The prosecution witness Albert HARTL concludes his affidavit with the following words:
"I do not know why the paragraph: "v. RADETZKY was Teilkommando fuehrer in the summer of 1942", was written into the suggestion for Prosecution submits as evidence.
I only know that at times some motion.
Thus I remember for instance the suggestion to give SS (Generalfeldmarschall von BOCK, later Generalfeldmarschall von WEICHS), the War Merit Cross 1st class.
In this suggestion it was consisted solely of his activity as liaison officer". The statement of this witness agrees with the affidavit of Heinz UNGLAUBE, who was in Kiev as supply officer with the Commander of the Security Police and the SD for the Ukraine, with the rank of a Hauptsturmfuehrer from May 1942 to August 1943.
(Document Book RADETZKY III, Doc. No. 33). He states:
"and I can state with absolute certainty that there never existed in the Ukraine a Kommando or Teilkommando by the name of "RADETZKY" during the above period.
Furthermore, I can state for certain at least by name if not personally". UNGLAUBE further says:
"When I am told that a suggestion for promotion of RADETZKY also for promotion.
Such things happened at times." Your Honors! I would like to say in summary: v. RADETZKY was drafted and liable for emergency service, i.e. on the basis of his knowledge of languages he was forcefully removed from his former activity and assigned to a Kommando. He had hardly been instated as an interpreter, when he accepted an activity probably practiced by every army and its retinue, by the neutral duty of registration of documents, and beyond that he devoted himself to the reports made to him about the country and its people. He was immediately forced into a clear and decisive opposition by the Fuehrer Order, of which he heard nothing until he came to Russia, and his further progress in the Kommando was nothing else but a carrying out of this order, which his conscience induced him to oppose. On the witness stand, v. RADETZKY gave a candid and detailed report of his course. What he said nothing about was the spiritual suffering he experienced. On the other hand, he opposed it with whatever means were at his command in his situation. He soon succeeded in having himself removed from the Kommando and in changing over to the position of a liaison officer, a position which, as is well known, is endowed with no authority over anyone. However, he was not satisfied with this, and directly and indirectly attempted to intervene wherever this seemed possible and sensible, as for instance in Luck or in the case of his intercession when the Waffen-SS Company, which was originally assigned to the Kommando, was relieved. v. RADETZKY was a lone wolf in the Kommando and was not at ease there, as the witnesses freely stated in the affidavits submitted, members of the Vehrmacht have further testified that they knew that v. RADETZKY wanted to leave the Kommando and tried to achieve this by connections with the Vehrmacht v. RADETZKY's attitude was also known by the outside and he had already placed himself in a very risky situation. If he did not take the final step, i,e. open opposition with all its attendant consequences, and by that I mean imprisonment in a concentration camp with no prospect of ever regaining his freedom, this happened because he had nothing directly to do with carrying out given orders:
in retrospect, one cannot in all fairness demand this of him today. In the course of the presentation of evidence, I have demonstrated that v. RADETZKY was only a nominal SS-Fuehrer and that he was not amember of the RSHA or one of the offices under it, and that he was never fully recognized. This was his position within the Kommando, in which he had no support and no influence of any sort. If v. RADETZKY had held the position ascribed to him by the Prosecution, this would have to have been expressed in one way or another in the documents. He would not have been secretly given the fictitious activity of a Teilkommandofuehrer in his last mention for promotion, if he had actually held the position of a deputy or a department chief. He certainly would have shown a different official development than was actually the case. We know that until the end he was employed only in subordinate or secondary positions. I have already explained why the defendant has even been put in the dock, why he of all persons was chosen from among the hundreds of SS-Fuehrers and thousands of members of the Einsatzgruppe. On the basis of the BLOBEL affidavit, the Prosecution could not assume anything else but that v. RADETZKY was actually active in this sense; thereupon they held v. RADETZKY responsible for a series of actions in which they supposed he had participated. Their surmise was completely refuted by BLOBEL's authentic disavowal on the witness stand and by the entire presentation of evidence. To be sure, BLOBEL neglected to say who actually represented him; but even that, I believe, has now been cleared up beyond a shadow of a doubt. v. RADETZKY's defense was made especially difficult from the beginning by the fact that he had no friends and no correspondents available from the period of his assignment to the East. Luck was kind to us, however, and helped us find an unexpected number of witnesses who were willing and in a position to confirm under oath everything v. RADETZKY himself had said concerning his activity and his conduct in the Last in all points and for all periods of time which came into consideration for us.
However, on the other hand, it is a lamentable fact that no other human community can mourn so many losses as the Baltic German ethnic group which was resettled at the beginning of the war, so that in spite of everything, many important witnesses were still not available. In addition to this, the six members of the defendant's family managed to save only their lives and nothing else when they fled from the East, so that important documents of the defendant could no longer be obtained. However, as I said, I have succeeded in suite of this in presenting complete proof for the activity of the defendant in the East, which is contained in 35 statements under oath and which refutes in detail the charges of the Prosecution, while confirming the statements of the defendant. Today there can not be the slightest doubt concerning that which I was able to say even in my Opening Statement to the court, that v. RADETZKY was not involved in any criminal act. Still another glance at the character of the defendant: He gave freely of his assistance to poor, afflicted people whenever they asked for his aid, without considering him elf; above all, until the end of the war, he rendered such extensive help to political and racial persecutees in the Baltic German Immigrant Advisory Office that he exposed himself to serious personal danger. After the surrender, he turned his energies to a broad program of re-education in the internment camp, and here again he proved that he not only wanted to wait until justice showed him his furure position; he helped people discover a place in the newly developing order, so that they could again become useful members of society.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Ratz, I have had a chance to glance at this and I notice that in the last paragraph of this summation there appears a sentence which I cannot believe you sincerely mean. I want you to look at this before you read it and see if there is a sentence in that last paragraph that you would want to omit.
DR. RATZ: You mean, Your Honor, the sentence immediately before the end?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. RATZ: Then I can only imagine, Your Honor, that you mean the two sentences before the last.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, that's up to you. You have the paragraph before you and this should strike you in the eye as being a very improper statement. If it doesn't strike you, then we will have to call it to your attention, but it should certainly he very obvious to you that that is no remark to make in court, so I will leave it up to you whether you want to read it or not.
DR. RATZ: Your Honor, I can only understand through interpretation that it does not correspond to the German, that the translation does not correspond to the German phrasing, because in the German form it is completely all right, but I shall omit these two sentences. I believe that as such there should be no misgivings according to the German version.
THE PRESIDENT: You know that this Tribunal is here to do justice and justice alone.
DR. RATZ: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal is interested only in ascertaining the truth, and certainly the statement as it appears in English cannot be accepted.
DR. RATZ: I can only say, Your Honors, that I never had any other opinion and that not even remotely did I want to say anything else. It thus can only be a translation which does not give the sense of the original, but I shall omit these two sentences, and I would ask you to believe that not even remotely did I have in mind to say anything which would not find the approval of the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
DR. RATZ: In conclusion I would like to state:
cerning the question of v. RADETZKY's criminal participation in the crimes which took place; he did not voluntarily enter upon this course and did not for one moment voluntarily pursue it; did nothing, abetted nothing and agreed to nothing of anything which is under indictrment here. What the defendant v. RADETZKY did and what he proclaimed to be his thoughts and feelings was nothing but opposition and refusal, and clearly recognizable evasion to the very Unit of what could be expected with regard to what his conscience had forbidden him to do. I shall withdraw the next two sentences. Therefore, I can ask with complete confidence for the acquittal of the defendant v. RADETZKY?
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now recess until 8:30 this evening when it will hear the final plea in behalf of the Defendant Haensch. We presume that counsel will be here at that time and we repeat what we said today: that such statements as are ready, that is, the defendants' final statements, will be taken to Room 106 as soon as possible. defendant or a counsel may be excused from this evening's session, if the proper motion is made to the Tribunal.
DR. RATZ (ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT VON RADETZKY): Your Honors. I ask that the Defendant von Radetzky be excused from this evening's session in order to prepare his final statement.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, the Defendant von Radetzky will be excused from attendance in court this evening.
MR. GLANCY: Your Honors, I see one of the other defendants is interested in being excused. Perhaps his request can be made by one of the defense counsel now present, if the men in the dock would so indicate.
THE PRESIDENT: That is the Defendant Ruehl. Would you like to be excused this evening?
THE DEFENDANT RUEHL: Yes, if Your Honors please.
THE PRESIDENT: The Defendant Ruehl will be excused from attendance in court this evening so that he may work on his final statement.
this time prepared their final statements or will have then ready, at the very latest at nine o'clock tomorrow morning so that the necessary translations may be made.
The Tribunal will now be in recess until this evening at 8:30.
(A recess was taken until 2030 hours.)
12 Feb 1948_E_MSD_25_1_Gallagher (Juelich) (Court met pursuant to recess 1830 hours, 12 February 1948)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
DR. KRAUSE: Dr. Drause for the defendant Haensch. Your Honor, the defendant Haensch, together with all other defendants in the case, has been accused of having committed three different offenses: Crimes against humanity, war-crimes and membership in organizations declared criminal by the International Military Tribunal. The first two counts are closely linked to each other as they both refer to the same fact i.e. the activity of the defendant as a leader of the Sonderkommando IV b, I shall, therefore, deal with this matter in the first part of this plea and in the second part with those accusations which refer to the defendant's membership in the SD and the SS. Document In the garrison strength roster of the report Book IIA of the of events No. 156 of 16 January 1942, the defendant Prosecution, is mentioned for the first time as the leader of P. 61 Doc. No. the Sonderkommanso IV b. The prosecution No-3405 Exh. No. 42 concludes from this that he was in charge of this Kommando at least from this day onward.
However, Doc. Book The defendant himself has always given the IIIC of Prosecution, p. 54 middle of March 1943 as the date of his taking-over Doc. No. No-4567 Exh. No. 140 of command, even in his affidavit of 21 July 1942 transcript According to this, although he was already appointed p. 3273 ff.
i.e. end of February 1942, because his predecessor, 12 Feb 1948_E_MSD_25_2_Gallagher (Juelich) Kommando.
Sturmbannfuehrer Braune is not identical with the defendant.
The Defendant, together with Obersturm bannfuehrer Dr. Erwin Weinmann, leader of SK IV a man for the front until the end of February 1942.
However, the Einsatzgruppe C, Dr. Thomas.
He arrived at the Kommando on 15 March 1942, at the earliest.
This facts:
Haensch Doc. According to Herbert Dassler's affidavit of 23 Book I, p. 11 October 1947 the defendant was present at Dassler's Doc. No.2 Exh. No.6 birthday-party in the latter's apartment in Berlin later, i.e. already in February 1942.
Haensch Frau Krueger-Martius is also aware of the fact Doc.Book I,p.3 and that the defendant did not start upon his journey Book II p. 2. to the east until the end of February 1942. Doc. No.3 and 17 Exh. No.7 and 20 Haensch Frau Else Neveling and Frau Erika Cohlon, two follow Doc Bk 1 and tenants of the house at Berlin-Zehlendorf, Hartmannweilerweg Doc. Bk II p.4. 16, in which the defendant had his apartment, made stateDoc. 1 & 18 Exh. No. 5 ments to the same effect. I refer to their affidavits of and 21 12 Feb 1948_E_MSD_25_3_Gallagher (Juelich) before he left, which was not before her husband's birthday, (Haensch which is in the middle of February.
Up to and including 7 Doc. BK IV p3, February 1942 the dentist Dr. H.D. Maennel in Berlin-Zehlendorf, DOC.31 Exh.33 treated the defendand, as the former stated in his affidavit index-card, and of those of his assistant Frau Jauer.
Frau sister.
She has assured us that all entries made by her are true in every respect.
She persisted in this testimony opinion had been submitted to her.
During all her statements value, I am unable to share.
The expert has declared derive from the one and the same person.
However, that this entries.
On this point, however, I believe, I can already state that in this the expert is undoubtedly mistaken.
The the entry of 26 November 1941, even to a layman's eye such 12 Feb 1948_E_MSD_25_4_Gallagher (Juelich) one person can be considered the writer.
This, however, the studio of Frau Schreyer in Berlin-Zehlendorf.
This can (Haensch be proved by Frau Schreyer's order-pad, and her customers' Doc. Exh.No. record both of which show under the consecutive number 391, 1-4.
which was taken at that time. All these objects have been (transcr. p.3374 ff given by Frau Schreyer, and her former employee, Frau Frieda Reich, the occasion of the latter's detailed examination (transcr.
in court. It is mainly due to Frau Reich on the name of p. 4590 trial.
May I also mention here that from the time of Frau Schreyers's examination those negatives were constantly in Prosecu- I further refer to the first questioning of Frau Reich by tion Doc.
No. the interrogator, Mr. Sachs on 3 December 1947 and to her NO-5698, 5699 and affidavit of 4 December 1947. The defense wishes to 5718 ment and was questioned by him.
If Frau Reich, during the interrogation on 3 December 1947, termed it "improbable" 12 Feb 1948_E_MSD_25_5_Gallagher (Juelich) -the English version even says wrongly "impossible" - that the defendant should have been entered into Frau Schreyer's due to an error.
This mistake is all the more understandable had been kept in Frau Schreyer's studio at that time, as well therein may serve as proof that the defendant's picture must have been taken at the stated time.
Finally I refer to mentioned Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. Erwin Weinmann, was also Transcr.
She had accompanied her husband to the station and could p. 3106ff left at the same time.
Frau Weinmann, too, is unable to give the exact date of departure, but remembers the following:
12 Feb 1948_E_MSD_25_6_Gallagher (Juelich) the front "hardly three weeks" after the birth of the Hanesch bers this fact, especially in connection with the time Doc.
Book I,p. 5 of the birth of her child. If it had happened hardly Doc. No. 4 Exh. No. 8 three weeks after the birth of the child, the departure February 1942.
This is the date given in an affidavit picture had been taken in Frau Schreyer's studio.
12 Feb 1948_E_26_1_ MSD_ Arminger (Juelich) his first letter from Russia, about their trip. There he mentioned that they, i.e. he and the defendant, stopped for some days both in Lemberg and in Kiew, and that following the journey by train they had covered another long distance by car. Considering that they were traveling during that winter. which was extraordinarily cold even by Russian standards, which already at that time almost brought German military operations in the East to a standstill, and that the transportation difficulties, which already in Remberg caused an interruption of the journey lasting several days, which grew in proportion as they approached the front-lines, then it becomes clear that the whole journey must actually have taken not only days but weeks. Unfortunately no witnesses are now available who could testify directly as to the time when the defendant finally joined the Kommando. But on the witness stand the co-defendant V. Radetzky stated the time when Obersturmbannfuehrer, Dr. Erwin Weinmann, joined the Sonderkommando IVa in Kharkov. This happened in the middle of March. The defendant must have also reached his destination about the same time. (German transcript p. 4321 and following) that Dr. Erwin Weinmann had been on active duty already since 13 January 1942, (Prosecution document No. NO-3251) These efforts were, however, unsuccessful.
The letter submitted by the Prosecution from the SS Main Personnel Office to the Reich Ministry of the Interior, dated 21 November 1942, concerning the release of the Oberburgermaster of Tuebinger has no probative value since it is based on mistaken identity. According to the inquiry which I made by wire to the municipal administration of Tuebingen on 22 January 1948, and according to the information given to me in the telegraphic answer dated 23 January 1948, not Dr. Erwin Weinmann but a Dr. Ernst Weinmann (the family name "Einmann" contained in the second wire is a typing error) holds the office of Oberbuergermeister. This is confirmed 12 Feb 1948_E_MSD_26_2_Arminger (Juelich) also by the affidavit of Professor Wilhelm Gieseler, dated 28 January 1943, interpol to which I shall still hand in, who at that time was Ratsherr of Tuebingen.
The Oberbuergermeister, Dr. Ernst Weinmann, is a brother of Dr. Erwin Weinmann, the person referred to. (Haensch Doc. Book IV pp. 1 and 2 Doc. No. 29 and 30 Exh. No. 31 and 32) I admit that it is probable that Dr. Erwin Weinmann already received his order of transfer in January 1942 like the defendant.
But he did not actually take over the Kommando until the middle of March 1942. transfer a more or less prolonged period elapsed before the person concerned actually entered upon duty. Thus, e.g. the co-defendant Biberstein on the witness stand stated that he did not join his Kommando until 18 September 1942 although the appointment as leader of the Kommando dates back to 14 July 1942. Another similar case is that of the Defendant Braune. Martenz, dated 23 October and wO November 1947 are of importance. Martenz was attached to the Sonderkommando IVb as investigator during the term of service of the defendant, but also already under his predecessor Braune. (Haensch Doc. Book I, p. 15 and II, p. 1 Doc. No. 12 and 16 Exhibits No. 15 and 19) As he explains in the period from February till May 1942 he was detailed for a skiing course. When he left the Kommando at the beginning of February 1942, Braune was still leader of the Kommando but was at that time away on leave returning from this leave to join the Kommando in the middle of February. Interpolate: Martenz met him in Kiev on that occasion. also thereby been confirmed. Not until his return from the skiing course at the beginning of May did Martenz find that in the meantime the defendant had become leader of the Kommando.
12 Feb 1948_E_MSD_26_3_Arminger (Juelich) the command of the Sonderkommando VI b until 15 March 1942. The erroneous statement in the garrison strength roster of report of events No. 156, dated 16 January 1942, which losts both the defendant and Dr. Weinmann as Kommando leaders already at that time, can be explained simply by the fact that the report office of the RSHA which made up the reports of events used the dates of the orders of transfer as a basis. again terminated. (Haensch Doc. Book I, p.8, Doc. No. 6 Exhibit No. 10) This appears from the submitted army postcard which the defendant sent to his wife on 17 June 1942. Therein he says that he had just been ordered by radiogram back to Berlin but that for offiical reasons he could not leave until 24 June 1942. Further a telegram from Sturmbannfuehrer Braune, dated 24 June 1942, has been submitted to the Tribunal as evidence, in which Braune once more informs the defendant's wife that her husband had been ordered to return, asking her to be in Berlin again 27 June 1942 on. This also proves the accuracy of the statements of the defendant concerning the date of his return from the Kommando. (Haensch Doc. Book I, p. 9, Doc. No. 7 Exhibit No. 11.) 1942, however, the defendant was not constantly with the Kommando either at first. In April 1942, he was in Kiew on official business for several days. Then at the end of April 1942 he was ordered to a meeting in Prague, from which he did not return until the last third of May. In Prague the defendant and the co-defendant Schulz met each other, as was definitely as confirmed by the latter. The defendant combined this official trip with a visit to his wife in Berlin which lasted several days. In Prague he visited Frau Marie Krueger-Martius, the sister-in-law of Lisa Kruegger-Martius, already mentioned. In this connection I once more refer to the affidavits of Lisa Krueger-Martinus and Frau Erika Coulon, dated 2 November and 24 November 1947, as well as to the affidavit of Frau Marie Krueger 12 Feb 1948_E_MSD_26_4_Arminger (Juelich) Martius and Frau Erika Coulon, dated 2 November and 24 November 1947, as well as to the affidavit of Frau Marie Krueger-Martius, dated 16 October 1947.
(Haensch Doc. Book II, p.2 Doc. No. 17 Exhibit No. 20 Haensch Doc. Book II, p.4, Doc. No. 18 Exhibit No. 21 Haensch Doc. Book I, p. 7 Doc. No. 5 Exhibit No. 9) B. Locale of activity as specified.
the command of the defendant, the garrison strength roster in the reports of events, on which again the Prosecution founds its charges, to a certain extent also represents a false picture. Up to and including report No. 190, dated 8 April 1942, the garrison locations of Sonderkommando IV b are given as follows: (Prosecution Doc. Book II D, p. 1. Doc. No. NO-3359, Exhibit No. 84) Kramatorskaja with detachments in Shitomir, Rovno, Winnica. Then in subsequent reports, starting with No. 191, dated 10 April 1942, only Gorlowka is listed as a garrison. (Prosecution Doc. Book III A, p. 74, Doc. No. NO-3256Exh. No.) Kommandoo the Kommando with its staff was actually in Gorlowka. For this report of events No. 183, dated 20 March 1942, contains irrefutable proof. The garrison strength roster of this report states, it is true, that the garrisons hitherto reported were not changed. (Prosecution Doc. Book III A, p. 80 Doc. No. NO-3234 Exhibit No. 108) This should then mean with respect to Sonderkommando IV b that the Hauptkommando was still located in Krammtorskaja. However, the text of the report reads: "As reported by Sonderkommando IV b, Gorlowka, ...". It is indicative of the unreliability of the garrison strength roster in the beginning of the reports of events that the persons preparing the reports do not notice this error in the garrison strength roster, of report of events No. 183, dated 20 March 1942, but allowed it to be repeated 6 times until finally correcting in report of events. No 191, dated 10 April 1942, which, as already mentioned, for the first 12 Feb 1948_E_MSD_26_5_Arminger (Juelich) time lists Gerlowka as a garrison.
If based hereon it can be maintained that the lists given in the garrison strength roster of the reports of events are not correct for the Hauptkommando, this applies still more to the Teilkommandos. In no period of the term of command of the defendant were any detachments of Sonderkommando IV b stationed in Shitomir, Rowno and Winnica. But such Teilkommandos were located in Artemovsk, Kramatorskaja, and finally also in Barvenskova. All these places, including Gorlowka, are located in the area between Slaviansk and Stalino directly on the Eastern border of the Ukraine in the Donez district, whereas Shitomir, Rowne, and Winnica are on the western border of the Ukraine, Rowne even in former Polish territory. to no less than between 700 and 900 kilometers in a straight line, shows that Sonderkommando IV b at that time could not possibly have had anything to do with Shitomir, Rowno, and Winnica. As Sonderkommando advancing together with the combat troops, the Kommando had exclusively security tasks in the front lines and was therefore never used in any other place than in the operational area of the army. This appears from the defendant's own statements as well as from all reports in which the Sonderkommando IV b is in any way referred to. I refer once more to report of events No. 183, dated 20 March 1942, in which the proximity of the front is expressly mentioned. (Prosecution Doc. Book III A, p. 80. Doc. No. NO-3288 Exhibit No. 108) before the Tribunal. (Transcript p. 2914 ff.) In the spring of 1942, Hartl was deputy consultant of personnel matters with Einsatzgruppe C in Kiew, and therefore familiar with the assignments of the various groups. Even though he cannot recall now the exact limitations of the area under the command of Sonderkommando IV b, he still remembers with certainty that the Kommando was operating in the industrial area of Southern Russia, i.e. in the Donez River Valley. But this is something quite different from the territory of Western Ukraine around 12 Feb 1948_E_MSD_26_6_Arminger (Juelich) Shitomir, Rowne, and Winnica.
never at all garrisones in these towns. (Transcript p. 4096 ff.) According to the statement of the co-defendant Fendler, who belonged to the Kommando from the beginning of the Eastern compaign until 2 October 1941, the Sonderkommando IV b never was in the towns of Shitomir and Rowno, but once stopped in Winnica for 8 or 10 days, leaving the place again in closed formation. At no stage of the advance were detachmentments of the Kommando left behind in any place, nor were they later sent back anywhere. Neither did the Kommando have any other connections with the rear area. This is proved also by the route of the Sonderkommando IV b according to the reports of events preceding report No. 154, dated 12 January 1942, which has for the first time the incorrect location of the alleged Teilkommando. Shitomir, Rowne, and Wihnica, was already under civil administration when the defendant arrived in Russia. (Prosecution Doc. Book III A p. 63, Doc. No. NO-4533 Exhibit No. 107) E.g. report of events No. 168, dated 13 February 1942, already lists separate commanders of the Security Police and the SD for Rowne and Shitomir respectively. I interpoltate: namely Dr. Putz and Dr. Ratze Berger. As soon as a certain district of the occupied territory was turned over to civil administration, all activities of the Einsatz-and Sonderkommandos were suspended, as explained by the co-defendant Ohlendorf, since the security duties were then taken over by the local police offices. Shitomir, Rowne and Winnica, which however, was never actually the case, their activity had to be concluded in February 1942 at the latest. (Transcript page 594 ff.) explained if one studies the report of events No. 129 of 5 November 12 Feb 1948_E_MSE_26_7_Arminger (Juelich) 1941 and those of subsequent dates.
In these reports the Teilkommandos in Shitomir, Rowno and Winnica are surprisingly enough referred to as such of EK V and even under exactly the same designation. This makes it clear that they belonged to the forces of EK V and not to those of the SK IV b. This statement is further substantiated by the fact that the garrison of EK V has located at Kiew. The Teilkommandos in Shitomir. Rowno and Winnica were therefore situated in its area of authority. Therefore, this is an obvious mistake. (Porseuction document book II D, page 8 No. NO-3159 Exhibit No. 85) Starting with report of events No. 154, of 12 January 1942, EKV is no longer mentioned in the garrison strength Roster.
It had been abolished in the course of the establishment of the Civil Administration. It is therefore not likely that the Teilkommandos stationed even to the West of Kiew should have remained activated after this date. They must have been affected too by the deactivation and were mentioned for a time as still being with the SK IV b only on account of an error of the reporting office, until also this mistake in the garrison strength rosters had finally been corrected in the report of events No. 191 of 10 April 1942. (Prosecution document book II A page 113 No. NO-3278 Exhibit No. 51) jurisdictional areas, therefore amounts to the following, that is, that SK IV b was only operating in the east Ukrainian sector at the time the defendant was there, which sector is marked by the towns of Gorlowka, Artemowsk, and Krmatorskoja and Barwenkowa.
C. The Activity Itself. questions concerning the Kommando period and the Kommando spheres, I turn now to the individual events with which the defendant, in his capacity as leader of SK IV b, has been charged.