DR. HOCHWALD: I now offer on page 5 of the document book document 1104-PS as Prosecution Exhibit 197. In connection with this document I would like to refer to a typographical error in the descriptive index, your Honors. It should not read "request" from Carl. It should read "report" from Carl. This is in the third line in the descriptive index to the individual documents.
DR. GAWLIK: Your Honor, I also object to the presentation of that document.....
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Gawlik, I think me mould save a great deal of time if we wait until the whole book is presented. Then you can get up and object to each document.
DR. GALIK: Very well, your Honor.
Dr. HOCHWALD: In this document Carl reports to the commissioner general in Minsk on 30 October 1941 about the execution of Jews in Schazk and other towns in this area. These executions were caried out by the German Police. Consideration for the economic necessities of the area was not taken. The Jews were indiscriminately shot in the streets in a sadistic manner and many of the victims were buried alive. The police battalion looted during the action and the Jews were deprived of their valuables in a most brutal fashion. by mistake as it was already offered in Document Book I, on page 46, as Prosecution Exhibit 27. I beg the pardon of the Tribunal for this mistake and would like to ask the Tribunal to cross this document. document NO-4882, offered as Prosecution Exhibit 198. This document is a letter from Heydrich to the Reich Ministry of the occupied territories, dated 10 January 1942. This document is offered as proof that the outlines of the solution of the Jewish question were established by the RSHA.
introduced as Prosecution Exhibit 199. It is an inter-office memorandum of the comnissioner general in Kaunas, dated 11 November 1942, stating that the carrying out of executions particularly of liquidation of Jews, was the task of the security police and t he SD. In this connection I want to refer especially to the date which proves that as late as in November 1942 the task of the security police and SD was not changed and that units of that organization were still active in carrying out executions and liquidating the Jews.
Dr. Gawlik.
DR. GAWLIK: Firstly, I should like to object against document No-1104 which was submitted as Prosecution Exhibit 197. I object to this document firstly because it does not represent a rebuttal document because it does not refute any new assertions made by the defense. Secondly, because the document is irrelevant for what is being described in that document has not been committed by any units of the Einsatzgruppen. I draw particular attent ion of the Tribunal to the letter of 1 November 1941. Mention is made there of Police Batallion 11. This Police Batallion 11 was not subordinated neither to an Einsatzgruppe nor to an Einsatzkommando as it becomes apparent from the documents. says "from the Batallion Commander of the Security Police up to the last lieutenant". The next paragraph says: "I have talked to the responsible Briga defuehrer (Major General) Zinner of the Protective Police Center and I have discussed with him the Jewish action." The Prosecution will concede that this Major General Zinner of the Protective Police Center never belonged to an Einsatzgruppe. We see here very clearly that this Police Batallion which has committed these actions had nothing at all to do with an Einsatzgruppe or Einsatzkommando. In the same letter mention is made of Police Batallion 11 from Kauen. In the next letter, dated 30 October 1941, we see that we are only concerned with acts by Police Batallion 11. I really cannot see what the criminations against Police Batallion 11.
Furthermore I am objecting THE PRESIDENT:
Dr. Gawlik, you remember the defendant the Police, don't you, in Latvia?
You remember his saying that he organized the Police -- or perhaps you weren't in the courtroom at the time.
Well, the defendant Strauch said when he went to Latvia that he organized the Police.
Of course, I know this has nothing to do DR. GAWLIK: Well yes, but it has not been proven that DR. HOCHWALD: If your Honors please, this is a question of argument but not a question of the admissibility of documents.
It "Einsatzgruppe" were active, in close cooperation, with the police, with the Wehrmacht, and with the Waffen-SS.
Therefore we consider such evi
DR. GAWLICK: Your Honor, it is my opinion that this is not only not argumentation but it investigates and checks as to the relevancy and the probative value of this document concerning one of the defendants.
MR. HOCHWALD: May it please the Tribunal. The Tribunal has used a magnanimous and very liberal practice in admitting every kind of evidence from the defense which the defense considered relevant for its case. I do think that it is only fair that the defense give us the same consideration.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Gawlik, you can be sure that if none of the defendants had anything to do with Police Battalion No. 11, then this document can in no way be used as evidence against any particular defendant. But whatever value it may have as giving a history of just what took place during that time and in that area, we do not regard it as completely irrelevant.
MR. HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, from the heading of the document book and from the arrangement which we gave the rebuttal evidence, it is clear that we are not charging any one of the particular defendants for crimes which are proved by this document. This book, No. 5, was offered only in order to show again the overall picture of how the extermination of Jews in the east was handled, in order to rebut the contention of many of the defendants that they were unaware of the fact that Jews were killed in the east.
THE PRESIDENT: You remember, Dr. Gawlik, that several defendants said that although they went through the entire Russian Campaign they never saw a Jew killed, because he was a Jew. Well, here is a document from apparently a responsible official, in which he tells of the indiscriminate killing of Jews in the streets. This does not refer particularly to any individual defendant, but is part of the large picture of what happened during this most unhappy period.
DR. GAWLIK: If the Prosecution will agree with me that this document is not directed against any particular defendant, I have COURT II Case IX nothing further to add.
Furthermore I am objecting to Document 4882. This document I consider to be irrelevant. In addition, I am also of the opinion, in connection with this document, that it refers to no rebuttal evidence; no new assertion by the defense is being refuted by this document. In this connection I am drawing the attention of the Tribunal to the last sentence of this document from which it can be seen that the expert in the RSHA was the SS Sturmbannfuehrer Eichmann. From further documents which the prosecution will yet submit, we will see that Eichmann was in Office 4 of the RSHA. Furthermore I am objecting to Document 5437, Exhibit 199, also from the reason that it is irrelevant and because it represnents no rebuttal evidence; it refutes no assertion made by the defense.
MR. HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, I do not want to repeat the argument which I have just given to the other documents. The argument is the same. These documents are put in in order to show the overall picture, which certainly was denied by many of the defendants in the witness box.
THE PRESIDENT: We would like to point out this fact, Dr. Gawlik. When you get up and object to a document, you apparently object for the entire defense. I do not know that the entire defense will agree with you because it may be that a document submitted here may even be beneficial to some individual defendant. For instance, in this last document it says: "I hereby forbid the active participation of office personnel in any executions of any sort." Some defendants have asserted they had nothing to do with the execution of Jews because they were in the office. Now, if you argue that this document should not be presented, you in effect contradict the statement of some of these defendants.
MR. HOCHWALD: But, if Your Honor -
THE PRESIDENT: Anyhow, we will pass upon all these objections at the end and we will say that we will be no less liberal in the reception of this evidence than we have been in the reception of the COURT II Case IX other evidence.
MR. HOCHWALD: I thank your Honors very much, but -
THE PRESIDENT: Unless it can be very clearly shown that it certainly is entirely irrelevant and really getting down into the penguins of the Antarctic Zone.
MR. HOCHWALD: As the Tribunal has quoted one sentence out of this last document, I would like to quote the one why I have submitted it. The same document, NO-5437, which is Prosecution Exhibit 199, states, in the last sentence: "The carrying out of executions, particularly the liquidation of Jews, is the task of the Security Police and the SD."
If Your Honors please, I turn now to Document Book 5-C. This document book is a rebuttal document book against some of the defendants who were members of Einsatzgruppe C. I have endeavored to show, in the descriptive index, to whom of the individual defendants the documents offered especially refer. I may point out, however, that some of the documents are of probative value also against more than one of the defendants. It goes without saying that the prosecution reserves the right to use these documents also against defendants different from those who are named in the index. offered as Prosecution Exhibit 200. This is Operational Situation Report No. 3, covering a report period from 15 August to 31 August 1941. This document proves that in the area of Berditschev and Shitomir nearly all villages were combed according to plans. This report gives also details about executions in these areas. I want to point out in passing that this document does not only implicate the defendant Schulz but also the defendants Blobel and Rasch. On page 7 of the document book Your Honors find Document NO-2651, offered as Prosecution Exhibit 201. This report states that seven thousand Jews were arrested and shot, among these seventy-three officials and informers of the NKWD. In Lemberg--and the Tribunal will certainly recall that Schulz has testified about these happenings in Lemberg to a great extent. In COURT II Case IX Lemberg one thousand Jews were handed over to the prison of the Wehrmacht.
In Shitomir, one hundred seventy-eight Russians and Jews were shot, some of whom were civilian prisoners who had been handed over by the Wehrmacht. This document also proves not only the incorrectness of the testimony of the defendant Schulz as to the number of the people who were arrested in Lemberg but implicates also the defendants Blobel and Rasch. On page 14 of the document book-
DR. DURCHHOLZ (Counsel for the Defendant Schulz): Your Honor, I would like to object to Document NO-2653, Exhibit 200. I think that this document is irrelevant. In this document, Einsatzkommando 5 has not been mentioned with one word, of which the defendant Schulz was in charge. Therefore it cannot be seen how it can be directed against the defendant.
MR. HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please: the Tribunal will certainly recall that the defendant Schulz has testified to the fact that his Einsatzkommando was located in Berdtschev. The location in itself gives the probative value of the document. If Einsatzkommando 5 was located in Berdtschev, and in Berdtschev anti-Jewish actions occurred, it is certainly of probative value to show what kind these actions were. As to the time, I want to state that the report covers a period from the 15th to the 31st of August 1941, a time in which Schulz certainly was commander of Einsatzkommando 5.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Durchholz, the fact that prosecution counsel says that a document is directed against a certain defendant does not of itself establish that it proves anything against the defendant. That is merely what he claims. Now, if, in the body of the document, you fail to see any connection with the defendant and it is clear it has no connection with the defendant, the Tribunal, of course, will also see that it has nothing to do with the defendant. So, don't be disturbed by his mere statement that it is directed against the defendant. Of course it is up to you to study the document and then if you see that it is an attack against your man, you reply to it.
COURT II CASE IX If it is not directed against him, in your argument you can show that the document in no way touches your particular client.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: Your Honor, then I would like to reserve the right to hear the defendant Schulz with respect to this document and call him into the witness stand for that purpose.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh no, no. We can't do that. We cannot call the defendants back to answer everything, each particular document. Do you see Schulz's name mentioned in the document.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: No.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you see his particular kommando listed?
DR. DURCHHOLZ: No.
THE PRESIDENT: Then as far us you are concerned it has nothing to do with Schulz and you make that argument in your summation.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: Yes, Your Honor.
MR. HOCHWALD: On page 14 of Document Book I, Your Honors find Document NO-4999, which is offered as Prosecution Exhibit 202. This document is an affidavit of Karl Hennicke, dated 4 September 1947. I beg Your Honors pardon, on the copy which is in Your Honors' document books, a very important line, the last line on page 14, is unreadable. I therefore will have better copies landed to the Tribunal presently. Unfortunately, just the line which is most important for the presentation of the prosecution is unreadable in the document book.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't see that this is much of an improvement.
MR. HOCHWALD: It is at least readable, Your Honor. The other one is completely illegible. I want we read one sentence into the record. The sentence starts on page 14 of the document book, but Your Honors look better to page 1 of the document I had distributed to you, and reads: "During the execution at Kiew, I noticed the following members of Einsatzgruppe C and of its subordinate kommandos respectively: Dr. Rasch, Dr. Hoffmann, Paul Blobel, and Callsen. Some more officers were present, but I cannot recall their names." In the same affidavit, Hennicke states that sonder Commando 4-B was first commanded by Sturmbannfuehrer Hermann and later by Obersturmbannfuehrer Fritz Braune, COURT II CASE IX This Fritz Braune is not identical with the defendant Braune in the dock.
Because Fritz Braune arrived at the Einsatzgruppe only after Hermann's release, sonder Commando 4-B remained without a commander for two or three weeks. During this period, the kommando was headed by its senior officer, the defendant Blobel. The defendant Fendler, I am sorry. On page 16 of the document book -
DR. DURCHHOLZ: I am representing Dr. Fritz, who represents the defendant Fendler, Your Honor. I was asked on behalf of Dr. Fritz to object to this document. I cannot give any reason but I just want to object in order to get it into the record. Dr. Fritz will give you sufficient reason.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, the record will show that.
MR. HOCHWAID: On page 16 of the document book, Your Honors, it is Document NO-5174, offered as Prosecution Exhibit 203. This is Report 26, dated 23 October 1942. This document is offered as corrobotative proof that at that time the defendant Bieberstein was commander of Einsatzkommando 6 and that this kommando was located then in Rostov. Document NO-5155, Prosecution Exhibit 204. It is Report No. 12, dated 17 July 1942. The report shows that in the district around Schazk three hundred forty Jews and Communists and in Slatopol fourteen male and female Jews were shot.
DR. FICHT (Counsel for the Defendant Bieberstein): Your Honor, I should only like to express the request that the prosecution tell us where these areas are supposed to be located. I am directing my inquiry with respect to the present document and the two following documents, so that I can formulate my later objections accordingly.
MR. HOCHWALD: Your Honor, I am not in a position to state right now where these places are, but I do think it can be easily ascertained from a map, and testimony from my part on this point does not seem to be required.
DR. FICHT: Your Honor, then at least would you ask the prosecution to tell us what the connection of these documents is with the defendant Bieberstein.
MR. HOCHWALD: The Tribunal will certainly recall that the defendant Bieberstein has testified here that there were no Jews shot by his kommando, that he didn't find any Jews.
These documents are purported to show that at the time when Bieberstein was in command, or shortly before he was in command, the general extermination program of the Jews was still in force, in 1942 as it was in 1941.
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed.
MR. HOCHWALD: I then offer again from page 24 of the document book Document NO-5654, as Prosecution Exhibit 205. This document contains correspondence between the Master of the Field Police Jakob and Lieut. Gen. Guerner. This correspondence is dated 5 May and 10 June 1942. It refers to the cleaning up and killing of Jews in the area of Komenetz-Podolsk. Exhibit 206, is another letter from the same Jakob to General Guerner. This letter states that three or four actions every week were carried outk sometimes against Gypsies, sometimes against Jews and partisans, and so on. These actions took place under the cooperation of the SD Post. In one instance fifty persons were killed.
DR. FICHT (Counsel for Bieberstein): Your Honor, after all these documents have been presented against Bieberstein, may I make my objections now?
THE PRESIDENT: I think the better practice would be to wait until a whole document book is presented. Then each counsel who feels his client has been adversely affected or who feels that he has reason to object may step to the podium and announce his objection.
MR. HOCHWALD: On page 27, Your Honors, is Document NO-3251, offered as Prosecution Exhibit 207 -
DR. RIEDIGER: Your Honor, I beg your pardon if I am now already pointint out something to you with respect to that document. According to the index, Weinmann, as of the 13th of January 1942, is to have been assigned to the front as commander of Einsatzgruppe C. From the copy of the document which I received, this does not become apparent. Either there is a typographical error in translation or the document is entirely without value.
Therefore, I should like to ask you to request counsel for the prosecution to speak on this subject.
MR. HOCHWALD: I only have before me the English copy. In the English copy there is certainly a sentence to that effect. I would like to draw the Tribunal's attention to it. It says: "Dr. Weinmann has been on the Security Police assignment since 13 January 1942." This is a letter of 21 November 1942.
I am sorry. I will have to reoffer the document. I have been just informed that just this letter was not photostated. I am very sorry. I have seen the original. I apologize to Dr. Riediger. I do think that his objection is perfectly justified. I will have to reoffer the document then, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
MR. HOCHWALD: I would, However, respectfully request that Exhibit No-207 might be reserved for Document NO-3251. 5700, Prosecution Exhibit 208. This is a police registry card of the defense witness Gertrud Schreyer and her husband Emil Schreyer. The Tribunal will recall that the witness testified that she was not living together with her husband. This registry card proves that both are registered by the German Police under the same address. this is an affidavit of the same witness, Gertrud Schreyer, in which she admits that some of her books and particularly the appointment pads No. 3 and 4, were allegedly destroyed by the Russians. In this connection, I refer to the examination of the witness by the Tribunal, where the witness stated that all the books are at the disposal of the Tribunal and did not mention one instance that one of her books is missing. This is a copy of the general directives of the Reich Commissioner for the Strengthening of German Folkdom. These directives state that five hundred and fifty thousand Jews, Poles in high position, and members of the Polish intelligentia are to be deported from Danzig and Posen.
I want to refer to a typographical error in the descriptive index, Your Honors. On line 4, the last word of line 4 and the first word of line 5, "Jewish intelligentia", should be crossed out. It should read: "Five hundred and fifty thousand Jews, the leading Poles, and members of the Polish intelligentia." Exhibit 211. These are minutes of a conference held in Berlin on 30 January 1940. In this conference Heydrich stated that the evacuation of eighty-seven thousand Poles and Jews had already been carried out in order to provided space for the Baltic Germans who were to be resettled. Further, forty thousand Jews and Poles would have to be deported in order to make space for the Baltic Germans. Furthermore, four to five thousand Poles and Jews who had been driven from their homes had already been collected in camps in order to make space for these Baltic Germans.
offered as Prosecution's Exhibit 212. This is an affidavit of Dr. Heinrich, President of the Nurnberg Court of Appeals. I want to point out a typographical error in the affidavit. In the English copy it appears that Dr. Heinrich was appointed President of the Court of Appeals in 1935. The correct date is 1945, Your Honors. The affidavit states that the emergency decrees of 15 October 1938 and 8 July 1939 and twenty-five decrees for the execution of these emergency decrees are no legal basis for the draft into the SD and into the SS.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Hochwald, shall we recess now?
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
Dr. FICHT: Ficht for Bieberstein.
Your Honor, first of all I am talking about the Exhibit No. 203, No-5174. That is the last document book. May I point out here that this is not a rebuttal document? This fact was mentioned by us in fact, and we never contested it. Therefore, this document has nothing to do with rebuttal. I, therefore, formally object to it. I have nothing to say on the matter itself. very short excerpt from the Report No. 12, and I would like to have the entire report submitted. This is mainly because localities are mentioned here which are of importance. Mentioned are Szatsk and Slatopol. These are two localities which are more than five hundred kilometers to the west of Rostov where Einsatzkommando 6 was active during the time of Bieberstein. Also the evidence has not shown at all that EK 6 was ever in these localities. May I show to the Tribunal briefly about where these localities are? They are about here on the map (indicating) and Rostov is here. I shall mention another locality later on. Also concerning this document-
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Ficht, if you would like to have the entire document submitted, why don't you then see that it is submitted, the entire report.
MR. HORLICH-HOCHWALD: It goes without saying, your Honor, that if you are putting in one part of a report the whole report is in evidence, and the original of the report respectively the absolutely complete photostatic copy, is at the disposal of the defense counsel for defendant Bieberstein any time he chooses to look at it in Room 216.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. FICHT: Your Honor, may I conclude my objections? The second objection is based on the date. The report is dated 17 July 1942 and it was made out in Berlin. This fact shows that the events mentioned in it must have occurred much earlier, that is during a time when Herr Bieberstein was not with Einsatzkommando 6. On these two points, localities five hundred kilometers to the west and the date which is much earlier, I, therefore, consider that this report has no probative value, and that is why I object to it.
The next number is 205. This is a private correspondence between somebody in the field police and a general, because the two seem to have known each other privately previously. The locality here is Kamonitz-Podolsk. Kamonitz-Podolsk is approximately at the border between Poland, Rumania and Russia. This is about 1,000 kilometers to the West. Since no evidence exists that Einsatzkommando 6 was ever in that locality, and since also the dates of these letters are 5 May '42 and 21 June '42, therefore from a point of time these affidavits have no probative valye. May I emphasize that the master of police who wrote these letters in his last letter of 21 June '42 calls his own letter some elementary talk, and this should emphasize the probative value of these documents.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, as far as I recall we have not stated in our presentation that it is the contention of the Prosecution that Einsatzkommando 6 was in the places mentioned in the different documents. However, it is of importance to show that the extermination program of the Jews in the West in the area of Einsatzgruppe C, even if it was 500 or 1,000 kilometers West of Rostov, was still going on at a time when Bieberstein was a member of this Einsatzgruppe, or shortly before he came to this Einsatzgruppe as commander of Einsatzkommando 6. That is the relevance of the document.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. The Tribunal will pass upon all these objections at the end.
DR. FRITZ (for the defendant Fendler): Your Honor, this morning the Prosecution submitted a document in Document Book V-C, Document No-4999. This is an affidavit by Karl Hennicke. My colleague, Dr. Durchholz, when deputizing for me already objected to this document, and I would like to ask for permission to give my reasons for this objection.
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed.
DR. FRITZ: On page 3 of the original of this affidavit Hennicke states the following, and I quote under figure 4 from the second sentence: "Commando 4-B was first led by Sturmbannfuehrer Hermann and later by Obersturmbannfuehrer Fritz Braune. Since Fritz Braune arrived with the Einsatzgruppe only after Hermann had been relieved, the Commando 4-B for about two to three weeks did not have a chief. During this interim period the Commando was led by the senior officer, Lothar Fendler." The Prosecution is claiming this, and this is a completely new assertion that Fendler, as Hermann's successor, independently commanded the unit for several weeks. The Prosecution did not claim that until now; rather, they claimed thus far that Fendler was deputy of Hermann when the latter was absent for a brief period of time from the Commando. That is why this document is not suitable to impeach the credibility of the witness and of the affiant, of whom I have brought affidavits. The defendant Fendler has had no opportunity until now to defend himself against this new contention. I therefore ask that this be not admitted, or, at least, that this point be not admitted. In case the Tribunal should admit the document, however, I would like to ask that the defendant Fendler be given sufficient opportunity to defend himself against this new contention. The defendant Fendler assured me, and I believe him, that this assertion was completely untrue. Therefore, I would have to bring new witnesses to prove that this assertion is wrong, or I would have to examine the defendant Fendler in the witness stand again.
DR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, if I understand the objection by defense counsel for the defendant Fendler correctly, he objects against this document by saying that the Prosecution wants to prove a new point in the case which was not raised until now. The Tribunal will certainly recall, and there is a document in Document Book 3-C, the affidavit of the defendant Fendler himself, where he stated that he was never the official deputy of the commander of the Einsatzkommando, but that he replaced him in cases of his absence. The Tribunal will further recall that the defendant Fendler has offered proof, and has himself denied on the witness stand, the fact that he substituted Hermann for more than several hours.
Therefore, an affidavit stating something different, in my opinion, is perfectly admissible and constitutes, certainly, valid rebuttal evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Fritz, Fendler has in effect already denied this. So that now you have the statement of Fendler, all his testimony, contradicting this. It becomes a question of the probative value, the respective probative value of these two types of evidence. This affidavit denies Fendler's statement. Fendler attacks the affidavit. It is a matter of argument in the final summation to the Tribunal, and the Tribunal determines which of the two is more worthy of credence. Or, it may be possible that Fendler's testimony can be accepted in such a way as even to agree with this and yet not necessarily establish that he was guilty of crime. At any rate, you have those two stories.
DR. FRITZ: Yes, Your Honor. May I say something else. I have likewise submitted an affidavit from this witness Karl Hennicke which was admitted by the Trib unal. The contents of this affidavit contradicts the affidavit submitted now. The witness Hennicke is in the court prison in Nuernberg. I would like to ask for the right, at least, Your Honor, to be able to obtain another affidavit from the witness or to call him into the witness stand for cross examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I tell you what you do, Dr. Fritz. Tomorrow afternoon, after we have moved along with the presentation of the remaining documents to be submitted by the defense, you bring this matter up again and then we will see what should be done.
DR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, in the descriptive index of Document Book V-C, there is a regrettable error as to the document against which Dr. Fritz just now has objected. That is Document 4999, Prosecutio n Exhibit 202. The affiant Hennicke was not an officer of Sonderkommando 4-A, as it is stated in the descriptive index.
He was, as the affidavit shows, an officer of Einsatzgruppe C. I respectfully request the Tribunal to make this change.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. RATZ (for defendant Radetzky): Your Honor, I object against the submission of the Document NO-4059, Exhibit 210, page 35 of the English document book. This document concerns the clearing of formerly Polish territory from which the Polish and Jewish population was evacuated, so that the Ethnic Germans coming from the Baltic countries could be settled there. In the indictment and in the opening speech by the Prosecution nothing is said about a count of that kind against Radetzky. Apart from that it is very doubtful whether this constitutes a criminal act by the defendant Radetzky, and whether this document can prove any criminal act by Radetzky because Radetzky was not at all connected with the Reich commissioner for the strengthening of Germanism.
THE PRESIDENT: This is a matter for argument at the final summation, Dr. Ratz.
DR. RATZ: For the same reasons I have just explained I object to the next document, NO-5322, Exhibit 211, page 69 of the German and page 37 of the English document book. I only wish to add here that the defendant Radetzky did not participate in the discussion of 30 January 1940 in the RSHA, the Reich Security Main Office. The participants in this discussion are mentioned in this document.