Q Did you confess immediately?
A Yes. I was tired of fighting, of resisting, and I was afraid about my child. battlefield, were not immediately taken out and shot when you confessed your activities?
worry about my child that I didn't care any more, and I know that if I had carried out the mission and had returned, I would have had the same fate by the Russian NKWD, even if I had carried out the mission.
Q Did You want to carry Out this task? closer and closer, and I had a little ray of hope that my child might be saved--my child was decisive for my entire actions-- and as soon as I could assume or hope that any child was no longer in Russian hands, my intentions wavered, because I had only one aim, to get back to my child. arrested, were you not, that gave you the possibility to tell to the Germans what was going on With you and to get your child back eventually is that right? human understanding and help me to get my child back. authorities? 6 in Kriwoij-Rog.
Q What did they do with you there--were you interrogated?
Q You store in protective custody, were you not?
Q How long?
Q Who interrogated you during this time?
Q And what happened then? and I was allowed to take my child back and was allowed to bring my child back to Dnjepropetrovsk. had been a Russian spy, and after a short time of protective custody you were released and never punishment for having been a spy, is that correct? Sudeten-Gau. Sudeten-Gau?
A No real punishment. I was only taken into protective custody. for having been a Russian spy behind the German lines?
A If you don't consider what I suffered during my life as a punishment, then I was not punished. it was not meted out by any authority against you, it was just hardship which you had to endure.
Very likely many other people had to endure such hardship who had never taken a job as a spy in any place, just as an effect of the War.
Will you tell the Tribunal what reason for this unusual leniency on the part of the German forces against you was?
A Must I say this here?
Q You must not answer any question if you do not want to. If you say "I don't want to answer this questions," I cannot compel you to do so.
DR. BELZER: Your Honor, perhaps the witness should be informed that she does not have to answer any questions, the answer of which might bring about any disadvantages for her.
PRESIDENT: The Tribunal confirms what Mr. Hochwald saud, that she is not required to answer.
Of course, the immunity does not go as far as you have indicated, Dr. Belzer, and a witness may refuse to answer any question which might incriminate a Witness, but this Tribunal will go further than that and will not compel any witness to answer any question if for any reason the witness is disinclined to answer. BY MR. HOCHWALD:
Q So I take it then that you prefer not to answer this question? to be afraid of being handed over to the NKWD again, from whom I have suffered so much already, the I would answer this question freely. BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q Where do you live now, Witness?
Q Do you have your child with you?
Q Where is your husband?
A I don't know. I was told he was expelled in Siberia. I don't know whether he is still alive.
Q How long ago was that?
Q You never heard from him since? Mr. Hochwald put to you, and you are entirely free to answer or not to answer. Certainly you need have nothing to fear from the present authorities, but if you do have any fear of any character and for that reason would rather not answer the question, you follow your own inclinations in that respect.
A Shall I answer?
Q Well, we have left it to you, Witness. If you entertain any apprehensions of any character that some harm may befall you by answering the questions which was put by Mr. Hochwald, you need not, but if you think that a clarification would be in order, and that you can escape any ignominy or hardship or punishment which the court doesn't see, then, of course, you may answer the question, but it is entirely up to you.
A Very well, I shall answer. I would like to say first that not only I am concerned with this, that all the Menoits who emigrated from Holland had to suffer terribly from cruelities in Russia; in the flourishing locations at the time not one man ever came home in the villages, all the men were expelled to Siberia in 1930. I suffered terrible things. Small children, babies, were taken away from the mothers' breasts. The mother was taken to Siberia. The father was taken to Siberia, and they never Saw each other again. It is natural that for a government who sets up its power on millions of corpses. I felt an unbounded despise, and that when I accepted the mission, I had a little hope that I might be able to do a small service to my countrymen, and that is why I volunteered for the German Wehrmacht.
That if the reason why I received decent treatment by the Germans. BY MR. HOCHWALD: not arrested by the Germans, that you reported to the Germans, isn't that right?
Q You were alone when you did this? you said that together with other persons you were arrested by the German forces?
A Yes. I chose a moment when the other persons who were with me took a different route. you fetched your child, is that correct? that right? brought my child -- just a minute, not to Einsatzkommando 6, that was not in Dnepropetrovsk at that time, there was another unit of the security service there. I don't know the number there. I never knew it. leased from protective custody with units of the SD? Were you an employee of the SD?
A No. I was an employee of the general commissariat of the department of agriculture and food in Dnepropetrovsk. I was employed there through the intermediation of Herr Graf.
Q Was it a German agency?
Q Were you paid for your duties there? German Government?
Q When was that?
A In the fall of 1943. I don't know the date. left Dnepropetrovsk you left the place with them? until they were no longer able to take the civilian employees with them, and then, like all other ethnic Germans, I was taken in a transport via Litzmannstadt and was evacuated to the Sudeten district. a Russian citizen, didn't you? to Mr. Graf as Mrs. Graf had died in the meantime, he got you an employment in a factory, isn't that correct?
A Yes, in his factory?
Q In a factory?
Q was it a state-owned factory? rect -- is that correct, did I understand you? the war effort?
this place?
A. Well, I was only there for a short period of time, for only about two weeks -- I did not look into it very deeply. I did see SS men occasionally, but what their tasks were, I don't know.
Q. You told the Tribunal further that Herr Graf wanted from you certain information about the Eastern workers in this factory, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you ask yourself, or did you know why he wanted this information?
A. No. I considered this to be more in the nature of private work. It was not given to me as a mission, he merely requested me to talk to the foreign workers.
Q. You knew that he was in the SD, did you not?
A. Yes.
Q. Nevertheless, you were of the opinion that he asked you these questions entirely out of private curiosity?
A. Yes.
Q. Will you tell me further, you remained in contact with Herr Graf from the time you met him first in 1941 til the end of the war, is that correct?
A. We had correspondence also with Mrs. Graf. Yes.
Q. All the time?
A. Yes.
Q. I gather from your testimony that you have a great personal admiration for him, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. So I gather that you tried in the best possible way to help him here? Is that right?
A. First of all, I am always prepared to stand up for the truth, and it is my opinion that Herr Graf as a decent human being, deserves that I testify everything I know about him.
MR. HOCHWALD: I have further questions, your Honor.
PRESIDENT: Dr. Belzer, do you have any further questions of this witness?
DR. BEIZER: Just one question, your Honor.
PRESIDENT: Very well. BY DR. BELZER:
Q. Witness, do you know that it was the custom in the NKWD that a great number of intelligence agents were sent behind the German lines without hardly any training?
A. Yes, hoping that perhaps one among 50 might be able to find out something.
DR. BELZER: Thank you. I have no further questions.
PRESIDENT: Do you have something further, Mr. Hochwald?
MR. HOCHWALD: I beg the Tribunal's pardon.
PRESIDENT: Certainly. BY MR HOCHWALD:
Q. You have just said that you know that the NKWD used to send great many unskilled informers out. Where from do you have this information?
A. After the German troops entered, I talked to ethnic German women who had received the same mission and were trained even less than I was, young Students, girls who had no experience at all, who could not possibly have carried out this mission, but they tried to send them.
Q. But you did not receive this information from the major who briefed you?
A. No.
PRESIDENT: You have now finished, Dr. Belzer -- have you finished with your entire case?
DR. BELIZER: I have finished except for presenting my documents.
PRESIDENT: Yes. The next defendants would be the defendants Rasch and Strauch. They are both more or less 111, so that some preparation might be required in order to take up their cases, and in fact defense counsel have asked for further medical examinations, and that is the reason we cannot proceed immediately with those two defendants. So that it is the opinion of the Tribunal that something could be gained in time if we take up the cases of these two defendants next week that is, on Monday morning. In the meantime, all counsel, of course, will be engaged in finishing their documentation, not only the document books, but we presume that they are also working on their closing statements. From all appearances, the taking of testimony should be finished next week, then there will be a recess of one week during which time all counsel will complete their closing statements and then the following week we will hear the statements. I hope that the majority of counsel already have their closing statement in good hands so they can be turned in to the defense information center -- the defense center, and they can be processed so that when they are delivered in court orally the Tribunal will have copies and, therefore, can more keenly and acutely follow the arguments being made by defense counsel. now adjourn until next Monday morning at 9:30 o'clock.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 12 January 1938, at 0930 hours.)
&
THE MARSHAL: The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal II.
Military Tribunal II is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: In the absence of Dr. Stein for the Defendant Sandberger, Your Honors, I ask that the Defendant Sandberger be excused this afternoon for the session, so he can prepare his defense.
THE PRESIDENT: The Defendant Sandberger will be excused from attendance in court this afternoon.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: Thank you.
DR. KLEINERT (ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT SEIBERT): Your Honor, I would like to ask the same thing for my client.
THE PRESIDENT: The Defendant Seibert will be excused from attendance in court this afternoon.
DR. SURHOLT (ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT RASCH): The defense for the Defendant Rasch will try to examine the defendant as a witness in his own case. Before I begin with the examination, I would like to make an explanation for this procedure and read into the record: On the 5th of September, 1947, by having reference to Article IV-D of Ordinance No. 7, the defense has made a written motion to the court to have the proceedings against Dr. Rasch set aside because of the inability of the defendant to stand trial.
This motion has not yet been ruled upon. I will not go into the reasons for this. The defense just wants to make clear that this motion still stands. in his own cause, despite his physical condition be considered a demonstration of good will. The results, whatever they may be, will be an additional clarification, that is, in addition to the medical opinion now available, and will continue to clarify the facts of the case, which & are important for the Tribunal in order to rule upon the motion made by the defense.
Therefore, the defense reserves the right, after the conclusion of its examination of Dr. Rasch and in summarizing the facts which result from the proceedings today to ask the Tribunal to rule upon the motion of dismissing the proceedings and setting aside the case.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Surholt, your motion of September 5th was not ruled upon for the reason that a decision could not be made without a thorough mental and physical examination of the defendant. A report on that examination eventually made by a board of three physicians was submitted to the Tribunal on December 11. We now have that report before us. of the proceedings, in so far as he is concerned, the Tribunal will then be in possession of all the facts, knowledge, and information needed in order to pass upon the motion. This motion is pending and is still valid and will be ruled upon at the appropriate time.
DR. SURHOLT: Your Honor, I thank you for the explanation of the Tribunal and it agrees with the explanation the defense just made.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, the prosecution will waive their right of cross-examination of the Defendant Rasch. However, we have prepared a document book containing the documents which we would have put to the defendant, if we would have cross-examined him. These documents are unfortunately not yet processed. We will submit them to the Tribunal and to the defense at the earlist possible convenience.
If Dr. Rasch wants to answer or wants to comment on these documents, I think it should be appropriate not to call him back on the witness stand, but the prosecution would have no objection if such comment would be made in the form of an affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: We do not, however, exclude that if the defendant desired to avail himself of the right orally to explain any of these documents or make answer to them, that he could then, providing he was physically able and mentally desirous of doing so, come back to the witness stand.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: We have made the suggestion of an affidavit only to facilitate matters for the Defendant Rasch.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. SURHOLT: It is the opinion of the defense and this point is different from that of the prosecution, as far as the defense is informed, the prosecution and the Tribunal especially were of the opinion that the Defendant Dr. Rasch, in view of the medical opinions available, could not stand a cross-examination. Therefore, the prosecution has kindly, as it put it, waived a cross-examination. Now it has just been explained that those documents, which would have been the subject of the cross-examination are to be submitted afterwards. I consider that this is a round-about method, which does not correspond to the situation in which the defendant Rasch finds himself, as far as the trial is concerned. For the defense, especially, for the Defendant Dr. Rasch, it is of importance, and I would say in consideration of the peculiarity of such a trial, the facts of which case are of a collectivistic nature, it is perhaps decisive for such a defendant that the various defendants, and, I am speaking of Dr. Rasch, he allowed to explain and describe their personality to the Tribunal and that they have an opportunity, as far as important counts of the indictment are concerned, to be able to use their personality in explaining them in order to answer the charges. Under these circumstances, I see in the waiving of the cross-examination by the prosecution, if it is willing to submit the material later on, without the defense having the possibility of answering them personally, I see in this a very clear restriction on the defense. the participants in the trial were in agreement in principle that Dr. Rasch could not stand a cross-examination. I think that under those circumstances, the intention of taking Dr. Rasch into cross-examination would not have been necessary.
DR. HORLICH-HOCHWALD: Of course, it goes without saying that the prosecution has no objection that Dr. Rasch himself testifies on the documents, which we will present. However, if we waived the right of COURT II CASE IX rebuttal and we should be entitled to submit in rebuttal every document to rebut the statements.
I have documents to rebut the statements which will be made in direct examination by Dr. Rasch. As to the documents, when we wanted to put in the documents earlier than in rebuttal, it was only to facilitate for defense counsel for Dr. Rasch and for the defendant himself to react to these documents, so we still take the position that the procedure suggested by the prosecution facilities and does not impede the defense of the Defendant Dr. Rasch.
DR. SURHOLT: The defense is of the opinion that the statement of the Prosecution needs no answer. I have already given the reasons for it.
THE PRESIDENT: Then I don't see where you are in any way impeded, Dr. Surholt, by the procedure announced by Mr. Hochwald. You are in no way prejudiced in the presentation of your defense. The defendant will testify, and then later when these documents may be processed, and we are always confronted with the mechanical difficulties in this business, they will be submitted to you, you will read them over, and you will confer with your client. If your client desires to make answers to them in written form, Mr. Hochwald has indicated that he is willing, and will interpose no objection to an affidavit being submitted by your client. If your client is willing and desirous of orally explaining the documents in court, that right will be permitted him, so I don't see how in any way you will be prejudiced by the procedure outlined by Mr. Hochwald.
DR. SURHOLT: Well-- I see only that by this procedure......
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps, Dr. Surholt, the difficulty lies in this, that perhaps you understand from what Mr. Hochwald said that Mr. Hochwald would cross examine the defendant on the documents, but I don't think that Mr. Hochwald intends that.
MR. HOCHWALD: Your Honor, please, the Prosecution has no desire to cross examine the witness, Dr. Rasch, at all.
DR. SURHOLT: Well that is just it. The charges which are to be included in the cross examination are merely being posponed, and in the personality especially of Dr. Rasch, I don't consider it an advantage, but a disadvantage to the defense, if the defendant can not stand the cross examination in these matters for physical reasons. For reasons of the defense it would have been very desirable for the defendant, Dr. Rasch, because only in this cross examination, where it always effects the personality of the man, it would important for Dr. Rasch to answer the charges personally, but perhaps we can begin the examination.
MR. HOCHWALD: If Your Honors please, it goes without saying that the Prosecution presents its case as the Prosecution sees fit. Whether we intend to cross examine the defendant, or not, is entirely up to the Prosecution to decide. Nobody can compel the Prosecution to cross examine the witness. However, I want to repeat that we have waived the right of cross examination only in Order to facilitate the examination for Dr. Rasch.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Surholt.
DR. SURHOLT: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: It is not quite clear just what you object to. You have now indicated that you deplore that there will be no cross examination, which is certainly a very novel statement coming from any defense counsel, but whatever you feel could be brought out in cross examination you certainly can bring out in direct examination
DR. SURHOLT: Yes
THE PRESIDENT: -- and if you wish to take the belligerent attitude which you assume is alwaysinherent in the cross examiner, then you can rest your fears and cross examine, if you want crossexamination.
DR. SURHOLT: No, Your Honor, I am of the opinion that the cross examination would be completely impossible for the defendant, and that for this reason it was waived, but if the charges which were to be brought up on cross examination are brought up later, without the defendant being able to answer them personally, and being questioned about them personally, then I do not consider this an advantage but a deterioration of the defense situation, but perhaps.......
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but Dr. Surholt, you have completely overlooked what I said, that after the defendant reads the documents, we will permit him to reply by affidavit by oral statement by examination anyway that he and you agree is the best way to do it.
DR. SURHOLT: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: And we will say to you, Dr. Surholt, that in examining the defendant Rasch, that you need not do it in the formalistic manner; you can talk with him conversationally, and if we can arrange it so that the interpreting process will not in any way be impeded, you might even stand close to him, and we won't restrict you to the formal manner of examining, so that if by a question even a little bit leading, you can more quickly get an answer from the defendant that will be permissible.
DR. SURHOLT: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Captain Carpenter, will you kindly step within the pit. Captain Carpenter, I should like you standing close, or Sitting close to the defendant. Will you please take a Seat at the counsel table now. (Captain Carpenter sits at the counsel table of the Prosecution within reach of the witness box). Dr. Surholt would you want to sit next to the defendant, and both of you use the same microphone, or would you prefer to stand where you are?
DR. SURHOLT: Your Honor, I shall try out whatever is best.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. SURHOLT: I already explained to you the other day that I shall proceed in as little a formal manner as possible in order to facilitate things for the defendant, who is very much subjected to mental tensions.
THE PRESIDENT: We will first try it with you standing at the podium. If we have difficulties, then you might move to a point closer to the defendant, and attempt it that way.
DR. SURHOLT: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant Rasch will now be brought into the courtroom. Before the defendant is brought in, Dr. Aschennauer, I presume, you will be available in the event we need you for the purpose of your presenting the document books today.
DR. ASCHENAUER: I shall need about one and a half to two hours, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I only ask that you hold yourself in availability. follows:
DR. SURHOLT: Dr. Rasch, you know which charges are contained in the Indictment against you. In the municipal hospital, when personally interrogated, you have made the statement that you considered yourself as not guilty, and as your defense counsel you have given me the reasons which were important for you in making this statement. I want you to try now in a very easy manner to express these reasons here in the courtroom. Please give the Tribunal your personal data, what is your name ----
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Surholt, he has not yet been sworn. Lt. see that his earphones are applied.
JUDGE SPEIGHT: He need not stand. I don't know whether the witness can raise his right hand, or not. Witness, can you raise your right hand?
THE WITNESS: Yes, I can.
JUDGE SPEIGHT: Raise your right hand. I swear by God, the Almighty and Omnicient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing. (The witness repeated the oath) BY DR. SURHOLT:
Q Dr. Rasch, please give your first name and your last name?
Q When were you born?
Q Where?
Q. What are your present family conditions?
A. In February, 1944, my wife died in a terror attack on Berlin. I have three children, girls, at the ages of eleven to fourteen years.
Q Well, Dr. Rasch, then you were born in East Prussia, and as I know, on an estate called "Friedrichsruhe." Will you tell us, please, briefly how the conditions......you still hear me?
Q - - - (continuing) What the conditions were in your family?
A My father was a farmer. He had a brick factory. The industrial development in East Prussia didn't begin until after the First World War. Actually, not until after 1930. Around the turn of the century, the industrial firms in East Prussia had essentially the character of agricultural enterprises, brick factories, distilleries and sawmills.
Q Dr. Rasch, perhaps you will tell us briefly about your family?
A Well, I want to say that my father was well to do. Seen from a socialogical standpoint, he belonged to the patriarchial order. It was ordered from above, and from below, it was obeyed. On the other hand, my father considered it his uppermost duty to take care of everyone of his people. This social duty came from the deeper moral awareness from religion. My parents were very devout. Everything is beginning to swim before my eyes.
Q Do you still hear me clearly when I talk to you?
DR. SURHOLT: Your Honor.......
THE PRESIDENT: Captain Carpenter, will you please examine the witness to see if he may continue. (Thereupon Captain Carpenter holds the wrist of the witness) Will one of the interpreters please go to the witness stand to interpret for the Doctor.
THE WITNESS: I merely see colors and lights, and in my ears there is a funny sound, just like in a radio.
THE PRESIDENT: Will Captain Carpenter come to the bench, please. (Whereupon Captain Carpenter appears before the Bench and discussion ensues outside the record). The Tribunal will be in recess a few minutes, and Captain Carpenter will confer with the Tribunal during that recess. Dr. Surholt will hold himself in readiness to be called into the conference, as well as Mr. Hochwald.
DR. OTTO RASCH- resumed
THE HARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you apply the ear phones, Lieutenant?
Dr. Surholt, you may proceed. BY DR. SURHOLT:
Q. Dr. Rasch, you were just about to tell us what the conditions were in your family. Please briefly describe the education by your parents and their methods, especially of your father. Do you hear me? Do you hear me, Dr. Rasch?
A. Yes, but badly. You mean educational methods?
THE PRESIDENT: It is very obvious, of course, to everybody that you are an ill man and the only reason that we are proceeding in spite of your illness is to give you an opportunity to explain the serious charges which have been filed against you. Try to be as calm as possible and take your time in answering.
A. Well, that is just the difficulty. The more I have the will to calm myself the worse do the physical disturbances get.
THE PRESIDENT: How about your comprehension of the questions which are put to you? Do you understand me clearly?
A. I understand the sense of the question but there is a strong noise and it is coming through very indistinctly.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we will try to proceed. BY DR. SURHOLT:
Q. Dr. Rasch, back home in East Prussia didn't you get the first moral directions in your life from your father? Will you just briefly describe it?
A. At home I was educated very devoutly. That was in accord with the almost pious devoutness of my parents. My father taught Me the love of my country, love of nature, and how to hunt.