Well, there was a Fuehrer Order with regard to the execution of Jews. Why did you not have some misgiving about that, or why did you have misgivings about that?
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I did not approve of either, neither of the execution nor of the internment of all Jews, but I had to decide in favor of the internment as the lesser evil because of the pressure of Stahlecker.
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed.
A (Cont'd) Independent of the fact that I neither approved of the one or the other, according to my personal feelings, it was no question that this order in reference to the execution and of course in reference to an internment also justified this measure but there was a special reason here about the Jews in Estonia. In any Case I looked at it from that point of view. I had no possibility to examine whether it was completely in accordance with international law.
This point of view was the following. The Jews in Estonia were distinguished from the Estonians, the Russians and the Swedes and the Germans, not in reference to the race or to the religion, but the practical difference as it was politically acute in Estonia was the difference in their ethnic characteristics. That became evident in the legislation which the Estonian Free State permitted its minorities, namely, it permitted them cultural autonomy. This right of a cultural autonomy was granted by the Estonian Free State to the Russian minority, was a question of voluntariness on the part of these groups whether they made use of this or not. The Russian and Swedish minorities made no use of this. The German and the Jewish minorities did. Thereby the Jewish group had become an ethnic unit and thus it came about that within the Estonian Republic the Jews living in Estonia had their own cultural autonomy and therefore they were different in an ethnic respect from the remaining inhabitants of the country. Since this ethnic group
THE PRESIDENT: Well now, just a moment. What is all this leading up to? Now, you have established this ethnic group. Now what's this got to do with putting them into an internment camp. You said it was easy for you to put them into a camp and then you gave us this long explanation. How, bring those two points together.
THE WITNESS: Yes, the conclusion of this train of thought is the following: since this is a special ethnic group, and since this ethnic group had adopted a hostile attitude for the most part against Germany, as the Estonians had reported to us, it seemed justified to undertake such an internment and analogous to the same directives which of war.
THE PRESIDENT: Well then, because of their hostile attitude you found it comparatively easy to confine them to this internment comp. That's what it sums up to?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
Q. Well then, it didn't break your heart too much to put them into an internment camp, did it?
A. I said before that I was against an internment, or rather, that I had personal misgivings about it without establishing individual guilt.
Q. Well now, you have given us two propositions. One, that it was with great regret and reluctance and against your own feelings, and with many misgivings, that you put them into an internment comp; that is one proposition. Then, you give us a long story on how because of their ethnic quality, becuase of the homogeneity of opposition to the German forces, that it was entirely justified to put them in camps; so, on one side your heart is broken; on the other side it is very gay. Now, if you can reconcile those two statements, please do so. If not, which one do you now give us an representing the facts?
A. Your Honor, in this statement is a matter of additional points of justification for these measures, the way it was discussed by me and my collaborators at the time, and the way it is described in an affidavit.
Q. Please answer the question. Were you satisfied to intern these Jews or not?
A. I had personal misgivings.
Q. Even though you know that they were enemies of the state?
A. In the case of those with whom it had been individually established.
Q. (interposing) Now, you put them all into one group. You went to great pains to tell us how you put them into one ethnic group.
A. Your Honor, I had no misgivings about those in whose cases it had been established concretely, but I had misgivings, not legal misgivings, personal misgivings with COURT II CASE IX the others.
Q. How many Jews did you put into that camp?
A. There were about eight to nine hundred.
Q. Did you examine each and every one of these eight to nine hundred to determine whether he was personally hostile to the Reich or not?
A. No.
Q. Then, how could you decide whether one should be confined or not, as against another.
A. Your Honor, perhaps I expressed myself mistakenly. I did not say that this was decided in each individual case,, but I said that all had to be interned, even those in whose cases no investigation had been made, and that is those cases I did not personally confirm it; nevertheless, it was unavoidable.
Q. Did you investigate the cases of any of these eight hundred to nine hundred Jews?
A. Yes.
Q. How many?
A. I cannot give you the number.
Q. Well, why can't you give us the number. You have given us a great deal of details on the Jews, why can't you tell us how many of the eight to nine hundred you examined.
A. I cannot remember this figure.
Q. Well, was it five hundred?
A. If I must give an estimate, it may be about eighty to one hundred.
Q. You examined eighty to one hundred; why didn't you examine the other eight hundred, or seven hundred? Do you think it was fair to examine only eighty to one hundred and not examine the rest? Is that your idea of justice?
A. For two reasons this did not happen, Your Honor.
Q. Why?
A. One reason is that Stahlecker had urgently ordered a COURT II CASE IX general internment, and I could not evade this.
Q. Why did you evade it for the eighty to one hundred you did examine?
A. There the investigations took place because in connection with other cases which were investigated, namely, Estonian communists, with whom these Jewish cases were connected; and, therefore, interrogations had to take place.
Q. Did you examine these eighty yourself?
A. I personally took no investigations myself.
Q. Then you didn't examine the case of any of these nine hundred?
A. I personally did not make any investigations; that was not my job.
Q. So you committed these eight hundred to nine hundred Jews without knowing whether they were enemies of the Reich or not; but only because they formed part of a racial group which had been condemned by Stahlecker and those above him; is that right?
A. Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: All right; proceed. BY DR. VON STEIN:
Q. Witness, is it correct that you faced a choice at that time, a choice of either executing Jewry on the basis of the Fuehrer Order; or, to intern Jewry.
A. After the conferences I had with Stahlecker, and which I have described, an internment was no longer avoidable under any circumstances; the compulsion of the order was too strong.
Q. Witness, is it correct that first of all an order for the execution of the Jewry existed?
A. Yes, of course, I have already said that.
Q. Is it also correct that you chose only the internment COURT II CASE IX of the Jews?
A. Yes, I have said that too.
Q. How was it possible that you were able to delay these internment measures for so long?
A. When Stahlecker addressed me on this question, I repeatedly asked him to agree to a delay in the executions for the reasons which I have already given. He was in a state of unrest about this, but he finally consented to it; but he ordered that the internment was to be carried out immediately, and the executions as soon as possible.
Q. What reasons did you give Stahlecker in order to accomplish a delay?
A. First of all, during a conference in the second half of July, I asked him to agree to a delay-BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. When was this conversation with Stahlecker?
A. In the second half of July.
Q. I thought you told us it was July 4th at Riga. Was there another conversation?
A. That was one conversation, and the next one was around the 20th of July in the Staff Headquarters of Stahlecker.
Q. When did you first speak to Stahlecker when he arrived in Riga?
A. That must have been on the 1st of July.
Q. Then you spoke to him on July 4th again?
A. On the 1st of July we did not speak about the Jews in Estonia, but on the 4th of July we did speak about the Jews in Estonia, yes.
Q. Then the 1st of July he said nothing about the Jews.
A. No.
Q. On the 4th of July he did.
A. Yes.
Q. On the 20th he did.
A. Around the 20th of July, yes.
Q. Yes, Did he ever tell you in all these conversations anything like the following: It was intended from the very beginning to obtain the cooperation of the reliable population for the fight against vermin, that is mainly the Jews and communists? Did he refer to the Jews as vermin?
A. The word vernim was not used.
Q. I am quoting from his language. He never used that word to you?
A. No. The word Vermin in reference to Jews I never remembered that Stahlecker used this.
Q. Did he ever use a more tender term?
A. I cannot remember the expressions he used. I cannot remember that he spoke of them any differently than Jews.
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed. BY DR. VON STEIN:
A. Through the fact that Stahlecker in this conference on the 20th of July agreed that the executions not be carried out by members of the German commandos, but by Estonian home guard volunteers, a first delay of the executions was achieved. BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Do I understand you to say that Stahlecker agreed that you were not then to execute any Jews?
A. This conference had about the following content. I told him what the conditions were in Estonia, and that thus far -
Q. (Interposing) Please tell us what he said to you with regard to the Jews. Were you or were you not -
A. (Interposing) Your Honor, I think it is necessary in order to explain this answer that I say what I reported COURT II CASE IX to him and what I suggested to him.
Q. How long did you talk to him on July 20th?
A. I cannot say how long we discussed the Jewish question in this conference.
Q. How long was the conference?
A. About two hours.
Q. Very well. What did you tell him? And what did he say to you about the Jews, but give it to us briefly.
A. I told him the following. Thus far no Jews had been executed in Estonia. No pogroms had taken place. This was not possible in Estonia; I would ask him to agree that my commando members would not carry out any executions in Estonia, but that this would only happen on the part of volunteer members of the Estonian home guard. Stahlecker agreed to this. Thereupon I told him -
Q. (Interposing) Well all right; you know that he agreed to that.
A. Yes.
Q. Yes. All right; let us -- and he still had that thought when you dismissed him or he dismissed you after the two hour conference?
13 November 1947_A_MSD_Arminger (Lea)
Q Now, do you know that in his report he said, "In accordance with the basic orders received, however, the screening activities of the Security Police had to aim at a complete annihilation of the Jews"; was he telling you one thing and reporting something else? discussed with me and what he discussed with others and what he reported to Berlin.
Q Well, then, that is what I say. He told you one thing and reported another to Berlin.
Q You think that it wasn't his purpose to execute the Jews?
Q Then his language wasn't exaggerated. He did believe in the annihilation of the Jews? but he made an exception in your case. Was he especially fond of you?
Q So to that extent he made an exception in your favor?
Q Which ones?
A For example, in Lithuania and Latvia, even after Stahlecker's death, tens of thousands of Jews were still living.
Q Wait. You say he made these exceptions after he died? not have all Jews executed in his entire area.
Q Well, he might not have gotten around to it. That doesn't mean that he exempted them, just because there are some Jews living. It doesn't mean that out of the kindness of Stahlecker they are still alive, does it?
A I didn't get the question.
THE INTERPRETER: I will repeat it.
THE PRESIDENT: Don't bother repeating it.
Q (By the President) Did Stahlecker give every evidence of executing the Fuehrer Decree or not?
Q But he made an exception in your case?
A No. He only approved a delay. The Fuehrer -
Q He made an exception to the extent he didn't say to you, "You execute these Jews at once." He made that exception.
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed, Dr. Von Stein.
THE WITNESS: Shall I continue with the question
DR. VON STEIN (ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT SANDBERGER). No, I will ask you another question. BY DR. VON STEIN:
Q What were your thoughts during these repeated delays? Did you keep on hoping that Hitler would revoke the order or limit it?
A Yes, I kept on hoping this? BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q Did you ever hear any of Hitler's speeches?
Q And did you hear what he said about Jews? Jews. hope that he would change his views about the Jews? spoke about the Jews.
Q You knew something about Hitler's character, didn't you, that he was very adament and perservering once he made a decision?
13 November 1947_A_MSD_24_3_Arminger (Lea) the papers.
Q You didn't know he was a very resolute man? some instances it was said that he was not resolute and soft.
Q So you thought he might soften in his attitude about the Jews? That's what you were hoping for?
A "Soft" is not the right expression here.
A I was hoping --- May I continue? he had given, or at least restrict in.
Q Do you know whether he ever did restrict it or revoke it?
Q Who told you this?
A I cannot remember exactly who it was. It might have been the Chief of my office in the RSHA, but this is not quite certain.
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed Dr. Von Stein. BY DR. VON STEIN (ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT SANDBERGER): would revoke this order?
THE PRESIDENT: He has covered that now. You don't need to ask a question just because you have it on your book there, if it has already been discussed.
DR. VON STEIN: No, Your Honor, I ask this question, because the Tribunal just asked this question about Hitler and a possibility of revoking the order and I asked the defendant this question.
THE PRESIDENT: He gave his views on it. He hoped that Hitler would revoke the order. He was living in hope. You can't blame a man for living in hope.
13 November 1947_A_MSD_24_4_Arminger (Lea)
DR. VON STEIN: Your Honor, this answer is not sufficient. I would like to extend this answer and --
THE PRESIDENT: All right, we'll see what you get now. You ask the question.
Q (By Dr. Von Stein) Witness, you have told the High Tribunal that you had the hope that Hitler would after all revoke this order concerning the Jews. Could you give us any thoughts which induced you to adopt this hope? hope that the reaction abroad in reference to the execution of such measures in the Eastern front would be so strong that the German diplomats would report about this in such terms that Hitler in regard for the reaction abroad would come to change his opinion, not in reference to his opinion but in reference to the Jews, that is, the danger of the Jews in reference to Bolshovism, but in the sense that in the sense that in consideration of the reverse reacgion abroad would be stronger.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Von Stein. Now you may like this answer. You may think it is pretty good and that's the reason why you want to have him keep telling you this same answer, but I heard all that take place yesterday. I have that here in my notes. He hoped the order would be revoked, and he considered the thoughts --- I have it here in my notes that he hoped the order would be revoked. He considered the thought that if the order were executed the reaction would be so strong that Hitler would be compelled to revoke the order. Now he is merely giving you some warmed up --- warmed over agin, nothing fresh in this answer.
DR. VON STEIN: No, Your Honor. The question was a result of the High Tribunal's question whether he hoped that the delays would--
THE PRESIDENT: It doesn't mean that because the Tribunal asks a question that you must begin at the beginning all over again. This question has been answered. Let us go on to something else.
13 November 1947_A_MSD_24_5_Arminger (Lea) Q (By Dr. Von Stein) Witness, what thought did you yourself have about the questions of the order, in view of your own person?
than that.
THE PRESIDENT: You see, Counsel, even he is tired of that same question now.
Q (By Dr. Von Stein) Witness, you said before, when explaining the contradictions in the Operational Report III that you were not in Estonia when the report was made out and sent out. When was the Reval report which is contained in Operational Report III sent out from Reval?
A It was within the monthly report for September. The monthly report had to be sent out, had to be in Riga at the latest on the 30th of September, that is why it must have been made out on the 28th of September.
Q Where were you at that time? south of Leningrad for the purpose of doing auxilary service and helping the Army.
Q Since when were you absent from Estonia?
Q Why did you leave Estonia? beginning of the assignment. I was not Director of the Security Police at the time as my most important position. At this time during the second half of September the main job which I had, which I had to do for the 18th Army was, of course, not in Estonia, but in the combat area of the 18th Army, that is to say, in the area south of Leningrad. Everything else also was of secondary importance to the Army. The Army headquarters demanded that I was to be present with a subkommando in the combat area. Stahlecker gave a corresponding order.
Q When did you return to Reval from the combat area?
13 November 1947_A_MSD_24_6_Arminger (Lea) October. in Estonia? deptuy. these reports go on automatically without you? nor did I make any reports to Reval. In Reval everything went on without me. According to the conditions there, because of bridges having been blown up or for other reasons, the distance Reval Leningrad was about 10 hours by car. Between Leningrad and the Estonian frontier, there was a Russian Army corps. Therefore, the traffic between the details south of Leningrad and Estonia was very difficult and I wag not constantly at one place, but I was on the road frequently and difficult to get in touch with. On the Order of Stahlecker, my deputy who remained in Reval had complete power to continue my office there. That I was supposed to command my office in Reval from my office near Leningrad would have been almost impossible, just as impossible as when an infantry division is divided into two parts and one half is 300 kilometres away from the other and the communications are bad. Then the commander cannot command the part which is 300 kilometres away.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Von Stein, I think perhaps this might be a good point at which to recess until tomorrow morning. The Tribunal will be in recess until 9:30 tomorrow morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 14 November 1947 at 0930 hours.)
of America, against Otto Ohlendorf, et al.,
THE MARSHAL: The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal II.
Military Tribunal II is now in session. God save the United States of America, and this Honorable Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed Dr. von Stein. BR. DR. VON STEIN:
Q. We were discussing the operational report No.111. Witness, didn't you have any knowledge of this report, or of the facts mentioned in it?
A. In the period of time which was the last to be discussed yesterday, that is, when I was with my subcommando south of Leningrad, the period between 11 September and about the 3 October, I had no knowledge of this report , and of the facts reported in it only sofar as they had been ordered before my departure on approximately 11 September, namely, that the general internment of the Estonian Jews was to take place during the following weeks.
Q. That did your deputy report to you when you returned to Reval between the 3rd and 5th of October about the question of the executions of 450 male Jews contained in this report?
A. He told me the following: Around approximately 26 September there had been a telephone call from Department IV of Einsatzgruppe in Riga, with an order of Stahlecker that in the monthly report which was going to be given within the next two days everything was to be reported what had so far been done with regard to measures against the Jews, including all special treatment so far taken. My deputy answered that so far no special treatment had been undertaken. Thereupon, another telephone call came after a short time from Department IV in Riga with the strict order of Stahlecker to immediately undertake special treatment of considerable number of Jews, and to report about this immediately in the monthly report about to be made out, that is, within two days.
Q. What did your deputy do thereupon?
A. He passed the order on for immediate executions, namely , of those executions which are mentioned in this report. He passed this order onto the Estonian Home Guard, to the Central Offices of the Home Guard in Reval, and he had the executions supervised by German officials of Department IV.
Q. What happened to the Jews who were interned?
A. They were transferred in 3 November 1942, upon my orders from Camp Harku near Reval to Pleskau.
Q. What reasons induced you to take this step?
A. In October and November 1941, Stahlecker again ordered the carrying out of the executions. It was of special importance to him to be able to report tint Estonia was free of Jews. Since I knew that it would be decisive for him to be able to make this formal report, I tried to bring the Jews into a camp which was outside of Estonia, thereby he was in a position to report that Estonia was free of Jews. Another point of view was that the introduction of a civilian administration in Estonia was to be expected very soon, at the beginning of December, 1941. The installation of the civilian administration was to be connected with the High SS and Police Leader. I knew that the latter was a confidant of Jeckeln, and that for this reason alone it would be impossible that the 500 Jews would remain in a camp near Reval.
Q. What finally did happen to these internees?
A. In the second half of January, or in the first half of February the Higher SS and Police Leader Jeckeln travelled through Pleskau.
He heard by a coincidence that there were about 500 Jews fromEstonia in this camp in Pleskau. He was very much irritated by this, and gave the order to the subcommando-leader in a very severe and emphatic form to carry out the executions of these 400 or 450 Jews immediately. The subcommando-leader did this immediately without my knowledge.
Q. When did you hear of this operation of Jeckeln's ?
A. A few days after this event I came by coincidence through Pleskau on an official trip. On this occasionthe subcommando reported to me about this action.
Q. Can you remember the date?
A. I cannot remember the exact date, since I have no definite documents for this. But it must have been in the second half of January or in the first half of February.
Q. What makes you conclude this?
A.I remember that between this event and the death of Stahlecker, a few weeks passed, but during this time I no longer spoke to Stahlecker for at that time Stahlecker was in Lokvia for six to eight weeks, that is, with a commando of Einsatzgruppe-A with the 16th Army, north of Welikie Luki, and there Stahlecker had the military command himself of this commando. In the middle of March 1942 he was severely wounded there, and died shortly afterwards.
Q. Witness, you have testified that the main part of your personal work was not concerned with Security Police matters , but with other fields? Do tell us what these were?
A. In the first three months, that is to say , from July to September 1941, until the first days of October I was mainly commandoleader for the 18th Army, and to a very large extent occupied with the Auxilliary service for G-II of the 18th Army. This was the primary task from the viewpoint of the Army. For this reason I had during most of my time a constant liaison officer with Army Headquarters. In the
Q. In order to picture your political and critical mission, please give a few examples with which you were concerned, especially, and primarily in your reports?
A. Primarily I worked for the equalization in the status of the Estonians with the Germans, in principle and in practice. I tried to influence the German agencies, especially the German Civilian Administration in order to increase the automony to be granted to the Estonians in the economic field. I believe that this question will not be of interest here in detail.
Q. Your total mission in Estonia ten was to look after the security of this area. Will you please tell us how far these missions you have just described to us are concerned with the security of this area, that is, with the missions which were given to you?
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Von Stein, you said in the very beginning of your question, "Your total mission in Estonia then was to look after the security of this area." Now that is stated as a fact, is it?
DR. VON STEIN: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. VON STEIN: Witness.
THE WITNESS: The work of Department II about which I just spoke was to try through their Political and Critical Reports, to show all those points which contributed to the discontent of the population, and to fight all these tendencies on the part of the German Administration, which would lead to such discontent. The line of thought in reference to the security of the area was that the security of the area taken care of through our Estonian forces would be all the better, the less there was discontent on the part of the population with regard to the burden of the war. Therefore the question of the equal status of the Estonians and the Germans was not only a material question but also a psychological one. I think that answers the question.
DR. VON STEIN: Your Honor, I have no further questions on direct examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Any defense counsel desire to cross examine the witness?
DR. GICK: Dr. Gick for the defendant Strauch. BY DR. GICK:
Q. Witness, were you in the beginning of November 1941 when Strauch was ordered to take up duties in Riga, leader of Special commando I-A with headquarters in Reval?
A. Yes.
Q. Could Strauch, who had been appointed commander of the security Police in Riga have, in your opinion, lead the Einsatzkommando II from Riga?
A. In this time, in November 1941, this was not possible. In the course of the Summer 1941 Stahlecker had collected all parts of Einsatzko mando II and III. All those who were not needed to fill the area of the 4th Army, and later into the 16th and 18th Armies; later on these elements of Einsatzkommandos II and III were committed with the 16th and 18th Armies, that is to say, also in the areas south of Leningrad, and in the area of Locknia, north of Welirie Luki. These commandos were lead directly by Einsatzgruppe-A, and not from the rear area in Riga or anywhere else.
Q. The Staff of Einsatzgruppe-A was in Krasnbgvardeisk?
A. The Staff of Einsatzgruppe-A was in Krasnbgvardeisk, yes.
Q. Witness, when was the agency of command of the Security Police and SD for Latvia installed in Riga?
A. What was automatic together with the introduction of the civil administration. When that happened in Latvia, I don't know exactly. It must have been around July or August.
Q. July or August 1941?
A. Yes, 1941.
Q. Since Latvia is the southern neighbor of your area, Estonia, you probably knew the name of the then commander in Riga. Did you know at this time that Strauch was commander of the Sipo and the SD in Riga?
A. I must say here that during this entire period in the fall of 1941, that is also in November 1941, to which your question refers I was not in Riga and had no official contact with the agency of the command of the Security Police and SD in Riga. At that time in November 1941, evidently through a coincidence, I didn't hear anything of Strauch being the commander there. My recollection is only that first Sturmbannfuehrer Barth was commander in Latvia, and then after him Dr. Lange.
DR. GLANCY: Just a moment. The witness is attempting to testify to something which he has just admitted he couldn't possibly know. He is going by recollection. He says he had no contact with Riga at that time and he heard nothing about it; therefore, he cannot be qualified to answer.
THE PRESIDENT: What about that, Dr. Gick?
DR. GICK: The question refers to whether the witness had knowledge of this and the witness has to give us the reasons for this, and the reasons are essential.
THE PRESIDENT: Ask him what is the basis of his knowledge. BY DR. GICK:
Q. Witness, since Latvia was your neighboring area, would you have had to find out that Strauch was commander of the Security Police and the SD in Riga if he had been commander there for a lengthy time?