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
Q. Suppose that your superiors had given you a man and they were satisfied with his competence, but you found that he was incompetent, that he was careless, that he was reckless, and that he was drunk all the time; that he signed executions without looking into the cases. Would it be your job to do something about it?
A. Yes.
Q. Yes, well, if you could have passed on his incompetence, then you could have also passed on his competence.
A. I don't quite understand the question.
Q. If you could decide that the man was incompetent, as you said that you could, then you could also decide that he was competent.
A. No, your Honor, there is a difference. The basic question, that the Department chief........
Q. Well, listen. We are not going to get anywhere with this, so let's drop it. Now, who actually signed the death warrant?
A. The confirmation of the death warrant was given by Department chief IV except for the six cases where I did it myself.
Q. So that is was the signature of this Department IV man that sent 73 to their death?
A. Yes.
Q. And then who performed the execution?
A. As I mentioned briefly when describing the procedure, the entire further execution of the procedure was dealt with by the Estonian police.
Q. And you had someone from Department IV to supervise it?
A. An official of Department IV was present as witness during such executions.
Q. And so far as these 73 were concerned you knew nothing about them?
A. I knew that executions occurred.
Q. But you didn't know for what reason?
A. I did not know the individual cases.
Q. You didn't know why these 73 were being executed because you didn't investigate the cases?
A. I did not know why it was done in each individual case.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. BY DR. VON STEIN:
Q. The witness, Dr. Mae, mentioned that in the Estonian Republic until 1940, Communism had been prohibited by law and in major cases, serious cases a death warrant was passed.
Do you and your officials know all about this.....at the beginning of your service in Estonia?
A. Yes, we know that. We knew that Estonian court martinis were competent for the punishment of such occurrences in the time of the Estonian Republic until the time of 1940.
Q. The Prosecution stated that all Einsatzkommandos had to do with sorting out political functionaries out of POW camps. Please state your opinion on this.
A. I remember for certain that such orders were not carried out in Estonia.
Q. During the fighting in Estonia were there a great number of POW's?
A. No, there were relatively few. Many POW's were other parts of the Eastern front there where so-called local fights took place. This did not happen in Estonia.
Q. In that year, 1941, were there POW's quickly transported to the south from Estonia, or did they remain in the country?
A. Most of them were transported to the south immediately in order to be assigned to work there.
Q. Were POW's who were taken prisoner in Estonia not used for work assignment in Estonia proper where they were required?
A. No, except for a few exceptions, this was not the usual thing because in Estonia in 1941 there were many unemployed among the population, for example, in the city of Reval alone 20,000, as one of the situation reports in the document shows; 20,000 unemployed in a city like Reval of 100,000 inhabitants is a relatively very high figure.
Q. I now want to discuss measures against the Jews. You said previously that Dr. Stahlecker had told you at the exterminated, and he ordered you to do so, and he expressed this order towards you repeatedly.
Did you inform your subcommando leaders or your Department Chief IV of this order, and did you give them orders concerning the Jews?
A. I did not tell my sub-commando leaders, as I already said, and my Department Chief IV about the Fuehrer Decree announded in Pretzsch. As I have already mentioned, I only told my deputy because I had great, confidence in him. I Informed him of the existence of this decree not for the purpose of having him carry out this order, and I added that I would do everything whenever possible in order to evade this order as far as the commando and myself were concerned. In the following time in July and August measures were taken against the Jews in Estonia only to that extent as measures were taken against other people, for instance, Estonians, Russians, and so forth, and with the same procedure except for a few internment cases which I shall discuss in detail later on. BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Witness, I notice that every few minutes you tell us that you are going to discuss something later on. This trial is going to end sometime; it isn't going to go on forever; and I wish that when you come to a point, you would discuss it then and there because you have a half dozen things hanging in mid-air, so (describe these things just as you go along. And in that respect since we are now on that subject, we want to ask you directly whether you did or did not believe in the Fuehrer Decree which called for the execution of Jews and communist functionaries, gypsies, and so on?
A. I did not quite understand the question, whether I believed in it, it is better to mean whether I believed in the existence of the decree.
Q. Whether you believed in the execution of the decree.
A. I don't understand the expression in the German, the execution of the order".
Q. Well, did you believe.........let's put it this way.........did you accept the Fuehrer Decree as something which should be put into effect?
A. I already explained that my reaction to the Fuehrer Decree........
Q. Now, please don't go into all that. Why don't you answer the question directly? Did you accept the Fuehrer Decree as something to be enforced?
A. It was my intention to avoid carrying out this order as far as possible concerning myself and my commandos.
Q. Then you did not accept it as something which should be enforced?
A. I did not doubt its legality.
Q. Now, you have been trained in law and I presume you have been trained very unwisely in how to evade questions, but forgot your training now if you were trained that way and try to answer questions directly. Did you accept this order as an order to be enforced?
A. Your Honor, this question cannot be answered with "yes" or "no".
Q. Well, why can't it? Here is an order. We will give you an order. You read the order, and your conclusion is, "I will enforce it", "I will not enforce it". Now what is your answer?
A. In this case I can say I decided not to offer any open disobedience.
Q. Then your answer is, "I will not enforce it"?
A. I beg your pardon, I did not understand it.
Q. Here is the order, and order says that you are commanded to execute Jews, communists, functionaries, gypsies and so on. Now, you look at that order. You are a soldier, and you come to a conclusions. "I will execute that order" or "I will not". Now, which conclusion did you come to?
A. Neither to the one nor to the other, but to this conclusion, that if at all possible I would have nothing to do with the execution of this order.
Q. Well, then you concluded you would not enforce it. You are either on a horse or you are not on it.....you can't be half on a horse and half on the ground, if you are in that situation, you are in a pretty bad situation.
A. Your Honor, I was in a forced situation where I could not come to a clear decision, as it happened to many of my comrades as well.
Q. Now, don't bring your comrades into it, they have been answering for themselves, and some have been a little more forthright than you have been, let me tell you that now. You have this order; you are going to enforce it, or you are not going to enforce it. Now, what conclusion did you come to?
A. I first came to the conclusion to delay the execution as long as possible.
Q. All right. For that moment you are not going to execute it. Now, did there come a time when you said, "yes, I will execute it"?
A. No.
Q. So, therefore, you refused to enforce the order?
A. I did not express my disobedience.
Q. Well, to yourself?
A. Myself, yes.
Q. Yes. Now, you have given us quite a long speech on the propriety of the order. You said that even if the Fuehrer decree was contrary to International Law it had to be enforced because it was German law. Did you say that?
International Law it was German law and, therefore, had to be enforced-did you say that? was German law?
Q You did say that?
Q Then at that moment you were accepting the decree as German law?
Q Yes. And you refused to obey German law, is that what you are telling us?
A I did not refuse it, but I talked to my superior, Dr. Stahlecker repeatedly, and asked him to delay the enforcement of this order.
Q Did you speak to your sub-commando leaders about this order? tioned before.
Q Did they know about the order?
A The Fuehrer decree?
Q You didn't revoke it so far as they were concerned?
A I did not pass on the Fuehrer decree to these men; consequently I did not have to revoke it.
Q Well, they knew that it existed?
A No, Your Honor. I already said that I did not hand this order on to these men.
Q Did your sub-commando leaders know of thei Fuehrer decree?
Q They didn't know of it?
A No. I did not inform them of the Fuehrer decree.
Q Well, did they learn of it by themselves? me.
Q You don't think that they knew about the Fuehrer decree? whose name is Karstens with whom I talked about it. people then, and don't tell me all about this business of the trials and so on. I mean where they had independent commands. The measures under discussion until now concerned communists, and concerning communists I did announce the decree however not in a collective form. performed some executions. Now, on what authority did they perform these executions? merely said that it is possible that this happened. I also explained that I told the sub-commando leaders about everything that was told us in Pretzsch and Schmiedeberg, however, with the exception of the Fuehrer decree concerning the Jews, gypsies, and the collective destruction of functionaries, everything else was known to the sub-commando Leaders. in the Baltic countries your sub-commando leaders and those under you did not know about the Fuehrer decree calling for the execution of Jews? concerned with the period up to the end of September when for the Einsatzgruppe during my absence the execution of 400 Jews was ordered. At this time at the end of September, the beginning of October, the first four sub-commando leaders were ordered back. the Fuehrer decree calling for execution of Jews?
PRESIDENT: Proceed, Dr. Von Stein. BY DR. VON STEIN: Number 88 in Volume IIA, Exhibit 46, Document No. 3149, page 92 of the German text, page 91 of the English text? been people who because of a communist activity and endangering security were arrested by the Estonian home guard and the commander of the home guard or the field commander in Dorpat, because of this communist activity sentenced them to death.
PRESIDENT: Are you going back to these 50 Jews again? Well, for someone who didn't know anything about Jews you are spending a great deal of time about these 50 Jews. He has given this explanation a number of times.
DR. VON STEIN: Your Honor, at the beginning of this case we only talked about communists and we now intend to speak only about the Jews. It is right that the 50 Jews were mentioned at the time in connection with the figure of the communists, but in order to give a unified impression to the Tribunal concerning the Jewish question and how it was dealt within Estonia, we now want to give a general explanation about all the points contained in the documents about the extermination of Jews in Estonia.
PRESIDENT: Proceed.
MR. SANDBERGER: I believe the question has been answered. BY DR. VON STEIN: of the 12th of October 41, Exhibit 38, Document No. 3155, page 40 of the German text, page 43 of the English text.
PRESIDENT: What is the delay about? We are all ready.
DR. VON STEIN: I was only waiting for the page--the English page in the English document book.