Blobel document 8 I introduce as exhibit 8. This is an affidavit by Welther Huppenkothen of 8 December 1947. Huppenkothen was departmental chief of SD Sector West in Duesseldorf in 1934 and was commander of the Security Police and SD in Lublin in 1939 and 1940. The affiant first of all gives testimony of the character but he also gives a survey of the activity of Blobel as Chief of the SD Sub-sector Duesseldorf and also proves that in July 1941 Blobel was in the isolation ward of the Lublin Military Hospital.
Dr. KOHR: (Continuing): Document Blobel 9 is introduced -
DR. HOCHWALD: May I see the original of Exhibit Blobel 9?
THE SECRETARY GENERAL: It hasn't been supplied to the SecretaryGeneral yet to my knowledge.
DR. HOCHWALD: I was just now informed by defense counsel for Blobel that the exhibit is already in the hands of the Secretary General.
THE SECRETARY GENERAL: Well, if it was presented to me last week it is already in the archives. I can get it in just a minute.
DR. HOCHWALD: May I ask then if this is a literal copy of the exhibit?
DR. KOHR: Yes. Blobel Document 9 I offer as exhibit 9. This is -
DR. HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, the Prosecution objects against this document for several reasons. The excerpt of the transcript -- and I haven't got the original in my hands -- but defense counsel tells me this is a literal copy of the transcript -- the excerpt of the transcript, as it is offered by defense counsel, is incomplete. The excerpt does not show whether and by whom the witness was crossexamined and what his answers to questions of the Prosecution were. It is certainly not admissible that defense produces only those parts of testimony which are favorable for agreement and leaves out those parts which may be less favorable or even unfavorable for the defendant in this case. The testimony of a witness if offered in evidence before a Tribunal, different from the court before which the witness appeared , should certainly be offered in full so that the Tribunal can obtain a clear picture of the contents of such testimony. As to the facts which are alleged to be proved by these excerpts the Prosecution wants to point that these facts are completely immaterial for the case before the Tribunal. It is clear that the alleged order of General Eisenhower, and the Tribunal will certainly recall the testimony of the defendant Blobel in this case, could not have been issued earlier than in 1945 or 1946 which dates also appear in the transcript of the testimony of the witness Wollny which is now offered by the defense for the simple reason that such order could not have influenced the acts of the defendant in 1941 or 1942.
Moreover none of the defendants in this case has alleged that he had knowledge about this order or that he had even heard of it until after this trial began. The credibility of the defendant cannot be proved by the excerpt which is offered now by counsel for the defense. After carefully examining the transcript of the Blobel's testimony in this connection Blobel did not testify that he had knowledge of the testimony of the witness, Wollny.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Hochwald, this document is not admissible because the defendant himself stated that he knew nothing of such an order after having made the blanket utterance that everybody knew. Then in Court after examination by the Tribunal he indicated that nobody so far as he knew knew of this order. You can only introduce this affidavit to impeach in this statement your own witness in your own defense and if you have the desire to impeach Blobel then we will hear you but if you intend to submit this in support of anything which he said because he repudiated the statement from the witness stand and even went so far as to apologize for his utterance. The document, therefore, will not be accepted.
DR. HOCHWALD: Thank you very much, your Honor.
DR. KOHR: Your Honor, may I be permitted to give an explanation about this --why the excerpt from the transcript has become part of document No. 2 of Blobel. On the occasion of the examination of Dr. Braune in the witness stand when the quota of the ratio 1 to 200 was being discussed I tried at the time to explain how it come about that we had this excerpt from the transcript. At the time when Blobel was on the witness stand he said something to the effect that the result of the examination of the witness Wollny in case 7 had made this statement here in the courtroom. It is true that Blobel did not know this for himself. The knowledge now as excerpts from the transcript is being submitted merely for the purpose to make it clear what was the source of knowledge and where he got this knowledge from.
THE PRESIDENT: But don't you see we get into an entirely irrelevant and collateral matter. Suppose the defendant Blobel had said that he heard that in Spain a certain situation existed. Then later on he would say: I made a mistake, this situation does not exist in Spain. Then you want to bring in a document to show why he made that statement about Spain; it becomes immaterial because the witness in the meantime stated that he repudiated the statement. The statement is not challenged by anybody. Therefore, it is entirely surplusage to have it as a document.
DR. KOHR: I do understand this but I was under the impression that it depends on where one gains an impression. Now, one could think as if Blobel was asserting an opinion which he merely assumed while we were able to find out that the fact of the examination of the witness Wollny in case 7 was the reason why this ever came up in this trial. That is what I am trying to say.
THE PRESIDENT: You want to say something, Mr. Hochwald?
MR. HORLICK-HOCKWALD: I just wanted to make a short comment. If I understand counsel for the defense correctly he wants to introduce the document in order to show the credibility of the testimony of his client, but what Blobel stated was not that he had knowledge of the testimony of the witness Wollny either directly or indirectly. What he stated was that every German knew about the order given by General Eisenhower, that for every one American who was killed two hundred Germans were to be shot. Then he amended his statement by saying that his order was well known in Germany. He expressed his conviction that many of defense counsel present knew of this order, that the defendant Ohlendorf must have had knowledge of the order and that his own defense counsel had knowledge about it. I have the English and the German copy of the pertinent passages of Blobel's testimony before me and would like to hand it to the Tribunal for scrutiny for this purpose.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Hochwald, that is not necessary. We think that the incident is closed and has no probative value of any kind. The defendant made the statement and he later on explained he made a mistake, in effect repudiated the statement and made an apology to General Eisenhower. The Tribunal accepted his statement and his apology, and it is no longer before the Tribunal. There should not be any reference made to this anywhere because with that statement of the defendant, which the Tribunal in good faith accepted, it, in effect, became canceled and obliterated, unfortunately not from the record was from memory, but certainly from the legal consciousness of the Tribunal. The incident no longer happened.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: That is what I just wanted to point out, and in order to keep the record straight, it is the contention of the prosecution that by the document just offered now by the defense counsel the credibility of the defendant at this point cannot be proved.
THE PRESIDENT: We anticipate that the prosecution will not make any reference to this in summation, in their brief, or otherwise.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, I have finished my brief on the defendant Blobel.
I think that the defendant has received an English copy. There is no reference made in this brief to this incident.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. KOHR: Your Honor, I would like to thank the Tribunal for this explanation, and I would like to say for myself that it was merely my intention to prove that Blobel did not make this unwise statement maliciously.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, we understand this statement and understand why you made the offer of the document.
DR. KOHR: I now come to introduce Document Blobel No. 10 which I would like to introduce as Exhibit No. 9. This is an excerpt from the Legal Gazette of Germany of 1942, Part I, No. 44, the decision by the Greater German Reichstag of 26 April, 1942. I would like to say the following here. This document shows quite clearly the position of the German head of State. This document reveals in particular and shows the position of the Chief of State with his extensive rights, which were not limited to any extent, and I consider this document relevant; because I think according to Control Council Law No. 10 this does not exclude punishment, but according to these regulations an order from higher authorities would reduce punishment, if an action is carried out because of higher orders. I would like to offer this as an exhibit because I do think it has probative value.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, I do not want to press the point, as I know the magnanimous and liberal practice of the Tribunal to admit everything in evidence which defense counsel considers relevant for its case, but I do think that this excerpt is entirely immaterial. According to Control Council Law No. 10, crimes against humanity and war crimes can be punished whether they were committed in pursuance of an order or in pursuance of a German law, it does not make any difference.
THE PRESIDENT: But the law also states that the superior orders may be pleaded in mitigation so, therefore, this is entirely relevant.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: I only want to point out to that, your Honors, that it was never contested by the prosecution that there was an order by Hitler which provided fob the indiscriminate killing of Jews, Gypsies -
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the worst that you could say about it, Mr. Hochwald, is that it is cumulative.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: That is what I wanted to say, it is not contested by the prosecution that such an order existed.
THE PRESIDENT: I think it is well to have it in the record.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: I have just said I don't want to press the point.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, very well.
MR. KOHR: I now would like to offer Document No. 11 which I would like to give the Exhibit No. 10. This is an excerpt from the speech of the Reichfuehrer-SS in Poznan on 4 October, 1943. The prosecution referred in their opening speech to this speech by the Reichfuehrer in Poznan, and I would like to point out that before the I.M.T. it was introduced under the Document No. 1919 ES, US 170, as evidence.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If your Honor please, there is, of course, no objection against this document on the part of the prosecution. We only want to point out that it is understood that the whole speech is in evidence, not those excerpts which are offered.
THE PRESIDENT: The only possible objection that I personally could have to this is that I can repeat that speech to you forward, backward, any way you want it, so that it is really superfluous in order to acquanit the Tribunal with it, but it certainly is relevant.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: I only wanted to point out that we understand that the whole document is in evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: By all means; by all means.
DR. KOHR: That concludes my presentation of Document Book II, Blobel. I would like to explain that I intend to introduce as Document No. 12 an affidavit by Walter Ostermann. Unfortunately, I have not yet received this affidavit back from the translation department and, therefore, neither the Tribunal nor the prosecution have a copy of it in English of the exhibit.
I would like to ask the Tribunal to give me opportunity to introduce this document as an exhibit here. me to make. I would like to draw the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that on 6 November 1947 Dr. Heim made an application that the sound track of the statement of the defendant Blobel on 6 June 1947 in the morning be heard in order to clear the question of credibility of the defendant Blobel. We ask that we will be able to hear this sound track here. Unfortunately, I am not able to tell the Tribunal what day Dr. Heim repeated this motion here, and I would like to make a request that this motion by Dr. Heim, which has not been decided yet, be decided by the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: At the first opportunity, and that will be today, we will determine into the feasibility of the mechanical reproduction of the sound track to which you refer, and I would appreciate it, if no later than tomorrow morning, you recall this matter to our attention, but by that time we will be able to tell you just what the mechanical situation is with regard to this request.
DR. KOHR: Thank you, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: You are welcome. Any other defense counsel ready to proceed?
(No response).
THE PRESIDENT: Apparently not. Mr. Hochwald, is Mr. Ferencz ready to proceed with the rebuttal? Oh, pardon me.
DR. KOHR: Dr. Kohr for Dr. Link.
Your Honor, Dr. Link asked me this morning that if nothing could be discussed a suspension should arise in the Tribunal because if nobody else is able to present any documents he asked me if I inform him through his secretary to appear here immediately. Your Honor will probably remember that Dr. Link already mentioned the fact that he wanted to present his docu that he wanted to present his document on Friday.
Dr. Link is taking part in the Krupp trial and is there at the moment and can be brought here immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you sure he is in the courtoom?
DR. KOHR: He is in the courtroom of the Krupp trial.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, that is very interesting. So may someone inform him to come to this courtroom of his own free will?
DR. KOHR: His secretary will be able to do that, I think so, because he said before that he was willing to do this.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, we invite him to visit us.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, the prosecution would appreciate it if the defense could proceed with the presentation of document books, I have just been informed by Mr. Ferencz that our rebuttal document books are not completely ready yet. I cannot tell the Tribunal just when they will be, but I am sure it will be sometime today. I just haven't got them yet.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, has someone now actually gone to notify Dr. Link? Have you notified Dr. Link? You sent the secretary already? Oh, I see.
Well, Mr. Hochwald, after Dr. Link will have submitted his documents, will you then be ready to proceed with something in rebuttal?
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, as far as we know, Dr. von Stein is ready to present his document books on the defendant Sandberger at eleven o'clock today.
THE PRESIDENT: I see.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: So that there will be no intermission in this respect.
THE PRESIDENT: And then you will be ready this afternoon?
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: I hope so, your Honor. I have just received only a short information from Mr. Ferencz who told me that the document books at this time are not ready yet but according to the best of my knowledge they will be ready this afternoon.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, if you have any witness which you intend to present -
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: I do not think so, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: I see. Mr. Hochwald, who did you say would be ready at eleven o'clock?
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: Dr. von Stein for the defendant Sandberger, That is what Mr. Glancy told me.
THE PRESIDENT: What about Dr. Lummert for the defendant Blume?
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: As far as I have been told last Friday, Dr. Lummert is in a position to present his documents any time. He was supposed to follow the presentation of the defense counsel for the defendant Ruehl who is just coming in now.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Is Mr. Ferencz making whatever efforts he can to get his document books herd for this afternoon?
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: I just have telephoned to our office, your Honor, and I have been told that the German document books have been distributed and that we hope to have the English assembled this afternoon. That is the last information which I got just a minute ago.
THE PRESIDENT: That is, ready for submission t his afternoon?
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: We haven't got them yet, but I hope so.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. HEIM: Dr. Heim for the defendant Blobel. prosecution had not been given to us yet. I believe that for the rebuttal, in as far as the presentation of documents are concerned, the prosecution will also have to keep to the twenty-four-hour period because the defense also has to have the opportunity to get rebuttal evidence.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, I do not think that it is in the nature of rebuttal that further documents, in order to rebut rebuttal, are supposed to be handed in by the defense. As far as I understand, the nature of rebuttal evidence is to rebut statements made of the evidence -
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment please. What is the difficulty?
THE INTERPRETER: The switch was on neutral.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: As far as I understand the nature of rebuttal evidence: this evidence is introduced to rebut statements made or evidence offered by the defense, in order to disprove the case in chief as presented by the prosecution. However, we do not want to quibble about the question of the twenty-four-hour rule. I may possibly be allowed to make a suggestion, that we put in this evidence and that the defense may be allowed tomorrow morning, or just at the moment when the twentyfours have expired, to offer their objections against the rebuttal evidence as presented by the prosecution.
DR. HEIM: Your Honor, I would like to point out again the procedure in Case IV against Pohl. The prosecution presented four to five documents books during the rebuttal. The prosecution kept to the twentyfour hour rule very strictly. I consider this necessary since the time during rebuttal is very shor, so that every minute is precious for us in order to get the appropriate rebuttal evidence.
DR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: I do not think that Dr. Heim understood my suggestion. I do not want to dispute with defense the right of the twentyfour-hour rule. The only thing is I want is to put in the documents in themselves, but we want to reserve to the defense the right within the twenty-four hours to object against the documents. I think it is perfectly clear. We only want to put in the documents. I think the procedure suggested by the prosecution is by no means a circumvention of the twentyfour-hour rule.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Hochwald, does the rule state categorically that the opposite side must receive a document twenty-four hours before it is presented?
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: I wouldn't dare to quote the rule just our of my memory, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: I never had occasion to pass upon it, and there is no question that that rule exists. Whether it is invoked during the rebuttal period we have not had occasion to pass upon, but we would like to say here now that if there is such a rule and the defense insist upon its being invoked, then it will be invoked. It is entirely a matter as to whether the defense wants to waive that rule. If they do not want to waive the rule then -
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If your Honors please, I do think that I called what I said as suggestion. I suggested that, and I do think it is an acceptable suggestion.
THE PRESIDENT: That is right, you just made the suggestion, and it is a question as to whether the suggestion will be accepted or not.
We would like for the Secretary General to inform Dr. Gick that he should confer with the Tribunal with regard to the testimony of the defendant Strauch.
DR. HEIM: Your Honor, personally I am not going to waive the twenty-four-hour rule. As far my colleagues, I cannot make any statement because I haven't discussed the matter with them yet.
The secretary of Dr. Link just gave me a note saying that he is in the Krupp trial and that an order by the Tribunal exists there -
THE PRESIDENT: Is he in or out?
DR. HEIM: He is in the Tribunal, your Honor, in the courtroom.
THE PRESIDENT: I just want to know. I would like to know where counsel are, because they can be anywhere.
DR. HEIM: Your Honor, Dr. Link was not arrested on Friday. The Tribunal in the Krupp trial has issued an order that all defense counsel must be present in the courtroom this morning. Dr. Link would like to inform the Tribunal that during the recess here as soon as there is a chance to leave there he will come here in order to present the documents here.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. The Secretary General will please contact defense Information Center or wherever the lawyers may be available to ascertain who is ready to present further documents books and -
DR. HEIM: Your Honor, if the Tribunal should take a recess we would point this out to our colleagues, that as soon as the documents have been translated they should be submitted here.
THE PRESIDENT: Do I understand, Dr. Heim, that you say Dr. Link would be available at the recess time?
DR. HEIM: He informed me that during the recess he will come immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: We don't know what time they have recesses there. Approximately the same time. Yes. Well, the Tribunal will be in recess now until approximately eleven o'clock, just as soon as Dr. Link is free and the Tribunal is informed then we will reconvene, but for the purpose of the record now the Tribunal will be in recess until eleven o'clock.
(The hearing reconvened at 1125 hours.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
PRESIDENT: Yes, Mr. Hochwald.
MR. HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, during the recess I have obtained the 24 hours' rule which was invoked by Dr. Heim, and I would like to quote from this rule. It is rule Number 17, "Prosecution to file copies of exhibits - time for filing. The Prosecution not less than 24 hours before it desires to offer any record, document, or other writing in evidence as part of its case in chief, shall file with the Defense Information Center not less than one copy of each record, document, or writing for each of the counsel for defendants," and so on. I do think Your Honors, it is clear from this ruling that the 24 hour rule does not apply for rebuttal evidence. "As part of its case in chief" says the rule. I did not dare to state such a thing unless I did have the wording of the rule before me and, therefore, I was reluctant when the question was raised; however, I do not think that -
PRESIDENT: Mr. Hochwald, you found yourselfin the unusual circumstance of being right, one hundred percent right, but we rule against you, and I know it won't hurt your feelings if we do the same thing again today.
MR. HOCHWALD: That will not, Your Honir, and I want to say that I do think it is an entirely theoretical question, as I know there is enough evidence to come from the part of the defense so that there will be no interruption, and as far as I have been informed, the German document books were filled this morning at 9 o'clock with the Defense Information Center, so that we, at the latest tomorrow morning when court, reconvenes, can start with out rebuttal evidence. Thank you very much.
PRESIDENT: Very well. Now, who is ready to proceed? Dr. Von Stein.
COURT II CASE IX DR. von STEIN for Sandberger: Your Honor, I assume that there are already two of my document books available, is that correct?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. von STEIN: My presentation will be divided into three parts. First of all, I shall submit documents which refer to the Eastern Campaign of the defendant Sandberger and then those documents --
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. von Stein, we have here a thin collection which says "Corrections and Supplement to Document Book I". Then we have Document Book I, well--that is all right. Very well, proceed with Document Book I.
DR. von STEIN: Your Honor, I would just like to say that in my document presentation the Document Books I and II belong together because they are not submitted in the order in which they are contained in the books but particularly one or two exhibit will be in Document Book II.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we only have Document Book I so that if you need the two document books together we can't very well proceed with your Document Book I.
DR. von STEIN: Your Honor, then I can't make my presentation.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Lummert, are you ready to go ahead?
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Glancy.
MR. GLANCY: The Prosecution is not in possession of Document Book II. We just received Document Book I at 10 o'clock but I agreed with defense counsel that we would have no objection in his presenting it. However, as you say if he has to present it with Document Book II we will be unable to allow that.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Secretary General do you know whether Document Book II is available?
THE SECRETARY GENERAL: It is not as yet.
THE PRESIDENT: I am very sorry Dr. von Stein. Then you will have to give way to Dr. Lummert who is ready to proceed.
DR. von STEIN: Yes, But, your Honor, I think the interpreters have COURT II CASE IX Document Book II - it should be available.
THE PRESIDENT: In English?
DR. von STEIN: In English.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Lea do you have Document Book II.
MR. LEA: I am just looking for it, sir. I don't find it. We have it in German but not in English.
No, sir, we don't have an English copy of Document Book II.
THE PRESIDENT: They don't have it, Dr. von Stein.
DR. von STEIN: Then I beg your pardon, your Honor. This afternoon then I shall continue.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Dr. Lummert, will you please proceed?
DR. LUMMERT for Blume: Your Honor, may I make an introductory remark. Mr. Ferencz is not present. When last Thursday I gave him Document Book II and shortly summarized the contents for him he told me that he would have no objection against my documents. Nevertheless I would ask that you give instructions that Mr. Ferencz be called so that he may be present because he is handling this particular case.
MR. WALTON: Mr. Glancy left the courtroom for that very purpose just a moment ago, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed. Prosecution is represented in the person of Mr. Walton for the moment.
DR. LUMMERT: I also would like to ask the Tribunal whether my Document Book I for the defendant Blume has been submitted to the Tribunal because I will need the map on page 28 of Document Book I.
THE PRESIDENT: We have it.
DR. LUMMERT: May I ask whether this map is on page 28 because part of the books don't have them. If not I would have other copies of the chart.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, they are here.
DR. LUMMERT: Thank you, then I shall begin. Your Honor, the presentation of Document Book II for Blume will be very brief because the greater part of the documents, that is the documents 15 through 29, are COURT II CASE IX only or testimonies as to good character.
I shall summarize the contents of these documents briefly. On document 11 which is the first document in Book II needs a more detailed description. I may also remark that page numbers of the English and German Document Book II correspond exactly throughout. This was already the case in my Document Book I. Karl Radl. This affiant was liaison officer between SK7A and the Ninth Army Headquarters during the time when the defendant Blume commanded Sk 7A, that is to say from the end of June until the middle of August 1941. I only saw this affiant to take an affidavit on the enening of 4 November 1947 and was only able to speak to him on that evening because already on the next day the affiant left Nurnberg again. On that 4 November the interrogation or the examination of the defendant Blume in the witness stand had just been completed including the cross examination and I already had submitted Document Book I. I would like to say at this point that it was a great pleasure to me when the story Radl confirmed to me the important facts on the evening of 4 November the way the defendant had testified to on the witness stand. This affidavit therefore confirms the absolute credibility of the defendant Blume. In order to understand this affidavit better I ask the Tribunal to look at the chart which is on page 28 of Document Book 1 of Blume. I would like to have the Tribunal recall that this map shows the route of the advance of Sk7A for the period until Blume was ordered back from the East to Berlin. Furthermore, the Tribunal will recall that the defendant Blume stated as his own witness that he considered the executions of Jews as wrong and, therefore, he wanted to evade them by always staying with the combat troops as far as possible. Furthermore, that during his time when he held command two executions took place, one in Minsk on the morning of 7 July and the second in Vitebsk around the 19 or 20 July. The first execution concerned about 50 to 60 people and the second about 80 executed people. The first one was carried out by COURT II CASE IX Hamptsrumfuehrer Foltes a member of Sk7A upon direct orders of Brigadefuhrer Nebe who was leader of Einsatzgruppe B who arrived in Minsk at that time.
The second operation in Vitebsk, however, was ordered by a telephone message of Brigadefuhrer Nebe, rather Nebe forced Blume by a telephone message. The defendant Blume also told Hamptstrumfuehrer Foltes at that time to carry out this particular execution.
DR. LUMMERT (continued) Now I come to document 11. On page 1 of the document the witness Radl reports about his tasks as liaison officer and he says on page 2 at the top and I quote just one brief sentence: "I was traveling nearly all the time in order to maintain the liaison between Sk7A and the G-2." difficulties which the defendant Blume had to overcome with the 9th Army Headquarters until he received the permission to move along with the combat troops. He succeeded in getting this permission. That's what Radl says after his great success in Minsk where in the house of the Soviet he found the Russian mobilization plans for the wars against Germany and Poland. important. It is probably not necessary for me to read this passage into the record but I ask the Tribunal to read these 20 lines. The passage begins on page 3, the 7th line from the bottom with the sentence: "When Dr. Blume was on his way from Minsk, etc" and the passage ends on page 4 in the middle. Radl says that he met Blume in Molodetchnow. If the Tribunal will once more look at the map on page 28 of Document Book I I may say that Molodetchnow is somewhat north west of Minsk where the road divides. Radl came from the Ninth Army Headquarters from the direction of Vilna and Blume came from Minsk and at Molodetchnow they met. If I had known the testimony of the witness Radl before then I would have put Molodetchnow on the map. I shall come back now to the affidavit of Radl and to page 4 in the middle. I ask the Tribunal to read the short Paragraph of 7 lines on page 4 in the middle. It concerns itself with executions in Vitebsk. Now I shall once more summarize. Radl reports that the Sk7A spent about 10 days on the Loswitha Lake and that he himself, namely Radl, spent about 5 to 6 days there, too. Furthermore that near Welish and near Baklanova there were serious partisan fights. Important is a conversation which Radl had with the defendant Blume in Baklanova. This passage begins on page 5, line 8, and I would like the Tribunal to read this message too, until the end of the paragraph.