Q. Under whose supervision was the Estonian home guard?
A. During the first days of the state of civil war at the time and during the fights in the district of Dorpat, they acted on their own responsibility because from the Germans there was nobody there yet at the time who could have been in charge or put in charge of the Estonian home guard. After the first few days had passed the home guard was under the supervision and responsibility exclusively of the German field commanders.
Q. The executions mentioned in this report, who ordered them?
A. In as far as it concerns the first days, the commander of the Dorpat home guard, later the field commander of Dorpat or his deputy.
Q. Who carried out these executions?
A. The Estonian home guard.
Q. Can you give arguments based on this report for the facts mentioned by you?
A. The report itself proves, and I am only basing my argument on the text of the report, there are a few points showing that this report does not concern the activity of the security police but the activity of the field commanders and the home guard. These are the four points of view: First of all, in this entire report in the heading and also in the text the absence of any mention of any own activity of the German security police is conspicuous. In other reports--in those reports of events it is nearly always mentioned that an Einsatzkommando had done something, or the security police. This is not mentioned here, but it is simply said here that this or that measure was dealt with, was carried out, and so forth without mentioning who COURT II CASE IX did this.
A second point is shown from the heading of this paragraph where it is said that measures in the city and district of Dorpat were carried out. This district was under the competency of the field commanders of the army; not the competency of the subcommando of the security police. The jursidiction of the subcommando of the security police apart from the city and district of Dorpat was concerned also with three other districts in the south of Estonia, namely, the district, Vero, Walk, and Petschur. If this subcommando reported about their own activity and their own responsibility or would have reported about this, then, of course, they would have reported about the three other districts as well.
Q. You, therefore, mean to say that the subcommando had nothing to do with the events mentioned here?
A. Yes. It is in so for a security police situation report and not an activity report. BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Witness, do you categorically exclude that a subcommando had anything to do with these activities in Dorpat?
A. Yes.
Q. And you do it just merely from reading this report?
A. No, Your Honor, but from my own knowledge of conditions at the time about which the subcommando leaders reported to me.
Q. Didn't the Estonian home guard have to submit their recommendations for executions to you or a subcommando leader?
A. No, Your Honor. In the district of Dorpat it was like this, that he submitted it to the German field commander.
Q. Didn't you tell us that all recommendations for executions had to be passed on by the subcommando leaders?
A. Your Honor, I explained yesterday that in the COURT II CASE IX district of Dorpat, in particular, the conditions were different.
Q. Why was Dorpat different from any other place?
A. The reason was that the field commandant from the very beginning had a very strong position. He was very energetic and on his part wanted to keep the jurisdiction for everything.
Q. When you told us yesterday about the recommendations for executions being approved by subcommandos, you did not make any exception in favor of Dorpat, did you?
A. Yes, Your Honor. I am absolutely certain that I explained that these suggestions to the subcommandos and these regulations existed only there where no special regulations had been laid down as in Dorpat and in several localities in the south of Estonia. I am quite sure of that.
Q. Well, we gather from what you have said that you personally are not at all familiar with everything that is stated in this paragraph to which you have been directing your attention in the past half hour. You are personally not acquainted with those facts?
A. Your Honor, I do not know about the individual occurrences. I know the organizational situation, that at that time....
Q. Well, please answer the question. Do you personally have any knowledge of the facts contained in this paragraph?
A. No.
Q. Were you involved in any way in any of these incidents referred to in the paragraph?
A. No.
Q. Well, then, why are you spending so much time defending the statements in that paragraph if you are not involved?
A. I wanted to explain how the responsibility was in COURT II CASE IX connection with the jurisdiction in Dorpat, and that for this report.
...
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed, Dr. Von Stein. BY DR. VON STEIN:
Q. Witness, why did your subcommando make this report if you said they had nothing to do with the events mentioned?
A. Why it made this report I do not definitely know, or at least I do not definitely remember, but there can be only one reason for that, that the Einsatzgruppe in Riga requested from the subcommando in Dorpat an activity or situation report at the end of the month of August.
Court No. II, Case No. IX.
Q How did the expert get the statements for this report?
A I don't concretely know, but according to the circumstances it can only have happened in one way. Namely, that he went to the field commanders of the army, and to the Estonia Home Guard, and to the Estonian Police, and there asked for the documents concerned, or copied from the documents listed there, and made a situational report of the Security Police based on these documents. this report exclusively were under the jurisdiction of the German Field commanders, or, under the Estonian Home Guard, and not under the jurisdiction of the sub-commander of the Security Police?
Q The conditions regarding competency, in Dorpat, i.e. independent power of the Estonian Home Guard and total responsibility of the German local and field commanders; did that also exist in other localities in Estonia?
A Yes. Not to such an extent, but temporarily in a similar manner in some district towns in the south of Estonia, in the month of July, and partly also in August 1941. for these measures? issued at the beginning of the Eastern Campaign, about the question of the disposition of the population, and the combatting of Communists. The orders applied to the entire Eastern Army, and to the German Police assigned to the East. on the organization of the German SIPO, the German Security and the Estonian Police in Estonia at the time. the various succeeding periods are to be distinguished. Concerning the Estonian Police, this is first of all the period until the introduction Court No. II, Case No. IX.
of the Estonian independent administration, that is, 20 September 1941. The second period is that of 20 September 1941 up until the introduction of the German Civilian Administration, on 5 December 1941. In the first period the Estonian Police Prefectures ware auxiliary agencies of the field commanders on all question of public security. Centralized District Authority did not exist until the 20 September 1941. In the time from 20 September 1941 until 5 December 1941, the Estonian Police Prefectures were subordinate to the Police Department of the Estonia Ministry of the Interior. That was part of the Estonian self admininstration, and these were subordinate to the Commander Rear Army Area North. In the third period, from 5 December 1941, the Estonian self administration was subordinate to the German Commissary General as Chief of the Civilian Administration. The period about which I shall now talk in detail is that of October until December 1941, because this is the decisive period for these cases which are mentioned in the Report No. 111, that is, executions of Communists after careful examination. The Estonian P Police was subdivided into twelve Police Prefectures; in each Estonian District there was a Police Prefecture. The Estonian Police in general had a general police department, a political police department, and a criminal department. The political and criminal departments together on an average had a personnel of approximately 800 people. Among them were sixty to eighty lawyers, that is, persons who had received full legal training at the University of Dorpat. In this....
THE PRESIDENT: Where was this all taking place, in Reval? Was this all in Reval?
THE WITNESS: No, in the entire country of Estonia.
THE PRESIDENT: Where were these eighty lawyers, scattered throughout the country?
THE WITNESS: These sixty to eighty lawyers, were, most of them, in Reval, and some were distributed among the twelve agencies throughout the country. Apart from that among the personnel of this Estonian Police and Criminal Department, there were sixty to eighty professional officers Court No. II, Case No. IX.
from the former Estonian Army, who had been assigned partly for organizational functions, and partly for the verdict commission, which I shall explain later on. From 5 December onwards, that is, since the Civilian Administration was introduced, the political and criminal departments of the Estonian Police were united, and became the special organization of the Estonian Police for Inner Security, whose headquarters were in Reval. In the previous period the Police Prefecture in Reval was the most important headquarters and the leading agency for the entire police concerning specialized questions; that is, all recommendations for judgments from the entire country came together there. During that time the organization of Department IV of the German Security Police, that is, the German State Police within Estonia contained the following personnel: With the commando headquarters in Reval there was a Department Chief IV with four intermediate officials. Department Chief IV had the rank of Kriminalrat, a criminal director of the German Security Police; that is the same rank as a Major, that is the same rank I had. In most cases it was an official who himself had been trained for law. In general his age was about ten years older than my age, and he had a lot of police experience. The four intermediate officials who were his assistants had the rank of a sergeant -- a top sergeant.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr von Stein, what is the purpose of all of these very detailed descriptions of these officers, indicating their ages? We have not as yet heard about their home life, but it seems that we are getting into a greet deal of unnecessary detail. What is your purpose?
DR. VON STEIN: Your Honor, that is of importance in order to prove what forces were at his disposal. The country of Estonia is about as big as Holland, and he wants to show that the police forces at his disposal were by far not sufficient in order to carry out the police affairs satisfactorily. He further wants to prove that he could not supervise those forces at all, because they were distributed all over the country. That is largely what he wants to prove.
Court No. II, Case No. IX.
THE PRESIDENT: You say, all these forces were at his disposal?
DR. VON STEIN: For his district yes, but all the forces Estonia, no.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment. I understood you to say that all these forces were at his disposal. Now, is that correct?
DR. VON STEIN: Your Honor, he is now giving us the figure of the people who were subordinated to him.
THE PRESIDENT: All these police forces were at his disposal?
DR. VON STEIN: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: He was the Chief Police Officer in Estonia?
DR. VON STEIN: Not to that extent, no. He only had certain functions and about these functions he will tell us more later on.
THE PRESIDENT: Everything is going to come later on. Let's have something now. Let's get right to the very issue. He is charged with certain crimes. Now, if he didn't commit these crimes, then let him tell us why and how he didn't commit them, but we are getting into a great deal of academic discussion and description of activities in Estonia which may or may not enter into the picture. Let's get to the real issue.
DR. VON STEIN: Your Honor, it is of importance, because if the defendant would tall us now that he only received a certain amount of knowledge of all of this, then it would seem incredible for us to receive an exact impression how conditions actually were in the country at the time. For that reason unfortunately it is necessary that we have to discuss these points as well.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed. BY DR. VON STEIN: tion, That police forces were under you? Police, Department IV in Estonia had the following personnel: Department Chief IV in Reval, plus four intermediate officials with the rank of NCO.
Court No. II, Case No. IX.
In the offices in Reval, Dorpat, Pernaw and Norva, and Arensburg, one intermediate official, who had the rank of an NCO, For the State Police task in Estonia of German officials, there was an executive official, and nine intermediate officials. were subordinate to you?
A Yes, for State Police tasks, yes. Apart from that there was those for the criminal, police tasks, which are not under discussion here now. introduced as substitute for the instructions of the OKH and the RSHA in Estonia? 1941, those general directives applied which I had announced to the subcommando leaders before I moved; that is, first, only to arrests, executions only in special, exceptional cases in the manner as I have described yesterday. Now in the first half of October I initiated the following directives for the treatment of all districts concerning the Communists in Estonia. May I explain the procedure briefly that when reports came from the population to the Estonian Police, and to the Estonian Home Guard. In the political department of the Estonian Police, Prefecture the reports were received, investigations were carried out, records were made, arrests were carried out whenever required, and the witnesses were questioned; particularly, these witnesses were questioned whom the defendant, the accused, wanted called in order not to be incriminated. After the examination had been concluded, a Commission sat, consisting of three members. This Commission examined the entire procedure, and an expert gave a lecture on it, and explained same; they listened to the accused, and, in particular, they had to consider everything that he stated for his defense. They examined all the documents, discussed all questions in the case, and then came to a final decision.
Court No. II, Case No. IX.
THE PRESIDENT: What would the accused be charged with?
THE WITNESS: As Communist functionaries and agents. There were many persons who worked for the Communist Party in Estonia, or for the Soviet Communists, and had been executed as such.
THE PRESIDENT: What if they proved to be Communist functionaries, then what happened?
THE WITNESS: Then in each individual case according to the facts, and according to the personality, it was decided whether the person was to be executed, or was to be transferred into a camp.
THE PRESIDENT: What would they decide as to whether he could be executed, or sent to a camp. Let's suppose now it is established that he was a Communist functionary?
THE WITNESS: There were a great number of Communist functionaries, of various kinds and various characters. Not every Communist functionary down to the smallest and the most minor functionary were executed.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, let's suppose that he was a functionary of some importance; let's say, he had been a Burgermeister or a mayor of a town, and had acted as such up until the occupation of Germany, what would happen to him?
THE WITNESS: It can not be judged in this manner. It only depended on what he did in this office, and it depended on how we judged his general personality.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, let's suppose a case where you have a mayor of a term, and he conducted his office as a mayor should; he was very active, he was a Communist, and he attended the meetings of the Communist party, and he discharged his duties of the office with a Communistic point of view.
Now, that is the evidence.
THE WITNESS: If he had not done anything other then what you just mentioned; if he had not carried out any activity for the Communists, and didn't act as a functionary of the NKWD, then he was not executed.
THE PRESIDENT: No, I said, if he was a full Communist, carried our the functions of his office as a Communist, belonged to the Communist Party, was active, believed in the doctrines of the Communist Party, talked about Communism. Now what happened to him?
THE WITNESS: It depended, Your Honor, when he talked about Communism, whether this happened in the time after the occupation by the Germans.
THE PRESIDENT: No, up until the time the Germans arrived. All of this happened before the Germans arrived.
THE WITNESS: If he had been nothing but a mayor, and had no other functions, and had not done anything else as a Communist, he was not executed.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, didn't your Fuehrer Order say, all Communist functionaries had to be executed?
THE WITNESS: I didn't understand the Order that way, that every Communist functionary, without any distinction, and without examination of the individual case was to be executed. BY DR. VON STEIN:
THE PRESIDENT: You have used the phrase over and over "Communistic activity." What do you mean by "Communistic activity"?
THE WITNESS: In Estonia when examining these cases it was understood that they had actively taken part in the killings and deportations.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, now, witness, if a man killed someone, illegally, then you would have to be concerned whether he was a Communist or not, because the law of the land would take care of him; so let's exclude these very clear cut cases of illegal killings.
Define for me the Communistic activity.
THE WITNESS: An I to understand the question to the effect that you mean such Communistic activity which would result in a death sentence, or such Communistic activity which would cause transfer into an internment camp?
THE PRESIDENT: You have used the phrase yourself, "Communistic activity." which would subject an individual to arrest and possible execution. How, what was this Communistic activity which would result in that?
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, there were Communist activities which could result in execution. There was another which could result in an internment into a camp and other activities which did not even result in internment but in many cases in a release after a few weeks. I read this in a document yesterday. 3,700 minor incriminated Communists who had also been active in Communist activity.
THE PRESIDENT: However, you have not as yet told us just what you mean by "Communist activity" which would result in a man's execution?
THE WITNESS: That cannot be explained to the full extent. May I give you some examples. One example is an active pant in an underground organization which was created so that when the Russian Army had left Estonia, they should carry on espionage and sabotage.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, that is another thing, that comes under the category of espionage and sabotage. That is now Communist activity as such?
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, these cases were to be dealt with and were classed as Communism, which consisted of sabotage and espionage, and were done for Communistic reasons and motives. Under the category Communism which I am going to explain here comes everything that happened in the service of Soviet authorities, of the Communist Party of Estonia, no matter what the activity was, sabotage or espionage, and so forth.
THE PRESIDENT: Let's get back to the original issue in this entire trial. You know that this trial is based upon the original Fuehrer Order, which has been discussed at length by every defendant who has taken the witness stand. Now you tell us what that Fuehrer Order was.
THE WITNESS: The content of the Fuehrer Order was apart from the Jews and the Gypsies -
THE PRESIDENT: Not apart from. Tell me what it was. Did it include Jews and Gypsies, to execute Jews and Gypsies?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, now.
THE WITNESS: Jews and Gypsies and Communist functionaries and such elements who endangered the security of the country.
THE PRESIDENT: Did it include in that phrase "Communist functionaries"?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed, Dr. von Stein. BY DR. VON STEIN:
Q Witness, may I address the question to you again. In Estonia was anybody punished because of Communistic views?
THE PRESIDENT: How, do you know that as a fact? Do you know as a fact that no person in Estonia was punished because he held Communistic views?
THE WITNESS: I ordered this expressly.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you know as a fact that no one was executed because he held Communistic views?
THE WITNESS: Under my responsibility, no.
THE PRESIDENT: Then you can not answer the question which the attorney put to you.
THE WITNESS: I beg your pardon, I understand the question to mean that the defense counsel meant my responsibility. I don't know whether he meant this.
THE PRESIDENT: You put the question again, now. BY DR. VON STEIN:
Q The question which I addressed to you was as fellows: Whether anybody was punished in Estonia merely because he held Communistic views. You said, no in reply to this, and in this connection I shall address another question to you. What have you got to prove this? I went to refer you to documents. Is it right that it can mistakenly had at first been arrested, and later when the case was examined and. it had been found out they were released again because they had not been active in a criminal sense, but they had been arrested merely because of Communistic views?
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment now. That is not the question at all, Dr. von Stein. You asked the question, were any people executed in Estonia, because they held Communistic views, and his answer was a categorical no.
DR. VON STEIN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, now I ask you, do you know that as a fact?
DR. VON STEIN: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: I ask the witness, do you know as a fact that no one was executed in Estonia because he held Communistic views?
DR. VON STEIN: May I address a question to the witness in order to refresh his memory and point out the documents to him, which prove quite obviously -
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q He can answer that question. It's your own question so you can't get away from it. he held communistic views. How you know that as a fact? bility and to the orders which I save.
Q Don't you know as a matter of fact that many were executed as a result of error? Police. I do not know of any such case.
Q You don't know of any execution that took place based upon error?
Q You do not admit that that could happen? police, I do not know of any case where an execution was carried out following a death sentence by mistake.
Q You do not know. You exclude the possibility that someone could have been executed as a result of error?
Q All right. Now, just a moment. I read from your own affidavit, signed on 23 April 1947: "Although I do not remember a definite case, there was a possibility that some members of the Estonian police who made these investigations and summaries of the facts, or the interpreter who acted as translator falsified part of the facts with a view to having a person sentenced to death. The summaries were later signed by Chief 4 of the Estonian Police, who was converwithin the staff of the German Department 4, two Estonian internees were employed who had to check on all cases which had been handled by the Estonian Police."
Now, do you change your answer in view of that statement made by you?
ly to Mr. Wartenberg, that I never heard of any case where a falsification was ever made. These things are not based on facts or statements by me, but great importance has often been attached to it by Mr. Wartenberg, to bring in the possibility of a falsification.
Q Just a moment. You said a while ago that you excluded the possibility that someone could have been executed unjustly. Now I read to you your own statement in which you say: "There was a possibility that because of falsification or difficulty in translation a person could have been sentenced to death who should not have been sentenced to death." Do you withdraw your statement of April 23 in that respect? statements on this point I wish to boil down to this: that I never heard of any such case. I said this at the tine and I want to say that now.
Q But your affidavit says, "There was a possibility." Today you say there was no possibility. Now which do you stand on: the statement that there was a possibility that someone was unjustly done to death, or that there was no possibility that someone was unjustly done to death? Now, what do you stand on? tions. Herr Wartenberg asked me whether it might have been possible that Estonians might have smuggled false documents into the files. unjustly in Estonia while you were in Estonia?
Q Now please answer that question. Was there the possibility that someone may have been done to death unjustly while you were in Estonia? responsible? Do you mean, Your Honor -
of a case and then how this was reviewed by the Chief 4 of the Estonian Police and then it came to the staff of the German Department 4. Now I am reading from your own statement. Now, do you say that there was a possibility that someone could have been executed unjustly? Estonian Police a false document -
Q Now please answer the question. Was there a possibility that an innocent person could have been executed?
Q All right. Then your categorical answer that no person was killed unjustly while you were up there has to be modified, doesn't it? hear of any such case and did everything to avoid it. to reply to the question directly and precisely. BY DR. VON STEIN: far as humanly possible, I would like an exact description of the procedure of reviewing. the police prefectura had passed was done in the following manner. May I add, this decision within the Estonian authorities was called "Judgment". In German, correctly stated, it is called, "Recommendation for Judgment." This verdict with the findings and with a detailed explanation of the degree of punishment and with the entire documents was sent to the branch office of the German Security Police. There the official of the German Security Police looked through it. If no objections could be made, the file was returned to the Prefectura. Following that, the verdict with the reasons given for it and the entire documents were sent to the headquarters of the Estonian Police, the Prefectura in Revel, and later to the headquarters of the Estonian Police for internal security.
There the entire procedure was thoroughly examined. The entire documents were looked through and reviewed, and again another commission, consisting of three who were also lawyers and professional officers, came to a decision and examined or confirmed the decision passed by the police prefectura. These statements -BY THE PRESIDENT: as much attention as apparently was given to an Estonian citizen: having one board pass upon it and another board and then still another board? police court I would not have such a careful procedure as was carried cut there.
Q Yes. So you gave more care and consideration to the Estonians than would he accorded even a member of the SS? procedure correct, then they closed the case. The verdict and the basis for the verdict were translated, and on a special sheet the reasons for the degree of punishment were mentioned, and the entire file was handed on to the German Department 4 of the German Security Police. Only if the verdict was "imprisonment for up to six months", then the chief of the Estonian political police was entitled to pronounce this punishment. In Department 4 of the German Security Police, there was another high Estonian legal official who again examined the entire file, a legal official who held a high fulltime position in the Estonian legal administration, and for five hours a day he only did this job. He checked everything, examined the documents for being proper and also stated his opinion about the degree of punish ment, and returned, the file to the Estonian Security Police, if he objected to it.
If there were no objections to it, then he prepared the statement of the German Department Chief 4. In the statement which he made it was shown - and he signed this -- that he had checked the files, that he found them correct, and that in his opinion the judgment of the judgment commission was correct. This procedure was then submitted to the German department chief 4. The German department chief 4 read this verdict, the reasons for the verdict and the enclosed motivation of the degree of punishment - and the enclosed statement of the Estonian official just mentioned. If he approved of the verdict, he confirmed it.
MR. GLANCY: May it please the Tribunal, it seems to me that we have been through this same line about two or three times now, and this is merely cumulative or reiterative, and I object to it on these grounds.
THE PRESIDENT: I think that is entirely a proper observation, Dr. von Stein. Hasn't he told us this before?
THE WITNESS: I beg your pardon, Your Honor. This is another agency of which I am talking now. This is a third agency which again examined this case.
BY THE PRESIDENT: and review a case? Just count them: the three men - the first boardand so on. Just tell us how many.
A In the first commission, there were three. Apart from this, there was the referent who had prepared the case and the expert.
A That makes five. And then in the headquarters of the police in Reval there were three persons of the judgment commission and a referent.
Q That's four more. itself and not in the province. Then there was -
A Yes. Then there was the Estonian legal official in the German Department 4.
Q And how many were there?
A One: the department chief.
Q That makes eleven, is that right?
Q Eleven people passed on each case. Very well. in which the judgment commission in the district did not function. After the department chief 4 had confirmed it, the entire file was sent back to the headquarters of the Estonian police, who on their part had to see to everything else. Another agency which was independent was the so-called Department for Reprieves within the German securith police.
Q Well, then, there were more than eleven?