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.
DR. RATZ: From my Document Book II, page 50, I submit Document 14 as Exhibit 4, the affidavit of Hans Jochen Kubitz of the 28th of November 1947. Kubitz was an expert for the minority rights of the German ethnic groups in the Baltic countries and in Poland with the Office for the Repatriation of Ethnic Germans.
He states under No. 2 that the German Ethnic Group in Latvia on the basis of international treaties regarding minority rights enjoyed a cultural autonomy. For that purpose there existed an autonomous organization, "The German National Community", in which Herr von Radetzky was already active prior to 1937.
Under No. 3, he states that because of the secret supplement to the German-Soviet Pact between the German Reich and Soviet Union, it was agreed upon that the states of Latvia and Estonia, as well as a part of Lithuania, were declared as coming into the Soviet sphere of interests. He continues that Hitler had ordered the resettlement of the Ethnic Germans from Latvia and Estonia. and Reich German was forced to submit to the resettlement, because, according to the treaties concluded, the Reich refused to promote any interest of these Germans and, furthermore, the advance of the Soviet troops was threatening.
Under No. 4, Kubitz reports that an office was organized in Posen to advise these Baltic German immigrants. This was the Baltic German Immigrants' Advisory Office, and this office, on the orders of the Office for the Repatriation of Ethnic Germans, Was taken over by the latter.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Ratz, it isn't necessary to analyze minutely the documents. If you indicate to the Tribunal what this document refers to, what it will establish, you can make a statement without reading what is before us. Each document will be read by the Tribunal so it is unnecessary to take it up paragraph by paragraph and tell what is in each paragraph.
DR. RATZ: I shall then very briefly give the contents of No. 5 in which Kubitz reports about the incident owing to which Radetzky received an SS rank. He says that he didn't receive the SS rank because of special merit that he acquired in the SS or in the Party and that a refusal to accept this honor on the part of Radetzky was impossible. The last sentence seems to be especially important, that the honorary leader of the SS was not considered anything but a wearer of the uniform and not as a real SS officer even up to 1945. of the 14th of November, 1947. This is Document No. 15 and I offer it as Exhibit No. 5. He reports about his activity as a personnel officer in the Office for the Repatriation of Ethnic Germans and he reports about Himmler's order that Radetzky was to be taken into the SS as an honorary officer and explains the conception of honorary officer and wearer of the uniform.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, in the last document and in this document, having reference by the affiant as to the honorary leadership in the SS, it is the contention of the prosecution that these parts of the affidavits are immaterial. In the decision of the IMT, the honorary members of the SS are not excluded among those who are criminally liable, having been members of the criminal organization. Therefore, those affiants, or, to be correct, the affiants Kubitz and Radunski, when giving information on this point, certainly don't give material information to the Tribunal on those things. I don't object against the affidavits, Your Honor. I object only against those parts of the affidavits which deal with the question of what was the honorary member and what were his rights and duties.
THE PRESIDENT: The documents will be before the Tribunal and your objections will be recorded.
DR. RATZ: At the end of the affidavit, Radunski states that in July 1941, Radetzky made an application to be employed again by the Office for the Repatriation of Ethnic Germans.
18 Which is the affidavit of the 4th of September, 1947, Document No. 4, and I offer it as Exhibit No. 7. This affidavit shows that after the resettlement of the Baltics from Estonia and Latvia in the years 1940 and '41, despite an order of Himmler - this affidavit shows that after the second resettlement of the Baltics from Estonia and Latvia during 1940 and '41, Radetzky, despite and order of Himmler to resettle only politically reliable people in the Reich, Radetzky effected that all people be admitted for resettlement who felt endangered because of their political or professional activity, but, even if they did not come up to the orders issued by Himmler in reference to the provisions laid down concerning national origin and racial origin and owing to this activity by Radetzky a large number of people were saved from danger of their lives and of deportation.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you purposely omit No. 6, Exhibit No. 6. I thought you called this No. 7.
DR. RITZ: I beg your pardon, I must correct myself. The document just discussed was Exhibit No. 6. As Exhibit No. 7 I offer from Document Book II, page 62, the affidavit of Doering, of 2 December 1947. This is document Radetck No. 16. Doering was a staff officer of the Office of the Delegate of Reich Commissar for strengthening the Germanism in Posen, and he says that the Immigration Advisory Office was created by the Baltic Germans themselves to represent private interests. That Radetsky didn't have any official functions, and finally, under No. III he says that on the occasion of the inspection in Posen carried out by Himmler, Radetsky had been received into the SS by the latter in an Honorary capacity, and that this being taken into the SS happened without any doings on the part of Radetsky. I want to submit further documents about the activity of the defendant in the East.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Ratz, we will now have a recess. Might I suggest where you have two or three documents referring to the same subject, that they can be grouped together and you can make a general omnibus remark, to the effect that this covers a certain feature, then it is not necessary to go into each document separately. The Tribunal will be in recess fifteen minutes.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is in recess fifteen minutes.
(recess)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: You may Proceed, Dr. Ratz.
DR. RATZ: I now submit documents concerning the activity of Radetsky in the East. From Document Book I page 20, I submit Document No. 5 as Exhibit No. 8.
MR. HOCHWALD: There is no objection to this document but I have one question, Your Honor. Dr. Belzer has offered this same document as his exhibit No. 29, the translation, which the Tribunal has in Document Book for the defendant Graf is a complete one, but the translation which Dr. Ratz has obtained is only a partial one, so I would suggest that if possible Dr. Ratz could refer to the exhibit which was handed in by Dr. Belzer, as the Prosecution intends to quote certain passages of this document which are not translation in the document book of Dr. Belzer.
DR. RATZ: Your Honor, I can not investigate in order to see whether Dr. Belzer really has everything that I have in this document. I also have a notification in this document, and also a decree -- an execution decree, therefore, this document which I have compiled for the defendant Radetsky, I would like to be permitted to offer.
MR. HOCHWALD: I am not objecting against those documents, but if DR. Ratz wants to have his version in it, it is understood, of course, that the whole documents are in evidence and not only the excerpts which he is giving that means the decree of 18 October 1936, and all other documents in full, not those parts which he has translated in his own document book.
THE PRESIDENT: Naturally, Mr. Hochwald, you would have the right to refer to the entire document -- the entire -
MR. HOCHWALD: The entire decree.
THE PRESIDENT: The entire decree.
MR. HOCHWALD: Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, of course.
DR. RATZ: From my Document Book II, page 65, I would like to submit document No. 17, as Exhibit No. 9. It is the affidavit of one Heinz Wanninger, 14 November 1947. It concerns Radetsky's emergency deferement and his assignment is liaison officer, and finally Wanninger said it is known to him that Radetsky tried to get a release in order to join the Wehrmacht, that such applications, however, were basically refused. From Document Book-I, I want to submit the affidavit of Schellenberg, on page 24 of the Document Book. Schellenberg's No. 6 I want to submit as Exhibit No. 10. It is Schellenberg's affidavit of 12 October 1947. Schellenberg was Office Chief in the Reich Security Main Office, and he testifies as to War Status of Ethnic Germans from the Baltic States.
Furthermore, he said that in 1944 Radetsky was released from his activity in the East, and that in this year Radetsky applied for release in order to join the Army. From Document Book I, I furthermore submit the document on page 34, which is an affidavit of one Walter Ostermann, 26 September 1947. This Document No. 8 is submitted as Exhibit No. 11 Ostermann from the very first day of the Russian assignment, July, 1942, was in SK-IV-A, and he states that Radetsky was transferred as liaison officer with the Army, and that Radetsky was never deputy of Commando-chief in this case Blobel. On page 36 of the same Document Book, there is the affidavit of August Haeffner of 10 October 1947, Document No. 9, and I want to submit it as Exhibit No. 12. He talks about Radetsky's assignments in the SK-IV-A, and, he says that Radetsky was never the deputy of the commandochief; that Radetsky came under the war emergency status.
Court No. II, Case No. IX.
DR. RATZ: (continued) On page 39 of the same docubook there is an affidavit by one Karl Hennicke of 2 October 1947. It is document # 10. I want to submit it as exhibit # 13. Hennicke was from the beginning of the Russian campaign, June 1941, in the staff of Einsatzgruppe C as chief of department III and he confirms the activity of Radetzky as departmental chief for SD matters in Sk4A. He further talks about the discussions they had in Schmiedeberg furing which it was said that these department chiefs were in no case employed in other fields than their own. Furthermore, that Radetzky was permanently employed with his intelligence activity, that he was liaison officer, and was never the deputy of Blobel. book II another affidavit of 28 November 1947, document # 20 which I would like to submit as exhibit # 14. Here Hennicke talks in even more detail about the SD reporting with the Special Kommando. Furthermore, he talks about the fact that Radetzky was employed as chief of department III and that according to his knowledge, Radetzky never took part in any executions and was liaison officer with the competent Army authorities. by one Fritz Luley of 7 October 1947, document #11, which I submit as Exhibit 15. Luley was counter-intelligence officer with the 6th Army and he herewith speaks about the activities of Radetzky as liaison officer of Sk4A and the Sixth Army. He deems it impossible that Radetzky during this time was the deputy of Blobel or was used for any other assignment within the special kommando. of one Heinrich Rochel of the 14 November 1947, document #18, which I introduce as exhibit 16. He reports about the activities of Radetzky as liaison officer and gives an explicit description and the characteristics of the defendant Radetzky.
of one Konrad von Schubert, document #19. I submit it as exhibit #17. Schubert was liaison officer for the Foreign Office and he also speaks of the activity of Radetzky as a liaison officer. He furthermore confirms that Radetzky was dissatisfied with the criticism that he received in the East from superior offices. of one Theodor Cristensen of 1 October 1947. It is document #13 and is exhibit #18. He reports about the fact that Radetzky from March until September 1943 was assigned as liaison officer in Tschernigow and that during that time he did not have to deal with any activities in special assignments of the Special Kommando. ment Book II, page 79, the affidavit of one Friedrich Seekel. It is document #21. I submit it as exhibit 19. Seekel was employed with the Higher SS and Police Leader in Russia during 1943 and 1944 and he reports that Radetzky was liaison officer with the Second Army at that time. the personality of Radetzky. They are all in Document Book II. The first is on page 82, the affidavit of the Baron Seigfried von Maydell. It is document 22 and I submit it as exhibit 20. He describes the activity of Radetzky and he says that he is one of those people who come under the Nurnberg law. Then there is an affidavit of Oskar Jaksch on page 85 of the same document book. It is document 23. I introduce it as 21. Jaksch knows Radetzky and has known him since childhood and he describes his personality and his support of his compatriots which endangered him considerably.
It is document #24. I introduce it as exhibit 22. The witness, a female witness, says that he was of considerable service to her and that he endangered his own personality considerably for that.
Then on page 91 is an affidavit of Proetzel. It is document 25, exhibit 23. The witness gives an explicit description of the personality of Radetzky and mentions his automatic and his nominal transfer to the SS. Leonid Guhbin. It is document #26. I submit it as exhibit 24. He tells about Radetzky protecting the female American citizen Erika Alper and how he saved her from interrogations, persecution and internment. of one Hedwig Freudendorff, 17 October 1947. It is document 31. I submit it as exhibit 25. The witness talks about the relationship between Radetzky and the Polish people and his support of the Polish citizens who were persecuted for racial reasons. Ivar Skurewitsch of the 18 November 1947. It is document 27, is on page 98, and is exhibit 26. Here he speaks about the order by Himmler according to which a gathering of several Baltic Germans in one military unit was prohibited as these people were considered unreliable. affidavit of one Theodor von Boetticher. It is document 28. I submit it as exhibit 27. The witness here had been a friend of Radetzky's in his own country and he describes Radetzky's personality.
testimonial of a German camp leader of the internment camp Regensburg. It is document 29 and I submit it as exhibit 28. DR. HOCHWALD: If your honors please, this document is not made out in the form of an affidavit. Nevertheless we waive our objection against the admissibility of the document .
DR. RATZ: On page 104 is the testimonial of an American camp commander of the civilian internment camp Regensburg of 15 September 1946. I submit it as exhibit 29. There are another three or four affidavits which I have not yet submitted but I do hope they will be available to me, and therefore to the Tribunal, at the right time.
DR. HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, I would like to draw the attention of the Tribunal again to exhibit #8 which is the emergency service decree of 15 October 1938.
THE PRESIDENT: Page?
DR. HOCHWALD: I am sorry - that is Document Book Radetzky #I on page 29. I have in the meantime seen the exhibit itself. The exhibit itself contains only excerpts from this decree. In order to make it clear I would like to rule the Tribunal that I can ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice --
THE PRESIDENT: You have given us the incorrect reference.
DR. HOCHWALD: Oh, no. It is exhibit 8 on page oh, I am sorry - it says 29 but the page is 20 to 23.
THE PRESIDENT: But as we indicated before naturally the Tribunal will be concerned about the entire decree even if only excerpts from the decree are submitted in this particular document book.