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.
often in the other parts of your interrogation, together with the safe-blasting unit. Is it true what you said in your affidavit of 21 August that Radetzky selected among the Ukrainians interpreters who were to work with 4A? he not? Another question:
"Q Who was your commanding Officer at that time?
A I think Radetzky--I cannot say it exactly any more." Do you remember in which connection you made this statement?
A No, I can no longer say. I merely knew that Von Radetzky gave me my direct orders in Luck. answer when you were questioned, about the fact whether Radetzky was in charge in Rowno?
A Whether Radetzky commanded the commando of Rowno?
Q I want to read to you the thing again if you want me to:
"Q Did the entire commando move on to Rowno?
A No. Only the advance commando.
Q Who was your commanding officer at that time?
A I think Radetzky. I can no longer say exactly." The question was about Rowno, not about Luck, was it? Now, I want just to ask you what you did say about the fact whether Radetzky was deputy for Blobel or not. Do you remember what you said in interrogations about it? cannot testify about the deputy of the commanding officer because no deputy was ever introduced to us.
Court No. II, Case No. IX.
Radetzky?
MR. HOCHWALD: Your Honors, I have no further questions, but the prosecution respectfully moves that the witness may be cited by the Tribunal for contempt of court.
PRESIDENT: On what grounds?
MR. HOCHWALD: Perjury, Your Honor.
DR. RATZ: Your Honors, I have nothing to say to that. I shall leave the decision up to the Tribunal.
PRESIDENT: The prosecution has made the request that the witness be cited for contempt on the grounds of perjury, and there is no doubt that the prosecution can draw the conclusion that the witness has committed perjury, that is, the prosecution may from what has been advanced, taking its side of the case, conclude that the witness at one time made a certain statement under oath and then later made a statement contrary to that also under oath, but it may be advanced on the other side that while it is true, the witness may have made contradictory statements, yet the witness has explained that he was only giving his opinion. It does appear to the Tribunal that the witness has at least been a little careless in his answers to questions put to him on various occasions, but we are not ready to go so far as to say that with these statements which he made there went the malice which would necessarily be requisite upon which to found a charge of contempt for perjury, but aside from whether perjury has or has not been committed, the Tribunal believes that the effects might be more injurious than solubrious. The Tribunal would not want any defense counsel to feel that there is any danger or hazard to be confronted in calling any witness to testify, and even if this witness may have gone amiss, and we do not pass upon that right now, we are definitely of the belief that it would be a very bad precedent to establish, a very bad example to have, which might cause defense counsel to believe that they should proceed so cautiously as sometimes not to call a witness for fear that Court No. II, Case No. IX.
perjury procedure might follow and in that way perhaps deprive themselves of a witness who might well be helpful to their cause. We regret very much on the side of the witness that he did conduct himself in the way he did because it is quite clear that he was careless, but we will not go so far as to say that he committed perjury insofar as the Tribunal is able to determine it here. So under those circumstances, Mr. Hochwald, your recommendation will not be accepted, but we do not in any way criticize you for having presented it.
MR. HOCHWALD: Thank you very much.
PRESIDENT: Yes. Did you have any further questions, Dr. Ratz? The witness will be excused. Oh, did any other counsel desire to put any questions to the witness, because if you do, we would like to have you do it this afternoon so the witness will not have to come back tomorrow.
DR. RATZ: I only would like to clarify one point, Your Honor. On the basis of this ruling on the part of the Tribunal, I may assume that the witness can return to his homeland, to Goslar, without any hindrance, and that it would not be permitted to arrest him or to detain him or to do anything against him to prevent his return trip home?
PRESIDENT: Without any hindrance whatever, the witness may leave and go about his affairs freely as he did before he came into this courtroom, of course, referring insofar as it pertains to anything which happened here in this courtroom.
DR. RATZ: Yes, Sir. Thank you.
PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now be in recess until tomorrow morning at 9:30 o'clock.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 0930 hours, 18 December 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal II.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant, Ruehl, will be taken to the witness box.
JUDGE SPEIGHT: Witness, raise your right hand, 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.)
JUDGE SPEIGHT: You may be seated.
DR. LINCK: Attorney Linck for the defendant, Ruehl. May I begin my direct examination of the witness, please?
THE PRESIDENT: Please do, Dr. Linck. BY DR. LINCK: you about your person, about your vocational and political development. Please give your full name, your birth date, and where you were born.
A My name is Felix Ruehl. I was born on the 12th of August 1910 in Neheim, Westphalia.
Q Are you married?
Q Do you have any children?
Q Did you have, or do you have any brothers or sisters?
A I had one brother. He was a businessman. He was killed in the war against Russia. He was a lieutenant.
of your father?
A My father is a retired customs official. He belonged to the German People's Party.
Q Where did you grow up, Mr. Ruehl, what schools did you attend?
A I grew up in Lockenwalde. I attended the high school there.
Q Where is Lockenwalde?
Q What was your professional training? apprentice for three years in a metal factory. I remained with this firm after I completed my apprenticeship. I remained with them another half year as an assistant. Then I gave up this position in order to go to England to get some further professional training. There I was from October 1929 until May 1930, but because of financial difficulties I had to return. Because of the economic stress prevalent in Germany, at that time, it was impossible for me to find another job in my own profession in Germany, but since I did not want to burden my parents, I accepted a job as an unskilled worker in a factory. After a few months I lost this position, too, since this concern had to close up also. Despite all efforts and eagerness to accept any type of work, I remained unemployed for the time being until in the spring of 1930 -- pardon me--1931, I received an auxiliory job with the district court in Luckenwalde. There I remained until I was taken into the Prussian secret police on the first of October 1933.
Q Will you please briefly describe your political development? stress and need came to an especially strong expression -- therefore, I early reached the conclusion that the solution of the social problem was one of the most pressing problems. Therefore, during my apprenticeship.
already, that was in the year 1926, I joined the trade union of employees and I belonged to this union until it was dissolved in 1933, and I was active in its youth group. But soon I came to the conclusion that on the small front of a profession trade union alone the important youth work could not lead to any success. Therefore, in 1927 I also joined the "greater German youth group".
Q Was this a party political organization?
A No. The"greater German youth group" rejected any political affiliation. It was active generally as a part of the organized youth, and its aim was the moral and ethical education of the youth.
Q How long did you belong to this greater German youth group?
Q Were you in it in some active position?
A Yes. In the years 1931 and 1932 I directed the local youth group.
Q That was in 1931 and 1932? Party and the SA at the end of 1930, is that correct?
Q What led you to do this? party political activity, and I didn't especially interest myself in party politics. Only after I returned from England in the spring of 1930 and when I realized the extent of the economic strain and had to experience its consequences on my own person, I think I began to become interested in political parties. As I have already said, I already had considered socialism as one of the most pressing problems. I was confirmed in this opinion in my activity as an unskilled worker in the factory, and then as an unemployed and, therefore, I came to the conclusion that only socialism would offer a solution. As to the Marxist parties, apart from the ideology, I was against the idea of the class struggle because, in spite of the position I held then, I felt that I belonged to the bourgoisie because of my background.
But in addition to that, there was another thing. In the party system of the Weimar Republic, I saw one of the chief causes of our catastrophic economic and political conditions, which in my opinion, led to the absolutely senseless number of over 30 political parties. Thus the political will of the German people was so split up that the formation of an efficient ogvernment became impossible. Here, in my opinion, was one of the most important impediments to relieving our distress which could only be overcome by joining forces with everybody. Thus I decided to join the Nazi Party which promised to remove these conditions by legal means. I joined the SA because the membership in a Nazi affiliation was a matter of course for party members of my age group.
Q What offices did you hold in the Party? one.
the SS--what was the reason for that? organization and since their attitude seemed impossible to us and, therefore, on the first of October 1932 I joined the SS which was just being formed in my hometown, and in view of their higher prerequisites and their stricter discipline, I expected more from them.
Q Did you do any active service in the SS, if so, how long?
A Yes. In the local SS group I did service. On the basis of my professional training, the administrative work was given to me. When I was taken into the Prussian secret state police on the first of October 1933 I left the active service of the SS. SS membership. First of all, I want to ask you something else. You spoke of being taken into the Prussian secret state police. How did that come about? on a certain evening since a commission from Berlin wished to see us. This commission then reviewed us -- inspected us -- and finally told us that they were looking for people for the security police. For the time being, I no longer heard anything about this matter, until in the last days of September my commander told me that an order had been received from Berlin that on the next day I was to report there at the secret police. Therefore, I went to Berlin according to order where there was no question of reporting any longer, but where they gave me a job right off the bat. That is how I got to join the Gestapo. your career there? as an employee. These in the department for salaries I had to take care of calculating the social contributions -- the welfare contribution. On the first of March 1934, I was transferred to Cologne, and I on my own request.
I was used in the department for espionage counter-intelligence. After two years of training I passed a special examination in March 36 in Berlin, became an assistant for criminal affairs and finally in April 1937 I became chief assistant for criminal affairs. As such, I continued to work in espionage counter-intelligence until in September 1937 I was called to take an examination for the criminal service. After I successfully passed this examination on the first of October 1937, I was assigned to a training course for candidates for police inspector which ended with an examination after nine months. After completion of this course and of this examination, on the 30th of June 1938 I was appointed a police inspector provisionally and finally after another test period, effective the 30th of January 1939 I was appointed a police inspector. I continued to remain active in the espionage counter-intelligence service in this position until on the first of September 1940 I was called in for another course of study. On this occasion I was also transferred to Office I and released from the service.
Q What do you mean "called to a course of study", how did that come about?
A Well, I didn't volunteer for it, on the contrary, I objected orally to my supervisor, but when this remained without succes, I again objected to the RSHA giving my reasons. Nevertheless, on the first of September 1940 I was called to this course of study, since the chief of the security police in a speech termed such applications as without any foundation, and he emphasized that it was the duty of everyone to go wherever he was sent.
Q I do not quite understand that. We are still studying. Are you of the opinion that it was inappropriate to study -- in any case, why did you want to refuse to matriculate in the university?
A There were two reasons for that. First of all, on my own request I was active in espionage counter-intelligence since 1934, and I was very familiar with the work in this field, therefore, it was my wish to remain in this activity since I like it. Secondly, on the first day of the war and soon afterwards again I tried to get a release for the army. Both applications were rejected, and the reason for that was that the importance of my work was decisive. Only the belief that I could do a greater service to my people in performing this work made it bearable for me to take this rejection without any trouble, therefore, I was ashamed of the fact that now I was also taken out of this work and as a young, able-bodied man to be sent to a university, while at the same time heads of families were being sent to the front.