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.
Q When did you become a full-time employee of the SD?
A That was in November 1936 after my second exam on law. I became then chief of Department II/2 in the SD Main Section South West.
Q What were your tasks in this department? German domestic sphere. It was not a security police task nor an information service but reports about German domestic spheres, as has been testified to in detail in the witness stand here by Herr Ohlendorf. My personal duties as department chief consisted mainly in choosing experts, and to train them. Section South West within the main framework of the SD--did they have to deal with getting information or with central evaluation?
A Neither the one nor the other. For the task of the information service was up to the SD sections, and the task of the central evaluation was up to the SD Main Office in Berlin. This main section was, therefore, an intermediate instant between the SD sectors on the one hand and the central office in Berlin on the other hand. They had to be passed on orders from Berlin to the subordinates offices, had to check the reports of the subordinated offices, and had to forward those reports.
Q During that time were you only active in the SD?
A No. As I indicated before, throughout these years of 1937 and 1938 I was simultaneously a civil servant in the inner state administration and simultaneously I had a part-time job in the Reichs Students' Association which can be explained by the fact that my superior in the SD, Dr. Schoel in 1936 also became Reich Leader of the Students Associations and these two functions were both dealt with by him.
Q What plans did you have at the time for your future? Inner Administration, a plan, which my superior in the SD, Dr. Schoel also approved of.
Q Did your activity change owing to the outbreak of the war?
as through the order of the chief of the security police of the SD at the outbreak of war all SD main sections were dissolved. Previously I had been chief of the inland department with this main sector. My task after the outbreak of the War was to dissolve the SD Main Section as far as organization and personnel was concerned.
Q How long did you hold this function?
Q What task were you given after that? the Reich. Office of the Reich?
Naturalization of German immigrants from Estonia and Latvia who according to international agreements between Germany on the one hand and Latvia and Estonia on the other hand, in the fall of 1939, had voluntarily emigrated from Estonia and Latvia. A directive provided for the appointment of experts from six different Reich sectors who worked independently in their own fields. My task consisted of dealing with the technical and organizational aspects of the directives issued by these experts.
Q Was the Central Immigration Office part of the SD?
A No. It was a special agency of the Interior Administration of the Reich. Its foundation had been ordered by a decree in the Reich Ministerial Gazette of the Interior Administration issued by the Reich Ministry of the Interior.
Q When did you become a referant in Office I?
Q What were your main tasks as referant in Office I? training of the Security Police and the SD. The most important part of this was to find new directives for the career and the training of the so-called executive service of the security police and the SD. To be brief May I refer to what Herr Schulz has testified in the witness stand about this executive service? Immigration Office, did you have the possibility to look into the affairs of other offices of the RSHA? Central Office?
Q Upon joining the SD, were you at the same time taken into the SS?
A Yes. At the request of my chief in the SD, Dr. Scheel, I was taken into the SS in January 1936 within the SD; I did not belong to the General SS or the Waffen SS.
in connection with Count III of the Indictment where you are charged with membership in the SD and the SS I just want to conclude those points which are connected with the questions of your activity in the SD and the question of your involuntary membership in the SD during the war. How long were you in the Eastern assignment?
Q What was your next assignment? of the commander of the security police and the SD in Verona in Italy. which you were in charge? al and economic spheres in that part of Italy which was occupied by German troops at the time. In order to give a picture of this activity, could you give us some examples of such reports? in the fall of 1943, whether the German economic leadership and particularly the armament industry should discontinue an important part of the northern Italian industrial production and deport the experts to Germany. In accordance with the feeling prevalent among the population of Northern Italy, Department III of which I was in charge at the time was very much in favor of continuing the Northern Italian industry to as great an extent as possible and to let the skilled workers remain in their regular factories in the industrial cities in Northern Italy as far as possible and continue to work there instead of sending them to Germany. Such reports went to Office III of the RSHA in Berlin whose job it was to come to conclusions about this, and they also were sent to the German plenopotentiary in Italy, to Ambassador Rahn.
Another example of questions which were acute in Italy, particularly in the fall of 1943, were questions of food supplies. At the time we pointed out to the competent German authorities that the Italian food situation was endangered and we made suggestions how the situation night he relieved and improved, suggestions which were made to us by the population. have any functions or auxiliary functions in connection with the secret state police? orders which are mentioned in the IMT verdict against Gestapo and SD?
Q How long did you carry on this function? RSHA as Chief of Department VI A.
Q When did you actually start this work? charge? Office VI, special training, office and files of Office VI, also the cultural information service and the Central Office of Office VI. an information organ of the Gestapo, the secret state police? information about any order or measure which is mentioned in the IMT verdict against the secret state police and the SD?
A No, I did not get information on this. May I add to the question that I was not Chief of Department VI, but Chief of Depart ment VI A. thing about any order or measures which are mentioned in the IMT verdict against the secret state police and the SD; you never heard about such in any of your positions from the beginning to the end of the war except for those orders with which you were concerned in the so-called Eastern assignment, is that right?
war is part of the indictment; were you a voluntary member of the SD during that time?
A No. The membership in the SD throughout the war was not voluntary; since the outbreak of war, leaving the SD was prohibited and, therefore, practically impossible. The entire full-time personnel of the SD was considered, after September 1939, as essential war work and was subject to military law, within the jurisdiction of the SS and police. compulsory?
Q Yes there a possibility for you to volunteer for the army? but nevertheless I tried this repeatedly in a hap-hazard manner about seven times in all between 1941 and 1945.
Q At which agencies?
AAt the agencies competent for this in Office I of the RSHA. In March 1941 I made a written application to the Chief of Office I, Streckenbach, in which I urgently requested transfer to the army.
Q What happened after that?
Q What did you do after that?
When I was granted this after a few weeks, I asked Streckenbach during a discussion lasting half an hour that he grant my application. He explained to me that the shortage of personnel in the RSHA was so great that nobody could be released, and he was very unfriendly when I left him because I was so insistent.
Q Was there another agency where you could have applied?
A No. As Office Chief I, Streckenbach was the only one competent for this. 1940 or 1941? I had been in the hospital for many months and during that time I was completely unfit for war service. At the beginning of the war the results of this illness were still so strong that I was fit for duty in an office but not for regular war service. I, therefore, did not actually have the possibility to volunteer for the army already then. service? your fitness? At the beginning of the winter 1940-41, I decided to do everything in order to eliminate the consdquences of my illness in order to restore my ability to do front-line service and thus to make it possible to join to the army and therefore to be able to leave the RSHA.
My first watering cure in the spring of 1940 was unsuccessful. With the permission of Office Chief I, Streckenbach, in February 1941 and March 1941, I made another cure for the special purpose of restoring my fitness to do front-line duty and thus to be able to join the army. Immediately after that, as I already explained, I asked Streckenbach for my release to join the Army. That is, at first, I wanted to take my basic military training and then go to the front as a private. I want to emphasize here that I did not know anything else at the time, except that the Germans had planned to attack England, as was announced in 1940. The Russian campaign was not mentioned, at least not to me at the time.
Q In 1941 and later, in spite of Streckenbach's refusal, did you continue to make attempts to go to the Army as a combat soldier? I asked every few months, in talking to the competent personnel chief, whether there could not be a way to release me to join the army; the first time in October, 1941, then again in March, 1942, and then every few months. Also in 1944 I tried again and in 1945, when I was in Office VI of the RSHA, I continued with these attempts, unfortunately unsuccessfully, due to the acute shortage of personnel in the SD.
Q Did you make any other attempts to leave the RSHA?
A Yes. My former SD chief, Dr. Scheel, at the time was still Chief of the Reich Student Association. At the end of 1941 I wrote to him asking whether he could not use me in his Reich Student Association and ask the RSHA that I be released for this. He agreed to this and addressed a letter to the RSHA with the urgent request to release me for an office in the Student Association. The matter dragged on for months, but finally his request was rejected, again due to the great shortage of leaders who were informed about affairs in Office III. war?
A No, there were only orders which one had to obey. I did what I could against my first, second and third order.
did you then try, during the time of the Eastern assignment, to get away from there? was Dr. Gengenbach, who was competent for personnel questions of the domestic SD. As I explained at the beginning, I had belonged to this domestic SD until 1939 and that was my special field. In the years 1941 to 1943, every time I was in Berlin, I visited Dr. Gengenbach and asked him to see to it that I be given another position in the SD service in the Reich which would have nothing to do with the police.
Q When, exactly, was this?
A The first time in October, 1941. That was my first official trip to Berlin from the Eastern assignment and the second time in the fall of 1942. Then about every 3 to 4 months, until finally I came to Verona as Department Chief III within the domestic SD. called Eastern assignment with the Security Police and the SD. When were you ordered to go to the Eastern assignment?
A That was in the first half of the month of June, 1941. I cannot remember the exact date.
Q Did you object to this order? release me for the Army, as I have already explained.
Q What did Streckenbach reply to you?
A He told me a war with Russia was at hand. An assignment by the Security Police and the SD had been provided for this. There was an acute shortage of personnel. He even had to bring people back from the Army, and, therefore, the question of releasing any one for the Army was beyond discussion.
Q Had you been trained for the police?
Q Was there a possibility for you to evade the Eastern assignment?
A No, I was under military law. One could not try more than I had tried with Streckenbach. units assigned to the East?
Q What happened in Pretsch?
A The units were set up and distributed. I was appointed Chief of Sonderkommando I A. As for the details about the time in Pretsch, I would like to refer to what has already been said in detail on the witness stand here, particularly by Herr Ohlendorf. I myself was present during the discussions in the Palais Prinz Albrecht in Berlin and during the speech by Streckenbach which has been mentioned here repeatedly and during which the well-known Fuehrer Order was announced.
Q What rank did you have at the time?
A My rank was that of a Sturmbannfuehrer. That is the same as a major in the Army.
Q What orders did you receive before the Eastern assignment? expected, about the conditions in regard to international law, and other information and instructions which Herr Ohlendorf and Herr Blume have explained in detail on the witness stand here. May I refer to this. Also, Streckenbach personally informed me about the Fuehrer Order, which said that in order to secure the Eastern territory permanently, all Jews, Gypsies, and Communist functionaries were to be eliminated, together with all other elements which might endanger the security. orders to you?
Q What was your reaction to the Fuehrer Order?