Q. Wherefrom do you know that those estimations were exaggerated?
A. Well because Hoffman already admitted that this figure was entirely wrong and that it was much too high, he should have know it from his discussions with the Higher SS and Police Leader and from the town commandant.
Q. The army authorities obviously were of a different opinion, I would like to introduce at this point document NOKW 2129, as Prosecution Exhibit 179, Your Honors. I am sorry I haven't got the English copy. I should have it.
THE PRESIDENT: This is the English.
MR. HOCHWALD: I know, but I don't have that copy.
THE PRESIDENT: You, yourself don't have one.
MR. HOCHWALD: Just the German. BY MR. HOCHWALD:
Q. This document is a number of copies which were handed over for the war diary. We have translated only a few short excerpts out of the Enclosure No. 2 of this document, and this document reads on page 9 Of the original, which is page 2 of Enclosure No. 2: about "Subject: Visit to the Field Command 195 Kiev."
"The total population is estimated at about half the normal number, for instance about 400,000. The Jews of the city were ordered to present themselves at a certain place and time for the purpose of numerical registration, and housing in a camp. About 34,000 reported, including women and children, After they had been made to give up their clothing and valuables, all were killed; this took several days."
Do you think that this estimate is correct, Mr. Blobel?
A. Only from what I heard, I can only keep to what I have said already, that is an estimate.
Q. It it patently clear from this report as it is from all other reports which speak about the killing in Kiev, that women and children were killed in this execution. It it not Mr. Blobel?
A. Whether women and children were executed here too, is that correctly, what I understand, that is what was said then, yes.
Q. You testified here that retaliatory measures against Jews were necessary, and, therefore, in full agreement with the laws of war: would you be of the same opinion now as it is established that 34,000 were killed?
A. Such a measure, I consider now as ever to be incorrect and I could never testify to it as being correct.
Q. Did you find yourself bound by your orders to participate in executions of this kind?
A. May I ask to have that again, please?
Q. Did you find yourself bound by the orders you had received to participate in actions of this kind?
A. Yes, bound one was.
Q. You did feel yourself bound, is that right?
A. Yes, one felt bound to this order, yes.
Q. You testified here repeatedly that all reprisals were certainly justified, is that also correct in cases where at least one-third of the victims were woman and children?
A. I did not make any such statement on that or say it was justified if one-third of the victims were women or children. I did not state anything concerning this. I merely said it was wrong and incorrect to include women and children.
Q. The question is: Do you consider such an execution justified when approximately one-third of the victims are women and children, defenseless women, defenseless children? Will you answer this question, please?
A. No, I don't consider that to be correct. I have expressed that very clearly yesterday.
Q. Do you consider such killings murder?
A. Murder - in any case it was quite an incorrect order, and these are victims who would suffer in the course of war events whether it could be legally described as murder, that is a different question.
Q. What do you think - I do not ask the legal people, the legal people do know what it is to kill 33,000 people, but I asked your opinion:
Do you consider these killings in Kiev, as they appear in the reports here and in the report which Was just handed to you. Do you consider these killings to be murder?
A. Well, if one describes the killings of these people as murder or homicide so still it is a unique phenomena in the course of these war events.
Q. But Mr. Blobel, I asked you whether you consider the killing of these 33,000 people to be murder, which is a question which you can answer with a "yes" or a "no". Do you consider it murder or not?
A. No, the expression "murder" can not be applied here because there were reprisal measures which came in answer to terroristic actions.
Q. Do you consider these reprisals justified if one third of the victims are women and children?
A. This reprisal being extended to women and children I do not consider to be right.
Q. So, do you consider then the killing of women and children as it happened in Kiev to be murder?
A. It is a reprisal measure, which extends also to those women and children, and the person who ordered this had to see clear whether he could be hold responsible for murder for this or whether this was permitted as a reprisal measure and whether it was in accordance with International Law.
Q. This was not the content of my question. I asked you whether you considered the killing of defenseless women and children in an act of reprisal to be murder, yes or no, what do you consider it?
DR. HEIM: For the Defendant Blobel: Prosecution, the witness in his cross examination is only at the disposal of the Prosecution on facts which he has seen and heard about and he can only now testify on this subject. The opinion of the wit ness about any facts as maintained by the Prosecution are irrelevant and in my opinion should not be used in cross examination.
MR. HOCHWALD: Dr. Heim has interrogated the witness Blobel here for two days and during these two days the witness Blobel has a hundred times at least declared that the killings as carried out by Sonderkommando 4a and it's subcommandos were entirely justifiable in accordance with the laws of war and the laws of humanity. I should be at liberty to ask him now whether this statement which he certainly made of his own free will is also valid for the killing of women and children, that women and children were killed, is contended by the Prosecution and proved in it's case in chief.
THE PRESIDENT: There is one objection which has not been raised and which the Tribunal raises and sustains of it's awn accord, and that is the pounding with the pencil by the Prosecution on the podium which sounds like a sledge hammer in our ears.
MR. HOCHWALD: I am sorry.
THE PRESIDENT: So that objection is sustained on the part of the Tribunal. with regard to the Prosecution's question put to the defendant it is relevant but it seems as if the witness has given his answer and I don't know how a repetition can give us any more light than has already been shed on that particular inquiry.
MR HOCHWALD: I am sorry, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. BY MR. HOCHWALD
Q. In connection with the killings in Kiev you testified that you do not know whether members of Sonderkommando 4a participated in this execution, is that correct?
A. I did not say that. I merely explained that the SK 4a through an order for the group sent people to take part in the action which had been ordered by the Higher SS and Police Leader, and that the SK 4a then in fact appointed 15 people.
Q. So you know that members of Sonderkommando 4a participated in these killings?
A. I know that, yes.
Q. But you are also sure that neither you nor one of your officers participated in these killings, is that correct?
A. That is also correct, yes.
Q. Do you know Sturmbannfuehrer Albert Hartl?
A. Hartl?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes, I know this Hartl as a church expert in the RSHA, in the Reich Main Security office.
Q. Did you meet him once in the East?
A. I believe he visited troop "C" on one occasion and traveled through the territory during the winter once.
Q. When were you acquainted with him in Kiev?
A. I couldn't say that.
Q. Approximately in the spring of 1942?
A. No, I remember having see this man Hartl when I went to Kiev later to visit Dr. Thomas in the office of the Commander of the Security Police, I saw this man Hartl there. Yes, he must have been there.
Q. But you did see him then, it was when you met him at Dr. Thomas' it was in Kiev, was it not?
A. At Dr. Thomas's in Kiev, in his office building.
Q. Did you show him then, when you met Hartl there in Kiev, did you show him the place where the Jews who were killed by you and your Sonderkommando, and were buried in Kiev, can you remember this affair?
A. Me, to have shown Hartl that place. I cannot remember that at all. That is all imagined. At the time Hartl was in a SS and Police procedure because of some internal occuppences in the building there and I recall having met and saluted him when passing him/in the corridor in August and did not talk to him any more since then.
Q. I would like to refresh your memory. Your Honors, I offer document No. 5384 as Prosecution Exhibit 180.
DR. HEIM: For Blobel:
Your Honor, I object to this document. It is an affidavit by a certain Hartl which the Prosecution submits as Exhibit No. 81. I request that this document only be admitted if I am given an opportunity to see the affiant, a certain man Hartl, and to cross-examine him here on the witness stand. On the principle of the best proof it is appropriate that Hartl who as far as I know is in the prison here be brought into this court room to be examined here on direct examination.
THE PRESIDENT: What do you have to say to that, Dr. Hochwald:
MR. HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, I do think that this affidavit is perfectly admissable. If the Defense wants to crossexamine Hartl on the affidavit, the Defense is at the liberty to do so. He only needs to file the request of that kind with the Secretary General.
THE PRESIDENT: If the affiant is available to the Defense for cross-examination and may be called by the Defense for cross-examination, then, of course, no harm may be done the Defense by the introduction of the affidavit.
MR. HOCHWALD: To the best of my knowledge, Your Honor, Hartl is here in the jail and can be called for cross examination by the defense any tine.
DR. HEIM: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed. BY MR. HOCHWALD:
Q. I want to read to you from this affidavit.
DR. FICHT: For the Defendant Biberstein: ted to us to be called as a witness and I, therefore, object to the admission of the document, because this person will be examined as a witness here any how, and according to the principle of the best evidence he should be examined here himself and not his affidavit introduced.
THE PRESIDENT: Let's hear what the Prosecution has to say in reply.
MR. HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, Dr. Ficht himself has said that Dr. Hartl will be a witness for Biberstein, that means that he will be available to the Defense for cross-examination and from what he said on behalf of the defendant Biberstein it seems to me impossible for the Prosecution to receive from this witness the information on which the affidavit is introduced, as the case of Biberstein has nothing whatseever to do with a meeting which took place between the Defendant Blobel and the affiant, so from the contention of Dr. Ficht alone it is perfectly clear that we are at liberty to put in the affidavit. When Dr. Ficht calls his witness to the stand Dr. Heim will have ample opportunity to cross-examine the witness on the affidavit, but we do not intend and see no reason to bring this witness into Court in order to let him testify on two very short excerpts.
THE PRESIDENT: we would recommend this procedure: That the Prosecution counsel proceed to examine the witness on the statements made by one Hartl and to the extent deemed necessary on that subject. He may read what Mr. Hartl has already stated but the affidavit itself should not be introduced as an exhibit at this moment. After Hartl has appeared and testified then the Prosecution nay determine whether to present the affidavit or not because it may be that the witness will repeat what he said in the affidavit, and, then, of course, the affidavit is superfluous. He may deny it and then the affidavit may be introduced to impeach him.
MR. HOCHWALD: I thank you very much, Your Honors. May I then reserve Prosecution Exhibit 180, document No. 5384?
THE PRESIDENT: That reservation will be given to you.
MR. HOCHWALD: I would like to read from paragraph 3 of the affidavit:
"In March or April 1942 I met Paul Blobel in Kiev." That is you, Mr. Blobel, is it not, Paul Blobel, is that you?
A. My name is Hermann Wilhelm Paul Blobel.
Q. "When we were both making a trip to the estate of the commander in chief in Kiev. Dr. Thomas, on the outskirts of the city, in the vicinity of the cemetery, Blobel Showed me a certain place and said that Jews whom he had killed with his Kommando were buried there. It was an old tank ditch, which was later filled in. Blobel mentioned that these executions were carried out on the advance march."
what do you have to say to that, Herr Blobel?
A. This Herr Hartl I did not meet in 1941 but in the year 1943. This was not in March or April but it was inthe summer months July or August 1943. There I met Hartl for the first time when he was with Thomas. Whether I travelled out to the estate of Dr. Thomas with Hartl I cannot remember, because not after all of this time I cannot remember that, but I don't see why I should have done that and that I showed him a tank (Panzer) ditch on the way and said to him that Jews had been shot by my Commando there during the advance March, I presume he just endeavored there
Q. Is it true or not that you told him that?
A. It cannot be correct.
Q. It is not true then?
A. Noo it is not true.
Q. Then I would like to read from paragraph 5 of the same document, Your Honor:
"Twice while I was in the East I had a chance to see executions. The first one I saw in Kiev from a distance. Oberfuehrer Erhlinger had the Kommando."
Do you know a man by the name of Erlinger, Oberfuehrer?
A. The Oberfuehrer Erhlinger at the time was still a Standartenfuehrer in 1943, and was the commander of Kiev with the Commander of Gruppenfuehrer Dr. Thomas. I know this man Erhlinger but definitely he was not an oberfuehrer in 1942 already.
Q. "I saw the second execution in Kremenstchug, where Sturmbannfuehrer Platt had the Kommando."
Do you know Sturmbannfuehrer Platt?
A. No, I don't know Sturmbannfuehrer Platt.
Q. We will go on with the quotation:
"In the first execution exactly 100 persons were executed. In the second execution more than 100 persons were executed. The people were executed by a shot in the neck. The corpses were buried in a large tank ditch. The candidates for execution Were already standing or kneeling in the ditch. One group had scarcely been shot before the next came and laid themselves on the corpses there." carried out. Do you still maintain this statement?
A. I maintain it now as ever. The executions which the SK 4a carried out under my command at the order of the Commander-in-Chief were carried out in the proper court martial manner as I have described here. What Ehrlinger and Platt did at that time and this cannot have been that year, because one time they say 1942, and the date is wrong. It should be 1943. Those were Commando agencies which were active there two years later and I don't know anything about that.
Q. Do you still maintain that by Sonderkommando 4a no other shootings were carried out than by rifle, two men for one execution?
A. Yes, I state that now as before.
Q. Do you know how it was possible to kill approximately 34,000 people in two days, and this number should be established by now?
A. I cannot make any statements about that. I did not see it and it was up to the Highest SS and Police Leader who had ordered this, and as far as I know ordered his police regiment and the Ukrainian militia to do this and the 15 men of SK 4a did participate in the course of this action. Whether these men actually shot I did net witness that personally.
Q. You told the Tribunal that you were rather often ill. Will you give for the sake of the record exactly when you were on duty and when you were ill in the time from May 1941 to the time you left the East, which was in April 1942?
A. In the first third of July: 1941, throughout July I was in about hospital and at the beginning of August, during the first days I went back to the Commando.
Q. It would be correct that you were ill from the 10 of July to the 2nd or 3rd of August in the hospital?
A. That might be approximately correct.
Q. Proceed.
A. After my birthday I became ill again, around about my birthday, and approximately until the beginning of September, the 1st 3rd of September, shortly before the departure for Kiev, I was continually in the quarters there.
Q. Will you tell the Tribunal what time it was, from whichday to which day?
A. On the 13th of August was my birthday, 4-5 days before our departure, and that was on the 17th, or maybe on the 18th when we moved. It must have been the 12th or 13th of September.
Q. It was a complete month, was it not?
A. Please?
Q. You were ill a complete month, from the 13th of August until the 13th of September, is that right?
A. Yes I got up in between but then it started again. Malaria and Wolhynian fever are similar and you have occasional attacks.
Q. Did you get reports from your teilkommandos during this time?
A. Some might have been received. It is possible that when I was well, I read a few reports and that I was told where the commandos were and how individual people were because in the house itself we had accommodated 10 or 12 sick people for as I have said this fever spread immensely.
Q. When were you ill for a third time?
A. At Kiev I had been wounded owing to the blasting on the 24th the 24th of September.
Q. How long were you ill?
A. It took a long time until I was cured. I still had scars when we left for Charkow. On the 27th or 28th of November we left Kiev and went to Cherkov and during this march, which in all took about ten days, and owing to the strain of the march -
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, the Prosecution is very obviously desirous of getting from you a chronology as to the perios of time that you were disabled because of illness. Now instead of going into a great detail, detail much of which has already been given to us, state the dates. Now you have told us from July 10 to August 10 you were in the hospital, August 13 to September 13 you were in the hospital. Now when was the next period of disablement. Give us the dates.
A. During the time of September I was in the commando in a special room because there were no hospitals or they were over-crowded.
Q. You were disabled from what day, from what date in September to what date?
A. About the 13th of August until about a month later.
Q. You have given us that and you have told us the first time that you were in a hospital. Now you tell me you were in a room. After September 13th when did you become disabled again?
A. I said that I became ill and remained with the commando and a staff physician of the AUK 6 looked after me there. In Kiev I had been wounded in the head and was kept in my quarters.
Q. I am sorry I don't speak German so I can't give it to you in German, out I am trying to make it as clear as possible and I am certain you are getting the translation accurately. Give us the dates that you were disabled. Now we have got as far as September 13th. when was the time you again because disabled after September 13th?
A. The 24/9/41.
Q. Until when?
A. Until the departure on the 27th or 28th of November from Kiev.
Q. Very well, September 24th to November 28th?
A. Yes.
Q. All right, now the next time you were unabled to perform your duties?
A. At the end of December until the beginning of October or rather February, 1942, in the first third, I don't know the exact date, about the 10th of February, I was up for about ten days and from the end of February until the middle of March I was down again.
Q. That covers the whole period of your illnesses during that campaign?
A. Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, the Tribunal will not be in recess until five minutes past two.
(The Tribunal adjourned for the noon recess) (The Tribunal met pursuant to noon recess at 1400 hours)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed, Mr. Hochwald.
MR. HOCHWALD: May it please the Tribunal. BY MR. HOCHWALD:
Q. Herr Blobel, you commented yesterday on Document Book I, page 131 in the English, and page 159 in the German book. This is your affidavit NO 3824, Exhibit No. 31. You commented on paragraph 8 of this affidavit, and I quote: "During the last days of September 1941 the Sonderkommando 4-A in cooperation with the group staff of the Einsatzgruppe-C, and two units of the police regiments stationed in Kiev, carried out the mass executions of Jews in Kiev." You said about this sentence, that the passage "By order of Higher SS and Police Leader" was missing, is that right?
A. Yes, I said that.
Q. And did also say, that this passage "By order of the Higher SS and Police Leader" was contained in the original which you signed, and, is that in the copies before the Tribunal? Is that what you want to say?
A. I had assumed that the supplement of this missing sentence had no ending, as it says here, "During the last days of September 1941 the Sonderkommando 4-A in cooperation with the group staff of the Einsatzgruppe-C, and two units of the police regiments stationed in Kiev." and there is no end of the sentence, and, then it just states the number which I had mentioned.
Q. I'll ask you another question. Do you want to say that in your original which you signed, and which is in the photostat before the Tribunal this sentence "By order of the Higher SS and Police Leader." is contained? Is that what you wanted to say yesterday when you said this passage was missing, or did you think that this passage was missing just in order to make the sentence complete, and this is an addition which you make only now?
Court No. II-A, Case No. IX.
and at the time when I made it out, it was to the effect that it was on the orders of the Higher Police and SS Leader. this passage "by order of the Higer SS and Police Leader" was not included, was it?
Q By whom? something missing in the sentence which has been overlooked. would now add the passage to it, do you not? But it was not contained in the original, which you cited, is that correct? This is an addition which you are making now, an explanation to the sentence, but not a part of the document, is that right? That is the only thing I am asking you. sentence, or rather, this addition was contained. before the Tribunal as an exhibit, this sentence, "by order of the Higher SS and Police Leader" is contained, is that what you say?
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If your Honor please, could the SecretaryGeneral get Exhibit No. 31 for the inspection of the Tribunal and of the interpreters?
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will please get that exhibit.
Q (By Mr. Horlick-Hochwald) Will you turn now
DR. HEIM: Dr. Heim for the Defendant Blobel. lowing fact: The witness just now said "should", "should" be contained in the original. I think it was translated "must be". The conjunction wasused in the German and not the indicative, because the witness did not say it was contained but it should be contained.
I would only like to say this, in order to prevent any misunderstandings, that the Prosecution should not say that it actually was contained in the document book in the original document, in case it is not contained in the document.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: Whether in the mimeographed copies which were made, this very important passage was left out by mistake or whether the witness signed a document in which this passage is not contained, wasthe only reason for this line of questioning, and I do think it was perfectly clear, I asked the witness whether he meant this as an explanation to the sentence or whether that was left out in the copies. It is not clear from his statement in direct examination, and I only wanted to make clear whether by mistake of the people who copied the document this sentence was left out. Nothing else is being implied.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the statement by Dr. Heim change your question?
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: Not at all; not at all.
Q (By Mr. Horlick-Hochwald) In Paragraph 9 of the affidavit which is on the next page - your Honors, page 132 - you stated that the Defendants Rasch and Radetsky and a certain Dr. Beyer took over the Sonderkommando 4a when you were absent for reasons of health. You now say that none of these three persons replaced you but that it was a certain Oversturmbannfuehrer Meyer commanded Sonderkommando 4a in your absence, is that correct? fuehrer Meyer took over the kommando in my absence. Wartenberg, is that correct? time and when reading through the documents I suddenly remembered the exact facts of the case namely that it was not Radetzky who was the kommando leader in my absence but that it was actually Sturmbannfuehrer Meyer who wasappointed to this post by the Higher SS and Police Leader, and I said furthermore that I went through the names of leaders with Mr. Wartenberg and we consulted each other as it were, as to who could have been in charge of the kommando, and we suddenly remembered the name of Radetzky.
point in the meantime, between the execution of the affidavit which wasthe 6th of June, 1947, and your testimony here, is that right? corrected my statement, is that what you mean?
Q It was between the 6th of June and yesterday, is that right?
AAnd now, yes. I had suddenly remembered it when I went through the documents again. signed the affidavit? not a real officer, he was only a war emergency appointment, is that correct? appointment was valid only for service in the RSHA but not for an assignment in the Einsatzgruppe, is that true?
A No, that is not quite correct. We had various war emergency commissions or appointments who were men who had been drafted, like, for instance, the Interpreter Mueller or the Interpreter Radetzky. The difference between them and other leaders was that they had no military and no special training, but on the other hand, they had a special knowledge, like knowledge of languages, for instance, like Russian or Ukrainian, and for this purpose they were assigned and drafted to the East.
Hauptsturmfuehrer at all? wasn't a Hauptsturmfuehrer in the Security Police; he was just wearing the uniform of the unit in which he had been before. As far as I know it is the Volksdeutsche Mittelstelle.
Q Washe a Hauptsturmfuehrer or was he not a Hauptsturmfuehrer? I did not question you on what uniform he were. I am just questioning you on the rank, nothing else. reason that he would have been a Tribunal commissar and in that case he would have had a police rank, a service rank and corresponding certificate; with the aid of these certificates one recognized the actual official rank and also the civilian rank which goes with this service rank. The State Police had a red certificate; Criminal Police had a red certificate, red paper with a green line, and the members of the SD had a red certificate with a white crossing line. All those who were not in possession of such certificate either had their SS pass of the General SS according to which they held the same rank within the SS, or they had a temporary SS pass which only authorized them to the uniform.
Q Witness, I do not think that you answered my question. I asked you whether you know or you do not know whether Radetzky was a Hauptsturmfuehrer in the SS or not.
Q Radetzky was not a Hauptsturmfuehrer of the Security Police. He wore a uniform of an SS Hauptsturmfuehrer of an SS unit, of the VOMI, whichwas part of the SS, V-o-m-i, and was only on a war emergency basis.
Q I ask you this very specific question for the third time. I did not ask you what kind of uniform he wore. I do want to hear from you whether he was a commissioned officer, a Hauptsturmfuehrer in the SS.
Nothing else did I ask you. It is V-o-m-i, part military organization. If he was a Hauptsturmfuehrer he could have been a Hauptsturmfuehrer in the SS, is that correct, but he could not have been a Hauptsturmfuehrer in the Volksdeutsche Mittelstelle. So, was he a Hauptsturmfuehrer of the SS, and please, I have explained that now fifteen times, will you answer the question with yes or no? Mittelstelle, was an SS agency. SS the Defendant Radetzky was, would have been in the position to be a leader of Teilkommando or Vorkommando according to his rank? have been superior to other officers, and in this case he would have had certain experience in interrogations. We would have been an interrogations officer, because that was the purpose.
Q. I do not think that you answered the question. I asked you whether Hauptsturmfuehrer Radetzky, according to his rank, would have been in the position to become a leader of a Teilkommando or Vorkommando. Will you tell the Tribunal yes or no, then you can explain why he could have been or why he could not have been, but it is absolutely necessary that you answer these very specific and very clear questions with yes or no.
A. As a Haupsturmfuehrer of the SS, that is as Hauptsturmfuehrer of the General-SS, he could not become a leader, a commander of an Einsatzkommando.
Q. So it is your contention that it would have been impossible that Radetzky ever would have been in the position to become a leader of a Teilkommando or Vorkommando, is that your contention?
A. Radetzky could not in any case, in the form in which he appeared on the horizon in a war emergency commission, could, I say, not be superior to other officers in any shape or form. He only held a war emergency commission.
Q. Will you please answer the question and then explain. I am in no position to find out from your information whether you answer my questions in the affirmative or the negative. I do not know. Possibly I am not clever enough to understand it. The question is, could Radetzky, having been a Haupsturmfuehrer of the SS, ever have received the position of a leader of a Teilkommando or of a Vorkommando, or was it by the simple fact that he was, as you say, on a war emergency status, would this status exclude him from this position?
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Hochwald, now you have put three questions into that one question. You can't get a yes or no answer.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: Two questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, two. Let's make it only one and then you can logically demand a yes or no answer.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: I am sorry, Your Honor. I only wanted to explain to the witness both the positive and negative side of the question.
I withdrew the question and repeat.
Q. ( By Mr. Horlick-Hochwald) Was it possible for Radetzky, having been a Haupsturmfuehrer in the SS, to become a leader of a Teilkommando or Vorkommando?
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: Your Honor, is that a question which can be answered with yes or no?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly.
A. Ho, that was not possible.
Q. (By Mr. Horlick-Hochwald) All right, did you ever speak with Radetzky about the Fuehrer order as the order was handed down by Streckenbach?
A. The general information about happenings in Pretsch or what had been said by Streckenbach in Pretsch was in the presence of all the leaders, and they were, of course, immediately informed about it.
Q. So Radetzky knew about this order?
A. why, the leaders knew the order; the leaders were aware of the order.
Q. Did you ever speak to him about this order?
A. It was in fact discussed by us in Pretsch.
Q. Did you, Mr. Blobel, speak to Hauptsturmfuehrer Radetzky about the Hitler order?
A. As I said, it was made known generally to the leaders in Sokal when the Einsatzkommando was stationed there, and when it assigned to its task by the Oberfuehrer, by the Superior Commander, and Radetzky was present on that occasion.
Q. Shall I imply from that, what you said, that you do not want to answer this question? The question was, did you, Herr Blobel, speak to Hauptsturmfuehrer Radetzky about the Fuehrer order. Will you answer that with yes or no, please? You gave already explanations that he know about it. How I am interested to hear from you whether you spoke to him about it.