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.
hoefer, who took over the command of Vorkommando Moscow after Six, we gave numerous illustrations of executions by that unit. The defendant Klingelhoefer apparently was not aware of the fact that Vorkommando Moscow was -- as Franz Six would have us believe -supposed to collect documents. In view of the extermination function of all Einsatz units, the pattern of whole-sale murder, and the number of executions shown to have occurred in Vorkommando Moscow, while the defendant Six was in command, we submit that his contention that he was merely there to collect archives is quite incredible. individual responsibility of the defendant in Einsatzgruppen B. Court chooses to recess.
THE PRESIDENT: It is so close to the recess period, that we will now take the noon recess and reconvene at 1:45.
(A recess was taken until 1345.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: In order that there may be no misunderstanding about the preparation of the opening statements, please let me repeat that the first eight speeches must be in the hands of the Director of the Language Division in Room 106 by Friday afternoon of this week; and so that it may not be left to chance, as to who the first eight defendants will be, I will enumerate them: and Blume. defendants will be in the hands of the Translation as indicated. The speeches for the others, namely: Haensch, Nossko, Otto, Strauch, Klingelhoefer, Fondler, von Radetzky, Ruehl, Schubert, and Graf -- will be in the hands of the same Chief of Translation Section on Monday by noon.
MR. GLANCY: May it please the Tribunal - I beg your indulgence for a moment. Yesterday in the prosecution's presentation of the case in chief against the defendant Sandberger the prosecution noted that an excerpt was missing from its book, namely, Document Book I, Document NO-3279. I have learned that it was in all other books except the Prosecution's. I wish to make this a part of the record Sandberger. With the Tribunal's permission I will read it. It is on page 78a of the English, 108a of the German, already included under the heading, "Location Krasnowardeisk", also under the heading of "Communism" it states:
"With the exception of one, all leading communist officials in Esthonia have now been seized and rendered harmless.
The sum total of communists seized runs to about 14,500. Of these about 1,000 were shot and 5,377 put into concentration camps. 3,785 less guilty supporters were released."
DR. HOCHWALD-HORLIK: If the Tribunal please, before I present Document Book No. III-C, which deals with the individual responsibility of the defendants who were active in the Einsatzgruppe C, I want to inform the Tribunal that we tried to get Dr. Surholt, who represents the defendant Rasch -- and the prosecution has been informed that Dr. Surholt left for Berlin without leaving any substitute here. So I do think, as Dr. Surholt was duly informed by the Tribunal that the case will start on Monday, and as Dr. Surholt was present at the arraignment of the defendant Rasch, the prosecution should be permitted to now present its case against the defendant Rasch now.
THE PRESIDENT: The prosecution will proceed - and from this incident let me state when the Tribunal informs all counsel that any session will take place on any particular day, automatically counsel must realize that he will be present on that day or the case will proceed in their absence.
DR. HOCHWALD-HORLIK: Thank you, your Honor.
May it please the Tribunal. I shall now proceed with the presentation of Document Book III-C. The documents contained in this document book refer to the individual responsibility of the defendants who were active in Einsatzgruppe C. In most instances it will be necessary to refer to evidence that has already been presented in earlier stages of the trial. Your Honors will find the document numbers and their descriptions of the documents in the order in which I shall refer to them in the list -- with the reading in the order of presentation.
The list was to be inclosed in the Document Book but, unfortunately, by mistake only the first four and one-half pages are in the book itself. But I have furnished the Secretary General with other copies, and as far as I know there are copies also of the second part in the order I now present before the Tribunal. was under the command of the defendant Rasch consisted, beside the Group Staff of Sonderkommando 4A and 4B, of Einsatzgruppen 5 and 6, as your Honors will see on the chart on the wall. The original code letter for this Einsatzgruppe was, until 11 July 1941, Einsatzgruppe B. From 11 July on, however, the Einsatzgruppe, which consisted of these four units, was re-named Einsatzgruppe C. This change took place for reasons of organization, and I would like to refer in this connection to Document Book II-C, page 46 of the English, page 52 of the German, Prosecution Exhibit 78, Document NO-2934, which shows the change. This document shows also the defendant Rasch as commander of Einsatzgruppen B and C, respectively. Einsatzgruppe C operated, in the time in which the crimes particularized in paragraph 8 of the Indictment were committed, in the Ukraine. The defendant Ohlendorf stated, in paragraph 3 of his affidavit, which is in Document Book I, page 22 of the English, page 23 of the German, Prosecution Exhibit 5, Document NO-2890 - that Einsatzgruppe C had the Ukraine except for the part occupied by the Einsatzgruppe D. At a later time when the Einsatzgruppe D advanced towards the Caucasus, Einsatzgruppe C was in charge of the entire Ukraine insofar as it was not under civil administration.
that Einsatzgruppe C operated at a time which mainly concerns our presentation, in the area of Shitomir, Khiev, Lemberg, Sloviansk, Rowno, Stalino, Nikolajew, and Poltawa. area directly on the chart -- it is just behind the witness box. to refer briefly to Document Book I, page 89 of the English, 121 of the German, Prosecution Exhibit 23, Document NO-3154, which is Operational Situation Report No. 80, dated 11 September 1941. This Operational Situation Report describes the tasks of Einsatzgruppe C as follows, and I quote from page 1 of the English translation, under the heading, "Observation made and measures taken by the Security Police":
"Beside the thorough liquidation of the Party organization and the operations to clear the country of Jews who constitute the most evil disintegration factor, the executive operations by Einsatzgruppe C at present also include, above all, the fight against the partisan nuisance." times and in different positions, commanders or members of Einsatzgruppe C and Sonderkommandos and Einsatzkommandos, were the defendant Rasch, Schulz, Blobel, Steimle, Biberstein, Haensch, Fendler, Radetzky and Graf. Steimle, who was commander of Sonderkommando 7a of the Einsatzgruppe B from September to December 1941, and commander of Sonderkommando 4a of Einsatzgruppe C, from August 1942 to January 1943, has been already discussed during the Presentation of Document Book III-B, and I shall here avoid repetition.
The responsibility of the defendant Rasch. The defendant Rasch -- in paragraph 1 of his affidavit dated 13 August 1947, which is in Document Book III-C on page 1 of the English, page 1 of the German, Document NO-4749, which I offer as Prosecution Exhibit 129 -- admitted having been commander of Einsatzgruppe C from May to October 1941, but he omitted to state that he was, for a short period, at the end of October and the beginning of November 1941, commander of Einsatzgruppe B. This is proved by the Operational Situation Report No. 126, Document Book I, page 28, 31 of the German, Document NO-4134, which is Prosecution Exhibit No. 7. This Operational Situation Report shows Rasch in charge of Einsatzgruppe B on the 29th of October. Another Operational Situation Report, which is in Document Book II-D on page 10 of the English, 8 of the German, Prosecution Exhibit 85, Document NO-3159, lists him in the same position on the 5th of November. However, it is apparent from Operational Report No. 132 -- Document NO-2830, in Document Book II-C on page 21 of the English, 23 of the German, Prosecution Exhibit 72, that after this short service he returned to Einsatzgruppe C as its commander, as this report shows him in this position on the 12th of November 1941. I do not want to take up the Tribunal's time by quoting all the documents in evidence which prove the thousands of murders and atrocities which were carried out by the units of Einsatzgruppe C during the time when Rasch was in command. But I might be permitted to refer to some of the Operational Situation Reports in evidence.
Operational Situation Report No. 128, Document Book II-C, page 1, Document 3157, Prosecution Exhibit 68, shows -- and I am quoting from pages 3 and 4 of the document:
"As to the purely executive matters, approximately 80,000 persons were liquidated until now by the Kommandos of the Einsatzgruppen. Among these are approximately 8,000 persons through investigations convicted of antiGerman or Bolshevistic activities. The remainder was liquidated as a retaliatory measure. Several retaliatory measures were carried out as large-scale actions. The largest of these actions took place immediately after the occupation of Kiev. It was carried out exclusively against Jews with their entire families. The difficulties resulting from such large-scale action - in particular concerning the seizure - were overcome in Kiev by requesting the Jewish population through wall-posters to move. Although only a participation of approximately five to six thousand Jews had been expected at first, more than 30,000 Jews arrived who until the very moment of their execution still believed in their resettlement, thanks to an extremely clever organization.
"Even though approximately 75,000 Jews have been liquidated in this manner, it is already at this time evident that at this time this cannot be a possible solution of the Jewish problem. Although we succeed, in particular in smaller towns and also in villages, in accomplishing a complete liquidation of the Jewish problem, again and again it is, however, observed in larger cities that after such an execution all Jews have indeed disappeared. But when after a certain period of time a Kommando returns again, the number of Jews still found in the city always considerably surpasses the number of executed Jews."
some of the facts which this report reveals. Of 80,000 persons - only 10% of the total, as it is stated here, were convicted through investigations, - which means, in other words, that they were murdered without so much as a semblance of a trial. The remaining 90% - 72,000, were executed as a retaliatory measure. We cannot imagine crimes of such magnitude which would justify the killing of 72,000 people in retaliation, and it is even beyond imagination how the powerless civilian population could have been able to permit such crimes.
Operational Situation Report No. 106, which is in Document Book I, page 122 of the English, page 149 of the German, Document 3140, Prosecution Exhibit 30. You will find, in the middle of the page, a note which reveals that approximately 35,000 Jewish inhabitants of Kiev were actually exterminated on the 29th and 30th of September 1941 by Sonderkommando 4a under the command of the defendant Blobel, at the time when Rasch admittedly was commander of Einsatzgruppe C, to which Sonderkommando 4a was subordinate.
Operational Situation Report No. 132, which is in Document Book II-C, on Page 23 of the German -- and I want to refer to pages 23, 24 and 25 in the English -- reads, in connection with Einsatzgruppe C, as follows:
"The number of executions carried out by Sonderkommando 4a meanwhile increased to 55,432. Among those executed by Sonderkommando 4a in the second part of the month of October 1941 until the date of this report, in addition to a comparatively small number of political functionaries, active communists and people guilty of sabotage, etc.
, the larger part were again Jews, and a considerable part of these were again Jewish prisoners of war who had been handed over by the Wehrmacht. At Borispol, at the request of the Commander of the Borispol Prisoner of War Camp, a platoon of Sonderkommando 4a shot 752 Jewish prisoners of war on 14 October 1941 and 354 Jewish prisoners of war on 10 October 1941, amongst them some commissioners and 78 wounded Jews, handed over by the camp physician." the first paragraph of this page, your Honors: "Another platoon of Sonderkommando 4a was active at Lubny and, without any interference, executed 1365 Jews, Communists and partisans, among them 53 prisoners of war and a few Jewish riflewomen." I do expect these were Jewish women carrying weapons. It is obvious that the 55,432 executions were not carried out in a few days, but that is the number of total murders committed by Sonderkommando 4a.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Hochwald, it will be assumed by the Tribunal that once you introduce an exhibit, even though you only read a small portion of it the entire exhibit is in evidence.
DR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: Your Honor, I was only referring now to documents which are in evidence, and we always put the complete report in.
THE PRESIDENT: I only want to make this statement so that defense counsel may feel free to refer to the other parts of the exhibit. Naturally, you are only reading a fragment of the exhibit, but the entire exhibit is evidence and will be regarded as being in evidence.
DR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: That is correct; and we have always submitted a photostatic copy of the complete report.
(continuing) These executions were carried out with Rasch as commander of Einsatzgruppe C by Sonderkommando 4a, which was a Sub-unit of Einsatzgruppe C. your Honors -- page 25 of Document Book II-C, the same document from which I quoted, 28 of the German, paragraph 1 of this page:
"Sonderkommando 4b is stationed at Poltawa, according to a report dated 16 October 1941. Slaviasnk is to be the next location. The work of Sonderkommando 4b, influenced partly by weather and road conditions, was mainly limited to the town area of Poltawa. In the week from 4 October 1941 to 10 October 1941, a total number of 186 persons was executed, among them 21 political functionaries, 4 people guilty of sabotage and looting and 161 Jews. In addition, the task of the Sonderkommando included searches and pursuits of former leading Communist Party functionaries and members of the executory committee of the Poltawa district." 3, page. 19 of the original, your Honors, page 29 of the German, just under the heading:
"The number of people executed by Einsatzkommando 5 amounted to 15,110 on 20 October 1941. From this number, 20 political functionaries, 21 people guilty of sabotage and looting and 1,847 Jews were shot between 13 October 1941 and 19 October 1941. On 18 October 1941, 300 insane Jews of the Kiev lunatic asylum were liquidated, which represented a particularly heavy mental burden for the members of Einsatzkommando 5, who were in charge of this operation."