Q. Suppose that your superiors had given you a man and they were satisfied with his competence, but you found that he was incompetent, that he was careless, that he was reckless, and that he was drunk all the time; that he signed executions without looking into the cases. Would it be your job to do something about it?
A. Yes.
Q. Yes, well, if you could have passed on his incompetence, then you could have also passed on his competence.
A. I don't quite understand the question.
Q. If you could decide that the man was incompetent, as you said that you could, then you could also decide that he was competent.
A. No, your Honor, there is a difference. The basic question, that the Department chief........
Q. Well, listen. We are not going to get anywhere with this, so let's drop it. Now, who actually signed the death warrant?
A. The confirmation of the death warrant was given by Department chief IV except for the six cases where I did it myself.
Q. So that is was the signature of this Department IV man that sent 73 to their death?
A. Yes.
Q. And then who performed the execution?
A. As I mentioned briefly when describing the procedure, the entire further execution of the procedure was dealt with by the Estonian police.
Q. And you had someone from Department IV to supervise it?
A. An official of Department IV was present as witness during such executions.
Q. And so far as these 73 were concerned you knew nothing about them?
A. I knew that executions occurred.
Q. But you didn't know for what reason?
A. I did not know the individual cases.
Q. You didn't know why these 73 were being executed because you didn't investigate the cases?
A. I did not know why it was done in each individual case.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. BY DR. VON STEIN:
Q. The witness, Dr. Mae, mentioned that in the Estonian Republic until 1940, Communism had been prohibited by law and in major cases, serious cases a death warrant was passed.
Do you and your officials know all about this.....at the beginning of your service in Estonia?
A. Yes, we know that. We knew that Estonian court martinis were competent for the punishment of such occurrences in the time of the Estonian Republic until the time of 1940.
Q. The Prosecution stated that all Einsatzkommandos had to do with sorting out political functionaries out of POW camps. Please state your opinion on this.
A. I remember for certain that such orders were not carried out in Estonia.
Q. During the fighting in Estonia were there a great number of POW's?
A. No, there were relatively few. Many POW's were other parts of the Eastern front there where so-called local fights took place. This did not happen in Estonia.
Q. In that year, 1941, were there POW's quickly transported to the south from Estonia, or did they remain in the country?
A. Most of them were transported to the south immediately in order to be assigned to work there.
Q. Were POW's who were taken prisoner in Estonia not used for work assignment in Estonia proper where they were required?
A. No, except for a few exceptions, this was not the usual thing because in Estonia in 1941 there were many unemployed among the population, for example, in the city of Reval alone 20,000, as one of the situation reports in the document shows; 20,000 unemployed in a city like Reval of 100,000 inhabitants is a relatively very high figure.
Q. I now want to discuss measures against the Jews. You said previously that Dr. Stahlecker had told you at the exterminated, and he ordered you to do so, and he expressed this order towards you repeatedly.
Did you inform your subcommando leaders or your Department Chief IV of this order, and did you give them orders concerning the Jews?
A. I did not tell my sub-commando leaders, as I already said, and my Department Chief IV about the Fuehrer Decree announded in Pretzsch. As I have already mentioned, I only told my deputy because I had great, confidence in him. I Informed him of the existence of this decree not for the purpose of having him carry out this order, and I added that I would do everything whenever possible in order to evade this order as far as the commando and myself were concerned. In the following time in July and August measures were taken against the Jews in Estonia only to that extent as measures were taken against other people, for instance, Estonians, Russians, and so forth, and with the same procedure except for a few internment cases which I shall discuss in detail later on. BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Witness, I notice that every few minutes you tell us that you are going to discuss something later on. This trial is going to end sometime; it isn't going to go on forever; and I wish that when you come to a point, you would discuss it then and there because you have a half dozen things hanging in mid-air, so (describe these things just as you go along. And in that respect since we are now on that subject, we want to ask you directly whether you did or did not believe in the Fuehrer Decree which called for the execution of Jews and communist functionaries, gypsies, and so on?
A. I did not quite understand the question, whether I believed in it, it is better to mean whether I believed in the existence of the decree.
Q. Whether you believed in the execution of the decree.
A. I don't understand the expression in the German, the execution of the order".
Q. Well, did you believe.........let's put it this way.........did you accept the Fuehrer Decree as something which should be put into effect?
A. I already explained that my reaction to the Fuehrer Decree........
Q. Now, please don't go into all that. Why don't you answer the question directly? Did you accept the Fuehrer Decree as something to be enforced?
A. It was my intention to avoid carrying out this order as far as possible concerning myself and my commandos.
Q. Then you did not accept it as something which should be enforced?
A. I did not doubt its legality.
Q. Now, you have been trained in law and I presume you have been trained very unwisely in how to evade questions, but forgot your training now if you were trained that way and try to answer questions directly. Did you accept this order as an order to be enforced?
A. Your Honor, this question cannot be answered with "yes" or "no".
Q. Well, why can't it? Here is an order. We will give you an order. You read the order, and your conclusion is, "I will enforce it", "I will not enforce it". Now what is your answer?
A. In this case I can say I decided not to offer any open disobedience.
Q. Then your answer is, "I will not enforce it"?
A. I beg your pardon, I did not understand it.
Q. Here is the order, and order says that you are commanded to execute Jews, communists, functionaries, gypsies and so on. Now, you look at that order. You are a soldier, and you come to a conclusions. "I will execute that order" or "I will not". Now, which conclusion did you come to?
A. Neither to the one nor to the other, but to this conclusion, that if at all possible I would have nothing to do with the execution of this order.
Q. Well, then you concluded you would not enforce it. You are either on a horse or you are not on it.....you can't be half on a horse and half on the ground, if you are in that situation, you are in a pretty bad situation.
A. Your Honor, I was in a forced situation where I could not come to a clear decision, as it happened to many of my comrades as well.
Q. Now, don't bring your comrades into it, they have been answering for themselves, and some have been a little more forthright than you have been, let me tell you that now. You have this order; you are going to enforce it, or you are not going to enforce it. Now, what conclusion did you come to?
A. I first came to the conclusion to delay the execution as long as possible.
Q. All right. For that moment you are not going to execute it. Now, did there come a time when you said, "yes, I will execute it"?
A. No.
Q. So, therefore, you refused to enforce the order?
A. I did not express my disobedience.
Q. Well, to yourself?
A. Myself, yes.
Q. Yes. Now, you have given us quite a long speech on the propriety of the order. You said that even if the Fuehrer decree was contrary to International Law it had to be enforced because it was German law. Did you say that?
International Law it was German law and, therefore, had to be enforced-did you say that? was German law?
Q You did say that?
Q Then at that moment you were accepting the decree as German law?
Q Yes. And you refused to obey German law, is that what you are telling us?
A I did not refuse it, but I talked to my superior, Dr. Stahlecker repeatedly, and asked him to delay the enforcement of this order.
Q Did you speak to your sub-commando leaders about this order? tioned before.
Q Did they know about the order?
A The Fuehrer decree?
Q You didn't revoke it so far as they were concerned?
A I did not pass on the Fuehrer decree to these men; consequently I did not have to revoke it.
Q Well, they knew that it existed?
A No, Your Honor. I already said that I did not hand this order on to these men.
Q Did your sub-commando leaders know of thei Fuehrer decree?
Q They didn't know of it?
A No. I did not inform them of the Fuehrer decree.
Q Well, did they learn of it by themselves? me.
Q You don't think that they knew about the Fuehrer decree? whose name is Karstens with whom I talked about it. people then, and don't tell me all about this business of the trials and so on. I mean where they had independent commands. The measures under discussion until now concerned communists, and concerning communists I did announce the decree however not in a collective form. performed some executions. Now, on what authority did they perform these executions? merely said that it is possible that this happened. I also explained that I told the sub-commando leaders about everything that was told us in Pretzsch and Schmiedeberg, however, with the exception of the Fuehrer decree concerning the Jews, gypsies, and the collective destruction of functionaries, everything else was known to the sub-commando Leaders. in the Baltic countries your sub-commando leaders and those under you did not know about the Fuehrer decree calling for the execution of Jews? concerned with the period up to the end of September when for the Einsatzgruppe during my absence the execution of 400 Jews was ordered. At this time at the end of September, the beginning of October, the first four sub-commando leaders were ordered back. the Fuehrer decree calling for execution of Jews?
PRESIDENT: Proceed, Dr. Von Stein. BY DR. VON STEIN: Number 88 in Volume IIA, Exhibit 46, Document No. 3149, page 92 of the German text, page 91 of the English text? been people who because of a communist activity and endangering security were arrested by the Estonian home guard and the commander of the home guard or the field commander in Dorpat, because of this communist activity sentenced them to death.
PRESIDENT: Are you going back to these 50 Jews again? Well, for someone who didn't know anything about Jews you are spending a great deal of time about these 50 Jews. He has given this explanation a number of times.
DR. VON STEIN: Your Honor, at the beginning of this case we only talked about communists and we now intend to speak only about the Jews. It is right that the 50 Jews were mentioned at the time in connection with the figure of the communists, but in order to give a unified impression to the Tribunal concerning the Jewish question and how it was dealt within Estonia, we now want to give a general explanation about all the points contained in the documents about the extermination of Jews in Estonia.
PRESIDENT: Proceed.
MR. SANDBERGER: I believe the question has been answered. BY DR. VON STEIN: of the 12th of October 41, Exhibit 38, Document No. 3155, page 40 of the German text, page 43 of the English text.
PRESIDENT: What is the delay about? We are all ready.
DR. VON STEIN: I was only waiting for the page--the English page in the English document book.
PRESIDENT: I thought it had been announced. It is page 43. All right, proceed.
DR. VON STEIN: Yes, page 43.
MR. SANDBERGER: What was the question, please? BY DR. VON STEIN: The question was how many Jews approximately were in Estonia when the German army arrived there? mentioned that after the occupation of the country about 2,000 Jews might still have been in the country at the time. This estimate is incorrect. In reality less than 1,000 Jews were still living in Estonia after the occupation of the country. This is merely an estimate which was not confirmed later on. under what circumstances it was written? monthly report of the month of September to the Einsatzgruppe. It was sent off from Reval on 29 September. I was absent from Estonia at the time, namely, in the combat area of the 18th army near Leningrad for several weeks. The Department Chief IV of my commando had previously suddenly been recalled to Berlin. My deputy who was actually chief of Department III but also had to take care of Department IV simultaneously, did not know much about this subject because the Department Chief IV who had been dealing with the subject on his own written document obviously did not exist. Now suddenly with very short notice a report had been made to Einsatzgruppe A about the measures against Jews so far and simultaneously the Einsatzgruppe had approached us because nothing much had been done until then, and the deputy of the Department Chief IV on his part had to ask the Estonian police and the Estonian home guard to give him the documents about all that had been done until then. This explains that in this report many things are completely wrong, and many things are very unclear, and strong contradictions arise out of this report.
Estonia was started by you. Why did you do this--Stahlecker had ordered you to eliminate all Jews in Estonia immediately according to the Fuehrer decree? this order as far as possible hoping that it would be revoked or rescinded. On the other hand, I did not want to show any open disobedience. When I talked to Stahlecker at the end of July 1941 I asked him to agree to this, that executions in general would not be carried out by German commando members but by the volunteer Estonian guard, but I emphasized that this would mean a delay of executions because the home guard at first was busy dealing with the anti-communist measures.
Q What did Stahlecker say to this? he gave instructions that then at least all Jews in Estonia be interned for security reasons immediately. of events Number 111. It says here it was carried out immediately for the following groups, for all Jewish men over 16 years of age, and for all Jewish women of working age in Reval and vicinity, in Dorpat, and vicinity, and Pernau and vicinity, is that right?
No, that is not right in that form. This report is therefore wrong to that extent. It only applies concerning the case of Pernau. There it concerned internment of about one-hundred Jews in the middle of July 1941. In the District of Pernau there was a special situation; combat had been going on around the forest surrounding the city for some time. For their pro-Soviet attitude a great number of the Jewish population had become known in the meantime. Therefore, this internment of the Jews and Jewesses in Pernau, and the surrounding territory of about one-hundred persons was carried out about the middle of July.
Q And how about the case of Dorpat and Reval? Was internment of Jewish men and Jewish women carried out here immediately after the Germans arrived there? September. Consequently, they were mistaken in this report.
Q The following sentence in the report "Events No. 111" on page 3, does it apply which reads as follows: "For the Jews living in Reval and vicinity, at the moment in Harku, District of Reval, a camp is being prepared which after receiving the Jews from Reval shall be expanded to *---*tain the Jews from Estonia"?
A Yes, this sentence is correct. That is plan which I made at the *---*ginning of September. About the 10th of September I gave the order *---*at Jews be prepared for transfer to camps at Reval and Karku, and *---*ring the following week, in time, this be carried out at first con*---*erning the Reval people, later on the Dorpat people, and later on the *---*ernau people, and in time also concerning the Jews in the rest of the country, during the Fall of 1941.
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, how do you explain that this statement is correct. You give unqualified approval of the correctness of the statement you just read. How did you explain this is correct, but the other statement about all male Jews over sixteen with the exception of physicians and appointed Jewish elders being executed by the Estonian Unit under Sonderkommando, how do you explain that is not correct. It is THE WITNESS:
May I ask Your Honor which sentence you mean, which I considered quite correct.
THE PRESIDENT: On page 3 there is the statement of male Jews -I am sorry. (interruption) Of male Jews over sixteen with the exception of physicians and appointed Jewish Elders." Do you find the place?
THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor. I have not yet given an anation of this. If you wish I will comment as follows:
THE PRESIDENT: I thought your attorney asked you on that, you not asked him that?
DR. VON STEIN: Your Honor, the question will come up later.
THE PRESIDENT: I am sorry to proceed on that. Let's ask out that, as I was under the impression you had commented on that. *---*ll, allright, is that statement correct, or not correct?
THE WITNESS: It is correct that all male Jews over sixteen *---*ears of age except physicians and Jewish elders were executed by the Extonian homeguard unit under supervision of Sonderkommando 440, it so says here; that is right, it was done in the time between the 26th and 29th of September, without my knowledge while I was absent from Estonia in the combat area south of Leningrad at the immediate order of Stahlecker.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that the item you referred to in your affidavit? Do you explain that in your affidavit?
THE WITNESS: No, Your Honor, I didn't mention this in the affidavit. This point is not contained in that affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, in your affidavit of 23 April, "On the basis of orders issued by Stahlecker I arrested all the Jews in Estonia. In October of November, 1941, Stahlecker ordered these people to be executed."
THE WITNESS: No, that is not this order but a later order. This affidavit refers to these Estonian Jews who remained alive after this first order of Stahlecker's had been carried out, there were fivehundred to six-hundred.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, then there were two groups of Jews that were executed?
THE PRESIDENT: I am sorry I interrupted you, Dr. von Stein. You may continue. BY DR VON STEIN: sentence in the Einsatz Report 111, which I quoted, and it deals with the question whether at the time in Harku a camp was prepared for the Jews. You replied, that is right. I see it is in time about 10 September 1941, the order on this?
Q I now ask you; why could it never have been earlier. Your instruction, why was this not given at an earlier date than 10 September 1941? Reval at the end of August before we did not know anything about the existence of Camp Harku. In the following days, the beginning of September, I gave the order that a suitable site be found, and I was informed that a suitable camp existed here, and then I gave the order which I described here.
Q Witness, in this report of Events No. 111, concerning the issuance which showed that you tried not to carry out this order, doesn't that contradict the general attitude of Stahlecker? Did Stahlecker not reproach you about this? and not execution measures, which are only a small extent at least. On the basis of this report by Stahlecker, I was reprimanded severely by him in the middle of October. I told him how such a report had come about, namely, that I had been absent, he knew this, that the Department Chief had been absent, and that my deputy had not been informed, and that the expert had made this wrong report.
the time when this report was made you could not have been present in. *---*e he did not like it, and if I had been present such a report to I would have also objected very strongly would not have been made. *---* A statement made by Herr Jost on the witness stand tells here during the execution of your office he noticed that you personally making out reports always used a very clear wording. Order that of view could you give us the points in this report of Events No. which are so incorrect and full of inconsistencies that you *---*inly would not have written them, or would have approved them, or *---* have signed them? for a decision; not only do they talk about an execution of 440 but on the other hand statements are made which make no sense. *---* very quick execution was forcible for example, it is said that the *---*sh population was to be seized according to their capability of *---* On page 2 in the center, and on the following page 3 in the center, it is said they were prohibited from trading, taking part in trade, and so forth. All of those are instructions which were given, and it would have had no point if an execution would have been considered by me to be carried out very soon, or even been ordered by me. beyond doubt that the original report in which this report is based would have been submitted to you, if yen ha a been staying Reval at the time?
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. von Stein, is that a statement by you, or is that a question?
DR. VON STEIN: The question, your Honor --the question, Your Honor.
is, whether the defendant Sandberger would have received this original report which would have been submitted to the defendant Sandberger, and in particular, would it have been submitted to him if he had been in Reval?
THE PRESIDENT: All right. Answer the question.
THE WITNESS: Even if I didn't see all reports of Department IV, owing to the great importance of this report, there is no doubt that I would have seen this report if I had been stationed in Reval.
THE PRESIDENT: We take it from that that you didn't see the report?
THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor, at the time, about from 12 September until 3 October 1942, I was certainly absent from Reval as Chief of the sub-commando in charge of the area south of Leningrad, and throughout this entire time my deputy acted quite independently with the transactions of the office. I only heard about this report later on when about 3 or 4 October I returned to Reval.
THE PRESIDENT: You had absented yourself from Estonia;
THE WITNESS: Yes, during the time I just mentioned.
THE PRESIDENT: What were you doing on this trip south of Leningrad?
THE WITNESS: I came at the time to my main job which was to be Kommando Chief with the 18th Army. My task with the 18th Army consisted from the very beginning of dealing with sub-kommandos in combat areas, and to be present there. From the middle of September onwards the combat area of the 18th Army was no longer in Estonia but to the south of Leningrad.
THE PRESIDENT: And were any Jews executed on this trip?
THE WITNESS: No, this was not my task. My task during that journey consisted of assisting the G-II Section, just as I had done in July and August in Estonia, as well, and as I have already described here.
THE PRESIDENT: Was it ever your task to execute Jews?
THE WITNESS: In my assignment as Einsatzgruppen Chief Stahlecker did give me the task but I never carried it out.
THE PRESIDENT: You were able to travel all through the Baltic countries, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, up into Russia, and you remained up there two years, and in all of that time you never executed a Jew?
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, first of all, may I reply to the statement with an affirmative, but this part of conditions existed in such manner that after February 1942 Estonian Jews did not exist any more.
THE PRESIDENT: They had been all executed?
THE WITNESS: They had been executed at the order of Jeckeln in Pleskav.
THE PRESIDENT: In all this time you yourself never ordered the execution of a Jew?
THE WITNESS: No Jews except those who could have proved to have been active as Communists, who had been examined and had been sentenced.
THE PRESIDENT: And during all this time you were never courtmartialed, you never got into difficulties with your superiors?
THE WITNESS: I repeatedly had difficulties with my superios Stahlecker.
THE PRESIDENT: I mean any serious difficulties?
THE WITNESS: I didn't show any open disobedience towards Stahlecker.
THE PRESIDENT: Now what more open disobedience could you show than to refuse to obey a very clear order. He ordered you to start pograms and you didn't start the pogroms; he ordered you to eliminate Jews, you didn't eliminate Jews; he ordered you to execute Communist functionaries, you didn't do that. Now, what more open disobedience could have been manifested than that?
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, concerning the question of pogroms, I told Stahlecker that it was not possible.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, you disobeyed. He wanted you to do it, and you didn't want to do it and you didn't do it.
That is disobedience, isn't it?
THE WITNESS: Your Honor. I said that Stahlecker didn't give this to me as an order to be enforced, but as a directive which should be followed as far as possible.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the difference between a directive and an order? A directive commands you to do certain things, doesn't it?
THE WITNESS: The difference in this case consist of the fact that an order is an absolute and compulsory order, a binding order.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that the reason you didn't obey the directive, because it was not compulsory?
THE WITNESS: Stahlecker told me to carry out the pogrom against the Jews.
THE PRESIDENT: Now please answer the question, why you didn't start the pogroms, and now you tell us it was not an order, but it was a directive, is that right?
THE WITNESS: No, I didn't use the word "order" but I used the word "directive", there is a difference there is a slight difference in the German, Your Honor, which, if possible, didn't absolutely have to be obeyed. I especially meant this difference.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, the reason you didn't obey a directive to carry out a pogrom, because it was not a direct order, is that right?
THE WITNESS: The reason was that I didn't want to enforce a pogrom.
THE PRESIDENT: Then you disobeyed an order, didn't you?
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, it was not an order in that sense.
THE PRESIDENT: All right. Then it was not an order, and you didn't have to follow it at all, is that right?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Now the Fuehrer Order was an order, there is no question about that, is there?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: And you disobeyed that?
THE WITNESS: The order didn't say that the Jews be executed within a certain period.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, that is the reason you were able to do it, you could defer it two years, and in that way you didn't disobey the order?
THE WITNESS: I wanted to delay and defer the execution of this order, and I did this.
THE PRESIDENT: Your explaination then for the reason you didn't obey the Fuehrer Order is that it didn't say to execute the Jews Immediately?
THE WITNESS: No, Your honor, the reason was--
THE PRESIDENT: There will be a recess for fifteen minutes.
THE MARSHALL: The Tribunal is in recess for fifteen minutes.