A I would have sent him to Departmental Expert No. 4.
Q He sees you, doesn't he, as the senior officer? followings "Only the kommando leader can make a decision as far as this is concerned, but if you want to find out the possibility for your information, I shall put you in contact with Department 4's Chief, who has information about this matter generally. He can give you general information concerning this matter.
15 Dec 1947_M_MSD_10_1_Arminger (Hildesheimer)
Q He would ask you where the kommando chief was, wouldn't he? you are at all eager to let the Tribunal know just what you know about these situations, Please be very frank. When you answer a question so frivously in that manner, it doesn't cast any credit upon you as being one who is sincere and eager to acquaint the Tribunal with the facts. I have stated a situation where a man comes from the Army command and the kommando chief is not there and he asks to see the senior officer and you are the senior officer. Then I say to you, he would ask you where the kommando chief Is any your answer is "possibly". Do you call that being honest with the Tribunal?
A Your Honor, Your Honor, I beg your pardon. I do not want to he frivolous. Your Honor, and I do not want to give frivolous answers to the Tribunal.
Q You tell me if that isn't a frivolous answer: Here's a high ranking officer on a very important mission; he calls on you and asks for the kommando chief and where is he, and I ask you if this wouldn't be the most natural and normal inquiry and you said, "possibly;" isn't that a frivolous answer? I would have to give you a further explanation of course, and, the possibility, of course, should have to be explained.
Q Answer me. Answer me. Here is someone -here is someone from the Army command. He is seeking the kommando chief. He calls at your office. He asks for the senior officer and he is presented to you and he says, "Major I want to talk to the kommando chief. I don't see him about where is he?" Would that be a natural inquiry? the kommando chief has told you that he has gone to perform an execution?
15 Dec 1947_M_MSD_10_2_Arminger (Hildesheimer)
A In that case, I would have said, "I very much regret to tell you that the kommando leader is not here. If I can do anything for you, or if I can bring a message from you to the kommando leader, I am at your disposal". the execution? He told you where the executions were taking place, didn't he? didn't know where he was, where the kommando chief was? personally to tell me or that I found out in another way that he was not present.
Q And he didn't tell you where he was going?
A He did not say so in each case. Sometimes he just left and said he would he back in one hour. the execution would be performed and where he could be founds in the event it would be necessary to locate him?
Q And you weren't, as a senior officer, interested in finding out where your commanding officer would be? about this matter, but, if he does not regard it as necessary, then, of course, I am not informed. in all?
Q Why were they killed?
kommando, you learned of six or seven executions. Then you left, and you don't know to this day how many were killed in these six or seven executions or why they were killed. could reconstruct this from the reports of events, but not from my own knowledge and experiences.
Q And you don't know why they were killed? security of the operational area.
Q You only assumed that. You don't know from your own knowledge?
A I did not investigate, Your Honor,'
Q You don't know then why they were killed. Your assumption is that they were killed because they threatened the security, is that right? been killed just because they were Jews? days, of course, I did not assume so. because they were Jews?
Q And, you stand on that answer?
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Fritz, any further questions?
DR. SUESS (Attorney for the Defendant Schulz): Your Honor, I should like to put a few questions to the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Please do.
DR. SUESS: Thank you. BY DR. SUESS (Attorney for the Defendant Schulz): return from Russia to Berlin you learned that in Lemberg mass executions of Jews had taken place.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: As far as I recall, this question was answered by the witness in direct examination. Dr. Suess would have had to ask the witness this question before the cross examination by the prosecution took place. This is not a question which came out during cross-examination or during direct examination, or subsequent examination of the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes you can only question on matters which have come up after the direct examination terminated because you had the opportunity when the direct examination ended to put questions,
DR. SUESS: Your Honor, in my knowledge, as far as I remember, there was no opportunity for the defense counsel of the remaining defendants to put questions to the witness immediately after the direct examination, The questions by the President began.
THE PRESIDENT: There was no opportunity for you just because you weren't here.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, Counsel for Defendant Schulz is certainly not correct in this respect.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, he's correct. He didn't have any opportunity because he wasn't here.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If Your Honors please, that doesn't change the ruling.
THE PRESIDENT: Were you here, Counsel, or not?
DR. SUESS: I was not here, Your Honor, No.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, well, why do you say that no opportunity was allowed defense counsel?
DR. SUESS: I asked my colleagues because I assumed that I would be in a position to put these questions.
I therefore now withdraw my question. am just told that these questions which refer to Lemberg and Olmoetz, I want to mention them as key words, that these questions only came up during the cross-examination. That is, not before that.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If Your Honors please--
THE PRESIDENT: Now we will make our ruling, Mr. Hochwald. The ruling is that Mr. Hochwald is absolutely right in his examination, hut we are going to pay no attention to Mr. Hochwald's objections and we are going to let you put the questions.
DR. SUESS: Thank you, Your Honor.
Q Witness, I repeat: In your direct examination you said that upon your return from Russia to Berlin you heard that in Lemberg mass executions of Jews had taken place. At what period were you in Lemberg at the time.
Q Who carried out these executions you heard about? office of the commander of the Security Police and SD in Lemberg. the prosecutor that you heard about the arrest of Jews who had remained-this could create the impression that at that time'
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: Just a minute I do not like to raise the point, Your Honor, but it is absolutely clear that the impression which can be caused by this answer -- this is a question of argument, but not a question to be put to the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes this is not the time for argumentation. You can ask him any question which will elicit an objective answer, but to argue with him is not within the province of cross-examination.
DR. SUESS: Yes, Your Honor, I think you for pointing this out, I shall put the question in another form.
15 Dec 1947_M_MSD_10_6_Arminger (Hildesheimer) Q (By Dr. Suess): Witness, were all Jews, the entire Jewish population that is, arrested in Olmuetz?
A I don't know, I saw Jews in the street.
Q A further question: Did you know the Defendant Schulz in Olmuetz?
A Yes, I saw him in Olmuetz. He was the Chief of the Einsatzkommando. Einsatzkommando in Olmuetz?
A I couldn't tell you exactly, I am afraid. According to my memory it could only have been a few weeks. sent to concentration camps. This was a subject that the prosecutor discussed two days ago? concentration camps?
MR. HORLICK_HOCHWALD: This question is obviously inadmissable; as the witness has said he can't say when these people were sent to the concentration camp, how can he say whether it was done by Schulz or not?
DR. SUESS: I withdraw the question, Your Honor. Thank you very much.
DR. HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, I have one question only in connection with the question put by Dr. Suss. BY DR. HOCHWALD: out of executions in Lemberg, and you answered the executions in Lem berg, they must have been carried out under order of the local commander of the Security Police find SD, is that correct, did you say that? spent the night. this execution, do you? carried out during those days.
Q That is all you know? participated in it, that is what I heard.
Q In the beginning of October, is that right?
Q At what time did these killings take place? place during the days before I arrived, which is during the previous weeks.
Q All during September 1941?
A Yes. That is how I understood it.
Q It was not then at the end of June or the beginning of July 1941?
THE PRESIDENT: Did you find out who the local commander was?
MR. HOCHWALD: Your Honors, I do not think that this question is of importance here, as in September 1941 the Einsatzcommando was under the command of the defendant Schulz who had already left Lemberg, hut I asked this question as the impression was created that the killings which happened at the end of June, or at the beginning of July, 41, were carried out by the local commander, and I have elicited a note from the witness that these killings he heard about are not in connection with the killings with which the defendant Schulz is charged.
THE PRESIDENT: All right. All right.
MR. HOCHWALD: No further questions, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Fritz, any further questions?
DR. FRITZ: Your Honor, I had only one question, this was to correct something which has been discussed repeatedly on Saturday. The defendant Fendler answered to a question which Mr. Hochwald put to him, that in June 1941 in Lemberg he learned of mass executions.
Q That is what you said on such a day, isn't it?
MR. HOCHWALD: I think that I asked the witness whether he heard about executions when he was there in June 1941, or when he returned in October 1941, and he answered that he heard about it when he returned at the beginning of October 1941. I think that is clear.
THE WITNESS: My remark also refers to the finding of the corpses in prison of Lemberg. There were 7,000 about which I learned in June when staying in Lemberg. This perhaps caused a misunderstanding that these two events are mixed up.
DR. FRITZ: I have no more questions, Your Honor, on re-cross examination,
THE PRESIDENT: The witness will be returned to the defendants' dock, and the defendant von Radetsky will take the stand.
DR. FRITZ: Your Honor -
THE PRESIDENT: I am sorry.
DR. FRITZ: Your Honor, I have not quite concluded the submission of my document book, and I would like to use this opportunity. There are only a few documents I would like to offer now.
THE PRESIDENT: You -don't need the witness on the witness stand?
DR. FRITZ: NO.
THE PRESIDENT: the Marshal will please return the defendant to the defendants' dock.
(Witness excused)
DR. FRITZ: I offer as my next document, the first document in the Document Book of Fendler's on pages 1 and 2. It is an affidavit of Dittrich, as Fendler's Exhibit No. 18. I do not want to read from its' contents, Your Honor, but it certifies the statements that the defendant made concerning his activity in Breslau, also in Sudentenland, and concerning his activities in the Einsatz, and, later in the Office VI, of the Reich Security Main Office. I furthermore offer the document on pages 15 to 18, of Document Book, Fendler's Document No. 8, the affidavit of Wilhelm Waneck. I offer it as IT Fendler's Exhibit No. 19. It is en affidavit again which I am not going to read. The witness Waneck was group chief, and Obersturmbannfuehrer in Office VI, of the Reich Security Main Office, and here described the creation of the Einsatzgruppen, or Einsatzcommandos. In the paragraph before the last of this affidavit he deals with the personality of the defendant Fendler. Furthermore, I offer another affidavit by Schellenberg, which is on pages 57 to 59 of the Document Book. It is Fendler's Document Not 17. I offer it as Exhibit No. 20. In addition, the next three documents in the defendant's document book, that is, Fendler's Document 18 on pages 60 to 61, I offer it as Fendler's Exhibit No. 21; the affidavit of Richard Brass, on pages 62 and 63, that is Fendler's Document No. 19 as Fendler's Exhibit No. 23, and, affidavit of Marie Bartl on pages 64 and 65, Document 20. 20, I offer as Fendler's Exhibit No. 24. These last four affidavits, that is, Schellenberg, Susmuth, Bartl, Brass, Your Honor, consist of personal opinion of character. I do not want to read them into the record, but I should like the Tribunal to take note of their contents, as, especially the affidavit of Sussmuth and Bartl -
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Fritz, did you purposely skip No, 22? You gave Exhibit Nos. 21 and then Exhibit No. 23. DR. FRITZ: Your Honor, I think I made a mistake. In this case I offer Bartl's affidavit, that is Fendler Document No. 20 as Exhibit Fendler No. 22.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. What page is that? DR. FRITZ: Pages 64 - 65. These affidavits show that Fendler while he was a member of the SD, supported and helped prosecute people, even Jews, so that these affidavits bear out his statement on the witness stand that he did not participate in and didn't possibly give orders for executions in the East and that he kept away from them, Finally, I point out that a number of those affidavits which I already submitted on Saturday also-contain statements concerning the conduct of the defendant Fendler, and again I would like the Tribunal to take note of these statements contained in the affidavits. With this I have submitted all the documents contained in the document Book No. I of Fendler's and this for the time being concludes my case for the defendant Fendler. I should like, Your Honor, to submit a few further documents at a later date, for which I still an waiting at the present time.
THE PRESIDENT: You may submit them when you are able to Set them into your hands.
DB. FRITZ: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant von Radetzky will be taken to the witness box.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant von Salt sky will be taken to the witness stand. follows:
JUDGE DIXON: Defendant, raise your right hand and repeat the oath after me. I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing (The witness repeated the oath). You may be seated.
TEE PRESIDENT: You may proceed, please.
DR. RATZ: Dr. Ratz for the defendant von Radetzky.
BY DR. RATZ:
A My name is Waldemar von Radetzky. I was born on 3 May 1910 in Moscow. My father came from Riga, and my mother came from Bremen. Our family had emigrated to the Baltic States in 1730 Q. Where did you spend your childhood? Black Sea, and in Riga. The First World War surprised us when we were in Moscow where we escaped deportation to Siberia as Germans but our stay in Moscow was restricted, while relatives of mine were actually deported to Siberia. In 1918 we succeeded in escaping to my ancestral city Riga. Moscow had already been occupied by the Bolshevists. My father had died in the meantime. city of Riga? bourgeois we lost everything. Many of us went to prison, were deported or shot.
THE PRESIDENT: You say "Many of us were deported or shot"?
THE WITNESS: By that I mean the Germans who lived in the Baltic the population.
BY DR, RAZZ: later? groops who drove out the Bolshevists and Latvia became a newly established State. The new State could only build up its existence from the arailable resources and these were largely in German hands. I must briefly discuss the historical development of the Baltic States and I would like the Tribunal to be patient for a few minutes while I do so. That is, the situation as regards the States as they are today, Estonia, and Latvia. At the beginning of the Thirteenth Century the then Livonia was populated and colonized by Germans and at that time in those centuries, the Germans emigrated to this country, and they administered the country under German, Swedish, Danish, Russian and Polish sovereignty, all according to the developments even though they were never more than six percent of the total population. I say and I emphasize this because only this shows my personal attitude towards other national groups with whom we always lived together, end we supplemented each other in many respects. The first translation of the Bible, the first grammar, all churches and public institutions, were erected by the Germans. The rest of the population was admitted to the State University just as the Germans were and during the three last centuries we also had to suffer from the Russian domination. This was especially the case when Bismarck declared in 1882 that Germany was not interested in the Baltic States, and from 1890 a ruthless Russification took place which affected everybody. There were only Russian schools from then on, a Russian administration, although the percentage of the Russian population was minimal, because Latvians, Estonians populated the country. Only the World War put an end to this development, and after the post-war chaos in my home country, the independent States of Estonia and Latvia were created.
of these countries?
A Yes. In my home country Latvia, we had six of the one-hundred deputies, and a number of ministers, but it could not be prevented that the entire German real estate property was expropriated without compensation, although we had contributed our share in liberating the country from Bolshevism, This expropriation robbed the German community of its material basis, but this didn't prevent-
MR. HOCHWALD: Your Honors, I hate to interrupt the witness-but the witness has been lecturing now about, things which he absolutely can not testify to. All these happenings about which he spoke and which I believe are completely immaterial for the case before the Tribunal, happened either before he was born, or when he was an infant. Everything which he told the Tribunal here may be so or may not be so, but the Prosecution in any case does not want to offer evidence that his information in this respect is incorrect, and the Prosecution thinks it is immaterial in the case before the Tribunal but there are two things: First, the witness can not testify to facts which he has not experienced himself, and, secondly I do not think that what the witness says here is material for the case.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Ratz, the big mistake the witness made was that when he began to testify on this subject, he said, I hope that the Tribunal will be patient, but he didn't hope that Mr. Hochwald would be patient. Now there is the big mistake he made. The Tribunal was patient, but Mr. Hochwald was not. So suppose that we have a recess and during that time Mr. Hochwald will get over his impatience, and the witness will resolve to be just a little briefer, and then I think we will all be happy. The Tribunal will be in recess until 1: 45 o'clock.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will be in recess until 1345 hours.
(Recess taken until 1345 hours, 15 December 1947) (The hearing reconvened at 1345 hours, 15 December 1947) THE MARSHAL:
The Tribunal is again in session. BY DR. RATZ: Your Honor, may I be permitted to say something to the objection of the Prosecutor. Of course, while preparing the examination of the defendant I saw to it that the statement would be as concentrated as possible, and does not become too diffused. In the case at issue here it is necessary however in my opinion for the defense of the defendant that he is allowed to make certain statements about his background before 1939 since he was a foreigner until 1939 in Germany and since he comes from a background which is completely different from any type of background prevailing in Germany. But, I shall try to limit myself only to what is necessary.
THE PRESIDENT: You will proceed, Dr. Ratz, BY DR. RATZ: Germans participated in the construction of these Baltic States and you answered this question in part. Now you wanted to say something about the expropriation of property which happened to the Germans?
A Yes. I said that our property was expropriated and that this expropriation robbed the Germans of their material foundation. Nevertheless they cooperated in the welfare of the country because Chauvinistic motives were strange to them. influence on your development?
start from the beginning. My family had furnished for the country officers, farmers, intellectuals and was used to a high level of life. It was a matter of getting back to this level and it was decided, against my early tendencies, for me to become a farmer, that I should become a business man, a career which determined my schooling. I spent the summer in the countryside and during the winter I went to school.
Q What did you do after completing your schooling? managed an export department. Later, after I completed my military service, in the year 1933 I joined an import business as an employee in Riga and became a Prokurist. I succeeded in this firm which dealt with Germany, England, and Czechoslovakia despite difficult economic conditions to help this firm get started. I held this position until 1939 when the resettlement of Germans to Germany took place and when the firm where I was to become a partner in 1940 was dissolved. Furthermore, I worked at the Herder Institute. Riga? lectures of economics at the Herder Institute which was under the direction of the Latvian Ministry of Education. I was requested then to take over the direction of the economic research agency because they needed someone who was trained both in theory and practice. The job of this research agency was to introduce practical tasks to the young students as they had to be performed in the daily business life, in order to base their theoretical knowledge on it.
Q What were your extracurricular interests?
A Sports and art. I was a member of a sport club and liked to sail in the Riga Yacht Club where in the year 1936 I passed an examination as a navigator.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Ratz, I think you are commencing to ruffle the sails of Mr. Hochwald again. He is beginning to show a little impatience about this yachting trip. If he could sail with somebody else aboard a yacht I think he would feel much happier than he is right now.
DR. RATZ: I shall come to another more important question, your Honor, right away, but perhaps the defendant may add one other sentence which concerns his extra-curricular interests. and of the Goethe Organization and the Herder Organization.
THE PRESIDENT: That pleases Mr. Hochwald much more. BY DR. RATZ: at that time? Socialism, from that moment on when it seized power in Germany, because this did not remain without effect on the countries near Germany, from Estonia down to the Balkans and on the two million Germans living there. A number of countries answered the seizure of power in Germany by measures of suppression against the Germans and these Germans were put in a position of defense which was neither desired nor looked for by them. Germany started to get concerned about its suppressed peoples abroad, but in our country it limited itself to a cultural taking care of the schools and the public institutions. Whatever came to us by way of ideology had to go through the State censorship. Thus, for example, the books "Mein Kampf" and the "Mythos" were forbidden.
Travels to Germany were limited and the contact with the old mother country had become very loose. But, what prejudiced me in favor of this was the "Maxim", the love of ones own country as conditioned by respect for another country, Since I saw a new possibility here of mutual respect and thus a new order of the completely chaotic minority -
THE PRESIDENT: Don't you think, witness, that the exclusion of the book "The Myth" by Rosenberg was of great benefit to everybody? was of great benefit? THE PRESIDENT: Yes, don't you think it was a great benefit, because don't you think it would have added greatly to the chaos?
A Your Honor, I don't think that the effect of this book could have been very great. I later tried to read from it and I didn't understand anything of it. THIS PRESIDENT: Well, that's the reason I say it was of great benefit to keep out a book like that. I haven't yet found anyone who understood it.
A Well, that is why I don't think it was important. In any way, I merely meant to express by that that a number of ideas did not reach us. THE PRESIDENT: Well I assure you you were better of not to get those ideas.
Court No. II, Case No. IX.
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed, please. BY DR. RATZ:
Q Will you then continue with your contacts to National Socialism? religious basis. There was no so-called time of struggle because there was no one against whom to struggle. From abroad too it was tried to bring matters to an extremity when on the instigation of a foreign power an effort was made to disturb the peaceful economic conditions prevailing between Germany and Latvia, in the year 1936, arrests of Germans took place indiscriminately, and during the course of which I was also arrested. After I was released I protested to the Senate, the supreme court of the land in order to achieve my rehabilitation and I was granted this in full measure. In order to conclude this, I never did understand the Fuehrer principle and the race theory, But one thing did result from this development: That was the possibility to do justice to my social conscience on the one hand and my position as merchant on the other. After a lengthy period of co-operation, I took over an office for vocational-guidance and furtherance with the German Community of the country and I made the attempt to extend this and make it into an economic agency.
Q What do you mean by German community? cognized by International Law and had partly autonomous powers.
Q What did you do within the German community, witness? was most important. I helped found a fund with which craftsmen were given a possibility to make a living, and with the help of industrialists whom I knew I founded homes in which families of small workers and employees could find recreation. I can say that this was the happiest time in my life because every day I was able to look into grateful eyes. Thus, when the resettlement to Germany took place I had achieved my economic and social position by my own power.
Court No. II, Case No. IX.
and the Fuehrer principle. See why such a principle, outside of the purely military field, could do any benefit because necessarily it excludes any competition; but as far as the race theory is concerned I grew up in daily contact with other peoples. I saw that without distinction of race or position successes and lack of successes were registered and I explained how a young people in my country registered considerable achievements in the social and cultural spheres even though first by using foreign materials but this was a question of development. In school I had many Jewish comrades because their parents were glad to send them to our school and I used to visit Jewish homes in my own home town. If we had not been as tolerant as we were in our home town we would have long disappeared from there. As the measures of suppression effected each one of us, we tried to overcome them with patience and conviction. I experienced myself what a national intolerance would bring with it and that it always comes from a weakness, not a strength of national selfreliance. gained an insight into motives and conflicts of other races. How do you mean this? cribed to me as such. Due to the free manner of our education at home and the church, the Bible had always been interpreted as national history of the Jewish people. But I not only mixed with socially but also in my business for 50% of my customers were Jewish firms; I often discussed this matter with them. We were all sitting in the same boat. We had the same cares and worries and the State, whose minority we were, had consideration for the Geneva minority protection decrees of Geneva only in as far as it concerned the worship and schooling. As part of a nation they overlooked us; when then from 1936 the expropriation Court No. II, Case No. IX.