A. Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, Dr. Gick. I don't know why you put it in such a hypothetical form, "if" and "suppose." Just ask him if he did know that Strauch was in Riga and had charge of a certain outfit.
DR. GICK: Your Honor, I think the witness has already answered this question. He did not know. Thereupon, I made it hypothetical, would he have had to know it.
THE PRESIDENT: He answered that, "yes."
DR. GICK: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, then, in effect he didn't know but he should know.
DR. GICK: Actually, he didn't know; at least, that is what he says, but -----
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, did you know or didn't you know?
THE WITNESS: I did not know that in November 1941 Strauch was commander in Riga.
THE PRESIDENT: What furthermore do you want than that? That is very definite.
DR. GICK: Yes, the question suffices, but I only wanted to know why he did not know. The question was answered by the witness. I have no further questions in this respect. BY DR. GICK:
Q. Witness, did you know that in Latvia all Jewish matters were in the hands of the chief of Department 4, with the commander of the Security Police and SD for the Eastern Area Lange?
DR. GLANCY: Just a moment. I would like to know which commando the witness was in command of. He can't be an expert on two. He tells us he was much occupied with many, many different, diverse affairs in Estonia. He left Latvia, to the best of my knowledge, around the 4th of July, the 5th of July.
THE PRESIDENT: Just what is your specific purpose here, Dr. Gick? What is it you are trying to get from the witness?
DR. GICK: I wanted to find out from the witness whether on the basis of his knowledge of the conditions in Latvia and in Estonia, which are after all connected, whether he knew or knows by whom the Jewish matters were handled, and the witness has this knowledge, and therefore he can answer the question.
DR. GLANCY: The witness has gone to great lengths in his direct examination to impress upon the Tribunal that he spent only an hour or so on the morning of the 4th of July with Stahlecker.
THE PRESIDENT: Fifteen minutes he was with Stahlecker.
DR. GLANCY: Thank you, Your Honor, fifteen minutes. In that time even a person of giant intellect cannot absorb so much.
THE PRESIDENT: How do you know he doesn't have a giant intellect?
DR. GLANCY: That I don't know, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: All right now, if he knows, he will tell us; if he doesn't know then he can't tell us. So now ask the witness if he knows. If he knows about this Jewish situation in Latvia, he is qualified to answer. Find out if he knows. BY DR. GICK:
Q. Witness, did you know how the Jewish questions were handled in Latvia, and by whom they were handled?
A. About conditions in Latvia itself during the time which you have in mind, I don't know any details. But with regard to the handling of the Jewish matters in the staff of Einsatzgruppe A in Riga or with the commander of the Security Police and SD in Riga, I knew that the Chief of Department 4, Dr. Lange, apart of Stahlecker, was the driving force with regard to the Jewish question. And this was at the time when the first Einsatzkommando leader of Einsatzkommando 2 Bartach was in Riga. Otherwise, I don't know any more about this question.
Q. Do you also know that Dr. Lange, after he had become command er in Latvia, continued to handle these Jewish matters?
A. Do you mean in the staff of the R D S. ?
Q. Yes, on the staff of the commander.
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. Witness, in the document Book 3 A, page 17, Exhibit 110, Document No. 3372 -- there is your affidavit of the 19th of November, 1945, --In this affidavit, under No. 4, you said that Strauch had participated in the Jewish persecutions in Minsk. How did you come to make this statement?
A. This is an interrogation of November, 1945. During the course of which I was asked, among other things, for names of people who had anything to do with Jewish Questions. During these interrogations, we did not speak of any specific events or of any occurrences apart from my own case, but we spoke exclusively of names. In this case, when the name Strauch was mentioned, there was no talk of any specific event.
Q. This affidavit was taken by Mr. Wartenberg. You heard here in court how Mr. Wartenberg described the procedure of taking down affidavits.
THE PRESIDENT: I think you are going to ask a long question on a fact which is not established. You said that this affidavit was taken by Wartenberg. It was not taken by Wartenberg. Do you have the affidavit there before you?
DR. GICK: Yes, I have it with me.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, who took the affidavit?
DR. GICK: I read here, English, "Subscribed and sworn to before us at Oberoursel, Germany, 19 November 1945. Signed, Rudolf Urbach and Rolf Wartenberg."
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it seems that Wartenberg only translated the document. Dr. Glancy, isn't that the situation or isn't it? There is a phrase even in Wartenberg's declaration which is a little confusing, we must admit.
DR. GICK: Perhaps the witness can clarify the question.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, all right, who took this affidavit, witness, from you?
THE WITNESS: Both of these officers, Captain Urbach and 1st Lt. Wartenberg, were both present. Mr. Wartenberg had carried out the interrogation, the interrogation which led to the interview, and called Captain Urbach in and both participated in the taking of the oath. They were both present.
THE PRESIDENT: I beg your pardon. You may proceed, Dr. Gick. BY DR. GICK:
Q. Witness, would you please describe how this interrogation was carried on?
A. The procedure wasn't exactly the same as it was here in the courthouse and as it was described by Mr. Wartenberg; that is to say, no oath was taken before the interrogation as it was done here, and it was not recognizable that this was a matter of an affidavit. It could not be seen either that the possibility would be granted to refuse the testimony or to refuse giving such an affidavit.
Q. Was this affidavit submitted to you after preliminary discussion, all written our, ready for your signature?
A. It was brought in by Mr. Wartenberg in a typewritten form, like the others. He brought in four statements on that day.
Q. Therefore, you cannot and could not designate Strauch as being in connection with any definite measures concerning Jews in Minsk?
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Gick, that is not a question, it is a statement. You will have to put a question to the witness. BY DR. GICK:
Q. Witness, may I ask you to give an answer about this?
THE PRESIDENT: No, you can't, because that was a very leading question. You practically gave the answer yourself. You must put a question to the witness, not a statement.
DR. GICK: Your Honor, am I not in cross examination? I am ask--ing the question in cross examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, I beg your pardon. Dr. Von Stein has been here so long a time that I thought it was still the direct examination in effect. The question will be permitted. You may answer that statement question.
DR. GICK: May I please repeat the question, Your Honor? BY DR. GICK:
Q. Witness, therefore you couldn't and cannot mention Strauch in connection with any concrete measures against Jews in Minsk?
A. No, I cannot, and this statement was not supposed to express that, either. During the interrogation, we did not speak of any definite fact, only of the fact that Strauch was commander in Minsk. BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Witness, you signed this statement voluntarily, didn't you?
A. I wasn't under immediate pressure.
Q. You signed this statement voluntarily, didn't you?
A. In such a case, it is a relative question, this being voluntary.
Q. Did you sign this statement voluntarily?
A. I did not refuse because of force.
Q. Did you sign this statement voluntarily?
A. Yes.
Q. All right, now. The fact that you were not sworn, although the statement very definitely indicates that you were sworn, would have no effect on your telling the truth, would it? Let me put it another way. The statement declares that you made the statement under oath.
A. Yes.
Q. Now, did you make it under oath?
A. Yes.
Q. Then what is declared here in this statement is correct, is it not?
A. To the best of my knowledge.
DR. GICK: Your Honor, my I say here that the witness has made a statement about this matter which I was able to get from the witness by questioning him.
THE PRESIDENT: That is not quite clear to the tribunal. Please make it a little clearer what you have in mind.
DR. GICK: I mean to say, Your Honor, that the witness here on my questions has given a clarifying answer about the point at issue in the affidavit is to be interpreted. And that was the purpose of my question.
THE PRESIDENT: I still don't know what you are trying to put over to the Tribunal. You say you put him a question. Very well, and he answered it. Now, what is it you are complaining about? I don't quite understand you.
DR. GICK: I beg your pardon, Your Honor, I don't want to complain. I merely wanted to point out that today the witness has given us an explanation to this affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: And the explanation is what he just told the Tribunal, that to the best of his knowledge and belief what he put into the statement is correct.
DR. GICK: Yes, that is what he said here.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, are you satisfied with that?
DR. GICK: Yes, of course.
THE PRESIDENT: All right then.
DR. WALTON: Your Honor, it may shed some light on this. I gathered from the good Doctor's remarks that he was trying to plead entrapment.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Walton, Dr. Gick is satisfied; Sandberger is satisfied; the Tribunal is satisfied, so why stir up muddy waters?
MR. WALTON: Maybe he pleads entrapment on cross examination. I couldn't tell him how to proceed.
THE PRESIDENT: You are entirely at ease? You are satisfied, Dr. Gick?
DR. GICK: Yes, Your Honor.
BY DR. GICK:
Q. Witness, over and about the more knowledge of Strauch's presence in Minsk -- did you have yet any real knowledge about the conditions and circumstances in Minsk?
A. No, I had no such knowledge as I never was in Minsk, and Strauch was never in Reval. During the entire time during which Strauch was in Minsk, no mutual official conference ever took place with the B.D.S. in Riga where we might have been both present. During this ontire period, I only met Strauch once or twice by coincidence in Riga. We only exchanged a few unimportant words; at any rate, we discussed nothing official. In other respects, I had no knowledge of events in Minsk either.
Q. What does the question mark mean after the name "Strauch" where the designation "SS and Police Leader" occurs under No. 4 of the document?
A. This question mark means that here, at the request of Mr. Wartenberg, the name of the SS and Police Leader in Minsk was to be put in as being mainly responsible for the orders of Jeckeln. But I could not remember the name, so that this space had to remain blank.
Q. In Document Book 3 A, German page 15, Document No. 3681-I don't know the exhibit number--how did this statement come about with regard to agencies of the Security Police and SD in the Ostland in which it is noted commander in White Puthenia, Strauch---
DR. GLANCY: May it please the Tribunal, if he is adapting this as his own testimony, I wish he would introduce it. We have never introduced this document. It is not before the court; however, we have no objection to its introduction by the defense.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Gick, you will be permitted to cross examine from the document, but if you intend to have the Tribunal accept it as a document, then you would need to introduce it yourself, because it has not been introduced.
DR. GICK: I beg your pardon, I did not know that this had not yet been introduced as an exhibit of the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: No, it has not been introduced, out we will allow you to question from it since it bears Sandberger's name and therefore is relevant.
DR. GICK: May I repeat the question then? BY DR. GICK:
Q. Witness, in this document which is in Document Book 3 A, German Page 15, and which bears the number 3681, there is a sketch on which it is noted "Commander of the Security Police for White Ruthenia, Strauch, around the first of November, 1942." How was this sketch made out?
A. During an interrogation, I was asked for about five or six names of leading personalities in the area of the Eastern Area, and the interrogating, officer took them down and put them into a sketch which he was making at the same time. As far as I remember, the name Strauch was not mentioned. During the next interrogation, the sketch as it is submitted hero, was submitted to me for my signature and then the name Strauch was put in in the box headed Einsatzkommando 2. I objected to this, that as far as I know Strauch was not the commanding officer of Einsatzkommando 2, but that he was commander of the Security Police for white Ruthenia. Thereupon, I was requested by the interrogating officer to put the name Strauch into the box headed White Ruthenia and I was also requested to give the dates which have reference to this sketch. I answered that this sketch the way it is now refers to many various dates, and therefore I was requested to specify the various dates and put them in. I answered that I really could not remember from when on Strauch has been commander in White Ruthenia, that I could only remember that it was--must have been--sometime in the winter of 1941 to 1942. The interrogating officer said that the exact date was of importance and we agreed that we would put in about from the first of January, 1942.
had a very general recollection that somewhere in the winter, '41-'42 Strauch was there.
DR. GICK: Thank you, I have no further questions.
DR. SCHWARZ: Dr. Schwarz for the Defendant Jost. BY DR. SCHWARZ:
Q Witness, I would like to ask you a few questions. Mr. Jost was your commander and Einsatzgruppe chief, I think, from the end of March to August or beginning of September, 1942. When was your first official contact with Jost? refer to the treatment of Jews?
A Yes. We briefly mentioned the Jewish question also. question at the time? wanted to make the attempt to achieve that an exception be made for the Reich Commissioner Eastland or the Baltic States as far as the Jewish measures or the Hitler Order were concerned. Therefore, right from the beginning he wished that for the time being nothing should happen to the Jews.
Q What did you say yourself to this? Jews existed. I briefly implied to him how this had happened, and I also told him that from my part I considered this Jewish order as impossible. conversation with the Higher SS and Police Leader, Jeckeln? statement made by Jocelyn to the effect that Jeckeln would possibly even have SS men shot who were not spiritually up to the demands of carrying these measures out.
the time?
A Yes. Jost told me that in Riga around May some hundred Communist had been released or were to be released. He asked me how this situation was in Estonia and I told him that in February an amnesty had already taken place and another amnesty was expected for August. tion. Was the leadership of Einsatzgruppe A in the area of the kommando of the Security Police and SD separated organizationally? A was commended from the staff headquarters in Krasnoguardeisk, and the agency of the Security Police Commander was commanded from Riga. Estonia? Revel the Commissioner General as Chief of Civil Administration, then the SS and Police Leader in Reval, and furthermore the commander of the Security Police in Riga. spent in Riga how often you reported to your above-mentioned three superiors? times a week; to the SS and Police Leader somewhat less; to the Commander of the Security Police about every six weeks. Litzmann, as far as Security Police measures were concerned?
Q Could you give me some examples for this?
A This is, first of all, a question of Communist matters. Many applications by relatives reached Litzmann, and there were cases in which women described their economic position very impressionably and for which the Commissioner General ordered a release of the men concerned.
Also the amnesties which I have mentioned took place because of a decree promulgated by the Commissioner General.
DR. SCHWARZ: Your Honor, I have no further question.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Any other cross-examination on the part of defense counsel?
(No response).
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Glancy, you may take up the cross-examination on behalf of the Prosecution. BY MR. GLANCY:
Q Dr. Sandberger, when did you join the Party? been a National Socialist for ten years, is that correct? during your student days, you were a speaker on behalf of the National Socialist movement, weren't you?
A I don't know what you mean by the expression "speaker". speeches, yes, that is correct. the ideologies and aims of the National Socialist movement? attitude toward the Jews, is that right?
of the Party. There were some circles which did not approve of the things which some other circles of the Party did in the Jewish question, or said.
Q When did you join the SS?
Q That was unified organizationally, wasn't it? ideologies and aims, is that right? SD especially.
A Yes. I only joined the SS by way of the SD.
Q I don't want any explanation now. When did you join the SS?
Q Did you join the SS on the 11th of May, 1935?
A No, that is not correct. I joined the SS on the 1st of January 1936.
Q Were you born on the 17th of August, 1911?
Q Both these dates are contained in your service record. Do you have any comment on that?
A I think that is a mistake. The date of May, 1935, which is contained herein, is not the date of my membership in the SS but is the time when I first got in contact with the SD. I am quite sure of this.
Q When did you join the Party?
Q Couldn't that have been the first of December, 1931?
Q When did you apply to become a member of the SS?
but my recollection is not quite exact.
Q I think that your recollection fails you. A record is more permanent than a memory. On the first of December, 1931, you became a Party member; on the 11th of May, 1935, you became a member of the SS.
A Pardon me, Mr. Prosecutor. This is doubtlessly a mistake. I am absolutely certain that the date of May, 1935, is the date of my first contact with the SD and that on the 30th of January, 1936, I received my admission into the SS, retroactive to the 1st of January, 1936.
Q What is your SS number? of May, 1935. Do you expect us to believe that they got the number correctly; they got your birthday correctly; your Party record correctly, and make a mistake on the date of your joining, which is all important as far as seniority is concerned?
A Mr. Prosecutor, I don't know whether it says on that record that this is SS membership for this date. I am absolutely certain about this, that I was admitted to the SS on the first of January 1936. My superior at that time, Dr. Scheel, is here in the house and will be able to confirm this at any time. Einsatz mission in the East, were you aware of the attitude of the National Socialists towards Jews and Communists?
A May I ask, Mr. Prosecutor, which concrete attitude you mean? For example, I did not know, and I never heard of this, that prior to 1941 Jews were systematically sent in concentration camps in Germany, in case that is what you mean.
A No, I was not aware of this. I didn't hear about this. I already said yesterday that I learned that after the 10th of November, 1938. Jews were sent to concentration camps, but that they were again released after a few weeks, as far as I heard, and I know nothing, that later, until 1941, in any case, any systematic internments into concentration camps took place for Jews.
Q When did you join the SD?
A My first contact with the SD was in May, 1935. That is the date which you mentioned before. that your first contact with the SD was in january of 1935.
A Mr. Prosecutor, this is a mix-up. In January, 1936, is the membership into the SS and May, 1935, the contact with the SD. I am absolutely certain of this. subervience, subordination and obedience to the Fuehrer, did you not? of allgiance to Hitler as a justice official, and in 1936.
A I am asking you about your oath as an SS man. Answer that question.
Q Can you repeat it for the Tribunal?
Q Give us the sense of it. You must remember it. You lived with it for years.
A The sense of the oath is as follows: That I vowed allegiance to Adolf Hitler, and to the superiors designated by him.
Q Didn't it say complete faithfulness without questions, wasn' it more likely the sense of it?
Q I am asking you if that was not the sense of the oath?
Q Was it or was it not?
Q Was it or was it not, yes or no?
A Pardon me, may I ask you to repeat the question?
GGladly, Wasn't it the sense of the oath that you swore, vowed complete and utter obediance to the Fuehrer and to such superiors as he would place over you, without question?
happened later.
Q Did you take the oath?
Q Do you consider an oath binding?
Q Did you consider this oath binding at that time?
Q Were you released from that oath? the two speeches, one in Berlin and one in Pretsch, were you aware of the Hitler order to exte minute Jews, Communists, gypsies and other asocial elements? people whenever and wherever found it they were Jews, Communists or other elements odious to the German people? it that way, that anywhere where I would go this happen through my kommando, but I was convinced that a delay was possible.
Q I didn't ask you that. Was it your understanding that the wording of the order was such that would call for the annihilation and extermination of the Jews, gypsies, Communists? obedience to any order, or any commander, that Hitler issued or placed over you, do you not consider that it was necessary that you obey this order? them, to give them my reasons whatever they were, to delay the carrying out of this order.
Q Let us stop right hero. Let's remove the other people between you and the Fuehrer. The Fuehrer issued the order. He issued it through channels, that is true, but in effect he issued it directly to you. You had sworn an oath. Was this oath binding?
Q Did you receive this order? given?
A It wasn't given to me in such a way that I had to carry it out by a certain deadline, that is, immediately or within four weeks. any clause or stipulation as a part of the order that it would be up to your discretion that you could not, or that you could fail to carry out this order? ed not much interpretation. This order that you would kill the Jews; you would kill the Communists, you would kill the gypsies, or anything that was concerned or deemed a threat to security of the German Army. the Jews, Communists, etc.? officer of the grade of Obersturmfuehrer, or major, receives an order from a Brigadefuehrer, or a General, that he will question this order? General and requests him for certain reasons not to have to execute this order for the time being.
Q What were the orders that Stahlecker received?
people whom you have enumerated, but no deadline was given Stahlecker either, and at the time of Stahlecker's death, that is after nine months tens of thousand of Jews lived in the area of Stahlecker.
Thus, he also did not carry out the order to its complete extent in nine months, either. remained is because you needed manpower?
Q Wasn't the final aim or the final solution that all Jews, wherever and whenever encountered, when they served no further usefulness or if they ever were considered a security threat, would be annihilated?
A May I ask do you mean the aim of the Fuehrer Order?
A I didn't quite understand the question.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Glancy, would you mind refraining the question after recess?
MR. GLANCY: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
MR. GLANCY: Thank you. BY MR. GLANCY: final solution of the Jewish problem in the East was a complete and total annihilation insofar as possible after they had served their purpose as workers and laborers.
A There was no period of time, no time limit; no deadline.
Q I didn't ask you that; just a moment. I didn't ask you that. Answer my question as it was phrased .. yes or no.
A If you attach particular importance to the word immediately. I must say no.
Q I didn't say immediately. I said the final aim or final Solution.
A In that case I misunderstood; yes. May I ask the question to be repeated? I understood immediately; I am sorry. aim or the final solution of the problem, insofar as it concerned Jews, Gypsies and communists in the East, their total extermination and annihilation whenever it was possible after they had served their purpose as laborers?
Q You answered yes to the question; did you not? BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q When did you think -- excuse me for interrupting, Mr. Glancy -when did you think that deadline might finally be decided upon? when the territory had been reached all Jews should be eliminated. There was no time limit; no deadline. tion should take place; that is right?