had taken place? place?
A No. I knew nothing about it. not in Pleskau?
A Yes. They were under the command of the Sub Kommando Pleskau. And the Sub-Kommando Pleskau was under my command.
Q What's his name?
A It was called "Sub-Kommando Pleskau" of the Specific Command I A. Kommando Leader? often at that time.
Q Pleimehl. Did he get in touch with you when Jeckeln arrived? Reval.
Q How far is it from Pleskau to Reval?
AApproximately 350 km by Road. There was practically no telephone connection.
Q How about the Radio System?
AAt the time, the H.W. in Pleskau had no Radio-Station. connection. Does that mean none at all or six or seven?
there were so many interruptions, that an actual conversation between the offices was not possible, neither at that time nor at another time.
Q Was there any airplane service at all?
Q No military planes available? tell you what had happened? before it occurred?
Q Why not? and therefore I could not reproach him. that no executions were to take place? executed. Therefore this question was not topical at the time, your Honor. camp and left Pleimehl in charge? executed?
A I had told him -- I hadn't given him an order to execute them but this man was most hesitant in every order. He was very soft, and I was absolutely certain that he would never act without having received an order before. This, my opinion of him, was based on my judgment of his character.
He was a very soft personality. execute the Jews. You merely depended upon your knowledge of his character? would never carry out these executions without an order.
Q But he already had the Fuehrer order, didn't he, to execute all Jews just like all sub-commando leaders had? known to him. of this Fuehrer order that Jews were to be executed? I asked him whether he had known about this Fuehrer order. I told him that after all, I had not talked to him about this order, whether some other agency had informed him about it. Whereupon he replied that before he joined my office in October, he had been within the staff of the Einsatzgruppe in Riga and there he found out about this Fuehrer order. I had not known anything about that.
Q Well then, he did know about the order?
Q. Well, you conversed with him when he arrived and you talked about this, and he told you that he had seen the order?
A. Your Honor, perhaps my statement gave reason for misunderstanding. The discussion which I just mentioned happened when he reported to me and told me that Jeckeln had given the order for the execution, and he had carried out the order which was given. Thereupon, I asked him whether he had known about this Fuehrer order, and then he said this to me.
Q. Well, when he first reported to you did you discuss with him his duties?
A. Yes, but these duties, at least in my opinion as I have said, did not concern elimination of Jews. Therefore, I did not discuss the Fuehrer order with him. His duties were mainly concerning tasks of security police, not regarding the Fuehrer order.
Q. And in all your conversations with him the Fuehrer order never was mentioned?
A. No, I did not have many discussions with him.
Q. When you made up your affidavit in 1947, 23 April 1947, why is it that you referred to the period of execution as being between February and April, 1942?
A. Your Honor, the reason is that I had no opportnity to concentrate on the date. I did not have the possibility to deal with these matters so much in detail as I have done during the last few months, and remember things so well. The deadline becomes evident to me based on the following: It was a few weeks before Stahlecker's death which took place the second part of March, and therefore I can now work out exactly that it must have been at that period which I have mentioned. This exact working out did not occur to me then and it seemed to me that Mr. Wartenberg was not so anxious COURT II CASE IX to know the exact date at the time.
Q. That was a very important episode and yet you indicated that it occurred within a two month period. Your memory would have been a little more exact in a thing of that importance, would it not, even if you hadn't sat down and concentrated for eight days on it?
A. I was asked without having had the opportunity beforehand to concentrate upon this question of the date. Mr. Wartenberg did not seem to attach any importance to the exactness of the date, or at least not very much. I told him that I could not remember the exact date and he asked me when had it been approximately, and that is what I told him.
Q. In the personnel report which Mr. Glancy referred to this morning you are praised for possessing the gift of grasping quickly. Could you not have grasped quickly when Mr. Wartenberg asked you the date of this execution?
A. I did not know then, your Honor, that he wanted to know details as to the date, but I told him that I could not exactly remember.
Q. How many were executed that day?
A. That again I did not remember exactly, and I still don't remember it very well, but there must have been about five hundred people, your Honor.
Q. Well, even you returned to Pleskau and found that five hundred persons had been executed without your having been contacted, even though you were in charge, did you not make some report on it?
A. I certainly did not make an immediate report, your Honor, because I intended to report orally to Stahlecker about this event.
Q. And did you?
A. I never had the chance because after a few weeks he die COURT II CASE IX Otherwise it would have happened obviously, but the figure of these executions was reported about in a report which went to Riga but without giving any details.
No doubt there were no details concerning this particular event. That is what I wanted to report about to Stahlecker.
Q. So you never officially complained to anybody about the execution of these Jews?
A. Your Honor, I could not complain to Jeckeln himself. After all, he was my highest chief.
Q. Well, you didn't complain to anybody then?
A. There was nobody there, nobody I could have complained to at that place.
Q. Well, because you couldn't see anybody, because you couldn't talk to anyone, because Jackeln was the only one that you could have complained to and you couldn't because he was your superior, it resulted then that you made no official complaint about this?
A. No, I couldn't do that.
THE PRESIDENT: Any other questions, Dr. Von Stein?
DR. VON STEIN: No, I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Glancy.
MR. GLANCY: If it please the Tribunal, I wish to rectify an error on the part of the prosecution, one which was misleading, understandably so, to the defense. In the presentation of exhibit 182 which is NO-5045, in the German copy where it says "Party member since" and then "SS since", on the American copy, if your Honor will notice, it says "Party member", underneath that, the 774980 reentry, then "SS since". However, in the German mimeograph, rather than putting "SS underneath the Party membership, they have made it a ditto mark, sir. However, on the photostat it is clearly apparent that it says "SS" and not "Party member".
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. You explanation will appear COURT II CASE IX as part of the record.
MR. GLANCY: Thank you, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Anything further, Dr. Von Stein?
DR. VON STEIN: Your Honor, the examination of the witness, Dr. Mae, was interrupted last Friday, I would now like the opportunity to call this witness to the stand.
THE PRESIDENT: The Marshal will be instructed that during the recess, which is now about to take place, the defendant will be returned to the dock and the witness, Dr. Mae, will be in the stand when the Tribunal reconvenes in fifteen minutes.
(Recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed, Dr. Von Stein. BY DR. VON STEIN:
Q. Witness, I will point out to you that you are still under oath. I have a very few individual questions about the defendant Sandberger. Can you tell me whether Sandberger was often in his office or whether he was often on the road.
A. He was often on the road. It was not easy to speak to him. One had to make a previous appointment with him.
Q. Can you perhaps remember whether in September 1941, Sandberger was absent for a long time from Tallin or from Estonia?
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Von. Stein, when you say Tallin, it is what we know as Revel; is that correct?
DR. VON STEIN: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
A. Yes, I can very well remember one case.
Q. Why can you remember this case so exactly?
A. It was a case in which I had to negotiate with a deputy of Dr. Sandberger; in the rooms of the former NKVD, a list of agents was found in which very respected people in public life were also contained, and I was to intervene in their favor. I tried to speak to Dr. Sandberger, but he was not there, and I spoke to his deputy several times as to whether it would be possible to release these people since they were able to give their signature only under strong pressure, and I am convinced that they did not do anything bad.
Q Who was Sandberger's deputy at that time?
A This was Mr. Karstens.
Q Why can you remember this name so exactly? whether he was related to this man.
Q Can you remember about when this absence of Dr. Sandberger was? Administration, that is, on the 20th of September, 1941.
Q Can you indicate how long Dr. Sandberger's absence lasted? than a week or ten days, for if it had been shorter, it would have been possible to prevent the arrest of these people, or, at least could have been postponed.
Q Can you remember any other lengthy absences of Sandberger? the exact period.
Q Witness, how large is Estonia? somewhat like Holland.
Q Is there a place named Ussaditsche in Estonia?
A I know of no such place. Ussaditsche is a Russian name, and must be in the Russian territory. army, was any Communist activity still in existence? and leaflets were dropped and agents constantly came in in some way, and they were arrested.
MR. GLANCY: If the Tribunal please, the Prosecution fails to see the relevancy of this line of questioning; however, perhaps Defense Counsel can clarify the connection.
DR. VON STEIN: Your Honor, the relevancy of this question is that I would like to grove by this witness that the Communists who were shot were such Communists who were at that time a danger to the German occupation, and, therefore, the executions were justified. Several documents show that considerable Communist activity existed in Estonia even after the withdrawal of the Red Army. Whether these statements are only contained in the German document books or whether they actually correspond to the truth, that is what this witness is supposed to tell us as an expert.
MR. GLANCY: If the witness is not in a position to testify as to the actions of each and every Communist whether they were guilty or innocent or whether they participated in any sabotage, I do not think he is qualified to answer.
DR. VON STEIN: Your Honor, I assume that the witness will confirm to us that not only so-called convinced Communists were still in Estonia, but that they were activists; and this question is of great importance in this trial, because Sandberger often discussed the question what type of Communists were meant against whom these measures were taken in Estonia. For this reason I consider this question very relevant.
MR. GLANCY: The only relevant testimony that could be heard here is anything that comes from the personal knowledge, now what he heard from Sandberger.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, we presume that his testimony will be restricted to what he knows personally.
DR. VON STEIN: Yes, I just wanted to mention that. May the witness answer the question?
THE PRESIDENT: You had better put it to him again. BY DR. VON STEIN: was there still a political activity by the Communists existent in Estonia?
DR. VON STEIN: May the witness answer this?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the answer is very obvious not only because he has told it to us, but because it has been indicated by the defendant and some references to it in the reports also. BY DR. VON STEIN:
Q Witness, please give examples for this?
A Pardon me - examples for what?
MR. GLANCY: One moment, please. The Prosecution, Your Honor, is willing to concede that there was Communist activity there, but the point it wishes to make at this time is that unless the witness is conversant with each and every case of a person who was executed, I can see no relevancy to his testimony at all. I think the point the Defense is attempting to make here is that each and every Communist was killed because he was a Communist, and not only that, had been an active Communist in their sense of the word.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. von Stein, your question to the witness was whether Communist activity existed after the withdrawal of the Soviet Army.
DR. VON STEIN: Yes. Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: In effect he answered yes. That itself is a very general answer. All right now, let's see what you can put in the way of a specific question.
DR. VON STEIN: Your Honor, I wanted him to give examples, cases, that actually the witness knows individual cases which show to what extent this Communist activity in Estonia was carried out. He is to describe things to us which he himself knows from his own personal knowledge and experience.
THE PRESIDENT: And will he then show that these were the ones that were arrested and tried and executed?
DR. VON STEIN: Yes, Your Honor, I assume that the witness will answer this question in such a way that it will show only such cases their crimes they had committed, or that they wanted to commit, they were executed, and even after an investigation, but this goes too far. I want to ask that later.
MR. GLANCY: The only relevancy the Prosecution can see is if in the case of 14,500 executed communists he is conversant with each and every case, all the facts thereof that went into the reviewing authorities.
THE PRESIDENT: Why do you mean that number?
MR. GLANCY: That number is contained in one of the documents, and I just want to use that as a typical example.
THE PRESIDENT: 14,500?
MR. GLANCY: Three thousand released; one thousand shot.
THE PRESIDENT: He may answer the question.
Q (By Dr. von Stein) Witness, may I ask you to answer it, please? Russian planes dropped parachutists into various parts of the country. At the same time leaflets were dropped. These parachutists were mostly arrested, but I do not know the individual cases about the way the investigation went on further.
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed.
Q (By Dr. von Stein) Witness, I come now to another question. Was there in Estonia a number of people who were active against Germany in a nationalistic sense and for whom an arrest might very well have been possible at that time? towards England. Our whole intelligentsia had that tendency and did not try to hide it, but actually Dr. Sandberger avoided that these people were arrested because of these pro British tendencies or because of nationalistic tendencies.
Q Witness, what was Sandberger's attitude regarding the occupation of people in influential circles who were of a pro-British attitude?
MR. GLANCY: Just one moment. Again, Sir, on the previous grounds of relevancy, the Prosecution objects.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. von Stein, are you going to attempt to show by this witness that the Defendant Sandberger was really on the side of England in this war?
DR. VON STEIN: Your Honor, I want to prove by means of this witness that the main tasks of the Defendant Sandberger were not in the police matters, but mainly in matters of politics and administration.
Furthermore, I want to prove that Sandberger conducted himself completely objectively and that he was not one of those who wanted to have his way in a brutal manner, but that he kept in mind the interests of other people who were of other opinions than he was.
THE PRESIDENT: He is charged with the execution of Jews, Communists, Gypsies, and socially inferior people. I don't see where, the English should come into any of those categories.
DR. VON STEIN: Your Honor, it is not the matter of the English people it is a matter of drawing a conclusion about Sandberger's general attitude. England was in a state of war with Germany at that time and, nevertheless, Sandberger did not harm those people or persecute them in any manner who were pro-English. If the witness confirms this, important conclusions can be drawn about the character and conduct of Sandberger. BY THE PRESIDENT: those who had pro-English views, is that right?
Q Did he arrest those who had pro-Russian views?
Q He didn't arrest those who had pro-Russian views? not arrested, but because of their activity.
Q Then he didn't arrest anybody because of their views?
Q Well, then it isn't necessary to talk about whether he arrested those who held pro-English views or not. He didn't arrest anybody because of their views. form of government, it is your impression that he would not arrest him? pro-English views nor anyone holding pro-Russians views. Do you know of anyone who advocated the Russian form of government and hoped that Russia would win in the War and yet Sandberger did not arrest him? Do you know of any such cases? telling us about his character, suppose that Sandberger did hear some one advocate the Russian form of government and state that he hoped that Russia would win the war, would Sandberger arrest that man or not? would win and German would lose the war -- and Sandberger would not arrest him?
A It is possible that he would arrest him. I really cannot answer such a question.
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed, Dr. von Stein. BY DR. VON STEIN:
Q Now, to another point. Witness, were any limitations of the churches enacted during Sandberger's time in Estonia?
A No, Dr. Sandberger personally kept contact with the church authorities.
As far as you observed, Sandberger's interests and activities were more concerned with police activity or more with politics and information service and with administration and economics? very interested in all political questions. political questions put to him by you and be other Estonian officials and by the German Army and the German civil administration? questions, do you consider it possible that he was in a position to bother about other individual matters? difficulties which arose and, in my opinion, not much time was left to him beyond that. BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q Witness, you saw him pretty regularly, didn't you?
Q I How often? Every two or three days, or so? perhaps, but I spoke to him over the telephone almost every day, when I negotiated with him about various difficulties.
Q And during what period was this? When did you sec him, every two or three days? During all the time that he was up there?
A Pardon me. I didn't get the question.
the entire time?
Q How long did he remain in Estonia?
Q You saw him throughout 1942, did you? he was there?
Q Was he there during the first half of 1942?
Q Did you see him during the month of January? in Estonia generally in the first half of 1942, wasn't he? you would know about it, wouldn't you? times, but I do not remember when he was away. the first half of 1942.
Q Now, was he there during the second half of 1942?
A. If the question means that he was there every day, then I cannot answer it with "Yes," but I saw him every two or three days when he was in Reval or in Estonia.
Q. You saw him every two or three days during the first few months of 1942?
A. Yes, I am convinced of that.
Q. Yes, that included the months of, let us say, February and March?
A. I cannot say when he was about, but, if he was there, I certainly saw him.
Q. Well, now, if you saw him every two or three days, he would have to be there, he wouldn't be there in spirit, would he?
A. Yes.
Q. Well, you did see him every two or three days during February and March?
A. Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, you may proceed, Dr. Von Stein. BY DR. VON STEIN:
Q. Let us remain with this point. Did it happen that Sandberger was on furlough during the time he was in Estonia?
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Von Stein, the Tribunal will instruct you that that is a leading question end is not permitted and you will please not ask a question like that again. That is a very leading question. You ask him a question which does not put the answer in his mouth.
DR. VON STEIN: This question is a general question of whether the Defendant Sandberger was on furlough.
THE PRESIDENT: There was no discussion of furlough there. He has just been questioned as to whether the Defendant was in Estonia during the first half of 1942 and he answered that and whether the defendant was there in February and March and he has answered that, he saw him every two or three days. Now, if he wants to make any modification of his answer that the defendant was there during the first six months of 1942, which he answered very specifically, then that is up to him, but you can't suggest to him an answer.
DR. VON STEIN: But, Your Honor, I can ask him in some manner which will refresh his memory that he can now say that he remembers a certain period during which time things were different.
THE PRESIDENT: You can ask him generally whether during these two or three years he was there, whether he was absent any time, and he has already answered that question, but if you want to put it again, you may, but you can't specify any particular period and give him practically the answer.
DR. VON STEIN: Your Honor, I will ask the witness the question whether he was away at all at any time and the witness will say, "Yes," without any question, because it is known that every soldier in the course of a year was once on furlough at some time.
THE PRESIDENT: You can ask him whether he was away and ask him when. That's the way to put it.
DR. VON STEIN: Your Honor, this general question maybe not of very great importance, but it is just of importance to ask him at what time the defendant was away and I want to come back to this question. I therefore can only ask the witness a definite question for a definite month when I want to refresh his memory.
THE PRESIDENT: No, you can't do that. This is the way you can put the question, and, it will be entirely unobjectionable. You can ask the witness how long the defendant was in Estonia and how frequently he saw him and was the defendant ever absent. If he answers that question in the affirmative, then you ask him when. That is entirely fair and will be unobjectionable.
DR. VON STEIN: Your Honor, but in order to refresh his memory-
THE PRESIDENT: No, it is not for you to refresh his memory. He is your witness. You called this man. You are not cross-examining him.
Q. (By Dr. Von Stein) Witness, do you know that Sandberger was once sick and was in a hospital in Estonia for a long period of time?
A. Yes, I know this. He was at Pernau, and I once visited him there, because of questions which could no longer be postponed, but I cannot say when this was.
Q. Can you tell us approximately when it was?
A. I can only say that it was in the year 1942, but I really cannot tell you any more exactly. I believe it was in the summer.
Q. Do you know how long this illness lasted?
A. No, I cannot say that, but it was not for a short period of time.
Q. After this illness, did he return to Germany for a rest?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, now, Dr. Von Stein, you see, now that's a leading question. I don't want you to understand that I am scolding you because perhaps the rules of evidence ore a little different in Germany from what they are in Anglo-American procedure, but that is a leading question. Now, in order to avoid that fault, you can g et your answer just the same, but you must put the question a different way. Now he has answered that the defendant was ill and to his best recollection it was in the summer of 1942. Now you can ask him, after his illness, where did he go, if he knows. In this way, you get the answer and you get an answer which is uninfluenced by the question, but, if you say to him, "Now, after he was ill, did he go home to Berlin to see his wife and children, "well, then, you suggest something very specific to him.
DR. VON STEIN: Your Honor, these characteristics between a leading question and a general question are very hard to distinguish. Every general question can be a leading question. I would have to emphasize some word. This could even be interpreted as a leading question.
THE PRESIDENT: A leading question is only a leading question if the Tribunal rules it so and if we don't say anything and the Prosecution makes no objection, then it is not a leading question, and you got away with it, so don't worry about every question being bad.
DR. VON STEIN: Your Honor, then I understand you to mean that I can continue to ask questions, but that in any case when the Tribunal stops me, this might be a leading question.