THE PRESIDENT: Your question is entirely too broad. You want this witness to tell what every member of the population thought. In the first place, how can he tell what anybody thinks? Now he's already explained that they suffered great losses and he's told about deportations. The deeds speak more than thoughts. So he can't testify as to what everybody else thought. He can only testify as to what they said and what they did. Now, it seems you have indicated what he told Sandberger so the time ought to be ripe now to bring Sandberger in on the Scene.
DR. VON STEIN: What I meant, Your Honor, was this: The witness must know what the general atmosphere of the Esthonian people was at that time and I put the question to the witness, whether he gave Sandberger an idea of this attitude and atmosphere within the Esthonian people. That was my question.
THE PRESIDENT: That isn't what your question was originally. You asked him what the population thought. Now, if you will ask him what he told Sandberger, that is another thing; and, furthermore, it seems that he's already told us what he told Sandberger.
DR. VON STEIN: Yes, Your Honor, I shall withdraw the question. BY DR. VON STEIN:
Q. Witness, I put the following question to you: What did Sandberger learn from you about the regulations prevailing in the Esthonian Republic concerning Communist activities?
A. The Communist Party and activities in Esthonia was prohibited since the public riot attempt 1st December, 1924. Activities were regarded illegal and therefore punished by court martial.
MR. GLANCY: If it please the Court, the membersof the Prosecution do not wish to seem persistent, but again we enter the same objection on the same grounds, that of relevancy. That the population thought about the Communists has nothing to do with the crimes with which the defendant Sandberger is charged.
THE PRESIDENT: You are now going back to 1924 what the Esthonian population thought in 1924 or what the official attitude of the Republic was in 1924.
You are going back to 1924 and a great deal happened between 1924 and 1941 which could completely change a scene which occurred in 1924. That is certainly too far back.
DR. VON STEIN: This morning I heard the President put a question concerning Communists. This question wasput to the defendant Steimle and it was to the effect whether Steimle had had Communists shot just because they were Communists.
THE PRESIDENT: That was in 1941. I certainly didn't ask him what he did in 1924.
DR. VON STEIN: Your Honor, it does not refer to the years 1924 or 1920 but it merely refers to the time 1940, that is, even the time before Russia invaded Esthonia.
THE PRESIDENT: And there is a vast difference between the question which the Tribunal put to Steimle, who is a defendant charged with a specific crime, and this witness, who is not a defendant and who has come in here only to testify as to conditions which Sandberger was familiar with. Now, Sandberger certainly didn't know what was happening in Esthonia in 1924. At any rate, he isn't chaged with any knowledge of what happened in 1924, and even if we suppose that he did know, are you going to argue that because the Communists did certain things that Sandberger was privileged to do the same? Is that your theory?
DR. VON STEIN: No, Your Honor. My starting point is the following: I want to show the Tribunal what the legal rules were prevailing until 1941 concerning Communism or Communist activities and what did Communist action mean. Did it mean that a man would be punished severely just because he was merely a communist?
THE PRESIDENT: We have already allowed you to do that and we will allow you even further to do it, but its don't see how it is going to help anybody to have this witness tell us about 1924 which is the date the witness mentioned.
DR. VON STEIN: Your Honor, I only asked the witness the question concerning the time until the time 1941 and how the situation was at that time. I don't want to know how it was in 1924, I only want to hear from the witness what he himself told Sandnerger about legal regulations in Esthonia before the Russians occupied Esthonia.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it you don't want to hear about 1924 and the Tribunal doesn't want to hear about 1924, I guess we are unanimous, we don't want to hear about 1924.
DR. VON STEIN: No, I don't want to hear anything about 1924; I want to hear about 1940.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Let's hear about 1941. BY DR. VON STEIN:
Q. Witness, what were the regulations prevalent in Esthonia in 1940 concerning Communism or Communist activities?
A. It was legally forbidden; Communist activities were regarded illegal and was punished by court martial. The sentences were up to death sentences.
THE PRESIDENT: Well now, I don't quite follow you. Which government is issueing these decrees, now?
THE WITNESS: The government of the Esthonian Rupublic.
THE PRESIDENT: I thought that you had told us that the Soviet government had taken over; that they had won the election; that you had a Soviet government after 1940.
THE WITNESS: On the 22 June 1940 the Esthonian independent government ceased to exist. Until then Communism had been forbidden, as I said.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but who was your government in 1941?
THE WITNESS: 1941, Esthonia was part of the Soviet Union and had been annexed as such.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you telling us that the Soviet government was putting up manifestoes that anyone advocating Communism would be shot?
THE WITNESS: No.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. von Stein asked you to tell us about the conditions in 1914, and you proceeded to tell us about these decrees prohibiting Communist activity.
DR. VON STEIN: Your Honor, I put the question for the period before the occupation of Russia. I want to find out what was before. There are various periods of time concerned, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment.
DR. VON STEIN: There are various periods of time here. The first time until the occupation of Esthonia by the Soviet Union; then the second period, that is the time of the actual occupation by Soviet Russia, and the third stage is -
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. von Stein, the Tribunal is aware of these different periods. What we are endeavoring to have you do, and the witness also do, is to indicate what period you are referring to, but if you begin to talk without indicating the date, without indicating the nation, then this testimony is of no value whatsoever.
BY DR. VON STEIN:
Q? Witness, I shall put the following question. What were the legal regulation concerning the punishment of Communistic activities until the occupation of Esthonia by the Soviet Union?
A. As I said, Communism, until 22 June 1940 was prohibited in Esthonia by law, and was punishable by military law, up to death sentences.
Q. What punishments were imposed? Can you tell the Tribunal in what cases death sentences were imposed, and what usual punishments were imposed for other activity?
THE PRESIDENT: Dr von Stein, we have this much, that up until 22 June 1941, Esthonia officially prohibited the practice of Communism, and for the violation of that decree punishment could be meted out even up until death. Now, we have that. Now don't go back to that any more.
DR. VON STEIN: May I point out Your Honor, apparantly it was a translation mistake, and apparently '40 and '41 have not been translated. properly. The witness in now dealing only with the period for '40.
The date in '40 is before the occupation of Esthonia by the Communist. He is now only talking about that period before this; that he is not speaking about 1941 when Russia was --
THE PRESIDENT: We got up tuntil June 22, 1941, that is what we have got. Is that wrong?
DR. VON STEIN: Can you tell the Tribunal the individual dates which we talked about. Tell us exactly the dates, and in part of the attitude of the government, and what the government of Esthonia had to do whether influenced by the Soviet Union at the time, or whether it was an independent nation?
THE PRESIDENT: You are giving him about fifteen question in one, long outpouring of words. Now, just a moment.
Q. Witness, there was a period of time during which Communism was prohibited, and the practice of Communism got severe penalties even including death; which period was that?
A. Until the 22 June 1940.
THE PRESIDENT: 1940. All right, now proceed from that point. BY DR. VON STEIN:
Q. Witness, what was the attitude of the Esthonian population from the Summer of 1941 concerning the punishment of those who participated in the actions of the Bolshevists in Esthonia?
A. The population asked for severe punishment for those who were actually quilty.
Q. Who carried out the arrests of those communists?
THE PRESIDENT: The population asked for severe punishment for what? For those who were guilty means nothing.
THE WITNESS: I beg your pardon. The population asked for severe punishment of all those who in 1940 and '41 during the occupation of the country by the Communists made themselves guilty of murder of individual persons in Esthonia.
BY DR. VON STEIN:
Q. Witness, I ask you again in order to establish the right dates. You spoke of people who made themselves guilty in such an action. When did they become guilty? What period was that?
A. The period is from the occupation of Estonia by the Soviet Union, 29 June, 1940, until the occupation of Esthonia by the German troops; that was in the course of June, July or August, until 21 October 1941.
Q. Tell the Tribunal what you mean by guilty. What does the term "guilty" mean? What did one do with people who were found guilty?
A. On the part of the elimination battalions, which we have been speaking about, and on the part of the NKWD, several thousand persons were murdered.
THE PRESIDENT: All right now, we understand up until June 22, 1940, those who practiced Communism were criminals, and could be executed; between June 22, 1940 and June 1941, those who did not practice Communism were guilty and could be killed, is that right?
THE WITNESS: Yes, that is correct.-----
THE PRESIDENT: All right, let's proceed on that point now. Dr. von Stein you ask the questions.
DR. VON STEIN: Yes. BY DR. VON STEIN:
Q. Witness, after Esthonia was not under Soviet Sovereignty, any more then if I understood you right, the population asked for punishment for those who during the period of occupation had denounced others to the NKWD Esthonians, or had handed them over; are those the guilty people who after the Red Army left, were punished by the Esthonia authority?
THE PRESIDENT: You have made a very complicated question. It is a very simple thing. After the Soviets withdrew, and the German forces took over, then Esthonia went back to its original attitude of being anti-Communist, and demanded punishment of those who had been violent Communists during the Soviet period?
THE WITNESS: Yes, that is so, Your Honor. BY DR. VON STEIN:
Q. Witness, who arrested these Communists who had been found guilty?
A. For the most part the Esthonia self-defense organization, partly the police.
Q. Were the investigations of any individual cases carried, out?
A. I cannot answer from my own knowledge, but so far as I have been informed, in most cases, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, just a moment.
A. (continuning) - but also
THE PRESIDENT: You are not permitted to say you have no knowledge of a thing, and then give us an answer. If you have no knowledge then you have no knowledge. Now, you either have it or you don't have it. You can't guess at your answers. Now, do you have any knowledge on this subject?
THE WITNESS: Well, yes. I understand the question asked by the Tribunal that is, the last question.
THE PRESIDENT: I didn't put the question to you. It was your attorney who put to you the question. Put your last question again Dr. von Stein. BY DR. VON STEIN:
Q. Witness, I ask you now who conducted the investigations against these Communists?
A. The self-defense organization, and the political departments of the Police Main Office.
THE PRESIDENT: And you know this of your own knowledge?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. BY DR. VON STEIN:
Q. Now the German Security Police carried out such investigations in July and August?
A. I don't think I can answer this question. I have no knowledge of this.
Q. Witness, after the German Army marched into Esthonia, that is, in July and August, 1941, who ordered the executions of the Communists ?
A. The local and field commanders ordered the executions.
THE PRESIDENT: At the end of your answer you say "Local and field commanders," which does not mean a thing. Which local and field commanders? The Esthonia local commanders or the German local commanders?
THE WITNESS: I beg your pardon. I shall be more explicit. They were the field and local commanders of the German Wehrmacht, of the German Army who held the power.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. BY DR. VON STEIN:
Q. Witness, as soon as a conditions became a little more quiet, and the German Security Police had the possibility to take over from the formerly mentioned authorities that actual procedures could be initiated how was the actual procedure in these cases then?
A. Investigations were carried out by the political department of the Police Main Offices, the Esthonia Police Main Office.
Q. And who decided in that case?
A. The investigation materials were examined and investigated by committees, by examination committees, and with the judgments they were turned over to the German authorities.
Q. Of whom did these committees consist?
A. They were former Esthonia judges and other legal authorities.
Q. Who were the proposals submitted to, proposals for sentences?
THE PRESIDENT: Did the Esthonia authorities themselves conduct any executions? I am referring to that plan -
A No, no, we didn't have power to do that.
THE PRESIDENT: Immediately following the Soviet withdrawal, did the Esthonia authorities conduct any examination, trials, and executions?
THE PRESIDENT: Why not? authority by the Germans. We would have preferred to do it ourselves.
THE PRESIDENT: The Germans took over all authority when the Soviets withdrew?
A No, it didn't take over all the authority, but a part of the functions of the government offices. Esthonians were in charge of the administration of local district offices.
THE PRESIDENT: Were you engaged in arresting people? Did Esthonia have authority to arrest people?
THE PRESIDENT: I didn't say, you. I said, the Esthonian authority. Were you the whole State?
A No. But the self defense organization who were subordinate to German field and local kommandateurs did carry out arrests of persons.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, well, then the Esthonian authorities had no authority in police work, in arrests or in trials?
Q They had no authority to conduct investigations?
THE PRESIDENT: Allright, proceed. BY DR. VON STEIN: instituted which proposed the judgment and sentences, and submitted them to the German Security Police. I now ask you whether this kind of procedure was as thorough possible, and, whether it corresponded with the demands of Justice and Objectivity to such a degree as was possible at that time?
MR. GLANCY: We fail to see that he sets himself up as an expert to give an opinion as to whether or not these investigations and recommendations were justified. He said he had had no part of police work. We object to the question on that ground, if if pleases the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness has stated that the Esthonian authorities had no power to conduct any arrests or investigations.
DR. VON STEIN: May I repeat. The witness stated that there was a judgment commission; there were lawyers, Esthonian lawyers, and this commission collected and compiled the material, and then proposed the judgments to the German Security Police.
THE PRESIDENT: What is your question.
DR. VON STEIN: I now ask the witness whether he is of the opinion whether this kind of procedure was objective and thoroughly, and whether this kind of procedure ...
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, do you still stand on your answer made just a few moments ago, that the Esthonian authorities conducted no arrests or examinations?
THE WITNESS: Well, I must explain, Your Honor, I took over my office .....
THE PRESIDENT: No, just a moment. Just a moment, please. That is the answer you made to the Tribunal. Now do you stand on that or don't you?
THE WITNESS: Well, officially, these authorities were at that time authorities of the German field and local kommandenteurs. There was no Esthonian Central Government.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, the Esthonians worked under the German occupying power, is that right?
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, all right. Now your attorney, or rather Dr. von Stein has asked you to pass judgment upon some entirely independent body, and the Tribunal is unable to see how we can pass judgment on what somebody else did. The objection of the Prosecution in that respect will have to be sustained.
DR. VON STEIN: population at that time criticised this manner of investigation at that time?
Q Shall we put it in another way. Were the Esthonian population in agreement with large scale investigations being carried on against active Communists, or did the Esthonian population ---
MR. GLANCY: The witness has not stated that he performed a "gallup poll" of Esthonia, therefore, he is not qualified to answer that question. He does not know as a cross section what that opinion was.
THE PRESIDENT: In the first place we don't know what the judgments were.
DR. VON STEIN: Your Honor, I want to put the following question to the witness. The witness has been in Esthonia and he lived in Esthonia, and I want to ask whether he knows of the attitude of the population there, what he thought about it?
THE PRESIDENT: About what?
DR. VON STEIN: About the investigation of active Communists, whether the population, owing to the hardship they had suffered, they even defended themselves at the time. Your Honor, it is like this, that shortly after, or just before the invasion by the German Army the population was so angry that accesses occurred in great numbers, were Communists were shot by the Esthonians in self-defense. Therefore, the number of Communists shot increased to such an extent and they are mentioned in these documents which were submitted by the Prosecution, for this reason I want to ask the witness these questions.
MR. GLANCY: Perhaps, your Honor, I have misunderstood but I have understood from the witness that the Esthonians could not carry out these executions.
THE PRESIDENT: He very very specifically stated that.
DR. VON STEIN: Your Honor, these were not executions, but we must imagine back to the time immediately following the departure of the Russians. They were just shootings. These people about whom the witness told us that they were hiding in the woods, they came out of their hiding places, and these people who were responsible for the murder of their own families, were simply shot without sentence, without judgment, without being tried.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. von Stein, you are not on the witness stand. The great difficulty here is that you have put the cart before the horse.
I don't know whether that can be translated correctly into German or not. If you had put the defendant on, then we could more easily follow what you are attempting to show by this witness, bu you are endeavoring to establish by this witness some things which apparently are predictated upon what you intend that your client will say, and we don't know what it is. Now let me suggest this to you. If this witness has the possibility of remaining in Nuernberg for whatever time is required, then you can put him on after the defendant testified, and then perhaps what he is now talking about will not be so ambigous, and foggy.
DR. VON STEIN: Your Honor, I think it is most important for us to hear from a neutral witness of facts or whether we more depend on the statement of one of the defendant's, and I would like to follow your suggestion, Your Honor -
THE PRESIDENT: Listen, Dr. von Stein: You are asking this witness to confirm what the defendant has not yet stated, isn't that true? You want him to say that the people of Esthonia shot the individuals that the Prosecution charges the defendant shot. That is what you are endeavoring to build up, but the trouble is that you don't have a foundation for that kind of a statement. We will permit you to examine this witness if you insist on presenting it that way, but we will have to adhere to the rules of evidence, and what is irrelevant we will exclude. We have indicated to you a way of getting this testimony in, but if you don't want to take that course, of course that is your privilege.
DR. VON STEIN: Your Honor, I would like to accept this suggestion, but I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the witness has been here for a month, and the witness comes from Austria.
Furthermore, I don't think he has very much time, not enough time to remain here. I have had difficulties, Your Honor, and I was asked again and again how long the witness would stay here in Nuernberg, but regarding the importance of the statement, I have declared again and again the witness would be examined very soon. Now he is here in the witness stand, and I would like, therefore, to ask the Tribunal to permit me to put this question so that the witness can go back to his home.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you over ask the Tribunal about this situation. About the witness, whether he should wait, and when he could come in?
DR. VON STEIN: The witness was asked to come here, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: But you say -
DR. VON STEIN: Without my having told when he should appear here.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, Dr. von Stein, let me tell you, as I thought I made it clear to all defense counsel. That this Tribunal is ready at all times to hear attorneys either in the court, or in the chambers, and when you have any difficulty, come to see the Tribunal. If you had come to the Tribunal, and told us that you had a witness here a month ago, we certainly would have done something about it.
DR. VON STEIN: Your Honor, the reason was that my defendant was ill for some time. Therefore, I could not suggest this witness he examined before and request to have the Tribunal hear this witness. It was very important to me that this witness should be heard immediately before the examination of the defendant. I did not want to tear my case into two. Therefore, I had to wait until my turn came today, because my client is now well again. That was the reason for it.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjust itself to the situation in which you find yourself and you may continue with the examination.
DR. VON STEIN: Your Honor, I have now decided to follow the suggestion of the Tribunal and to -
THE PRESIDENT: You mean Dr. Gawlik has decided.
DR. VON STEIN: No, your Honor, it is not this, but to my regret I have found out that only a short time is at our disposal now anyway, and within this court I do not think I will be in the position to finish the examination of this witness in an hour, so therefore the witness has to remain here until Tuesday or Wednesday, and I think it will not be of such tremendous importance to the witness whether he can go back to his home two or three days before or after. For this reason I have now decided to wait with the examination of this witness and to discontinue it now.
THE PRESIDENT: I think, Dr. von Stein, in arriving at so momentous a decision that you had to wrestle with yourself a great deal, and you must feel a little tired now so we will give you a rest of fifteen minutes.
( A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session. testified as follows:
JUDGE SPEIGHT: Witness, raise your right hand, and repeat the oath. speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
JUDGE SPEIGHT: You may be seated. BY DR. VON STEIN:
A My name is Martin Sandberger. I was born 17 August 1911 in Berlin. My father was a commercial employee. I attended the elementary school in Stuttgart and in Hoechst near Frankfort on the Main River. In Hoechst I also attended the high school from 1920 until 1929. In 1929 I graduated there. After that I studied from 1929 until May, 1933, I studied law in the Universities in Munich, Freiburg im Breisgau, Cologne and Tuebingen. I concluded these studies with the first state exam of law, the so-called "referendar exam" in May, 1933. After that, until November, 1936, I was legal Referendar. I concluded my service in the legal administration in November, 1936, with the second state exam of law, the so-called Assessorexam. Already before, namely in November, 1933, I got my doctor's degree at the University in Tuebingen.
My further career after passing the assesor exam November 1936 is as follows: As an assesor I joined the service of the Wuerttemberg inner administration and I remained there 1937 and 1938. For half a year at a time as an assessor in the inner administration of the county, as I shall describe later. The other half of the year 1937 and 1938 I was active in full capacity in the SD Main Section in Stuttgart.
In the Wuerttemberg innder administration, according to the prescribed time in March 1939, I was promoted to governor councillor, and, therefore, had the rank of a civil service in the inner administration.
Q When did you join the NSDAP? or any other political parties?
A No. Until then I had no interest in party politics until then.
Q What were your motives for joining the NSDAP?
A The impression I had gained in the year 1931 was as follows: The political and economical situation in Germany became worse more and more as mysery and unemployment spread more and more. In order to avoid repention, I wish to point in this connection to the explanations which my co-defendants have already detailed, concerning the impression which they gained in those years in Germany.
Q Which afficiation of the party did you join at the end of 1931? Students Association.
Q Were you active in the Students Association in 1933?
A Yes. From the middle of May until the middle of July 1933 I was chief of the Students Association in Tuebingen, after I had already been president of the General Student Committee of the Tuebingen Students Association for some weeks in 1932.
Q Why did you join the SA in 1933?
A The reasons was as follows: One of the most important motives of my joining the National Socialist Party was that it was my opinion that the then in Germany existing class-distinctions and class hate should have to be overcome by creating a community of the people.
As a student I felt the class distinctions even stronger than other people. For me, the question of joining the SA was so to say the only possible confession to a principle of a practical community of the people, doing service there once or twice a week together with men from all professions.
Q When did you first come in contact with the SD?
A That was in 1935. At the time I became an honorary co-operator of the SD on the subject of section situation reports regarding high school and scientific questions. operator of the SD? tion namely, Dr. Schoel pointed out the SD to me. At the same time when I was chief of the Students Association in Tuebingen he had been chief of the Students Association in Heidelberg, and thus I had become acquainted with him.
Q What did Dr. Schoel tell you when he won you over for honorary co-operation in the SD? political parties and independent press were eliminated that then the highest Reich authorities would not be properly informed about the real situation in the domestic sphere and that the real feeling of the people in these domestic spheres was not explained to them very clearly. Therefore, he explained to me, it be necessary that an independent, neutral information service be set up to bring objective situation reports on all domestic spheres of life. I must point out that Dr. Schoel had got contact with the SD through the same Professor Hoehn who has been mentioned here repeatedly by Herr Ohlendorf and Spongler in the witness box. This Professor Hoehn at the time was an lecturer on state law, and in 1935 he had taken it upon himself to set up such an information service on domestic spheres, particularly on the cultural sphere.