Q. Who was the commander of the Advance Kommando?
A. Hauptsturmfuehrer Kalsten.
Q. He had the same rank as you?
A. Yes.
Q. Who was the deputy to Kalsten?
A. I don't know that Kalsten had a deputy.
Q. Who acted for him when he was absent?
A. Kalsten was never absent.
Q. Who would have acted for him if he would have been absent?
A. As the next official for the executive measures, I would probably have had to take this over.
Q. Will you repeat that? I didn't hear it.
A. I said for the executive activity, the Senior officer after him.
Q. That would have been you?
A. No, Mr. Prosecutor, my other official I mean a member of the Security Police or the Gestapo.
Q. How many officers were in this Advance Kommando?
A. Two officers.
Q. That was Kalsten and you?
A. Yes.
Q. And you want to tell the Tribunal that in spite of the fact that there were only Kalsten and you, the only officers, that you were not his deputy and that you never learned about the killing of those 400 people? Is that what you want the Tribunal to believe?
A. Mr. Prosecutor, I don't want to tell stories at all. I merely want to explain to them how these matters were taken care of, that I had my clear assignment what to do and I completed this assignment.
Q. And you did not see left, you did not see right. The only thing you did see was documents about economics, and cultural matters.
Is that right? You were just going your way, left and right people were killed, hundred, a thousand, ten thousand, but you were only looking at the documents. Is that what you are testifying to?
A. That is only partly correct, but partly it is correct.
Q. Is it known to you whether these 400 people were interrogated by somebody?
A. No, I do not know.
Q. Is it known to you who selected these 400 people?
A. No, I do not know.
Q. Is it known to you who ordered those executions?
A. No, I assume that if the group staff participated as the superior agency the group staff probably ordered it.
Q. In the same report it is said that political commissars wearing civilian clothes were apprehended and later admitted their identity. Did you investigate this case?
A. No.
Q. Who did that?
A. I cannot tell you, Mr. Prosecutor. I had nothing to do with the executive activity of this Advance Kommando. I do not know whether this took place.
Q. And Kalsten, the only fellow officer of yours there, never told you a word about it?
A. No. Kalsten did his work and discussed his work with his officials.
Q. I would like to turn now to page 70 of the same Document Book, Your Honors, That is 77 in the German, the last paragraph of that page. This report says the same - that 400 Jews, called here "mostly saboteurs and political functionaries", were liquidated. about just now?
A. I cannot tell you, Mr. Prosecutor.
Q. And now I want you to turn in the same Document Book, Your Honors, to page 28. This is document NO-3151, Prosecution Exhibit 73, where another execution of Jews in Shitomir is reported. 266 were liquidated in this case as a further reprisal measure for the sabotage of the black out regulation. What do you know about that, Herr Radetsky?
A. About this I know that in Shitomir there were several air attacks which can be said in explanation of the sabotage of black out regulations.
Q. What do you know about the killing of these 266 people?
A. I cannot tell you anything about it to. Prosecutor,
Q. You know that these people sabotaged the black out regulation but you do not know what happened to them, is that what you want to say?
A. No. I meant to say that I know that at that time there were severe air attacks in Shitomir. That is what I know about this. How far the black out regulations were sabotaged I do not know.
Q Who interrogated these 266 Jews?
Q Who selected them for killing?
A I cannot tell you. 1 assume that it was officials and the executive people?
Q Who were the officials and who were the executive people? This is 157 of the German, Document 3140, Prosecution Exhibit 30. 126, Your Honors.
I am quoting from the last paragraph on this page. Is it known to you, witness, that the defendant Blobel was ill from the 13 August to the 13 September? that he was sick during the time in Shitomir that I know.
Q Will you look at the document. There it is stated that 10 September 1941 a conference took place with the Feldkommandatur in which it was decided to liquidate Jews of Shitomir completely and radically. Did you represent -
A You said on 10 September?
Q That is right. We found out during the examination of Blobel that the date 18 September is an error. It is in the record, It is 10 September.
Q 10 September. Can you tell the Tribunal whether you represented Blobel in this conference.
A I can say the following thing about this incident. At the time I was ordered to negotiate with the field command about the furnishing of vehicles. At the time they discussed the transportation of the Jews to the West in the area of Rowno. The field command did not approve of this at that time and Blobel later negotiated with the command himself.
I had the order at the time from a member of Einsatzgruppe C. I think it may have been an Obersturmfuehrer by the name of Krieger.
Q I do not think you have answered my question, witness. Did you represent Blobel in this meeting on 10 September 1941?
A No, Mr. Prosecutor, I told you....
Q Were you present there?
A No. I cannot remember such a conference. Rowno?
Q Who was that?
A I do not know exactly who it was. I assume it was Obersturmfuehrer Krieger.
Q What happened to these Jews in Rowno? they would be resettled there.
Q Were they to be killed there, Mr. Radetzky?
Q Is it not a little Illogical? We have just discussed a document a few minutes ago which shows that the Jews in Rowno were killed and now you tell the Tribunal that in order to get new Jews in Rowno they were to be sent from Shitomir and don't you think that this is a little bit illogical?
A Mr. Prosecutor, I on my part always hoped that this problem would be regulated differently than it was regulated in other cases.
Q When did you lose this hope?
Q Not earlier?
on 19 September you still believed that the people would be only resettled in Rowno and not killed, is that right? another place when just a few days before that the Jews of the place had been killed?
A I don't think so. I occupied myself with this problem very much and I don'1 remember what I thought about it at the moment. I had the hope that these matters would some day find a different solution than the one which the Fuehrer Order had ordered,
Q How long were you on leave? From when to when? of March 1942.
Q Are you sure about the dates?
Q Do you remember having been interrogated by Mr. Wartenberg about these dates?
Q What did you tell Mr. Wartenberg about the dates? Did you tell him the same thing which you told me or did you change the dates?
A No. I think if he asked me about it - I don't remember that he did - I told him the same thing. I only would like to remark one thing here, I told Mr. Wartenberg that I cannot give any exact guarantee for dates and localities after six years. I cannot remember any exact date lines, I cannot say that on 27 September I was there or 14 November I was there - that would be senseless. are in no position to make any guarantee for the correctness of the dates you have given us for the same reason you have given us. Will you answer this question with yes or no.
A No, Mr. Prosecutor, I have had time to think about this matter and these investigations must serve me in correcting and clarifying those matters which I might have put incorrectly.
Q How did you check up the date?
A By various questioning of witnesses. I tried to check my own memory and either found it confirmed or not. the very special date of the arrival of Weinmann in Charkow in the middle of March 1942. Is it true that you have checked this date according to the testimony of the defendant Haensch.
A No, Mr. Prosecutor, I did not check it in this reference and I didn't speak to him about it. The question yesterday came completely as a surprise and I tried to check it through outsiders. your memory with other witnesses here. How you say with people outside. How did you get incontact with these people and why was this date so very much of interest to you. It makes no difference in your case. It makes a lot of difference in the case of the defendant Haensch. the witnesses about activities in the East.
Q Are these affidavits in your document book, Mr. Radetzky? document book that you were on leave until 15 March. Dr. Ratz certainly has his German copy of the document book. I have only the English, Your Honors, I am sorry.
Do you find it, Mr. Radetzky?
A No, Mr. Prosecutor, not yet. it is.
DR. RATZ: I haven't submitted the document as yet, but I am not worried about the witness using the document to support his testimony. Perhaps it is Page 43 of the document book, the testimony of Lulei.
THE WITNESS: There it says March or April.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: There is no possibility, in my opinion, to check the date according to this thing.
Q (By Mr. Horlick-Hochwald) Won't you admit that you checked the date according to the testimony of the Witness Haensch? Will you answer yes or no?
A Mr. Prosecutor no.
Q There is no further explanation necessary? the English, Page 53 of the German, I am quoting from the second part of the first paragraph on Page 34, your Honors, Document 3237. Prosecution's Exhibit 138. He said here that 236 persons could be arrested and interrogated, 193 were shot as agitators in dangerous elements. Did you carry out these interrogations?
A No, Mr. Prosecutor.
Q What can you say about the killing of these people?
A Mr. Prosecutor. I cannot tell you anything about it. When I came to Charkov, as I said yesterday, I had a number of conversations with the new commander, Dr. Weinmann. There were several heated disputes at the beginning, between us. Then I went to the Army in Poltava and to the Army group, and then I went back to Charkov.
Q So you don't know anything about this 193? Charkov there was another kommando active at the same time. I don't want to list this as an excuse for myself, because I had nothing to do with business. This was the kommando of the commander of the Security Police and SD, under Dr. Kranebitter.
had falsified passports?
Q Did you see these passports?
Q Did you have any passports?
Q You just spoke now about Weinmann. Do you remember his first name? tasks, as liaison officer, to evaluate interrogations of prisoners of war for the RSHA, is that correct?
Q Will you turn to Document Book II-A? Your Honors, I want to quote from Page 45 of the English. I think it is 43 of the German, but I am not sure. The second paragrpah under the heading "Page 5 of the original", your Honors, Document NO_3155, Prosecution's Exhibit 38. It is stated here that, "On 26 September, the Secuirty Police took up its activities in Kiev. That day 7 Interrogation Kommandos of Einsatzkommando 4a started their work in the Civilian Prisoner Camp, in the Prisoner-of-War Camp, in the Jewish Camp, and in the city itself. Thus, among other things, in the camp for civilian prisoners and prisoners of war 10 political commissars were found and interrogated in detail. Conforming to the old Communist tactics these guys denied all political activity. Only when confronted with trustworthy witnesses, five commissars yielded and confessed, that is, they admitted the position they had held, but did not make any statements beyond this. They were shot on 27 September." Were you, at that time, in Kiev? Sonderkommando 4a?
A No, Mr. Prosecutor. their testimony?
A No, Mr. Prosecutor, as far as I can see from this, they were investigated for their activity, not for their testimony about the Russian Hinterland.
Q And, therefore, you had nothing to do with that? the Army Staff, about the prisoners of war for Office 6, but not within the kommando. this evaluation? interrogations for the RSHA?
A Mr. Prosecutor, I had to evaluate the interrogation reports in the Army. There were often hundreds of records daily from which we would take the various data about the Russian Hinterland, but beyond that I did not evaluate or investigate the interrogation reports of the kommando because this kommando did not carry out the interrogation in such a way as to find out anything about the foreign activity, but only about political activities. Army, the files and interrogations on the basis of which the Army ordered executions which then were carried out by Sonderkommando 4a, did you see this file?
A No, Mr. Prosecutor, these are records of interrogations of of prisoners of war who were immediately interrogated on the front line by the counter-intelligence people in order to gather information about the enemy. These were
Q So you did not see these files either. Will you turn now to Document Book II-C? Your Honors, that is on Page 16, the second to the last paragraph, Document NO-2952, Prosecution's Exhibit 72.
It is said in this document that, "In Shitomir, a large prison camp has been set up which also contains civilian prisoners. It is highly probable that there are, particularly among these civilian prisoners, former political commissars who, apparently on instructions, left the troop in good time and somehow procured civilian clothes for themselves. Thus, three political commissars in civilian clothes were apprehended, who eventually admitted their identity. Attempts to obtain the truth on their assignments and activities failed in each case." Did you participate in the investigation of these cases?
A No, Mr. Prosecutor, this was a job of the executive people. Shitomir?
A It can be assumed. I don't know exactly. between the 10th of July and 3rd of August, between the 13th of August and the 13th of September, between the 24th of September and the 27th or 28th November, and later at the time when you were on leave. How often during the time of Blobel's absence did you act as his deputy, Herr Radetzky?
A Mr. Prosecutor, I was not his deputy during his absence. He was absent from Lutsk and Shitomir he was present.
Q Not on the 10th September. He came there the 13th according to his testimony.
A I do not know; I cannot say. I don't remember the dates. but Hauptsturmfuehrer Karlsten who was my superior, or if he was not there, it was an officer of the Security Police or of the SD. Blobel, is that correct?
Q How do you explain his statement to this effect in his affidavit?
A I cannot explain it, Mr. Prosecutor, apart from the fact that in some form he was persuaded to this testimony or brought to make it in some manner,
Q No was tricked into this answer, is that what you want to say?
A I don't remember his testimony where he said that, but I believe that Herr Blobel testified in detail about this.
Q You, yourself, have no explanation? about it, because I do not know what persuaded Blobel to say that. a Sonderkommando, a Teilkommando or of an advance kommendo, I am sorry?
A In the year 1942?
Q '41.
A Mr. Prosecutor, I was not an officer in a Teilkommando or advance kommando, I was always attached to these kommandos.
Q You never were commander of a Vorkommando or Teilkommando in 1941?
A No, Mr. Prosecutor. in 1942?
A I wasn't either.
Q Never? During the second half of the year I was liaison officer with the Army, and Army Group in the first half of the year. rank, never commander of a subkommando or an advance kommando? I was - I had to participate in the activity of the kommando as an outsider, and, therefore, these jobs were not given to me.
It would be absurd if one were to give me police assignments which could be performed much better by someone else. That is the explanation. Teilkommando?
A No, Mr. Prosecutor, I did not command a subkommando.
Q I would like to refresh your memory on that point. I would like to introduce, your Honors, Document NO_4771_X and I think it is Prosecution's Exhibit 190. I only want to refer to one sentence. It is the third paragraph of the document. "During the advance, in the summer of 1942, SS_Hauptsturmfuehrer von Radetzky was put in command of a 'Teilkommando'", etc. What do you have to say to that?
Objection, Dr. Ratz?
THE WITNESS: May I just read through this?
DR. RATZ: Your Honor, this is evidnetly the passage that was taken from the document, NO_4771. At the time already I explained that in the photostat it is evident that one part is missing.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If your Honor please, I have to answer the objection, by defense counsel and have informed the Tribunal the Prosecution intends to use this very document either in cross examination or in rebuttal, as this document was unnecessary for prosecution's case in chief. The Tribunal has ruled that that would be a satisfactory answer to Dr. Ratz's objection, and I do think that what Dr. Ratz has just told the Tribunal is not a reason for an objection against the admissibility of this document.
DR. RATZ: I am not quite through wet. I would like to explain that this document is, without a doubt, a part of the Document NO-4771, because all of its pages bear that number, and therefore, it is not possible to take out one letter, because then a part of the document would be denied to the defendant. Secondly, the Prosecutor, in answer to my objection, on the 20th of October, 1947, stated that he wanted to submit the document in order to show that the Defendant Radetzky was a member of the SS and SD, If the Defendant Radetzky denied this, the Prosecutor said, "Well then, I think then this document is enough proof that he was a member of the SS and the SD," and on that basis the Tribunal decided at that time.....
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: I do think that Dr. Ratz is mistaken. Ivvery well remember having told the Tribunal that Document NO-4771, which is Prosecution's Exhibit 139, was put in evidence in order to prove Radetzky's membership in the SS. What I am introducing now is a completely independent letter which has the document number, NO-771-X. This letter is not a part of a document. It is a complete letter. It is true that this letter was found in the same personnel file, in the same personnel folder that the other SS personnel documents of Radetzky were found but the fact that they were in the same folder does not take anything from the document itself, being a complete document.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Ratz, do you question the authenticity of this document?
DR. RATZ: No, I don't doubt it. It is a photostat, and I have no cause to doubt it.
THE PRESIDENT: Then your objection is that it was a part of a document which was submitted in the case in chief, and, therefore, should have been included when the case in chief was presented; is that your objection?
DR. RATZ: Yes. The prosecution at that time assured us that the complete photostat of the documents will be at our disposal, and even at that time I said that this assurance was not being kept if now this one document is being torn out of this file.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any physical evidence of mutilation? You have used the phrase "torn out". Is there something to show or suggest to you that it was violently withdrawn from another document?
DR. RATZ: The tearing out can only be determined by looking at this photostat. This page is torn out of the photostat.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If your Honor please, if certain photostatic copies were stapled together by a staple and one letter was removed from the document, being a complete by independent document, this is not an actual mutilation of the document itself. It is just a mutilation of the photostatic copy, but the document is complete. It is a contention of the
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Ratz, you do not contest the validity of this document. Now has your case in any way been prejudiced because this document has been introduced now rather than before? If this represents an actual, official document, wherein are you prejudiced by its submission now rather than before?
DR. RATZ: I am prejudiced because I was not in a position to discuss this document with the defendant when I prepared his case and to secure further evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: Let us suppose that in the cross-examination Mr. Hochwald had put the series of questions which he did, and they were answered in the way that they were, and then to contest the veracity of the defendant's answers he brings in a witness who testifies to what is in this document. How would that be any different from what the situation at present is?
DR. RATZ: Your example, your Honor, is different, because as I must emphasize once more, according to my opinion, this document is a part of his personnel file, and his entire personnel file bears one exhibit number, and during the preparation of my defense I relied on the fact that the personnel file is complete.
THE PRESIDENT: But, Dr. Ratz, let's got to the facts, The witness, the present witness, or the Defendant von Radetzky, was in command of a Teilkommando or he was not. That is obvious. In preparing: your case you would naturally inquire into whether he ever had or had not led a Teilkommand. That is obvious. Whether you possess this document or not couldn't alter the fact, couldn't alter history. What has happened has happened. You may have been in some way embarrassed by the production of this document now, rather than knowing it before, but from the standpoint of justice no harm has been done. You still have the opportunity to question the witness at length about this document; you still have the opportunity to bring in witnesses to show that this document is spurious or does not represent the facts; you still can produce further documents to attack this document.
DR. RATZ: Your Honor, I don't want to make any difficulties, but I just want to maintain my point of view, that I don't consider this document admissible, but I do not want to maintain my objection because I believe that one defendant will be able to discuss the document without my having discussed it with him previously.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: So it will be then, Prosecution's Exhibit 191.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
Q. (By Dr. Horlick-Hochwald) How do you reconcile the contents of this document with your testimony?
A. Mr. Prosecutor, I don't know who signed this document. I would be grateful if I could see it.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: Could you please hand to the witness the photosat copy which is the exhibit.
A. I do not know the signature and I don't know the name of the man -
Q. (By Mr. Horlick-Hochwald) All right.
A. Who gives this judgment about himself. About the question of the Teilkommando, however, and this is what is important, I have the following to say, that in the area of the Second Army there were a great number of Kommandos, and these kommandos were often amalgamated under one designation because they had an independent APO number. I know then that I must have been brought into connection with these kommandos in the Second Army.
Q. It is then your contention that this letter requesting your promotion is a mistake?
A. It says here as the highest decoration the handing over of an independent Teilkommando in the year 1942. I know that Weinmann in the spring of 1942, when we were not yet on the advance, had tried to get me promoted. Therefore, I think that the various statements made here were made later by offices who did not know about the matter, but, Mr, Procecutor, I shall look into this question in detail and will try to clarify it.
Q. May I show up in reference to your testimony to this letter, that this letter is a mistake?
A. No, I cannot say it is a mistake, but it is an erroenous representation of the situation as it existed then.
Q. So this letter is in this point incorrect?
A. No, it is not correct. It is not correct in the interpretation, which is important for me, that a Teilkommando is equivalent to an executive kommando.
Q. I have no further questions. BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Well, were you put in command of a Teilkommando ever?
A. Your Honor, no. I was given the order of the assignment of a liaison officer to the Second Army.
Q. Please answer the question, were you ever put in command of a Teilkommando?
A. No, your Honor.
Q. Were you promoted to Sturmbannfuehrer as of 9 November, 1942?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, this letter recommends you for just that promotion, and as achieved as of that date, doesn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. How can you explain, that it could be so accurate and so prophetic to bring about your promotion as of 9 September, and the letter is dated 15 October, and yet it be incorrect insofar as the statement about your commanding a Teilkommando?
A. Your Honor, I do not say that it is a mistake; I say it is an error, and I must try to clarify this error.
Q. Now, we went into that before. The hairbreadth destination between a mistake and an error is one which requires stronger glasses than I use. How, tell me, what is the difference between a mistake and an error?
my opinion, an involuntary incorrectness, that is, a mistaken representation.
Q You say a mistake and an error is a bigger mistake? matter of clarifying this entire matter.
Q Well, let's see how many errors and mistakes there are in this letter. The letter is dated 16 October, addressed to the Personnel Main Office of the SS. The subject is Hauptsturmfuehrer Waldemar von Radetzky. That is your name, isn't it?
A SS-NO. 351254, is that correct?
A I assume so. I do not know the number by heart. All right. Member of the General SS-Administrative District Warthe, is that correct?
Q All right. The first sentence recommends your promotion. The second sentence says that you were on duty with the Einsatzkommando of the SD since 19 May 1941. Is that correct?
A Since the 29th of May?
Q What is the date? you first called into this service? the 20th or 21st of June, 1941. which you were participating, prior to that?
Q Is that when you were first notified to report?
A No. The order to report I received it on this earlier date here.
Q On May 19th, very well. Now, the following sentence says that while you were serving with the kommando you participated in the advance toward Charkov in the summer of 1941 and that there you were distinguish yourself in action and because of that were awarded the Iren Gross, Second Class, is that correct? lity to group things quickly you have a good general education, haven't you? quickly, aren't you? Now then next, "It was therefore possible to entrust him frequently with the execution of extensive and independent tasks." Now, what is entensive and what is independent is up to the writer of this letter, and you might not agree with him as to the extensiveness and independence so we won't ask you to comment on that. Then the following sentence says, "As a liaison officer with the Army he acted skillfully and always know how to achieve his purpose." Now, you do not deny that you did your job as a liaison officer rather well, do you?
Q Well, all right. Very well. That falls into the category of the opinion of the writer. Now, Witness, so far as the physician facts referred to in this letter are concerned, they are correct, aren't they, up to the sentence which I have not yet read?