No. II in the matter of the United States of America against
THE MARSHAL: The Honorable, The Judges of Military Tribunal II.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed. BY DR. von STEIN:
Q. Witness, we had stopped on your direct examination with the facts that you had arrived in Riga 1 July 1941 together with a subcommando of 15 men of your commando and at the same time with another sub-commando of 20 men of E.K. 2. In order to restore the connection with your direct examination which has already been given, summarize in a few sentences, please, what you answered to the last questions I asked you.
A. On the 1st of July 1941 the Einsatzkommando Chief Stahlecker had arrived in Riga. He had given the order of E.K. 2 to start with the Security Police job in Riga. Some men in my commando were to help them on the first and second of July temporarily in securing material in the buildings. Stahlecker himself during those days was concerned generally in setting up the Latvian Police and Latvian Auxiliary Police. He had his headquarters in the Latvian Police Building and conducted his consultations with the Latvian personalities.
Q. What did you do yourself in those days?
A. I had my commando follow up which had been in Memel so far. That was the last territory on the Reich Territory. I had this order from Stahlecker to proceed to Estonia is quickly as possible for the advance of the Army which had been proceeding very quickly up to that moment was proceeding evidently in the same quick tempo. I had to conduct negotiations with Headquarters of the Army Groups and Army Corps in order to find out what further military position was to be made by the Army and was dependent on these dispositions as to how I was to distribute my sub-commandos as time went on.
These Headquarters of the Army Corps and Divisions were all distributed over the territory in the area of central Latvia and it was a time-consuming task to find all these Headquarters and then to carry on the necessary negotiations with them.
Q. What did you find out during these negotiations?
A. I heard that the 38th Army Corps of the Army was to advance in the direction of Pleskau-Narva. I further learned that an advanced department of the Army under the leadership of General von Zelle was to proceed towardReval as quickly as possible. Other battalions were to proceed toward other southern parts of Estonia.
Q. What measures did you take after that?
A. I formed three sub-commandos. One sub-commando was assigned to the 38th Army Corps which was to advance together with this Army Corps via Pleskau along the eastern shore of the Peipus Lake toward Narva. In order to explain this further may I say that on the map here in the Courtroom the Peipus Lake is that lake which forms the eastern border of Estonia. The town of Pleskau which I mentioned is not listed on that map. It is situated on the southern end of the Peipus Lake about 15 kilometers east of the Estonian border, that is on Russian Territory. The town of Narva is listed here but there is an error on this map. It looks as if the City of Narva is not on Estonian territory but on Russian territory. In reality the City of Narva belongs to Estonia and, therefore, should have been shown on the map about 2 kilimeters left of where it is now listed. A second sub-commando was formed by me for the central Estonian area. That is for the area west of the Peipus Lake. I formed a third sub-commando to have it advance on Reval. This sub-commando was to join with the Advance Unit of the Army under the leadership of General von Zelle which I have mentioned before. I myself took over the leadership of this commando since the Advance Unit of von Zelle hoped to reach Reval in a few days and since Reval, being the capital of Estonia, was the most important objective.
In order to understand the further development may I add that this intention of the Advance Unit of von Zelle to reach Reval within a few days did not succeed but that on the first day after crossing the Latvian-Estonian frontier it met strong enemy resistance and that city of Reval was not actually captured until 28 August, that is one and one-half months later.
Q. When did the three sub-commandos start their march from Reval?
A. 4 June 1941.
Q. What information did you give to your subcommandos leaders about the message you were given in Pretsch?
A. I summarized the ideas to my sub-commando officers which had been given to the Einsatz Group Chiefs and Einsatzkommando leaders during the conferences in Pretsch and in the Prinz Albrecht Palace in Berlin but I did not tell them about the order which was announced by Streckenbach to eliminate the Jews and the Gypsies and to elimate all Communistic functionaries collectively.
Q. Why didn't you tell them that?
A. As I have already said when I described my reaction to the Fuehrer order I had made the decision as far as possible to evade the order for myself and my commandos. It was a logical consequence of this discussion that I would not inform my subordinate officers about the Streckenbach order, or rather that I would not tell them about the Fuehrer order which had been passed on by Streckenbach.
Q. Did you give your subordinate officers any definite instructions about carrying out their missions?
A. Yes, I told them to take all necessary measures in order to secure the area and especially to keep the rear of the fighting troops free in order to secure the fighting line but no collective measures were to be undertaken. Executions were to be carried out only in exceptional cases and only if an individual heavy guilt was established and only after the individual concerned was given a chance to defend himself orally.
Q. Did you give any special instructions about the advance of your commandos through Lithuania and Latvia?
A. Yes, I told them that for Lithuania and Latvia not our commando was responsible but Einsatzkommandos II and III and the subcommando of my commando were, therefore, during their march through Lithuania and Lativa only to carry out these security jobs which were absolutely necessary as immediate measures, that is, only during danger on the march.
Everything further was to be left to Einsatzkommandos II and III.
Q. During your march through Lithuania and Latvia did you yourself order arrests or executions?
A. No, in no case.
Q. Were you a sub-commando officer?
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. von Stein, your question was, "Did he on this march order any arrests or executions" and his answer was "No". Do we understand by this that he arrested no one?
DR. VON STEIN: Your Honor, this was a question for a defeinite period of time only - that march through Lithuania and Latvia. For this period of time the defendant says that he himself ordered no arrests or executions.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. What period of time was that?
DR. VON STEIN: Will you please tell the Tribunal how long this march through Lithuania and Latvia lasted - what period of time was concerned here?
THE WITNESS: This period of time was as far as I am concerned from the 25 or 26 of June until about 5 July.
THE PRESIDENT: We understand that he really had no jurisdiction in those two countries and, therefore, it would not be incumbent on him to take anyone into custody. Is that right?
DR. VON STEIN: Will you please give an explanation to the question of the Tribunal. Was it because there was no judicial competency during that time?
THE WITNESS: No, that wasn't the question which I was asked. I understood it in such a way that I should answer whether I personally during this march through Lithuania and Latvia ordered an arrest or an execution. In the preceding question I have already explained the fact that the sub-commandos or-my commando were, of course, justified.
....
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, please. Now you are going to tell us everything that you have told us before and the question was very simple. You have said that you did not arrest or execute anyone in Lithuania and Latvia. Now the question is, was that because other commandos had been assigned to those two areas? Answer that yes or no.
THE WITNESS: No.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Then was it because you saw nothing which would occasion your arresting or executing anybody?
THE WITNESS: I didn't understand the question.
march you did not have occasion to arrest anybody.
A The reason was as follows: The Einsatz Group Chief, Stahlecker, had ordered from the beginning that Einsatz Commando 2 was competent for Latvia and that my commando, that is to say, the Special Commando I A was to be competent for the area of Estonia primarily and the Eastern territory adjoining that, namely, that of the 18th Army. The advance of the 13th Army through Lithuania and Latvia was very quick. Of course, the subcommandos of my commando, if they had to be at one place during the march for several days, had the duty and the right to take security measures, but I told them right away that we were only to pass through Lithuania and Latvia, and that they were to limit themselves to those jobs which were absolutely necessary for an immediate security of the army rear area, and in this manner it may be explained that during the advance one or two sub-commandos during short stays in individual villages undertook security police missions on the responsibility of the sub-commando leaders, but that I myself because of the rapidity of the advance personally ordered no arrests or executions there.
Q Did any of your sub-commandos perform any executions?
A I don't know of any concrete case. Your Honor, that any of my sub-commandos carried out executions there. One or two of the sub-commandos probably did undertake arrests.
Q Well, now, you say you do not know of any precise case. Your sub-commandos had to report to you, did they not? by wide areas. Between me and my sub-commandos there were no communications for several days.
Q Well, but they eventually did report to you? of the sub-commando leaders, they, of course, reported to me.
Q Well, they eventually had to report to you, did they not?
Q Very well, did they report any executions? they may have not?
A Yes. It is possible that executions took place, but I don't know it concretely, or rather I do not remember. BY DR. VON STEIN: decisions?
A Yes. According to a general order of the Einsatzgruppe Chief Stahlecker, the sub-commando leaders in the entire area of Einsatzgruppe A had basic permission to make independent decisions, and they had full responsibility in individual cases. to pass judgment in individual cases?
A Yes, absolutely. They we re all members of the security service of the security police and SD. They had good experience and good qualifications. ecker's opinion in general was that the indigenous population was to be induced to start measures against the Jews. Did you on your march through Lithuania and Latvia have anything to do with one of these operations?
Q Did any of your subordinates have anything to do with this?
A No. I am convinced that this was not the case, otherwise, I would have found out about it in the course of time.
Q Did Stahlecker give you any special order in reference to Estonia?
A Yes. Not in the form of a compulsive order, that is to say, but he gave me directives which were to be followed, if possible.
Q Did you carry out this directive?
Q Why not? ethical reasons.
Q Did you tell Stahlecker that you did not approve of such measures?
A Yes. In a careful but unmistakable manner I expressed to him that I did not consider this correct. BY PRE PRESIDENT:
Q When was that, please? on the 4th of July.
Q And where was it?
Q And just what did you tell him?
A I cannot remember the wording of it. It is a long time ago, but I told him in a cautious manner that I did not consider it correct.
Q Well, now, don't be so cautious with us. Just tell us what you said. How, you told him in a cautious way that it was not correct but try to construct, if you can, just how you told it to him and use as well as you can remember the phraseology.
Q Well, we don't ask you to remember verbatim, of course, but you do remember that you were very cautious. Well, now, how did you go about this caution - tell us as well as you can remember what you said to Stahlecker on July 4 in Riga. about the following: That through such events public order and public morale would be affected in such a manner....
Q Well, now, just a minute, you say "through such events", what "events"? which I was asked, namely, pogroms of the indigenous population against Jews.
that the pogroms were in order?
AAll right, now, what else?
AAn I to continue with the reasons which I gave him?
A The main thought was as follows: That I thought that such events would affect the public order and morale and that there was grave danger that if such things happened at all and are permitted to happen, it would be very difficult in other respects, too, to keep up public order. Another thought which I also implied cautiously was that the event, especially for the Jews, was inhuman. but I certainly did not use the literal expression "inhuman" when I was specking to Stahlecker because it would not have had any meaning to him at that time since Stahlecker was completely under the influence of the Fuehrer Order. the word? As far as I remember, I could have said it about as follows: If the Fuehrer order would have to be carried out, then this was certainly not the best way of carrying it out - approximately in this manner. merely indicated that a more efficient manner might be found to carry out the fuehrer order.
A No, in no manner. On Friday I have already said that I had the most basic and most severe misgivings about that. to Stahlecker that it was inhumane to do this, that it was against humanity, but you did not use that phrase. You did not couch the ex expression in that rank - now, I would like to know just exactly how you told him that this was an act of inhumanity and not use the word.
if this severe order has to her carried out, this was not the correct way of doing it, this meaning by way of pogroms as Stahlecker considered it correct. At least in the tone in which I said it, it was clear and evident that I wanted to express what I have just meant by the expression that I considered this type of carrying the order out as especially inhumane. conveyed to Stahlecker the idea that this was inhumane. All you have told us is that you said to him that if the Fuehrer Order had to be carried out, this was not the way to do it. Nov, is that what you told him?
A Yes, this is the sense. I explained it in about these words, but I do not remember the exact words I used. remark that Stahlecker was able to understand that you regarded that business as inhumane. had to understand the sense of my words without any question. when you spoke so guardedly and so cautiously that even today we are unable to gather from your remark that you were opposed to this on the grounds of inhumanity. that he rejected my objections on my part in very harsh language; and he reproached me with not being hard enough with these matters in the East; I was too soft, and did not have any understanding for the necessities of the time and the area. The conversation took about 15 minutes. Of course, I cannot remember any individual words he used, but the thoughts which he had were about the way I just expressed them.
Q A nd then what did he order you to do?
of the Jews in Estonia in such a way that in Estonia pogroms of the population against the Jews were to be induced. He did not give it to me in the form of an absolutely binding order, out in that form, that this was his wish, and this was a directive which he was giving, and which was, if at all possible, to be carried out, but he left the possibility open to me to tell him later on that for some reasons it was not possible. executed?
A Yes, Your Honor, we spoke about this expressly. I knew the Fuehrer Order from Pretsch, and before I left for Estonia he again expressly repeated it to me as having to be carried out.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed, Dr. von Stein, you may proceed. BY DR. VON STEIN: synagogues in Estonia still intact?
Q What orders did Stahlecker give to you before you left Riga?
A He gave me two orders particularly. the first order was to have as good a relationship as possible with the army and, secondly, as I have just said, according to the Fuehrer Order to have all Estonian Jews eliminated. BY THE PRESIDENT: suggested to him that there might be a better way to carry out the order. Did you indicate to him what that better way might be?
A Your Honor, I must have expressed myself mistakenly. I did not suggest to him that there was a better way, I merely said that if this Fuehrer Order had to be carried out at all, this way, namely, the pogroms, was certainly not the correct way. Perhaps the translation brought it out differently.
Q No, no, I protect the interpreter in this. That is exactly what came over to us, that this was not the correct way to do it.
Nov, what I am asking, and the question was suggested by my colleague, Judge Dixon, if you indicated to him that this was not the correct way, did you not tell him then what was the correct way; didn't Stahlecker ask you then what was your suggestion as to the correct way?
Q The matter stood there?
A Yes. Stahlecker did not take back his directives. BY DR. VON STEIN: you. Did you carry out those two orders? carried this out correctly; the order about the Jews, I did not.
Q Why not? when it was given in Pretsch that I had decided to do everything in order to avoid the execution of the order for my part and for my commando's part.
Q Why did he just give you those two orders? these two points most important; the special order about the Jews in Estonia, he gave me because he knew that there was only a relatively small number of Jews in Estonia and because he believed and wished here to be able to report for a part of his area very quickly that this area was free of Jews. By this he wanted to show Berlin that he was especially ambitious about carrying out this order. Q Will you please comment on two situation reports which are contained in two reports of the events, namely, about the situation report which is contained in Volume III A, Document No. 4536. There is no exhibit number available as yet for this exhibit.
This is the report of the 1st of July 1941. On page 50 of the German text - page 35 in the English.
A This report is wrong. On the 28th of June I was not in Mitau, as is stated in this situation report, but on that day I was already before Riga, already on the day before, namely, since the 27th of June. Since the 27th of June I was, as I already stated on Friday, in a western suburb of Riga with an advance unit of the army under the command of Colonel Lasch. On the way to Riga I did not even come through the town of Mitau because on the 27th of June the commanding general of an army corps told me that Mitau was still in the hands of the enemy, that one, therefore, could not pass through Mitau at all, therefore, I took a different route, namely, by way of the city of Bausk. This town is southeast of Mitau. I was in Mitau for the first time end of October 1941 when I went from Riga to Tilsit on a subiness trip. I do not know whether on the 28th of June even a single man of my commando was in Mitau. The fact that parts of my commando were in Libau at that time is correct. From there they were to move on to Riga together with the 219th Infantry Division. The largest part of my commando was at that time from the 28th of June to the 30th of June in the town of Memel. That is the last headquarters on Reich territory. It doesn't say anything about this in this operation report, it says on one part was in Schaulen, whether this is correct, I do not know. The various parts of this situation report cannot possibly come from me because the advance unit Lasch with which I was from the 27th to the 30th of June, right before Riga, had been cut off from its rear communications.
Einsatzgruppe, or with my commandos. On top of the page in this operational report it says that the leader of the Einsatzgruppe, Brigadier General Stahlecker, was on his way to Riga on 30 June. This report is Correct. II-A, Exhibit No. 37, Document NO-2935. A The first page of this report reads as follows: "Group Leader, together with Einsatzcommandos I-A and II, has moved into Riga," End of quote. This sentence is correct. of page 2, and there it reads that,"The subcommandos of the Commando I-A were to move to the City of Wenden, to Derpat, and possibly for Psckew, and it also says here, page 1 of the English, Your Honor, and it also says that another part of Einsatzcommando I-A is intended for Reval, and is already on the move." End of quote. This is correct. This subcommando destined for Reval left Riga on 4 July in order, as I have already said, to join up with the advanced unit of General von Zelle, and to reach Reval by way of Velini. I commanded this subcommando myself. the area of the 18th Army?
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, please. Just which document and which page are you now commenting on?
DR. VONSTEIN: Up to this time it was in Vol. II-A, Exhibit No. 37, Document NO-2935, page 41 of the English text.
THE PRESIDENT: You were referring then, I take it, to what is marked as page 5 of the original?
MR. GLANCY: I believe that he is referring to page 5 of the original found on page 41 of the Document Book, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Now on page 4 of the original there is a state ment that Einsatzcommando I-A entered Riga.
Is that correct?
THE WITNESS: Yes, I stated that the first sentence of this report is correct.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Now how about the sentence in the second paragraph: "All synagogues have been destroyed." Is that correct?
THE WITNESS: I didn't know anything about this at the time. I didn't hear this until later. During a conversation which I had with Stahlecker on 4 July, which was described in detail before, Stahlecker merely told me that he had made attempts to induce the Latvian Auxiliary Police to carry out such measures. I personally never had any dealings with the Latvian Police or the Latvian Auxiliary Police, and had no contact with them, and I had nothing to do with these measures.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you were in Riga, Didn't it come to your attention that the synagogues had been destroyed?
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, at the time when the synagogues were destroyed I had already left Riga. On 4 July, as I stated, I left Riga, Whether this took place on the 4th or 5th or later on, I don't know, Stahlecker told me later, about the 20th of July, that he personally had induced Latvian Police forces under Latvian officers to carry out these measures. Whether the Einsatzcommando II had any knowledge of this, which also was in Riga from 1 July on, and which remained in Riga constantly, and which was competent constantly for police missions in Riga, I don't know.
THE PRESIDENT: Now you were in Riga on July 4th?
THE WITNESS: On the morning of 4 July I left the town of Riga.
THE PRESIDENT: You left Riga on the morning of July 4th?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Didn't you tell us you had a conversation with Stahlecker on July 4th, in Riga?
THE WITNESS: Yes. In the early morning of 4 July, before I left Riga, I reported to Stahlecker before leaving, in order to join with the advance unit Zelle, and on the occasion of this conversation the conference between Stahlecker and myself took place.
THE PRESIDENT: What time in the morning did you speak to Stahlecker?
THE WITNESS: Between eight and nine. It was in the hotel, in his hotel room.
THE PRESIDENT: Then after the conversation you immediately left?
THE WITNESS: After an hour, yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Then you don't know anything about the hundred Jews who were shot on that day by a commando of the Security Police and SD?
THE WITNESS: I merely knew that they were shot by a Commando of Einsatzcommando II on order of Stahlecker. Stahlecker also told me about this on that morning.
THE PRESIDENT: He told you about this on the morning of July 4th that he had ordered the shooting of one-hundred Jews?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: What time did the execution take place?
THE WITNESS: I don't know.
THE PRESIDENT: What other commando was In Riga on that date?
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, the first sentence of this document shows that Einsatzcommando II also was in Riga during the same time. Stahlecker and my commando and this commando moved into Riga simultaneously on 1 July. My commando was to move on as quickly as possible, and Commando II was to remain in Riga, and always remained in Riga, and later became the agency of the Security Police and SD for Latvia.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed, Dr. von Stein. DR. VON STEIN: destruction of the synagogues, I would like to ask you the following questions: Your commando was destined for Estonia, is that right? Estonia were still intact in 1943 with a "yes"? were still intact when I left Estonia.
the destruction of the synagogues in Riga? through the area of the 18th Army about the conduct of the Soviets? received reports from the population about the measures which had been taken there in the preceding year by the Soviets and, under their leadership, by the indigenous Communists, There were numerous executions and deportations. I don't think I have to go into details here, because sofar as this concerns Estonia, the witness Dr Mae has already reported on this. I would only like to say that all this which we heard about this from all classes of the population was to a large extent a confirmation for us of what we had been told before the march started. your attitude? change because of these experiences or findings, but these experiences did influence.- -
THE PRESIDENT: Give us just in a word what you mean by "these experiences."? measures which had been taken in the years of 1940 and 1941 by the Soviets and, together with them, by the indigenous Communists, in reference to the killings and deportations of many inhabitants, and the measures connected with this. I said to the preceding question that through this my human attitude did not change, but when judging the legal situation I was influenced. It was clear from the beginning, as I already said when explaining my thoughts in Pretsch, that any illegality was out of the question for a Fuehrer Order, but when we saw in this Baltic area to what a large extent the forces then in power there had deviated in the preceding years from the basic principles of law, we were doubtlessly influenced in the sense that any possible misgivings about the legality which one still might have had were removed by this.
We had to consider that in an area in which law and morality were disregarded to such a large extent, extraordinary measures might be justified, even these measures which were beyond our imagination up to this moment.
Q what situation did you find when you got to Estonia? advance met stubborn resistance. This resistance was met in the whole area of Central Estonia. On the German side voluntary formations of the Estonian Home Guard participated in these fights, on the side of the Red Army destruction battalions participated primarily. The expression "fight" is actually the wrong word here, for it was the nature of these destruction battalions never to be committed in battle, but after the withdrawal of the Red Army from a certain area, they were to be left behind, and they were to destroy everything behind the German lines, which was still there and which would be important for the German troops. In a sense, those destruction battalions were thus to operate behind the lines of the German Army, and they were to destroy the bridges, public installations of every kind, buildings to a large extent, and etc.