the impression that these are three different answers to one question, rather I have the impression that I understood the question of your Honor to mean whether anything was ever said about it at all, why these 20 to 30 people were executed, where no reference is made as to whether this was said to me. That is my first answer. he did not need to have given this explanation to me. learned of the execution, two days after the execution, these soldiers were talking about having participated in the execution, so I asked, 'and in all this talk no one ever said, We killed 20 to 30 people, "then you answered, "I cannot say in general, maybe somebody did". Now, in that answer, you say, "Well, perhaps someone did". Then we ask you again, "Well, then, someone did tell you then why the executions took place. you replied, "he wouldn't have had to give this explanation to me". Then we put to you, "Well, you said everybody was talking about them, you did hear someone say that the men were executed because of the murders which had occurred in the prison, is that right". You now say, "No", that is, no one talked about why they had executed these individuals, Then comes another question, "In all this discussion, in all this excitement, no one ever said why these 20 to 30 had been killed, is that, right", then you say, "I cannot remember." Now, upon our reading of that, you give us three different answers, one that perhaps someone did explain why the executions had occurred, another, "No, no one made that explanation," then a third answer you give is that, "well, I don't remember". That is the way we read it. If we don't read it correctly, that is the reason we called you to the witness stand, to explain it. that from the transcript before me, it is evident that I answered your question, namely, "during all this excitement and all this discussion no one ever said, "We executed 20 to 30 people because of this murder, Do you want us to believe that, no one ever gave this explanation" that I did not understand this question of yours to refer to my person, but that I understood it to mean the way it can only be understood in this context.
you asked me whether I was of the opinion that not any one of those who spoke about the execution didn't also mention why these people were shot. That is quite general, not referring to my person. That is how I understood your question, your Honor, and that is how I answered it in general. I asked that you regard the word "general", consider the word "general" possibly in the sense that one didn't give an explanation generally. as to whether anybody explained why he committed the murder, that naturally I would be asking you if he mentioned it so that you heard it. You couldn't be responsible for what he said to somebody else. I think the tenor of the question is very clear, that is, with regard to whether you had heard anyone say why they performed the execution. Wouldn't you say that is the normal interpretation of that, and in all this excitement, and in all this talk no one ever said, that is, no one ever said -provided you heard it, but any how, you proceed with your explanation.
A That was the first version your Honor. Then you ask me, "but now you have said that everybody spoke about it; you just heard from hearsay that people were killed because of the murders that occurred the prison, is that right?" Then I said, "No, Your Honor."
Q Well, we have it here, "You did hear someone say that men were executed because of the murders, "is that the way it appears in the German, "You did hear someone say that men were executed because of the murders which had occurred in the prison, is that right?"
Q Then you answered that "No".
A "During this entire discussion and naturally this excitement, no one ever said why these 20 to 30 people were shot, is that right", thereupon I said, "I cannot remember". Again I considered this generally.
Q Well, you had said just immediately before that, "No one had said it", then you said -
A Pardon me, for interrupting, "to me", I mean. they be saying it except to you, that is, within you earshot -- within your hearing? that I would pass two people who were conversing and during this occasion I might have accidentally heard them talk about it without their directing their words to me. I never intended that you tell me if any of the participants had said to you, "Herr Fendler, we killed these people for that reason", we were only asking you if in all the discussion which wasn't with you, but just generally, they hadn't said why they killed these people. That is the whole tenor of the questioning. And on that question as to whether you heard why they had killed anybody, as we read it, you gave three different versions, one, they did not mention it; two, they may have mentioned it; three, you don't remember whether they mentioned it or not. That is the way we read it.
A Well, your Honor, I beg your pardon. At the moment I am not in a position, or I see no way in explaining this to you in any more detail, but I beg your pardon, if I say that according to me and according to the version I have, II see no contradiction in is possible. If one discusses it, it might be quibbling, but I would like to add that II think quibbling was not my purpose at the time nor is it now. If I had correctly understood the sense of your question, I would have certainly made an effort to give you the definitive answer, the clear answer which you expected.
was to perhaps indicate that our questioning of you at the time had a certain reason, and that it wasn't done nearly to harass you on the stand. The main subject of discussion was whether you knew why these individuals were killed and we got the impression all the time that you had said you did not know, and that is the reason we began to question you asto why you couldn't have learned in all the conversation as to why they were killed and then you said, "Well, I thought you were merely asked me whether I had heard from the whether they had told me," but that you did know why they were killed because it was very obvious. Now, the reason we got the impression that you had said that you did not know why they were killed, and that is what precipated the whole question, is because on page 4013 of the transcript in the early part of your examination, this is what you said, according to the English transcript, on page 4013, Dr. Fritz, of the English, "He, the commando chief, reserved the right for Einsatzkommando 4 B for all executions which might become necessary. During the assignment I heard that Sonderkommando 4 B did carry out executions, but I did not get any information how many persons were involved or what kind of persons they were". Now, if that transcript is correct, you will see, witness, that right at the outset of your examination you laid down the promise that you did not know how many persons were involved, what kind of persons they were, which naturally indicates that you didn't know why they were killed. So that impression remained in our mind throughout your examination, and then we began to question you as to why you did not know. Is that clear? this first remark in connection with what the commando chief announced about the power of command, about carrying out executions, that this generalization, if I may put it that way, was too farreaching.
In this connection, I just wanted to explain clarly that the responsibility for the ordering and carrying out of the executions rested alone with the commando chief, that on the basis of my own position and my activity, I got not knowledge, nor could I get any knowledge, as to who was executed and how many persons were executed. decisive in any way, but from this statement of yours that you did not know how many persons were involved or what kind of persons they were, speaking of those who were executed, it would be a contradiction then to say that it was obvious to you why certain people were killed, that you did know why certain people were killed because it was obvious. That would be more or less in contrast to this statement that you did not know how many were involved or what kind of persons they were. knowledge of these incidents, that I received no official knowledge of these executions. I did not want to give the impression, Your Honor, I beg your pardon, I did not want to give the impression that I had not perhaps heard about the fact that executions had taken place. officially and merely learning of it indirectly, or unofficially?
PRESIDENT: Well, I think that is where evidently the misunderstanding occurred. Dr. Belzer, we will give you that sign that you are so eagerly awaiting tomorrow morning at 9:30.
DR. ASCHENAUR: Your Honor.
PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Aschenaur.
DR. ASCHENAUR: May I reply to the statements of Mr. Walton and Mr. Ferencz tomorrow?
PRESIDENT: Dr. Aschenaur, do you think that is necessary? Your have indicated why you believe that these documents are relevant, they have indicated why they are irrelevant.
Now, if you reply to them showing that they are wrong, then they have the right to reply to you that you are wrong, then you will have the right to reply to that -sur-surrebuttal, and then next Christmas some time we will see Dr. Belzer coming up with a long beard saying, "Well, when are you going to listen to me".
DR. ASCHENAUER: Your Honor, as far as the technical matters which Mr. Walton has listed are concerned, I would like to say the following. The document, the originals are all correctly made out, and have the prescribed formula, and as required, they are certified by a notary public, or by an official, or by me, or by a mayor, or by an assistant of the defense, so that each regulation which is required has been fulfilled. Mr. Walton did not look at any single original and I cannot help any differences in the translation because the translation is only an auxiliary means of helping us.
PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Aschenauer, I don't think that the Tribunal is much disturbed about the form of those declarations, if you tell us now that the originals carry the necessary authentication, that is adequate. We take your word for it. The only question which we will need to pass upon and we will in due time, is the relevancy and materiality. The competency, I think that we can tell you right now, that is, competency in the sense of authenticity of those declarations, I think that we can admit now. Your statement is on the record, and that is adequate for us.
DR. ASCHENAUER: One further request. I ask that the defendant, Ohlendorf, be excused from the session all day tomorrow.
PRESIDENT: The defendant, Ohlendorf, will be excused from attendance in court all day tomorrow and will hear Dr. Belzer in the morning, but not for all day tomorrow.
(The court adjourned until 0930 hours, 15 January 1948.)
of America; against Otto Ohlendorf, et al;
A. Musmanno, presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats.
Military Tribunal II is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
DR. RATZ: Ratz for Radetzky.
Your Honor, I have a small request. I want to know whether I can start with the presentation of my documents after Dr. Belzer so that I can be prepared. Mr. Hochwald would be in agreement with my request.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If the court please, inasmuch as the documents of Dr. Belzer and Dr. Ratz refer to the same subject and have also their main activity in Einsatzgruppe C, and both counsel will refer to the emergency decree of October 1938 and any decrees which led to the execution of this emergency decree, it would possibly be advisable to hear these two counsel one after the other.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Yes, then you will be next called.
DR. RATZ: Thank you.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: Durchholz for Schulz. excused from this afternoon's session to prepare his defense.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant Schulz will be excused from attendance in court this afternoon.
DR. STEUBINGER: Steubinger for Braune.
Your Honor, since it may be assumed that it won't be my turn today to present my documents because only Document Book I is ready and the other is still in the filing department, I ask that my client, Dr. Braune, be excused from the session all day today.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, let's keep this in mind, that we are going to move along with these document books as rapidly as possible. We will hear what are ready. There can be no lull, no moment that will not be actually used in court in connection with the presentation of documents, because as soon as the documents are presented then we will hear the rebuttal. So I would appreciate it if you would stand by to follow Dr. Ratz with whatever you have available, and that applies to all of the counsel. Just as soon as we reach a point where there is no counsel here with any documents ready then we are going to go ahead with the rebuttal, because there will be no delay. Counsel have been informed over and over again about these document books, and we cannot tolerate any hiatus, and gap in the schedule of the presentation of the documents and the evidence which still remains to be presented in this trial.
DR. STEUBINGER: Your Honor, I completely agree to submit Document Book I, but your Honor said yourself yesterday that those colleagues should come first who have their document books complete and before me there is my colleague Mayer who wants to submit three volumes, and Dr. Belzer and Dr. Ratz.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Well, of course if they are here, let's see who we have here this morning. There will be Dr. Ratz to follow Dr. Belzer and then there will be Dr. Mayer, and which of your defendants are you representing this morning with document books?
DR. MAYER: Your Honor, I can submit my document books for the defendant Steimle and immediately afterwards for Klingelhoefer.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Now who else in the courtroom is ready with document books?
(no response)
THE PRESIDENT: All right, now if you would want to be available sometime later on in the morning with this one document book, we will be glad to hear you. If not, we will go on without you, just as you wish in that respect.
DR. STEUBINGER: Then I shall withdraw my request for the time being.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, and then renew it whenever the opportunity suggests itself.
DR. STEUBINGER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. All right, you may proceed, Dr. Belzer.
DR. BELZER: Belzer for Graf. document book for the defendant Mathias Graf. The Tribunal will recall that the defendant Graf stated on the witness stand that because of the emergency war draft to the SD he was torn out of his profession as an independent businessman, and thus suffered great disadvantages. In order to confirm this statement of the defendant Graf as a witness in his own case, I submit documents Graf No. 1, Graf No. 2, Graf No. 3 as Exhibits 1, 2 and 3. These are the affidavits by Matthias Neubaur, the partner of Mathias Graf, that is to say the business partner, and the affidavits of Theo Stellwag and Georg Beyerlein who negotiated with Herr Graf as representatives of larger firms.
As Exhib it No. 4 I submit the affidavit of the former SS major and personnel officer in the Office I, SD, in Augsburg, with the SD sector in Augsburg. May states that he was the one who in January, 1940 -
THE PRESIDENT: What is the name, please?
DR. BELZER: The name? May, M-a-y.
THE PRESIDENT: And the document number?
DR. BELZER: Document Graf No. 4, Exhibit No. 4.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Please always give the document number.
DR. BELZER: May states that in January 1940 he was the man who was the cause of putting Graf on a war emergency status, I also submit Graf Document No. 5 as Exhibit No. 5. That is an affidavit of Anton Graf. This man is the brother of the defendant, Mathias Graf, who was at the time director of the SD branch office in Kempton. After this emergency war draft of the defendant, Mathias Graf, he was assigned to his brother as an auxiliary war employee. It is confirmed in this affidavit that Mathias Graf was put on an emergency war status, Furthermore, the statement of the defendant Mathias Graf is confirmed, namely, that in 1936, because of personal differences, that is lack of interest in the service, he had to leave the SS and that merely through the war emergency draft of the defendant Mathias Graf to the SD there was a new contact with the SS. Mr. Anton Graf further confirms that his brother, the defendant Mathias Graf, in the years 1940, 1941, made repeated attempts to get away from the SD and that all these efforts were unsuccessful. Mr. Anton Graf also confirms that his brother, while in the eastern assignment, was always only a noncom and never an officer. He also explains that on direct questioning his brother never told him anything about having participated in executions in the Einsatzkommando 6.
Then I submit Graf Document Number 6 as Exhibit Number 6. This is the affidavit of Annemarie Huebel. In January 1940 she was employed in the Office in the SD Sector Augsburg, and she can remember that Matthias Graf was at that time put on an emergency drafting to the SD. Miss Huebel further confirms that Mr. Graf, only some time after he returned from Russia, was promoted to SS Second Lieutenant -- that is, an officers rank.
Then I submit Graf Document Number 7 as Exhibit Number 7. This is an affidavit by Frau Friedel Schmidt. Frau Schmidt was also drafted on an emergency basis to the SD and was employed as a clerk in the SD office in Kempten. She confirms that it was not until after Mr. Graf returned from the East that he was promoted to an SS officer. Frau Schmidt recalls that after he returned from the East, Herr Graf worked on the letter of rehabilitation which concerned his attitude during assignment in the East. Frau Schmidt also explains that, as far as a cooperation of the SD Kempten and the SD Gestapo is concerned nothing is known to her. from the Work Book -
MR. HOCHWAID: If the Tribunal please, I only want to interpose shortly. Dr. Belzer has several documents which he puts in in the form of carbon copies, as he could not obtain photostats. The Prosecution has no objections against Dr. Belzer's putting exhibits in in this form as Dr. Belzer has the originals with him and will kindly give the originals to the Prosecution for probing.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, if he will do that. The situation is tentative.
DR. BELZER: This Work Book shows that at the time the draft of the defendant Matthias Graf to the SD was connected with the contract -with a work contract, and Graf was employed from the 1st of March 1940 as a clerk there, according to an entry in the works records. Furthermore, as an MOS number, the number 25 is given, the letter small "b". These designation mean that he is a businessman.
As Exhibit Number 9, I submit Graf document Number 9. This is the correspondence which the defendant Graf carried on with the Army Service Command about being drafted into the army and his application to the SD to be released from the SD.
In the direct examination of the defendant Graf, I have discussed this correspondence with him. At the time the Prosecution objected against the submission of this document, but after looking into the originals the Prosecution kindly waives the objection it made at the time. In this correspondence we are concerned with a letter dated 25th of February 1941 from the Army Service Command in Kempten in which the defendant is asked to submit his birth certificate and that of his wife. In the next letter of the Army Draft Office in Kempten, of the 16th of April 1941, the defendant Graf is informed that he was to secure his release from his office immediatel The next letter is the copy of the reply to the application for release made by the defendant to his agency. Exhibit Number 10. This is the affidavit of Otto Heyer. Heyer was an SS Captain and when the Einsatzkommando C-6 was set up, he was assigned to that Kommando, and during the assignment in the East he was transferred to the 17th Army Headquarters.
THE PRESIDENT: You referred to this affiant as Heyer. It is Meyer according to our book.
DR. BELZER: It should be Heyer. The first letter is an "H".
THE PRESIDENT: H-E-Y-E-R.
DR. BELZER: H-E-Y-E-R, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, the correction will be made.
DR. BELZER: In this affidavit Heyer confirms that, as the defendant Graf said as a witness in his own case, that around the 20th of July 1941, Graf was transferred to him and only the end of August or September 1941 he returned to Einsatzkommando C-6. Heyer further confirms that when the Kommando was set up Graf was an SS Unterscharfuehrer, and, apart from a few men of the Waffen SS, he had the lowest rank in the Kommando. Heyer further confirms that to his knowledge the defendant Graf was occupied exclusively with SD reports and never had anything to do with matters of police executiv measures.
As a matter of precaution, I point out that in this affidavit it is mentioned that another man named Graf belonged to this Kommando who was actually an officer and who was concerned with police activities. Number 11. This is the affidavit of Karl Hennicke, formerly SS Major. When the war broke out between Germany and Russia in June 1941, Hennicke was with Einsatzgruppe C as SD export. In his affidavit he first lists the routes of Einsatzgruppe C and of the Einsatzkommando C-6. He confirms that it was he who, when the march began to Aussie, instructed the SD exports about their jobs, and expressly told them that they were to concern themselves exclusively with SD reports. He confirms that an Unterscharfuehrer Grimminger was assigned to Einzatzkommando C-6 as an expert and that the defendant Graf was assigned to this man as an assistant. Hennicke further states that, to his knowledge, as far as the kommandos in the Einsatzgruppe or Einsatzkommando C-6 is concerned, these experts never had anything to do with executions.
Then I submit Graf document Number 12 as Exhibit Number 12. This is the affidavit of Friedrich Moeller. Formerly Secretary General for Criminal Affairs, Moeller was with the Einsatzkommando C-6 in that capacity. He confirms that the defendant Graf joined the Kommando as an SS Unterscharfuehrer or was assigned to the Kommando as an SD export, and he also can confirm that another man by the name of Graf, who was an SS ofiicer, also belonged to this Kommando.
Then I submit Graf Document Number 13 as Exhibit Number 13. This is the affidavit of Hans Doering. Hans Doering was inspector of road construction road construction activity in Stalino. To his Knowledge, Graf was sent to the Kommander Einsatzkommando C-6 in order to inform himself about the conditions of Stalino. He thinks that Graf was at that time an SS non-com but certainly no officer. of Joseph Rabitsch. This man waa a War Administrative Counsellor with the Kommando in Stalino and he got to know the defendant Graf. Graf was at that time Unterscharfuehrer in the SD. Mr. Rabitsch also states what he knows about the activity of the defendant Graf in Stalino.
He describes in detail what Graf was interested in. He mentions that Graf had no interests in any political spy activities and that he never told him about having in any way participated in any executions or the like.
I then submit Graf Document Number 17 as Exhibit Number 15. This is the affidavit of Max Schellhorn. During the war Schellhorn was active in the Army as Captain and from December 1941 till June 1942 he was in a transit camp for prisoners of war in Stalino. He already knew Herr Graf personally from the time before the war. In the Spring of 1942 both met accidentaly in Stalino. No official contacts existed. Schellhorn states that he never heard that Graf had had anything to do in a prisoner of war camp. He confirms that Graf was not an officer at the time but was a non-com.
The Graf Document 18 I submit as Exhibit 16. This is the affidavit of Anni Mayer. From the beginning of 1942 until about September of 1942 she was a Red Cross nurse in a hospital of the German Army in Stalino. When Graf was in Stalino she saw him repeatedly. She confirms that Graf was a non-com at the time. The some thing is true for Graf Document Number 19, which I offer as Exhibit Number 17. This is an affidavit of Therese Haas, who also was a Red Cross nurse in Stalinio, at the same time as Graf was in Stalino. She also confirms the rank of the defendant as a non-commissioned officer and she can also remember that at the time she met Graf in Stalino he was convalescent -- that is, he had just been released from the hospital. davit of Frau Maria Grimminger. This is the wife of the former SS Unterscharfuehrer Ulrich Grimminger, who was assigned to Einsatzkommando C-6 as an expert and, as the defendant Graf told us, who died in Lemberg during the evacuation. She knows the defendant Graf from that time already and she confirms that Graf was an Unterscharfuehrer just like her husband and that in the Winter '41 - '42 and later in May or June 1942 he was on furlough at home.
Then I submit Graf document Number 22 as Exhibit 20. This is an affidavit by Frau Ottilie Winkler. Frau Winkler is a sister of the de fendant.
As Defense Counsel, she gave me three APO cards, from the East of the defendants deceased wife, which I shall submit to the Tribunal in photostat. First of all, there is a card from the 27th of August 1941. Then a card from the 9th of November 1941. And one from the 25th of June 1942. All three cards were addressed to the Defendant Graf at Einsatzkommando C-6. They approximately comprise the period of time during which the defendant belonged to the Kommando. The first is addressed to SS Unterscharfuehrer, the second to SS Unterscharfuehrer, and the third to SS Scharfuehrer. This was in June '42. This shows without a doubt that Graf never belonged to the Kommando as an officer.
Then I submit Graf Document Number 23 as Exhibit Number 21. This is the affidavit of Reinhold Heinz. From February 1942 until October 1942 Heinz was with the Chief of the Security Police in Kiev as a personnel officer. In the Summer of 1942 he met the defendant Graf. He confirms that at that time the defendant Graf was assigned to the Office of the Security Police and SD in Stalino from Einsatzkommando C-6. He lists the rank of the defendant Graf as Unterscharfuehrer or Scharfuehrer but not higher. concern the activity of the defendant Graf after his return from the East-back home. As the first one, which is Graf Document 24, I offer as Exhibit 22, affidavit of Johann Zettler. Zettler was together with the defendant Graf in an SS unit in Kempten. He confirms that around the year 1936 Graf left the SS and later never did any more service with the SS. affidavit of Meinrad Prestel. Prestel states that, to his knowledge, he only has to thank the defendant Graf for not getting into a concentration camp and that he never heard that the defendant Graf ever denounced any political opponent or even persecuted them.
DR. BELZER: As Graf Document No. 24 I submit the affidavit of Josef Baur. This man, too, confirms that he only has to thank the defendant that he was spared great difficulties because of his criticism of the SS state. He confirms that Graf, even after his assignment in the East, made repeated attempts to get away from the SD. The rest of the contents of this affidavit is a description of the Defendant Graf and I shall not go into this in detail. I merely ask the Tribunal to take notice of it.
Graf Document No. 27, which I submit as Exhibit No. 25, is an affidavit by Fritz Karg, which was sent to me. This man says that the defendant saved him from being consigned to a concentration camp.
Graf Document No. 28, which I offer as Exhibit No. 26, is an affidavit of the former Government Councillor in Kempten, Sonntag. In this affidavit he describes in detail the activity and work of the defendant Graf in his capacity as provisional chief of the SD agency in Kempten.
Then I submit Document No. 29, which is Exhibit 27. This is an affidavit of the Government Councillor, Dr. Weber, in Kaufbeuren and it concerns itself with the activity of the defendant Graf as provisional Chief of the SD office in Kaufbeuren.
Finally, I submit Graf Document 30 as Exhibit 28. This is an excerpt from the SS personnel transfer record. This excerpt shows that the defendant Mathias Graf was only promoted to SS Untersturmfuehrer in the RSHA effective 20 April 1944, a year and a half after his return from his assignment in the East.
I offer Graf Exhibit 29 as Document No. 31. These are the legal regulations about the war emergency draft, first of all the war emergency regulation of the 15th of October, 1938, and as an appendix the announcement of the authorities which could ask for such emergency services after 8 July 1939.
As Graf Document No. 32, Exhibit No. 30, I submit the third executive decree of the War Emergency Decree of the 14th of October, 1939.
Graf Document No. 33, which is Exhibit 31, is a copy of the Gazette of the Chief of the Security Police and SD and concerns the subordinated relation of members of the Security Police and the SD to police and SS jurisdiction. The excerpt, which I submit, provides who belongs to the staff of the Chief of the German Police.
Graf Document No. 34 I offer as Exhibit No. 32. It concerns itself with the question of how to proceed when members of this staff refused to comply with the order to proceed to the occupied territories. This is also in an excerpt from the Gazette of the Chief of the Security Police and SD. I quote under 5 from this excerpt: "You will, therefore, take the necessary steps against members of the staffs who do not comply with such an assignment if the pre-suppositions mentioned before are fulfilled."
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Ratz, are you ready to proceed? Are you ready now, Dr. Ratz, to proceed?
DR. RATZ: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, all right. Dr. Ratz, please try, in presenting the documents, to omit all unnecessary wordage. Get to the kernel of what you wish to present and move on to the next one. of, if the document books are ready and they are not here when their turn is reached, will always have an opportunity to present their document books, so long as the prosecution has copies of these document books and the prosecution offers no objection to any particular document. Those documents may be used in the final summations and in any other way that counsel so desire.
DR. RATZ (Attorney for the defendant von Radetzky): If the Tribunal please, my documents are contained in two books. I shall submit the documents in their proper order, but I can keep the order the way it is in the document books only part of the time.
From Document Book I, I offer Document No. 1 as Exhibit No. 1.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If Your Honors please, this document is a memorandum which was made out in May, 1946. It is neither an affidavit nor a captured document, nor a document which was made out previous to May, 1945. For this reason, I object against the document as inadmissible in its form. Moreover, its contents are immaterial.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Hochwald, you have observed, of course, that the policy of the Tribunal has been throughout the trial to be liberal in the allowing of the presentation of both documents and evidence. Now, this particular document is in the nature of a reference work. It seems to be a historical treatise on that particular part of the world geography. I know that you can repose faith in the Tribunal that, if it has no probative value, then it won't disturb anyone. On the contrary, it may shed some light on this period of the world's history and help to evaluate the testimony which is superimposed upon that area of the earth's surface, so we will overrule your objection.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: Of course, if the Tribunal wants to have the exhibit before it, htere are no objections from the prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, very well.
DR. RATZ: This is a memorandum about the Baltic refugees of Werner Hasselblatt and reports about the foreceful resettlement of the Baltic Germans in 1939 from their homes in the Baltic States into the province of Posen. The memorandum further reports about the history and nature of the Baltic Germans and about their attitude towards National Socialism. Finally, he reports and describes the misery into which these people were thrown when they were forced out of their homes.
On page 14 of my Document I is my Document No. 2. I submit it as Exhibit 2. It is the order of Himmler of 11 October 1939 to the effect that the population of Riga was to resettle to Gothenhafen and Posen. Radetzky was living in Riga.
On page 15 of the Document book is Document No. 3, the affidavit of Traugott Mense of 18 March 1944. I submit this affidavit as Exhibit No. 3. Mense reports about his activity as an expert in Office III of the Staff Office of the Reich Commissioner for the Strengthening of Germanism; that after the resettlement had been carried out and after the resettlers had been placed into camps of the Office for the Repatriation of Ethnic Germans they were taken over by the Commissioner of the Settlement for Germans and were finally settled; that the resettlers themselves had no opportunity to designate their choice of locality of where they wanted to be resettled. He also confirms that the resettlers were promised the acquisition of German citizenship without their request and that all male resettlers who had not yet been drafted were obliged to be active in the various organizations. He finally says that in general the male resettlers were drafted into the SS.