for the greater part. Further I know nothing about the fact that executees had their clothing taken away from them before the executions and that the clothes were given to the NSV.
"An agent of Office IV, who has said to have had the mission of removing mass graves, was not with me." End.
MR. FERENCZ: If Your Honor please, we will do the same with this document as we have done with the last. We are having some difficulty having it photostatted because it is in very small writing and the paper is bad, but we will make it a document as rapidly as possible and will submit it then as Prosecution's Exhibit 176.
THE PRESIDENT: That number will be assigned to the document.
Q. (By Mr. Ferencz) Naumann, will you please explain to the Tribunal why you thought it necessary to tell the Defendant Klingelhoefer the date that you took command and what he did and what you did, as well as who were membersof your kommando, and to warn him not be, be bluffed.
A. I gave these statements to Klingelhoefer and they were the same as those I made during the interrogation. Why I did this? Klingelhoefer was my comrade. I know him. I know that Klingelhoefer gets easily upset, and I considered it my duty as a comrade to tell him what I had said during my interrogations. Other reasons concerning this information did not play any part except the comradely attitude.
Q. Then as I understand you, because of your comradely attitude you told him not to be bluffed, and to say the following things, is that correct? As I understand your answer you are saying---
A. That is right. From a comradely attitude.
Q. Tell me, what is your opinion about the Defendant Klingelhoefer?
A. I stated yesterday when I was questioned by Klingelhoefer's defense counsel.
Q. You stated yesterday that he was a fine fellow and you were glad to have him as a major interpreter in your headquarters, is that correct?
A. Yes, that is right.
Q. Didn't you once state in an interrogation where you were under oath that he was no man and he didn't know much and since he was a heavy drinker you couldn't rely on him for very much?
A. No, I never expressed myself In that form. I only expressed exactly what was written in that note.
Q. I will hand you now the question and the answer which was put to you by Mr. Wartenberg concerning the Defendant Klingelhoefer, and I ash you in it is correct to read it to the Court.
A. "15 Question: Was his rank not too high to be an interpreter?
"Answer: If you ask me about his personality he was not a hardworking and clever man. I could not leave him in an independent position either because he liked to drink, and therefore I kept him with me.
"16 Question: Did the VKM, during Klingelhoefer's time, carry out executions?
"Answer; I can answer neither yes nor no; I think probably."
Q. That is enouth, thank you,
A. May I add something on this?
Q. If you wish.
A. The reply 15 is such bad German, which I don't usually use, not even during an interrogation, obviously the stenographer was not very clear about this, I have noticed this has happened repeatedly during interrogations. Very often I had to ask, during the interrogation, "Can you follow this?" And she often answered, "Please go a little slower."
Q. Do you wish to make any corrections to your answers there? If so, please do so.
A. I certainly did not say, did not use the phrase, "he was not a hard-working and clover man." Also I did not use the phrase, "I could not leave him to work independently because he, liked to drink too much," This phrasing was not used. As far as I remember, I said much more, in detail, about Klingelhoefer. These are only a few words or sentences about the Whole interrogation.
Q. In other words, you say that the transcript of that interrogation, which purports to be a verbatim transcript, is inaccurate and is much shorter than what you actually said, and is not in your own language?
A. It is inaccurate.
Q. Thank you. Will you return it, please?
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, do I understand that although the language as reproduced in that document is not your phraseology, and although you said more than is contained in the document, yet the thought which you expressed is reproduced in the sentences which you read?
THE WITNESS: No, Your Honor, my opinion was expressed-much more in detail and more to the effect as I said yesterday. However, I told Interrogator Wartenberg at the time that Klingelhoefer was inclined to have a drink every now and then. That is exactly that I said, because that represents more approximately Klingelhoefer's actual character. He was not really a heavy drinker, he just liked to have a drink occasionally. That is a phrase I used verbatim and it is not mentioned here.
Q. (By Mr. Ferencz) As my last question, Naumann, I ask you, in regard to your activity as commanding officer of Einsatzgruppe B for a period of approximately fifteen months, do you feel any guilt or remorse?
A. I believe the reply to this question can be seen from previous answers I have given. I have Said that the order, state order, which was given to us, and which ordered that certain categories of people, were to be killed for the purpose of maintaining order and security. I also said that this order, with all those who had anything to do with it directly or indirectly, caused considerable moral difficulties of conscience, but that all those who were directly or indirectly connected, realized that this order was given by the Supreme Commander and head of the state and that this order had to be obeyed.
Q. What is your answer then, do you feel any guilt or remorse?
A. Guilt and remorse I can only feel for crimes I personally commit. If I myself had carried out killings and cruelties then I would have to feel guilt and remorse. If I have carried out an order then I have no guilt at all, and therefore I cannot feel remorse for a guilt that does not exist.
you did while commander of Einsatzgruppe B, is that correct?
A. I have already given my explanation to that effect.
MR. FERENCZ: Thank you, No further questions, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Any redirect examination, Dr. Gawlik?
DR. GAWLIK: May I first ask the interpreter to give me the English translation of this letter. I believe there is a mistake in it.
THE INTERPRETER: The court reporters have it now.
THE PRESIDENT: Whoever has the present custody of the English translation of the note in question will please allow Dr. Gawlik to have it.
MR. FERENCZ: If Your Honor please, we may save time, if he will point out any correction we will concede to it. BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q. Witness, I ask you to read the one sentence in this letter which starts, "I".
A. "I do not know that executees had their clothes taken from them before the execution and their clothes were given to the National Socialist Welfare Organization, the NSV".
Q. Please read the English as far asyou can, what has been translated in the English.
MR. FERENCZ: Your Honor, the defendant has read it. We have received a translation. Are you satisfied that the translation we have now received is correct?
DR. GAWLIK: I only wanted to show that the interpreters were given a translation which said exactly the opposite. The translation says, "I do know about it."
MR. FERENCZ: We will concede the correction, Your Honor. The original document was going to be offered to the Court, The translation was made only this morning and quickly passed forward. If it is corrected, there should be no further discussion on the matter.
DR. GAWLIK: I only wanted to correct this in order to inform you on this important point in the future.
THE WITNESS: Shall I read the sentence again:
DR. GAWLIK: Yes, please do.
THE WITNESS: "I know something about the fact that executees had their clothing taken away before their executions and that they were given to the NSV.
Q (By Dr. Gawlik) Did you write that in the letter? executees before their execution were robbed of their clothes and these clothes were handed over to the NSV.
DR. GAWLIK: I ask that the English translation be corrected in the record, because I presumed that the original text was wrong.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Gawlik, the Tribunal's impression is that the interpretation came through that the defendant knew nothing about those facts. So, therefore no harm was done, so that you will see that what actually came to the Tribunal was the correct translation. after the end of the war hide. I therefore ask you did this happen because you had committed any crimes or were there other reasons, and what were they? officer to avoid captivity. It happened on the evening when I took off my uniform, that was my decision. Any other reasons or even any other thoughts than this I never had, particularly at this time. I could not have known how things would continue in Germany and until a few hours ago I has the impression that the Western Allies would give us the opportunity to continue to fight against Russia.
discussion with Heydrich. This order of Hitler, did you pass it on at all? beginning the units had been given exactly the same order. ask you did you have the possibility to object at all. opportunity to protest and object. I myself interrupted Heydrich and I was rebuked in that manner. I have described. were also discussed. please describe briefly what connections between the staff and the Sonder and Einsatzkommandos existed. Chief, is that it? I was Chief of the Einsatzkommando and, as such, I took a lot of time to talk to my Kommando leaders and the subkommando leaders, subordinate to these and to go out to them, because in the whole area, there were twenty-four garrisons, which were very hard to reach. Therefore, I could not visit every individual garrison very often. Beyond that I was visited by Kommando leaders when they thought that it was necessary to discuss something with me or members of the staff who wished to discuss something or to regulate something with me. These were mostly members of the staff and on this opportunity those gentlemen of course, visited me. Beyond that the Kommandos reported every two weeks always on the 1st of the month and the 15th or the 1st and the 16th, about everything that had occurred in the reegion in every branch and field and therefore gave reports on organizational matters, about questions of personnel and billets, about the fuel situation, about the vehicle situation and the effusive SD report and the report about police actions, report about cooperation with the Army and other things.
in to be identified. I ask you can you remember that you gave this order mentioned in the document? "Zeppelin" was not subordinate to me. Office VI of the RSHA in Berlin was in charge of it and directed it and the chief of this unit with one or two men worked with their own agency in Russia, immediately connected with Army agencies. They had immediate contact. Einsatzgruppe B merely had to help him if he needed material to carry out his task. I just now recall that it had its own fuel quota from the Army. It very closely cooperated with the Wehrmach, the German Army, and especially with the Air Force, the Luftwaffe, because agents were brought over frontlines by land as well as by air ways and such mutual assistance was necessary.
Q Please describe to the Tribunal what the enterprise "Zeppelin" was.
A The enterprise "Zeppelin", as far as I got to know about it, had the task to take Russians who had anti-Bolchevist ideas and bring them Across the frontier lines an either to help them return with news, which occurred only rarely, but up take them to the territories close or far away from the front from where they broadcasted together with them, the news to the German stations, by means of signal outfits which, as far as I know, belonged to the Wehrmacht, with other words to *o espionnage. I know that further orders were given that capable people were given the task not only to send the news reports, but also to carry out expoonnage acts. Details about this I do not know, because for the men of operation "Zeppelin" secrecy applied accordingly only these were allowed to know anything about it who were concerned with it.
Q Were the members of operation "Zeppelin" sobordinated to you as Chief of Einsatzgruppe B?
A No, I already said so. They were under Office VI. only in case they were not sure of something they had to be supported by a letter of the Einsatzgruppe.