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.
DR. HOCHWALD: But the Tribunal already ruled on that but I only want to point out that also the exhibit is incomplete, not only the excerpts before the Tribunal in the document book, but also the exhibit itself does not contain the complete decree. And, what I want the Tribunal to rule is that I should be permitted without submitting a new exhibit to quote from the same document parts which are ommitted in the exhibit.
THE PRESIDENT: Where is the complete decree?
DR. HOCHWALD: The complete decree, as far as I know, is in the Ge man Law Gazette, your Honor, it might be in Law Gazette of 1938. At the moment I am unable to tell the Tribunal the page. However, I shall be able to quote, or indicate the pages in the official Law Gazette. What I want to omit, to escape, is the fact that I would have to put in a new exhibit as such.
THE PRESIDENT: The fact that counsel for the defense has referred to this decree naturally brings the decree before the Tribunal for consideration and if he quotes from one section certainly the Prosecution has the right to quote from another section.
DR. HOCHWALD: Thank you very much your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: You are welcome.
That completes your presentation?
DR. RATZ: I would like to reserve the right to submit either three or four more affidavits.
THE PRESIDENT: That right will be reserved to you and we will repeat that whatever documents are available after you have presented your document books in court may still be presented up to and including the time for presentation of final summations provided that copies are furnished the Prosecution so that they may in due time make any objections they deem in order.
Dr. Mayer we will now hear you.
DR. MAYER, defense counsel for the defendant Steimle: for the defendant Steimle. I am submitting three document books alto gether.
Document Book 1 countains a number of affidavits which were made out by persons who have known the defendant Steimle for a considerable time. Document Book II contains reports of events concerning the activities of Sonderkommando 7-A and concerning other conditions in the territory of assignment SK7A, expecially during the time Steimle was Sonderkommando chief. Without the slightest doubt it will be established through the documents that SK7A in the time from the middle of September 1941 until December 1941, was mainly occupied with partisan warfare and that shootings of Jews were never reported at any period. Document Book III contains one document and is just a supplement of Document Book I.
As document Steinle #1 I submit the affidavit of one Dr. Stirner of 19 October 1947. I would like to give this document exhibit #1. Dr. Stirner has known the defendant Steimle since the year 1928. In his affidavit he gives an explicit characteristic of the defendant as far as his character is concerned and also concerning the time Steimle was with the SD in Stuttgart.
As document Steimle #2 I submit the affidavit of Rudolf Griesinger, the Senior educational officer for teachers in training, Stuttgart, of 21 September 1947 which I shall give exhibit "2. It contains an explanation of the political views of the defendant Steimle and his attitude concerning thos who had different political ideas, especially antiFascist, and he tells how Steimle later supported Griesinger when he was endangered to lose his job as director of the Seminar for Teachers in Training for referendars in Stuttgart because of antiFascist remarks he had made.
As Steimle document 3 I submit the affidavit of Dr. Dill of 30 October 1947. I would like to submit this affidavit as exhibit #3. Dr. Dill was an official in the Ministry of the Interior in Stuttgart and during the activities of Steimle in the SD sector Stuttgart he had a certain professional contact. He confirms especially the factual way of reporting of Steimle as an SD man who did not hesitate to make strong and severe criticism of measures of the Hitler regime.
As Steimle document 4 I submit the affidavit of Dr. Gustav Scheel of 7 October 1947 which I shall give exhibit #4. Dr. Scheel was the leader of the Reich Students Association. He confirms that Steimle on his initiative joined an SD sector SW in 1936 and he also describes the kind of activities of Steimle. October 1947. Kommer from 1938 to 1940 was in the SD sector Stuttgart as typist of the defendant. She confirms especially that the defendant had protected officials and professors of the university in Tuebingen on repeated occasions when endangered by anti-fascist attitudes. She further confirms Steimle was an enemy of radical anti-semtism and did not take part in the anti-Jewish action of 1938. This I submit as exhibit 5. Dr. Scheel of 7 October 1947 and in it is confirmed that the defendant Steimle during the time from 9 to 10 November 1938 was on a trip through Belgium with Dr. Scheel. Wilhlem Deuschle, of 8 November 1947. Deuschle confirms therein that the defendant succeed in having the son of Dueschle freed from the concentration camp Welzheim. Dr. E. Reichel of 16 October 1947. Reichel confirms that with the support of the defendant Steimle the Jewish woman Frau Geheimrat Wach, nee Mendelssohn, was released from the concentration camp at Theresienstadt and was able to immigrate to Sweden. Heinz Nosek of 14 October 1947. Nosek was the subordinate of the defendant Steimle in Office 6 of the Reich Security Main Office and here confirms that with the support of the defendant Steimle the wife of the former chief of the public relations office of the French Ministry, Mrs.
Comert was released from the concentration camp Ravensbrueck and was able to return to her home. Walter Schellenberg of 4 October 1947. Schellenberg was chief of office 6 from July 1941 until the end of the War and from July 44 until the end of the war was Chief of Amt Mil in the RSHA and in both cases superior of the defendant Steimle. First he goes into details about work of the defendant Steimle in these two positions and points out especially the always factual criticism and energetic attitude of the defendant Steimle against the catastrophic policy of the Third Reich. Mrs. Helga Stahl of 3 October 1947. In this affidavit it is confirmed that the defendant Steimle was in Stuttgart on 20 December 1941 and that during the following months until the end of July 1942 he was employed in his former office in SD sector Stuttgart. From this it becomes evident that the defendant Steimler in agreement with his testimony which he gave was no longer with SK7A during the months of January and February 1942 as actually during this time he was in Stuttgart. Therefore, in advance I would like to point out that I have submitted a correction of this document which I hope has been taken note of by the Tribunal.
DR. MAYER (continued):
As document Steimle #12, - exhibit 12 - I submit the affidavit of Walter Roller of 11 November 1947. Roller was the driver of the defendant Steimle from 1936 until December 1941. Therefore, until that point at which Steimle left Sk7A Roller describes his activities under Steimle in Sk7A. Especially, he confirms that the name of the place Sadrudubs was not known to him as a place were Sk7A was and that such a name during all his stay in Russia until the end of January 1944 he never found out about such a place. Also he confirms that during the time in which he was in Sk4 together with Steimle he had never heard anything about shootings of Jewish women and children being carried out by Sk7A. He furthermore confirms that he has never driven Steimle to any of these executions during this time. Radl of 4 November 1947. Radl was liaison officer with the Army High Command 9 and a member of Sk4 under Steimle. Radl confirms that especially in the territory of Sk7A partisan activity was especially severe and energetic combat of partisans was an important task of Sk7A. Radl as liaison officer, in agreement of the Army High Command 9. worked out marching routes of SK based on assignment orders of the Army High Command. Therefore, he had good knowledge of the territory of activity of Sk7A. He also confirms that in this territory of assignment there was no place called Sadrudubs and no place called Balochina either.
The following document #14 I will not submit. of the Indo-Germanic and Slavonic seminar of the Tuebingen University of 13 November 1947. This expert opinion confirms that the name Sadrudubs in its first part does not exist as a Russian word and that the name does not mean anything and makes no sense. Furthermore it is confirmed that the end sylable - dubs - is only used in names of larger localities which are mentioned in general geographical maps.
COURT II CASE IX Johannes Papritz dated 12 October 1947. Dr. Papritz was recommended to me as expert and lecturer for Russian at Tuebingen University and knew Russian well. Dr. Papritz in his affidavit says: "That in all the documents which were available to him and which he mentions in these documents he could not find the place Sadrudubs. of Dr. Johannes Papritz of 11 November 1947. From this it becomes evident that approximately 5 kilometers to the south of the town Sadrudubs which was in the territory of Sk7B the locality Belowchina can be found. The Tribunal will remember that in the report of events #124 of 25 Oct. 1941 which the Prosecution submitted as document #3160 in Document Book II-B as exhibit 65, the following is mentioned. "When the village Belowchina was set up as ghetto for the Jews, some Jews resisted. Thereupon 272 Jews and Jewish women were shot." In connection with the document which I have just submitted it is obvious and evident that it can only be Jews of the town of Sarodub which I mentioned here which were to be brought into the ghettox in the village Belowchina. Sarodub and Belowchina are in the territory of activities of Sk7-A such places are not existant. reports of events which concern Steimle as chief of Sk7A and I would like to give a short explanation about these. These reports start with a report of 11 September 1941, which is #80. They are being submitted according to number and date until the report of 15 December 1941, #146. Through this the Tribunal will get a general perspective concerning all reports in this period concerning the activity of the defendant Steimle as chief of Sk7A. At the same time every doubt is to be eliminated that these reports of events were not complete when they were found and, therefore, this and other reports could not have been submitted by the Prosecution in which an incrimination of the defendant Steimle may be contained. In looking through these reports of events of events it was established that in a number of them it is only seen COURT II CASE IX that reports of Einsatzgruppe B have not been submitted.
In these cases, therefore, in order not to put in anything that is surperfluous I only put that one sentence in my document"reports of Einsatzgruppe B have not been submitted." of reports of events of this kind into one document. Further reports of events were also sumitted by the Prosecution. As far as in these reports special reports of events are contained which have not been taken into documents of the Prosecution as excerpts. I have only taken over into my excerpts this part only as far as seems essential in order to prevent that the same excerpts would be submitted by me as well as the Prosecution. In order to gain better persepective, however, I have marked the exhibit # of the Prosecution in these cases in order to show that reports of events with other excerpts have been submitted by the Prosecution although the content is somewhat different. The report of events 124 and 125 are not contained in my document book 2". These reports of events have been submitted by the Prosecution under exhibits #65 and #63 in Document Book II-B. As these two Prosecution documents contain everything that seems to me important for this trial I will not submit them myself. As far as I submit excerpts of reports of events I only do so in agreement with the testimony of the defendant Steimle when on the witness stand in order to confirm these statements. Those things that are not in connection with this testimony I have omitted here in order to not bother the Tribunal with unnecessary material.
As document Steimle #18, exhibit 17 I submit the certified excerpt from reports of events 80-84 Nov. 11 to 15 September 1941. It is confirmed here that reports of Einsatzgruppe B have not been received. of the 16 September 1941 as excerpt. From this very short excerpt it becomes evident that on 15 September 1941 the town Shurash which is to the southwest of Welish was attacked by 200 heavily armed partisans and during this attack a number of economic enterprises were also attacked on this occasion.
operation of Special Kommando 7a.
As Document Steimle 20, Exhibit No. 19 I submit excerpts from the reports of events, No. 86 to No. 89 of the 17th, 18th, 19th, and 20th of September, 1941, from which again it becomes evident that no reports have been received from the Einsatzgruppe B.
As Document Steimle No. 21, Exhibit No. 20, I submit the confirmed excerpt from the report of events No. 90 of the 21st of September, 1941. From this it becomes evident that the Soviet Russians, before they evacuated these places, they evacuated the population and that on this occasion the Jews were specially aided and helped, and specially it is mentioned here that the Red Army, before they left plundered and destroyed everything of any economical value and it is emphasized that in Veliki Luki, which again is in the sphere of command of SK 7a, even the railroad tracks were taken away.
As Document Steimle No. 22 Exhibit No. 21, I submit here report of events No. 91 of 23rd September 1941. This report of events contains a report of Einsatzgruppe B. However, this report only deals with reports of an economical nature which enlighten the reader concerning the agricultural position, the food supply of the civilian population, and the labor situation among the population. A report concerning the executive activity of Einsatzgruppe B and therefore also Sk 7a is not contained therein. This report I would like to have regarded as an example of how normal SD reporting was carried out.
As the next document I offer Document Steimle No. 23, Exhibit No. 22. It is a report of events No. 92 of the 23rd September, 1941, which the prosecution has offered together with a number of other excerpts as Exhibit No. 64. From the excerpt of this report of events it becomes clearly evident how the public security was increasingly threatened, public security, was endangered by partisans in the occupied territory of the Einsatzgruppe B. In this it is confirmed that the parrisans have taken to calling meetings of the population, threatening individual civilians, and destroying food supply stores and therefore keep the population in a constant state of unrest.
It is also emphasized that partisan activity, especially in the extensive swamp and forest territories, is very active because in these territories they can hide very well and it is very difficult to combat them. Special Kommando 7a, that is in the territory of the town Demidov, there are large forests. Furthermore, this report confirms that the partisans were divided into units which were equipped in a military way but operated in civilian clothes and had been provided with artillery. The interrogation of a partisan who had been captured resulted in the information that partisan schools had been installed in which partisans were trained for their future activities. The problem of partisans is being dealt with in this report and it is called a very serious problem. Furtheremore, the Special Kommando 7a reports explicitly that in a number of localities extensive actions have been carried out against partisans. However, they did not succeed in arresting partisans as these had meanwhile fled. Furthermore, it is mentioned that Sk 7a carried out a cleansing action in the village Wjasjmeny during which twelve people had been arrested. Of these twelve people eight could be proved to be acting as partisans. Wehrmacht is mentioned but did not result in anything at all as the partisans succeeded in vanishing in the extensive woods.
As my next document I offer Document Steimle 24, Exhibit No. 23. It contains reports of events Nos. 93 to 96, of 24th September, 1941, up to the 27th of September, 1941. In these reports of events again no reports of the Einsatzgruppe B are contained.
As Document Steimle No. 25, Exhibit No. 24, I offer report of events No. 97 of 28 September 1941. This document contains a very enlightening report about the manner of working of the partisans.
It explains tactics with which they operated in the territory behind the German Army. It is specially emphasized that they always continuously threatened the rear lines of the German units. The document also shows through in this explicit report that the partisan activity constituted a considerable danger, and combating and fighting it was the main task of the Special Kommandos which had to be carried out immediately.
As Document Steimle No. 26, Exhibit No. 25, I submit excerpts from reports of events Nos. 98 up to 105 of the 29th of September up to 5th of October, 1941. Again no reports of Einsatzgruppe B are contained therein.
As Document Steimle No.27, Exhibit No. 26, I submit an excerpt from the report of events No.106 of the 7th of October, 1941. The excerpt contains a short statement concerning the marching route of Special Komnando 7a and it proves the fact that according to the assignment they had to advance together with the 9th Army and they were in immediate contact with the combat troops. Again the necessity is pointed out to carry out an operation together with units of the Wehrmacht against an extensive and very dangerous partisans.
As Document Steimle No. 28, Exhibit No. 27, I submit a report of events No. 107 of 8th of October, 1941. This report of events contains a report ox the Einsatzgruppe B which deals merely with general matters, for instance, matters of public administration and economy. Any executive measures are not mentioned therein. This document again proves how normal SD reporting was carried out.
As Document Steimle No. 29, Exhibit 28, I submit an excerpt from a report of events No. 108, of 9 October 1941. This report of events has been submitted by the prosecution in excerpts and it was given the Exhibit No. 60 in Document Book II-B. As the excerpts which the prosecution mentioned might give an inaccurate picture of the various points, I completed it. The document just submitted by me is situation report and shows the danger of the manner of fighting on the part of the partisans who used false passes, and they protended to be harmless agricultural workers, and fought with hidden arms, of the German Wehrmacht.