German text. Page 25 of the original.
MR. HORLICK -HOCHWALD: Page 93 of Document Book I, your Honor.
A. (Continuing) It is a situation report, No. 60, of 22 august 1941. Here it says on Page 2 of the document at the bottom, "After the commander of the locality had been relieved and a new commander had not yet been appointed, the Jewish population used the opportunity to terrorize the Ukrainians and to spread the rumor that the Russians would now return in order to take revenge on the Ukrainians with murder during the night. In a neighboring village, according to an inhabitant ---" Now, please note the wording, "by Jews and Communists".
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, please. The difficulty in our locating whatever quotation is being read is that the witness states Page 2, after we once get the document, and he apparently is referring to Page 2 as it is listed in the document book, but I think it would be more specific if he referred to the page of the original. Now this document --
THE WITNESS: Page 26 of the original -
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. I think it would be much better if he did that because we have the pages listed in our book in accordance with the original. First we have here "Page 25 of the original, page 26 of the original, Page 27 of the original," and if you merely make that reference then we can immediately locate what he is going to read from, and then he might also indicate what paragraph of that page. Now, he is referring to Page 26, is that correct?
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: This is Page 94.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, Page 26 of the original. Which paragraph?
THE WITNESS: Of the original, the top of the page.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
A. (Continuing) "After the former local commander had been relieved and before a new one was appointed, the Jewish population at once turned this occasion to advantage by terrorizing the Ukrainians and by spreading the rumor that the Russians would come back to take a bloody revenge.
According to the reports of an inhabitant, Jews and Communists killed 25 Ukrainians altogether in a neighboring village." Please note Jews and Communists. "The Jews tried to block the approach to Chmielnik--" Please may I add how wrong the terms of this report are in its whole tendency? While in the previous sentence Jews and Communists were mentioned, suddenly Einsatzgruppe only reports about Jews now. I continue to quote. " --by stretching a rope across the road, thus making a trap for motor cars. The commanding officer of a construction company and a fully loaded personnel carrier could evade the trap only at the very last minute." previously, to fight the Jewish excesses extensive actions were taken. The localities concerned are surrounded and prominent Communist Jews are taken. The Ghetto, or rather the houses of the Jews are combed out systematically. Together with the local kommando and the militia lists of the known Communists still existing, there are made, and they were searched. In Chmielnik 100 Jews and Communists have been found.
THE PRESIDENT: It would seem here that we are straining at nets. You indicated that in one sentence the phrase "Jews and Communists" was used, that phrase. Then you say that this must be an error because in the following sentence they only say Jews tried to block the road with a rope, but in the next paragraph we come back again to the phrase "Jews and Communists".
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I want to explain the following, the manner in which the reports were nude. They were not made by my my kommando, but I merely wanted to point out, I wanted to show how the person in the Einsatzgruppe making the report deviates from the facts.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't see where there is much of a difference if in one place a man says, "Jews and Communists," end in the next sentence he only mentions Jews, end then later on he says, "Jews and Communists". Wherein do you find such a difference?
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, this situation report, which actually was made four weeks later than the document we discussed first, itstates, "During the cleaning action carried out in Chmielnik 229 Jews could be dealt with." That is the document I started off from, and I merely compared them to show that there were not only Jews, but that the other document proves wit out doubt that there were bands of Communists among them. Doubtlessly there were also Jews, That was the reason why I compared this document with the other one.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I don't intend, of course, to argue with you on this and you are certainly entitled to your interpretation of the two documents, but I must confess that I don't see this great difference which you seem to draw from a comparison of the documents. In the former document the statement is made that 229 Jews were taken care of. In the other document a reference is made to Jews and Jewish Communists. That still does not eliminate the possibility that 229 Jews were killed, merely because in the succeeding document to which you referred there is the additional phrase used of "Jewish Communists". That does not destroy the original reference to 229 Jews.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: It does not say in the document "Jewish Communists" but only "Communists".
THE PRESIDENT: My document says "Jewish Communists", Jews and Jewish Communists.
THE WITNESS: Everything is mixed up in the reports of the Einsatzgruppe. That is what I wanted to point out.
THE PRESIDENT: But I don't see this mix-up. They say very flatly, definitively, clearly and specifically that 229 Jews were taken care of, and when they say "taken care of " we know that they don't mean to lodge them and put them up at a hotel.
It means that they were executed.
THE WITNESS: Of course, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: That is very specific. Inthis other document the reference is made to the activities of the Jews and and the Communists. This is a little more specific, a little more in detail, a littlemore graphic. It tells the story about the stretching, of the rope across the road, it tells about their various activities, and that is the reason they were executed.
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, it will be best if I tell you how it happened as far as I remember, according to my recollection. May I start. One day the local commander of Chmielnik came to me who had been, appointed as new local commander. His rank was captain, with him was an officer of the Army Group South, These two described to me very excitedly the events in Chmielnik and the murder of twenty-five Ukrainians. The reason was because they had worked together with the German Army agencies, according to the request of the officer of the Army Group South I asked the Toil command leader -- Sorry, I made a mistake, I gave the local commander a. Toil command. The events in Chmielnik were investigated very carefully and the following impression was given:
Court No, II-A, Case No. IX.
still heavily armed, were hidden in the woods. With the assistance of many inhabitants of villages they actually terrorized, the area, and the biggest event of these was when twenty-five Ukrainians were murdered. A Russian officer made out requisition papers. With the assistance of local inhabitants he got food and cattle. The skins of the cattle were given to the local commanders during the night, as settlement, as payment, and were taken near his house. These settlement bills gave both the unit and name of the Russian officer. letters. He actually did not feel safe any longer with his few soldiers. Several other things occurred. I cannot remember the details any more. For example, the car trap. One trio investigations took four to five days. As far as I remember a Wehrmacht unit was also appointed to search the woods, and the troops hiding in the woods went south. At the order of the Army, the Wehrmacht, that is at the order of the local commander, those who participated in the terrorizing, were shot. The command was in the hands of the local commander. As far as I remember at the time about ninety persons were shot.
THE PRESIDENT: Were these Russians, ninety Russians were shot?
THE WITNESS; Russian inhabitants of the City of Chmielnik. Not only Jews, but, say three Communists, members of the terror group, among them a number of Jews, were executed.
THE PRESIDENT: But your narrative tells us of the terrorization by Russian soldiers who were hidden in the woods.
THE WITNESS: These Russian soldiers in the woods used, the local inhabitants in the City of Chmielnik, for example, to get food, to get cattle and other things.
The local inhabitants helped them, and these local inhabitants helped, these troops who were still hiding in the wood, and they got the things for them which they needed. These inhabitants also carried out terrorizing. Their own population was threatened. It was said that the Russians would return, and twenty-five Ukrainians were murdered of whom it had been said that they had collaborated with the Germans. Of course. I cannot remember everything. I can only tell you what I remember.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
THE WITNESS: I believe that about ninety persons, including a number of Jews, were shot. The measure was not taken because they were Jews but because they had acted as terrorists, and also had arms which they were not allowed to have. I remember this case in detail because after a few days the local commander and the mayor and an officer of the Army came to me, and thanked me for the assistance. The local commander thanked me in particular, because through these events he had been able to strengthen his forces, he got reinforcements. If I mention a service of thanksgiving, a religious service, this is not meant to be in bad taste, out if it was mentioned at the time it was only meant to emphasize the fact that the population actually felt that they had been relieved of terror. since this figure is incorrect, of course the other figures will also not be right.
THE PRESIDENT: While you are on this question of figures, do I understand now that you approve of both these reports but differ from them only in the matter of the figures?
THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor. The executions were carried out. As far as I remember there were nineth persons in Chmielnik but never 229.
THE PRESIDENT: You claim, then, that 229 is excessive?
THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: What about the following paragraph where it says that your kommando took care of 506 Bolshevists and Jews in the course of fourteen days. Do you claim that figure also in incorrect?
THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor. I just indicated this, Since this figure 229 is incorrect, doubtlessly the other figure will also be wrong. How this figure, 506, was made up, I can't imagine at all.
THE PRESIDENT: Again I say I am not attempting to argue with you, out I am wondering how the report can be so correct in everything else, out yet be wrong only in the matter of the figures?
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I can only explain this because the Einsatzgruppe did not think that the report by the Einsatzkommando was not high enough and on their own authority they reported higher figures. I think I can presume that almost for certain because men of the Einsatzgruppe once told me about this, that Hoffmann sent false reports to Berlin, but perhaps there is a possibility that during Dr. Rasch's investigation, more details can De found out about this.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: Your Honor, may I explain something briefly to you which I think still is not clarified? This concerns an execution of about ninety persons executed by the Wehrmacht. Einsatzkommando 5, that is the witness, had nothing to do with this execution, only based on the reports here he wants to prove that the reports made by Stahsleiter Hoffmann at the time are not correct.
The defendant had nothing at all to do with these executions.
THE PRESIDENT: The form and substance then of the witness's explanation is that generally the reports are true as to what. transpired there, but insofar as he is concerned only ninety people were executed, and these ninety represented individuals who had been proved guilty of sabotage and acts of violence, Is that what we take from his testimony?
DR. DURCHHOLZ: Yes. BY DR. DURCHHOLZ:
Q. You wanted to talk about the insane persons yet, didn't you?
A. Concerning the Insane persons mentioned before, I remember that actually on one occasion I believe two persons were taken who had orders to carry out sabotage, and who were insane. A generalization of this, however, as the group report shows again, according to which the NKVD preferred to use such persons to carry out sabotage, certainly the person making the reports invented this. In the reports of Einsatzgruppe 5, this has certainly never been mentioned.
Q. I now ask you to look at Document Book II-A.
THE PRESIDENT: Suppose we take our morning recess now. The Tribunal will be in recess for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. DURCHHOLD: (Attorney for the Defendant Schulz) Your Honor, in reference to the incidents described by the witness in Chmelnik and in Berdischew, there seem to be a few unclarities. Therefore, may I briefly summarize what the witness wanted to say with his testimony. September, 1941, according to the report 229 Jews were executed in Chmelnik.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If your Honors please, the explanations of defense counsel are entirely immaterial at this time. I do think at the time of the closing argument or in the closing brief, such an explanation may be made, but not just now. The. Tribunal has asked the witness what he wanted to express. He also explained to the Tribunal and the Tribunal has summarized the statements of the witness and the witness has said, "Of course, very well, that is what I was thinking," I do think a further explanation on the part of the defense counsel can be only entirely argumentative.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be unnecessary, Dr. Durchhold, to relate again what the witness said or even to summarize the evidence. If there is any specific item that you desire to direct the Tribunal's attention to, because of any misunderstanding or because of any error, we will entertain whatever you have to say on that subject.
DR. DURCHHOLD: I don't want to argue, Your Honor, about what the defendant has said. I merely wanted to correct an unclarity.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If there is something incorrect, defense counsel can make a correction by asking questions, but not by explaining himself.
THE PRESIDENT: I think that might be better. Just call the witness' attention to the particular item, and, if there is an error, he has an opportunity to correct it.
DR. DURCHHOLD: Yes, I shall ask the witness questions.
BY DR. DURCHHOLD:
Q Witness, were 229 Jews executed in Chmelnik? were some Jews.
Q Were you in Chmelnik at that time?
Q When did you hear about these executions in Chmelnik? incidents, after the executions had been carried out by the Commandant of Shmelnik.
Q Did you give this order for the executions in Chmelnik? Chmelnik.
DR. DURCHHOLD: I think this clarifies the matter.
THE PRESIDENT: When you say, "Village Commandant" you refer to the commandant of what, of what organization?
THE WITNESS: Of the German Army, Your Honor.
Q Now I refer to Document Book II-A. This is Prosecution Exhibit No. 46, page 9 of the original document, Document NO-3149, Operational Report 88, of the 19th of September, 1941. I quote on page 9 of the original, first paragraph, "Between 24 August and 30 august 1941, Einsatzkommando 5 carried through 157 executions by shooting comprising Jews, officials, and saboteurs." Witness, what is your comment on this? because during the time of this report I was in Berlin, but I would like to point out that it can be seen from the text that these are not expressly Jewish actions. In the number given, certainly, executions done by other units are also included. Maybe the erroneous reports are responsible for these figures, about which I spoke yesterday, but are responsible for these figures, about which I spoke yesterday, but I would like to draw the Tribunal's attention to the fact that in this same document in the following sentence it is pointed out that a Kommando of the Higher SS and Police Leaders executed 1,303 Jews, among them 875 Jewesses of over 12 years of age.
These incidents took place in Berditschew, but at a time when I had left Berditschew. but it is not only probable but certain that the activities of these Kommandos are also listed in the reports of the detachments of my Kommando. I personally was in Berlin during this time, and I was not carried in the reports of my group. Therefore, for this time and for the following period, I cannot take the full responsibility. I take the responsibility for the fact that my limited order was kept up to the fullest extent, even though at the beginning of August, that is, 2 weeks before this period which is mentioned here, I was given the order in Shitomir to execute all Jews who were not able to work, including women and children.
At this opportunity, I would also like to add that during my month's stay, from the 23rd of July until the 24th of August in Berditschew, 12,000 Jews were living in Berditschew. During this entire month, as far as I remember, the exception of this one single execution at the citadel, no executions took place, even though during my stay in Berditschew after the 24th of August t e order was already valid to execute all Jews not able to work. At the time about 3,000 Jews, in order to be able to preserve them as workers, were employed in the airport in Berditschef. BY THE PRESIDENT: out, what do you mean by your "limited order"? phases of the order are to be considered; since I was not in Pretsch at the time the Fuehrer order given there by Streckenbach was unknown to me.
Q I don't want the whole history; just what was your "limited order"?
A Dr. Rasch gave the order, according to which functionaries, saboteurs, that is, functionaries, altogether, agents, and so forth, were to be executed. I limited this order, insofar as I told my detachment commanders in every case that guilt would have to be proved.
Q Yes. Now you say that this was carried out, that your limited order was respected even in your absence?
Q This sentence which you read from the report states, "Between 24 August and 30 August, 1941, Einsatzkommando 5 carried through 157 executions by shooting, comprising Jews, officials and saboteurs." your limited and qualified order.
A Your Honor, I can't say whether this report is correct, because during this time I was in Berlin and I did not see the reports. I merely wanted to point out that from the number alone, it seemed to me to be correct, because it is my conviction that the order which was issued at the beginning of August, according to which all Jews not fit to work were to be shot, was not carried out. the ones who were executed, would it not be reasonable to suppose that Jews were executed only because they were Jews, because, since you also listed officials and saboteurs, if the Jews had been killed, because they were saboteurs, then they would come within that classification and not merely because they were Jews.
A Your Honor, that is the way it was. I pointed out that the Jews were not merely shot because they were Jews, but only if they were actually active as functionaries, saboteurs, agents, and so forth. You can see this from my report or from the reports of my detachment commanders it can also be seen. That is why I said at the beginning that the Einsatzgruppe made up their own reports, but beyond that Berlin also changed the orders and they did not reporduce those facts which my detachment commanders reported. A report which was made out by my detachment commanders looked about as follows: "So-and-so many saboteurs or functionaries or looters were executed," and then perhaps they mentioned among these there were so-and-so many Jews. That about is the way the reports read which came from my detachment commanders. what is said in here has nothing to do with my own reports. the report, does not exclude the interpretation that under "Jews" you could have had also women and children, because you have in two other categories, officials and saboteurs? but I believe I can depend on the reliability of my commander who never reported to me about an execution of women and children.
Q Well, now, let me ask you just one question very specifically: Do you accept this statement in the report as is? Jews there could be included women and children? it can of course, be assumed that that was the case.
Q That it could have included women and children? Let me out it this way: This statement as it now reads could be interpreted that some people were killed only because they were Jews and within the group of Jews there could have been women and children, but you now tell us that this is incorrect and that as a matter of fact no women and children were killed.
Is that what we want to draw from what you have said? says that 875 Jewish women were killed and they became women Jewesses only because they were beyond the age of 12, so that, therefore, that could have included also young girls. Now do you refute that part of the report also?
A No, Your Honor. I just said that here the Kommandos of the Higher SS and Police Leaders actually executed women and children as Jews. Because of this I wanted to point out that this took place despite the existence of my order, despite of this order. These did not take place in my Kommando, because I went to Berlin to object to this order to shoot women and children. I wanted to prevent this, but on the part of the Higher SS and Police Leaders it did take place.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand your explanation. BY DR. DURCHHOLD (Attorney for the Defendant Schulz) order to shoot women and children? which women and children were executed by any detachment of Einsatzkommando 5? Jewesses under 12 years of age? Kommando did not cooperate.
Q Now I come to Document Book II-C; this is the Document NO-3146, Operational Report 94 of the 25th of September, 1941, Prosecution Exhibit 81, page 15 of the original document. I quote the second paragraph, second sentence:
"Einsatzkommando 5, for the period between 31 August and 6 September 1941, reports the liquidation of 90 political officials and 290 Jews;"
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWADL: Your Honor, that's on page 64 of the English Document Book, last paragraph.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I have located it. Thank you.
Q Witness, please comment on this: one, during this period I was in Berlin. Here I would like to point out that the activity of the Higher SS and Police Leaders is mentioned particularly. It says there that his units in the Month of August executed 44,125 persons, mostly Jews. I point out the activities of these units again and again, because I am convinced of the fact that the Einsatzkommandos of Einsatzgruppe C were charged with the figures of these units for a great part. made report of its own all about executions or that the Einsatzgruppe C in whose area Jakeln worked included their figures in its own reports? gruppe C can be shown that they are mentioned along in the report, but I would like to point this out. I may seem tasteless if I express myself in this way, but with the everlasting pressure to report figures, it is completely possible that the detachment leaders in order to spare their men and make life easier for themselves reported some executions which were carried out by others as their own. I would like to say that I myself looked for a way out and I gave my detachment commanders a way out to be able to give erroneous reports, misleading reports, for instance, to have them report that in a certain locality so many Jews lived formerly abd now only so many are listed, and the fact that some of them fled should not be mentioned, but just left open in order to make it seem to the Group Staff that an Einsatzkommando actually killed those people.
perhpas it is to be criticized, but it is a way out of a desparate situation and it is too entirely possible that Herr Hoffmann whom I knew personally was so ambitious for figures and thus satisfied his desire from these reports and even exaggerated them and that he added zeros and therefore reported completely distorted facts and that he used such means to gain attention when I was in Shitomir already.
Q Now please look at Document Book II-A. This is in reference to Operational Report 1-11 of the 12th of October, 1941, Prosecution Exhibit No. 38, Document NO-3155 on page 4 of the original document, second paragraph. I quote: Einsatzkommando 5 in the time of the 7th of September until the 5th of October executed 207 political functionaries, 112 saboteurs and looters, as well as 8,800 Jews." Witness, please comment on this.
A. Quite apart from the fact that this report covered a period of 15 days, which was after I left the command, the story I told you shows that I did not give such an order. I can say the same thing with certainty about my detachment who, around the 25th or 26th of September 1941, were ordered back to Berlin and were already in Berlin at the latest by the 1st of October 1941. This is doubtless an action which took place after I was relieved. I would like also to point out that after I returned from Berlin, which was about the 15th of September, and where I expected my already designated successor in Skwira, I no longer received any more reports and I did not see any more reports. The detachment leaders who during my Week's stay in Skwira were with me in conference., did not tell me of any type of action, with the exception of the fact that in the entire area the units of the Higher So and Police Leaders were especially active there. With this I do not want to say that the Einsatzkommando did net carry out any executions when I was in Skwira; they certainly did take place wherever it was necessary. But the prosecution seems to have documents according to which these executions took place in Berditschew, or near Berdischew, for it says in the indictment, on page 13, by using the same figures and dates, under "S", I quote: "During the time of the 7th of September 1941 to the 5th of October 1941, Einsatzkommando 5 in the surroundings of Berditschew murdered 8,800 Jews and 207 political functionaries." In this document the mention of this locality is missing. As I said, my Einsatzkommando left Berditschew on the 26th of August. My small Commando staff was used in a school in Skwira. Skwira is about 90 kilometers east of Berditschew. The three other detachments were moved to places which were even further east, about 80 to 100 kilometers east of Skwira, that is, 150 kilometers away from Berditschew.
As long as I was in Skwira - and that takes in the' period of 15 September to 24 September - no detachment of Einsatzkommando 5 left its garrison in a westerly direction, perhaps these things are connected with the advance in Kiev - I cannot say that - for Einsatzkommando 5 went to Kiev after leaving Skwira. This can be gathered in Document Book 1, Exhibit No. 30, Document No-3140, page 150 of the German tent, page 9 of the original. There it says:
"A Vorkommando "(that is, an advance detachment) "of the Sonderkommando 4a left by Obersturmfuehrers Haefner and Janssen, 50 men strong, arrived on 19 September 1941 with the fighting troop in Kiev. The advance detachment of the Gruppe arrived there on the 12st of September, while the Gruppe staff followed on the 25th of September." they are important for me when I was recalled from Skwira.
THE PRESIDENT: Do we understand, witness, that you are telling us that the statement in the report contained in Document NO-3155 regarding the activities of Einsatzkommand 5 is in error, and that instead of Einsatzkommand 5 it was Sonderkomnando 4a, is that what we are to gather from you now?
THE WITNESS: No, your Honor, I didn't want to say that. I merely pointed out that Einsatzkommando 5 was not even in Berditschew, but was about 100 to 150 kiloments away from Berditschew, and the document which I just mentioned shows that Einsatzkommando 5 soon afterwards arrived in Kiev. I don't know whether Einsatzkommando 5, after I was recalled, was committed in Berditschew. As long as I was in Skwira during this week which I mentioned, Einsatzkommando 5 was not in Berditschew.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: I believe the witness made a mistake. He meant Kiev. Not Berditschew.
WITNESS: Yes, Berditschew. According to the indictment these 8,800 Jews were killed in the vicinity of Berditschew.
THE PRESIDENT: But wherein do you draw this explaination about Einsatzkommando 5 from Document No-3140? Did you understand my question?
WITNESS: I have the document NO-3140 in front of me.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, well, you read from that document from what you read you now tell us that perhaps Einsatzkommando 5 was in the area of Kiev. How do you draw that conclusion from this document.
WITNESS: On page 16 of the original of this document it says,--
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, very well; I have found that. And that explains what you Were telling us. Why, then, did you read about Sonderkommando 4a? What did that have to do with the story? That Sonderkommando was in Kiev.
WITNESS: I merely read the text, your Honor, in order to show that first of all the Gruppe staff was in Kiev, and secondly, Einsatzkommando 5 was together with the Gruppe. I didn't want to say anything about Commando 4a. I merely wanted to mention a sentence which began with that.
THE PRESIDENT: It seems to me that if you had merely called our attention to page 16 of the original you would have achieved all that because paragraph 2 on page 16 maked Sonderkommando 4a and Einsatzkommando 5 stationed in Kiev, isn't that correct?
WITNESS: Yes, your Honor. That is correct.
THE PRESIDENT: That is just a little excursion then, when you read about 4a in the first paragraph of page 9.
WITNESS: I don't understand your question, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: WELL, it isn't important. I was only calling attention to the fact that you read a statement which in no way bore out your contention that Einsatzkommando 5 was in Kiev - whereas if you had read from page 16 that would have explained it to us at once, and what we went through seems wasted motion, that's all.
WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Proceed. BY DR. DURCHHOLZ:
Q. Now I am coming to Document Book II-C, Exhibit 75, Document NO-3404-A, Operational Report 119, of the 20th of October 1941. This Operational Report mentions Einsatzkommando 5, and says that in Uman and in other cities this Commando was active.
Witness, what do you have to say about this?
A. Here I can only say the same as I said about the preceding document. I received no reports about these actions from my detachments since the report mentioned here reports about a period of time when I was already in Berlin. About the incidents in Uman I can say nothing. They are completely unknown to me. No one discussed incidents in Uman with me. The city of Uman itself did not belong to my area at all. Therefore, I consider it probable in this case, too, that the command of the Higher SS and Police Leader was active there. How Uman got into the reports of Einsatzkommando 5 I cannot say at all. I personally was never questioned, nor have I ever given an order to go to Unman. Uman itself is several hundred kilometers away from Skwira. Einsatzkommando was divided into three detachments -- the detachment which was closest to it, namely, in Swenigorodka, was also 100 kilometers away from Uman; and I again hope this is not considered COURT II-A CASE IX in bad taste - but I consider it technically impossible that such a small detachment which consisted of about 30 people could, on one single day, execute 1,400 Jews.