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.
The defendant Blume thus had complained at that time about the bad/conduct of the Brigadefuehrer Nebe. Finally Radl confirms in his affidavit that the defendant Blume was recalled to Berlin shortly afterwards and on page 6 he mentions that Blume was an excellent officer and an excellent commander of his unit, who was very populat with his men and that in his office he was strict and decent and had a calm and objective attitude. May I hand over document 11? witness Kruckemeier. It is very brief. I have tried to avoid cumulative evidence. Kruckemeier too was a member of Sk7A - - -
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Lummert, are you purposely not giving exhibit numbers to these documents?
DR. LUMMERT: Your Honor, when submitting the first document book I already had adopted the system that the exhibit numbers corresponded with the document numbers and you, your Honor, approved of this system at the time. I would ask that I continue this system.
THE PRESIDENT: I think it is an excellent system on your part. It is too bad that it can't always be true. Since you have found a way to let those two systems coincide I think it is an excellent idea.
DR. LUMMERT: I offer all the documents exactly in the order in which they appear in the document book.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. LUMMERT: I said that Kruckemeier was also a member of Sk7A. He confirms the good discipline particularly which the defendant Blume achieved especially as to the relationship toward the civilian population in the occupied territories. which the defendant Blume took measures against a member of the Sk7A, a man who had not acted according to discipline. I need not go into the details. On page 8 the witness reports about the good relationship Lake.
The inhabitants gave the defendant Blume, in a very solemn manner, the Harvest wreath after the harvest had been collected.
The himself.
It contains some snaps with accompanying texts. These testified to in the witness stand.
Since the photostatic copies are not especially clear I ask that I may submit the original pictures to the Tribunal.
his in 1941. He himself took no photographs. I may explain briefly what these pictures are.
Pictures #1 shows the large Soviet building in Minsk.
That is part of the facade. In this large building Sk7A all the mobilization plan.
Pictures 2 and 3 show the great fire in The defendant Blume has made statements about this.
Pictures #4 to Picture #5 shows the Russian prisoners of war when they were interrogat ed immediately after they were captured.
The defendant Blume testified about this on the witness stand.
Now I shall come to pictures 8 to 13.
These come from the Harvest Thanksgiving celebration, at the Los I need not give any more details about it.
The pictures show the good relationship with the civilian population. Perhaps I might mention that on Picture 10 a farmer's wife makes a speech; she has raised her hand, and on Picture 11, Defendant Blume replies. On picture 13 the Tribunal can see the affiant Radl. He is the man with the accordion. This is Document 11 which I handed over before.
THE PRESIDENT: Was an accordion part of the equipment of the Kommando?
DR. LUMMERT: On that occasion, Your Honor, indeed. I might point out Picture No. 15. It confirms the great partisan danger near Welish. Picture 16 shows the Szloboda Lake. Szloboda is on the map too which is on Page 28 of the first document book.
As the next document I offer Blume No. 14. This is an excerpt from the official diplomatic note of the Reich Government to the Government of the Soviet Union of the 22nd of June, 1941. When the defendant Blume was asked by the presiding judge about the various aggressive wars of Germany he answered that in the year 1939 and the following years he considered all these campaigns as not aggressive ones because the German government always gave the German people appropriate reasons for these campaigns which it considered as reasons for a completely defensive wars. I have chosen the statement of the German government here which was published at the beginning of the Russian campaign. It is a very long statement which appeared in all German newspapers at the time. I have only chosen the most important passages from the statement. They show clearly that every German had to believe at the time that the Soviet Union was about to attack Germany immediately and that Germany merely got ahead of them, namely as an act of necessary self-defense. I ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of this document. They are put in such an order that they describe the defendant Blume from his childhood until the end of the last war. It will certainly not be necessary for me to read any parts of these affidavits word for word.
If I may summarize the most important facts in these affidavits, I may say that the Tribunal will find that all these affiants always emphasized the following characteristics as the salient characteristics of the defendant Blume; namely, his open and sincere manner, his honesty and love of the truth, his pleasant and kind manner which made him popular wherever he went, then his fairness in sports and his tolerance of other people's opinions. As far as the affidavits refer to the professional activity of the defendant Blume, they confirm his absolutely correct and decent attitude and his civil courage, if I may use this concept. "Civil courage" means that a person would prove his absolutely decent and honest manner under all circumstances, especially if his superiors would object. In an official civil courage means particularly that nothing would prevent him from sticking to his honest character. I have no remarks about No. 15. It is the affidavit of the witness Meier. I don't have to say anything about 16 either, the affidavit of Koeller. About 17 I have nothing to say either. That is the affidavit of the witness Leithe. As for No. 18, the affidavit of the witness Hartleif , I would ask the Tribunal to read the last paragraph on page 31 because it concerns the political idealism of the defendant Blume, and it confirms that he was free of any hatred against anyone. Document No. 19, which is the affidavit of the witness Frommeyer, contains a special example of the political tolerance of the defendant Blume. It is a case which had happened by the end of 1944, and I would ask the Tribunal to read the passages on page 32 at the bottom until the top of page 33. Document 20, affidavit of witness Bauer, contains two examples for the fact that Blume was the opposite of a political fanatic. The first case concerns itself with the case where a doctor did not use the Hitler salute. The defendant Blume protected this physician. The second case involves a matter in which the Gestapo, upon the suggestion of the defendant Blume, did not take any steps against somebody.
Document No. 21, the affidavit of the witness Diekmeyer confirms positively the very good character of the defendant Blume. The next, Document 22, is the affidavit of the witness Ruether, former teacher of the defendant Blume, who knew him from many years ago. He too cites a special example for the correct attitude of the defendant Blume in his position. It is a Gestapo case of the year 1934.
The next document, No. 23, is the affidavit of the witness Sommer, a former government president in Halle, the highest ranking government official of the district there. This affidavit gives an excellent recommendation of the defendant Blume. The witness Sommer was an opponent of the National Socialist regime. He had had great difficulties with the predecessor of the defendant Blume and he confirms that the defendant Blume was the opposite of his predecessor, namely a correct official who only served law and justice. Behre and Heinrichsmeier, belong together, as far as the contents are concerned. They concern the period when the defendant Blume had a position in Hannover. That is from the fall of 1937 until December 1939. There too, the defendant Blume showed his correct attitude and that which we call civil courage. As an example, the case of the 9th of November, 1938, is cited. On that day when demonstrations against the Jews took place in all of Germany, the defendant Blume was not in Hannover. when he returned he disapproved of the excesses which had taken place in Hannover very severely and had several SS men arrested who had not stayed away from looting Jewish stores. These SS men were personal friends of the SS-Obergruppenfuehrer Jeckeln, leader of the SS sector there. Jeckeln demanded of the defendant Blume that these SS men be released or be handed over to SS jurisdiction.
The defendant Blume refused to do this. Despite frequent objections by General Jeckeln he had insisted on a proper proceeding against these SS men. Thus he earned for himself the enmity of SS Obergruppenfuhrer Jeckeln. This man Jeckeln is already well known to the Tribunal, especially from the testimony of the defendant Jost. Jeckeln was the type of a ruthless fanatic who could act even in a brutal manner. These were the documents 24 and 25.
Documents 26 and 27 belong together in a similar manner. These are the affidavits of the witness Burg and the affidavit of the witness Ehlich. They confirm the official activity of the defendant Blume in Veldes which is in Upper Carolia and Lower Jtyria. The defendant Blume has already testified in his recross-examination to the facts of this case. Briefly summarized, one can say that the defendant Blume at that time saved the lives and liberty of thousands of people, in sharp contrast to the Higher SS and Police Leader Roesener. It won't be necessary to go into any details.
Finally documents No. 28 and 29 belong together. These are two affidavits of the witness Haefner. They concern the official activity of the defendant Blume in Greece. There too, Blume showed himself to be a correct official who was only guided by a positive attitude towards justice. Especially noteworthy is the conduct of the defendant Blume towards the Anglophile-Greek circles. On his instructions these were spared completely unless they made themselves guilty of active sabotage acts against the German occupying forces. If the Tribunal will look at page 58 of the document book, it is perhaps interesting that at that time there was a unity front in Greece between the Anglophile Greeks, the Greek Government, England itself, the Greek Government in exile, and the German police, against Communism on the other side. The details can be seen from the preceding pages.
Finally I come to the last document, Document No. 30. This is not of evidencial value, but this document is only to facilitate the Tribunal.
Namely, it gives various excerpts and quotations about a certain legal question. The legal question is that of so-called unexpectability. If the Tribunal would be kind enough to read the note on page 61 at the bottom of -- in my opening statement I already have announced that I would discuss this question of unexpectability in my final plea. This is one of the general subjects which defense counsel will discuss in the final pleas. In order to avoid unnecessary repetitions the defense counsel have agreed that several of them will treat certain general themes in more detail. Such general themes, for example, are the Eastern problems, to express it briefly, furthermore the state of necessity caused by the order of the superior, and finally, the so-called unexpectability, and this unexpectability is my favorite theme, and I would like to ask the Tribunal in the recess, between the last day of taking evidence and the starting of the final pleas, to be kind enough to read this Document No. 30, because this would make my final plea easier and briefer. I may remember too that this so-called unexpectability is the basic legal thought which is at the basis of all various regulations about selfdefense, state of emergency, etc.
With this I can close my documentary presentation. It is possible that I shall receive one or two more documents and that I shall submit them later.
THE PRESIDENT: Do I understand, Dr. Lummert -- do I understand that there is more or less an agreement among counsel that you will distribute the legal agruments and that each one will have one phase ofit rather than to have a repetition of the various arguments?
DR. LUMMERT: Yes, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: I think i t is an excellent idea, so that all of you playing together as a big orchestra will produce the symphony of the law, and that you will play on your accordion the theme of unexpectability.
DR. LUMMERT: Your Honor, of course it remains up to every defense counsel to make his particular statements himself. The distribution of the general themes was merely to avoid unnecessary repetition.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, of course you will be entirely free to present your arguments in any way that you wish, but we do think that it is an excellent idea, that where a certain feature of the law is to be developed that one or two counsel devote themselves to that feature. The others may concentrate upon other phases of the law.
DR. LUMMERT: That is just the way we intend it.
THE PRESIDENT: All right. The Tribunal will be in recess until 1:45.
(A recess was taken until the hour of 1345) (The hearing reconvened at 1345 hours)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. GICK: Dr. Gick for the defendant Strauch. defendant Strauch?
THE PRESIDENT: I wish you would, Dr. Gick. BY DR. GICK: when and where you were assigned to Russia. Where were you assigned in Russia for the first time?
Q When was this? 1941, in Riga.
Q On the 10th or 12th? Which month?
A Just a moment, please. Let me think about it. I believe on the 9th -
Q I would like you to give me the answer, defendant, please. Was it in November, 1941?
Q Yes. 1941. And do you remember the day when you came to Riga? personnel office, and this main personnel office probably on the 4th sent me a teletype message to Koenigsberg which I probably got on the 5th, and I was still lying in bed any my arm was broken, and immediately I was not in the hospital anymore, but I had already left the hospital and was at home, but my arm was still in the plaster cast -- and so I called up Berlin and asked them would they leave me for sometime in Koenigsberg to recover because I was not yet fit, and I talked to Herr Blume, and he explained to me, well, he urgently needed somebody in Riga, but he said, "For a few days you can still remain in Koenigsberg", and then as far as I know on the 11th or the 12th I went to Riga.
page 29, Prosecution Exhibit No. 106, Document No. 2966 --- there is an entry that since the 4th of November, 1941, you had been in Lativa.
MR. GLANCY: Pardon me, sir. That is page 20 of Document Book 3-A. and I already inquired why this might have been possible that this entry, was made so incorrectly, and they aid the figures did not quite concide, and therefore I objected, and I said I wastold that this happened repeatedly that in personal files mistakes occurred. BY DR. GICK: or rather transferred, and that only on the 11th or 12th you arrived in Riga?
A He told me verbally, and I stated this: I said that my wife can be heard as a witness about this because my wife took part in that discussion.
Q Herr Strauch, in what capacity were you transferred to Riga? and the SD.
Q Were you Commander of Einsatskommando II? files where it says that from 4 November 1941 you were Chief of Einsatzkommando Latvia with the command of the Security Policy in the Eastern territory, in the Eastland.
A That is just the evidence for it. If it said that I was Chief of Kommando II, then it would not have fitted in because Kommando II was in Loknia or somewhere at the Front, and if it says there "Kommando Chief with the command of the Eastland", this shows clearly that I was not Kommando Chief in Latvia but that I was Commander in the Eastland, as another expression would have been used.