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.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't want you to put the burden on the Tribunal all the time, but now you want to know what happened to the Defendant after he recovered from his illness, so just ask him that question. Just ask him what happened after his illness.
Q. (By Dr. Von Stein) Witness, was the Defendant Sandberger frequently on official trips?
THE PRESIDENT: We'll let you get away with that. That is a very leading question, but we'll let you got away with it.
A. I have already answered that Dr. Sandberger was frequently on the road and that in order to speak to him, one had to make a previous appointment.
THE PRESIDENT: You recall, Witness, that you also answered that you did see him every two or three days.
THE WITNESS: Yes, as long as he was present, I saw him every two or three days.
THE PRESIDENT: Please, proceed, Dr. Von Stein.
Q(By Dr. Von Stein) Was Sandberger frequently absent from Estonia?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, now you have to first find out if he knows where the defendant went when he was absent from Reval. You see, you presuppose that he knows where the defendant went and we have no way of knowing whether he knows or not.
DR. VON STEIN: I will ask him later how he knows.
THE PRESIDENT: No, you ask him first.
Q. (By Dr. Von Stein) Witness, I shall stop talking about the theme of Sandberger's absence for the moment and I shall come to another subject. What do you know about the attitude of Sandberger about the question of the equal status of the Estonian people and what examples can you give for that?
A. On the part of German officials, we Estonians were considered very much inferior to the Germans. Dr. Sandberger was in favor of considering us equal and he was one of the few who conducted himself in this manner toward Estonians. After the occupation of Estonia by the German Army and after the introduction of the civilian administration, the tendency began in Estonia to have all the economic enterprises in Estonia taken over by Germans and to discuss Estonians, at least in -
MR. GLANCY: One moment please: Again, Sir, on the basis of relevancy, we see no connection between his testimony and the charges raised against the Defendant Sandberger.
THE PRESIDENT: That does seem a little general, Dr. Von Stein, a discussion on the economic situation of Estonia.
DR. VON STEIN: Your Honor, my question only said that he was to tell us about the attitude of Sandberger in his fields in Estonia and that he should give us examples for this.
THE PRESIDENT: You asked him his attitude towards Estonians.
DR. VON STEIN: Yes, that is connected Your Honor, with his activity which he carried out in Estonia.
PRESIDENT: Would you not deny that he had many activities in Estonia. What we are faced with is whether or not he executed Jews, Communists, gypsies, and other social elements, not his attitude toward different classes of people with whom we are not concerned here.
DR. VON STEIN: Your Honor, if the question is doubtful of whether Sandberger ordered the execution of gypsies, Jaws, and communists, then it is important to determine how his attitude was in general, whether one could imagine Sandberger doing such things at all, and in order to establish this character of Sandberger, I asked the witness this question.
PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Von stein, you see the difficulty is, this, Dr. Sandberger's attitude toward the Estonians as such could be a very commendable one, and yet that in itself Would not exclude the possibility that he executed Jews, so it has no relevancy. If you want to ask him "what was Dr. Sandberger's character, as a gentle person, as a kind person," just that general question, that is permissible, but to ask him his attitude toward the Estonians or toward the Finns, or toward the Lithuanians would not be of any assistance to the tribunal. BY DR. VON STEIN:
Q. Witness, how would you judge Sandberger's character, and what did you hear from other people about how they thought about Sandberger?
A. On the basis of my official experience with Dr. Sandberger, I can say that he was very correct toward us and that he was very accommodating and just towards us. I believe that it might be a good illustration from the Estonian side if I say that Professor Uncorts, the last Estonian Prime Minister and the center of all nationalistic circles, said on the occasion of Dr. Sandberger's recall he was a politician and no policeman; It is a shame that he left for there might possibly be a police regime succeeding him.
Q. Witness, in order to avoid mistakes, I would like you to describe the organization and the competence of the Estonian administration in the various periods of time.
MR. GLANCY: Just a minute. I do not believe the he has as yet qualified as an expert, it has not been shown what position he held and, therefore, we have no way of knowing what his qualifications are to answer that question.
PRESIDENT: Well, there is an even greater fault, and that is the question is entirely too general.
DR. VON STEIN: Your Honor, as for the objection which the Prosecution raised, I mentioned-
PRESIDENT: Well, don't bother about his objections, be worried a little bit about what the Tribunal said. The question is too general, he can't answer it in any way as the question is now.
DR. VON STEIN: About the question of competence, I consider it very important to be clarified in the procedure of this trial.
PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Von Stein, put a specific question and then we will determine whether he can answer it or not. BY DR. VON STEIN: ties until the 22nd of June 1941?
PRESIDENT: Well, that is too general. In the first place, Sendberger wasn't there before June 1941.
DR. VON STEIN: Your Honor, this is only a brief question, and I only want to briefly note the developmental history of these authorities so that we can get a picture of what power these authorities had later, during the German occupation.
PRESIDENT: He already testified when he was here several days ago as to how first Estonia was free, then the Russians took over the country, then the Russians withdrew--we have that history. Proceed, Dr. Stein. BY DR. VON STEIN: was installed, that is, until the 20th of September 1941, was the Home Guard and the police entitled to undertake arrests and investigations or rather, did they have a right to do that?
A. Yes, as organs of the German field command, they did that.
Q. Witness, in the first few weeks of the civil war, according to your description, there was a great mixup. I now ask you, did Sandberger ever express the desire to you to restore orderly conditions as soon as possible in the Question about the investigation of communists?
MR. GLANCY: This, too, we consider leading, but beside that, we have the objection again of relevancy. We don't see the connections yet, Sir.
DR. VON STEIN: Your Honor, Sandberger said on the witness stand that the proceedings against the communists were all reviewed. Whether this is the case -
PRESIDENT: Why don't you just ask him directly what procedure, if any, was established by the Estonian Government to dispose of cases of individuals arrested for political activity?
DR. VON STEIN: Now Your Honor, the question was not put this way.
PRESIDENT: well, that is the trouble, it wasn't put that way.
DR. VON STEIN: The witness was the highest official of his country. Sandberger came into this country and he found it in a condition of civil war. I now would like to know from the witness what-
PRESIDENT: You have used the phrase, "civil war" very often. What civil war was there in Estonia?
DR. VON STEIN: After the withdrawal of the Red Army when the people of the Home Guard came out from the woods and exercised retaliation against the communists who had murdered members of their families and had committed other acts of violence, these conditions were described by the witness as "civil war", and in order to alter these conditions, a conference took place between Sandberger and this witness. BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Witness, was there civil war in Estonia?
A. Yes, on the part of the Estonian population there-
Q. I asked you a question, was there civil war in Estonia?
A. Yes.
Q. What is a civil war?
A. A civil war is a war between two, different segments of the population who have different political opinions.
Q. You must have two difference Governments, must you not?
A. The Estonians who were anti-communists considered the government as continuing to exist, they claimed it could he only prevented by communist violence to continue. Even today the Estonian republic is recognized by the United States of America, and not the annexation by the Soviet Union. Thus there was another power outside of the communist power, but it did not organize this war because it could not exercise any power.
Q. Witness, let's find out something about you. What are you in Estonia right now, if anything?
A. Right now, I am nothing.
Q. Where do you live?
A. In Austria.
Q. Did you ever hold office in Estonia?
A. Yes.
Q. What office did you hold?
A. My last position was chief of the Estonian administration from 1941 to 1944 --September 144.
Q. Now, when you say "chief of the Estonia Administration", what do you mean, what was the name of your office--were you the Prime Minister, were you the Chancellor--what were you?
A. No. It was forbidden by the Germans to have an Estonian Government in action.
Q. Where were you prior to 1941?
A. In June 1940, as I have already said, I was ordered by the president of the state to represent Estonian interests during the German occupation, and I was ordered to do this by the Estonian liberation committee in May.....
Q. In June 1940?
A. Yes, end of June 1940, immediately after the communists came into power.
Q. And the Estonian government sent you where?
A. The Estonian president ordered me in some way which I had to find myself to get out of Estonia and to take up contact with German authorities in case that Germany might start war with Soviet Russia and Estonia might come under German occupation.
Q. You came into Estonia with the Einsatz-Gruppe, didn't you?
A. No. I have already said that Dr. Von Kleist made it possible for me to make this trip by negotiating with the army, and I came to Estonia on the l6th of July 1941.
Q. Did you know Dr. Stahlecker?
A. No. With Von Kleist Herrn Petersen of Herrn Von Kleist I came to Estonia.
Stahlecker, and let's see if this refers to you. It says, "In an agreement with the RSHA the action group brought with them the Estonian Dr. Mae as presumptive political advisor for the Estonians". Are you the man they referred to here?
my name was mixed up with the name of Lieutenant Colonel Tildre, for he was the political advisor.
Q Your name was mixed up with that of whom? was the political advisor.
Q Well, you think then this does not refer to you? German officials between 1940--between June 1940 and July 1941, is that correct? into Estonia?
Q Well, you know the German forces were going to enter Estonia? Russia and Germany would begin and that Germany--this was the opinion of the president--would be at first victorious and Estonia would come under German occupation.
PRESIDENT: You may proceed, Dr. von Stein. BY DR. VON ST$IN:
Q Witness, in a Prosecution document the expression "concentration camp custody" is used. Was there a concentration camp in Estonia?
A No. There were only prisons in Estonia, but it was generally customary with Germans that they used expressions which were current with them and they were such expressions then, but actually there were no concentration camps.
minated communists were released? es?
A It was provided that a so-called "Board of Pardons" was to submit these applications to the office of Dr. Sandberger and the Commissioner General Litzmann would then announce them.
Q Who did the work in these agencies?
Q Do you know how these applications were processed? embitterment against communists to avoid implicating guiltness people-innocent people? the legislation of the Estonian Republic possessed a cultural autonomy?
A Yes, that is correct. The Jewish group according to the constitution -
MR. GLANCY: One moment; again, Sir, we cannot see the connection with the charges that are connected against the defendant Sandberger. Again we object on the grounds of its relevancy. What possible connection Jewish autonomy can have to the fact as to whether or not the Defendant Sandberger executed these people is not relevant to the Prosecution.
PRESIDENT: In addition to that, it is very confusing now. Here the witness is to telling us the local legislature was very favored to the Jews, and a moment ago he said that when Jews and communists were released that the population was angry.
However, aside from that, and perhaps he only said communists, it is really not germane to the issue, Dr. Von Stein. He is giving us a lecture on Estonia, its history, its culture, and so on, but it is rather far-fetched. BY DR. VON STEIN. 1940-41 members of the Jewish group in Estonia were active in the NKVD and the destruction battalions?
MR. GLANCY: Again, Sir, anything that preceded Sandberger's reign in Estonia and is unconnected we cannot see the relevancy of. Sandberger is charged with criminal acts, war crimes, and crimes against humanity in Estonia during a certain period of time. We would like to see the connection with Sandberger, with Sandberger alone. Collateral matters such as here are, while very interesting, not germane, as the Court has phrased it, with the issue at hand.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection is sustained. BY DR. VON STEIN: September 1941 on competent for all people in Estonia?
A No. The Estonian administration was not competent for members of the German Army, for Reich Germans, for ethnic Germans, for Jews, and for foreigners. the synagogue in Reval was destroyed? in Reval was completely intact?
A Yes. It was respected like any church. BY THE PRESIDENT: relations with churches that he was interested in the activity in the churches in Estonia--did that include contact with the synagogues?