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.
A natural tendency to human kindness and justice often betrayed itself in his nature. For that reason he was always open to what is called "Argumentum ad hominem." testimony but by his own attitude and by his own impression he had discussed it with a former clergyman, a man called Roehl in Reval, who at that time also had been able to dance behind the scenes in Esthonia and he agrees with Mothander's attitude about Sandberger.
I submit from Document Book Sandberger I-A, Document No. 33, which I offer and submit as Exhibit No. 31, the affidavit of one Dr. Bruno Peter von Kleist who lives in Reinbek, who confirms that Sandberger with all the means at his disposal took part in the attempt to compel the Reich Government to carry out a certain autonomy in Esthonia. From a number of remarks in Esthonian circles, Dr. von Kleist found out that the Esthonians often sought Sandberger's protection when German agencies became rambunctious.
I offer as my next document, Sandberger Exhibit No. 32, Document No. 28, the affidavit of one Heinrich Bernhard, who from 1935 to 1938 was the Chief of the Main Department for Foreign Countries in the SD sector in Stuttgart and from 1939 to 1945 was Departmental Chief in office VI in the RSHA, the Reich Security Main Office, who confirms the statements of Dr. Scheel, Eiseler, and Sandberger concerning the involuntariness of cooperation with the SD during the war.
office of the RSHA between 1944 and 1945. The Affidavit of Erich Olbrueck who lives in Schmilling near Arolsen. Document No. 29 I offer which is Sandberger's Exhibit No. 33. Olbrueck gives the personnel and political policies which Sandberger practiced. Furthermore, he reports that in May 1945 Sandberger reported voluntarily to the US Army. The next three affidavits concern the activity in Office VI the RSHA in 1944 and 1945. I offer from Document Book I-A Document No. 30, affidavit of one Dr. Gisel her Wirsing, which is offered as Exhibit No. 34, concerning the activity of Office VI of the Reich Security Main Office. Then there is document No. 35, affidavit of one Dr, Paeffgen , who between '43 and '45 was active as the Security Chief in Office VI for England and America. I offer it as Exhibit No. 35. This affidavit also refers to activity of Office VI of the RSHA. Next I offer Document No. 31 as the affidavit of former chief of Office VI in the RSHA, one Walter Schellenberg. I offer it as Document Exhibit No.36. Schellenberg among other things reports that in the course of his activity, especially in the activity in Estonia, Sandberger got in disgrace with a number of his superiors, and "I remember very well that Sandberger was criticized very unfavorably in Office LV, especially by its Office Chief Lueller", and they made a number of derogatory remarks about him. Schellenberg furthermore reports that suggestions were made to transfer Sandberger and to promote him and that they were refused by Heydrich and by Kaltenbrunner on two occasions. He comments on Prosecution Document 5045, which is Exhibit 182 of the Prosecution, which come up during the cross examination of Sandberger and he reports, and I quote: "He had confidential discussions with him, the affiant, which were conducted with great candor, and he made remarks saying that he was very worried about the policy of the German Government, which he considered wrong. He objects to all strict political measures, against measures which were opposed to the church end measures against the Jews. Next I submit Document No. 3 affidavit of Heinz 'Wanninger, 2 January 1948, which I offer as Exhibit No. 37.
Wanninger was in 1944 and 1945 Chief of the personnel department of the RSHA. The Prosecution Document 3045, Exhibit No. 182, bears his name. He comments on how it was possible that data concerning personnel matte rs were inaccurate in documents of the RSHA. Furthermore, he confirms statements which also are in the affidavit by Rudolf Hotzel. He says that the secrecy among the various offices was very strict, and as a member of Office I I didn't know about any activities of other offices in the RSHA, and especially no sofar as Office IV was concerned.
Now I come to Document Book No. II. In order to bring proof of the inaccuracies in Document 5045, particularly the dates, I now submit and offer as Sandberger's No. 38, a certified copy of the birth certificate of the wife of the defendant Sandberger, Mrs. Eva Sandberger nee Kirschstein, which is in Sandberger's Document Book II, Doc. No. 11, page 61. The comparison between this date and the date of Exhibit No. 182, shows that the date in Exh. 182 is wrong. As my next document I offer and I submit Exhibit No. 39, Document No. 5 on page 50. It is an excerpt from the Prosecution's Document No. 1180, Exhibit No. 34, of Prosecution Volume II-A, that pert of the document which has not been submitted by the Prosecution. This document mentioned the members of a leading central committee, especially, those leading Communist Functionaries who in the Summer of 1941 had remained in Estonia on Soviet Orders in order to direct political, underground organization, for the purpose of carrying out espionage acts, sabotage acts, and other illegal activities Sandberger referred to this list when he was on the witness stand, when he was asked by the Prosectuion who in particular were these people, these people, these leading Communist Functionaries who were named in the report 55 of Prosecution's Document NO 3272. Prosecution Document NO 3279, Prosecution Vol. 1; from the list which I submit in connection with the statement that Sandberger made, it becomes evident that these chief functionaries were not condemned to death because they were Communist Functionaries, but because they were carrying on sabotage and espionage acts and building up an organization.
As my next document I submit Sandberger's Document No. 40, it is document No. 9-C, an excerpt from an article of the Canadian Professor Watson Kirkconell, who wrote this in an English magazine, the "Baltic Review", published in Stockholm. The excerpt which I submit contains a list of groups of people who during the time of the occupation of the Baltic State in 1940 and 1941 were to be liquidated by the NKWD. This list is published by Lithuanian-American circles in New York, and that the author is in possession of a copy of this document.
MR. HOCHWALD: The prosecution objects to this document, the excerpt of a newspaper is no evidence , moreover, it is immaterial and has no value in the case.
DR. VON STEIN: The reason why I submit this document is to support the testimony of the witness Dr. Mac. This objection was also raised when that witness was on the witness stand, but the Tribunal was kind enough to admit the question, and in order to support this statement I submit this excerpt which states that the original of this list is in New York.
MR. HOCHWALD: This does not change anything in the nature of the document, Your Honor. The document is not a captured document, it is not an affidavit, end it is inadmissible in its form.
DR. V ON STEIN: I submit this document mainly in order to bring an illustration from another party. I had relied only on the testimony of the witness Dr. Mae as well as Sandberger, and in order to support this testimony I would like to submit an article which comes from abroad and which confirms the same fact.
MR. HOCHWALD: It would be perfectly correct, if Dr. von Stein would have received an affidavit from the writer of the article offered, that would be corroborative evidence for sure. It would be another question where the evidence on this would be material, but all arguments do not change one fact. An article in a newspaper which is not a captured document, which was not written before 1945, cannot serve as evidence before the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: I am afraid, Dr. Stein, that would be stretching the rule of liberality a little bit too far, after all, it is merely a comment by some one not involved in the trial.
DR. VON STEIN: Your Honor, I am not in a position to support this evidence by other documents. I only have the opportunity of pointing out documents which originated abroad , and the Tribunal can of course assign any probative value it wishes , but it is not that I only have to submit official documents but I can also submit anything of any probative value, and I think that the views of the foreign press, especially something which appeared in N.Y., might have a certain probative value.
MR. HOCHWALD: If argument of defense counsel would be correct, then it would be easy to decide the case by submitting some articles which are referring to the guilt or innocence of these defendants, if the article appeared in a New York newspaper or in a Washington newspaper, during the time of the trial; the Tribunal would certainly not accept such evidence which in essence is absolutely the same thing. We have never tried, and we would not try to put in evidence --
DR. VON STEIN: May I point out again, Your Honor, from this Baltic Review, the source from which the original was obtained is listed. Probably that will suffice, as it is not just an article which I offer, but I submit the source which is contained in the document itself.
MR. HOCHWALD: If Dr. von Stein would have put in the original in its form, possibly the exhibit would have been correct, I am not sure as to its contents , but only by giving the source of the article in the newspaper, the Prosecution has no possibilityto check these sources, and would place too much of a burden on the Prosecution to prove the incorrectness of the article.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. von Stein , don't you see that this type of evidence is like a double-edged sword. If you would be allowed to introduce a newspaper article which could be interpreted favorably to the defense, the Prosecution then could introduce many newspaper articles to the contrary.
Then you have evidence here which is not under the control of the Tribunal. The evidence which comes into the Tribunal must have all the safeguards which go with the ascertainment of truth, examination, cross examination, ascertainment of source of material which you could not hove in the mere submission of a newspaper article which could be written by some prejudiced, or some one not in possession of all the facts. It would be a different thing if the question was, did a newspaper article appear or not and that became the issue, but that is not the issue here. Some newspaper man may express a thought, a view and certainly we can not charge the defendants with that thought or view expressed by some one who is not in the courtroom.
DR. VON STEIN: Your Honor, the document contains the source of this statement and is at the disposal of the Prosecution at any time.
MR. HOCHWALD: It is not the burden of the Prosecution but I would like to make it very clear to get the evidence which the defense wants to put in. If Dr. von Stein wants to prove something, he has to put in the exhibit, not the Prosecution can be charged in finding the book in which this evidence alledgedly is to be found.
THE PRESIDENT: We think, Dr. von Stein, in order to preserve the absolute impartiality of the deliberations, that a newspaper article may not be accepted, so the objection of the Prosecution is sustained. I would like to have you make a note, Mr. Hochwald, that one time you were sustained.
MR. HOCHWALD: Thank you very much.
DR. VON STEIN: May I proceed?
THE PRESIDENT: Please do.
DR. VON STEIN: Concerning the question of the Communists in Estonia, I submit No. 41, Sandberger's Document No. 1, in Document Book No. 11, an excerpt from operation events of the RSHA, namely such excerpts from prosecution documents whichwere not submitted by the Prosecution in their document books. Also I submit excerpts, copies from the so-called reports from the Eastern Occupied Countries, which were published by the RSHA, 1942 and '43, in connection with the operation reports which I had mentioned before.
These are in photostatic form in the office of the Prosecution. I would like to thank the Prosecution for permitting me to look through all these reports, and to copy excerpts from the indexes and contents of these books. As Sandberger's Exhibit 42, I submit Document No. 2 in Sandberger's Document Book No. 13. This contains certified excerpts from the Eastern reports submitted by the Prosecution. As Exhibit No. 43, Sandberger's No. 3, page 12-A, excerpt from operation report of 7 November 1941, No. 130. This excerpt describes the methods of the Bolshevist Agents in the area of the Army Group North. Especially the fact that women and juvenile children over fourteen were used by the Russians as agents. Referring to these report of events and reports from Eastern Occupied Territories I may point out the following: The excerpts from the reports of events No. 29 and No. 166, concern the measures of the Soviet in Estonia in the years of 1941 and 1942, and the measures to deport anti-Soviet elements from the Baltic to Siberia. It also concerns the fact that the Soviets in 1941 and '42, deported 60,911 people.
MR. HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, I do think it is clear from the presentation by Dr. von Stein, that this document has no value in the case. We object therefore, to the presentation of this document.
THE PRESIDENT: It may not be precisely relevant but we will admit it for whatever probative value it will have, shedding some light on the possible interpretation by the defendants on the historical situation, if it existed.
DR. VON STEIN: The excerpt from report of events, No. 51, concerns itself with the Soviet destruction battalions and excerpt 53 has to do with Communist Partisan activity in Estonia. The reports of events No. 163 and 171, 176, 178, 180 and 191, and the reports from the Occupied Eastern Territories, Nos. 3,30 and 50, report of this extensive activity of parachutists in Estonia. As for SK I-A, Special Commando 1-A, which Sandberger commanded in Leningrad, Sandberger said that this Commando dealt mainly with G-2 tasks. In this connection I picked out the above-mentioned excerpts from the reports of events, and also one excerpt from report of events 116. This states that the main task of the subcommando of Einsatzgruppe A before Leningrad was the military and political information service, and the intelligence service methods are explained. In accordance with this I may draw attention to pages 1 and 3 of a Situational Report, in which it is said that Pleskau in June 1941 had been the garrison of SK 1-B but not of SK 1-A. These are the excerpts submitted by me from reports of events No. 24 and No. 34. It becomes evident from this that the passage contained in the Document 3401 concerning Pleskau, that is in Document Book 2-A, on page 110 of the English Document Book, is objectively wrong. I may refer here to the statement of Sandberger when he was on the witness stand. I now submit documents concerning the general testimony which was made by Dr. Mae, former chief of the Estonian Administration in connection with the conditions which Sandberger found when he arrived in 1941 in Estonia, and also concerning the attitude of the Soviets which led to these conditions. I submit document No. 9-b, page 55, as Exhibit No. 44. That is an excerpt from a newspaper article of the American Citizen, Julius Epstein, entitled "Broken City."
MR. HOCHWALD: The objection is the same as the one on which I was sustained.
THE PRESIDENT: The ruling is the same as the one on which you were sustained.
DR. VON STEIN: I was just about to give the exact source for this document.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it is from a newspaper article?
DR. VON STEIN: It was published in 1946 in a report, Appendix, of Washington, January 1946.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. von Stein, it must be apparent to you that we can not accept evidence of that kind. It is no reflection on the newspaper, or the writer of the article, but it is the general principle which is involved, that if you open the door to newspapers, then you will be trying the case on hearsay evidence.
DR. VON STEIN: Your Honor, but the source is given in the newspaper article.
THE PRESIDENT: Don't you see, Dr. von Stein, the person who writes the article is not under oath, he may be mistaken in his source of information, there is no chance for cross examination. I don't think you need to argue that point. We just can not accept them.
DR. VON STEIN: I now offer Document Sandberger 9-E and 9-F in the Document Book on pages 58 and 59, as Exhibits 45 and 46. Then I submit Sandberger Document No. 9-A as Exhibit No. 47, an excerpt from an article by the Estonian Protestant Bishop -
THE PRESIDENT: What is the date of that article?
DR. VON STEIN: The date?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. VON STEIN: 1946.
THE PRESIDENT: You see, Dr. von Stein, if this newspaper article had been published during the time that Sandberger was there, then it could be evidence of the fact that the newspaper was published, and it stated certain things, but here is a newspaper which came out after the events, which are the subject of this trial, ended.
DR. VON STEIN: Yes, but the newspaper article concerns itself with events of 1940 and '41 in Estonia.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, then you should have here the man who actually knows of these events.
DR. VON STEIN: As Exhibit Sandberger's No. 49 I submit and offer an excerpt from the Journal Official de la Republique 19 July 1946. This is an excerpt from a speech by -
THE PRESIDENT: It is the same thing.
DR. VON STEIN: I may point out, Your Honor, that this Exhibit No. 49 from the Journal Official de la Republique Francaise is a photo-copy of the original.
MR. HOCHWALD: It is not the original article.
THE PRESIDENT: A photostat of what?
DR. VON STEIN: Photostat of the Journal Official de la Republique Francaise, and has been certified by a notary public.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the date of the newspaper article?
MR. HOCHWALD: The date of the newspaper is 19 July 1946, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Suppose you are submitting the newspaper here, it would be subject to the same type of objection. The fact that it is photostated does not magnify the article.
DR. VON STEIN: It is not a general newspaper, but the official organ of the French Republic, one could not compare this with a newspaper.