It is up to you to decide.
DR. VOGEL: Yes, I insist on it, and also there is always the opportunity to call up Hartl for cross-examination because he is in the prison here in Nurnberg. The defense has no objection.
THE PRESIDENT: If he is called it will he strictly limited to the point raised in the affidavit.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, proceed.
MR. HOCHWALD: The Prosecution reserves the right to recall Hartl.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: That reservation will be recorded.
DR. VOGEL: Now I wish to submit the next document in Document Book No. 3; it is Radetzky No. 33. I offer it as Exhibit No. 31. It is an affidavit of Heinz Unglaube of 15 January 1948. Unglaube was supply chief with the BDS from May, 1942, until August 1943. He can assure us with certainty that Radetzky during the period mentioned was never in charge of a sub-Kommando. He also confirms the situation set forth in Document 4771X, Exhibit 191 of the Prosecution. The next Exhibit. No. 32, will be the document Radetzky No. 34. This is an affidavit by Hans Weirup of 16 January, 1948. Right from the beginning until the fall of 1943, he was in the office of the SK 4 A. He gives a detailed report about the activity of Radetzky in the SK 4 A. Special Kommando 4-A. He confirms that Radetzky was neither Blobel's deputy, nor did he carry our the function of a sub-Kommando leader. Also, that Radetzky had no power of command in the Kommando.
MR. HOCHWALD: May I request a statement from defense counsel whether the two affiants can be brought here for cross examination of the last two documents?
DR. VOGEL: I would like to say here that Heinz Unglaube is in an internment camp and could be brought here, I presume. The other witness, Hans Weirup testifies about various facts which were already mentioned in other affidavits and proved, and, therefore, I consider his affidavit as only a supplement to the other statements by other witnesses.
MR. HOCHWALD: If I understand correctly, then the affidavit of Hans Weirup should be ruled out, as defense counsel did not proclaim that he intends to bring the affiant here for cross examination.
DR. VOGEL: Well, I have not made any statement about that as yet, that I do not want to bring him here. I would still insist that Hans Weirup be examined as a witness here because he can testify and does testify about another joint, namely the charge that Radetzky allegedly was sub-Kommando chief in the summer of 1942.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Mr. Hochwald, the rule does not say that because a man presents an affidavit that he must have standing outside the door the affiant for cross examination. It is up to the other side to obtain that person for cross examination. The only thing that the presenter of the affidavit is required to do is to furnish whatever information he has to the other side, so that that affiant may be called for cross examination if the cross examination is desired; if he is available.
MR. HOCHWALD: The only request I made, Your Honor, if Your Honors will certainly recall that was that defense counsel may state whether he is available for cross examination and what time.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. HOCHWALD: I am sorry. I meant to say that, Your Honor.
DR. VOGEL: Yes, Your Honor, Hans Weirup can be brought here, but it would take some time.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. We will reserve to the Prosecution the right to bring him in if it desires to bring him in.
MR. HOCHWALD: Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Proceed.
DR. VOGEL: The next one is Exhibit No. 33. which is Radetzky Document No. 35. Thisis an affidavit by the Chief of the Ethnic German Resettlement office in Poznan, Werner Lorenz, of 12 January 1948, which reveals that Radetzky's transfer into the SS was carried out by Himmler as Reich Commissar for the strengthening of Germanism and that Radetzky could do nothing about it. Lorenz also testifies that Radetzky's application for release to join the Wehrmacht was refused.
MR. HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please. the Prosecution does not want to drag out thistrial and, therefore, we do not want to call Lorenz for cross examination. However, we respectfully request that the Tribunal take judicial notice of the cross examination of the affiant who is one of the defendants in Case No. 8. This cross examination appears on pages 2,800 to 2,814 of the record of Case No. 8. I have been quoting, of course, the English record numbers.
It is the position of the prosecution that in this cross examination it was proved that the affiant -
THE PRESIDENT: Now, Mr. Hochwald, you are arguing. The record will show your references to that transcript. That transcript will be available to both sides. They may quote from it and argue from it, and the transcript will be available to the Tribunal in its deliberations.
MR. HOCHWALD: Entirely satisfactory.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. VOGEL: Your Honor, I now cone to my last document book, No. 4. This document book contains five affidavits or excerpts. The sequence of the individual exhibit numbers is to follow the sequence of the document numbers. The first document, No. 36, I offer as Exhibit No. 34. This is an affidavit by Karl Heinz Bendt of 21 January 1948, who from March, 1943, until the end of November, 1943, was Chief 3 with Einsatz Group C. Bendt describes in detail why von Radetzky could not have held a responsible position in SK 4-A, and why he was not assigned to such a post.
MR. HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, I am terribly sorry, but I have again to object. From the testimony of Radetzky it is clear that he left his position with Sonder-Kommando 4-A in January, 1943. This document is a information by an affiant who came to this unit in March 1943. He can not testify to facts which happened in 1942 and 1941.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that true? I am addressing myself to defense counsel. Did the affiant come in March whereas the defendant left in January?
DR. VOGEL: Your Honor, that is correct that the affiant came there in March, 1943, but it is also correct that Radetzky was still with the Einsatz group where the affiant was, and that is why this man is able to testify about the activity of Radetzky in the year 1943.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Mr. Hochwald, if von Radetzky was still in the Einsatz Gruppe it is consistent with the possibility that the affiant would know.
MR. HOCHWALD: To the best of my knowledge, Your Honor -- my memory is not very good -- he went to Einsatz Gruppe B in January, 1943. I might be mistaken. I am sorry.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Mr. Hochwald -
MR. HOCHWALD: It is up to defense counsel to declare.
THE PRESIDENT: Suppose we accept it for whatever probative value will be assigned to it, when, in the solitude of our chambers, we are able to compare these various dates.
MR. HOCHWALD: Oh, Your Honors, I have by chance my brief on Radetzky here. According to hisown statement he left Einsatz Gruppe C in January, 1943, and went over to Einsatz Gruppe B, and we therefore respectfully move that this document may be ruled out.
THE PRESIDENT: Which document number is this?
MR. HOCHWALD: That I am sorry I am not -- but it is in Document Book 3-C, affidavit of the defendant Radetzky. It must be the third or fourth document in the document book and it is to the best of my recollection Prosecution Exhibit 132.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you wish to withdraw the affidavit in view of what Mr. Hochwald has now said?
DR. VOGEL: Your Honors, I will not withdraw it because even if Radetzky was with Einsatz Gruppe B, the Tribunal can draw important conclusions from the statement of this witness about his previous activities with Einsatz Gruppe C. That is why I would like to ask that the document be accepted.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be accepted for whatever probative value will be assigned to it in its due time.
DR. VOGEL: The next document from Document Book 4 will be No. 37.
This will be Exhibit No. 35. This is an excerpt from the opening speech by the Prosecution in Case 8 against Greifelt and accomplices. There the Prosecution maintained that a considerable number of Ethnic Germans had no choice other than either to go as resettlers to the incorporated areas which Germany had taken over, or to go to Germany as forced labor. As Exhibit No. 36 I offer the document No. 38. This is an excerpt from the regulation about the set-up and administration of the immigration and resettlement office of the Security Police contained in the Order Gazette of the Chief of the Security Police and the SD, No. 42/41.
Court No. II, Case No. IX.
This shows the competency of the resettlement agencies for evacuations. The Baltic German Immigration Advisory Office had nothing to do with the immigration agencies in Poznan. I mentioned this because the words "immigration center" has been mentioned here repeatedly.
MR. HOCHWAID: I do think your objection is clear. If the defense contends that Radetzky had nothing to do with this office, the exhibit itself is completely immaterial.
DR. VOGEL: Your Honor, this piece of evidence is only to help to clarify the matter because, as I have said, the concept emigration central office or resettlement central office was mentioned repeatedly in this case in connection with the Baltic German immigrants' advisory office in Poznan.
MR. HOCHWALD: If prosecution would claim that Radetzky had a connection with the central office, prosecution would be called upon to provide for this fact. I don't think that an exhibit can be put in evidency by saying he didn't have anything to do. The exhibit itself does not contain the name of Radetzky. It does not contain any declaration that Radetzky had nothing to do with it. I think it is completely immaterial in this case.
DR. VOGEL: Your Honor, I am glad about this statement of the prosecution, but it was just the prosecution who, I believe in the examination of Radetzky on 16 December 1947, asserted or tried to prove that von Radetzky had dealings with the deportations from the Warthegau into the Government General district.
MR. HOCHWALD: If your Honors please, I only can repeat what I have said. It is impossible by presentation of a document to prove that an individual had nothing to do by the presentation of some declaration or some decree to prove that an individual had nothing to do with it.
PRESIDENT: Well, Mr. Hochwald, if the affidavit is so devoid of merit, as you indicate, then it can't possibly harm your theory.
MR. HOCHWALD: If your Honors please, it certainly does not Court No. II, Case No. IX.
harm me. I have only pointed out the complete immateriality of the exhibit. If the Tribunal finds the slightest probative value in the document, I certainly will not object to its admission.
PRESIDENT: You may proceed and then at the end we will dispose of all the documents.
DR. VOGEL: The next exhibit Number 37 will be Document Number 39 of Radetzky. This is an excerpt from the circular decree of the Reichsfuehrer SS and the chief of the German police in the Reich Ministry of the Interior in the new edition as of 1 July '42 about replacement and reserve, order gazette by the chief of the security police and the SD, of 20 July '42, third year, Number 31. This reveals that already since the 29th of September '39 the emergency war drafting applied in order to get replacements and reserve forces in the security police and the SD. Finally, the last document, Number 40 I offer as Exhibit Number 38. It is an affidavit by the former chief of the administration department of the official in charge of personnel of matters with the police headquarters, Nuermberg-Fuerth, Dr. Alfons Holz of 25 January 1948. This expert testifies from his practical experience that the personnel for the Gestapo and for the SD was obtained according to the emergency drafting decree of 15 October 1938. And with regard to paragraph 1, Number 1, paragraph 3, of the war emergency draft, he further states that war emergency drafting could nullify the state of being draft deferred and that no one could get away if he was drafted on an emergency status. defendant, Waldemar von Radetzky.
MR. HOCHWALD: Your Honors, I do not want to press my objections for the simple reason that I do think the court will decide best which one of the exhibits is material for the case of Radetzky or not. I only want to point out that the prosecution up to date has not received the English copy of the Document Book. It, therefore, would appreciate if such copies would be handed to prosecution as soon as possible in Court No. II, Case No. IX.
order that we should be able to prepare our briefs on the individual cases of the defendants.
DR. VOGEL: Your Honor, perhaps I can clarify here, that these document books have been translated some time ago. I inquired only the day before yesterday about it, and was told that the translation had been handed on.
PRESIDENT: May we ask the Secretary General to look into this matter and see to it that the prosecution receives English copies as well as the Tribunal.
MR. HOCHWAID: If the Tribunal please, it is understood that in the cases of the defense affidavits, especially of the last one offered by the defense counsel for Radetzky, the right of cross examination is reserved to prosecution.
PRESIDENT: Yes, that is always reserved when an affidavit is accepted.
DR. STUEBINGER: Stuebinger for Dr. Braune. As my last document I offer Supplement III to Document Book II. This is the Braune Document Number 59, which I offer as Exhibit Number 50. It is an excerpt from the reports from the occupied Eastern territories Number 1 of 1 May 1942. This document reveals the situation of the ethnic groups in the Crimea and it shows that the Jews only constituted 6.3 percent of the entire population in the year 1939, while the part they took in the state administration of the Crimea, according to page 3 the original, constituted 25 to 80 percent. I still have one request, Your Honor. In the Krupp trial on 16 December 1947 the English General Morgan, a member of the Interallied Disarmament Commission and Professor of International Law is supposed to have said as an expert in the witness stand that the inner German state law precedes the international law in importance. Since more than four weeks I have been trying-
PRESIDENT: Mr. Walton.
MR. WALTON: Your Honors, if he wants the Tribunal to take judicial notice of this, I feel that the proper procedure for Dr. Stuebinger would Court No. II, Case No. IX.
be to give the citation and the subject matter of which it treats and let the Tribunal read it for themselves and draw whatever judicial conclusions from it they desire. This is a witness in the case which has not been settled. We have no way of knowing whether this testimony will be refuted before the end of the trial or whether it will be ruled out or what final disposition will be made of it. I think the proper thing for Dr. Stuebinger to do at this time is leave it to Your Honors and I object to comment or any quotation on it.
PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Stuebinger, you could not very well argue it, especially at this time. You may refer to it, give it a citation and then in your summation you may make such reference to it as you deem helpful to your theory of the defense.
DR. STUEBINGER: Yes, Your Honor. The explanations by the prosecutor and by Your Honor, I can only emphasize and it was my intention to submit that material, but it would have become obvious immediately that I was unable to do this until now but I have not been able to finish what I have been trying to say. I have been trying for more than four weeks to receive the transcript, but I cannot get it because no defense counsel in Krupp has received it as yet, although a great deal of transcript after that day has been completed. I don't know why this delay occurred. I would be very grateful to the Tribunal if they would intervene because the legal question treated by General Morgan concerns this case here as well and certainly one or the other defense counsel would want to refer to this statement in his final plea.
MR. WALTON: Well, I will do what I can to get this transcript for Dr. Stuebinger, but certainly this Tribunal has the power and the right to obtain for itself the transcript of any record in any court since these tribunals have equal power.
PRESIDENT: Dr. Stuebinger isn't concerned about our getting a copy, he wants to know hoe he can get a copy.
MR. WALTON: I can't speak for the German. I think I can get him a copy of the English.
Court No. II, Case No. IX.
PRESIDENT: I would be very grateful to you, Mr. Walton, if you would endeavor to assist him in getting this transcript which he believes he would like to have in connection with the summation.
MR. WALTON: I think that this is the time for the citation for all our benefits.
PRESIDENT: But he doesn't have the citation.
MR. WALTON: Does he have the date?
PRESIDENT: Do you have the date?
DR. STUEBINGER: 16 December 1947, morning session, I believe.
MR. WALTON: No objections to the document that is introduced as a supplement to Document Book III.
PRESIDENT: Do you think we ought to have our recess first--Yes. Wall, let us make an announcement now. Dr. Aschenauer, I again must express our regrets that you haven't up until this time been afforded the opportunity to begin your summation and it would seem that you can't begin this afternoon and it might be better in that event to start freshly tomorrow morning. We will announce to all counsel who still have to submit documents this afternoon that the tribunal will remain in session regardless of the length of time until every document now ready can be presented today, so that without fail tomorrow we begin the summations. The Tribunal will now be in recess 15 minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. DURCHHOLZ (ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT SCHULZ): Your Honor, I have just one more document which I would like to submit for the Defendant Schulz. I have marked it as Supplemental to Document Book No. IV. It is Document No. 97, which I herewith submit as Exhibit No. 96, the affidavit of the Defendant Schulz of the 27th of January, 1948. been submitted to the Tribunal because the Translation Department cannot cope at the moment with the work load. It has been there for a number of days. one which was Exhibit No. 201, in which the prosecution connects the Defendant Schulz with locations which had not previously been connected with him. That is the reason why this document is offered and submitted.
Then I want to make a short statement. A short while ago, I offered Document 96 as Exhibit No. 95. In this document are contained the photostats of three Russian envelopes. The prosecution, some time ago, complained that on this photostat it was not evident that on the envelope, which was entitled, "Glory to the Partisans" -- a civilian was concerned. I have here the original envelopes, but I cannot submit them because I have to return them, but I would like to show the Tribunal and the prosecution these envelopes in order to clarify this point.
(Dr. Durchholz then showed to the Tribunal and the prosecution various papers.) I have made out a supplement to my trial brief which, I am told, is already on the way to the Tribunal and I would like the Tribunal to take notice of this, at the proper time. ant Schulz.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. FRITZ (ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT FENDLER): I have altogether four documents to submit, Your Honor. The first two are combined in Document Book II for Fendler. First, Fendler Document No. 22 and I offer it as Exhibit No. 24. It is an excerpt from a Report of Events No. 60 of 22 of August 1941. The document contains detailed statements about agriculture, or, at least, agricultural conditions at the time when Russia was occupied. Furthermore it pertains to the building up of the Agricultural Administration of the Soviet Union and it also concerns the economic position in this area. I offer this document because it covers and supports the statement of the Defendant Fendler, who, in direct examination said that the reports of Department III were very extensive ones and took up his time so much that for other tasks he had no time whatsoever.
The next,document 23, I offer as Exhibit No. 25. It is an affidavit of Dr. Wallfried Vernunft of 18 November 1947. It pertains to the activity of the Defendant Fendler which he indulged in from 1943 to the collapse of Office VI of the Reich Security Main Office. It also concerns itself with the knowledge of the Defendant Fendler about other activities of this office. This is of probative value for Count III. Finally it is a testimony concerning Defendant Fendler's character. Defendant Erwin Schulz of the 21st of January, 1948. It is Document Fendler No. 24. I offer it as Exhibit No. 26. Schulz confirms in this document the fact that he returned to Berlin before Hermann who was Kommando Chief of the Kommando IB and also before Fendler, and therefore he has exact knowledge of the fact that Fendler returned to Berlin before Hermann, from his assignment in Russia.
Last I offer another supplement to the Fendler document book. It is Document No. 25. I offer it as Exhibit No. 27. It is an affidavit by Karl Hennicke, which he made out on the 22d of January, 1948. Hennicke is in Nurnberg in prison. May I say the following concerning the document: In my Document Book I for Fendler there is an affidavit by Karl Hennicke.
Here it is Fendler Document No. 12, Exhibit No. 10, wherein Hennicke testifies among other things to and I quote:
"I am not aware of the fact that Fendler was ever the Deputy of the Kommando Chief. As such he figures neither in reports nor in discussions of the group." Witness Karl Hennicke which is in Rebuttal Document Book V-C, Document NO-4999, Prosecution Exhibit 202. In contrast to the implications of the passage just quoted Hennicke testifies in the affidavit among other things, and I quote:
"In view of the fact that Fritz Braune arrived at the headquarters of the Einsatzgruppe only after Hermann had been relieved of his duties, the Sonderkommando 4b was left without a chief for a period of two to three weeks. During this interim period the unit was commanded by the senior officer Lothar Fendler."
davit which he made out for Fendler I asked to see Hennicke again, after notifying the prosecution of this request, and he gave me this statement, the affidavit of 27 January, 1948, which I now offer here. In this affidavit he rejects what he said in Document 4999 which I have just quoted.
DR. MINTZEL(ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT STRAUCH): Your Honor, may I begin with the submission of evidence for the Defendant Strauch?
THE PRESIDENT: Please do.
DR. MINTZEL: I submit in Document Book I as Exhibit No. 1, Document No. 1, an affidavit of the wife of Defendant Strauch from which the date becomes evident of which Strauch began his service in Riga and when he began his service in Minsk. She says that her husband had gone to Riga on the 10th of November, 1941, and he left Riga for Minsk on the 21st of March, 1942.
Exhibit No. 2, Document No. 2, is an affidavit of Ida Strauch, that is the mother of the Defendant Strauch, in which she states that her son left Riga for Minsk on the 21st of March, 1942 and in which she also explains why she remembers this date so exactly.
Next is Exhibit No. 3, Document No. 3, the affidavit of Oskar Strauch. That is the father of the Defendant Strauch. In this statement of the 21st of March is given as the commencement of the service of Strauch in Minsk.
The next document, Exhibit No. 4, is of the same content. It is the affidavit of one Paula Gunkel.
Next is Document No. 5, Exhibit No. 5, the affidavit of Heinz Wanninger, in which he comments on the character of the agencies of the Commanders of the Security Police and SD and their inclusion in the civil administration of the occupied Eastern territories.
Next is Exhibit No. 6, Document No. 6, the affidavit of Carl Zenner. Zenner was in Minsk as the SS and Police Leader. Therefore, he was the Chief of the Defendant Strauch in White Ruthenia.
He testifies that the Defendant Strauch until the day he started his service was deputized for by an SS Sturmbannfuehrer Hofmann who acted in an entirely independent manner. He also testifies that Strauch had received the approval by Heydrich not to have to carry out the elimination order in White Ruthenia, or, at least, to postpone the carrying out of this order for the time being. He also comments on the so-called Kube letter and he also says why the Kube letter was in complete contrast to the happenings and incidents in White Ruthenia.
Document No. 7, Exhibit No. 7, is the affidavit of Walter Schimana. Schimana was also an SS and Police Leader in Minsk and as such, Strauch's superior officer at the time when Strauch was commander of the Security Police and SD in Minsk. Schimana testifies that in the time mentioned in the Kube letter no operations were carried out against the Jewish population in White Ruthenia and that at his time transports of Jews from the Russians did not arrive. He comments on the personality of the SS and Police Leader Jeckeln as to Kube's character and comments on the contradictions which become evident from the contents of the Kube letter and conditions in White Ruthenia. He then says that Rakov and Chervensk were not within the sphere of activities of the Einsatz Chief in White Ruthenia.
Next I submit Exhibit No. 8, Document 8, the affidavit of Johannes Feder.
Feder was the Field Intelligence Staff Officer in the SD in Minsk, which was the agency in which Strauch worked when he was stationed at Minsk. Feder says that in White Ruthenia no Anti-Jewish activities were carried out in his time and that the period to which Kube refers, Jewish transports did not arrive and he also testifies explicitly as to the situation in White Ruthenia, especially with regard to the activity of the partisans. He says that Strauch mainly busied himself in partisan warfare and that in these operations against partisans he took the part of a G-2.
Exhibit No. 9, Document No. 9, is another affidavit of the same Feder concerning the so-called S-carriages. These S-carriages were only used as transports for SS men and supplies, but not for what they were allegedly supposed to represent.
Document No. 10, Exhibit No. 10, again is an affidavit by Johannes Feder in which Feder states how, according to his knowledge, the incidents happened in Sluzk, about which a certain Ruebe talks in an affidavit which was submitted by the prosecution. He says that this incident was a part of a partisan war in which members of the Office of the Commander in Minsk took part as espionage units as support of the police. Police Leader von Olberg was in charge of these operations.
I submit as Exhibit No. 11, Document No. 11, which is an affidavit of Hubert Strathmann. In this affidavit Strathmann describes the very extensive partisan activity in white Ruthenia and the part the agency of Strauch played in these measures. Strathmann also says that in the time which is mentioned in the Kube letter, no anti-Jewish actions were carried out in Minsk and no Jewish transports arrived. He comments on Kube, as far as he knows Kube's personality.
Exhibit No. 12, Document No. 12, is another affidavit of Strathmann concerning the so-called S-carriages as means of transport.
Exhibit No. 13, Document No. 13, is another affidavit of Strathmann in which Strathmann, as Feder had done formerly, comments on the incidents which happened in Sluzk which are mentioned in the Ruebe affidavit and plays a certain part in this affidavit which has been submitted by the prosecution against the defendant Strauch.
He also says that the incidents in Sluzk happened within a program of a larger anti-partisan action and members of the agency of the Kommando in Minsk took part as espionage officer in the various units.
AS Exhibit No. 14 is also on affidavit of Herr von Toll, in which he comments on the time that Strauch commenced his service in Minsk, and he also says that during the time to which the Kube letter pertains no anti-Jewish operations were carried out in Minsk.
The last exhibit from the Document Book No. 1, is Document No. 15, which I submit as Exhibit No. 15; affidavit by one Lohse, who was Reich Commissar for the E stern territories. Lohse was alleged by the receiver, the so-called Kube letter. The Kube letter was at any rate addressed to him. He describes Kube's personality, his attitude toward Jews, and the contradiction with the Kube letter. I further present Document Book No. 2 -
MR. GLANCY: If the Tribunal please, the Prosecution has but one of the affidavit of Frau Strauch, because of her relationship to the defendant. However, if the Tribunal deems it correct and proper to so admit the affidavit; we at this time would like to reserve our right to cross examine her.
THE PRESIDENT: Defense counsel, of course, is familiar with the rule that the wife of a defendant can not be compelled to give any testimony against her husband.
DR. MINTZEL: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: She, of course, is permitted to testify in his behalf, but once she does that then she waives her immunity from crossexamination, so that now you are confronted with this situation, either of allowing the affidavit to remain and giving the prosecution the right to cross examine her on all subjects or not to present the affidavit.
DR. MINTZEL: It is, or course, possible for the defense to prove from the documents the matters pertaining to the activity of Strauch's service in Riga and as stated by the defendant , but the defense does not object to Mrs.
Strauch being examined as a witness and we would like to actually submit the affidavit ..
MR. GLANCY: Also, Your Honor, you might remind defense counsel that the immunity extends more specifically to Strauch himself, rather than his wife. He also just waive this immunity. He is the one who says whether or not his wife will testify.
THE PRESIDENT: That is also a feature of this rule of law, and do you believe that the defendant will be willing to waive that immunity, that cloak of protection placed around himself through his wife?
DR. MINTZEL: I am convinced of that, but perhaps I could ask the defendant personally and I could tell the tribunal tomorrow morning of the result.
THE PRESIDENT: Very veil, yes.
MR. GLANCY: In the meantime, sir, I would like, as a matter of record, state that we wish to reserve our right.
THE PRESIDENT: The right will be preserved to the prosecution.
DR. GLANCY: Thank you, sir.
DR. MINTZEL: I would like then to proceed with the submission ments that it contains I would like to mention that unfortunately the documents of Document Book 2, as well as No. 3, beginning from number I have been numbered from the beginning. I came to an agreement with the Secretary General to suggest to change the enumeration to the effect that in Book 2 and Book 3 the document numbers should be changed to the same number as they were to be submitted as exhibits. I now offer as Exhibit No. 16 that document which is called Document 1 in Document Book No. 2; it should be, however, document No. 16. Exhibit 16, document -it was 1, it is now 16. This document consists of excerpts from reports of events. The excerpts from No. 24 and No. 26 on page 2 show that Einsatz Commando 2 moved from Latvia to the area around Leningrad.
The excerpt No. 29 on page 3, has the name to the predecessor of Strauch -- Batz, was crossed out in Berlin and the name "Strauch" had been substituted by one of the officials in Berlin. In the location reports supplement to these reports of events, the name "Strauch" appears for the first time in the report of events of the 5th of November, 1941. This is not incontradiction of the fact that Strauch had actually only arrived in Riga on 10-11-42. The remark made in handwriting in the location report at Berlin had been made by the Departmental official in Berlin, apparently because he was informed authoritively that Strauch had been appointed on this very day, or perhaps the preceding day. Knowing this decree, he crossed ou the name "Batz" and he substituted the name "Strauch". The following excerpts show Strauch as the chief of Einsatz Kommando 2 up to the excerpt from report of events 146 on page 8. of the 15th of December 1941. If Einsatz Kommando 2 is mentioned here in the excerpts that does not necessarily mean that Strauch was really chief of Einsatz Kommando 2 which was removed from Latvia to the sector around Leningrad. It is a fact that the institution of the agencies -- the permanent agencies of the commandos in Riga for instance, was only mentioned in later reports of events, but that the Einsatz Kommando 2 as it is mentioned here, only means negligent attitude on the part of the officials who -
MR. GLANCY: It is my opinion, sir, that the documents will speak for themselves quite forcibly, and therefore this is not the time nor the place for argumentation.