this second order was carried out. That is why RUEHL paid no attention to the moving of the Jews and did not accompany, indeed not even see, the column when it left. territory was effected smoothly and that nothing happened to them, has been unequivocally confirmed apart from NOSSKE's testimony by the witness HARSCH who was in charge of that bridge at that time. hibits No. 3 to 6 got to know of the shootings. Indeed, the Jews themselves did not consider their removal as a coercive measure; they expressed their joy and gratitude on being allowed to return home by enthusiastically cheering Adolf HITLER. had passed on their way back, Jews kept passing the bridge individually or in small groups, on their own volition and without escort. Upon explicit questions posed during the cross-examination, the witness stated that those Jews were not in flight and that at that time he had not heard of any executions or coercive measures, but, had there been any, he should have got to know of them. phase of that action, it is evident that he cannot give any detailed data on the number of Jews that were affected by it. He can only recall that altogether 12 - 15,000 of homeless Jews were mentioned. Mogilev, as ordered by OHLENDORF, with two Reports of Events of 26 and 29 august 1941, introduced as Exhibits No. 154 and 158, The first report mentions 4,000 Jews as part of the population of Mogilev, and another 7,000 who had been shipped to that region by the time the Roumanians took over the administration from the Germans. Finally, it mentions a transport of about 6,000 Jews who, in spite of considerable protest by the Roumanian in charge of the bridge, were transferred to the other side of the river Dniestr. Accordingly, the total number of Court No. II, Case No. IX.
Jaws who were not natives of the region around Mogilev amounted to 13,000. Thus it is possible that that report refers to the events in which RUEHL took part as transmitter of orders. Of the other measures described in Document Exhibit No. 154 (concentration of the Jews in a ghetto and three camps respectively, their assignment for work clearing the town of the rubble and collecting the harvest) RUEHL could have no knowledge, as he arrived there only at a later date. Anyway, the prosecution has never claimed that such measures would have been war crimes or crimes against humanity. mentioned transport of Jews from the region of Mogilev, at the time the Sonderkommando 10 b was stationed there, and the contents of the report of 29 August 1941 (prosecution Exhibit No. 58). In the first place, so much time elapsed between this report and this actual transport of Jews which took place, according to the statements of all witnesses already about the middle of the month, that the report cannot possibly refer to it. remotely with the figures which RUEHL learned in Mogilev. If 1265 Jaws in excess thereof had been shot in the area of SK 10 b, the members of the commando most certainly would have received information about such a drastic measure at least afterwards. I have already stressed the fact that this was not the case, and, in this respect, I have referred to the RUEHL Exh. No. 3, 4, 5, 6 and to the testimony of OHLENDORF. The credibility of the statements as made by RUEHL is fully confirmed, particularly by the testimony of the witness HARSCH who was interrogated while completely unprepared. of Svanzia played a part in the district of the Sonderkommando 10 b. that the report which is the basis of Pros. Exh. No. 58, was erroneously attributed in Berlin to Einsatzgruppe D, because it came from an area Court No. II, Case No. IX.
where the group had been stationed before. In effect, the Einsatzgruppe D had long left the district of Mogilev on 29 august 1941, and at that date was already stationed in Ananjev. In the beginning, the prosecution seems to have been of this opinion also, since, at first, this exhibit No. 58 had not been submitted as an incriminating document. But all these meditations are irrelevant as far as the defendant RUEHL is concerned. His share in that evacuation action consisted in the transmission of two orders by the group chief to the competent local leader of the Teilkommando. This did not have anything to do with his general official tasks, nor can any conclusion be drawn from it, in the specific case, as to even a single instance of his deputizing for the Kommando leader or as to any authority of command over the leader of the Teilkommando. the result could not be a different one. This would at least have to be conceded from RUEHL's point of view, who did not perceive the events, which were hardly objectionable in themselves, in their further course. The idea of the indictment surmising that those Jews had been, evidently driven to death as a result of the evacuation, is without any real foundation and, according to the evidence, contradicts the very opinion of the persons who were directly affected by that action. endeavored to treat and elucidate the case of my client RUEHL from all conceivable angles. because of his being a member of an Einsatzkommando, was connected with plans and enterprises for the commission of crimes and/or took a consenting part therein.
COURT NO. II, CASE NO. IX.
This kind of argumentation has already been rejected by the Military Tribunal II in the Pohl-verdict in the case of defendants to whom it believed to be justified in imputing the cognizance and knowledge of crimes committed by others. This Tribunal has emphasized that the expression "to be connected with a crime" signifies more than a mere knowledge or working together in the same building and at the same time with the principle and accessory in the same group or organization. For the assumption of an "assenting participation" the element of positive action is required, exceeding a mere "not objecting". of such considerations were missing already at that time for a variety of reasons, i.e. as regards knowledge of plans and actions to be considered criminal. not made himself liable to punishment neither as principal nor as accessory nor in any other form of participation within the provision of law on which this Trial is based. dictment. member, after 1 September 1939, of organizations which have been declared criminal by the International Military Tribunal, i.e.;
1.) of the Schutzstaffel of the National-Socialis tic Workers' Party (SS of the NSDAP)
2.) Of the Office IV of the RSHA. SS, the following particulars must be of importance: SA to the SS quite spontaneously. On being taken over into the police service on 1 October 1935 he ceased to be an active member of the general SS and from that date on he has done no duty in any SS unit either in Luckenwalde, Berlin or any other place.
Purely formally he continued to be a member of the SS till 1935 or 1936, but that, too, came to an end, when Ruehl was transferred to the RSHA and enrolled in the SS-Special Formation SD. The particular role of this special formation has been explained several times during the presentation of the evidence and especially in the course of the concluding statements. In this connection I refer in particular to the fundamental statements in the Ohlendorf plea. Ruehl himself spoke at great length on this matter when he was in the witness box. In this connection it has been explained, on the basis of his personal documents presented by the prosecution, how and why the SS grades conferred on him were nothing but the logical outcome of the perodical automatic promotions in the service. The fact that Ruehl was a member of the general SS before the beginning of his official career did not have any influence on this. This could be explained by the fact that Ruehl, when he joined the police service, was even demoted because the rank he had then reached in the general SS was higher than the comparative rank (Angleichung Dienstgrad) prescribed for his initial position as an official. my client's membership in the SS, an organization declared criminal by the International Military Tribunal, is "no" at any rate for the period after 1 September 1939. opposite view, then it would have to be checked -- according to the meaning of the IMT verdict and the subsequent decisions of the Military Tribunals, particularly the Pohl verdict, - whether the defendant Ruehl, knowing the criminal aims, consciously collaborated.
This proof, which would have to be brought by the prosecution, could not consist of a mere reference to the fact that Ruehl was a member of an Einsatzkommando. The Einsatzgruppen and Kommandos, as proven by their history of origin, their organizational form, and their assignments, had nothing to do with the SS. They were assigned to the units of the Wehrmacht as mobile military units for police tasks. place the knowledge of the actions which the IMT took as a basis when it declared the SS as criminal. The defendant Ruehl, moreover, worked in Office I of the RSHA from 1 September 1940 until August 1943, in an office which does not fall within the group which has been declared criminal, and during the time of his assignment in Russia, when he was a leader in administrative and economic fields, he fulfilled only the tasks which corresponded to his formal membership in Office I of the RSHA. the meaning of the judgment of the IMT, we must finally investigate whether Ruehl, on 1 September 1939, still was a voluntary member of this organization. We would have to find that the contrary was the case for the following reasons: later, Ruehl took steps for his release for service in the army; supreme authorities finally rejected this petition in both cases. Exhausting all the means at his disposal, Ruehl, moreover, had opposed his assignment to service in the higher ranks and to the compulsory studies which were combined with this assignment, because, if he was not permitted to serve as a soldier, than at least he did not want to be separated from his professional activities in counter-intelligenge.
But this was futile also. His special formation had no fields of work of its own, and if he had renounced the rank which forced him to don the uniform of the SS, this would have meant that he would have been compelled to leave the Security Police And I think that it has been proven to the full satisfaction of the Court in the course of these proceedings that this was not definitely possible, at least while the war lasted.
Ruehl's conviction for membership in the SS would therefore be impossible because of the fact that this membership was not a voluntary one since 1 September 1939. member in an organization which has been declared criminal because he allegedly was a member of Office IV of the RSHA. When questioned under oath, Ruehl has denied that this assertion of the Prosecution corresponds to the facts. cution has submitted not one document nor disclosed anything that would point at such a membership of Ruehl in the Office IV of the RSHA. During the cross-examination of Ruehl which went into details very much in other respects, the Prosecution did not probe any deeper into this question. This assertion has remained unproven therefore, nay, on the contrary, in consideration of Ruehl's statement under oath, it must be considered as refuted. not been guilty in the meaning of the indictment.
concerning Ruehl's personality. that nothing more but also no less would be proved in this case as regards my client, than that his attitude was the clean attitude of a man who did his duties there where he was asked to do them, duties moreover, which were neither dishonorable nor criminal. I believe that I have not been mistaken in this. during his interrogation in his defense, in particular during his cross-examination, will have imparted the conviction not only to myself that his statements are credible to their full extent. political career of my client, I have therefore taken particular pains to disclose his personal opinion as regards the problems which are the nucleus of these proceedings. tified to in a manner commanding respect by his political opponents already prior to 1933. he was a humane and tolerant official later on, an official of a class of police officers against whom no objections can be raised. Finally, the Ruehl Exhibits No. 12, 13 and 26 prove that he was also averse to terror and a policy of constraint when he was a superior, and that he was highly esteemed because of his personally and professionally correct attitude. voices of those to thom Ruehl gave advice and help when they were persecuted in the Third Reich for racial and political reasons.
In an absolutely fundamental manner, they disclose an attitude which is diametrically opposed to the principles and measures which are being judged here. They also prove that the forcible interruption of the studies of Law was not able to shake the basic attitude of Ruehl, neither as regards his ethics nor as concerns his character. proceedings, then it will be the question of why my client has been accused here. He has been the only administrative leader in an Einsatzkommando who has been brought into the limelight in this case. For all those months I could not get rid of the idea that this has been done because there prevailed the assumption - an erroneous assumption, by the way - that it would be impossible to find any other representative of Sonderkommando 10 b. Ruehl not guilty.
DR. GICK: Dr. Gick for the defendant Strauch.
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed.
DR. GICK: May it please Your Honors: have to make on behalf of my client - that I do not consider discussing once more those questions which will have to be decided upon before this Tribunal will be able to pass to individual cases, i.e. fundamental questions with which these trials are dealing. Even that part of each individual case which, according to the view of the defense, applies to all defendants alike, I shall mention only insofar as its importance with reference to my client can be clearly seen. I am convinced that this tribunal will give careful consideration to all those matters which have already been discussed in full by some of my fellow defense counsels, to whose statement I am herewith expecially referring myself, and which I am making my own, on behalf of my client, and also examine their part they have played in the case of my client and will pass judgment with all due consideration of these fundamental objections and protective assertions.
I must also declare: It is still my point of view that the defense of the defendant Strauch has been hampered by his state of health to such a degree that it must be called insufficient. However, one may judge his state of health the following facts will still remain to be considered;
1.) The defendant Dr. Strauch is suffering from epilectic attacks. Such an attack was also the cause of an injury to his health which prevented the defendant from being present in court.
2.) In connection with the state of health following such attacks, a condition of semi-consciousness often ensued which made it impossible for weeks on end to discuss with the defendant the problems with which this tribunal concerns itself, namely the court-proceedings and the line of defense. A great deal of that which I am able to state in favor of the defendant Strauch before this tribunal is solely due to my studies of files and documents. This cannot, however, take the place of personal knowledge of circumstances which the defendant must undoubtedly have but which he could only very incompletely convey to me.
3.) In spite of his illness the defendant always wanted to put in a personal appearance in Court as a witness on his own behalf. He had already started to inform me, according to regulations, of the facts which he would be able to state as a witness, when, about a month and a half before he was supposed to appear on the witness stand, all further information became impossible.
The way in which the witness had then to be questioned on the witness-stand cannot be called a regular examination. The hearing had to be improvised and some of the most important points, for instance that of a basic description of the personality of the defendant and his attitude to the Fuehrer-order which is all important for the subjective side of his actions, could not be gone into because of considerations due to the state of health of the defendant. However, in this trial in which it is made so difficult for the defendants to find witnesses and documents, apart from those which the Prosecution has collected, it is of the greatest importance to have a regular examination of the defendant on the witness-stand. According to my opinion those facts present such flaws in the proceeding that the discontinuation of the proceedings against the defendant Dr. Strauch would be justified until the condition of his health has improved enough to enable him to take part in the trials personally, to give full informations to his defense counsel and to make correct statements in his own cause. I am, therefore, herewith repeating my plea for discontinuation of the proceedings, and refer in addition to my new statement of 5 February 1948 and the attached affidavit of Herr Dr. Spengler, the defendant Strauch's roommate at the city hospital here. now state such evidence which can be found in favor of the defense under the afore-mentioned restricted possibilities of information, i.e. from the documentary material, the statement of evidence and the examination of the defendant which is hampered by the difficulties already described.
With reference to Count I of the indictment, the defendant Dr. Strauch has been accused of crimes against humanity, with reference to Count II of the indictment he has been accused of war-crimes, and according to the prosecution it is obvious that the actions with shich my client has been charged are supposed to be offenses against both counts of the indictment at one and the same time. He specialization has either been actually made or attempted. documents presented by the prosecution against the defendant Dr. Strauch. the prosecution makes it clear that it is of great importance to find out at what time incidents have occurred which are mentioned in these reports and if, at that particular time, the defendant could have taken a responsible part in these incidents, taking into consideration his official position and place of residence at that particular time. criminal actions committed in two localities: of acts committed in Riga (Latvia) and Minsk (White Ruthenia). If it can be established without doubt for how long Dr. Strauch was stationed first in Riga and then in Minsk we shall be able to take this as basis for our judgment of possibilities referring to time of his participation in the acts committed in near the other of these areas. responsible information, stated that he arrived in Riga on 10 or 11 November 1941, that he was transferred to Minsk shortly after his arrival in Riga, but stayed on in Riga until his fractured arm has healed, that he had left only on 20 March 1942 and arrived in Minisk on 22 March 1942. In July 1943, he was then transferred as I c to the Commissioner for the Combatting of Bands.
dates made this possible for him, he made similar statements also when he was interrogated. He stated that:
German transcr. p. 5333 He arrived in Riga either on 10 or 12 German transcr.
p. 5342 Stayed on in Riga until March and was German transcr.
p. 5352 That he arrived in Minsk in March 1942 German transcr.
p. 5355 That the left on 22 March and arrived in Riga (Strauch meant to say Minsk) in Rositten on 21 March 1942, his father's German transcr.
p. 5377 That at the beginning of March 1942 he German transcr.
p. 5381 That he arrived in Minsk on 22 March, 1942, German transcr.
p. 5383 Concerning a report of events of 1 to 4 German transcr.
p. 5384 Concerning a report of events from 5 till German transcr.
p. 5385 Concerning a document dated 27 March 1942 German transcr.
p. 5387 That on 2 and 3 March 1942 he was not following exhibits submitted by me:
1. In her statement dated 4 November 1947 (Strauch document Book I English and German p. 1, Exhibit No. 1) Frau Luise Strauch confirms that he husband received his order of transfer on 5 November 1947 in Koenigsberg, but he did not leave for Riga until on 10 November 1941 because he had obtained a delay of his reporting for duty in Riga because of a fractured arm. Further she confirms that in Riga he broke his arm for the second time and came from Riga several times to visit her in the Reich, and told her that he had again been transferred to Minsk hat need not go there before his arm had been completely healed.
From 10 till 16 March 1942 she was once more together with her husband in Berlin on which occasion he told her that he would combine the moving to Minsk with a visit to his brother in Rositten on 21 March.
2. The Defendant Dr. Blume stated as witness for the Defendant Strauch (Strauch Document Bock II English and German 0,48, Exhibit No. 22) that he remembers after Strauch had been ordered to Riga, that he received a telephone call from his. Because of the fracture of his arm Strauch had asked for a delay in his departure for Riga, and he (Dr. Blume) had agreed to a delay not to exceed 8 days. Hardly was Strauch in Riga before he was again transferred to Minsk whereas Dr. Lange was to take over his position in Riga. But then he suffered a new arm fracture which delayed his so that it was decided his arm should be entirely healed before he went to Minsk.
3. Strauch's mother, Frau Ida Strauch, in her statement dated 4 November 1947 (Strauch Document Book I English and German p. 4, Exhibit No. 2).
4. Strauch's father, Oskar Strauch, in his statement dated 5 November 1947 (Strauch Document Book I English and German p. 5 Exhibit No. 3).
5. and Strauch's aunt, Frau Paula Gunkel, in her statement dated 5 November 1947 (Strauch Document Book I English and German p. 6. Exhibit No. 4) confirm concerdantly that on the journey to Minsk in order to report for duty Strauch traveled via Resitten, met his brother, Dr. Osker Strauch, who was stationed there as captain (Med), on 21 March 1942 and that both of them tried to call up their father in order to congratulate him on his birthday.
6. The Defendant Dr. Rasch in his statement dated 26 January 1948 (Strauch Document Book III English and German p. 8, Exhibit No. 21) testifies that he visited Strauch at the end of January or during the first half of February 1942 in Riga and was billeted in his house.
contained in Strauch's personal files (Prosecution Document Book IIIa English, p. 20, German P. 29 Exhibit No. 106):
"From 4 November 1941 commander of the Einsatzkommando Latvia with the Chief of the Security Police "Ostland" "February 1942 Commander of the Security Police in White Ruthenia".From Strauch Document Book I, Exhibit No. 1 and from Strauch Document Book II, Exhibit No. 22, it appears that Strauch was ordered to Riga some days prior to his reporting for duty, the delay being due to the fracture of his arm.
The date given in the files of the RSHA; 4 November 1941, is then the day on which the order was issued in Berlin which sent Strauch to Riga and not the day on which Strauch actually reported for duty in Riga. With respect to the personal date, naturally the date of the order of transfer was decisive for the RSHA but this date is irrelevant for the responsibility with which Strauch is charged in this trial. Here everything depends on the actual taking over of the management of official business. proved indirectly by the contents of report of events No. 29 dated 5 November 1941 (Strauch Document Book II English and German p. 3, Exhibit No, 16). Here the preducesser of Strauch in Riga, Batz, is actually mentioned, but his name has been crossed out and substituted with "Strauch" in hand-writing. That means: some employee in Berlin substituted the name of Strauch for that of Batz in the copy of the report of events, apparently because in Berlin it was officially known to him that an order had been issued transferring Strauch to Riga, whereas in fact Strauch had not yet received this order at all, or at least had not yet arrived in Riga.
The wording of the garrison report is accordingly a result of the corrections made in Berlin and based on the orders issued from Berlin which however, had at that time actually not yet brought about the change of commands out there in the East which had been prescribed by the issuance of the orders. East at any time not directed by orders from Berlin were mostly not known in Berlin until some time later, so that commanders appeared in the Berlin reports who out there actually had no longer held the position referred to for some time.
In Riga Strauch served not as commander of Einsatzkommando No. 2 But as Commander of the Security Police and the SD, to which point I shall return later, but only for about 10 days when he broke his arm again, and was replaced by Dr. Lange in the position of Commander of Security Police. Even at this time he was formally transferred Minsk, but until the healing of the second fracutre of his arm he stayed in Riga where he was used for pure reporting activity by the Chief of the Security Police Stahlecker (consultant for the reporting on the "vital territories). This confusion of re-assignments, sickness, and legal emergency, solutions, which is evidenced also by the testimony of the Defendant Dr. Blume (Strauch Document Book English and German p. 48, Exhibit No. 22), is again reflected in the garrison reports:
Report of events No. 146 dated 15 December 1941 (Strauch Document Book II English and German p. 8, Exhibit No. 16) mentions Strauch still as the commander of Einsatzkommando No. 2, but the entry has been crossed out in hand-writing and substituted by: Commander of the Security Police Latvia, Dr. Lange. Not until this time apparently, was it known in Berlin that since 20 November 1941 at the latest Strauch was not at all functioning in Riga as Commander of the Security Police but had laready been replaced By Dr. Lange, The date of the report on this event in the Berlin report - approximately 3 weeks after the event had taken place in the East - is in aggrement with the general fact, proved in this trial, that it took between 2 and 3 weeks to forward the reports.
(of Sandberger Document Book Ia, Statement of Fumy dated 12 January 1948, English and German p.50) when in report of events No. 148 dated 19 December 1941 (Strauch Document Book II, English and German P. 9, Exhibit No. 16), two reports later, Strauch is nevertheless again mentioned as commander of Einsatzkommando No. 2. On the other hand, already in reports of events No. 149 dated 23 December 1941 to No. 151 dated 5 January 1942 (Strauch Document Book II English and German 9/10, Exhibit No. 16) Strauch is mentioned as Commander of the Security Police in White Ruthenia because the order of transfer to White Ruthenia had already been issued at this time.
Report of events No. 152 dated 7 January 1942 (Strauch Document Book II English and German p. 10, Exhibit No. 16) is the first report which by the handwritten entry. "At present deputized by SS Sturmbannfuehrer Regierungsrat Hofmann" shows that in fact Strauch had not at all entered upon duty. This naturally, had again not become known in Berlin until some time following the transfer of Struach to Minisk. (Forwarding time of the reports: 2-3 weeks). 1942; here to compare the statements of Frau Strauch (Strauch Document Book I English and German p.3, Exhibit No. 1) that during the time from 10 to 16 March 1942 Strauch told her in Berlin that now he finally had to go to Minsk, and the testimony of the Defendant Schulz as witness for the Defendant Strauch Document Book II English and German p. 42, Exhibit No. 20) that in the personnel office of the RSHA in Berlin the draft of the order of transfer was persumably written out with "February" only, leaving the date open for the office chief who was to sign the order later.
In report of events No. 179, dated 11 March 1942, the first report containing a garrison report since 23 February 1942 (Strauch Document Book II English and and German p. 20, Exhibit No. 16). the addition "deputized by SS Sturmbannfuehrer Regierungsrat Hofmann" has been crossed out in hand-writing. But of course Strauch had not entered upon duty in Minsk at the time of issuance of the final order in Berlin, not until he had received this order and had made preparations for his journey. documents, was no longer Commander of the Security Police in Riga but had not yet entered upon duty in Minsk, the local office of the Commander of the Security Police, in charge of Sturmbannfuehrer Hofmann, Dr. Lange, is proved to have been Commander of the Security Police in Riga (statement of Dr. Click dated 26 January 1948 - Strauch Document Book III English and German p. 9. Exhibit No. 27). When these testimonies and documents are compared, it appears that the statements which Strauch formerly made to me and also tried to explain to the Tribunal to the best of his ability in his direct examination, are perfectly true:
1. By order of the RSHA Strauch was about 4 November 1941 appointed Commander of the Security Police and the SD in Riga.
2. Strauch was Commander of the Security Police in Riga approximately from 10 November till 18 November 1941.
3. At this time he broke his arm for the second time and was first through Stahlecker replaced by Dr. Lange who was also from Berlin appointed Commander of the Security Police in Riga as successor to Strauch.
4. After the second fracture of his arm - which was at first supposed to be completely healed - Strauch was used by Stahlecker for office work as leader III in the office of the Chief of the Security Police in Riga until 20 March 1942, since Strauch was able to attend to this work (reading and dictation of reports on the vital territories) in spite of his incapacitation.
5. By order of the RSHA Strauch was finally transferred to Minsk in March 1942.
6. But in fact he did not enter upon duty in Minsk until 22 March 1942. Defendant Strauch cannot be charged with any responsibility whatsoever for all occurrences which took place in Riga and Latvia prior and subsequent to the period from 10 November till 18, or at the latest 20 November 1941, when he was actually in office as Commander of the Security Police, and in Minsk, prior to 22 March 1942 when he entered upon duty. Prosecution documents: