THE PRESIDENT: Before the Witness answers that question, I would like to clarify a little matter that was brought up by Dr. Hoffmann. Dr. Hoffman, I want to call to your attention the text which I had in ind when I used the phrase "hundreds of thousands", and I think you will agree that I was justified in the use of that phrase when you hear what the IMT said in connection with the program of the German forces in Poland. The IMT describes the wholesale liquidations of poles, and then ends up this way: "So successfully did the Germans carry out this polity in Poland that by the end of the war one-third of the population had been killed and the whole of the country devastated." Will you agree with me that one-third of the entire population of Poland would far exceed the phrase of "hundreds of thousands"?
DR. HOFFMANN: Unfortunately, I have to agree with this. Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well; thank you. BY DR. SCHWARZ:
Q.- Witness, I ask you, in accordance with this document, were you ever personally used for assignments of the kind mentioned in this document? in this particular document. During the time of my activity there were no major operations in the war theater, and as a consequence there were no large numbers of prisoners of war; there was, therefore, no reason to act according to this order. I was not, in any case, ever asked for a decision in this matter.
Q. Witness, in Document Book I which is before you, will you please go to page 31, - I do not know the English page number I am afraid - it is page 20, it is Exhibit 7, English page 21, No. 4134. This is Operation Report 126 of the 29th of October 1941-
DR. BERGOLD: Your Honor, I must ask you to excuse my being here without a robe*on. I just come from Room 51. My defendant is at the disposal of another Court, and by mistake, he has been led to this room, I am afraid. I would, therefore, like your Honor to repeat you order that the defendant Biberstein should be put at my disposal in room 57.
THE PRESIDENT: Have we not excused him?
DR. BERGOLD: No, my colleague Dr. Ficht has informed your Honor that the defendant Biberstein should also be in Room 57 this afternoon, and your Honor was kind enough to pass the order that that could be done. But apparently the prison was not informed of this.
THE PRESIDENT: I see. We Seem to be having some difficulty with the identification of defendants. Did they by chance send some other defendant to room 57, instead of Biberstein?
DR. BERGOLDL: Yes.
DR. RIEDIGER (for defendant Haensch): The same is true in the case of Haensch. Your Honor was kind enough to have the defendant excused this afternoon, and the same happened to this defendant. He is not in room 57, in fact, but is here. But nobody else was Sent down either. But the order which was issued by Your Honor this morning has not been received by the prison.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, at least we have made this progress - that we didn't send the wrong person there. You remember a week ago they sent the Defendant Blobel, who COURT II-A CASE IX should be very easy to distinguish because of his board, instead of somebody else.
At any rate, The Marshal is instructed to have the Defendants Biberstein and Haensch conducted to room 57.
DR. BERGOLD: Thank you.
DR. SCHWARZ: Your Honor, I refer to Document 1, German page 1, Exhibit 7, Document No-4134. BY DR. SCHWARZ:
Q. Witness, what have you got to say about this document? It is English page 27.
A. This document is meant to prove that the territory of assignment of the Einsatzgruppe 3, which was subordinated to Einsatzgruppe A, around the towns Baranowice and Minsk, that this Einsatzgruppe in fact was stationed in this territory of white Ruthenia. This report is of the 29th of October 1941, is no longer competent, during the time which was only half a year later, of course, Einsatzgruppe A, after a civil administration had been created was no longer responsible for this territory. Therefore, I gave this detailed description this morning concerning the difference between the Army sector and the civilian administrative Sector.
Q. Witness, I shall show you now Document Book III-A, German page 1, English page 1, and it is Exhibit 99, Document 4151. It is your affidavit of 27 June 1947. Would you tell the Tribunal any corrections you might have to make in this affidavit?
A. Concerning number 3 of this affidavit I have already given my opinion, this morning I stated the incorrectness which is that in the countries of Latvia and Lithuania there was no Einsatzkommando of that time. I also expressed myself to this effect in forming interrogations, and I said that only for Estonia with The Special Commando I-A, this COURT II-A CASE IX was still the case.
In spite of this it was taken into the affidavit according to the old drafting, and it was signed by me, as evidently I was in a state of lack of concentration and, therefore, unable, to contradict and to correct the statement. It is obvious that the detachment Loknia although it was mentioned priviously on various occasions, was not mentioned here, and was not taken into the affidavit.
Q: Will you also comment upon number four of the affidavit?
A: I have done so this this morning by speaking about the individual offices in Lithuania, and Latvia, and also in Estonia, I said that I took measures for the territory of the Einsatzgruppe-A, but no special decrees and of requests of this kind were necessary because in this territory there were no Jews, and, therefore, this particular order was not applied in those territories. My worry was mainly those territories where there were Jews. Heydrich had announced his visit in White Ruthenia, and by the beginning or the end of May he had actually come there, without notifying me of this visit of his, without having me accompany him, and without giving me any detail and any information about his visit afterwards.
Q: Will you please go to page No. 74 in the Document Book III-A, which is the front of you; it is the English page 53. It is Exhibit No. 100, Document NO-3256. This document concerns the operational report in USSR, and, is No. 191 of 10 August 1942 -- 10 April 1942. You are named here as the leader if Einsatzgruppe-A, and the commander-in-chief of the group, Eastern Territories. What have you got to say about these?
A: This document quite obviously reports that as independent agencies next to each other there are on the one hand the police commissioner, and the SD Service for Eastern Territories, and on the other hand there are commanders of the Security Police and SD, Eastern Territories, in the individual general district, and apart from this there is Einsatzgruppe-A as a special unit, which has nothing to do with the individual offices, and agencies which I just mentioned.
Q: Witness, do you want to conclude anything from this state of affairs, something concerning your own activities?
A: I clarified the point this morning by saying that the working of these two channels of command were different with these two agencies. In the general district the man who was locally responsible for SS and Police matters was the SS and Police Leader, and his chief was the commissar-general, the holder of the actual executive power for this territory. By this method the executive power of a commander is basically curtailed, and in my case there was a special curtailment due to Heydrich's special modification.
Q: Witness, please go to page 6 in the German text, III-A, English page 3, Exhibit No, 101, Document NO-USSR-41. This document shows that allegedly on 14 April 1944 -- 43 -42, it mentioned insane people were murdered. What do you have to say about that?
A: As this document concerns an event which happened in Riga, it is outside my field of command or the field of command of my Einsatzgruppe, and these units could not have taken part in this event. The document itself is a letter of the commander of the Security Police of Latvia, and it is addressed to the inhabitants Registration Office, in Riga, and, although it is addressed to this authority, this document was not found at that place, but it was found in the office of the sender. If it is to be regarded as an original document, it should have arrived at the adressee and not only the sender should have held it. So far as the content matter of the letter is concerned, I must say that it has not been known to me before, and was not known to me afterwards, if it had. I would have prevented the carrying out of those measures. If I had known of this measure, I also would have prevented the carrying out of it in Krasnogwardoisk. The document, however, is no proof of any kind that the shooting was actually carriedout by the authority concerned.
That was an order of which it is absolutely possible that it was issued by another agency, or that the carrying out was done by another agency. or, it was carried out by whoever gave the commander the order to make out this document.
Q: Witness, I shall now show you Document Book II-A, German page 147, English page, so far as I know. 133. It is Exhibit No. 56, Document NO-3277, of 24 April 1942. This document has been submitted only in excerpts by the Prosecution, therefore, I am showing you the photostat of this document, the contents of which I am referring to here. On page 19 of the document it says, amongst other things, "In the period of reporting 1272 people were executed." Will you please comment upon this?
A: The operation period of reporting only becomes understandable when reading the entire report. The time of report does not refer to the date given by the RSHA. 24/4/42 because as far as the Reich Security Main Office is concerned there was no period of reporting, but the period of reporting can only refer to the report of the offices of the agency who has drafted this report. This can be recognized if you only look at pages 2 to 18 of this report. From these pages 2 to 18 it becomes evident that it is not a report of Einsatzgruppe A, but it is a monthly situational reports of the commander of the commander of the Security Police and SD in Latvia. On page 2 of the report, the general security in Latvia is being dealt with, and it speaks about newspaper publications of 9 March 1942; on page 14 there is a date, 26 April 1942. on page 13 there are agricultural matters, there is another mention of '42; on page 14, that is the order of 1 March 1942, containing slaughtering restrictions. In the report about the position of the work of the security Service, on page 15, the events of 19 march, and of 21 March 1942 are being discussed.
Page 21, mentions the arrest of a prison supervisor, on 26 March. On the same page there is another report, this time of 24 March 1942, and page 17, finally contains the date, 10 March 1942; here a hand grenade attack is being described. The report was not received and not compiled by the general sector of the Einsatzgruppe; it is evidently an independent report by the commander to Berlin, the commander had the authority to write such reports. These reports had to be filed by the end of each month. It is evident that this is a monthly report for the month of March. After the date, 23 March, there is no other mentioning of any date, so that this report can be regarded as concluded. The events are therefore of a time before I took over the office.
Q: When did you take over this office?
A: On 29 March 1942 -- yes, '42.
Q: Were the figures mentioned on page 8 of this document new to you?
A: They concerned the establishment of the Latvia office of information.
Q: That is page 67. Public information.
A: You mean , page 68?
Q: Yes, it is page 68, the Question itself is found on the preceding page.
A: Yes, it is II- A, 162 -- page 182.
Q: I shall repeat this question later on. In the Document Book in front of you, II-A that is, will you please turn to page 142, it is English page 128, Exhibit No. 55, Document No. 3281 of 17 April 1942. It is operational report USSR-193, 17 April 1942, what have you to say to this?
A: Basically, I have to say that this report was on *ithuania riots, dealing therefore, with a territory which was not within the command of the Einsatzgruppe. Events are being described therein which are proved to have taken place in the former Polish territories. Perwons were arrested and shot because of communist activities, and on account of maintaining relation to partisans. It has been established that ** was not just a mass execution, but executions carried out *ter the guilt of the people of Olita had been established. They were persons who were executed on account of endangering public security, and therefore the local commander was authorized to take these measures. They, the commander, can act independently, and they need no special order or authority to carry out such a mission.
Court No. II-A, Case No. IX.
Q. Did you hear about these events immediately after they took place?
A. I cannot remember.
Q. I now show you -
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Schwarz, before you go to the next document, please, I would like to ask a question.
Q. Witness, if you had received this report, as you have read it, you would have approved it, and concluded that the officials who conducted the executions had acted properly?
A. That I cannot say just from reading and looking at a report of this kind, but the independent duties transferred to the individual offices, and the restrictions issued to me not to carry out and not bother about executive measures would not have made possible as investigation of the individual cases.
Q. I gather from what you said, that since these executions were conducted only because of security reasons, that, therefore, they were justified?
A. If a report of the reasons of an arrest and justification thereof has been received, and, even if not only just a group of persons are being punished, but a group of these individuals are proved to be guilty of relations with partisans, and to be in active contact with such, if such matters are revealed, then - -
Q. Then the execution is justified?
A. According to the orders by the OKW and as given by the OKW people in contact with partisans, or partisans themselves, Whether volunteers or a forced partisans had to be shot if such guilt had been proved.
Q. Very well, you have justified this shooting by reading one sentence in this report, but you did not read the following sentence which contains, "The same day 22 persons among them 14 Jews who purportedly had spread Communist propaganda very recently were shot in Kauen."
A. Yes, that is on page 2 of the text in the document; it stops just here, and it goes on with the second page. That is the second part of the report.
Q. Well, I assume that you had been looking at the entire document, and have given us your observation of that document?
A. Yes.
Q. And we assume from what you had said that because it appeared in the report the report the executions were justified, and you gave quite a lay reason why you thought they were justified. Now I ask you, would it be justifiable to shoot 14 Jews only because it was assumed or was of purported that they had spread Communistic propaganda?
A. In the report it is: "Those who are proved guilty after they had been suspected." They proved to be guilty; it is not Just assumed, and not only because they belonged to a race.
Q. I, of course, do not nave the German text before me, and even if I did, I would not understand it. I would like to have you read from the German, and that is will be interpreted for us that sentence which begins, "The same day 22 persons, among them," and so on. Please read that sentence as you find it there. Read it slowly.
A. "On the same day in Kauen 22 persons of these 14 Jews who purportedly had spread Communistic propaganda very recently."
Q. Yes.
A. "Were shot in Kauen."
Q. Yes, the translation as it came to us now agrees with the translation of the document as it appears in the book.
These 14 Jews were only suspected of having spread this Communist propaganda, and it was assumed, it Was said, that they had spread it. There is no indication in the report that it was established and proved that they had spread the Communistic propaganda?
DR. SCHWARZ: Mr. President, Your Honor, I beg your pardon - -
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. SCHWARZ: I must agree here with the defendant that the term "purportedly", according to German usage, expresses enough for the authorities to carry out these executions.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Schwarz, it all depends upon the translation of the word "purportedly." The work "purportedly' in English is a long distance from the word "To prove". Now I don't know how many kilometers it is away in Germany, but it is many miles away in English.
DR. SCHWARZ: If I may draw your attention to the fact, Your Honor, that the German word "Nachweislich" has been translated into English, and perhaps there is a mistake here, and the whole picture becomes distorted, and you get a distorted view.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the German word in the document?
DR. SCHWARZ: "Nachweislich". I beg your pardon, Your Honor. I am just being told that the word "nachweislich," should be translated by "approved", and I believe the English word "approved" actually expresses what I mean by the German word "nachweislich".
THE PRESIDENT: Of course, if the word in English were "proved" instead of "purportedly" then that would bear out what you have said.
THE INTERPRETER: Your Honor, there is a mistrans lation in the document.
When you asked the defendant to read the document book, I read from the English version.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
THE INTERPRETER: So it is a mistranslation.
THE PRESIDENT: Would you say then that translated literally, the word should be "proved" instead of "purportedly"?
THE INTERPRETER: Definitely.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well that correction will be noted in the document. We can assume then that this document says: "That 14 Jews had circulated Communistic propaganda and because of that they were shot."
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, I take it, witness, that you assume that to have been a correct procedure?
THE WITNESS: This manner of acting without the individual happinings of the event, today, after five and a half years, can no longer be looked upon in its proper light. It is Just a report.
THE PRESIDENT: I asked you directly: do you regard it proper, militarily proper, to shoot fourteen people, or only one person for that matter, because he spread Communist propaganda?
THE WITNESS: According to my orders these measures had to be carried out. In that far it was correct and justified.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. SCHWARZ: Your Honor, may I then proceed in submitting the documents?
THE PRESIDENT: Please do. BY DR. SCHWARZ: No. 92; English 66. It is Exhibit 109. It is Document No. 3256. It is an operational duty report, U.S.S.R., No. 186, of the 27th of March, 1942. On Page 1 of this document where the Einsatzgruppe A is mentioned, in the place of the name of the leader of the Einsatzgruppe, there is a remark in brackets; it says, "Handwritten," and then "illegible". I ask you now if at this date - I beg your pardon, at the date of the original document, your name could have appeared as that of the leader of the Einsatzgruppe. of a report - when I myself had not taken over the post as leader of the Kommando, but it can be assumed, as I said, that on the 27th of March the authority who issued this report in Berlin, already knew of my appointment, because this was actually made known two or three days before. It is, therefore, possible that my name appears as a handwritten remakr there, although I had not actually taken over the office yet. But apart from this, the events mentioned in this document are so far back that they must have happened long before I actually took over my office, apart from the fact that, again, they were outside the territory under the command of Einsatzgruppe A. fact that in the opening speech of the Prosecution, which I have here, on Page 18 of the German document, the Einsatzgruppe A is being spoken about, and in the last paragraph on this page - this is on the 27th of March, 1942, - it says, "The Defendant Jost was in charge of Einsatzgruppe A when they reported that in Tscherven 15,000 Jews were shot.
I understood you correctly if I assume that this event was before the time at which you began your service with Einsatzgruppe A? report was compiled on the 27th of March in Berlin at a date when I myself had not started yet taking over matters of the Einsatzgruppe, but even if I had done so at that date, on the 27th of March, the mentioned events are far back, in fact weeks, and certainly long before I took over. you were already in command of the Einsatzgruppe? ings in Tscherven?
DR. SCHWARZ: Your Honor, I have now arrived at the conclusion of the direct examination of the Defendant Jost.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribuanl will be in recess for the usual afternoon recess, and then defense counsel will have an opportunity to cross-examine the witness.
(A recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session. BY DR. MANDRY (Attorney for defendant Sandberger): March, 1942, until the beginning of September, 1942, Sandberger was your subordinate. What impression did you have of him, and his character, and his interests? What impression did you gain through these five months?
A In the year 1940 I met Sandberger in Berlin. On that occasion I talked to him for about five minutes. I saw him again in Larch 1942 and now I had an opportunity to talk to him repeatedly and on those occasions, of course, I got to know him better. His attitude was correct and well mannered. He was a man who tried in such difficult times and in such a territory to deal with his task in a manner which certainly one could not describe it as being a policy of tyranny. On the contrary, Sandberger certainly was not a friend of harsh and severe measures. the Security police?
A We might explain it in such a way: His interests were firstly political. He was interested in the territory he was working in, that is the Estonian territory, as a political problem. His interests in police matters were of minor importance. He was neither trained for police work; and this was not his sphere of interests. people?
AAs I heard repeatedly from him, Sandberger's opinion and attitude was that the Estonian people should become politically independent as far as possible, and the manner in which he dealt with Estonians, the way he dealt with the Estonian indigeneous government officials and Police officers, especially with officers of the Security Police and asked them to cooperate with him and how he supported their independence and always tried to form them into an Estonian unit, who could work independently.
of Communists, in particular, Communists who were charged with union offences. I should like to know if you would tell us. about Sandberger's general attitude in Security Police measures against Communists. Communists charged with minor offenses could be released from captivity. On that occasion, he told me that in Estonia this had happened previously, a few months before individuals were released continuously; and that on some holiday it had been achieved that a greater number should be released. However, he added that these measures were not approved by the national Estonian circles, who did not like anything that was connected with Bolchevism and they were not enthusiastic about it, because the Estonian people made the Communists responsible for all that had happened in Estonia in 1940 and 1941. Many of the Communists who had been released were again arrested, because they immediately became active again, and, therefore, the Estonian authorities and the German authorities had new trouble to trace them.
Estonia, or bad conditions calmed down? operational territory. Of course, they always tried to develop Communist activity in his territory. Small groups of partisans or parachutists and agents who came down by parachute were active and for that reason something was always going on. In any case the territory was endangered. collective measures against Communists, whether he ordered such measures, or whether he approved of them? and I can't imagine it, knowing Sandberger personally, but I do know that he had set up a very complicated channel of procedure in order to examine each individual Communist. This was also done with the strongest cooperation of the Estonian Security Police, because this authority knew the Estonians best and had to deal with the entire problem of the Communists in Estonia and also the individuals and could judge best. In general, some Estonian Police agency took such reports and sent them on to some superior agency where they were examined, I presume, and in the end in Reval, in a central office, they were again examined very thoroughly and here Sandberger has set up a commission to deal with the final examination, containing three lawyers or officers who examined the matter again. There, orders could be refuted, if not sufficient proof was given, or a decision was then confirmed by Sandberger's office. It was a very thorough system and certainly a very individual system. towards the Fuehrer Order concerning the extermination of the Jews.
Did you also discuss this with Sandberger? Did you discuss this Jewish question with him and what opinion did Sandberger hold on the problem, as far as you remember? Sandberger considered this order to be impracticable and that his whole attitude expressed this, even if he is not a man who talked a lot and criticized measures strongly or discussed it a lot, but it had been expressed quite clearly that he disapproved. passive person, concerning the Jewish question and the extermination of Jews? be described as passive, although that is an expression which is not correct and suitable here, because it was more than just being passive. What he expressed was a real objection. Estonia, you had the wrong view that in Estonia there were Jews who were concerned with the extermination decree. What did Sandberger tell you about the existence of Jews and executions that he had carried out? What did he tell you about this ? were left. That from the very beginning there had been very few Jews, whose greater part, when the Russians left, had left as well. Part of these Jews at the immediate direction from Riga without his cooperation had been gotten rid of. having caused executions of Jews? was done without his assistance and done during his absence and his knowledge.
About details I did not ask him.
Q You told us before, owing to Sandberger's attitude, it can be shown that he objected to the extermination of the Jews. Your predecessor was Stahlecker. Do you know about his views about the necessity of carrying out the Fuehrer Order concerning the extermination of Jews, do you know anything about that? Stahlecker and did not see him. I therefore did not have the opportunity to hear his personal opinion to this question but I had known Sthalecker previously for years and I do know that he was very ambitious and I know that he did everything in order to follow his ambitions. Therefore, I can imagine that an open objection, that means objecting to carrying out orders, he would never have tolerated. It was not his way to act in a very harsh manner himself, that is to take measures himself on the spot, but he would have made a report for the competent court which would have had the appropriate consequences.
Q Who was your legal chief? Jeckeln. the practice of war, he tried to attain through the SS and his idea about the jurisdiction of the time when you were with Jeckeln? Can you give us some examples about this? man who was very hard indeed, but also he was hard and strict to himself. What he expected of a subordiante he expected of himself too. In the same way as his own views were very strict, this was expressed in his measures, of course. I remember that during the summer months of 1942 he was in charge of a combat unit near Leningrad, temporarily.