The actual speech or lecture could not be decided upon theoretically.
Q. So that you would listen to the speech and then you would look at him under a microscope, and after this big look, if you thought he might have done something, then you would have him shot. That is what we understand by your answer?
A. Yes.
Q. Very well. While you were in command of 7A, one report shows that 63 communists were killed. The report is dated 25 October.
A. Yes.
Q. Is that what these communists were doing about the type of activity which I have described to you?
A. No. That is an activity which largely is prevalent within the partisan movement. People were caught who were important functionaries of the communist party. Probably there also a few saboteurs and agents installed by the NKWD.
Q. Well, now, witness, since you were out to fight communism, why is it that you were so kind to the Jews when the Jews were the most active communists?
A. I have only been at those few places which I mentioned, and these places, Welisch-Welikki Luki, and at both these places the Jewish question was not as topical especially in comparison with the constant partisan danger so that the Jews in other places like Kalinin, for instance, where there were 30 and 40 Jews and the town was bombarded by Russian artillery fire, this question did not have to be dealt with immediately.
Q. Well, in all this time in the 9 months, do we understand you never saw a Jew?
A. I said also yesterday in my cross examination that in Welisch as well as in Kalinin and Rshow there were Jews, while in the sector of my second commando I cannot remember that there were any Jews. As I said, the Jews had left after the first stop of the German front, fled -after the first German holdup.
Q. Yes, but please answer the question. In all these 9-months' time, did you ever have to pass upon a Jew?
A. I said that in Welisch there were Jews and that in Kalinin there were Jews.
Q. All right, what did you do with the Jews in these two towns?
A. In the report, or in one of the reports it is mentioned that the Jews in Welisch -- in fact it is the report it is mentioned that that they put into ghettos. A further report from my commando chief says that a Jewish counsel was installed, and I am sure that in Rshow, Kalinin the regulations referring to Jews were made and were also a Jewish counsel was going to be formed.
Q. What did you do with the Jews that came before you either in examination or otherwise?
A. No Jews were put before me. I cannot remember any Jews.
Q. All right, well, then in all this time, coming back to the original question, in the 9-months' time you never had to pass sentence upon a Jew?
A. I did not conduct the investigations myself -- it is possible.
Q. In this time of 9-months while in command of one group and in command of another group, you never had to pass upon another Jew?
A. It is quite possible that there was one or two Jews among this or the other sentence and was shot under the general communist executions.
Q. You never had to pass upon a Jew as a Jew?
A. No, I don't remember that I ever sentenced a Jew as a Jew or that I confirmed such sentence. It is possible that among these partisans and communists there were Jews or could have been Jews.
Q. How many?
A. I don't know.
Q. You said a moment ago one or two Jews, now, were there more?
A. I said that there is the possibility that among these partisans or communists who were investigated were Jews.
Q. You don't know as a fact from your investigation whether even one Jew was executed among all these people who were killed -- you don't know as a fact that there was even one Jew?
A. I do not remember a concrete case of such.
Q. Then so far as your memory is concerned you do not recall one Jew in the 9 months' time that you were in Russia?
A. No, I remember so such case, but it is very probable.
Q. Well, now, let's get this very straight because we don't want to have any question about it. In the 9 months' time that you were in Russia you do not recall having passed on the case of one Jew?
A. No, because such a case would not have been submitted to me, as in the case of a Jew, but it would have been just one of the communist cases.
Q. Well, if you had an investigation of each man, if a man was a Jew, that would appear in the report, would it not, that he was a Jew in addition of being an active partisan?
A. Not necessarily, Your Honor; it is possible.
Q. Do you mean to tell us that any investigation made of a partisan or an active person resisting would not include his nationality and especially if he was a Jew in Russia?
A. No, I don't want to say that. It is possibly noted down if he is actually arrested as a Jew.
Q. He is arrested as a partisan, but in the investigation it develops that he is a Jew, wouldn't that appear in the record?
A. It is probable that it would appear in the record, yes.
Q. Now, I ask you the question again. In these 9 months' time did you ever pass upon a Jew?
A. I don't remember, but I think it probable.
Q. How many do you think that you passed upon?
A. I cannot give an estimate, but I think it possible that among those people sentenced there were Jews?
Q. How many Jews?
A. Your Honor, I can give no estimate; I can only say that I think that it possible that there were Jews among them.
Q. You think it possible, but you are not sure. Now, do you come back to the proposition that there were not Jews?
A. That I did not say, that there were no Jews.
Q. Well, you said it was possible, you doubt remember one instance where you saw definitely it was a Jew?
A. I cannot remember any individual cases.
Q. I certainly know that no Jew was sentenced because he was a Jew, but I thank it possible that among those executed there were individual Jews who were members of the partisan groups.
Q. But you don't remember how many?
A. No.
Q. Can you give us an estimate of the number?
A. No, I can give no estimate because, as I say, I don't remember any individual case, but I think it possible that there were possibly -at least I think it is probable even -- that there were Jews among these partisans or these communists.
Q. Perhaps two or three?
A. Your Honor, I can give no number because I would tell an untruth if I are to say that there were two or ten cases.
Q. Didn't you keep a report on the people that were executed -didn't you make a report on the people that were executed?
A. The reports were sent individually to the groups. Any sort of compilation was not carried out, as is mentioned in the situation reports.
Q. You got these reports, didn't you?
A. I generally received the individual reports of events if I was present.
Q. Yes, and from all these reports which you received of executions you do not recall whether any Jews were executed or not?
A. In any case no reports were received according to which Jews were executed as Jews. The kind of reporting makes it absolutely necessary that this would have been reported if it would have happened.
Q. You don't remember one report of any Jew who was executed as a partisan because he was a Jew?
A. I say I cannot remember any individual case, but I do not exclude the possibility by that there were Jews among the partisans.
Q. Now is it that you remember so well all these other reports that you were making, the reports on the collective farm system, on the Russian church, on the Bolchevik state, and you even made a study of Stalin's speeches, but would you regard that as more important than keeping a report on all the people that were killed?
A. Your Honor, I tried to explain that I did not regard the Police Department as work which was in my line and that I personally only tried to deal with the Information Service, reporting. Therefore, these activities were those which I was not interested in carrying out, because it was not my work, except for the one incident during the period which I have described when I was in my second commando.
Q. In spite of directives by Nebe that you give more attention to the Police Security Work, you still insist that your primary task was the making up of reports on farms and on Stalin's speeches?
A. My personal activity was through my field of activities until then, the SD reporting. For the Police and military organizations, I had collaborators which carried this out.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any witnesses ready to be called? I have here Eugene.......no, that is the defendant.
DR. VON STEIN (ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT SANDBERGER):
Dr. Mae.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Mae? Very well. During the recess, unless there is any other redirect or recross, during the recess the present defendant witness will be brought in the box for examination.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. HJALMAR MAE, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE DIXON: Witness, raise your right hand and repeat after me:
"I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing."
(The witness repeated the oath.)
JUDGE DIXON: You may be seated.
DR. VON STEIN (ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT SANDBERGER): May I start?
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed. BY DR. VON STEIN (ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT SANDBERGER):
Q. Witness, please describe briefly the most important points of your career, in as far as it is necessary to judge in how far it concerns the answering of the questions to come.
A. My name is Hjalmar Mae, born the 24th of October in Tartu, Esthonia. I am an Esthonian citizen. I am married. I am a Doctor of Philosophy, a Doctor of Political Sciences. I am a Protestant. Since 1929 I have been active as a politician in Esthonia.
Q. Witness, in the year when Russia occupied Esthonia, that is, 1940 to 1941, were you in Esthonia at that time?
A. Yes, until March 1941 I was in Esthonia. After that I fled in order to escape the Communists, but until 16 March 1941, I witnessed the occupation of my homeland by the Communists.
Q. Witness, how do you know about events in Esthonia since March 1941 until summer of 1941?
A. I know them from the statements of people whom I know to be trustworthy and reliable, from statements by members of my family who were in Esthonia at that time and official documents, which I personally read.
Q. When did you return to Esthonia?
A. I returned to Esthonia on the 16th of July, 1941 to Bernau, but I could only stay for one day, because the Field Commandant asked for my immediate return from Esthonia. After that I returned to Latvia. The Latvians gave me a house and on 18 August 1941, I was able to return to Esthonia to Bernau. Since then, I have been in Esthonia until 22 September 1944. Then I fled again in order to escape the new occupation by the Communist Troops there.
Q. When and where did you meet Dr. Sandberger?
A. I met Dr. Sandberger in Talinn. Talinn is the capital of Esthonia and in German it is called Reval. I met him there on 30 August 1941. I tried to meet him before, but I did not succeed. In Tartu, in German, Dorpat, and I did not manage to meet him in Ragnel, in German, Wesenberg, because Dr. Sandberger was always traveling and because of the attack on Talinn I was not able to reach him in Dorpat.
Q. Did you hear anything from other Estonian circles about Dr. Sandberger?
A. Yes; the reason why I tried so hard to meet Dr. Sandberger was that in Estonian circles in the south of Estonia it was known that he had tried to help us and that he was very understanding and, therefore, I wanted to meet him. The deputy of Dr. Kleist, who enabled me to make the journey - I asked him to introduce me to him but I only succeeded on 30 August.
Q. Please give us some Estonian names, who particularly tried to help you concerning Dr. Sandberger?
A. The Estonian Colonel Tilgre was a political counsellor since the first days of his activity in Estonia. Colonel Tilgre was a very highly esteemed officer. For about fifteen years he had been adjutant to the Prime Minister, he knew a great number of important persons, and Estonian nationalist circles suggested him, and Dr. Sandberger used him as his personal political counsellor until Talinn was captured.
Q. Witness, please tell us which office you took over in the fall of 1941 in Estonia.
A. On 20 September 1941, at the order of the commander of the Rear Army Territory North, I was given the position of a Director for Education and Law, as a member of the Estonian self administration. My colleagues practically considered me the chief of the Estonian self administration and accepted me as such, and in their capacity I was active until I was officially confirmed in that position.
Q. Witness, to take up such an important position which was given to you by the Estonian president.........was this made legitimate?
A. Repeatedly I had discussions with our State president after the occupation of our homeland, who was convinced - like all of us - that the War between the Soviet Union and Germany would come about soon, only it was not obvious who would start this war. He was the Germans would win.
He believed, however, that the United States of America would take part in the war and that this entry would bring about the final victory to the Allies. For that reason for us it was come about to recover the sovereignty of our State.
He gave me the Communism would regain their independence.
Q. Witness, may I ask you to speak a little slower so that to hold this important position in Estonia?
A. Dr. Kleist. Dr. Kleist was in the Foreign Office, and Dr. Kleist knew Estonia very well.
He was sympathetic towards it, Denmark.
Dr. Kleist shortly before the beginning of the war with right that the development of events through the so-called fait accompli
Q. Witness, how were you appointed in Estonia?
A. Dr. Kleist assisted here because he negotiated with Army agencies.
On 16 July I was able to travel to Bernau. I intended central Estonian administration agency.
Q. What was the situation which you found at the time in the city of Bernau?
A. On 8 June Bernau had been liberated from the Communists, He called himself temporarily authorized president of state, and as
Q. What was the reaction of the Commander in Chief of the German Army?
A. The German Commander in Chief reacted to this with set up, particularly local or field command offices.
After that, and I had to return immediately.
I left for Latvia, and in Latvia had its effects in Latvia.
In Latvia, very early the German civilian and as part of the work of this Reich Commissar and the concerns of
Q. How were you pointed then?
A. I said before, on 18 August I returned to Bernau in Estonia together with Dr. Kleist, and in his presence I talked to and negotiated with him.
General von Rock was very understanding,
Q. What do you know about the situation in Tartu at the time?
A. I left Bernau the same dry, for Tartu. Tartu had been mained for some time on the Embach River.
This river goes right through the center of the city of Tartu, and serious fighting between the Estonian self-defense and the German army, and on the other hand between the Red Army, had taken place.
In Tartu, owing to this fighting, people were very much embittered because, among others, Tartu was the place where mass murders had been carried out. In the prison of Tartu, 192 highly esteemed citizens were murdered by the Communists.
MR. GLANCY: May it please the Tribunal, we accept the good doctor as a political authority, but we fail to see the relevance of his statements as far as it concerns the activities of Sandberger. On these grounds we object to this line of testimony.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Mandry, it isn't yet evident just what the relevancy of this is. I presume he is leading up to something very specific. Would you please indicate to the Tribunal what you intend to establish by this witness?
DR. VON STEIN: Your Honor, the questions which I address as preliminary questions to the witness now have the purpose of describing whether the statements that the defendant himself will make later on in the witness stand are correct. First of all, the question whether it is right that at the time he heard in Pretzsch about the position in the Estonian territory, whether he was ordered to......... The truth I want to establish through statements of this witness, who is an expert on his country. I consider it important whether the witness came there from Estonia as one who was only informed through propaganda, or whether the actual facts which he saw himself conformed with the truth. For that reason I ask to be allowed to put all these questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Do I understand, Dr. von Stein......I think I got your name incorrectly first........that you are going to establish that the defendant Sandberger, when he arrived at Pretzsch, was confronted with a certain situation. He was informed that conditions were such in Estonia. And you want to confirm that the report given to him correspond with fact?
DR. VON STEIN: Yes, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Now, that is relevant, but we yet don't have the specific statement that the defendant was confronted with, so we don't know what this witness is going to confirm. That is our difficulty.
DR. VON STEIN: Your Honor, the further questions which this witness will confirm as actual facts are these questions....... that work was carried out in Estonia. He will describe exactly his activity, how Sandberger acted there, whether his activity mainly consisted of police security tasks, or whether his activity consisted of different subjects mainly.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, does this witness actually know Sandberger? Did he see him in Estonia?
DR. VON STEIN: Yes, your Honor. All these years.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we will permit you to question, and then Mr. Glancy - if you find that you believe it is becoming irrelevant we will hear another objection.
BY DR. VON STEIN:
Q: Witness, in the city of Dorpat, who was responsible at the time?
A: The first Germans who arrived in Dorpat on 11 July 1941 were the units and the men of the local commander of Dorpat. The field commander, Colonel Bosebruch, arrived on 12 July, and since fighting went on for weeks all authorities and units were subordinate to the field commandant of Dorpat.
Q: What measures did this Colonel Boseruch take?
A: I can only describe measures insofar as they concerned with prestige... he was very strict.
MR. GLANCY: One moment, please. If it please the Tribunal, we have had the testimony of this witness to the effect that he returned on the 18th of August. He is now testifying as to happenings on the 11th of July. This is merely hearsay.
THE PRESIDENTS: Isn't that correct, Dr. von Stein?
DR. VON STEIN: Your Honor, the witness testified before that certain conditions in Estonia he knows from reports and official documents; other facts he witnessed himself when he was in Estonia. What the witness tells us now probably concerns these things which he also knows, not only from hearsay but also from documents; and beyond that, your Honor, it does not depend so much on the actual facts but the witness also testified that this Collnel Bosebruch stayed not for one or two days, but two years. For that reason I submit that the objection of the Prosecutor be overruled.
THE PRESIDENT: Where the witness is testifying as to actual knowledge, he certainly can speak with greater amplitude than where he is speaking only from study. So it would seem to the Tribunal that when the witness is going to tell us something which he only read -- that then he abbreviate his statement and make it very short because obviously it isn't something of his own first-hand knowledge.
BY DR. VON STEIN:
Q: Witness, may I therefore ask you to be very brief on the following questions. I repeat the question... What measures did Colonel Bosebruch take. Please only talk about the fact whether this Colonel Bosebruch carried out arrests immediately, and to what extent this was done.
A: Colonel Bosebruch had given orders that all persons arrested be handed over to the field commandant in Dorpat, and he judged these people and disposed of them.
Q: What happened to these persons who were arrested?
A: I cannot say this from my own knowledge, but I know from reports, that minor Communists who only deserved small punishment were shot by him, and we considered this to be brutal.
Q: Witness, when did the independent power of the field commanders cease to exist?
A: On 20 September 1941, when the Rear Army Territory because part of that area.
Q: Witness, I am now telling you about the document which the Prosecution filed against Sandberger.
DR. VON STEIN: Your Honor, this is a document in Volume II-A. I can state the contents very briefly. It may not be necessary, your Honor, that this be read out. There is only one question from the document. Volume II-A English page 86-a, the following is being said in this document:
"In the district of the city of Dorpat since the occupation of the city by German troops, 291 persons were arrested, were put into a camp which the field commander set up. In this time, that is, after the German troops occupied the city, 405 persons, 50 of them Jews, were executed."
THE PRESIDENT: Did you say this is on page 86?
DR. VON STEIN: 86-A.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the document number? We don't find it.
DR. VON STEIN: Exhibit 46.
THE PRESIDENT: What document number?
MR. GLANCY: Sir, it is NO-3149, to be found on page 88.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, I see; he's reading from page 88. Very well, Thank you.
Q: (By Dr. von Stein): Witness, I presume that you did not know anything personally about these events. I address the general question to you. Insofar as conditions in this city in the district of Dorpat became known to you, do you consider it possible that these measures were carried out under the responsibility of the German field commander.
A: Yes.
Q: If I understand you correctly, at that time --- in July and August, and possibly beyond that --- in the city and district of Dorpat, it was like this... That subordinate authorities, whether Estonian or German, actually could not exercise any power but all tasks were handled by the field commandant exclusively... Is that right?
A: Yes, that is how it is. The field commandant of Dorpat had set up an administration department. I also had to deal with this at a later time.
Q: Witness, I now come back to the question, when and how you met Sandberger?
A: I met Dr. Sandberger, as I said, on 30 August 1941 in Talinn.
Q: When were you assisted by Dr. Sandberger for the first time?
A: Immediately after meeting him I considered it the first task to help the families of tens of thousands of people who had been deported. For that purpose, all our charitable organizations and churches were invited to help, and together formed an organization of the Estonian People's Assistance and I asked Dr. Sandberger to obtain permission from the Army commanders. He did this.
Q: And what was your power, your authority?
A: On 20 September 1941, I was appointed as a member of the Estonian independent administration. Five men with the same rights were appointed, who were authorized to issue directives with legal strength. They were all independent, but, as I said, they considered me practically to be the chief, and accepted me as such because until then I had conducted all negotiations and was asked to continue to do so.
Q Witness, what was the competency of the self administration? up, concerning the territory, we were not competent for the whole of Estonia because not the whole of Estonia had been freed from the enemy. Only on 21 October, 1941 the whole of Estonia was under our competence.
Q When was the German Civilian Administration set up in Estonia? with a general commissar at the head of it. The general commissar confirmed all laws and directives which we had made until then. and did Dr. Sandberger help you to overcome these difficulties? culties arose in every field. Whether it was a minor or a major question, the general and civilian administration wanted to take part in everything and interfere; and Dr. Sandberger took an interest in all minor or major questions and helped until a good relation with the German Civilian Administration had been established in August.
Q After the 30th of August, what did Dr. Sandberger hear from in on the Estonian personalities about the suffering of the Estonian people under the communists about the needs of the day and the discussions with Dr. Kleist, concerning the aims and the future of Estonia?
A I informed Dr. Sandberger about the fact of how Estonia had been occupied by the Soviet Union in 1940. I laid this down in an affidavit and submitted it to the Tribunal already, and I don't want to tire the Tribunal by repeating this orally, it deals with the violation of international law and of agreements between the Soviet Union and Estonia. I explained there the situation in detail and proved it through excerpts from documents. If the high Tribunal considers it right that I repeat this here orally, I will be glad to do so.
MR. GLANCY: If it please the Tribunal, international law, customs, usages and political background is not part of the charge. We are concerned with a very narrow channelized thing -- murder. I wish the witness would confine himself to his knowledge of Sandberger's activities and not concern himself with political surveys
THE PRESIDENT: I do believe, Dr. Von Stein, that your witness is sort of spreading out into territory which goes far beyond the limits of the indictment.
DR. VON STEIN: Your Honor, the witness just mentioned an affidavit which he submitted. I consider it helpful that the witness makes his statements before this Tribunal orally so that the Prosecution cross examine the witness afterwards about those points they want the witness to explain. I want to say the following: I consider it of great importance whether the witness will confirm to us here what he himself told the defendant Sandberger about conditions in the country, in which Sandberger was active at the time. Based upon these facts in particular, the Tribunal can get an opinion on the statements which might be used in the defense of the defendant; whether they are afterwards confirmed with the truth; whether they conform to the truth. is certainly relevant, but it doesn't seem that your question was restricted to such a narrow proposition as that. Put your question again.
DR. VON STEIN: Your Honor, my question is as follows: I addressed the question to the witness what he himself when he met Sandberger on the 30th of August told him about the suffering of the Estonian people as a consequence of the occupation by the Soviet Union. Your Honor, all those things were told the defendant in Pretzsch at the time, and the Tribunal should know whether this information was merely propaganda or whether these are facts and truths that actually occurred. Your Honor, it is also of importance for the attitude of any defendant, whether the defendants were lied to; it is a difficult thing when the defendants here heard something from people who should have been experts, or came to decisions through their own experiences.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we will permit the question, Dr. Von Stein.
Do you know what the question is? I am asking the witness if he knows what the question is. BY DR. VON STEIN: asking you what information did you give to Dr. Sandberger on the 30th of August about the suffering of the Estonian people under the communists. Witness, I now ask you not to refer to your affidavit which we do not know, but I ask you to describe the things as they occurred at the time; therefore, what did you tell Sandberger at the time.
A It's like this. I informed Dr. Sandberger when I met him, about events in Estonia, and for that purpose, first of all I explained to him, since people abroad know very little about Estonia in general, that Estonia is a sovereign state and a member of the League of Nations. In the year 1939 it had been given an ultimatum by the Soviet Union, with the request to sign an agreement of assistance and friendship with the Soviet Union, on the basis of which the Soviet Union wanted to use some areas in Estonia for military purposes. In the agreement it has been expressly mentioned that the Soviet Union in no way wanted to interfere with the domestic affairs of Estonia. In the summer of 1940, the conference of the Baltic foreign ministers took place in Talinn, as had been previously announced by the Soviet Union; when the Ministers were asked whether they objected to this Treaty. During the conference of the Baltic foreign ministers, Estonia, like other Baltic states, was given an ultimatum of six hours saying that Estonia did not want to accept the Soviet Union together with all other Baltic states.
THE PRESIDENT: You had better repeat that entire statement so that there will be no question as to just what the witness said. Estonia wanted to attack the Soviet Union, and for that reason, for security sake, the Soviet Union requested that the Soviet troops enter Estonia immediately, and appointed a new government that would accept and sign this agreement of friendship.