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?
which it was stated in every application for promotion. I personally have nothing to object against these facts.
Q All right. Now then, we come to the crucial sentence. "During the advance, in the summer of 1942, SS-Hauptfuehrer von Radetzky was put in command of a 'Teilkommando'. Radetzky's general behavior is a soldierly one; he has purpose of mind and is sure of himself." Does this paragraph represent facts or not? I can only clarify this paragraph if I find someone who conforms this for me. If I now say it, that I did not command a Teilkommando, but that I was a liaison officer with the Second Army and with the Second Hungarian Army during the period covered, then it is testimony against testimony, and the document is in any case the one to be believed, Therefore, I ask for permission to be able to clarify this thoroughly. not authentic, or in any way not worthy, falsified, or in any way not worthy of belief. A piece of paper means nothing to the Tribunal just because it is a piece of paper, but if the contents of that of paper appeal to one's common sense and logic, coincide with other facts and dovetail into into a general picture of credibility and authenticity, then the documents naturally is accepted at its face value. Now, to sum it up, what do you say this paragraph represents a mistake, an error, or deliberate falsification? error with a member of Einsatzgruppe C who knows about my activity exactly.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: I have no further questions at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now be in recess until two o'clock.
(A recess was taken until 1400hours.)
(The hearing reconvened at 1405 hours, 17 December 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. KRAUSE: Your Honor, I am speaking for the defendant, Haensch, and I ask that the defendant, Haensch, be excused tomorrow all day from attendance in court so that the final work on the document books may be concluded with him.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant, Haensch, will be excused from attendance in court all day tomorrow so that he may work on his document book. Dr. Ratz, do you have any further questioning of your client?
DR. RATZ: Your Honor, I have no further questions, but I have a witness. This witness arrived only yesterday afternoon, and I could not inform the prosecution of it in time, but as far as I know from a discussion with Mr. Hochwald, he has no objection to this.
MR. HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, there is no objection to the calling of the witness. I might ask that I may be permitted to send for the document book into which the affidavit of the witness is inserted.
CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued) BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Witness, we have just one question which doesn't have much to do with the issue at all, but which really arises out of a curiosity. You have indicated that during your service in Russia that you had certain tasks to perform, and one of them was to investigate into, examine, and make reports on the culture, the religion, and the theaters in Russia. Were you spending time in the theaters, seeing operas, watching melodrama on the stage --- what do you mean "investigating the theater"?
A. Your Honor, the word "theather", I only used in order to explain my expression, "cultural questions". I remembered subconsciously an action by the Sixth Army, a performance which they had permitted for the troops, where soldiers should visit good theaters and where old Russian or Ukranian plays, which were not allowed to be performed during the Soviet government, were now performed again.
Q. Well, were the theaters operating in this active zone for the civilian population?
A. Yes, of course.
Q. And did you make reports on the different performances?
A. No, Your Honor, I did not do that.
Q. You don't want to convey the impression that you were a dramatic critic during the war in Russia, do you?
A. No, I don't want to give that impression at all, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENTS: Very well, The defendant may be returned to the defendant's box and the witness who is now in waiting will be brought in.
JUDGE SPEIGHT: Witness, raise your right hand and repeat 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. BY DR. RATZ:
Q. Witness, you name is what?
A. Gustav Kraege.
Q. Where were you born?
A. On 17 May 1907.
Q. Where do you reside?
A. In Goslar.
Q. Have you ever been a member of the NSDAP or the SS?
A. No.
Q. Where were you in May 1941 -- where were you active?
A. In May 1941 I was with the Gestapo in Hildesheim.
Q. Were you recalled from there?
A. Yes.
Q. Where to?
A. I wasordered to go to Schmiedeberg at the time.
Q. Did you know why you were sent there?
A. No. I had no idea.
Q. What happened to you in Schmiedeberg?
A. In Schmiedeberg after some time I was assigned to a commando which was later called SK 4a, Sonderkommando 4a,
Q. Were you given a uniform to wear?
A. Yes, because of my rating, I was given an SD uniform, and I had the rank of a Scharfuehrer.
Q. Were you accepted in the SD, or did you have to -
A. No, this did not happen.
Q. You said that you were assigned to the unit later, called SK 4a?
A. Yes.
Q. What was your work in the SK 4a?
A. Throughout the entire assignment I was working in the office of the Sk 4a in the orderly room.
Q. You said, throughout your assignment, how long did this last?
A. That was from June 1941 until March 1942 except for the time from the end of September until the beginning of January. During that time I was ill and was in the hospital and wason recreational leave at home.
Q. You said you were in the orderly room of the SK 4a as a clerk. What kind of work was done in the orderly room?
A. In the orderly room they dealt with all documents which came in and handed them on, forwarded, and registered, and so forth, field post, and so forth.
Q. Apart from the general orderly room, was there any special administrative office in the SK 4a?
A. Yes, such an office was in the SK 4a.
Q. What did the general administration office deal with?
A. We got our pay from this office and as far as I know, this office looked after the clothing and the supplies for the commando.
Q. Do you know who looked after the ammunition of the commando?
A. I don't know. I assume the administrative office did this.
Q. Did you have anything to do with the top secret matters the SK 4a dealt with?
A. No, I had nothing to do with this, and I never saw them.
Q. Who dealt with this, and where were the secret matters kept?
A. Inasfar as I know, these secret matters, these top secret matters, were kept by the chief himself in his room.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Ratz, will you please refer us to the document book in which his affidavit appars, so we may be looking at it?
DR. RATZ: An affidavit was made by the witness, Kraege, --
MR. HOCHWALD: Your Honors, this is in Document Book IIIC, on page 30 of the English, No. 4765, Prosecution Exhibit 137.
PRESIDENT: IIIC?
MR. HOCHWALD: IIIC, that is right.
PRESIDENT: Page number?
MR. HOCHWALD: Page number 30. BY DR. RATZ:
Q. Where were the secret matters kept in the SK 4A?
A. Inasfar as I know, these top secret matters were kept by the chief himself in a special box.
Q. Was this special box open, and could you look at it, or was it locked?
A. No. This box was secured by locks and was in the room of the chief.
Q. Who was Chief of Sonderkommando 4A while you were there?
A. When I belonged to this commando, Standartenfuehrer Blobel was in charge of this commando.
Q. Do you know who was Blobel's deputy?
A. No. I know nothing about a deputy of Blobel's. I never heard of a deputy.
Q. Do you know whether Herr von Radetzky was ever Blobel's deputy?
A. As far as I know, Herr von Radetzky could never have been deputy of the chief. I know nothing about it.
Q. Why could Herr von Radetzky not have been deputy to the chief?
A. As far as I know, Herr von Radetzky -
MR. HOCHWALD: Just a minute. If the Tribunal please, this question is inadmissible. If the witness has said he has no knowledge of a deputy of Blobel, I do think he cannot testify to the fact why Radetzky could not hove been the deputy.
PRESIDENT: Isn't that correct reasoning, Dr. Ratz?
DR. RATZ: I believe that the witness as a member of the orderly room can testify why Radetzky could not have been deputy.
MR. HOCHWALD: That would have been only possible if the witness would have been called here as on expert on matters of military organization in the Einsatzgruppe, but according to his position as a minor employee in the office, this question seems to be inappropriate to be put to this witness.
PRESIDENT: Well. Dr. Ratz, if you can qualify him as on expert in the field or with definite knowledge of the table of organization, showing a familiarity with the qualifications required, and a competence needed, then the question might be in order. He certainly can testify as to what he saw von Radetzky do, and then it will be up to the Tribunal to determine from those activities, whether he was or was not deputizing for the absent company commander.
DR. RATZ: I only put this question to the witness because the witness said he could not have been the deputy. It, therefore, seems obvious and necessary that the witness prove this by fact and say why he could not have been deputy. And he should be an expert insofar as from June 1941 until March 1942 he was in the SK 4A as a member of the orderly room, and the members of the orderly room should have known something about such questions.
PRESIDENT: Well, he has already stated in the affidavit to the contrary. Very well. We will permit the question, Dr. Ratz. I think we will lose more time deciding whether to admit it or not than if we admit it. BY DR. RATZ:
Q. Witness, when did you see von Radetzky for the first time?
PRESIDENT: Just a minute.
DR. RATZ: I understood it to mean, your Honor, that you permit the question.
PRESIDENT: Well, who said to the contrary. Are the interpreters overruling me? Well, I would like to agree with the interpreters all the time, but this time they are overruled, all of them. You put the question, Dr. Ratz, I will take care of the interpreters. BY DR. RATZ:
Q. I now put the question, why Radetzky could not have been Blobel's deputy in your opinion.
A. As far as I know, von Radetzky was ordered to the commando as an expert on languages, and as knowing Russian conditions without any police training, from quite a different profession, in fact. I, therefore, cannot assume that in such a commando a deputy should be appointed or a commander should be appointed Who has no specialized knowledge about this field. BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Were you with von Radetzky all the time?
A. No. I saw Herr von Radetzky for the first time in June 1941.
Q. When did you see him again?
A. I saw Herr von Radetzky the last time -
Q. Now, the nexttime, not the last time, from June 1941?
A. Oh, I see, I then met Herr von Radetzky on the journey from Sokal to Lutzk. Herr von Radetzky had a breakdown with his car and he was stuck on the road with his car.
Q. When was that?
A. That was on the trip from Sokal to Lutzk on 27 June 1941.
Q. All right, when did you see him again after the breakdown in the car?
A. In Luck Herr von Radetzky was in charge of the securing of documents and the opening of safes, and I was with this department.
Q. And when was that?
A. That was during the stay in Lutzk, from the end of June 1941 until the Vorkommando left for Rowno about 5, 6 or 7 June 1941.
Q. Not June -- July?
A. Yes, yes, July.
Q. All right, then when did you see him after July 6 again?
A. After the 6th of July I saw Herr von Radetzky in Rowno only temporarily.
Q. All right, now, I said when?
A. In July 1941 in Shitomir.
Q. And when did you see him after that?
A. In July or August 1941, I did not see Herr von Radetzky any more, and I saw him only once more later on in March 1942 in Charkow.
Q. And you did not see him from July 1941 until March 1942?
A. No.
Q. So you don't know what he was doing at that time?
A. No.
Q. Then how do you presume to say that he wasn't in charge of a Vorkommando?
A. As far as I know, when in July 1941 I lost sight of Herr von Radetzky, in July 1942 I heard that he had become liaison officer with the AOK, the army high command.
Q. You got this from somebody else?
A. Yes.
Q. You don't know of your own knowledge what he was doing?
A. No, I don't know that.
Q. And your only reason for concluding that he could not have been in charge of a subcommando was your assumption that he was brought in as an interpreter?
A. Yes. That was one of the reasons, and the other reason was that I heard from others that Herr von Radetzky had become liaison officer with the AOK and in that capacity he could not have done anything else.
Q. Why couldn't he have been qualified to lead a subcommando?
A. I assume that as liaison officer for the AOK he was so busy that he had no time left and besides he was not with the commando any more.
Q. We are not referring to why he couldn't have been a leader because he was a liaison officer, we are asking you what was there in his makeup which would prevent him from being the leader of a subcommando if a subcommando was turned over to him, what did he lack physically and mentally to do that work?
A. As far as I know, Herr von Radetzky had neither been trained in military or police work and had been assigned to the commando as an interpreter and as knowing the country.