witness without the Tribunal's knowledge concerning the importance or lack of importance of this witness. The witness was granted to me on the basis of this affidavit. I fully agree to this; only may I point out that this witness Husmann is in the prison here and that the Prosecution can cross examine him at any time, so that fact that this is an affidavit which is submitted does not mean that I shy away from calling a witness who is so easily available.
Your Honor, as Nosske Document No. 9, as Exhibit No. 8, I bring an ecclesiastical certificate from Walter Kawerau a retired Vicar, from Halle on the Saale River, which reveals that the defendant Nosske was married in church;also the personnel file is submitted here to show that he never left the church, but always remained a member of the Protestant Church.
As the last document, Your Honor, I submit Nosske Document No. 10; this will be Exhibit No. 9. It is in a supplementary volume, and contains an affidavit of a certain Dr. Schmitz, who was a police official in Dusseldorf, and who adds to the statement by the witness Burchardt from his own knowledge concerning his office in Dusseldorf. In the paragraph before the last he says Nosske left the Security Police and the SD; he had to hand in his SS uniform and his official pass.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
MR. WALTON: If it please the Tribunal, my objections to these documents are purely nominal. If Dr. Hoffmann will state in his place that the three circular decrees which he has presented as Nosske Exhibits 2, 3 and 4 are all the law on the subject of protective custody, I will not object to them. The point that I make is this: One of these documents shows that protective custody could only last ten days before trial. The next document, in the first monthsof the war, shows that this protective custody was increased to three weeks. There fore, if that is true, there may be, or, at least it is reasonable to assume that this time as the war progressed was increased.
However, if the good Doctor will state in his place, or, as a legal expert and one familiar with German law, that there was no further decree on the subject of the time when a man might be in custody without trial and without hearing, why I will not enter an objection, but asit stands, the three decrees, there is nothing in them which states that is all the law on the subject.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we will grant, concede and state very emphatically that we have the highest respect for Dr. Hoffmann's legal acumen and knowledge but we cannot charge him with omniscience -
MR. WALTON: But, Your Honor -
THE PRESIDENT: He cannot say that he knows that there never was any other decree on that subject. You are asking him to state as to what does not exist.
MR. WALTON: I appreciate that fact, Your Honor, but he has gone into this subject. I assume that he has made a research to find three circular decrees. Now, if he will state that he found no other decrees pertaining to this during his search, it will be acceptable to the Prosecution, but the point that I am making is that this protective custody was increased, and I think I am reasonable in assuming that if it was increased once it might have been increased again. If there is any other circular decree that he knows of on this subject, I think he should put it in.
DR. HOFFMANN: Your Honor, one of the exhibitsin the International Military Tribunal in 1945 was submitted in this connection. That is all what I know, and incomprehensible ......
THE PRESIDENT: That is exactly what I said, Dr. Hoffmann, only you put it in a little better English.
MR. WALTON: My point, therefore, is won, because the Tribunal from Dr. Hoffmann's statements can draw the same conclusion that the Prosecution draws:
That it was increased. The only other objection that I have is to the affidavit of Dr. Gunther Husmann in that he speaks of matters which inject into the case an entirely new personality on the grounds of a denunciation that Nosske claimed this person made of him. Since this was not testified to by Nosske on the stand that anyone denounced him, which caused him to leave the Gestapo, I do not think that at this time the good Doctor can overcome the doctrine of Laches' that he is barred from bringing in or injecting this now feature since it was known or allegedly known to the defendant, and he testified as to nothing about thisman Guttenberger denouncing him.
THE PRESIDENT: We will follow the same rule unless you have something to say, Dr. Hoffmann. Did you want to interject something?
DR. HOFFMANN: Your Honor, the very fact that someone who is indicted does not know from the start what charges are filed against him, is sometimes the basis for the success of the Prosecution. This examiner Hussmann, therefore, did not inform the defendant Nosske, whose Prosecutor he was going to be, what the charges were against him, so that it is not strange at all that Nosske on his own initiative can only say what he knows, while Husmann as an investigator states matters as he sees them. I therefore see no reason. -
MR. WALTON: I think Dr, Hoffmann misunderstood me. According to this affidavit in 1933 the affiant was examining judge and Nosske came before him for interrogation in conn ection with this Horia Sima's escape. At that time in 1944 the now defendant Nosske told this examining judge that the man Guttenberger was denouncing him. Therefore, if your Honors please, this fact was known to Nosske when he took the witness stand in this trial, and he was at liberty at that time to testify concerning it. Now the prosecution contends that since he did not he is now barred from injecting into the case an entirely now feature concerning this testimony about his investigation. He made no mention of anyone denouncing him when he was on the stand here.
DR. HOFFMANN: Your Honor, may I say something about this?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I will let you, but I think that I can do it just as well. The theory of the document books is that they will contain evidence, not only rebuttal but they are still part of the case in chief -- I am speaking now of the defendants' document books - so that each affidavit could well be a speaking witness. Now Dr. Hoffmann is still presenting his case in chief and he presents this affidavit. He could have called that individual. Well, we know that in lieu of the flash and blood witnesses we are taking affidavits for the conservation of time and for many other reasons, so that he, in effect, is now presenting a witness who he might just as well have presented before. So I don't think you can charge him with laches. It is not rebuttal; it is his case in chief.
MR. WALTON: Very well, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
MR. WALTON: Your Honor, I don't know quite how we are proceeding and Dr. Hochwald gets up and then Dr. Hoffmann gets up. I have one docum*--* I would like the Tribunal, in order to keep the proceedings regular, to call me at the proper time, when it is the proper time to introduce it.
THE PRESIDENT: You may present it now since you are here at the podium. I don't think Dr. Durchholz will mind.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: Your Honor, I merely have to offer one more docu ment for the defendant Schulz but I am Willing to wait until Mr. Hochwald has returned. My colleague Link asked me to deputize for him concerning the defendant Ruehl, and he asked me to submit the Document Book No. III which consists of three documents. His wish was that I may be able to do this for my colleague Link. I think Mr. Walton is competent for this case.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. All right, you may proceed.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: As Document Book III for the defendant Ruehl I am to submit a few supplementary documents. As Ruehl Document No. 27 I submit an affidavit by Dr. Hans Schmitz of 21 January 1948 on Page 69 of the book. This has the exhibit number 27. Dr. Schmitz talks about the professional activity of Ruehl in 1934 to 1938, when he was a speciali for counter-intelligence matters. He confirms that Ruehl was taken out of this career against his will and the Reich Security Main Office instructed him to be a candidate for the executive service. This document is a supplement for statements made in Ruel Document No. 7 which is Ruehl Exhib*---* No. 7. In Document Book No. I on Page 19, an affidavit has been introduce there by Herr Loesse, a government councillor. I also offer as Exhibit No. 28 an affidavit by Erwin Hanson of 16 January 1948. This is Ruehl Document No. 28 on Page 71. The affiant states here further details about the position of Ruehl as administrative officer in the Sonderkommando 10b and confirms that Ruehl was not one of the senior officers after the commander. Hanson also confirms that Ruehl had nothing to do with interrogations, arrests and executive tasks, and neither acted as deputy of the kommando chief nor was he chief of a subkommando nor was he active as such
MR. WALTON: Now, if your Honors, please, I don't think even th*---* Tribunal can say about this document that he just argued about that it is part of the case in chief. This document is put in specifically to refut* the one document or the affidavit of a witness Robert Barth, B-A-R-T-H. We would never get through with this case if rebuttal, sur-rebuttal, sursur-rebuttal is continually put in. Now is this witness knew these facts which was brought out certainly in cross-examination that at least the pr cution thought Ruehl was a deputy to Persterer, the kommando chief, at the time when his document books were presesented this should have been in them as part of his case in chief.
But, if your Honors please, this is an attempt to rebut the prosecution's rebuttal document, and I think the doctrine of laches certainly applies in this case.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, do you admit the principle that affidavits form part of the case in chief?
MR. WALTON: Your Honor, at the time, at the proper time they certainly do, but I ask your Honor to take this into consideration. The prosecution put in one document against Ruehl in rebuttal. Now then this comes as part of the case in chief that attacks the rebuttal or it is a sur-rebuttal of the defense, one or the other, and as a matter of point of time-
THE PRESIDENT: Does it make no reference to your case in chief Does it not reply to anything that you presented in your case in chief against Ruehl?
MR. WALTON: No, sir. My cross-examination attempted to bring from Ruehl the fact that he was a deputy to Persterer which he deinied. the prosecution in rebuttal introduced a document which the Tribunal has pointed out is equal in this case to a flesh and blood witness which refuted that. Now the prosecution comes today- I am sorry, correction the defense comes today and produces an affidavit from a witness that was known to the defense at the time he was cross-examined and attempts to rebut the prosecution's rebuttal document.
THE PRESIDENT: Until you cross-examined on this subject, how was the defendant informed that he was charged with being a deputy of Persterer? Since it was not in your case in chief how was he informed?
MR. WALTON: He was certainly questioned also, if my memory serves me right, by his own counsel as to what his position was in Sonderkommando 10b. We charged him in the indictment with being deputy commander.
THE PRESIDENT: Well that is what I asked you, if it formed part of the case in chief, and you said no.
MR. WALTON: I believe I should like to correct that. If my memory serves me, in the first pages of the indictment where each man's SS rank is given and his position in the Einsatzgruppen, it definitely states that he was charged as deputy chief of the Einsatzkommando 10b, or Sonderkommando 10b.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, if he was charged with being deputy commander in the indictment and it was part of your case in chief, then on the principle that all these documents submitted by the defense form part of the defendant's case in chief, why wouldn't he be permitted to present this affidavit to refute the charge in the indictment that he was a deputy commander?
MR. WALTON: He would, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. WALTON: At the proper time, but the point that I am asking is that this is a sur-rebuttal document.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, but Mr. Walton, you know of all the difficulties that there are in getting these documents presented and prepared. There are so many mechanical propositions to overcome so that the mere delay in time does not of itself suggest that defense was not diligent.
MR. WALTON: Look at the date of the instrument, your Honor, or the 28th of January 1948. It was obtained after the rebuttal document was in and it comes in as an attempt to sur-rebut the prosecution's rebuttal.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: Your Honor, may I comment on this briefly?
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Walton, if you had brought in a witness instead of an affidavit then the defense would have had an opportunity to cross-examine that witness, but since you avail yourself of a privilege, which is accorded all counsel, to bring in affidavits in lieu of witness how is the defense going to reply or challenge in any way this affidavit less he does it in this way since you did not present the flesh and blood Witness?
MR. WALTON: Very well, your Honor, I put in the objections, the Tribunal rules on them.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, your objection is overruled.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: Your Honor, may I just make one comment on this? The necessity of introduction of this document was not based on the rebuttal but because of the cross-examination, and the fact that the document was only introduced now is due to the fact that we had no means of obtaining this affidavit before. Apart from that this supplements previous documents on various points.
As my last document I offer as Exhibit No. 29 the Ruehl Document No. 29 on Page 76. This is an affidavit by Karl Kaufmann of 16 January, 1948. The witness confirms that Ruehl was niehter introduced as deputy of the kommando chief nor was he over active as such or as subkommando chief.
MR. WALTON: Your Honor, the prosecution makes application in open court to have those two witnesses called for cross-examination.
THE PRESIDENT: If they can be obtained.
MR. WALTON: Otherwise we object to the introduction of these last two documents.
THE PRESIDENT: If those witnesses can be obtained forthwith, the application is approved.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: I shall try, if it becomes necessary, to bring those witnesses here for cross-examination.
MR. WALTON: Do I understand the Tribunal that I have the right to cross-examine these witnesses?
THE PRESIDENT: You certainly have.
MR. WALTON: If they are not brought then the Tribunal does not accept the documents, or do they accept it for whatever probative value they choose to give it?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gender.
MR. WALTON: That is right.
THE PRESIDENT: He has the right to cross-examine your witness.
MR. WALTON: Very true, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, can you get your witnessin here?
MR. WALTON: He lives in the French Zone of Austria. I can set the procedure in motion as soon as I leave.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, let's dispose of it this way, Mr. Walton, that if any or all of these witnesses can be obtained and presented to the Tribunal this week then we will hear them. Otherwise we will accept all the affidavits, the ones that you presented and the ones that he presented, and assign to them the probative value which the entire situation will accord to then.
DR. WISSMATH: Dr. Wissmath for the defendant Jost.
defendant Jost by presenting Document Book IV which conclude my presentation, if the prosecution does not object to this since Mr. Glancy is not present.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
DR. WISSMATH: I offer as Jost Exhibit No. 33the document J-34. This is an affidavit by Hans Daufeldt of 19 December 1947, on Pages 1 to 2. The witness was on an emergency status in the RSHA where he was assigned from 1939 until 1941 and he states that the activity in the independent Office VI dealt with making economic and political reports from foreign countries and that it did not collaborate with Office IV of the RSHA. Daufeldt describes Jost as a decent humane man who treated his subordinates in a correct and decent manner.
As Jost Exhibit No. 34 I offer the document J-35. This is the affidavit of August Finke of 12 January 1948 on Pages 3 to 6 of the document book Jost No. IV. It states that Jost was chief of Office VI in the Reich Main Security Office from September 1939 until the middle of 1941 approximately. Office VI was not a counter-intelligence organization of Office IV. It had no police tasks and had nothing to do with executive tasks. Office VI merely dealt with intelligence reports from abroad. Also Office IV of the RSHA obtained their own information apparatus which concerned enemy counter-intelligence work abroad. Attempts by Office Chief IV Mueller to influence Office VI rejected by Jost. Finke says about Jost's character. "Jost's reserved attitude was almost indifference. Things had to happen before he changed that attitude, but Jost stood up for his own opinion stubbornly, though on the whole he was very tolerant. Jost was not a political zealot nor was he doctrinaire."
As Jost Exhibit No. 35 I offer Document J-36, an excerpt from the Flick judgment. This excerpt is to be considered as part of the emergency decreestatus which concerned him.
As Exhibit No. 36 I offer the document J-37. This is an affidavit of Dr. Wolfgang Wohlgemuth of 15 January 1948, contained in Pages 14 to 19 of the fourth volume. Dr. Wohlgemuth has known Jost since the fall of 1940. At the end of 1941 or beginning of 1942, he gave him medical treatment. The diagnosis showed a disturbance of the activity of the thyroid glands caused by strong emotional excitement and a disturbance in the equilibrium of the vegetative nervous system with symptoms of deficient circulation of the blood. The illness is due to the inner tension existing in Jost which resulted because of the discrepancy between Jost's inner attitude and the work he had to do. The witness describes Jost as tolerant in his character and not at all ruthless.
THE PRESIDENT: May I call your attention to one sentence in this affidavit which to me is a little ambiguous, and I want to make certain that the translation is correct. On Page -- the top of Page 3, Page 16, the English document book, the English translation, but your Page 3, where it says, "He showed himself to be an outspoken idealist and at that time, autumn 1942 --" Have you located that?
DR, WISSMATH: No, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it is Page 3 of yours, of the original affidavit of Dr. Wolfgang -
DR. WISSMATH: I have the place, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, this is the way we have it in English. "At that time, autumn 1942, he made the somewhat melancholy remark, as I still remember very well, that idealism is probably the most erroneous conception of life." I see that you understand English.
DR. WISSMATH: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, is that the correct translation?
DR. WISSMATH: Your Honor, I assume that the date given here is given in the wrong relation. I shall read the sentence again in German and the interpreter will then retranslate it.
THE PRESIDENT: Please read it slowly.
DR. WISSMATH: "He showed himself as an outspoken idealist and at the tine, namely in the fall of 1942, as I recall very well made, the rather sad remark that idealism is the most erroneous conception of life." This date, therefore, refers to the time when he made that remark and not to the time when he was an idealist, as I think the English translation night indicate.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I don't seehow this is a favorable view of the defendant, and certainly you wouldn't be submitting something unfavorable to him. He states that idealism is an erroneous conception of life, in other words that idealism should not be embraced and followed, is that what you mean?
DR. WISSMATH: Yes, that is how I understand the testimony of the affiant.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I can't understand the purpose in submitting something which is derogatory of the defendant in the defendant's document book. However, that is up to you. It may be that what the affiant intended to say was that idealism did not bring the defendant to any felicitous state in life and to that extent that idealism was impossible, but not that it is an erroneous conception, because if you don't have idealism in life you certainly don't have any order or system or morals. Very well.
DR. WISSMATH: Because of Jost's character the witness Wohlgemuth had confidence in him and expressed his anti-Nazi opinions to him, as can be seen from the affidavit. Wohlgemuth recalls that during a conversation Jost told him about his work in Riga, that he objected to executions of Jews.
As Exhibit No. 37 I offer the document J-38, This is an affidavit of Dr, Sohr of 17 January 1948, Pages 20 to 24. The witness says concerning Jost's character that Jost was a calm, reasonable man who was very honest.
He was sincere and conciliatory and always willing to help.
As supplement to Document Book IV, I offer as Exhibit No.38 the document J-39. This is an affidavit by Anton Dunkan of 30 January 1948. This reveals that Heydrich disapproved of Jost and described him as an officer who was of not much use. Heydrich wanted to express by this that Jost insisted on legality and proper treatment and justice. In his opinion Jost was not energetic enough for such an assignment and too inhibited. in Document Book III, Pages 14 and 15, Exhibits Nos. 29 and 30, I want to offer the new numbers, the new charts, which I ask the Tribunal to accept now. Tribunal to the fact that the Document Book 5-A submitted by the prosecution in rebuttal in the English version merely contains a small part, namely a third approximately of the German issue. Since the defense quotes this volume in the final pleas, there is a danger that the Tribunal will not be able to find the quotations in the English text. I therefore suggest that the prosecution should complete the volume in English so that it contains the same as the German volume.
THE PRESIDENT: Suppose we have our recess now.
DR. KRAUSE: Krause for Haensch. I beg your pardon, Your Honor -
THE PRESIDENT: If you would like to go ahead while we are absent, you may, but I think it would be more to your purpose if you waited until we have our recess.
DR. KRAUSE: Your Honor, I merely took the liberty to offer my documents because there are only three.
THE PRESIDENT: Suppose we do that now?
DR. KRAUSE: I would like to introduce Haensch Document Book Number IV. It contains three documents, but I only intend to submit the first two. On page 1 of Document Book IV, Exhibit Number 31, I offer the Document Number 29. This is a copy of a telegram addressed to the present Mayor of Oger-Tuebbingen of 22 January 1948. In this telegram I asked that the question, the first name, the date of birth, and the period of office of the former mayor, Dr. Weinmann, be given to me. The Tribunal well recall that the prosecution introduced a document which is supposed to reveal that Dr. Erwin Weinmann, who went to Russia at the same time as the defendant was already in the Einsatz since the 13th of January 1942. This document of the Prosecution describes Dr. Erwin Weinmann as Mayor of Tuebbingen. I also submit on page 2 of Document Book IV as Exhibit Number 32 the Document Number 30. That is the reply telegram sent by the Mayor of Tuebbingen in reply to my telegram dated 22 January 1948. It says that the Mayor of Tuebbingen during the time from 28 July 1939 until 18 April 1945 was a Doctor Ernst Einmann, who was born on 16 April 1907. This is merely a mistake in the surname. This obviously is the Dr. Ernst Weinmann. In any case, the document shows that Dr. Erwin Weinmann, who concerns us here, was not Mayor.
MR. HOCHWALD: I object against the two last documents as they are not submitted in the form prescribed by the Tribunal, they are neither captured documents nor affidavits nor transcripts of some criminal proceedings, they are just telegrams between two parties which have nothing to do personally with the defendant. In this form the exhibits are inadmissible; as to their contents, they are immaterial.
The question which was to be proved by the document put in by the prosecution was only whether Dr. Erwin Weinmann had been in the Einsatz from the 13th January 1942 on. Nothing to that effect is proved by these two telegrams.
DR. KRAUSE: Your Honor -
THE PRESIDENT: Well, then they don't hurt anybody.
MR. HOCHWALD: They certainly do not hurt me, Your Honor.
DR. KRAUSE: Your Honor, I still ask you to accept these documents. I shall try -
THE PRESIDENT: We haven't refused them.
DR. KRAUSE: Thank you. I now ask to be allowed to introduce another single document. It is Exhibit Number 33 , Document Number 32. This document consists of three parts. They are copies of the opinions which the prosecution put at my disposal, and I thank them for it. These expert opinions discuss export opinions about the handwriting of the witness Schreyer that is, the handwriting in the order sheet on the envelope of the negative plates.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it isn't necessary to enumerate all those exhibits, Mr. Hochwald went into that rather completely this morning, so that we know what they are. You are now merely p utting them in evidence and they will be accepted.
DR. KRAUSE: Yes. I merely wanted to point out, Your Honor, that both expert opinions -
THE PRESIDENT: But you cannot argue it, you merely present them. The argument will come in the summation.
DR. KRAUSE: Very well.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now be in recess 15 minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. KRAUSE(ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT HAENSCH): Your Honor, The Secretary-General drew my attention to the fact that the document numbers Haensch 1 through 4 occurred twice, that is, in connection with the submission of the documents which are with the documents of the Witness Schreyer, who was heard on the witness stand. I would like you to permit me to make a change. I would like that the documents in Document Book No. I which up to new bore the numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4, now be called 1a, 2a, 3a, and 4a. The document submitted yesterday in the form of an index card of the dentist, Dr. Maennel, will now receive Exhibit No. 34, Document No. 33.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. The record will show that.
MR. WALTON: If your Honors please, the prosecution has one document to introduce in the case of Ohlendorf. Dr. Aschenauer has been patiently waiting all day, but I don't want to impede the defense counsel which are waiting. My understanding is that the plans of the Tribunal are to have Dr. Aschenauer begin his closing statement right after the afternoon, or the noon recess. If it is agreeable with Dr. Aschenauer and for the Tribunal and because of a matter of some importance which has come up in my office, I would like to reserve the right, before Dr. Aschenauer gets started this afternoon - it will take not more than five minutes -to offer my document and then hear from Dr. Aschenauer, so that I can leave for my office at the present time.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you want to do it now? Do you want to take five minutes?
MR. WALTON: Sir, there will be some objections, which Dr. Aschenauer desires to put and I thought when he took the podium, he could keep it.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
Dr. von Stein?
DR. VON STEIN (ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT SANDBERGER): I have submitted one document book for the defendant Sandberger, and I am new about to submit Document Book I-A.From Document Book I-A, I now offer as Exhibit No. 21, Sandberger Document No. 23.
It is an affidavit of one Harry Hanke, the former Radio Chief of the Staff of Einsatzgruppe A. He says from his own knowledge that Sandberger during the second half of September and the beginning of October 1941, was not in Esthonia, but in the territory south of Leningrad and secondly that the Chief of the Einsatzgruppe, Dr. Stahlecker, at the end of September, 1941, was in Riga.
I now submit as my next document, Sandberger Exhibit No. 22, Sandberger Document No. 24. It is in Document Book I-A, the affidavit of one Margarethe Oettinger. She also testifies that Sandberger during the mentioned time was in the frontal sector near Leningrad and that during this time the rear army territory in Esthonia was not subordinated to him, but that his deputy was in charge of that area. Furthermore, she testifies in accordance with Sandberger's direct examination that Reval was under Einsatzgruppe A at that time. Furthermore, she confirms the statements that Sandberger made in the witness box, answering the question put by the President concerning his absence from Reval in March and April 1942. Finally Miss Oettinger testifies from her own knowledge as to the facts which I have already mentioned when my affidavit was submitted, the affidavit of von Rechter. It was Exhibit No. 1.
Now I submit Sandberger Exhibit No. 23, Document No. 26, Document Book I-A, page 24, the affidavit of Criminal Commissar, Johannes Feder, who was a Sub-Kommando Chief in the Special Kommando 1-A. He confirms in this affidavit the correctness and accurateness of those statements which Sandberger made when he was on the-witness stand concerning the days of his absence from Riga from the 1st to the 4th of July, 1941.
I submit and offer from Document Book No. 1-A, page 60, Sandberger Document No. 37, which I offer as Sandberger Exhibit No. 24, the affidavit of Dr. Adolf Windecker. Windecker was a special plenipotentiary in the Foreign Office for the Baltic Countries and he has known the defendant Sandberger during the years 1941 to 1943. In this affidavit he quotes from a report which he sent voluntarily in November 1947 to the prosecution to Professor Kempner. In this affidavit he says that Sandberger supported and aided Estonian Jews, contrary to the orders received and that he had transported them to Pleskau where they were living in a camp up to the time when Obergruppenfuehrer Jackeln got hold of them. Herr Windecker also makes a positive general statement as to Sandberger's activities in Estonia.
My next document, which I offer as Sandberger Exhibit No. 25, is Sandberger Document No. 25, page 15, the affidavit of Gerhard Utikal. In May and June 1947 the affiant was in the same cell in the prison in Nurnberg with Sandberger. In order to explain this document, I may remind the Tribunal of the fact that Sandberger answered my question, with the permission of the President, when he was on the witness stand by giving a supplementary remark which was an explanation for the affidavit which he made out on the 23d of April, 1947. It was the question why in this affidavit nothing had been said about the examination and investigation of Communists. Sandberger testified in explanation of this that he wanted to say this, but that the Interrogator did not permit him to do so, and that the interrogator pointed out to him that he would be able to make such supplementary remarks in the near future,. Furthermore, Sandberger stated that he had assumed that this would be possible for him to do in the near future and he had prepared documents concerning this in his cell and he was still in the possession of these documents.
The affidavit by Utikal refers to the fact that Sandberger told him about these matters and that he himself had made the observation that Sandberger had made preparatory notes for an interrogation which was to come and that apart from this, in order to explain this particular procedure, he prepared a chart concerning this Communist matter. I submit a photostat of this chart and explanatory remarks concerning the chart. They are all documents made by Sandberger in Spring 1947 in his cell in Nurnberg in the presence of the affiant Gerhard Utikal.
I next offer Sandberger Exhibit No. 26, Sandberger Document No. 27, the affidavit of the merchant, Herbert von Dehn, who is now living in Kassel. He confirms from his own knowledge that as far as Communist activity in Russia was concerned, individual proceedings took place and that interrogations and investigations took place. Herr von Dehn speaks at some length about Sandberger's conciliatory attitude towards the Esthonian people.
I submit from Document Book No. 1-A, Sandberger Document 36 as Exhibit 27, the affidavit of one Carl Halter . Herr Walter had a leading position as an official between 1941 and 1944 in the German Administration in Reval. From his affidavit it becomes evident that Sandberger was even just,as far as Communist activities were concerned, and that he suggested amnesties to the Governor General on various occasions and that he took measures against denouncers. He furthermore speaks about his friendly attitude towards the Esthonians and he gives various examples. He says that Sandberger attempted to get the Foreign Office to make Esthonia. A Sovereign state according to international law.
As Sandberger Exhibit No. 28, I offer and submit Document No. 34, Affidavit of Fumy. Fumy was a Criminal Commissar in Office IV of the RSHA, the Reich Security Main Office, and as such he worked on the situation reports received.
This affidavit which I herewith submit supplements all the statements, the extensive statements, which Fumy made in the Ohlendorf Document No. 32, which has already been submitted by my colleague, Dr. Aschenauer. Fumy comments on the situation in the office for the reports which went from Reval to Berlin and refers especially to the operation events 88 and 111, which were submitted by the prosecution. He also confirms the statements which the Defendant Sandberger made when he was on the witness stand concerning operation Events 88 and 155. No. 29, the affidavit of one Dr, Hans Ehrlich, Group Chief in Office III of the Reich Security Main Office during the entire time of the war. Dr. Ehrlich confirms from his own knowledge that Sandberger's most important work was the Information and News Service in the domestic spheres. Dr. Ehrlich furthermore states that Sandberger had seen his main task in convincing the German agencies that Esthonia, within the program of a European new order, would have to receive its autonomy.
I submit and offer Sandberger Document No. 22, Exhibit No. 30, the affidavit of the Swedish Major Carl Mothander in Stockholm. Major Mothander knows Sardberger because during Sandberger's period of service in Esthonia he stayed in Esthonia on various occasions, for example, as a member of an investigating delegation of the Swedish Government, then as the Managing Director of an Esthonian Aid Committee in Stockholm, then as the representation of the Swedish Red Cross, then as the sole plenipotentiary of the Swedish Government for the transfer of Esthonian Swedes to Sweden. Owing to his familiarity with the people and the country in Esthonia and based on a number of discussions with Sandberger, Major Mothander says that Sandberger supported the Swedish Government constantly in this resettlement program of Swedes in Esthonia. In conclusion Mothander gives testimony as to the character of Sandberger. I quote:
"Political Police-Service is certainly pleasant in no country. Dr. Sandberger appeared to suffer on account of it often as a man. I got the impression that there must have been friction with higher superiors.