A I merely know what Noske told me personally. I did not see the teletype message. I wasn't present when Noske talked with the officials in Berlin. Therefore I don't know what the reasons were.
Q Proceed, Dr. Hoffmann. BY DR. HOFFMAN:
THE PRESIDENT: All right, Dr. Hoffman.
Any other defense counsel desire to examine? Apparently not. BY MR. WALTON: were an SS Major? about which you testified? the State Police on temporary duty. I was paid by the SD and my personal files were with the SD. reporter on church questions, is that correct?
A Yes, that's correct. appoint you as a reporter on church questions? Were you a member of the Ministry? from SD Sector Duesseldorf No, I was not a member of the ministry. and practice in life prior to the time you were in Duesseldrof? Before I started working for the SD Sector Dusseldorf? I was active in church affairs. And, because I am an expert on Catholic and protestant matters the SD Sector employed me as a correspondent on church questions on a full time basis.
matters. Were you a member of any church prior to the time you joined the SD? sister of my Mother whose sons were Catholic clergymen I was also familiar with the doctrines and teachings of the Catholic church.
active in Duesseldorf as an expert on church matters? these Jews or people married to Jewish spouses and their children came through some time in September of 1944, did it not? fact that all the Gestapo members knew approximately where the German troops were defending the borders of the Reich at that particular time? the push from the area of Aachen into the territory left of the Rhine was imminent.
Q And that was generally known in Duesseldorf? Office, that if this pusch came it would be very rapid, didn't you?
A I can't pass any judgment on this. within a very few days, if not hours, Allied troops would be in Duesseldorf, didn't you?
Q But it was a possibility, wasn't it?
A But we didn't believe it. Duesseldorf very rapidly there would be little if any tine to act on this code word if it came through, didn't you?
A We didn't even think about that. We only had one thought in mind and Nosske too -- to prevent the carrying out of this order. his objection, according to your own testimony, a break-through of the Allied troops occurred, didn't it?
broke through from Aachen. I do not remember. tion, the reason that you fixed the time when Nosske filed his objection to this order was that on the Sunday following--which was the 19th of September 1944--the break-through of the Allied troops occurred. Didn't you say that on direct examination? that the Allied parachute jump, took place near Arnheim, and on the Lower Rhine. back to Berlin? sent to Berlin, the reply came from Mueller, which I have already given twice.
Q Now, isn't it a fact, Witness, that at this time it actually was more dangerous to carry out an order of this nature than to disobey it? Isn't that true?
A I didn't understand the meaning of this question. I ask you whether or not, at this particular time about which you are testifying now--the 15th, the 16th, or the 17th of September--was it not more dangerous to carry out an order of this nature than it was to disobey it. at such a time?
A I wouldn't know any reason why the carrying out of this order should have been dangerous. Dusseldorf was only occupied on the 27th of April 1945. kilometers, were the Allied troops?
of Aachen, and then came the area on the left of the Rhine, then came the Rhine which we still considered an impregnable frontier.
Q How far was that, in kilometers, from Duesseldorf? Cologne to Aachen I think there are forty or fifty kilometers, so that altogether approximately one hundred kilometers. order at first. Did he give any reasons why he was excited? he was very excited. Jews present at this time?
A The inspector asked me this question. He asked me whether the Jews represented a danger in the area near the front and I answered this question with "no" to the inspector. And the inspector then asked me, "What should we do with these people?" and I told him we should leave them in their homes.
Q Then you don't believe that it is right to kill Jews if no military necessity exists, do you?
Q You stated that Nosske one day was no longer there. What was the name of his successor?
A Haenschke. Senior Government Councillor Haenschke was his successor. when Nosske came and asked you to get copies of them; is that correct? matter which came from the inspector, then of the teletype which Nosske himself sent to Berlin, and then of the reply message which Mueller sent. Nosske asked me for copies of these matters, pointing out that he needed these for a proceeding which the investigating officer with the SS and Police Court had started against him.
any other secret or top secret telegrams? get?
A Very few. Perhaps three or four. telegrams? the words that were underlined, in these particular telegrams that came to Nosske? against him because he was to lax in his handling of the Jewish question, I feared that I would become involved myself in this proceeding and therefore I was so interested in this matter; and why I kept the text of these teletype in mind. Furthermore, the content of this teletype was so extraordinary, something so unprecedented and so important, that no man who has read it could ever forget it. Stapo Office in Duesseldorf, of these telegrams? from the inspector as well as all these teletype messages. Yes, I registered them. your activities were confined to church matters?
AAs I have already said, I belonged to the Department 2-B. This department 2-B included, among other things, the Jewish Department. The Jewish Department, as such, however no longer existed after the middle of 1944, and the expert for this department had been given other jobs. I personally was still there with three officers and one auxiliary employee.
And, looking at it objectively thus, 2-B was competent for this question.
Q Who was the chief of Office 1 of RSHA when Nosske was recalled? Do you know his name?
A I think that was Erlinger, but I cannot be sure. I don't know whether it is true, but that is my opinion. of office in Duesseldorf? either one of you two?
Q Did Nosske ever tell you any of his experiences in the east? Duesseldorf? from one rank to another?
AAs far as I know -- well, I don't remember. I hardly think so.
Q. And during the time in Duesseldorf, during your official and personal connections with Nosske, you grew to like him very much, didn't you?
A. Yes, I liked Nosske as my superior very much.
Q. And you are still friendly toward him, are you not?
A. He never gave me cause to feel anything else. And furthermore, I am personally grateful to him that at the time he did what he could in order to prevent the carrying out of this order; because I must admit today that if Nosske hadn't developed such initiative at the time and had taken upon himself to handle this matter, then no one in the State Police Agency in Duesseldorf area would be alive any more today.
Q. You state, then, that you like Nosske very much from your personal and official contacts with him and you further state that you still are friendly toward him, do you not?
A. Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: I didn't quite understand the witness' answer to your immediately preceding question -- that if Nosske hadn't done a certain thing, that of a certain group no one would be alive today.
MR. WALTON: He stated, Your Honor, as I got it, that he was very grateful to him and one of the reasons that he was very grateful to him was that in his opinion in the way that he acted in the matter of these Jews being the correct way; otherwise there would be no one alive in that Staop Stelle today. That is the way I understood the translation.
THE PRESIDENT: Who would not be alive?
MR. WALTON: No one in that office would be alive today.
THE PRESIDENT: Of his office?
MR. WALTON: Yes, of Nosske's and his office.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I don't understand the sequence there. They weren't half-Jews in his office?
DR. HOFFMANN: Your Honor, I agree with Mr. Walton the witness is of the opinion that he is grateful to him that he showed the correct way, because otherwise--as the witness says--no one of the State Police COURT II CASE IX Agency would be alive any more because probably today they would have been convicted in Dachau.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, then, is your gratitude only because it saved you and not the lives of these innocent people?
THE WITNESS: If he had not saved the lives of these innocent people, then our lives would have been forfeited.
THE PRESIDENT: You weren't concerned so much with saving the lives of these innocent people as with protecting yourself from some possible later conviction.
THE WITNESS: No. I now speak of today's situation, from the prospective today. At the time when this order was imminent, the prospective was quite different from the one today.
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed, Mr. Walton. BY MR. WALTON:
Q. Well, since you have a chance to reflect on it, do you not think that was the entire motive behind Nosske's attitude there in Duesseldorf in connection with these Jews--in order that he might later save his own life?
A. No, neither Nosske nor I had these thoughts. That was completely out of the question. At that time we still did not enterain such thoughts and the considerations which Nosske had were merely directed toward the innocence of these people, and they were purely human feelings which caused him to do this.
Q. How do you know what Nosske thought?
A. Nosske discussed it with me. He said it was impossible to carry out such an order.
Q. But you said on direct examination that you never discussed Jewish questions with the exception of this one.
A. Yes.
Q. Now you are testifying as to Nosske's attitude in general toward Jews.
A. You just came to talk about this special case and what caused COURT II CASE IX Nosske to conduct himself in this way at that time, and his conduct after the order is what I was talking about.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Walton, we will take our recess, Recess for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. WALTON: May it please the Tribunal, I have only one or two further questions for this witness, and I would like to call to the Tribunal's attention that the attorney for the defendant Felix Ruehl, Dr. Link, to my certain knowledge was ready to present his document books as of Monday. He properly served me with copies of all documents which had not been mimeographed, that is, translations, and he and I have both been ready since that time. Now information has come to me that Dr. Link was in the Krupp trial and is finding some difficulty in attending both courts at the same time. Both the Prosecution and the Defense would like to get this matter settled, and I think that I can speak for Dr. Link and ask for the offices of the Tribunal in giving him an opportunity to present his documents.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. The Marshal will please go to the Krupp trial Courtroom and if Dr. Link is not actually engaged in the presentation of the case of his client, is not on the witness stand and is not in jail, he will invite him to come immediately to our court so that he may present the document books which he has now been trying to present for several days. BY MR. WALTON: recess that you considered Nosske your friend. Now as a friend you would like to help him out as best as you could, would you not? I have to leave my feeling for Nosske out of this. I have said the pure truth, and I will say the pure truth.
Q I didn't say that you said otherwise. I merely asked you the question: you are a friend of Nosske and you would like to help him all you could in your testimony, isn't that correct?
I do not know. Nosske was my boss. A relationship of friendship in the way that you might mean did not exist between us. Of course, we were both SS officers and in a sense, of course, we were comrades, but Nosske was my superior and, of course, in this relationship there was a certain separation between us. BY THE PRESIDENT: and still not forfeit one's life for that objection? to this question. I was an SS officer and so was Nosske.
Q Well, I didn't mean soldier in the technical sense of being a member of the Wehrmacht because this would apply as well to a sailor. Let us put the question in another way. Was the SS part of the armed forces of Germany during the war? Wehrmacht.
Q Well, weren't all the SS of every character under the direction of the Commander-in-Chief?
A No. As far as it is known to me, this is not the case. We, as members of the SD and the State Police, were subordinate to the Chief of the Reich Security Main Office in all factual questions, and as SS officers -
Q Well, who was the Chief of the Reich Security Main Office?
Q And he was the Commander-in-Chief?
Q Or in any other armed force of Germany no matter where located?
Q Did you take an oath of allegiance to Hitler?
Q Did Nosske take an oath of allegiance to Hitler?
A I should assume that this is so. But I do not know.
Q At any rate, he was in the same category as yourself?
Q Yes. Now, in that part of the armed forces of Germany which eventually led to the top who was Hitler himself, was it possible for one to object to an order and not be summarily shot for it?
A No. Whoever refused to carry out an order was disobedient and, of course, had to bear the consequences. We, as members of the SD or the Security Police, in this particular respect were subordinated to the SS jurisdiction.
Q Well, the SS was subordinate to Hitler, wasn't it? to the carrying out of an order of Hitler and still not be shot for it? exceeds my knowledge.
Q Well, Nosske objected to the order, didn't he?
A Nosske did not carry out the order which was given to him. He turned to his superior agency in order to have this order rescinded.
Q Well, he objected to the order, didn't he?
Q And he was not shot, was he?
THE PRESIDENT: Do you have any further questions, Dr. Hoffmann?
DR. HOFFMANN: I have no further questions, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness will be excused.
Do we have any word from the front as to whether Dr. Link is free or not?
DR. ULMER: Dr. Ulmer for the defendant Six. weathered the storm and that she will be able to come to the witness stand on Thursday, as I said this morning. I only wanted to say so now because this morning it was not clear. She has finally arrived in Hamburg, and I think she will arrive here during the day tomorrow, and I want herewith to announce her.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. ULMER: And I want the gentlemen of the Prosecution to take note of this.
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly. Immediately upon arrival you will hold her in readiness for summoning to the witness stand.
DR. ULMER: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. STEIN: Dr. Stein for Sandberger. Book 2 which was to have been presented with Book No. 1, is translated but it has not been mimeographed yet. For this reason I have switched over my presentation and I shall now submit Book No. 1.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Proceed. You may begin, Dr. Stein.
DR. STEIN: I submit and I offer as Exhibit Sandberger No. 1, Document Sandberger No. 15 which is contained in Document Book Sandberger 1. It is on page 40. It is an affidavit of the architect, Lambert von Malsen-Ponickau. This gentleman was Sandberger's deputy in 1941 in the direction of the Immigration Central Office, and in this affidavit he states that Sandberger, against his wish, received the order to take up an assignment in the East with the Security Police and the SD.
THE PRESIDENT: I see that Dr. Link, battle-scarred and quite a veteran, has returned.
DR. STEIN: He confirms the following facts which Sandberger testified to in his direct examination, first, that Sandberger in 1940 and in 1941 had the urgent wish to be released from his activity in the Reich Security Main Office and to be allowed to go to join a Wehrmacht unit as a soldier; secondly, that since 1939 Sandberger suffered from a rheumatic disease and that in February or March, 1941, he had to take health baths in order to cure this disease; thirdly, that Sandberger reported to the Chief of Office I, Streckenbach, and asked him to be released in order to join the Wehrmacht, and when this was refused, he repeated his application; fourth, that Sandberger expressed to the affiant his disappointment that this application was not approved; fifth, that Sandberger before he was assigned to the East had no knowledge concerning the tasks of an Einsatzgruppe, especially considering that he had never had anything to do with Office IV of the RSHA nor had he ever been active in any police service whatsoever. activity of Sandberger in Estonia. In these affidavits it is said that Sandberger during the second half of the month of September and in the beginning of October, 1941, was not in Estonia but in the sector in the vicinity of Leningrad, I may point out in this connection, and I may remind the Tribunal first, that the Chief of the Estonian selfgovernment, Dr. Hjalmar Mae, has given testimony concerning this question when he was on the witness stand to the effect that Sandberger was not present in Estonia at this time and that he could not be reached from Reval; secondly, that the defendant Sandberger himself stated when he was on the witness stand that the execution of Jewish men in Estonia, which is mentioned in Document 1180 and in the Prosecution Document NO-3155, Report of Events of No. 111, happened during the last days of September while he was absent from Estonia without his knowledge, by order of the Einsatzgruppe Chief Stahlecker to a deputy of Sandberger's by the name of Carstens, and owing to the passing on of Sandberger's orders to this effect by a report from Carstens to the Estonian Home Guard.
Court No. II, Case No. IX.
Number 13, and it is in Document Book I, page 35. It is affidavit by Alma Klenke, who states that at the and of October 1941 she received a letter from Sandberger from which it became evident that Sandberger was at the Leningrad front on the 23rd of September 1941 as well as on the 3rd of October 1941. Sandberger Document Number 12, Document Book I, page 33, affidavit of Miss Magda Kirschstein who likewise confirms that Sandberger at the end of September 1941 was at the Leningrad front, that in March 1942 Sandberger was in Berlin and after that in a field hospital in Pernau. Number 7, which is also in Document Book Number I on page 17, affidavit of farmer Otto von Haldenwang. Haldenwang was chief of the Department I of the German general commissariat for Estonia. He was, therefore, responsible to the chief of the German civilian administration in Estonia. He was together with Sandberger from the beginning of September 1941 until the autumn 1942 in Reval. He also confirms that Sandberger, during the time in question here, that is, autumn 1941, was not present in Reval and could not be reached by this affiant during the time. Furthermore, he confirms the absence of Sandberger from Reval during spring 1942 owing to illness, as well as the fact that the synagogue in Reval was not destroyed. Then he confirms that Sandberger's interest was taken up by political matters and that Sandberger, therefore, did not deal very much with police matters. Herr Haldenwang furthermore speaks about the different fields of activities with which Sandberger primarily concerned himself during his period in Estonia. Sandberger, he says, had from the very beginning advised the Estonian civil administration with word and deed, that he was sympathetic towards the Estonian people and had always supported and been kind to the Estonians at any time.
Court No II, Case No. IX.
Furthermore, Sandberger had advocated a greater independence of the Estonian people and had supported this request with the German civil administration. He also saw to it that the Estonians would be walltreated and that in cultural and economic questions they should be supported as far as possible, A number of individual examples are given by the affiant confirming this. He characterizes the defendant Sandberger as a quiet, very correct person, who was able to strike a happy medium between particularly strong contrasts. Book I, page 6, which I offer as Sandberger Exhibit Number 5, affidavit by Georg Buchner, the kriminalsekretaer. In 1941 Buchner was police expert in the special commando IA, the chief of which was Sandberger. Buchner likewise confirms from his own knowledge that Sandberger during the second half of September and at the beginning of October 1941 was stationed at the Leningrad front. During the time in question, the affiant was assigned to this special. The following paragraphs of the affidavit of Buchner confirm those statements which Sandberger testified to when he was in the witness stand, when he was asked by the prosecutor concerning the competence of the subcommando Krasnoje-Selo. From the beginning of October this subcommando KrasnojeSelo was only subordinated to Sandberger as far as supply and administration were concerned, therefore, the spheres of activity of departments I and II, but the subcommando Krasnoje-Selo in all operational matters, that is, the work of the departments III, IV, and V, from October 1941 on, was exclusively under the Kommando Kranogwardeisk of the Einsatzgruppe A. That is, therefore, to the staff of the Einsatzgruppe in Kranogwardeisk. Buchner describes in detail these channels of command. This confirms everything that Sandberger said concerning this question when he was on the witness stand on page 2,399 of the English transcript. Document Number 5, page 11, affidavit of the Kriminalkommissar Johannes Court No. II, Case No. IX.
Feder. Feder was a member of the Special Commando 1A from the beginning of the Russian campaign until the 25th of September 1941. From the middle of August on, he was the chief of the branch office in Narva of SK 1-A. Narva is situated on the road Reval-Leningrad about half way. Feder confirms that Sandberger, approximately during the period from the 10th of September 1941, went to the front with a subcommando via Narva in the direction of Leningrad, that he did not return to Estonia as long as Feder was in Narva, and that in the meantime no contact existed between Sandberger and Feder. Apart from this fact, Feder confirms a number of other circumstances which agree with the statements that Sandberger made when he was on the witness stand. First, he, Feder, had not been informed as a subcommando chief about the fact that it was part of his tasks to shoot Jews, Gypsies, and Communist functionaries. On the contrary, Sandberger had expressly said that no collective measures were to be carried out. Secondly, he, Feder, during the time of his service in Sonderkommando 1A, from July 1941 up to and inclusive of 25 September 1941, had never heard either from Sanderberger or from any other place about the existence of a Fuehrer order concerning elimination of all Jews, Gypsies, and Communist functionaries.
directions from Sandberger: All measures were to be taken as were necessary to protect the rear of the fighting units. Directives concerning confinements to camps or prisons and death sentences were only to be passed after an individual guilt had been established, and only if the person charged had had the opportunity to defend himself and orally. In this executions were to be carried only in exceptional cases. The heavy guilt according to these principles was only active guilt of measures taken against the German Wehrmacht. Those were the offenses which were to be punished with death or, of course, crimes against life and property of indigenous citizens during the time of the Russian occupation which had preceded. Also, it had to be proven that the person concerned would endanger seriously the security of the area in question. Lithuania and Latvia, Sandberger had informed his Sub-Kommando Leader that the Kommando IA had no authorities as far as Lithuania and Letvia were concerned, but only for Estonia, and that for that reason, while the Kommando I A marched through Lithuania and Latvia. security measures on the part of the Security Police should only be taken if it was considered absolutely necessary to secure the Army immediately. in Narva, he had never received from anybody or from Sandbergar an order concerning anti-Jewish actions and that he himself had never taken any measures against Jews. These statements confirm the testimony of the witness Sandberger when he was on the witness stand. It is on Page 2212 of the English record:
"The territory in the Northeast of Estonia between Kapsk and Narva - - -"
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. von Stein, at the rate at which you are proceeding, which is net a very rapid one, I am afraid that we won't reach Dr. Link before adjournment time, and I am very sorry about that because we - sort of had Dr. Link going back and forth, and I am just wondering now, do you think you can complete the presentation of this book before 4:30?