A. That there were many I cannot suppose but I assume that just as in Sokal and Luck there were executions in other parts, too.
Q. But you did not have direct knowledge of them yourself?
A. No.
Q. Well, then how do you presume to tell the Tribunal whether von Radetsky had charge of any sub-Kommando out in the field? You didn't see him? You had no control over reports which he rendered. You had no immediate familiar contact with the Kommando leader. How do you now presume to tell the Tribunal that you know that von Radetsky at no time was the leader of a sub-Kommando? How do you support that statement?
A. I have stated that Captain von Radetsky in as far as I know was never a commanding officer of a Teilkommando and I would like to support this by saying that I heard that from August 1941 on he was liaison officer to the Army Headquarters.
Q. Well, you don't know of your own knowledge whether he ever commanded a Teilkommando.
A. No, I do not know.
Q. All right, proceed, Dr. Ratz.
BY DR. RATZ:
Q. Witness, you said in the beginning that you were a member of the Nazi Party and not a member of the SS either. Did you have the impression as far as Herr von Radetsky is concerned that he was an active or a fanatic National Socialist.
A. No, I did not have that impression. BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Did you think that Blobel was fanatic National Socialist?
A. I cannot say anything about it because I never talked privately with Herr Blobel.
Q. Well, you were with Blobel every day. You saw him regularly. You can't tell us about Blobel but you can tell us about von Radetsky whom you only saw a short time, is that right?
A. I saw Blobel very rarely.
Q. Well he was the commanding officer, wasn't he?
A. Yes, but Blobel was rarely in the orderly room.
Q. Where was he when he wasn't in the orderly room?
A. Possibly in his private room.
Q. Well, how far away was his private room?
A. It was in the same building but I never had anything to do with Herr Blobel.
Q. Well, you saw him going in and out, didn't you?
A. I saw him occasionally when he left by car bur why he left I don't know.
Q. And you took mail in to him, didn't you?
A. No, mostly it was an officer or another man in the orderly room that did that. The one who gave him documents to sign.
Q. You want to tell us that you didn't know your own commanding officer?
A. I could not say that I knew Herr Blobel all right but since I had no personal contact with him.
Q. How long were you with him?
A. From June until March 1942 I was with this Kommando including the time I was sick and on recuperation leave.
Q. So you were with him 9 or 10 months?
A. About 6 or 7 months.
Q. How long were you with von Radetsky?
A. Only up to the time we were in Shitomir.
Q. How long?
A. That is about one to two months.
Q. So now you can tell us that von Radetsky was not a fanatic National Socialist but you cannot tell us whether Blobel was or not?
A. I had occasion to talk to Herr von Radetsky while he was dictating reports to me and to exchange some personal observations with him.
Q. Didn't you ever see any of the reports which Blobel made up?
A. No.
Q. Was there no discussion in the orderly room as to what Blobel was doing?
A. No. I know nothing about it.
Q. You know that your Kommando killed 39,000 in the space of a very few months.
A. I only found out after the capitulation that such mass killings took place in the East.
Q. You were right in the midst of all this carnage but you know nothing about it?
A. No. I know nothing of mass executions during all this time while working in SK 4a.
Q. Proceed Dr. Ratz. BY DR. RATZ:
Q. One concluding question. Did Herr von Radetsky ever talk to you about executions?
A. No, Herr von Radetsky never spoke to me about executions because the contents of the reports which he dictated to me were entirely different.
Q. And one final question. Do you know anything about it whether Radetsky ever participated in any form in any executions?
A. Personally I know nothing about it but only during the time which I have mentioned, namely July and August, was I with von Radetsky and I only saw him once more in March and I assume that in his capacity as liaison officer to the Army Headquarters he probably could not have had anything to do with such matters.
Q. That's all. I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, Mr. Hochwald. BY MR HOCHWALD:
Q. May it please the Tribunal. Witness is it true that you signed and swore to an affidavit dated on 21 August 1947?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you say the truth in this affidavit?
A. Yes.
Q. Is it further true that you signed another affidavit, dated 10 October 1947?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you say the truth in this affidavit?
A. Yes.
Q. So you said the truth in both affidavits, is it so?
A. Yes.
Q. From your first affidavit -
DR. RATZ: Your Honor, the second affidavit is contained in my Document Book but I have not yet submitted it. I think there is no cause to question the witness about that affidavit.
DR. HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, the affidavit is in the possession of the Prosecution, in complete correct form. We have received the translated document book, the affidavit is before the Tribunal. I do think I should be permitted to ask him any questions resulting from this affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Ratz, you may not be familiar with this rule of law but in cross examination you may impeach the witness in any way, that is entirely relevant and certainly an affidavit made up by a witness is good evidence to use against him in cross examination. You may proceed, Mr. Hochwald. BY MR. HOCHWALD:
Q. You stated in this affidavit of 21 August -- I am referring, Your Honors, to Document Book III-C, document NO-4765, page 30, No-4765, it is Prosecution Exhibit 137 -- that you worked with the Gestapo, is that correct?
A. Yes. I had been called into the Gestapo.
Q. You were in Hungary with the group Eichmann, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Will you tell the Tribunal what the task of the group Eichmann was?
A. As I heard in Hungary the group Eichmann carried out negotiations with the Government authorities in Hungary and it resulted in the Jewish population there being evacuated by the Hungarian Field Police.
Q. You know that the group Eichmann was this group which was assigned the task to kill the Jews?
A. No. I didn't know at that time.
Q. You didn't know that?
A. No.
Q. You wrote articles for the defendant Radetsky, cultural reports and reports on economy, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you ever speak to him about executions?
A. No.
Q. What did he have to do with executions?
A. I know nothing about it.
Q. Why would you then have been of the opinion that he did Know about executions if he never spoke to you, if he had never anything to do with it? Why did you, witness?
A. May I ask that the question be repeated please?
Q. Are you of the opinion that Radetsky is informed and was informed about executions in detail?
A. That he was informed about executions?
Q. In detail.
A. That is possible but I heard nothing about it.
Q. Are you and were you of the opinion that he was? That's my question.
A. As an officer the possibility existed that he heard about such matters.
Q. This is not my question. My question is very clear whether you are or were of the opinion that Radetsky was informed about executions in detail. Were you of the opinion, are you of the opinion, or are you not of the opinion?
A. I never thought about it.
Q. Were you interrogated about this question here in Nurnberg?
A. Whether Herr von Radetsky -
Q. No, about the question of executions?
A. Yes.
Q. Is it true that you said you do not know a thing about it?
A. Yes, that is correct. I merely mentioned that I knew about executions in Sokal and Luck.
Q. Is it further true that you were asked who would know about it? Were you asked that?
A. It is possible that they asked me that question.
Q. Whom did you mention who would know about these executions?
A. I mentioned that at least the commander had to know about it.
Q. Whom did you mention? You mentioned one name if you had know that a few weeks ago you must know it today, Tell us the name which you mentioned of the person who did know about executions.
A. As the only person who had to know about executions I named the Commander Blobel.
Q. Nobody else? Nobody else, witness?
A. It is possible that I mentioned the officer Karlsen.
Q. I will read to you what you have said: "Q. (I am sorry I have to read in German) How many people were exeucted.
"A. (your answer) I cannot give you the number."
"Q. Who can testify about these matters?"
"A. In my opinion the officers.
"Q. Who were the officers.
"A. Radetsky."
'Neither Blobel, neither Karlsen, but Radetsky. That is what you said, Witness,
A. It is possible that I said that at the time.
Q. All right. You have told me on very explicit questioning just three minutes ago the absolute contrary.
A. I said --
Q. I told you what you have said. Nothing else. Can you tell the Tribunal whether you are or were of the opinion that it would have been impossible that Radetsky would have carried out executions? Did I understand your testimony correctly to that effect?
A. I don't quite understand.
Q. Did you say in direct examination that according to your opinion Radetsky certainly could not have carried out executions?
A. Yes, I said that.
Q. Why?
A. Because in my opinion Herr von Radetsky was fully occupied in Luck making out his reports and later in Shitomir with writing reports.
Q. Were you interrogated about this question too, here in Nurnberg?
A. It is possible.
Q. Do you remember what your opinion then was?
A. It is possible that I then said that as an officer he could have had the opportunity to hear about such matters and I cannot remember anything further.
Q. You have not answered my question. The question was whether you were interrogated here in Nurnberg about your knowledge whether Radetsky carried out - not knew about - carried out executions? Were you interrogated about that?
A. That is possible.
Court No. II, Case No. IX.
Q Do you remember what reply you gave to the interrogator?
Q You did not say, "No", you only said, "I do not know, I was never outside, outside of my office." That is what you said, but you did not say with one word that it was, according to your opinion, impossible that he would have carried out executions. Let's go now to your second affidavit which allegedly is true.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, why not ask him whether that is a fact, that he did put it only in the realm of lack of knowledge and not a positive negative?
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: Thank you very much, your Honor.
Q (By Mr. Horlick-Hochwald) Will you answer the question?
A I didn't quite get that question.
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, Mr. Hochwald asked you if in your interrogation you had been questioned as to whether von Radetzky had superintended or in any way taken care of any executions, and your reply in effect was here that your answer could only have been no. So far you understand what we are talking about, don't you?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: All right. Now, Mr. Hochwald now read to you from the interrogation which seems to say that you were put that same question and your reply was, "I don't know". "I don't know," of course, includes a positive, as well as a negative answer. Now, which is it, that you don't know whether he ever performed an execution or that he did not perform an execution?
THE WITNESS: I do not know. May I ask for a clarification?
THE PRESIDENT: All right. Now then, you say you do not know. When Mr. Hochwald asked you that very question, you said your answer could only have been no, namely that he did not perform any execution. How do you reconcile those two statements?
THE WITNESS: May I say something about this?
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
Court No. II, Case No. IX.
THE WITNESS: I am a baker, and have never anything to do with legal matters so that I cannot make a legal distinction between the answer, "I don't know" and "No".
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal takes this statement to be correct, any form of cross-examination seems to be impossible. I do think the witness himself has just admitted that he does not know the worth of an oath.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Witness, I wouldn't understand why a baker wouldn't know the difference between "No" and "I don't know". What is there about baking bread that so confuses the brain that one can't tell between no and ignorance? The staff of life apparently does not help a baker very much.
THE WITNESS: I can only maintain my testimony, that I said at least during that interrogation I was not legally fit to handle such quibbling.
THE PRESIDENT: Such quibbling? Please read the interrogation, that question and answer.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: Yes, I shall do so.
THE PRESIDENT: For a baker you are getting into some pretty technical language here.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: I beg the Tribunal's pardon. I just can't find it at the moment, but I will have it in a minute. The question was, and I have to quote in German again, your Honor, "How many executions do you think Radetzky carried out?" The answer was, "I do not know. I never was outside." I do think there is no comment necessary, that between the explanation the witness gave today and the witness gave during the interrogation there is a colossal difference.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, give him an opportunity to explain that answer. BY THE PRESIDENT:
Court No, II, Case No. IX.
tion and answer. You were asked, "How many executions". It wasn't even, "Did he perform an execution," but "How many," and your answer was, "I don't know". Your answer wasn't, "I don't think he ever committed an execution", it is, "I don't know because I was never outside." You went pretty far there in implicating your comrade, didn't you? "I don't know", I didn't become aware of. I cannot really know it because I was not with Herr von Radetzky in such a manner so that after the difference between the "I don't know" and "No" have been explained, I can only say, "I don't know."
Q Well, witness, your difficulty is this. If you don't know what took place that should be your answer all the time, "I don't know", but you have voluntarily set out to tell what von Radetzky was doing when you didn't even see him. You were saying he couldn't have been in charge of a Teilkommando because in the orderly room you would have found out. Now, if you would have found out whether he was in charge of a Teilkommando or not, it is not unlikely to conclude that you could have found out whether he performed an execution. Isn't that logical?
A I said in my affidavit of October, I always said, "as far as I know" that whenever I claimed anything, that if I said Radetzky did not command a Teilkommando, at least I don't know that he did, I always added that, I think.
Q That is the whole point. If you don't know, that ends it. There is no attempt here to try to confuse you, but if you make a statement of knowledge, then you must support that statement as to how you know, and if you make the statement that von Radetzky could not have been in charge of a Teilkommando because you were in the orderly room, then you have to establish that statement, you see.
A Yes. During the time I wrote reports for Herr von Radetzky in Shitomir, Herr von Radetzky was also in Shitomir, and during this period -
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, don't let's lose a lot of time on this.
Court No. II, Case No. IX.
We are referring to the time that von Radetzky was not with you. Dr. Ratz asked you if when he was away from you he could have commanded a Teilkommando, and you said, no, because being in the orderly room you would have learned about this. That is what precipitated this whole discussion.
Proceed, Mr. Hochwald. Do you have something to say, Witness?
THE WITNESS: I wanted to say that I can only testify for the period that I was with the kommando, that is until March, 1942. During this time from August, or July and August, that is during the time when I lost track of Radetzky, I heard that he had become a liaison officer with Army headquarters, and as far as I always heard again later he was still that in March, 1942.
Q (By the President) Witness, let's sum it all up. From June, 1941, to March, 1942, do you know whether von Radetzky conducted any executions? was ever in charge of a Teilkommando?
A From June, 1941, until March 1942?
Q Yes. Do you know whether during that period he was ever in charge of a Teilkommando?
THE PRESIDENT: You see, if you had said that at the beginning, that would have ended all the inquiry.
CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued) BY MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD : could not have been a leader of a Teilkommando and he could not have carried out executions, that you had the knowledge that these answers were to be - these questions were to be answered in the negative? Is it not true that you are telling the Tribunal now something completely different than that what you have said in direct examination Court No. II, Case No. IX.
twenty-five minutes ago? Your Honors, I am quoting from Radetzky Document Book No. I, Radetzky Document No. 7, which is an affidavit of the witness, from Page 29.
THE PRESIDENT: In his book?
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD : In the defendant's book,
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, I see.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD : This document is not, an exhibit before the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand.
Q (By Mr. Horlick-Hochwald) I quote: "As to the question who was Fuehrer of this Vorkommando", - and that is the Vorkommando in Luck "I would like to state today after many and thorough deliberations, today, I am of the opinion that von Radetzky was not and could not have been the Fuehrer of this kommando since he was not a member of the Security Police, and, thus, was not familiar with Security Police tasks, whereas the other Fuehrers were police experts." Did you say that? "I remember that one evening a conference was held during our stay in Luck, in the course of which Waldemar von Radetzky, a senior leader, gave orders to the assembled subleaders to seize documents and other important material from certain buildings. At that time I had the impression that Radetzky was the head of the Vorkommando, although he had never been pointed out to me as such."
A May I say something about this?
Q I want to ask you and then you can explain. Is it true that at that time, which means at a time when you were in Luck, you were of the opinion that Radetzky was the leader of the kommando? A I would like to make a statement about this.
Court No. II, Case No. IX.
were of the opinion that Radetzky was the leader of the Vorkommando? Answer this question, please, with yes or no. Then you can explain.
Q Will you please answer first with yes or no, and explain then?
Q Just say yes or not, whether you did. The question is, I ask you now the question for the third time, is it true that you then at that time, when you were in Luck, were of the opinion that Radetzky was the leader of the kommando?
Court No. II, Case No. IX.
to change this opinion between August and October 1947, six years after the happenings had taken place? that was in 1941. At the time in Schmiedeberg before the commando moved out, we had training.
Q May I interrupt you, witness. Is it not true that when you gave your affidavit in August 1947 your military knowledge was as great as on the 10th of October 1947? The question was, why did you change your testimony between August and October, Nor, what did you learn about Radetzky from 1941 to August 1947? The very clear question is, why did you change this testimony between the 10th of August and the 10th of October?
DR. RATZ: In order to make a correction, I would like to remark that the witness has not changed his testimony from August until October, for in August he said that at that time, six years ago-he had the impression.
MR. HOCHWAID: Please. That is certainly not possible that defense counsel explains what the witness is supposed to answer. This is cross examination, and it is obvious that the witness made two completely different statements. I do think that I am within my rights to question him rather rigorously on this part.
PRESIDENT: Proceed.
WITNESS: Before Dr. Ratz said anything, I wanted to say something about it. In my affidavit of August, I said that at that time I had the impression, and I didn't say that in August 1947, I had the impression that Radetzky was leader of the commando. BY MR. HOCHWAID:
Q Just a minute. That is an explanation. Were you during your examination here in Nuernberg of the opinion that Radetzky was the leader of the commando in 1947?
A No. I said in my interrogation that Herr von Radetzky.
Court No. II, Case No. IX.
Q I will read you question Number 16. You have said in your interrogation that he was not the commander, did you want to say that?
A In what interrogation? leader of the Einsatzkommando or of the Vorkommando or the subcommando? Radetzky was the commanding officer of-the advance commando.
Q All right. Let me ask you further what made you change your opinion between the time when you made this declaration and the time that you gave your affidavit on the 10th of August, which deliberation made you change this statement? What did you learn which informed you more about the facts between this interrogation and your affidavitwho told you to change your statement? my second interrogation here in Nuernberg --you, I can stay and hear you two days-you will answer my question. If you perjure yourself 150 times, I have no objections against that.
PRESIDENT: Now, put the question very specifically. BY MR. HOCHWAID: tween the interrogation in Nuernberg and the 10th of October when you made this affidavit-which deliberation made you change your statement?
A I did not change my testimony. I merely said in my second affidavit of October that afterwards, that is, after my affidavit of August, I seriously thought about the matter, whether Herr Von Radetzky could have been in the position, technically speaking, of being able to be commanding officer of this advance commando. asked who was the leader of this advance commando or subcommando, you did not know and it was suggested to you that it might have been Court No. II, Case No. IX.
Radetzky, that is what you stated and, therefore, the name came into the affidavit. made out... specifically about the interrogation, as you have said here in direct examination that it was suggested to you in the interrogation you did not know the name and then the name was suggested to you, and so you said, "Yes". I want to find out what is the truth in this case. I speak about the interrogation. When you were interrogated, did you remember the name of the man who was in charge of the advance commando or subcommando? Nuernberg I said that Herr Von Radetzky could have been it, or that he was it--I don't remember exactly, but that in the next interrogation I corrected myself, and said that it was not Herr von Radetzky.
Q What did you say in the first interrogation?
Q Are you sure about that? I said I did not know who was the commanding officer of the advance commando. rogation of yours the fact that Radetzky was in charge in Luck or did you volunteer this statement, the statement which you consider now to be incorrect?
A Is this my affidavit of 21 August?
Q Now we are speaking all the time about your interrogation? Tribunal that the name of Radetzky having been in charge of the advance commando in Luck was suggested to you by the interrogator and that you Court No. II, Case No. IX.
just could not remember, and after the suggestion, you gave way and so the name came into the affidavit. Now, I ask you, did you volunteer this statement that Radetzky was in charge in Luck when you were questioned about his activities? Radetzky was in charge in Luck, or did you when asked about his activities volunteer the statement that he was in charge in Luck? wouldn't have hit upon this Subject. put to you, how often did Radetzky command the commando? What did you say to that?
A What commando are you speaking about? did Radetzky command the commando--Einsatzkommando or Sonderkommando 4A.
A You mean the entire commando?
PRESIDENT: Mr. Hochwald, ask him if he remembers the question; if he remembers the question, then ask him if he remembers the answer, and then have him give the answer. BY MR. HOCHWALD :
Q I am asking, do you remember that these questions were put to you? similar question? that it was suggested to you by the interrogator that Radetzky was in charge in Luck if you cannot remember, as you have just told the Tribunal. You have given a very explicit statement here that you have said when asked whether Radetzky was in charge in Luck that you Court No. II, Case No. IX.
answered, "I do not know", and that it was then suggested that he must have been, and that you agreed on that afterwards. Is that right that you made this statement?
PRESIDENT: You do put multiple questions, Mr. Hochwald.
MR. HOCHWALD: I am sorry.
THE WITNESS: I really don't know any more what you are speaking about. BY MR. HOCHWALD: questioned about the fact whether Radetzky was in charge of the Vorkommando in Luck, told the interrogator that you do not know, is that correct?
Court No. II, Case No. IX.
A This is the interrogation you mean in August?
A Yes. In the first interrogation I said, "I do not know", In the second interrogation I said, it is possible, or that he was it, and then I asked to discuss the matter again, and I wanted to correct that point. allegedly said you do not know?
Q Is it possible that it was on the 15th? time or only the first time? It was on the 15th, and I want to read to you the question which was put to you. I will again quote in German:
"Q How often did Radetzky command the commando?
A In Luck for a few days he commanded the commando." Are you still maintaining, did you say that? rected myself.
Q I can read you from another interrogation on the 18th. I have more than that:
" Q Who gave you your assignments?
AAs far as I know, Radetzky. At that time he had the command." Did you say that? blasting unit.
Q I have read your interrogations with great interest. You have testified to this to the safe-breaking or safe-blasting unit, but you have never mentioned the name of Radetzky, which appears quite Court No. II, Case No. IX.