this, these documents I did not read because I do not know the Estonian language.
Q And you don't know what was contained in those documents? read a large amount of reading matter, and therefore I do not have any concrete recollection of these six cases.
Q Well, you couldn't read the Estonian documents? German?
Q You approved the executions in these cases? the deliberations?
A There was no definite regulation for this. They could take several months. documents which were submitted either for or against them? German language in detail, with four signatures of reliable.....
Q But you didn't read the Estonian documents? couldn't they?
Q How do you know; you didn't read them? language gave a survey about the contents of the documents.
Q It didn't occur to you to say that when I first asked you the question, did it? When I asked you whether you read the Estonian documents, it didn't occur to you to then say that the summary had been translated, into German?
That didn't, occur to you, did it? translated, but, as I have already stated, the said judgment, reason for the judgment, and motivation.
Q Well then, there were some documents which you did not read? fact that there were documents in the files which might have established their innocence? all important matters were contained in the summary.
Q Well, how do you know whether they were important or not? You didn't read them. They were in the Estonian language. reliable lawyers and professional soldiers.
Q Yes. So then you were merely passing upon what somebody else passed upon, and not on your own initiative and your own deliberation. You merely approved what somebody else had done because you had faith in them? documents was a mere formality because you merely took the opinion of those who had preceded you? that I was of the opinion after what had been submitted to me, that an internment would have been sufficient.
Q Yes. Then we come back to the original proposition which I put to you that there were documents in the files which you did not read. were documents submitted for or against them which did not even have the benefit of an understanding perusal by you, the supreme authority?
of the essential points, which I did read.
Q Yes. It didn't occur to you to say that when I asked you that question about five minutes ago, did it? This just came to you as you deliberated in your mind as you were speaking?
A May I ask what question? I didn't get this. documents, you said no. I asked you if you knew what was in those documents, and you said no. Then, after many other questions had been put and answers had been given, then it occurred to you to reflect upon that and then you said that you had read a summary: is that right? the procedure which I have described before the recess. review, but on the fact that ten or eleven people had passed upon this beforehand, or ten? suggestions of these eleven people were not approved. question. You do not remember what these six people had done in order to be sent to their death. You cannot tell us today what each one had done?
Q All right, did you make a report on these executions? the next monthly report to the Einsatzgruppe.
Q Yes. Now those were the only six executions which you ordered while you were in Estonia?
Q. And in which year did they occur?
A. In the fall of 1941.
Q. 1941. Now, that was six years ago, wasn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. And all these six years you never gave any thought to these six executions, and, therefore, couldn't recall why they were sent to their death; why these people were sent to their death.
A. Your Honor, in the six years I have seen and read such a great number of documents, and had so many impressions that the recollection of the individual cases no longer exists.
Q. But these were the only six that you, yourself, ordered executed.
A. Yes.
Q. And although you studied the record, and although it was your act eventually which sent them to their death, and although these were the only six people in the whole world that you ever sent to their death, yet, you cannot tell us now, with all this time for deliberations, and with all the time you had to prepare for your case, why they were killed.
A. Your Honor, I said they were killed either for espionage activity or as functionaries of the NKWD. Other than those two categories were not among these six; that I remember definitely.
Q. They were sent to their death because they were communist functionaries or belonged to the NKWD?
A. No, pardon me. There were two groups: there were two types of people among them. One type was persons who were convicted of espionage. I don't know whether there were one, two, three or four. The others were people who were voluntary functionaries in the NKWD. and in this capacity they were criminal participants in the killing of Estonian citizens.
Q. So there were two categories; you don't remember who fell into either category.
A. No, I don't remember whether one or two or three fell into one category.
Q. That is as much as you can tell about the crimes committed by the six people who were executed?
A. Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed. Dr. von Stein. BY DR. VON STEIN:
Q. Witness, were all essential points contained in these motivated suggestions of sentence which would show what sentence would have to be imposed?
A. Yes, I already said that the procedure had to be absolutely objective, and all exonerating circumstances had to be mentioned too, and were mentioned in the summary.
Q. You just said that the Estonian documents were not read by you because you did not know the language. Did you discuss the suggestion of the judgment with the Estonian officials who read these documents?
A. No, I have.....
THE PRESIDENT: What was that answer. Repeat the answer.
A. What question? BY DR. VON STEIN:
Q. My last question was the following: Whether you as a man did not know the Estonian language discussed with the authors of the judgment the matters of the judgment and about what the judgment was arrived at, and about the contents of the documents on which the judgment was based?
A. I did not discuss with these people these concrete six cases, but I often spoke with them about the thoroughness of the procedure; and about what would have to be considered when arriving at these judgments; and what the summary would have to have in them.
Q. Witness, if you were in doubt whether the judgments proposed were correct, didn't you discuss them with the authors?
A. If I had had any doubts about it, this would have certainly happened.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Von Stein, I must congratulate you an insisting upon your leading questions until you get the answer which you desire. Now, it was very obvious that your other question was a leading question. Didn't you discuss this with the Estonian home guard and with the judges. You know, that is a leading question. You practically suggest to the witness what he is to answer. If you say to someone: Now, didn't you discuss with someone when you were in doubt as to what you should do, his answer inevitably is going to be yes. He would have to be a fool to say no. So, that is known as a leading question, and you know a leading question is not permitted. BY DR. VON STEIN:
Q. Witness, we now come to a statement in your affidavit, of the 21st of April, 1947, in Volume III-A, Exhibit 102, Document NO-2891, page 100 of the German text, page 73 of the English text. Your affidavit twice mentions the fact that forgeries were not completely excluded, were not completely out of the question. Please comment on this.
A. These statements are not based upon the statements by me, but on the fact that the interrogating officer attached great importance to putting these statements about the distortion, the forgeries, into this.
MR. GLANCY: If it please the Court, I believe that the defendant had ample opportunity previously; in fact, this, morning, to explain all this. All this is cummulative.
THE PRESIDENT: What do you say about that, Dr. Von Stein? Can you offer a new phase of this situation which would justify the re-questioning?
DR. VON STEIN: Your Honor, I wish to withdraw the question, and I shall take up another question about the same affidavit. BY DR. VON STEIN:
Q. Witness, how is it that in the same affidavit when discussing this procedure nothing is mentioned about a judgment commission and about the directives issued by you about establishing the individual guilt?
A. I wanted all these things to be contained in the affidavit, and I mentioned them to Mr. Wartenberg, and I asked him that the directives issued by me, the way I have described them this morning, be taken in, and as I have already described them a long time previously to other interrogating officers -
MR. GLANCE: I think the affidavit speaks for itself, sir. He makes the observation here before he signs it: I have had the opportunity to make alterations and corrections in the above statement. I made this declaration voluntarily without any promise of reward: I was not subjected to any duress or threat whatsoever. I think this is the highest and best evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: We will permit the witness to offer any explanation which he has on this matter.
A. I had the opportunity to make changes in this affidavit: I also had the opportunity to take in two additional sentences, but I did not have an opportunity to add anything more than those two sentences; and the statement which I had to sign here speaks only of changes and of corrections, not of additions. Mr. Wartenberg said expressely in answer to my request, that I would have such opportunity very shortly-I thought this would be in April or May--to mention all this exactly. Therefore, I had prepared it in my cell in order to give it to him, and I still have this; but he did not call for me again. I no longer had an opportunity to make these additions. BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Well, witness, you actually made up four affidavits, didn't you?
A. In April only one affidavit was made, the one that I have before me. The others are of November, 1945. At that time we did not speak about these things.
Q. Well, why didn't it occur to you when you wrote up the other three affidavits to tell this very important item?
A. In these affidavits in November, 1945, we did not talk about communists at all. The statements were not made out by me, but the prepared text in November, 1945, was brought by Mr. Wartenberg; and in November, 1945, to a lesser extent than here, the possibility existed to make changes. I could not touch upon the subject of communism in Estonia when talking to Mr. Wartenberg in November 1945 if he does not even ask me for it.
Q. Well, it never occurred to you, even though you are a lawyer, in preparing four affidavits to add the very simple statement that no execution was ever performed without the case having been duly tried, duly reviewed, and duly passed upon by supreme authority.
A. Your Honor, this thought occurred to me and for almost half an hour I discussed this matter with Dr. Wartenberg, asking that he permit me to add all this, but he did not permit it.
Q. Well, why couldn't you, when the affidavit was finally given, back to you to sign, add that very simple statement. You could do all that in one sentence.
A. Your Honor, it was not permitted. Mr. Wartenberg took it upon himself to figure which auditions and corrections he would allow and which corrections he would not allow. Such corrections were typewritten in the office of Mr. Wartenberg.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Von Stein, did you question Mr. Wartenberg on this particular subject when he was in court?
DR. VON STEIN: No, your Honor. At that time I did not have the defense of Sandberger.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, who was his counsel at that time?
DR. VON STEIN: My colleague, Dr. Mandry.
THE PRESIDENT: Did he question Mr. Wartenberg?
DR. VON STEIN: I do not know, Your Honor: I cannot give you any information.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well; proceed. BY DR. VON STEIN:
Q. Witness, what instruction did you give about the manner of carrying out the executions?
A. The instructions were for an absolutely militarily correct carrying out; end letting them keep on their clothing.
Q. Were you present during executions?
A. No, I didn't consider this my duty. They were carried out by the Estonian home guard, under the command of an Estonian officer; a German official from Department IV was present as a witness.
Q. You said that you supervised the activity of Department IV as an inspector. Do you remember any definite individual case?
A. An individual case which I remember especially well was the following. I was addressed about it by a high German official. A respectable Estonian citizen, lawyer by profession; his name was contained in the list of my D agents which was found the and of September in the NKWD building. Thereupon he, of course, was arrested. When about six to eight weeks my attention was drawn to this case by German official. The case had not been known to me previously. I asked the director of the Estonian police and the following story came out: This personality had already been released again. The case stood as follows: He was actually an agent of the NKWD; therefore, he was justly listed in that list, but he gave the following facts: That he had been forced to participate in that activity as an NKWD agent, and that in case of refusal he would have to suffer great disadvantages; and he assured that he did not make out any reports which would be of disadvantage to other people. We could not prove this because his superiors in the NKWD were not there at the time; but he was known as a respected national personality. Thereupon, he was released becaused it could not be proven that as a forced NKWD agent he had done anything which would have injured others.
Q. Witness, in view of the lesser communists you have already said that these were released after their cases had been reviewed. Who decreed these releases?
A. Investigations of arrest took place currently, and the activity of the board of pardon also led to releases. Amnesties were undertaken on the occasion of national holidays; in February and August 1912; always of several communists who were less incriminated such amnesties were decreed by the Chief of the Civil Administration in Estonia, by the General Commissioner.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Do I understand, witness, that some communists were released?
A. Yes.
Q. Not even put in jail or sent to a concentration camp?
A. No.
Q. Well then, conditions were much better in Estonia for a communist directly under the German armed forces than they were in Germany itself during the war.
A. Yes, perhaps; I don't know.
Q. Well, you know, don't you, that any one who professed communism in Germany, during the war, was immediately apprehended and placed in custody; don't you?
A. No, I don't know this because I did not have any insight into the activity of Department IV.
Q. So a man in Estonia could be a communist and talk communism, and yet not suffer any penalty of any kind?
A. During the time of the German occupation, he could not talk about communism to others without his being immediately arrested thereupon.
Q. Well then, what do you mean by a lesser communist?
A. I mean by the following: In Estonia there were people, perhaps ten thousand, who during the communist period of 1940-1941, had actively professed to believe in communism. Not all of these people were then interned furing the German occupation or kept in internment, but only if there were special reasons, such as danger of the security of the German army.
Q. Well, suppose a man was a communist during the Soviet regime, and he still remained a communist; he did not revoke communism; he did not in any way indicate that he had out with the past; that he was still a communist. Would he be released?
A. It depends how he expressed his attitude; whether he expressed it at all.
Q. Well, suppose he merely in conversations told someone: Yes, I am a communist; I believe in communism; and that is all.
A. Then he was interned.
THE PRESIDENT: All right; that is all. BY DR. VON STEIN:
Q. How did the population react to these releases?
A. The population severely criticized these releases; they said that the Germans were too soft; that they did not know communism as it was in practice; and that was completely wrong to release less incriminated communist after so short,a period.
Q. What experiences did you have with these releases?
A. One part of the released people was quiet, that is to say, refrained from taking part in any activities. Another part, however, again took up communist activities and, therefore, had to be again interned.
Q. Did you do anything to prevent excesses on the part of the population who was aroused?
A. Yes, I did two things. First of all, in the summer, via the Estonian police prefectures, I tried to have the Estonian home guard refrain from independent operations, that is, not to undertake any executions on their own responsibility. Later, in the fall of 1941, I issued an energetic decree against denouncers, that is, persons who wrongly or out of negligence, accused others of communist activities. This decree was made public over the radio.
Q. Do you believe that you did the best in your power with these proclamations in the sense of actual justice. Did you do the best that was possible under the circumstances?
A. Yes, I think I did.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you think he could have answered no to that? If you ask a man if he is really good and kind, and wonderful, and smart, do you think he is going to say no?
DR. VON STEIN: Your Honor, if he were of the opinion that he did everything, then he would have that opinion. There are some people who say that they had not done everything.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you think Sandberger would?
DR. VON STEIN: Mr. Sandberger is under oath; I imagine he is going to answer correctly.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. I think it is a good time to go to lunch. We will recess until 1:45.
(A recess was taken.)
(The hearing reconvened at 1345 hours. November 13, 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
Q Witness, in the document L-180, in the Volume II-A. Exhibit 34, page 1, in Enclosure No. 8, it is stated that in Estonia, 684 Communists were executed. Are the 405 executions which took place in Dorpat without the assistance by the SIPO, through the Field Kommandos and the Home Guard mentioned in the Report of Events No. 88, are they contained in these figures?
A Yes, they are contained therein. The report of Events No. 88 originates from the end of August.
MR. GLANCY: It is in Book II-A, sir, page 26.
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed.
A (Continued) Yes, they are included. The Report of Events No. 88 originates from the end of August, and the report L-180 is from a later date in October. the responsibility of the German SIPO?
Q Won't you tell about the figures. By this figure you mean the difference between 684 Communists contained in the L-180 and the formerly mentioned 405 executions mentioned in a former report? German Security Police, most of them don't. Among them are such executions which occurred in other localities in Estonia apart from Dorpat, and were carried out in a similar manner as in Dorpat, that is, without the participation of the German Security Police, with the Field Kommandos and local commanders of the Army and Estonian Home Guard.
Those are the temporary conditions in July and August, 1941, about which I talked in detail. January, 1942. This is contained in Volume II.D. Exhibit 87, Document NO-2834, page 27 of the German text and 22 of the English text. Please comment on the report on page 32 of the German text, page 26 of the English text about political police events in Reval. Please tell us first why the report covers the time from the 1st to the 22nd of January.
A May I have the document, please?
Q It is Document NO. 2831. about because this paragraph is obviously taken from amonthly report by Department IV in Reval. The term for reports from the Estonian Police to the Security Police was always the 25th of each month, in this case, the 25th of November. The German Security Police processed it on the 27th, and sent it off on the 28th or 29th. this report? that the following conclusions can be drawn. The political department of the Police Presidium at Reval, as it is written here, what it actually means is the Estonian Police Prefecture in Reval submitted recommendations for sentences to Department I-A. This formulation shows that a procedure took place whereby recommendations for sentences were decided on after being worked out and were submitted by the Estonia Police Prefecture to the German Security Police. We are concerned here with three kinds of dcisions, partly executions, partly transfers to concentration camps, and partly releases.
Q In this document, the expression "concentration camp imprisonment" is mentioned. Please explain how and where these prisoners were interned.
spent their time of internment in prisons and in prison camps of the Estonian Justice Administration. The Estonian Justice Administration had put at the disposal of the police part of these camps and prisons. The expression "concentration camp" is therefore wrong". This is merely an abbreviation by a German official who, instead of using the correct expression "prison" or "internment camp" used this abbreviation. The personnel and the instructions in these Estonian prisons and in these camps were subordinated to the Estonian Legal Administration arid were exactly the same as foremerly in the Estonian Free State. BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q Did you pass upon the 282 sentences mentioned in this document?
A Your Honor, I personally confirmed 6 verdicts. I am not sure and cannot say whether these six cases are contained in these 79 cases. described this morning happened during that time.
Q But you were in charge of the Kommando, weren't you? chargeable with their receipt, weren't you?
Q Well, Department IV was under you, wasn't it? Department V, for instance. kommano I-A, they were, in fact, sent to you. You may not have personally received them, but they were sent to you, as a matter of fact.
Q. Yes, and of these sentences you only examined 25. Is that what you tell me?
A. I said this morning that altogether in the fall of 1941 I had 25 cases submitted to me. It is possible that these 25 cases were during that time, but it is not certain. I cannot say it.
Q. Were you interested in the others at all?
A. I had organized this procedure in such a manner that I was certain, or believed to be certain that it was done with reliability and justice as far as possible. The Department Chief IV who had arrived at this decision was a man who had the same rank as I had, namely, that of a major, and had been used to these things for many years, which I had not been, because I never had anything to do with such things.
Q. Now, you approved of six executions. There were 79 in all. Did you interest yourself in the other 73?
A. I did not have them submitted to me.
Q. Did you interest yourself at all in these other 73 executions?
A. Your Honor, I did not quite understand what you mean by the expression "interested."
Q. Yes, well, under your authority, because you were the Chief of Einsatzkommano I-A, there were 79 executions. 6 of these you were personally familiar with. Did you know of these other 73?
A. About no individual case, no.
Q. Did you know of these other 73 executions?
A. No.
Q. 73 executions took place under your command and you did not know about them?
A. I knew the figures and that these executions took place, but I did not know the individual cases.
Q. You did know, then, that 73 executions were going to take place?
A. Yes,
Q. And you yourself didn't interest yourself in any of these execution with the exception of the 6 you have mentioned?
A. That was not my task, Your Honor.
Q. Well, your answer is, you did not concern yourself with these 73.
A. I personally did not concern myself with them.
Q. Very well. Who actually ordered the executions? You were the Chief. Who finally put his O.K. on "Let this man be shot."
A. It was the man who confirmed the judgment of this Commission of 3. The procedure was first were these where the persons participated -
Q. Well, just a moment. We have gone through this. Now the recommendations for executions are before Einsatzkommando I-A, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. You tell me that Department IV passes upon these sentences, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. Now who was the individual officer that finally O.K.'d the executions in your Einsatzkommando?
A. During the time which is concerned in that report of events it was a Criminal Councillor, Dr. Merten.
Q. Doctor who?
A. Dr. Merten.
Q. Dr. Merten, Yes, now he put his O.K. on it and it didn't come to you at all?
A. No.
Q. So, therefore, as Chief of the Einsatzkommando, executions took place in the name of the kommando without your being familiar with what was taking place?
A. Your Honor, that was not my task. Originally, it had been the task of the subkommando leaders to be able to carry out executions themselves. Later on I asked the Einsatzgruppe Chief to change this and at least that the Department Chief IV should decide for the entire kommando. I already considered this an improvement of the situation in the interest of those concerned.
Q. Well, do you think it might be a further improvement, if you passed upon sentences of execution?
A. Your Honor, as far as work was concerned, this was not possible for me to do, because according to the will of my superiors the main point of my work was concerned with Department III. That is, most of my time I had to work, according to the wish of my superiors -- I had to work on tasks in Department III. I did not have a Department Chief of Department III. I therefore was personally in charge of this department.
Q. And what did you do in Department III?
A. In Department III I had to make reports about the domestic sphere in Estonia and passed on political advice of the Army commander in Reval, political reporting to the Army High Command, to the Commander of the rear army territory, to the German General Commissar in Reval.
Q. Wouldn't you think that in the domestic sphere it would be interesting to find out why 73 people were about to be executed?
A. Your Honor, this did not belong to the task of Department III. Executions belonged to the tasks of Department IV.
Q. Well, it was still part of the domestic sphere. It happened right there in Estonia.
A. Yes, but it was not part of domestic sphere work; according to Department III -
Q. Well, you had Department III in your immediate charge, but Department IV was also under your control.
A. But there was a difference, Your Honor. I was in charge of Department III personally and here all my superiors constantly made requests to me personally.
Q. And Department IV was under you?
A. In Department IV had been assigned to me as an official of the Security Police also in the rank of major.
Q. Very well, then you were satisfied with the competence of Department IV to approve executions without your reviewing or in any way looking into the individual cases?
A. I don't understand the main verb in this sentence.
Q. You were satisfied with the competence of the major in Department IV, so much that you could depend upon him entirely to authorize executions without your interesting yourself in those individual cases?
A. Your Honor, it was not a matter of my being satisfied. My superiors had settled it that way because of my.-
Q. Now, Witness, we are losing a lot of time. If you will only try to answer the question directly -- Now, you were the Chief of the Einsatzkommando?
A. Yes.
Q. And Department IV was under you?
A. It was one of the 5 departments under my charge.
Q. Very well, now if the major in charge of Department IV were very incompetent and was executing people carelessly, that would be your concern, wouldn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. Yes, so therefore you were satisfied with his competence and you allowed him to make the decisions of life and death and you didn't review any of those cases.
A. Your Honor, not I would allow him, but my superiors, whom I told about, determined it so.
Q. Well, suppose that this major were very incompetent and he was executing people without the required evidence and this came to your attention, would you do anything?
A. Of course.
Q. Well, all light, then. When I say to you and it is a very simple question; you are just losing a lot of time -- that you were satisfied with his competence and therefore you didn't bother to look into the cases because you were satisfied.
A. I beg your pardon. It is not a matter of my being satisfied with his competence, but his competence was established by my superiors and it