In the matter of the Home Guard, for instance, we could only give directives via the Field and Town Commands. If I may emphasize again the difference in the relationship of my own commando to the Estonian Home Guard on one hand and to the Estonian Police on the other hand, it is that we could not give any direct directives to the Estonian Home Guard but only by way of the Field and Town commands, but we could give directives to the Estonian Police Prefecture in matters of security police matters. Nevertheless, Estonian Police Prefecture was actually subordinate to the Field end Town commands. Police when Reval was captured in the end of August and you installed a permanent local Army administration? centralized in Reval and now the sub-commando leaders were no longer responsible for all individual decisions the way Stahlecker had basically ordered. Now the competence for all Security Police decisions in Estonia was in the hands of the Department Chief IV in Reval. This was a change which was brought about in order to unify matters and to make things more objective. Stahlecker gave his agreement to this change. Also the matter of reporting and information was centralized. Even within the Estonian Police a centralization took place for call individual decisions and for the channels of command. The Estonian Police Prefecture in Reval was the central administration office of the Estonian Police for the whole of Estonia. of Communist activities in Estonia at this point? time from 20 August and the following weeks. This Soviet leadership in Estonia had left an underground movement in Estonia in order, after the military struggles had been finished, to carry out espionage and sabotage activities in Estonia.
Many Communist functionaries, even leading functionaries had been left behind for this purpose. Apart from this, as I have already mentioned, special Communist terrorist groups had been supplied and armed. They had explosives and poisons, chiefly to be used to poison wells. The situation had become very critical because even in the following weeks, in September and even late in October and November, the front was very near. Even at the time when the front was in the sector south of Leningrad, that was from the middle of September, the front was comparatively near Estonia, and in the sector between Leningrad and the Peipus Lake an extraordinarily strong Partisan activity had developed. This was favored by the territory which consisted mainly of forests and swamps and also favored by the fact that from the Leningrad front as well as from the Moscow front Partisans could be sent to this area. This became especially acute when the winter came which, we know, arrived very early and very severely in 1941. These Partisans came from the east of Peipus Lake. They came across the ice of the Peipus Lake and came into Estonia. The activity concerning the infiltration of the Partisans to Estonia during the whole time from September 1941,on was a very strong one. On the other hand, however, from approximately the beginning of September there were very few German troops in Estonia. As from October there were hardly any, as far as active combat units were concerned, of the strength of but one regiment. But, in Estonia at that time there were a number of staffs of the Army and coastal troops consisting of coastal units of the marines and the Navy, but no actual combat units. The actual security of the country in this time, as I explained, was only secured by the Estonian Home Guard which was practically a militia of Estonian citizens and farmers.
the country and the rear connections of the Army succeed? of the Estonian Home Guards and the Estonian Police the combat of Communism was very successful. The centrally organized espionage and sabotage machinery for this underground organization, which was to exist and which was to contain members of the functionary corps of the Communist Party in Estonia was eliminated very soon and many arrests were carried out, arrests of Communist functionaries and agents of all kinds. further danger averted? the whole time tremendous activity developed on the Russian side and in Estonia sabotage and espionage was carried out and the population, in order to influence the Estonian population in a Communist way, and against Germany. It becomes evident from a number of reports of events that strong Communist activity took place. It becomes evident in fact from parts not submitted by the Prosecution so far. May I now give a few examples?
THE PRESIDENT: Who made all the arrests you spoke of, the arrests of the Communist functionaries? lesser extent by the Estonian Police and the Constabulary in the rural districts, but to a lesser extent also in the towns.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you not make any arrests yourself, that is, your organization?
A No, this wasn't possible mainly for the reason that we had only four German interpreters who knew the Estonian language. One cannot carry out arrests without knowing their language and these four German interpreters were fully used for other tasks and not for arrests only. Furthermore, these Estonian authorities arrested rather more Communists than too few, so there was no necessity in our paying too much attention to it.
THE PRESIDENT: You just sat back and reviewed the sentences which were passed by the Home organization, is that right?
A No. I did not speak about sentences just now, only spoke about arrests. The question - -
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment. Don't tell me what the question was. I know what the question was. You had stated some time today that you reviewed - you and the sub-commando leaders reviewed all sentences, is that right? shall come back to. That is, I personally. Otherwise, the suggestion for sentences were submitted to the Estonian Police Authorities based on an investigation which had been carried out locally, then affirmed and confirmed by the sub-commando leader....
THE PRESIDENT: In all the time you were in Estonia you only passed on six cases?
A I personally dealt with six cases and made my decision. That is, I personally. It was actually the task of my department chief IV to examine and investigate the judgments and to confirm them. I may say now that I shall deal with this procedure at a later point.
THE PRESIDENT: But do I understand you to say that all the time you were in Estonia you passed on only six cases - you reviewed only six cases? cutions. That means six death sentences. The whole number of cases which were examined by myself was 25, on two different occasions. Among those there were six executions.
THE PRESIDENT: So that in all the time that you were in Estonia you reviewed 25 cases and from these 25 six executions resulted? to deal with this. BY DR. von STEIN:
the danger of Communism had been averted?
A I said that I can see examples in many reports of events. In fact such reports which have not been mentioned and submitted by the Prosecution, especially from the report of events #95 which is 26 October 1941, document 3347, that's page 15. Then #130 of 7 November 1941, document #2823, page 10. Then #155 of the 14 January 1942, document #3279, page 21. And then from the report of Einsatzkommando A of 15 October 1941, document no 1180. That's inclosure VII, A large part of other reports which were issued in Reval in this department deal with this too. It was not included in reports in Berlin then, so now it is not contained in the documents here. From inclosure 7 which I mentioned last, that Is document 1180, the activity of the so-called Illegal Central Committee is described which had been left after the end of military operations. The President of this Committee was the former President of the Central Committee of the Communist Party when they were legal. He had therefore been left as an illegal chief of the underground organization. As members of this illegal Central Committee of the Underground Movement there are marked former leading members of the Central Committee of the Communist Party in Estonia or the council of the People's commissars of the Soviet Republic. In one case even a people's commissar, that is the leading man in charge of the Ministry of the former Soviet Republic was concerned. It becomes evident that no loss than five leading personalities had been left in order to deal with this underground movement and to be in charge of it. The number of the rather minor and small functionaries was relatively larger. From another report of events I take the confirmation that in Narva the Communists among the working population formed about 15% and that small groups were still in hiding in cellars on top of the buildings and operated from there and organized plunderings and attacks. It is furthermore proved that the Russian population of Narva was Communisticly infected so that espionage aid to refugees of this illegal organization and partisans could only be stopped by systematic combing operations.
In another report of events, that is January which reports about the events in December, it is mentioned that in Narva and in Petschura, that is again in the border territory, the atmosphere and attitude of the Russian population was connected with evacuation of Rostov and Ritwin by German troops and a consequence of the entry into the War of the USA, that through this in fact the Russian population that had Communistic tendencies the general mood improved. In another report of events in November, that talks about events which happened in October it is mentioned that experiences so far in the sector south of Leningrad make one conclude that the system of mass assignment of agents which had already been used by the Russians in World War of 1914 - 1918, would now be used again. I may add that this report was not issued by my own commando but by Einsatzgruppe A, that is south of Leningrad, but that these events reported about had repercusions on Estonia. Furthermore it is mentioned that for espionage and sabotage actions young people between 14 and 20 and women were employed.
In another report of event of January concerning events until up to the end of December, there is mention made of difficulties in food supply and accommodations and that, therefore, smaller troops are non formed from the partisan units which are active as terror groups, Furthermore, it is stated in this report that at the Estonian northern coast in the middle of November 1941 a hundred partisans had been landed who were to start operations in the vest of Narva. I may add here that such an event repeatedly happened. I remember now that even in later months it was attempted again and again to land via the Finnish Bay and to smuggle through large units of partisans consisting of 100 to 120 men......
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. von Stein, the witness has given us quite a report of the reports that have been turned in, but he has sort of forgotten himself. It will be interesting to know just what he was doing during this period. After all, any report can be relative only as long as it throws light on the defendant himself. He has sort of taken himself out of the picture completely and he is just giving us a general account, which is interesting, but we would like to know hour he fits into the picture.
DR. VON STEIN: Your Honor, we shall come back to those questions in individual details. The witness only wants to paint a general picture of Estonia at the time. He only wanted to express the Communist danger and he wanted to say that the Communist danger was the same before and after the occupation, and I shall come back to the individual details later.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
MR. SANDBERGER: I may conclude at this point and say that the lack of any combat units in the sector of Narva was very dangerous for the security because in the vicinity of Narva there were a number of extensive slate mines which was the most Important industrial enterprise in Estonia, and was of tremendous importance because of the oil which was produced there for the German Navy. Sabotage attempts on this industry would have had most serious effects on the German Navy.
I may furthermore say briefly that in the whole of the winter 1941 to 1942 and even later, as it becomes evident from the report, parachute partisan operations were caried out over Estonia. These partisans were equipped with explosives, with wireless sets and with plans of arms dumps, and addresses of Communist agents in Estonia and so forth. I believe in December 1941 one of these parachutists stated that in partisan schools of the Soviets there were approximately 3,500 men who were trained and these men should land over Estonia in the spring of 1942. Even attempts on army information units were made again and again which was most irritating because the most important information and news channels went via Estonia; especially in the southeastern corner of Estonia that is the area bordering the Pleskau sector. BY DR. VON STEIN:
Q I now come to the documents submitted by the prosecution. They are based apparently largely on reports which were issued by your officials. Please tell us first what kind of reports were issued by your office. five departments. This concerned, as far as Departments I and II were concerned, general changes referring to own personnel, administration and information service. As far as Department III was concorned there were reports made about the modestic spheres and the atmosphere within the population concerning the domistic spheres. As far as Departments IV and V we e concerned, security measures and matters of security police were discussed. There were reports which dealt with the situation and with the activity until the end of the month. Those had to be submitted at the latest, the last day of the month, at the Einsatzgruppe Riga.
Q What was contained in these situation reports?
A In these their own activity was mentioned. First of all, the activities of Department 4 and 5, but also the acitivities of other offices concerning general security, and then general events which concerned the security situation in Estonia, and which neither had to do with our own security nor with the German Army. and the activity of other authorities concerning the general security position? Was this difference clearly understandable?
A No. The difference is not easily recognizable in the documents submitted here, I would almost say that in most cases it is not recognizable.
THE PRESIDENT That in not the question which Dr. von Stein asked you. He asked whether your reports differentiated between your activity and the activities of local authorities. Please answer that question.
MR. SANDBERGER: I beg your pardon. In the reports of Department 4 in Reval the difference between our own activity and the activity of other authorities was generally distinguishable but not always. BY THE PRESIDENT.
Q Well, why wasn't it always?
Q No, no not deduced. You had charge of these reports. You are sending in a report on what is happening with your organization. How, tell the Tribunal why you wouldn't distinguish between what you would do and what somebody else does in a report which you submitted to your own headquarters, reports dealing with situation and activity of Department 4, were not issued by mo personally and in a majority of cases I did not even know them before they were sent off for the mre reason that I was absent; if, however, I was present -
Q You were in charge of that commando, were you not?
Q And, therefore, you were charged with making reports?
Q All right, how long were you up in this part of the world?
Q Yes, and you sent in a report each month?
Q How, when you were, of course, you saw the reports? Now, you are there, and you are sending in a report. Let us take that situation.
Q All right, now when you send in this report, don't you distinguish between what you do and what somebody else does?
Q Now, please don't go back over that again. We have a situation where you are sending in a report. Now, you don't need to modify that. You have the report. Here is your report. You are going to send it in. You are in charge of the commando. How, in this report you distinguish between what you do and what somebody else does, don't you? when these reports were sent in?
Q Now, just a minute. Didn't you say just a moment ago in most cases you were present?
Q Well, then, just a minute, let us correct this. If there is a mistake, we want to correct that. That is what we got over the earphones. At least, that is what I get. Did you get that, Judge, that he said "in most cases"? Will the German reporter please look at her notes and tell us if the witness said that "in most cases" he was present when the reports were sent in?
That is the way I understood it.
(Whereupon the German reporter read from the record as follows:
"Your Honor, I have had no opportunity so far to say that this position and these situation reports of the Department 4 were not issued by me personally, and that in a number of cases I did not see them before they were sent off for the mere reason that I was not present; if I was present"-- and then it is interrupted,)
THE PRESIDENT: Well, and then what follows?
(Whereupon the German reporter continued to read from the record as follows:
"This commando was under your command" -- and the next answer is again "Yes", then "about two years" is the next answer, then there was another answer "Yes", then the other answer "As far as I was present, in most cases", and then again it was interrupted.)
THE PRESIDENT: Just a minute, just a minute. That is what I am referring to. Please read the question which preceded and the answer very slowly -- that very question and answer.
GERMAN COURT REPORTER: The question I did not quite understand because I immediately wrote down the answer.
THE PRESIDENT: You didn't catch the question?
GERMAN COURT REPORTER: I haven't got the question -not quite.
THE PRESIDENT: I see, and what was the answer that you got?
(Whereupon the German Court Reporter again read from the record as follows:
"As far as I was present, in most cases" I heard, and then it was interrupted).
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, I thank you very much. We can check that answer in the sound track, but let us proceed from this point.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Were you present in most cases or not when the report was sent in?
A. Your Honor, that depends on what sector or what period you -
Q. Well, you say, you were there two years, were you present in most cases when the report was sent in?
A. Approximately in this time in about half or up to two thirds of these cases I was present.
Q. Well, now, just a minute, there is quite a difference between one-half and one-third. One half is 12 and one third of 24 is 8. Now, were you there 12 times or 8 times that the reports were sent in? You don't remember?
A. No, because it depends whether I was present on days when this report was to be sent off, which was on the 27th or 28th of the month-whether I was there or whether I was on leave.
Q. If you were there when the report was sent in you distinguished between what you did and what somebody else did?
A. I certainly made a distinction in most cases, yes.
Q. Why do you always say "in most cases", you would in every case, wouldn't you?
A. Your Honor, I am not saying it because I do not exclude the possibility that I did not make this distinction in this or the other case. Therefore I say "in most cases". May I proceed?
A. Yes, certainly.
Q. For the reason that in my commando in some sphere less might have happened than requested by the staff or by Stahlecker himself. As a consequence of this, it is possible -- I cannot quite exclude the possibility -- that is, in one or the other case I will say, I left this question open. The question was whether a certain activity was carried out by the sub-commando, by myself, or by another commando.
Q. I didn't quite catch that, did you say that something less might have happened than was expected - is that what you said -- I am only trying to catch that.
A. What I mean, Your Honor, is that the activity of Stahlecker and his staff, concerning measures of a state police sphere was a very extensive one, and that my attitude was not quite his own, in these matters; resulting from this disagreements came up between us; therefore, I cannot quite exclude the possibility absolutely that in order to overbridge this disagreement with Stahlecker and his staff or to improve our relations, perhaps in this or the other case, on one or two occasions, it might have been assumed that a certain security measure was carried out by my staff, which really might have been carried out by another authority.
tion, is that right -- is that what I understand you to say -- in order to satisfy Stahlecker you would include in the report something which would please him, out which had not actually been done by your organization -- is that what you are telling us?
A No. I did not want to say that....
Q Well, let's get this correct. You said you do not exclude the possibility that because Stahlecker expected you to do certain things that, therefore, in your report, there may have been included something which did not correspond with the facts, is that what you have told us -- I am only trying to repeat what you said?
Q Well, now, let us stick to the reports. I asked you whether in these reports which you yourself made you distinguished between what you did and what somebody else did -- then you gave me a long story about a disagreement you had with Stahlecker. Now, what has that got to do with the report? distinctions should be made between the activity of our own authorities and of other authorities, but this does not exclude the possibility that in individual cases this distinction was not made.
Q Why was it not made? insufficient activity on my own part.
as to give him an impression of something which had not taken place?
A No, Your Honor. The matter reported about, of course, had taken place. But it is possible that it had taken place, not based on an order by the own authority, but perhaps by another authority, and this question had possibly been left open.
Q Let's get back to the original question. In the reports which you made, did you distinguish between what you did and what somebody else did -- did you, or did you not?
Q Sometimes you did not distinguish? it did not report about as to who gave the order for it. It did not say that it had been ordered by us necessarily, but it also was not maintained that somebody else had ordered it. and it is naturally understood that your report reflects events as they occurred. How, did you always distinguish between what you did and what somebody else did -- answer that "yes" or "no".
Q. Then sometimes your reports were misleading?
Q Well, if you didn't distinguish between what you did and what somebody else did, then they didn't tell the exact truth? whole this and this measure was taken in Estonia without adding who carried it out and who ordered this action. Stahlecker's wrath?
Q. Yes, so, therefore, the reports were misleading?
occur?
A No. The report said that this and this measure had been carried out. It was a situation report, but it was not contained in the report that these actions had been initiated by myself or by my collaborators. This was neither expressed positively nor negatively. May I also add that Stahlecker was informed about conditions in Estonia, that he knew in fact that I had very few people, and that other agencies had more people.
Q Now, we are getting off the subject; we are talking about the report. How, you would have us believe that these reports didn't amount to anything because he had his own reports. You had to send in a report every month? somebody else did - you have answered that "no"? with Stahlecker? when they were sent in. When you weren't there the reports went in just the same, didn't they?
Q All right, when you returned, did you see a copy of the report? want to know what went on while you were away? I was first on leave and then I was ill. It was absolutely impossible to read, after I returned, all the reports which had been received in the meantime.
A That also wasn't possible because the number was too high.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, if you were away two months, there would be only two reports. Why is it impossible to read two reports?
A. Your Honor, there were not only two reports that were made by Department IV, reports we are talking about here, but a large number of very extensive reports were made by Department-III. They were bulks of reports, which were sent on within two months, and it was impossible to read them.
THE PRESIDENT: You told us the reports were made at the end of every month, and they had to reach headquarters on the 2nd or 3rd of the month, of each month were the reports, so when you came back from your leave, did you read the copies of these two reports?
A. I certainly read those reports in most cases, but I cannot exclude the possibility that in one or the other case I did not read it.
THE PRESIDENT: So that over a period of two years you saw practically all the reports, or there may be one or two that you missed?
A. Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess for fifteen minutes.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will be in recess for fifteen minutes.
(recess)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. HOFFMANN( for the defendant Nosske): tendance in court tomorrow, Thursday, in order to prepare his defense.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant Nosske will be excused from attendance in court tomorrow in order to prepare his defense. BY DR. VON STEIN:
Q. Witness, were there other reports, apart from this monthly report which had to be made to the Einsatzgruppen at the end of the month?
A. Yes, there were individual security police reports which also could concern the activity of Department IV and V and also the activity of other agencies--German and Estonian agencies--and also the situation concerning security in general. Such individual reports did not have to be made at definite intervals. In Department III, the domestic sphere, there also were a number of reports which were not fixed to any deadline. They were short individual reports about events in the domestic sphere and also special reports which had nothing to do with the situation in that month, but dealt with a subject of greater importance, such as economic problems, administration problems, cultural questions, and so forth. These reports were often very extensive. They were not bound to any deadline. Not only the agency of the SD in Riga and the agency in Berlin were given these reports, but also a great number of other agencies had these reports sent to them; in particular, German civilian and military agencies.
Q. Owing to your experience at the time and based on the document submitted, by the prosecution, do you have the impression that these reports always applied objectively?
A. No, it is soubtful; expert officials with the Kommando H.Q. and also the staff of the Einsatzgruppen and also to Office IV of Berlin, often had reports given to them and formulations were chosen which gave an impression which did not conform with the actual situation,