ANo, such an order is not known to me.
QCan you estimate how many Jews were killed during your time of command?
ADuring the time that the Kommando was under my leadership there must have teen 950 Jews shot, or 960.
QThey were shot?
AYes.
QDo you actually think that these Jews were a security threat, as such, that they were really dangerous?
APart of the Jews were very dangerous for the security, but there were also Jews who individually and personally were not a concrete danger for the security.
QAs a class, they were not actually dangerous, were they?
AThe Fuehrer Order said that they must be regarded as a danger by the Reich leadership and that therefore this order had been given.
QThen, as a result of the Fuehrer Order these Jews were shot?
AYes.
QYou concurred and agreed with this order and issued orders for their collection and their final solution, their deaths?
ANo. I did not regard this order as satisfactory. I gave no order regarding their death or shooting. I have said so.
QYou knew the purpose of the Hitler Order, did you not?
AYes.
QYou ware in Riga on the 4th of July, 1941?
AYes, in the early morning hours. I left Riga at about nine o'clock in the morning.
QYou stated that Stahlecker told you that synagogues would he destroyed and Jews would he murdered on this day, is that right?
ANo, he did not tell me on the very day. He told me later. I explained that explicitly.
QDid you not just as explicitly state that in your conversation on that morning, that is, on the 4th of July, he told you of his intent to murder these Jews?
ANo. When we had this discussion, he said that in Estonia this should happen, in Estonia, and that he caused it himself; of the 4th of July in Riga, he only told me later on the occasion of a discussion on the 20th of July in Novaselia at Staff Headquarters and I said that yesterday.
QYou took a Teilkommando from Riga to Estonia, is that correct?
AA number of subkommandos, yes.
QHow many subkommandos did you leave in Riga?
AI did not leave a subkommando in Riga. It is possible that individual men were left there, because their vehicles were out of order. They had the order to join us. Parts of my kommandoes, these individual men, were there, but not a whole kommando.
QHow much later after the 4th of July did your men, whom you left in Riga, report to you that they had joined in an action against the Jews in Riga?
AThese men did not take part in this operation, this action, in Riga, otherwise they would have reported to me about it, but they did not. Therefore, they did not take part. Stahlecker himself told me that this action was run exclusively by the Latvian Auxiliary Police without the help and aid of the Germans and without his own initiative. It is possible that his interpreter took part in it.
QIt was supervised by the Einsatzgruppen, was it not?
AThat I don't know.
QDo you exclude the possibility the members of your command left in Riga took part in this action?
AYes, I exclude that possibility absolutely, because Stahlecker himself told me that this action had only been carried out by Latvians. Therefore, no man of my own kommando could have taken part in it, no interpreters, even, because I did not leave any interpreter in Riga.
QI was not quite so specific as to mention interpreters. Are you aware of the Einsatzgruppen Situation Reports?
AYes, I read a number of them.
QDid you read that in Riga members of Sonderkommando I-A, aided by the Latvian Police carried out an action against the Jews?
ANo, I did not read that.
QIn a few moments I'll come back to this and refresh your memory. On page 41 of the English, in Document Book II-A, in view of your basic mission, how do you interpret the following: "The following places will still be searched by our Security Police: Wenden, Dorpat, perhaps Pskow -Teilkommando of Sonderkommando I-A"?
AI interpreted it thus. Stahlecker put into this report that he gave his directives to me to the effect that subkommandos should be sent to these mentioned places to deal with tasks of Security Police.
QThe basic task of the Security Police was to search out, find, and execute Jews, Communists, and Gypsies, is that not right?
ANo, that was not the case in this kommando.
QYou again were an exception?
AThat was not the case in other kommandos either that during the very first days these measures were carried out. I am not the only exception here.
QIn Document Book I, page 26 -- I apologize, Your Honors, it is Document Book II-A, page 26. Sandberger, I call your attention to the list of figures and locations under the original page 16.
AMay I ask what document that is? I have forgotten the document number.
Q L-180.
AYes, and what page, did you say, what page of the original?
Q 16 of the original.
AThank you. In the German text there is only one sentence concerning the Lithuanian Auxiliary Police. I do not thirds that is what you mean.
QYou have Document L-180?
AYes.
QPage 16 of the original?
AYes.
QDo you see there Enclosure 8?
ANo, there is no Enclosure 8, but I may say, Mr. Prosecutor, I know the figures which should be in Enclosure 8, as for as they concern Estonia so that I can answer your question.
QIn these figures, there are Jews, 474 executed, Columnists, 684 executed total, 1,158.
AI must assume that these figures are correct.
QThis report is inclusive of actions up to October 15, 1941, is that correct?
ANo, no. Until the 25th of October.
Q 25th
ABut they are not operations of the Security Police exclusively, and I have tried to show that this figure 650 Communists contains also amongst other things the number of 405 Communists in Dorpat, according to the Report of Events 88, which was under the subordination of the Field Commanders and the responsibility of the Field Commanders. This figure is contained in this. I am myself concerned with the figure 650 Communists. According to my approximate estimate this is a number which is less than 100. That is my responsibility, because this included everything that happened in July and August by the Field Commander and the Estonia Home Guard, and the Communists; as far as the Jews are concerned -
QJust a moment. Let's be a little more responsive. As part of this figure some Communists were murdered under your command in Estonia is that right?
AYes, in my responsivility.
QNow, as to the figure of 474 Jews, are your entirely responsible or is some other agency responsible for part of these?
APersonally I am not responsible, because it was a matter of carrying out an order, the order by Stahlecker at the end of September, by my officer of operation.
My kommando is responsible. No, I did not carry it out.
QMembers of your command carried it out?
AMy deputy had passed on the order of Stahlecker to the Estonian Home Guard. The Estonian Home Guard carried this order out.
QYou were in command of Sonderkommando I-A, as of the 12th of October, 1941, were you not?
AYes.
QIn Document Book II-A, page 43 of the English, page 40 of the German.
AYes.
QYou will notice: "The following orders were therefore issued by us." This under the heading of "Sonderkommando I-A." "The arrest of all male Jews over 16; the arrest of all Jewesses fit for work between the ages of 16 and 60."
AYes.
Q "Who were utilized to work in the peat bogs."
AYes.
QDid you have Jews working in the peat bogs?
AYes, I ordered the arrest, yes.
QYou ordered that they would work in the peat bogs?
AYes.
QDid you also order the arrest of all Jews over 16?
AYes, that happened on the 10th of September.
QDid you order the collective billeting of female Jewish residents of Dorpat and vicinity in the synagogue and a tenement house in Dorpat?
AI ordered that the arrest should be carried out, but I did not order where they should be accommodated. I only found out later that they were put into the synagogue and I reproached them for that.
THE PRESIDENT:Mr. Glancy, in reading Item 2, did you say, "Jews" or "Jewesses"?
MR.GLANCY: "Jewesses", Sir. BY MR. GLANCY:
QYou recognized this report as coming from you, do you not?
ANo, it did not come from myself. I was absent for three weeks. The report was made at the end of September, on the 28th of September, approximately, and I was south of Leningrad at that time and I was not in charge of any subkommandos in Estonia, or, at least, of parts of any subkommandos in Estonia.
QWere you known at this time as the Commanding Officer of Sonderkommando I-A?
AI was the commander of Kommando I-A, Yes.
QWere you relieved of the command of I-A?
ANo.
QThen you were responsible for those Teilkommandos in Estonia?
AStahlecker knew that I was south of Leningrad at the time and during this time I was not in charge personally of the Sonderkomnandos in Estonia. Consequently, I could not be held responsible for them.
QWere you ever relieved of the command of Sonderkommando I-A in October of '41?
ANo.
QDo you recognize this order?
AExcuse me, what order?
QThis report. The orders for the arrest of all Jews, the working of the Jewesses in the peat bogs, quartering of the female Jewish residents.
ANo. I just said that the accommodation of Jewesses in the synagogues or in the vicinity of the synagogues, I did not order. I did not approve of the housing in the vicinity of the synagogues, when I found out about it, but it is true that I gave the internment order for all Jews in Estonia, approximately on the 10th of September. This should have been carried out gradually.
QYou approved of the arrest of all the Jews, didn't you? You ordered it, in fact?
AYes, I ordered it.
QYou approved of 60 year old women working in peat bogs, didn't you?
AI was told that this was not heavy work. The suggestion was made by Estonian officials who knew these conditions and who were acquainted with them.
QYou approved of it?
AI did not investigate the matter, but I certainly did not disapprove of it.
QYou knew of it?
AYes.
QBut you got a sanctimonious streak and disapproved of billeting females in synagogues?
AYes.
QBut it was all right to work them to death in a peat bog?
AExcuse me, Mr. Prosecutor. The work in the peat bogs does not refer to Dorpat, but that concerns the camp Harku near Reval. Here in an old institution -
QJust a moment. Just a moment. I am not concerned with the location, merely with the truth and the facts. You said that you approved of the working of 60 year old women in peat bogs?
AIn the case of Reval, this was approved, yes. In the case of Dorpat this did not come up at all.
QAnd you laid further plans for the extension and expansion of concentration camps to accommodate more Jews?
AAll Estonian Jews were to be put into the Harpu camp, yes.
QYou knew what their fate must be as a result of this, didn't you?
ANo, I did not.
QDidn't you know the Hitler order?
AYes.
QDidn't it follow if they were collected, they'd be shot?
AYes, the possibility existed.
QThe certainty was there, wasn't it?
AI already said that there was a very strong probability.
QIn Document Book I, page 78a of the English, page -- I believe it is 108 of the German-
AMay I ask you what document it is?
QIt is Document NO-3279.
AYes, yes.
QI read here on page 5 of the original under "Communism" "With the exception of one, all leading Communist officials in Estonia have new been seized and rendered harmless." What is your interpretation of "rendering harmless" as far as it applies to the Communists?
AI have explained that Communists -
QWhat is your interpretation of this phrase "Rendering harmless"?
AIn this case, as leading Communists of top rank were concerned, they were probably executed.
QThis is dated the 14th of January, 1942?
AYes, that is the date of the Report of Events.
QYou were in command of Sonderkommando I-A on the 14th of January, 1942?
AYes, that is correct.
QThese Communists were rendered harmless or killed during this time, weren't they?
AOnly the leading officials are being described in this. The leading Communist functionaries were rendered harmless, yes.
QHow many leading officials were there?
ABy leading functionaries who are mentioned in this document and who, with the exception of one, were arrested, are meant definite people's Commissars and members of the Central Party of the Estonian Socialist Republic, as they were listed in an enclosure to the Document 1180; the number of the personalities to which your question referred may have been 6 or 7%.
QThe sum total of Communists seized runs to about 14,500, do you see that?
AYes, 14,500, yes.
QThat means 1,000 were shot?
AYes, I get that from the document.
QYou know it.
QDid you know of it? Do you remember it?
AThe report must have been submitted time.
QThen at one time at least, you knew of it?
AYes.
QWere you in Estonia then?
AYes, hut they were not shot on my own responsibility. I am only responsible for 350.
QYou are responsible for 350?
AThat is my estimate.
QThat will be enough. In Document Book III-A, page 13 of the English -- I will withdraw that Question. In Document Book II-A, page 49 of the English -
THE PRESIDENT:Mr. Glancy.
MR. GLANCY:Yes.
THE PRESIDENT:I think the hour has arrived. Would you mind deferring that until our next session?
MR. GLANCY:Not at all, Sir.
THE PRESIDENT:The Tribunal will now be in recess until Monday morning at 9:30.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 17 November 1947 at 0930 hours.)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal No. II in the matter of the United States of America against Otto Ohlendorf, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 17 November 1947, 0930-1630, Judge Michael A. Musmanno, presiding.
THE MARSHAL:The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal II.
Military Tribunal No. II is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal. There will be order in the Court.
DR.GAWLIK (for the defendant Seibert): Your Honor, on Saturday I could not talk to my client because all the cells we usually have our discussions in, were occupied. For this reason I would ask you to permit me to have the defendant Seibert excused this morning so that I may talk to him in order to prepare his defense.
THE PRESIDENT:It is entirely satisfactory, but suppose we reach him some time this morning, as is not unlikely; it is entirely agreeable to the Tribunal that Dr. Gawlik speak with his client this morning, but in the event we should reach his case before the morning terminates, then of course he would need to be immediately available.
DR. GAWLIK:Yes.
THE PRESIDENT:Suppose we do this then: suppose that we allow him to go to the room where you will confer with him until recess time. The defendant Seibert will be excused from attendance in court so that he may confer with his attorney until recess this morning; that is to say, until about 11:15. The Marshal will attend to the details.
You may proceed.
MR. GLANCY:Thank you, Your Honor.
CROSS EXAMINATION - Continued MARTIN SANDBERGER - Resumed BY MR. GLANCY:
QDr. Sandberger, when on Friday the prosecution posed the question to you -- the question was: "Was the Estonian self-defense movement under your command?"
, the record will show that you replied in the negative. Do you wish to reconsider at this time and perhaps reframe your answer?
AThe answer exactly is as follows: the Estonian homeguard came under the field and local kommandatura of the army. The security police was authorized to give them directives via the field and local kommandatura. That is what I said in the direct examination and that is the exact answer.
QThen, in effect, the Selbstschutz or the self-protection group was under your command?
ANo, Mr. Prosecutor, it was subordinated fully to the field and local kommandaturas of the army. I was merely authorized to pass on orders to them via these kommandaturas -- of course, only with their agreement.
QIf you wished to convey orders on the carrying out of executions using or employing the Selbstschutz, that was always done, was it not?
AI know of no case in which it did not happen that way.
QThen in effect they were subordinate to your commandos?
AIn this shape and with this limitation which I have just mentioned and as I have also mentioned in the direct examination.
QYou speak of limitations. Might we not pay that there were no limitations, for any order which you gave you fully expected to have it carried out by this group?
ANo, Mr. Prosecutor, I could not expect that absolutely because the field and local kommandaturas could come between, and of course so could the homeguard by getting in direct contact with the field and local kommandaturas and thus they could avoid contact with my own office.
QDid it ever happen that you wanted or wished to employ the selfprotection troops and were refused?
AI know of no case where that happened.
QThank you. Do you recall the name "Bleimel?"
AYes.
QIn your affidavit in which yon state that 400 Jews were killed on Jeckeln's orders; you say that these executions were carried out by your Chief IV or your gestapo chief, is that correct?
AI don't know what affidavit you're referring to at the moment.
QIt's in Document Book III-A, Page 13 in the English.
AIs it No. 3844, Mr. Prosecutor? That is Document No. 3844.
QThat is correct.
AIn this affidavit it says nothing of the Department Chief IV but merely about the subcommando leaders in Pleskau.
QBoeymehl, Schuerer, Blankenbach.
AYes, subcommando leaders in Pleskau but not Department Chief IV.
QThey were subordinate to your command?
AThe Subcommando in Pleskau was at that time part of my commando, yes.
QHe was never subordinate to you?
AYes.
QAnd they ordered the shooting or execution of these Jews?
AYes, one of them.
QOne was enough.
AYes.
QIn Document Book I, on Page 86 of the English -
AMay I ask what document number that is?
QThat is NO-3340. We see that it reads, on Page 3 of the original: "In the course of the general Security Police screening of an additional part"-
APardon me. I can't find the document. May I ask the number again?
QNO-3340. It's Page 118 of the German.
AYes.
QI will repeat. "In the course of the general Security Police screening of an additional part of the civilian population around Leningrad, 140 more persons had to be shot."
Do you recall that incident when you were on the Leningrad front with the Teilkommando?
AI am sorry, I haven't found the place yet. It isn't 3340, is it?
QThat is right. It's on Page 3 of the original German.
AThe Document 3340 begins in the book, which I have, on Page 119 and has only two pages.
QI am very sorry. Do you have it now? Pare 3 of the original. A No, it only has the reported events on 173, and in this copy that I have it only has two pages.
QThat is all that I am going to refer to. Do you see the paragraph beginning: "In the course of the General Police screening of an additional part of the civilian population around Leningrad"'?
AIn the copy which I have here, Leningrad is not being talked about at all. But it says: Location: Krasnowardeisk, and behind that there are a few dots, so that means an omission.
QJust below that, read the paragraph below that.
ABehind that there are a few dots then the words: Excerpt from Page 4 of the original, and again a few dots, and then there is a line about Einsatzgruppe B that there are no reports having been received from Einsatzgruppe B; and what you are mentioning, I cannot find.
THE PRESIDENT:Mr. Glancy, you better send for the photostat then.
THE WITNESS:I am sorry. It's one page -- the page proceeding that and it has the caption: Correction. BY MR. GLANCY:
QDo you have it now, Mr. Sandberger?
AYes, I beg your pardon, it is the proceeding page. It has the caption: Correction. I cannot say anything, however, about it.
QCan you answer one or two of my questions? Can you recall for what basic reason these people were considered a threat to security?
AI can't remember it because it did not fall under my jurisdiction.
QWere you in Leningrad?
AAs I have stated, in the time between the 3rd or 4th of October 1941; but this is areport concerning Berlin, dated the 25th of February 1942.
QWere you not in the surrounding territory of Leningrad in February?
ANo.
QWere any of your command there?
AThe subcommando Krasnossele was subordinate to me, or at least as far as food and administration went, but not as regards the actual work of Department III and IV.
QWas this one of your Teilkommandos?
AAs far as food and administration is concerned, factually it was subordinate to the Commando Krasnowardeisk. This report was neither issued by myself nor did it go through my channel at all, nor did I order it.
QI want to ask you a hypothetical question. If you had a person subordinate to you who was continuously rebellious and dilatory in the carrying out of orders which you issued, would you consider him worthy of promotion?
AIt depends in what manner this person would have reported to me the reason which would have initialed his not carrying out of a directive or an order.
QIf you had issued an order, you would fully expect that order to be carried out. Isn't that military activity and custom?
ANormally, yes.
QWe are speaking of normal cases.
ABut I would have given the possibility to a subordinate to give me reasons which would have caused his hesitancy in carrying out an order, or his refusal to carry it out.
QHow long were you in command of Sonderkommando I-A?
ASpecial Kommando-I-A was subordinate to me until the first of January or the first of February 1943. I don't know exactly.
QDuring that time, would it not become apparent to your superiors if you were reluctant to carry out orders whichhad been issued to you?
AI have stated explicitly that I did talk to Stahlecker and gave him the reasons why I asked for a delay.
QPlease answer my question. Would it not become apparent to your superiors if you had been dilatory or delaying in the carrying out of standing orders?
AIt did strike my superiors that I did so. That becomes evident from his own reports from Riga and Berlin: L-180 and 111. In these reports it says that I delayed it.
QYou take a rather broad interpretation of these reports, I can assure you. On the 9th of November 1942, you were deemed so worthy and showed such a soldierly attitude--an attitude of obedience to the Fuehrer and your superiors--that you were promoted to Obersturmbannfuehrer, is that right?
AYes, that is correct.
QWhen you returned to Berlin you were looked upon with favor were you not?
AWell, there were a few people who looked at me very unfavorably.
QBut for the most part you were well considered there for your activities in the east, is that right?
AI think that Herr Ohlendorf, when he was in the witness box, grave testimony to the contrary, and I heard other people mention that my activity in the east was looked upon very negatively.
Of course, there were a few people who looked at it positively, but those were not the ones who had anything to do with my promotion.
QI see. Let us take a look at a document. It's a recommendation for your promotion from Obersturmbannfuehrer to Standartenfuehrer Did you not say that you were in ill health and therefore were not able to take part in the Wehrmacht activities or to join the Wehrmacht?
AFrom February to August -- I was-
QJust answer my question, yes or no.
APartly, yes, at certain periods.
QBefore you took your assignements with the Einsatzgruppe, you stated on direct examination that ill health--a rheumatic attack-prevented your joining the Wehrmacht.
AUp to March 1941, yes; then I asked to be released.
QReleased from what?
AReleased from the service of the RSHA--the Reich Security Main Office--in order to join the Wehrmacht.
QT join the Wehrmacht?
AYes, the Wehrmacht or the Waffen-SS, in any case, a frontal unit.
QI offer Document No. NO-5045, as Prosecution Exhibit 182. In this exhibit, we find as part of your recommendation for promotion -
THE PRESIDENT:Proceed, Mr. Glancy. BY MR. GLANCY:
QThank you, sir. This document, I am sure, will service to clear up many difficulties which we have found in your direct examination. First you stated on direct examination that you were in ill health and therefore were unable to join the Wehrmacht. Under your fitness rating it says, "Fit for general service." Under military service it says, "No service. Deferred for the Reich Security Main Office." Another thing that will serve to clarify, it says, "SS since 11 May 1935, SS No. 272495." When I asked you on Friday when you joined the SS you were adamant in your assertion it was 1936 and the record must have been mistaken. However, here again we see repealed "SS, 11 May 1935." You joined the SD in 1936 in January. Perhaps this will serve to refresh your memory. Going on -
AMay I ask where it says so here? Yes, I see.
QDo you see it now?
AYes.
QIt is further down.
ABut it is not correct, all the same. My superior at that time, Dr. Scheel, is in prison here. He can be asked about it. The codefendant Steimle who is here in the dock was in Stuttgart in the SD at the time and can also be asked whether I joined the SS in May 35 or in January 1936 -
QThe memory of man might fail. Records, if they are not destroyed, stand. Looking at your decorations we see that you got the Service Medal of the NSDAP in bronze, the Iron Cross, the Meritorious War Service Cross I and II Class with Swords, II Class without Swords, the East Medal, Ostmark Medal and the Sudeten Medal. As part of your recommendation further before that we see "Position: Group Leader in Amt VI-B/3." Then it says: "SS-Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Sandberger who already in the battle period advocated the movement among the students, is irreproachable in his politics and his world point of view.
And is without fault in his character. Sandberger is an SS-Leader of better than average gifts, who possesses a particularly good spiritual fluidity and a gift for grasping quickly. He is distinguished by his great industry and better than average intensity in his work. From the professional point of view, Sandberger has proved himself in the Reich as well" and mark this - "as in his assignment in the East."
We also see from this that this was not an ordinary promotion but a preferential promotion. Can we not deduce from this that you as an SS man had carried out all duties and all orders as they were given to you?
AI beg your pardon, may I give my comment on this now?
QI am not interested in your attitude now. It is what it was in 1941.
A 1944, this report is dated.
THE PRESIDENT:Witness, perhaps we got the wrong impression from your statement that you would like to express your attitude now. Well, if it is your attitude, of course that isn't really material, but if you have any explanation to offer to what is contained in this personnel record, of course, you are free to do so.
THE WITNESS:May I do so now. Your Honor?
THE PRESIDENT:Yes, certainly, you can comment on anything that the Prosecution has referred to.
THE WITNESS:As far as the degree of ability is concerned, capable for military service, yes, it is true that in 1944 I was fit for military service. I stated so. I was fit for military service from 1941. I said in direct examination that since 1941, based on my own attempts, I became fit for military service, and that I reported for troop service. It is true that I did not serve, I said so in the direct examination. I said that it was my intention to report for service to the Wehrmacht, first of all to get some basic training before and then to join some frontal unit. It is correct that I was deferred for the RSHA.