Q When did you set up a fixed commando leadership office?
A That happened after Reval had been captured. On the 28th of August, after that time, everything was centralized in Reval. in Estonia. You already testified that on entering Estonia, state of civil war existed. Please describe the situation in the territory On the German side, the forces of the Estonian homeguard, who fought together with the Germans, were four to five times as strong as the forces of the German army itself. Concerning the arms, the Russians were very much superior. The situation became more serious owing to the territory which contained forests and swamps, and owing to the fact that in the city of Dorpat itself, for several weeks fighting had been going on in the streets, and owing to the feet that the communists had formed terror groups who were in that part of Estonia which the Russians had already left, and they were to carry out terroristic actions and operations there. They had dynamite; they had poison in order to poison wells, and so forth. The situation became more serious because as I already said wherever the Russians had retreated the Russians had left behind them so-called destruction battalions who on their part had been given the order to destroy everything which might be of any military value to the German forces. Things were destroyed here which were not of immediate military value and amongst those there were many things which were important for the survival of the population and which were absolutely necessary for their survival. had any, they were not regular uniforms. They had been organized centrally by the "highest partisan movement" in Moscow. I cannot say whether the designation "highest partisan leadership" is the proper designation for this, but in general in military usage, it was called thus. The tasks for these destruction battalions were directed by this highest partisan movement.
As for the Russian partisan movement, they were given instructions from Moscow mostly by radio or from headquarters near Moscow. part of the Russians only existed in so far as they had to determine from what time onwards such a destruction unit was to be left behind and where they were to remain. All in all, owing to these circumstances, which I have tried to outline here and about which the witness, Dr. Mae, has already talked about, two things occurred. the swamps, in the forests and in the streets. And an extraordinary... BY THE PRESIDENT: Understandably. You say "for weeks," now when was this? ended about the 10th or the 15th of August. Where?
Q City of where?
A In the city of Dorpat: D-O-R-P-A-T, which is marked on the map here as Tartu. Tartu is the Estonian name; Dorpat is the German name. Apart from that, street fightings took place in the city of Pelsamau and in other small localities in central Estonia. In the city of Dorpat itself, the main direction of the fighting for about two to three weeks was a river which flows right through the city.
Q Was there any street fighting in Pleskau? there. I only was there one day later for a few hours. I did not hear anything about street fightings there, but I cannot say that with certainty
Q Was there any visible popular excitement when you arrived there?
A May I ask, in which city?
not arrive there with a subcommando but only with an interpreter and one man in my car, and not for the purpose of taking over an assignment there but only to ascertain whether the 18th Army was competent there or the fourth Armored Unit, who were on their right flank.
Q When did you arrive there? turbulence in. the city or not, couldn't you? did not notice any unrest there, which I would have noticed, but I only traveled through two streets and left the city of Pleskau a few hours later after having ascertained that the 18th Army was not competent there. of unrest, but you did not know of it because you only passed through two streets?
A It depends, Your Honor, on what you understand by the word "unrest": unrest, in the form of great numbers of people collecting in order to demonstrate against something---many dozens or many hundreds of people who want to demonstrate. In these two streets, of course, I would have noticed it, and this was not the case. I don't know whether you mean that by the word "unrest."
Q Well, did you learn of demonstrations elsewhere in the city? city at the time and did not have that intention because it wasn't my task.
Q Well, you had all of Estonia, didn't you? May I point it out on the map to show where the city is?
(Witness points out the city of Pleskau on the map)
Q About how far from the lake?
A From the lake? kilometers.
PRESIDENT: I see.
Q How long did you remain in this city?
Q Did your commando remain any longer than that?
A On that day, a commando did not move in there. As I said, I only arrived with my driver and with my interpreter and with another man.
Q And you say your commando didn't remain there at all---didn't even come into the town? move on immediately along the eastern bank of the Peipus lake towards Narva. which is in Document Book II-A? It begins on the English page 110. It's the Situation Report, No. 165. Now that report very clearly states that on July 10, 1941, the Sonderkommando 1 a established an office in Pleskau.
Q Dr. von Stein, will you please help him to locate that.
DR. von STEIN: Your Honor, may I ask again what number was the document?
THE PRESIDENT: The Document No. is NO-3401.
DR. von STEIN: That is, in the German text, on Page 121.
THE WITNESS: Yes, I have the situation report here: Situation Report No. 165.
DR. von STEIN: Situation Report No. 165, yes.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Now under Paragraph 2, which begins, "Reports of Einsatzgruppe and Einsatz commandos, Page 6 of original."
A. Yes.
Q. Now, do you see that first paragraph: "Reports on the situation in Pleskau?"
A. This paragraph, Your Honor, is not contained in the excerpt which is here, - but I have had the opportunity to read it in the photostatic copy and I know that there a long situation report by Department III dealt with Pleskau, and that it says there at the beginning that, "In Pleskau, since 10th July, an office of the Commando had existed." This sentence is incorrect---just as incorrect as many other sentences in these documents which can be misunderstood. When this report was made in February or January 1942, no official was there at all who had ever been there in July. Therefore, he could not know this from his own knowledge. Perhaps he heard about it some time or other that on 12th July a commando passed through towards Narva or that I personally was there on the 10th July, and he came to a wrong conclusion from this.
Q. Well, don't you assume that these reports are made up from records? A man wouldn't guess and give a date like July 10th specifically, would he?
A. Your Honor, these situation reports about January of 1942 certainly were never based on records from July or August. As to the fact about my presence there for a few hours, and so forth, no record or anything like that was made. The expert who wrote this can only know this from hearsay. May I point out in two other documents where it shows--
Q. Just a moment, just a moment, now. You kept the headquarters informed as to where you were, did you not?
A. Yes.
Q. Well, and they would keep some record of what you were doing, Wouldn't they?
A. It is probable that the reports which I made were kept there for some time.
Q. Yes, well then why do you assume that someone would have to guess to determine where you were on July 10th?
A. Your Honor, I presume that this situation report---Pleskau, which contains about three pages, and which I have read carefully, was made by a minor official of this detail in Pleskau, who at the time in July, had not been there at all. This report---Pleaskau, certainly was not made by the Einsatzgruppe in this form. This sentence was not entered in the Einsatzgruppe report but in the sub-commando report and it is an error. May I say that in the Situation Report, No. 24, the Einsatzgruppe---in particular, Einsatzgruppe A, made a report which is contained here that the city of Pskow---that is the Russian for Pleskau---belonged to the territory of Einsatzgruppe 1 B. If you will permit it, Your Honor, I will read the sentence out of the copy.
Q. Just a moment. I want to find out whether this report which says that on July 10th, sonderkommando 1 a established an office in Pleskau is correct or not.
A. This sentence in this report is not correct.
Q. Yes now, do you offer as an explanation for that incorrect statement that the compiler of this report merely guesses at it?
A. I cannot state, which reasons caused him......
Q. Yes. Do you exclude the possibility that he made it up from some kind of a record which he found in the Einsatzgruppen-headquarters or elsewhere? Do you exclude that possibility?
A. Yes, Your Honor, That possibility I must exclude definitely because this report was compiled---I can see from the contents--by an expert of Department III in Pleskau and not by a person who was in the headquarters of the Einsatzgruppe,
Q. Well, if it was made by someone in Pleskau, that is all the more reason why it might be accurate, isn't it?
A. No, Your Honor. The fact that I was in Pleskau on 10th July and loft again, and that only many weeks later, namely about the middle of September or the end of September, a detail of my commando was set up in Pleskau, about this intermediate time no documents existed at all, other than this report-----
Q. Do you exclude the possibility that someone noted that you had arrived in Pleskau, that someone wrote it down? Do you exclude that possibility?
A. Yes, I can exclude that possibility.
Q. You exclude the possibility that you, coming through the town, with your obvious authority, made no impression on anyone; that you came in and just drifted away like the mist of the morning without anyone seeing you or paying any attention to you?
A. Yes, Your Honor, First of all, at the time I held the rank of a major. According to conditions at the time, I was not an important personality.
Q. Well, I think every major in the army would disagree with you that a major is not an important officer.
A. Your Honor, in this case it's a relative question. In Pleskau there were so many generals at the time that a major was not considered to be anything, and there were innumerable majors and colonels and lieutenants colonels, who were all more representative than I was because I arrived in an open car and had been travelling on the open highway at night and was so dirty and unshaven that I made a completely unrepresentative impression.
Q. Well, just how long did you remain in this town now?
A. Four to five hours.
Q. Four to five hours. And where did you go in that time?
A. First of all, I called on the local commander.
Q. Yes. Now, all right, you visited the local commander. Now don't you suppose that he made some record of the fact that you were there?
A. Certainly not. He had only just arrived and nothing was written down in that office. It was not written that I visited him. But it is impossible, Your Honor, that in February some expert could go to the local commander to find out whether I was there.
Q. Don't let us talk about February. I am talking about the day you were there. You went to the local commander and you reported there. Then where did you go?
A. Yes. Then I visited the staff of the armored unit 4, which was about 25 kilometers to the south of Pleskau, and the local commander had told me about this, in order to find out whether Pleskau actually belonged to the territory of the armored group 4 and not to the territory of the 18th Army.
Q. And then where did you go from there?
A. From there, I went down to the river in order to clean myself and to have a bath and to shave. There I stayed about minutes.
Q. And then where did you go?
A. From there, I went to the NKWD prison. A local inhabitant had pointed this out to mo. I ascertained there that in the NKWD prison about 25 or 30 prisoners were in the cells of this prison.
Q. And then where did you go?
A. From there, I went to the local commander again in order to tell him that I was leaving the city again because I was not competent for Pleskau.-----
Q. All right. And then where did you go?
A. From there, I crossed the river again---the Velifaya--which flows to the east of Pleskau and there I looked for the subcommando which I had assigned to the 38th corps from Riga in order to find out what the sub-commando had been doing and what his further intentions were.
Q. And then from there where did you go?
A. From there I returned to the advance unit of General von Zelle, south of Velim, which I had left two days previously----
Q. Now you want us to believe that during all these official visits that you travelled like a phantom: no one saw you, no one made any reference to it, no one made any record of it? That is your explanation of this incorrect report?
A. Your Honor, nobody there could have recognized me because there was nobody in Pleskau who knew me. But perhaps I can explain this report by the fact that I presume that it was set up in the following manner: this expert who wrote it, either during my stay in Pleskau or while this expert was in Reval, I once told him briefly that I had been in Pleskau for a few hours on 10 July, and what I had found in the NKWD prison there. May I add that two or three other documents show that in the time from the middle of July, for at least six weeks, in Pleskau or in Russian Pskow, asit is written in the document, Einsatzcommando Ib was there, and that Einsatzcommando Ib was competent there for six weeks. After Einsatzcommando Ib had left Pleskau Stahlecker gave me the order in September to set up a command in Pleskau. This detail existed after about the 15th or 20th of September. The one document which reveals this is this Situation Report, No 24, where Stahlecker reports to Berlin that as the most important aims, this was given:
"Report of 16th July. Einsatzcommando Ib--I beg your parodn--Einsatzcommando Ia, Estonia, with the cities Pernau, Reval Dorpat, Narva, the commandos will remain in this territory there until they receive further orders. Secondly, Einsatzcommando Ib, the territory to the South of Petersburg, the cities Pskow--that is Pleskau--Ostrow, Opotschka."
tion Report No. 34 of 26 July 19141, Document No. 2954, Document Volume III-B, that Pleskau was the main headquarters of Sondercommando I B; therefore the headquarters of the commando leader personally. It is quite impossible that such a long time, apart from Sondercommando Ib, that any one of the Sondercommando Ia could have been there.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess until one-fortyfive.
( The Tribunal recessed until 1345 hours.)
(The Tribunal reconvened at 1330 hours, 12 November 1947.)
DR. HEIM: ( Attorney for the Defendant Blobel) before, in writing that is, because of its basic importance. On Friday of last week I asked for, I requested, that the film sound--track of the interrogation of Blobel of 16th June, in the morning and afternoon, should be reporduced before the Prosecution in this Court.
THE PRESIDENT: June 16th?
DR. HEIM: requested it on Friday last week The actual examination was on the 6th of June, that was before the beginning of the trial and before the Prosecution began, Your Honor, I would like to make the following comment.
THE PRESIDENT: I know just a moment Let's first make certain that we understand what you are referring to. This is the sound track of an interrogation.
DR. HEIM: Yes, Your Honor,
THE PRESIDENT: Between what persons?
DR. HEIM: Between the defendant Blobel and Herr Wartennurg as representative of the prosecution,
THE PRESIDENT: ALL right, now proceed.
DR. HEIM: Your honor my request for this motion is for the following reason; I questioned Mr. Wartenberg in this Court when he was on the witness stand, and I questioned him in detail about this interrogation. The defendant Blobel. also testified about this as a witness in his own case. The two statements contradicted each other, and I think in order to find out the absolute truth of the matter, these sound tracks should serve a very useful purpose if they are produced here in Court.
THE PRESIDENT: You say the two statements contradict each other Which two statements?
DR. HEIM: The testimony of Mr. Wartenberg when he was in the witness stand here and the testimony of the defendant Blobel when he was a witness in his own case, concerning his interrogation by MrWartenberg on the 6th of June, 1947.
THE PRESIDENT: You say the 6th of June? or, the 16th?
DR. HEIM: The 6th of June.
THE PRESIDENT: 6th of June, yes. How, on what particular subject did the contradiction occur?
DR. HEIM; Your Honor, the contradiction was that the defendant Blobel declared that he had drawn Mr. Wartenberger's attention to the fact that the affidavit in the form submitted to him was incorrect, and contained many omissions which would have to be filled in later. The defendant Blobel furthermore stated that he asked Mr. Wartenberg to let him make these corrections. Mr. Wartenberg had then told him that the affidait in the form submitted to him would only be changed in unimportant details. Furthermore the defendant Blobel says that at the time he had been promised that at a later date he would have the opportunity to make the necessary corrections. Mr. Wartenberg did not confirm this testimony of the defendant Blobel when he was in the witness stand here. It is his statement against another statement. In view of the question of the defendant Blobel's credibility, I think it is necessary that the sound track of this interrogation in question be reproduced so it can be established if the defendant Blobel told the truth when he was in the witness stand.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, did the defendant then sign the affidavit?
DR. HEIM: The defendant Blobel signed the affidavit, and it is in Document Book I of the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes; well, did he make the necessary corrections before he signed it?
DR. HEIM: No, he did not, Your Honor, As I have already said, the defendant Blobel stated here that he had been told at the time that the text had to remain unchanged and, therefore, he did not have the possibility to make the necessary changes.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Heim, as Judge Speight suggests, didn't Blobel make the corrections on the stand when he testified here?
DR. HEIM: Yes, that is correct, Your Honor, but it is here a matter of credibility, Can we believe the defendant Blobel? In the final analysis, the credibility of the defendant Blobel is at stake. I have no further witnesses at my disposal for my case, but only the testimony of the defendant Blobel in his own case, and it is of basic importance whether the Tribunal believes the testimony of the defendant Blobel when he was in the witness stand or not.
THE PRESIDENT: We will hear from the prosecution.
MR. GLANCY: If it please, Your Honors, the Prosecution is of the opinion, as it has been voiced before, that the interrogations, sound tracks and other devices for recording pre-trial interrogations are not an issue in this case; and, therefore, have no relevancy. The defendant Blobel had adequate opportunity, through counsel, to examine the interrogator, Mr. Wartenberg; every opportunity was afforded the defendant Blobel to make any corrections which he deemed fit, proper and right on the stand. excluded.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Heim, can you refresh our recollection on whether you questioned Mr. Wartenberg on this very thing?
DR. HEIM: Your Honor, I questioned Mr. Wartenberg intensively about this subject for almost an hour.
THE PRESIDENT: And what, in brief, did Mr. Wartenberg reply?
DR. HEIM: Mr. Wartenberg, Your Honor, did not essentially confirm the testimony of the defendant Blobel, but said the contrary.
THE PRESIDENT: Well now, as I understand it, Dr. Heim, you are submitting to the Tribunal that when the affidavit was prepared that Blobel pointed out that there were incorrect statements in the affidavit, is that right?
DR. HEIM: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: And that then Blobel signed the affidavit anyway, upon the assurance that corrections would be make later; is that what you tell us?
DR. HEIM: Your Honor, that is correct.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Now, when you asked Mr. Wartenberg the question, did he affirm or deny that he had assured Blobel that the corrections would be made?
DR. HEIM: Your Honor, decisive seems the question which I put to Mr. Wartenberg whether at the time he had stated to the defendant Blobel that the text had to remain as it was, that is, no changes could be made in the actual text as such. This question was denied by Mr. Wartenberg. He said that the defendant Blobel had had the ***sibility to make any necessary changes of any kind, which became evident, he said, from the fact that the affidavit which had been made out on the morning of 6 June had been changed by Blobel and that on the afternoon of the same day the existing affidavit had been changed and the new version of it signed by the defendant Blobel.
MR. GLANCY: If it please Your Honor, the Prosecution merely wishes to repeat its objections on the same grounds which it stated. It would seem that it would serve no purpose to grant the request of the Defense. However, I would like an opportunity to consult with Dr. Hochwald and answer in writing if it is deemed necessary.
THE PRESIDENT: Do I understand, Dr. Heim, that you have already made this request in writing?
DR. HEIM: Yes, Your Honor, on Friday of last week.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, the Tribunal will examine itself the transcript in order to refresh its memory on what transpired when you, yourself, Dr. Heim, questioned Mr. Wartenberg.
After that scrutiny, then we will determine whether the sound track or any other record which was kept of the interrogation should or should not be produced. We will assure you that every opportunity will be allowed you, in any field at all, to present your case, and if you regard this as bing vital and important, with regard to the credibility of your client, then you will have that record produced. Of course, the prosecution will be given an opportunity to answer the request and oppose it if it sees fit, and then, naturally, we will have the issue before us and the decision Will be made on what we ascertain.
MR. GLANCE: Thank you, lour Honor.
DR. REIN: Thank you, Your Honor, I am only attempting to produce the absolute truth and make it known to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: And the Tribunal will assist you in this, because after all the credibility of any witness is very vital, and anything which can shed light upon the credibility of any one who takes the witness stand is always very helpful to the Tribunal.
DR. HEIM: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: You're welcome. You may now proceed, Dr. von Stein.
DIRECT EXAMINATION - (Continued) BY DR. VON STEIN:
Q. Witness, how were the security measures organized at that time, that is the time of July and August, in the territory Dorpat?
A. I have said that at that time, that is July and August, in the territory of central Estonia, the center of which is Dorpat, very confused circumstances prevailed. As for guaranteeing interior security in the city and district of Dorpat, the field command, of the Army was responsible for it; it was responsible for all questions of security, and the field commander was also the combat commander, whenever the commander of the advance unit was not there himself at the time.
The field commander was also the chief of the Estonian police prefecture and the Estonian home guard. In order to clarify this point may I say that an army field command was that command which was responsible for all army matters in a certain area under the command of an army headquarters. A field commander and also a town commander were immediately subordinate to the chief QM of the army's headquarters. In a territory like Estonia the most important towns had field commanders; in the less important towns there were town commanders. Each field commander and each local commander of the army were responsible and competent for this Estonian sector in the capitol in which they were stationed. In Dorpat there was a special case because there was continous fighting going on there, and the field command was fully responsible for all subjects.
Q. Were the conditions the same in the other parts of Estonia?
A. It wasn't quite as clear in other parts of Estonia, but in the larger parts of southern Estonia and central Estonia there were similar conditions, especially in the sector Pernau and in the sector Wald.
Q. As far the cases mentioned by you are concerned, the field and town commanders were responsible for all field security measures; how was the normal procedure at that time in combatting Communism?
A. The normal procedure was the following: Arrests were undertaken, first by the Estonian home guard; to a lesser extent also by the Estonian police, especially by the so-called constabulary of the Estonian police in the rural districts. Investigations were carried out only rarely by the Estonian home guards; in other cases by the Estonian police prefectures.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment. Now, you tell us arrests were made by the Estonian home guard and so on. Then you follow with a statement, investigations were made. Do we understand you arrested first and then made investigations later?
A. In most cases it was, Your Honor, that most people who were known to have cooperated with the communists, or had sympathized with the communists during the year of annexation were arrested first by the home guard on their own initiative, and only after that the homeguard and Estonian police started investigations.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
A. This does not exclude that in individual cases, of course, first on the part of the Estonian police offices investigations were carried out and then the subject was arrested. The judgments and proposals for sentences in those cases were prepared and completed in the Estonian police offices where they were submitted in writing, giving the motives --and especially --making suggestions for the sentences. The final confirmation of the decisions was given of the German sub-kommando leaders. In the months of July and august and Sept ember the general tendency , however, on the part of my commando and on the part of my sub-kommando leaders was that only temporary measures had to be taken and executions had to be limited to the most necessary and the most unambiguous cases.
BY Dr. VON STEIN:
Q. If now you arrived at a new locality with your sonderkommando, or even by yourself, what did you do?
A. The answer to that question refers first to the time, approximately from the 28th of June or July (?) until the 17th of August, that is 1941. In those cases when I arrived in a town. I first tried to establish what kind of Estonian agencies existed there, because Estonian agencies were not set up by the Germans, but in most cases Estonian home guard units and Estonian agencies had already formed when the Germans, be it of the army or the security police, arrived there. As a result, it would first have to be established what Estonian agencies existed at all; that is mayors, counts office and other administrative offices. home guard units, police offices, Then I discussed matters with the Estonian police, and I tried to make it quite clear to them that first of all written material had to be secured and safeguarded; material, that is, from the administration and government offices of Soviet party organizations and state organizations. This material then had to be Sent to the Estonian police prefecture in the County seat; in each of the 12 country scats there was one Estonian police prefecture.
A (continued) I also emphasized that Communists should, if Necessary, be arrested but certainly not executed. It was necessary to emphasize this because the attitude of the population was so embittered that in many cases the Eastonian Home Guard was inclined to carry out immediate measures. I tried to prevent that as far as I could by talking to the Estonian Administrative Offices that they should use their influence on the Estonian Home Guard with the effect that no immediate executions would be carried out - only arrests. to you?
A No they were not. The Home Guard and Police Authorities were not subordinate to me but to the Field and Town commands of the Army.
THE PRESIDENT: Do we understand, witness, that you called in the leaders of the Estonian Home Guard and gave them directions as to what to do?
A No, I had talked about the Estonian Police Authorities. That is something different. That is not the Home Guard.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. And you called in these Police Authorities and you told them under no circumstances were they to execute any Communists, they were merely to arrest them?
THE PRESIDENT: And did you also tell them that they were not to execute any Jews, merely to arrest them?
A Yes. Jews were not even talked about. Except in one case in Pervau in the middle of July 1941, I never gave any orders to arrest Jews. That was only later, in the end of September or the beginning of October, 1941. During this time that I have just talked about there were no Jews arrested.
THE PRESIDENT: But you told the Police not to execute any Communists or Jews, merely to arrest them?
THE PRESIDENT: So that in effect you instructed these Police officials to flat-footedly disobey the order which you had from the Fuehrer down through Stahlecker?
or from Stahlecker, that everywhere I went I should immediately see that all Jews and Communists should immediately be shot. As far as the Communists were concerned I was of the opinion, first of all, that it would have to be established who came under the category of this Fuehrer order, that is who was a Communist functionary who was so dangerous in fact that an execution could be considered. That, in my opinion, would at least have to be investigated.
THE PRESIDENT: Tell, what you very specifically stated was that all Communist functionaries and all Jews were to be liquidated, is that correct?
THE PRESIDENT: Now, you told the Police officials not to execute Communist functionaries or Jews, merely to arrest them.
A Your Honor, I did not say that Jews should be arrested. I said that arrests of Jews at this time, July or August, were not carried out except for one case in the middle of July in Pervau; in the period which I just talked about, approximately 17 July to the 28 august no Jews were arrested in the sector I was in, that is the Northeast Estonian Sector between Togotapsk and Narva.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you say anything to these Police Officials about Jews? No. BY DR. VON STEIN:
Q Would you like to proceed with this question? am sorry that the Estonian Home Guard and Estonian Police Authorities were not subordinate to me but to the Field and Town Commands of the army. My command had the right to give directives to the Police Prefecture if security police questions were concerned and only with the agreement of the Field and Town Commands.