Q. In your opinion, what was the reason why these reports were made so carelessly?
A. There were various reasons. On the one hand, there was lack of training and experience by the experts in making exact reports; in view of the difficult personnel situation in all offices, officials had often to be asked to make such reports who had not done this previously and therefore they did not have the qualification to do this. Secondly, in all agencies concerned, in particular in the staff of the Einsatzgruppen in Riga, there was the tendency to conceal from superior agencies - in the case of the Einsatzgruppe A- this was Berlin- something that should have been done but actually hadn't been done. Also there was a tendency by higher authorities in this case in Riga and Berlin, to retouch methods of subordinate agencies which in their opinion was too soft; for examply, if that report from Reval about the difference between their own activity and the activity of other agencies was made in detail, this difference might have keen left out in Riga or in Berlin, -- in Riga mainly, because they wanted to give Berlin the impression that the subordinate Kommandos themselves did more than they actually did.
refer here in particular to what Schulz testified on the witness stand here about the methods of Referent Hoffmann in Einsatzgruppe C. Similar tendencies existed also in Einsatzgruppe A, not only with Department Chief IV, but also with the Chief of the Einsatzgruppe itself. Many of the things Stahlecker himself dealt with and what he saw or arranged is doubtlessly exaggerated, and when looking through the documents, most of which I have seen here for the first time, in particular things concerning the actions and the sphere of actions of Stahlecker himself, these actions caused by him or by his staff are, I saw, fantastic exaggerations and falsifications and distortions.
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, in these reports which you yourself saw, did you find these faults which you have just referred to?
THE WITNESS: I was just going to say---
THE PRESIDENT: I don't mean the reports you saw here, the reports which you yourself sent in and those which you read when you returned from a temporary absence. First let's take up your own reports. In reports which you sent in, did they carry these faults which you have just now outlined?
THE WITNESS: Reports which I found after I had been absent?
THE PRESIDENT: Let's take up those which you sent in yourself. Did they carry these faults?
THE WITNESS: Reports which I personally sent off, that is, if I was present and if I saw them in general did not contain mistakes of the kind which I have just described.
THE PRESIDENT: Those reports which you read when you returned did they contain these faults?
THE WITNESS: In individual cases very important mistakes occurred.
THE PRESIDENT: And when you saw these mistakes, did you do anything to correct them?
THE WITNESS: Yes, I reprimanded the experts very energetically.
THE PRESIDENT: And you sent in a correcting report?
THE WITNESS: In general I used the next opportunity when I talked to Stahlecker personally, I discussed the matter.
THE PRESIDENT: But in some way or another you always endeavored to correct an incorrect report?
THE WITNESS: I cannot say that it always happened. I must leave open the possibility that in individual cases it was not done and Stahlecker was not consulted personally on this.
THE PRESIDENT: In most cases you endeavored to correct obvious mistakes or exaggerations?
THE WITNESS: Afterwards as far as it was possible, yes.
Q. (By Dr. von Stein) mitted against you concerning measures against Communists contained in Volume I, Exhibit 21, Page 108 of the German text, Document NO-3279.
MR. GLANCY: On Page 78-A of the English.
Q. (continuing) Situation Report No. 155 of the 14th January, 1942. Do you find it?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that a report which you made yourself?
A. No, the original of this report is contained in the monthly report of the month of December. It was, therefore, - it left Reval at the end of December, 1941. It was made by Department 4 of my agency in Reval. At the time I was not in Revel but most probably I saw the report after returning.
Q. Do you believe that great changes were made between the Berlin report and the original report from Reval?
A. Yes, the original report from Reval about this subject was much more extensive, of course. Now, I cannot remember the exact extent, but I can estimate it to one to two pages. What is written in the situation report here in Berlin is a very brief excerpt ox summary of an extensive report from Reval, but, of course, I do not know whether the alterations and the summarization was already done the previous year or only in Berlin.
It is also possible that changes were made in both places. This text exists here and is an independent, own work done at Berlin, and it is not certain that any one word was written in Reval in that manner except for the figures perhaps and some specialized expressions.
Q. Is this report a situation report or a report of events?
A. This report is a situation report and a report of events. It means, therefore, the reports about the activity of the home offices and other offices---they are all German and Estonian offices---during the time from July until the end of December, 1941, which occurred at all in Estonia during that time, searchings, arrests, interrogations, committment into comps and executions.
Q. What agencies were those in particular?
A. Those were German local and field commanders of the Army.
THE PRESIDENT: Where are you reading from, please?
DR. VON STEIN: Your Honor, I am still on the same document.
THE PRESIDENT: Where on the document; what is the original page?
DR. VON STEIN: page 10.
A. (Continuing) These were German local and field commanders of the Army commandos of the Estonian Home Guard, in particular in July, August, and partly even in September.
THE PRESIDENT: Page 10 isn't in our book.
MR. GLANCY: There is an errata sheet. It should be Page 78-A. It is a long page of corrections, if it please, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, does this errata sheet carry the omission?
MR. GLANCY: Yes, sir; it does.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it the one which begins with Page 5 in line after insert?
MR. GLANCY: Local cross number, it does.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Thank you, yes.
THE WITNESS: May I repeat the last sentence? "The agencies which participated in this Security Police situation and activity were all German and Estonian agencies which at all carried out measures in the time from June until the end of December, 1941, which is, namely, measures, searchings, arrests, transfers into camps and executions, and these individual agencies were German Local and field H.Q.'s of the Army and commanders of the Estonian Home Guard; these three in particular during the time from July and August 1941, hardly still in September, to a lesser extent even in October 1941, apart from that, Estonian police and German Security Police.
THE PRESIDENT: Do I understand that these arrests and internments in concentration camps and shootings were done by organizations other than the kommando groups.
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, not altogether by other organizations, but to a considerable part. A part of these measures was under the responsibility of the German Security Police, that is, myself, but a very important part and a major part, as I shall explain in detail yet, concerns the responsibility of other German and Estonian agencies, namely, those agencies which I have just mentioned.
THE PRESIDENT: Do I understand that later on you will break down these figures for us?
THE WITNESS: Yes, I shall explain that in detail.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
Q. (By Dr. Von Stein) Which reports were used in your opinion in the original report made by Department 4 in Reval?
A. May I emphasize again that between the original report from Reval and this report as it exists here an intermediate office existed, namely Einsatzgruppe A in Riga, who certainly made considerable changes in the original reports were evaluated, reports which Department 4 of the German Security Police had received, firstly, from their own experts, from their own agencies of the German Security Police; secondly, from the Estonian police agencies; and thirdly, from the Estonian Home Guard, whether from the district staffs of the Home Guard or by the Reval Central Office of the Home Guard.
Apart from that reports by the local commanders and the field commanders of the Army were used.
Q In such a procedure wasn't there the acute danger of countings occurring twice? very often. The reason for this does not have to be intentional exaggerations but the reason was the administrational mixup. During all these months from July until December, 1941 this existed in Estonia and this mixup could not be avoided for the time being. If I can explain this with an example; for example, it could occur that about 25 Communist functionaries whom the Estonian Home Guard in the District of Pernau at the beginning of July, 1941 had been arrested and examined, and then had been executed on their own authority. Guard unit to the Estonian police prefecture in Pernau and later also in a report to the central office of the Estonian Home Guard in Reval. The Estonian police prefecture in Pernau then perhaps gave the same figure, 25, again in their reports to the Reval central office of the Estonian police, and apart from that, to the German security police in Pernau, the same place, but finally so the same 25 cases could be reported to the German security police in Reval independently of each other and from various offices, namely, from the office in Pernau of the German security police and by the Central Office of the Estonian police in Reval, and thirdly, by the central office of the Estonian Home Guard in Reval, therefore three times. And finally one could not quite overlook this because these reports did not give names but merely gave figures indicating that this was the same case. That is how the danger arose that unintentional double countings occurred.
THE PRESIDENT: I understood you to say, when you were first asked about this report from Reval, as to whether it was correct, you said that - at least that's what I have here in my book -- that there were errors but the figures were correct.
THE WITNESS: I said that it is possible that the figures which are contained here are the same figures which are contained in the original Reval report. That does not mean that these figures which were contained in the original Reval report were correct because the danger of double counting could have occurred even before they came to Reval.
THE PRESIDENT: Who passed on the report last in Reval? Who was the one who actually sent it on to Riga?
THE WITNESS: That was department 4 of the German security police in Reval.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, wouldn't department 4 make some effort to verify those figures to see that there were no duplications?
THE WITNESS: Such attempts were sometimes made, but in general this could not be taken for security. I must leave open the possibility that such attempts were not made carefully enough.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, department 4 was part of your organization, of course?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: And your organization was part of the German armed forces?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: And one of the things that the German armed forces is known for is its meticulousness in making reports, isn't that right?
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, this applies in principle but it does not exclude the fact that where there is rather a mixup in administration and offices run next to each other, it can happen that countings occur twice which are not intended and in other Einsatzgruppen and other Einsatzkommando this has happened as well as what has been reported here.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, this reputation that the German Army has is not an unmerited one, is it?
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, those reports which are contained in this report do not concern this to a very great extent objectively, mainly because many instances have been very careless, in Berlin, in Riga and in the local instances.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, generally you would still say that the German Army is very careful about its reports?
THE WITNESS: Doubtlessly one can not say this on these reports which are being discussed here.
THE PRESIDENT: Generally speaking the entire Wehrmacht is very careful about its reports?
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I understood you to say that the reports by the entire Army meant mostly military reports. I can only say that these reports which are being discussed here can be proved to be objectively wrong.
THE PRESIDENT: I am saying that generally the German officer receives as part of his training, the idea that he must be careful about reports, generally speaking.
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, the officials who worked on these reports did not have any training in the German Army for this.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, they were part of the German armed forces?
THE WITNESS: They were attached to the German Army concerning this assignment, but concerning making reports for the security police they did not have any training by the Army, and many of them had never made any such reports previously and therefore were quite untrained in this.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you know that no military movement could be a success unless those at the top could depend upon the accuracy of reports coming in from the field?
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, unfortunately it is a historical fact that in the last war, in the entire German Army to a very large extent, false, that is exaggerated reports were made also concerning matters of military importance which are exaggerated to a great extent.
THE PRESIDENT: Well then, you would say that this general idea that the German Army is very acurate and that its reports can be depended upon is not merited?
THE WITNESS: Owing to the position which I held I cannot overlook this in order to pass a general judgment on this.
THE PRESIDENT: Well then, you won't pass any judgment upon whether that reputation is merited or not?
THE WITNESS: Concerning the last war, in particular, since 1941, I cannot pass a judgment on this. I can only say that I heard a lot of rumors, that military agencies of all kinds very often made wrong reports and that many failures were the result of this, in the East in particular.
Q (By Dr. von Stein) Do I understand you right when you say that the thousand executions can be put to the charge of various agencies and they are responsible for them, first for the months of July and August, 1941, Estonian home guard commanders and German local and field commanders, later field and local commanders, and the Home Guard subordinate to them, and apart from that, German security police and Estonian police. Finally, unintentional double countings are mentioned by you.
Is that right? your opinion?
A Yes. One reason is that in this report in an obvious manner it is avoided to say that these measures were carried out by the German security police insofar as I was able to read through these reports. Now generally it is expressly said there that the Einsatzgruppe or the Einsatzkommando with that figure or other, took certain measures. That is not written here but it merely gives us a local name. It says in Estonia these or these measures were taken without one word adding who took these measures. If all these measures had been carried out by the German security police in Estonia I am convinced that the official who made this report would not have omitted mentioning this expressively. I should think that even in the original report from Reval it is pointed out that the other agencies mentioned took part in these measures to some extent. The experts in Rige or in Berlin then left it out because it did not fit into their general line of reporting. In any case I would like to emphasize that the chief of Einsatzgruppe A Stahlecker, and his Chief Department IV, already through many oral reports by me, particularly Stahlecker through oral reports, were very well informed as to how great an extent Estonian agencies and agencies of the German Army had carried out such measures and how to a relatively small an extent their own forces did this. of Communists transferred to camps is stated exactly with 5,377 but the figure of the people executed is not stated exactly.
A. In my opinion that is proof again of the fact which I mentioned that in these measures various German and Estonian agencies took part in these measures, because the Estonian police knew exactly who was in the camps, and, therefore, they could report this to the department office in detail, but during the executions, the other agencies, namely, Estonian Home Guard and German Kommandantura of the army were not in a position to make exact statements, and, therefore, their's is only an estimated figure here.
Q. How far was the German Security Police responsible for these thousands of executions?
A. The German Security Police, for the reasons I gave is not at all responsible for this figure of approximately a thousand, but only for a fraction; I do not think it right to give an estimated figure here. I shall give more concrete points of view later of concerning other reports of events which reveal which figures concern other agencies without doubt, but, of course, it is right, and I would like to establish this: that executions of communist functionaries and agents to a certain extent were approved by my sonderkommando leaders, by my Department Chief IV, and my myself, according to suggestion, to interrogations, and mobulated suggestous by the Estonian police authorities. But these cases which come under the responsibility of my subordinates and myself, as I said, only concerned a fraction of the mentioned figure.
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, your attorney asked you to what extent was the German Security Police responsible for the one thousand deaths. We gathered from that question that he was trying to find out about how many the German Security Police executed, but you did not answer that question.
A. Your Honor, the question which was put to me was not how many executions the German Security Police are concerned with, but what was the responsibility of the German Security Police.
THE PRESIDENT: Then the Tribunal will ask you to what extent, numerically, was the German Security Police responsible for the shootings of one thousand.
A. Your Honor, I am not able to give a definite figure on this.
THE PRESIDENT: Why not?
A. Because I cannot remember such a figure, and, therefore, cannot state it.
THE PRESIDENT: Was it a large figure; or, a small figure?
A. If I have to make an estimate, which might be wrong, however, then I would give a figure of about three hundred to three hundred and fifty for which the German Security Police was responsible.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
A. Only such cases were concerned, however, which had been examined very carefully previously, and where it had been ascertained that there were communist functionaries who had endangered the security gravely; and that simultaneously there was serious guilt which even according to national Estonian law would call for a death sentence. That careful individual examinations were carried out, is shown by this document and shown by the fact of other decisions; namely, as it says here, that 3,785 people who had minor charges filed against them were released; that is, these persons were also communists and they were also incriminated as communists, but the incrimination was not so serious, in a sense that during that time, this time of reporting up to December, it was possible to release them. To the expression "concentration camp captivity," which is mentioned here, I shall say more about later on when describing the execution of penalty in Estonia. BYDR. VON STEIN:
Q. Please look at the report of events, No. 88. It is contained in Volume II-A, Exhibit 46, Document No. NO-3149, page 92 of the German text, page 86-A of the English text, your Honor. Page 87. Here it is reported that in the Dorpat district since the occupation by German troops, 405 executions took place. Is this figure of 405 executions contained in the figure of one thousand executions in the Report of events No. 155?
A. Yes, doubtlessly. This figure surely is part of that figure one thousand, except perhaps of the 50 Jewish communists mentioned here. I shall give more explanations of this question also later on when talking about measures against Jews. May I reply to your question now that according to the instructions by Einsatzgruppe A it was actually laid down that Jews, even if measures were taken against them because they were communists, were to be classified as Jews and reported as such, and not to be classified as communists; but in spite of these Riga regulations it is possible that these 50 Jewish communists are contained in the Figure 405 -
THE PRESIDENT: Where is that reference, please, 405.
MR. GLANCY: On page 88, the last paragraph on page 88.
A. The figure of these 50 Jews, I shall come back to when explaining measures against Jews later on.
THE PRESIDENT: I didn't quite catch your explanation about the 405. Would you please repeat it?
A. Yes. The question which was addressed to me was whether the figure of 405 in the territory Dorpat, people who were executed there, which is mentioned here, whether this figure is included in the figure of one thousand which is mentioned in the report mentioned before. I answered yes to this question. The Report of events of 19th September, the other report is one of 14th January; therefore, they are not 405 different persons but they are included in the figure of one thousand. In any case, as I emphasized, it is possible except of the 50 Jews mentioned here, which are included in this report, in this figure 405 and about which I shall speak again later on. This exception is possible because according to the regulations of Einsatzgruppe A, measures against Jews in general were to be classified under the term of Jews, even if these measures had been taken because of communist activity, as communist functionaries add agents, and not only because of the fact that they were Jews. That was the general instruction and according to this general instruction, these 50 Jews should actually not be contained in the figure one thousand, but in spite of this, it is possible that owing to a mistake they are still contained in the figure owing to the reason that they appear here in this total figure 405, and this figure 405 possibly was included in the figure one thousand, BY DR. VON STEIN:
Q. Can you give detailed statements from what time this original report originated on which this report of events No. 88 is based?
A. It is this report of events in Berlin, of the 19th September 1941. The original report from Dorpat must have originated from the 3rd of August 1941. In the original report there must have been a report which was made at the end of the month of August, 1941, by the Sonderkommando Dorpat, and sent off to Einsatzgruppe A in Riga, that is, actually, presumably the report was made on the 26th or 27th august and on 28th or 29th august it was sent to Riga.
Q. Could you give us a point, from the document itself, concerning the organizational circumstances at the time?
A. Yes. Such a report by a individual Sonderkommando immediately was sent to the Einsatzgruppe in Riga concerning organization was possible only during the time when a central headquarters for the office had not yet been set up. As I said, such a central headquarters was set up after Reval was conquered at the end of August of 1941. Therefore, this report must have been made before that time, and must have been sent off from Dorpat immediately to Riga. If not, it would have been sent via Reval and this obviously didn't happen, because from Reval one could never have written such a report or sent it off which only concerned one city in one district.
Q. In this report it is mentioned, -
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Von Stein, suppose we recess until tomorrow morning at 9:30.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 0930 hours, 13 November 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: The Honorable, the judges of Military Tribunal II.
DR. RIEDIGER: Your Honor, may I ask that Haensch be excused is examined in the witness stand.
I ask him to be brought to Room
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant, Haensch, will be excused from Room 57.
You may proceed.
BY DR. VON STEIN:
Q. We finished discussing the situation report Number 88 in Volume Number IIA, Exhibit 46, on page 87 of the English text;in this report there is mentioned the custody camp in Dorpat.
Why did the field commandatura have a custody camp there?
A. I already mentioned yesterday, and the witness, Dr. Mae, stances.
These conditions were caused by the fighting which had beengoing on for a long time.
During these fights -
THE PRESIDENT: Herr Von Stein, when you refer us to a document, try to indicate that to us also please so that we can have it.
Now we have the document but we don't know which particular page or
MR. GLANCY: If you please, Your Honor, it is page 88 of the English, the paragraph headed "Operations in the town and district of Dorpat.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, thank you.
MR. SANDBERGER: May I continue?
THE PRESIDENT:Please.
MR. SANDBERGER: During these fights and following them the Estonian home guard in the city of Dorpat and the vicinity had carried out arrests and interrogations and executions partly on their own authority and partly under the supervision of the German field commandos of the army. In connection with these arrests and interrogations the Estonian home guard also had set up this custody camp which is mentioned in this report from Dorpat here. The Estonian Police Prefecture who had also been set up during the time of fighting was subordinate to the Estonian homeguard commander. And apart from the very first days of the fighting when the homeguard commander was independent , he was then subordinate to the German field commanders of the German army. This Germanfield commander, a colonel, and first of all, his deputy, a major, were very energetic and active and particularly interested in security questions, including all police questions. They were not at all prepared to hand the security tasks and police tasks over to anybody else, in particular if a subcommando of the German security police came to Dorpat. The German subcommando leader alone, owing to the fact of his rank, was not able to maintain his views towards the field commander, his deputy and the commander of the home guard. Therefore, the full responsibility of the field commander remained in existance until the month of September, also for all police matters. Only in September in security police tasks the supervision over the political and criminal department of the Estonian police prefectura was handed over to the subcommander of the security police. BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Pardon me, witness. While you are commenting on this para graph, you see the statement at the end of the paragraph, "There are no more Jews in prison".
A. Yes.
Q. Now, does that mean that they were executed?
A. Your Honor, about the details of this report, I cannot tell you anything since all occurrences throughout these entire reports were not the responsibility of the security police, but, as I have said -
Q. But, Witness, you have just given us a report, a story, a comment on this entire paragraph. You have told us about the subcommandos, about the Estonian guard, and so on. Now, when we ask you a very specific question, you say you are not familiar with the details, why are you commenting on this at all if you don't know this very important detail?
A. Your Honor, I just talked about the organizational conditions as they were in this time from July until September in Dorpat.
Q. How, I will call your attention to the proceeding sentence, "The Total number of persons executed in Dorpat is 405, among them 50 Jews." Now, you told us about that yesterday, didn't you?
A. Yes.
Q. All right, you were able to give us enlightenment on that sentence. Why can't you shed the same kind of illumination on the succeeding sentence, "There are no more Jews in prison"?
A. Your Honor, what I said yesterday about this figure of 405 executions concerned exclusively the fact that it was my opinion that this figure is contained in the total figure of approximately one thousand executions.
Q. Very well, now, that is your opinion on the 405. Now, give us your opinion on the other sentence, "There are no more Jews in prison". Give us your opinion on that, since you volunteered your opinion on the preceding sentence.
A. Your Honor, I cannot state anything about this because I was not informed about the details. All these occurrences happened exclusively under the responsibility of the field commanders. I can merely presume, and when talking about measures against Jews I shall explain it, that the 50 Jews who are mentioned here are part of the 405 persons executed and were arrested by the Estonian home guard as Communists. In particular as NKWD agents and as such they were interrogated and executed.
Q. Now, you read all that into this simple sentence, but yet you can't read anything into the other clearer sentence, "There are no more Jews in prison"?
A. Your Honor, I said that the things I mentioned just now. I can only assume from the general conditions, but I cannot say how it can be explained that at that time no more Jews were in prison. But it is certain that at that time a great number of Jews were free in that district. In that district in all there were about a thousand Jews before the war.
Q. In this same paragraph there is the statement, "150 persons were released". Were there any Jews in these 150 people?
A. Your Honor, I do not know, because all occurrences mentioned in this report I do not know about in detail. I can only assume that as far as these 450 and these 150 are concerned, the facts are as I mentioned them. I do not know about any individual occurrences mentioned in these reports, nor about the previous figures of releases either. I am only certain that at the time of this report a great number of Jews in the district of Dorpat were at liberty.
Q. Weren't you up there with specific orders to arrest all Jews?
A. Your Honor, at that time I did not carry out this order in the district of Dorpat, as can be shown from this report, because if it had happened it would have been mentioned in this report. In this district, the city and district of Dorpat, about a thousand Jews lived in the year 1935. If we assume.....
Q. Will you please answer my question. Weren't you up there with orders to arrest all Jews.
A. I had this order, yes.
Q. Yes. Now, why do you now say that there were a thousand Jews walking around free?
A. Because at that time I had not yet carried out the order, but only at the end of September. This is shown from this report, Your Honor, that the order was not yet carried out at that time or else it would be mentioned in this report.
Q. Well, then, you can offer no comment on the statement, "There are no more Jews in prison"?
A. No, not for that reason, because all these measures...
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed, Dr. Von Stein. BY DR. VON STEIN:
Q. Who carried out the arrests mentioned in this report?
A. The Estonian home guard and the Estonian police.
Q. The Interrogations and transfers into camp mentioned before, who carried these out?
A. The Estonian home guard and the Estonian police.
Q. Under whose supervision--under whose responsibility did the Estonian police carry out these arrests, interrogation, and transfers into camps?
A. Under the supervision and the responsibility of the COURT II CASE IX Estonian home guard.