And then the new order came, "go to Slusk", or some other place, God knows where, and so I had to go away again with a few people, and I had to carry out reconnaisance right there wherever the pressure of the partisans was applied.
You can't even imagine what that was like. In a month we lost more than 30 people. That is more than what happened altogether on the front as far as losses are concerned. Well, I am just giving you these figures because I know them or maybe there are a few more. There were locomotives lost in while Ruthenia -- more than were built in the German factories, without one being able to defend oneself, etc., etc. That was the partisan situation, so we had to do everything to fight this situation and, of course, we just couldn't give them candy as German troops--these partisans, we had to fight them. There was no other way out. We had to fire all right. There was no other choice. More than that I couldn't tell you.
Q I thought you were G-" during those fights against the partisans
A Yes, I was Gottberg's G-2. Gottberg commanded the Einsatzgroup against partisans, and I was his G-2, and even though I was always reproached from Berlin, that is, that I was ambitious as a soldier, that I wanted to win decorations, ribbons, etc., but you couldn't do anything else. We had to guard the railroad tracks. We had to try to carry out reconnaisance and there was no other choice.
Q What special activity did you carry out as G-2? areas where the partisans probably were ensconced, and with my few men we went into this area and tried just like other armies do it, just as the police do it, or anybody else, we tried to determine where the enemy was sitting, and that is how I did it with my few little men, and as soon as "This is my report; that is where they are; the partisans were found there and when we arrived there I have to give him a report about what was going on, and I made that report to his officers and I reported to him and his officers, and he told me, "Go ahead, go ahead, advance; as soon as you establish contact, we will come after you and we will have a conference to discuss the situation", and then I left again. actions?
A Yes. I have already said that once a camp of about 300 Jews was found on the way during this operation and that they were killed.
Q Did you immediately participate in Jewish executions?
A No. I was only present once in Slusk. I looked at it, and I told the Brigadier General, "Listen, General, I have got to get away again, I have to proceed", and so I said "Goodbye" to him and went on, and that was the end of that, as far as I am concerned.
Q Who was in charge of the executions? Up to a division--an army division and the police didn't have so many troops. They took part to a smaller extent. described? from White Ruthenia as far as I know. That was the last large scale operation which I experienced. This was out East, it was an action by the Wehrmacht, in Lepel where we were suddenly surrounded and suddenly there were battle lines, and from there I left.
Q What time was that? these dates, perhaps the other fellows here knew when this Lepel action took place.
Q What do you know approximately when?
Q You mean'43?
Q And what activity did you carry out then? Fouerbach.
Q Herr Strauch, when did you become a member of the SS?
A Well, I have to repeat it once more so that you don't get it wrong again. On the first of August 1931 I became a member of the SA.
Then on the 1st of August '31 I became a member of the SS. Well, in '31 I became -- No, No--after the Roehm-coup I became a member of the SD, and then on the 1st of August 1931 I became a member of the Party. on the date. Before, you told us that they were all different dates.
A No, No. First of August '31, SA.
Q And when to the SS?
A On the 1st of August '31 I got into the Party.
Q On the same day?
A well, no, not the same day, '31, '32, '33. I entered '31 into the SA, '31 in the SA, and '33--'32 into the SA, '33 into the SS. Is it clear now.
Q No, no it isn't.
A 31 into the SA, 32 into the Party, and 33 into the SS. Well, that's the way it must be.
Q I think in 1932 you got into the SS, is that right?
A Well it could have been 31. I don't know. in the SD on a full time basis.
A Yes, that's right. I have repudiated that fact that I was there on a full time basis, because I was a Senior Government Counsellor. No, no - well, what do you call that thing.? Senior assessor, the Government Counsellor, Government Assessor, Senior Government Counsellor, that's all. basis and as an honorary member of the SD?
Q Then the entry in your personnel file is wrong?
A Yes, certainly, yes. I have already said that. That is wrong because it only showed Counsellor, Government Counsellor, Senior Government Counsellor, etc. But, in reality the Party was right because actually I was an SD man. But I never was it in a full time capacity. direct examination.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now take a recess.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Do any of the Defense Counsel desire to put any questions to the witness Strauch? Apparently not. Does the Prosecution intend to cross examine?
MR. GLANCY: If it please the Tribunal, the Prosecution has no questions. However, Sir, in lieu of cross examination we will submit documents in rebuttal.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Dr. Gick, if you have no further questions, we can now release the defendant.
DR. GICK: I have no further questions for the moment. I agree to having the defendant released.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. The defendant Eduard Strauch may now be taken back to his present lodging place. I don't know where it is-whether it is in the hospital or in the prison itself.
Who is now ready with further document books?
DR. LEMMERT (for Seibert): Your Honor, I have only the first document book of Seibert and its translation, while Document Book II and the supplement have not been translated yet. But I am of course prepared to submit the documents in the first document book at the present time.
MR. WALTON: The Prosecution also announces itself ready on Document Book I.
THE PRESIDENT: You will please proceed.
DR. LEMMERT: First of all, I want to submit a number of documents confirming the activity of Seibert in the Russian Campaign, in order to prove the fact that Seibert was merely the Departmental Chief of office 3 in the staff of Einsatzgruppe D, that he was not Ohlendorf's deputy, and that especially he carried out no executive tasks. For this purpose, I now submit Document Seibert 19, on page 27 of the document book, and I submit it as Exhibit No. 2. I would like to say here that Document No. I has already been submitted and introduced as Exhibit No. 1. This Document Seibert No. 19 is an affidavit of Dr. Ehlich. In paragraph 1 of this affidavit, the personality of Ehlich shown, especially that he had the necessary knowledge concerning Siebert's assignment in Russia. Furthermore, it becomes evident from paragraph I that Siebert did not volunteer for assignment in Einsatzgruppe D but that he was transferred to the Group Staff as a result of an order from office 3. From this paragraph I, it also becomes evident that Seibert was not assigned in this job as Ohlendorf's deputy. The statements under paragraph 1 prove that Seibert was not Ohlendorf's deputy in the group staff of Einsatzgruppe D. Chief 3, never had a deputy and that this manner of working was kept up even in Ohlendorf's absence as Chief of the Einsatzgruppe D in Russia. Furthermore, it becomes evident, from paragraph 2, that the signature "I.V." meaning "for", does not mean that Seibert was the deputy of Ohlendorf.
From the last paragraph Seibert's activity in the group staff becomes evident especially the kind of reports that Seibert issued as Department Chief 3.
The next document which I submit is Document Seibert No. 20. It is on page 29 of the document book. I offer it as Exhibit No. 3, Seibert No. 3, It is an affidavit by one Karl Hennicke. From paragraph I it becomes evident that Seibert was merely Department Chief 3 within the staff of the Einsatzgruppe.
Paragraph 1, furthermore, contains statements concerning the tasks and activities of Departmental Chief 3. kommandos, especially it says that the activity of Seibert with kommandos had nothing to do with any executive measures. volunteer for assignment in the east but that as Departmental Chief 3 he had been detailed to the Einsatzgruppe. Document Seibert No. 21. I offer it as Exhibit No. 4. This is an affidavit by one Kellner. This affidavit refers to Document NO-3035, Exhibit 28 of the Prosecution, which is contained in Volume I, 141 German and 108 English, the affidavit of Schubert, of the 24th of February 1947. This affidavit by Kellner is submitted in order to support the statements that Schubert and Seibert made, namely for the fact that it was not Seibert who gave the order for executions in Sinferopol in December 1941. And furthermore it becomes evident from this affidavit that Seibert was at the time on leave in Berlin. We can furthermore see from this affidavit Seibert's general behavior and attitude towards the Jews. Document Seibert 22, as Exhibit No. 5. This is an affidavit by one Kaston. In this affidavit, Schubert's and Seibert's and Kellner's statements are supported by this affidavit. It also shows that Seibert, in the end of 1941, was in Berlin. activities Seibert indulged in the S.D., in Department 3-D until May 1945. During Seibert's examination in the witness stand, I have already submitted Document No. 1 as Exhibit No. 1. I now offer Document Seibert No. 2, which is on page 1 of the document book, I submit it as Exhibit No. 6. It is an affidavit by one Borst. The affiant was a director and plant leader of the Sueddeutsche Zellwolle A.G. in the Kellheim.
He knows Seibert's activities from discussions with representatives of the economic agencies in Berlin, Borst gave expert advice and information to Seibert concerning questions of the textile industry. From the affidavit, the tasks and activities of Seibert become evident, when he was in Office No. 3, and it also shows that Office 3 was not a prime medium of the State or the Party in order to carry out any measures that might not be in agreement with the law, Seibert's task was to report about the actual economic situation and the effects of decrees and laws, objectively. For this purpose, I quote from this document the following passage, I could convince myself that Herr Seibert was not trying to propagate any Party political aims or doctrines, that he tried to describe objectively the factual position in the industry and economy, and effects of orders and regulations. In this I often had the opportunity to appreciate the critical openness of Seibert and his criticism of bad conditions and mis-developments concerning industry or the population." Document Seibert No. 3. I offer it as Exhibit No. 7. It is an affidavit of Dr. Beyer, also describing the manner of working of the economic group between 1941 and 1945 and concerning especially the tasks of Seibert within this group. Seibert No. 4, as Exhibit No. 8. It is an affidavit by one Riecke. Riecke was Under Secretary of State in the Reich Ministry of Food and Agriculture. He knows Seibert's activities in Office 3 from reports of Group 3-D which were submitted to the Reich Ministry of Food and Agriculture.
and especially the fact that these reports did not deal with any individual activities of individual people but with general questions of economy and that the purpose of these reports was, as there was no open pulic criticism, to ascertain the opinion of the population about decrees and incidents in the agricultural sphere and about supply objectively. The reporting service of Office III-D to the Reich Ministry of Food and Agriculture had been determined by a written agreement. Document Seibert No. 5 as Exhibit No. 9, affidavit by one Bommerich giving a cross-section, a cross-view of the activities of Office III-D economics. Bommerich was a departmental expert for questions of economy in various sectors of the SD.
From Paragraph 1 the tasks and activities of Office III-D become evident especially the fact that reports that were made out by Seibert had the purpose to determine the effects of various laws and decrees on the population. The manner of reporting is shown from the examples which are cited in this affidavit. These examples show that Seibert's acitivity in Office III was not by any means criminal and was certainly not crimes against humanity. Document Seibert No. 6 as Exhibit No. 10. It is an affidavit by one Kroeger, which informs us about the work of the financial Economy Department and shows the influence that Seibert had on this particular work. Kroeger was, from 1936 to 1940, the chief of the department Financial Economy in Group III-D. Later he was the chief of the SD sector in Bremen. The address given in the affidavit: Eselheide Internment Camps, is no longer correct.
released. The document is submitted in order to establish evidence concerning the work of Group III-D of which Seibert was in charge. It specified generally about the tasks the SD dealt with. I quote from this document the following passages: "The group III-D (Economy) received from the SD-sections and SD-main branch offices a steady flow of reports on the mood and attitude of the population, as well as on the situation in the different fields of economy Food supply, Commerce, Trade, Traffic, Banks, Stock Exchanges, Insurance Companies, Finance, Industry and Power Supply, Labor and Social Welfare." I go on quoting, "This task of finding out about the mood and the attitude of the population, as well as the position in the domestic sphere, the made reports, by questioning all parts of the population and all classes, with the intention that the chief agencies of state and party be informed impartially about the informations which had been received. All these matters had no relation to what has been called criminal actions in the Nurnberg Statutes." That is the end of my quotation. called Peterson and Schoenherr. First of all on Page 11, I offer Document Seibert No. 7, as Exhibit No. 11. This is an affidavit by one, Heinrich Peterson, giving an example of the activities of group economy end also his opinion of Seibert's personality. I wish to draw special attention to Paragraph 2 of this affidavit from which the activity of Seibert in Group III-D becomes evident. I quote: "In our work it wasn't a matter of individual cases of a personal nature, but problems of general interest in all spheres of economy." Seibert No. 3, I offer it as Exhibit No. 12, This is an affidavit by a former collaborator of Herr Seibert, Hans Schoenherr.
He was on assistant departmental chief under Seibert. This affidavit shows the task of Group III. Furthermore, generally the question of the SD Inland. I quote from this document the following passage: "The SD Inland had taken on the task to find out objectively about the effects of regulations or decrees of the leading agencies and to represent to interests of the foreign workers creatively and critically."
My next document is on Page 15 of the document book. It is Document Seibert No. 9. I offer it as Exhibit No. 13. This is an affidavit by Mrs. Monika Stackelbeck, giving information as to Seibert's manner of working in the group economy. Stackelbeck was a secretary of Herr Seibert. Therefore, she is in the position to make statements concerning the task of Group III-D, and also Seibert's own activity.
Now I submit on Page 17 Document Seibert No. 10 as Exhibit No. 14, then document Seibert No. 11 as Exhibit No. 15. I offer Document No. 12 as Exhibit No. 16, Document Seibert No. 13 as Exhibit 17, and Document Seibert No. 14 as Exhibit No. 18, in order to prove the activities and the tasks of the SD. These documents concern agreements as to the collaboration of the Reich Traffic Ministries with the S.D., the Reich Forest Master with the S.D. and agreement about the cooperation of the Reich Ministry for Armaments and War Production with the S.D., agreements about the cooperation of the Reich Ministry for Food and Agriculture with the S.D.. From these documents I only want to read one short quotation. It is from Document Seibert No. 10. I quote. "The Security Service of the Reichsfuehrer SS (SD), as Information Service of the Party end State, has the special task of informing the leading authorities of the Reich on the public reaction to officieal meausres."
From Document Seibert No. 11 I quote: "The Security Service of the Reichsfuehrer SS (SD), as intelligence organization for Party and State, has important tasks to fulfill. The Security Service thereby is also active on behalf of the State." the membership of Seibert to the SD in wartime was not voluntary but was the result of a legal decree. For this purpose I first submit the document Seibert No. 17 on Page 24 of the document book, as Exhibit No. 19. It is an affidavit of Klingemann.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Lehnert, do you know whether the order referred to in that affidavit -- Do you know whether the order reputedly issued by Heydrich and mentioned in this affidavit exists?
DR. LEHNERT: It probably exists.
THE PRESIDENT: Say in the next to the last paragraph.
DR. LEHNERT: I presume it is in the Legal Gazette of the Chief of the Security Police and the SD.
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed.
DR. LEHNERT: Klingemann, as from spring 1939 up to December 1939 had been the chief of Department I of the Reich Security Main Office. He confirms that Seibert in December 1939, owing to a legal decree, was released from the Wwhrmacht and took up his service in the SD again. From the affidavit it becomes furthermore evident that the repeated attempts on the part of Seibert to get a release in order to join the Wehrmacht were in vain.
Document Seibert No. 18 as Exhibit No. 20. This is an affidavit by one Bau, who has meanwhile been released from the camp. From 1937 to 1940 Bau was Seibert's collaborator. From the affidavit it becomes evident that Seibert, at the beginning of the war, was released from the Wehrmacht and ordered to rejoin the SD. now submit two more documents which are; the first on Page 22 of the document book, Document No. 15. It is a circular decree of the RSHA, dated the 23rd of May, 1940, concerning the special jurisdiction in criminal cases against members of the SS and police units on special duties. The other document is on Page 23 of the document book, Document No. 16. I offer it as Exhibit No. 26 - I am sorry, it is No. 22. This document also is a circular decree of the Chief of the Security Police and SD, dated 16 October 1941, concerning subordination of the members of the Security Police and the SD to the jurisdiction of the SS and the Police.
The following documents testifying about Seibert's character and his personal attitude and contain especially information concerning the attitude of Seibert towards those people who had different political opinions and Jews. I first offer a document which is on Page 33 of the document book and which is Document Seibert No. 23, and I offer it as Exhibit No. 23. Mrs. Bolte, isa Jewess, she makes statements concerning Seibert's unambiguous and decent attitude even during the time when he was a member of the SD, and then in this connection I offer on Page 34 Document No. 24 as Exhibit No. 24, an affidavit by one Klingemann. This second affidavit, the affidavit of Klingemann, in fact shows that Seibert helped a Jew called Czatoto escape to Switzerland. I attempted to get a direct statement of this man Czato, but when I was told his address in Switzerland he had emigrated to Brazil, and his address in Brazil I only heard about one or two days ago. As Herr Czato is now in a foreign country I now had to be content without an affidavit because on any statement of him would not have arrived in time.
The next document is on Page 35. It is Document Seibert No. 25, I offer it as Exhibit No. 25. It is an affidavit of a certain Paul Seidel who had been in contact with seibert in Berlin as from the year 1935. Seidel states that Seibert was never fanatic in political matters and he tells about Seibert's attitude toward the anti-Jewish pogroms in the year 1938. Seibert No. 26, and I offer it as Exhibit No. 26, the affidavit by one Berners, which gives a description of Seibert's character and attitude, Mr. Berners, who was never a member of the NSDAP or one of its affiliations, has known Seibert for a number of years, and therefore knows his attitude toward church, family, etc. I am very sorry that I have not received the translation of all the other document books.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Who next is ready, please?
MR. WALTON: I would like for the record to record some objections, please.
THE PRESIDENT Very well, Mr. Walton. Try to group your objections as much as possible, Mr. Walton.
MR. WALTON: My first one is to the first fourteen documents, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: That is the idea.
MR. WALTON: For purposes of the record, since prosecution did not have the exhibit numbers, we will refer in our objections to the document numbers only. The prosecution objects to the first fourteen documents which deal with the legal activities of the SD and the activities and SD engaged in regarding German citizens and German agencies of the government. The issues in this case do not concern the legal activities of the SD or any particular department of Amt III of the RSHA. This Tribunal concerns itslef solely with the missions and duties of the SD and the Security Police in Russia.
The I.M.T. decision of the criminality of the SD as an orgainzation rested on the evidence before it of this organization's illegal activities in Russian territory temporarily under the domination of German armed forces. It rests primarily on the activities of the SD as performed mainly by the four Einsatzgruppen. Doubtless thousands of worthwhile acts before and after this period of occupation were committed but none of these worthwile acts can atone or wipe out one brutal murder of a man because he was a Jew or because he might at some future time became a threat to security if he should live long enough. Therefore, these documents are totally irrlevant and immaterial. of the Chief of the Security Police and SD, they are incompetent as they refer to other decrees which are not included either in whole or in excerpt form. They are incompetent also in that they are indefinite. They do not show in what manner they are connected to the Einsatzgruppen or to the defendant, and, therefore, the prosecution objects. the prosecution has no objection, except to Document No. 19 in which it specifically objects to the fifthe paragraph in that thisis clearly hearsay and concerns allegations of fact not within the affiant's own knowledge. Furthermore, no sources of this hearsay evidence is shown. Hennicke shows on its face that he never was with Einsatzgruppe D or any other Ensatzgruppe. He was never in Russia and possesses no personal knowledge of what duties Seibert performed there.
THE PRESIDENT: Very Well.
DR. LEHNERT: Your Honor, I want to comment on the first statements made. Seibert is charged with membership in the SD generally and not only for his activity in the Einsatzgruppe. That is all I have to say. That is all I have to say to contradict.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. HOFFMANN: Dr. Hoffmann for the defendant, Nosske. If the Tribunal agrees, I would like it to rule that the witness, Paul Buckert, who is now in prison here and has been admitted by the Tribunal as a witness, that he could be called in the witness stand after the midday recess.
PRESIDENT: Can you estimate the period of time you will require for the direct examination of this witness?
DR. HOFFMANN: Half an hour, your Honor.
PRESIDENT: Mr. Walton.
MR. WALTON: I think that Dr. Hoffmann is right because the witness has been approved to testify only on one point and the prosecution will announce ready at the conclusion of the direct.
PRESIDENT: I think that is a good idea, Dr. Hoffmann. You have him here at 1:45.
DR. LEHNERT: Your Honor, I would like to comment briefly to the objections the prosecution raised, especially concerning Document Number 20 the affidavit of Hennicke. Hennicke was Chief of Department 3 in the Staff of Einsatzgruppe C. He, therefore, has knowledge of the activities of the chief of a Department 3.
PRESIDENT: Very well. Dr. Ulmer. Dr. Ulmer I don't know whether your colleagues acquainted you with the fact that yesterday we absolved you from all sin.
DR. ULMER: Yes, I was told about that.
PRESIDENT: I wish to confirm that wholeheartedly to you personally.
DR. ULMER: I have been informed about this and I would like to thank your Honor. Gentlemen of the Tribunal, unfortunately I am not in the position to deal with Document 11 now because unfortunately in the reproduction department one page has been ruined in the actual machine and, therefore, I have received Document III before Document Book II. II has been promised to me during the course of this afternoon.
and I do hope that I shall be able to obtain it this afternoon end then offer it here. Unfortunately this, of course, is again a technical incident which is not really my fault. I have to ask the Tribunal, as the exhibit numbers in these copies have already been inserted in the mimeographed copies of the Document Books, that a short note should be made concerning the exhibit numbers that they should be corrected to the numbers which are being given by me now, because Document Book III is being submitted before Document II and, therefore, the later documents would receive lower exhibit numbers than the earlier documents. Therefore, I should now like to submit my Document Number 52 as Exhibit Number 40, an affidavit of Dr. Horst Mahnke, representative and professor of the Berlin University. This belongs to the Series A, that is the set of documents on Advance Commando Moscow. This affidavit concerns the confirmation that Six, in the Waffen SS shortly after the outbreak of war with Russia, was ordered in Berlin, according to the example of former archives commandos of office 7, that he should set up similar organization for Moscow, that this archives commission, since the outbreak of war in 1939, was a special task of the Department Number VII, and this task was carried out in a number of capitals and in the special case of the Russian campaign, this archive commando should advance towards Moscow with the Division Reich, however, and should establish contact with the Chief of Einsatzgruppe B. This contact that was to be established between Six and the Einsatzgruppe Chief Nebe caused difficulties forcing Six to return to Berlin once more. Mahnke himself, who is the affiant in this case, joined the VKM, the Vorkommando Moscow about the middle of July. He certified that this was independent from the Einsatzgruppe, although according to an order of the departmental chief, Streckenbach it was to resort to personnel of Einsatzgruppe B. Mahnke certifies the following dates, that the VKM marched out to join the Fourth Army Headquarters at Tolotschino in the middle of July 1941. There final conferences took took place between Six and the G-2 officer, Helmdach.
From Smolensk the connection with the Division Reich was established in order to settle the details of the advance. He verifies the fact that the advance of the staff of the Einsatzgruppe B on the 5th of August 1941 to Smolensk did not alter the tasks of the VKM, as Six aimed at a strict separation of group staff from VKM. He furthermore verifies that the suggestion of an interim task of the VKM after the direction of advance of the devision Reich had been changed would be brought about, but that was rejected by Six, and for that reason Six asked for his recall to Berlin. Smolensk on the 20th of August 1941. Mahnke confirms that Six never issued executive orders nor were such orders carried out by the commando VKM. same affiant, Mahnke, however, here it refers to the set of questions that I deal with here, (b), (c) and (d). Here it is confirmed that he was a student of Six's at the Koenigsberg University. Later on he was active as assistant and lecturer at Berlin University, and he was an honorary member of Office VII. As such, he confirms that strained relations existed between Six and Heydrich in consequence of which Six volunteered for the Waff en SS. He confirms that these bad relations grew worse after the Russian campaign. Mahnke testifies that Six concentrated from the beginning of the war on work in the Faculty of International Relations end that he used Heydrich's death to repeat his request for discharge from the SD. The opportunity was given by Six' function in the Foreign Office where Six became director of the cultural political department. Mahnke further testifies that Six' activity in the Foreign Office was opposed to the ideas of the party Chancellery and other party offices, so that in 1944 the party demanded the dissolution of his department and Six' induction into the Wehrmacht.
Document Number 54, which is an affidavit of a former interpreter of the VKM drafted under Emergency Service Decree, Adam von Engelhardt, of the 5th of December 1947. He confirms the archive task of the Vorkommando Moscow, that the strength of the VKM was between 20 and 25 men, the garrison of the VKM was in Tolotshino, and that they advanced to Smolensk while fighting was still going on. It is further confirmed that the VKM had neither orders to carry out shootings nor did it carry out any. The discharge from VKM in July 1941 on account of illness of the affiant is being confirmed in this affidavit and simultaneously a report to Nebe, on his return from the VKM about his stay in Tolotshino. an affidavit of Gunter D'Alquen, commander of the SS war reporting unit. It is of 13 December 1947: The meeting of Six, the VKM in Smolensk in August 1941 is confirmed here. It confirms furthermore the assignment of VKM to enter Moscow with the advance units in order to safeguard archives. It is shown that no activity of the VKM in Smolensk was carried out in Six' pesence as done by the Einsatzgruppen.