if this severe order has to her carried out, this was not the correct way of doing it, this meaning by way of pogroms as Stahlecker considered it correct. At least in the tone in which I said it, it was clear and evident that I wanted to express what I have just meant by the expression that I considered this type of carrying the order out as especially inhumane. conveyed to Stahlecker the idea that this was inhumane. All you have told us is that you said to him that if the Fuehrer Order had to be carried out, this was not the way to do it. Nov, is that what you told him?
A Yes, this is the sense. I explained it in about these words, but I do not remember the exact words I used. remark that Stahlecker was able to understand that you regarded that business as inhumane. had to understand the sense of my words without any question. when you spoke so guardedly and so cautiously that even today we are unable to gather from your remark that you were opposed to this on the grounds of inhumanity. that he rejected my objections on my part in very harsh language; and he reproached me with not being hard enough with these matters in the East; I was too soft, and did not have any understanding for the necessities of the time and the area. The conversation took about 15 minutes. Of course, I cannot remember any individual words he used, but the thoughts which he had were about the way I just expressed them.
Q A nd then what did he order you to do?
of the Jews in Estonia in such a way that in Estonia pogroms of the population against the Jews were to be induced. He did not give it to me in the form of an absolutely binding order, out in that form, that this was his wish, and this was a directive which he was giving, and which was, if at all possible, to be carried out, but he left the possibility open to me to tell him later on that for some reasons it was not possible. executed?
A Yes, Your Honor, we spoke about this expressly. I knew the Fuehrer Order from Pretsch, and before I left for Estonia he again expressly repeated it to me as having to be carried out.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed, Dr. von Stein, you may proceed. BY DR. VON STEIN: synagogues in Estonia still intact?
Q What orders did Stahlecker give to you before you left Riga?
A He gave me two orders particularly. the first order was to have as good a relationship as possible with the army and, secondly, as I have just said, according to the Fuehrer Order to have all Estonian Jews eliminated. BY THE PRESIDENT: suggested to him that there might be a better way to carry out the order. Did you indicate to him what that better way might be?
A Your Honor, I must have expressed myself mistakenly. I did not suggest to him that there was a better way, I merely said that if this Fuehrer Order had to be carried out at all, this way, namely, the pogroms, was certainly not the correct way. Perhaps the translation brought it out differently.
Q No, no, I protect the interpreter in this. That is exactly what came over to us, that this was not the correct way to do it.
Nov, what I am asking, and the question was suggested by my colleague, Judge Dixon, if you indicated to him that this was not the correct way, did you not tell him then what was the correct way; didn't Stahlecker ask you then what was your suggestion as to the correct way?
Q The matter stood there?
A Yes. Stahlecker did not take back his directives. BY DR. VON STEIN: you. Did you carry out those two orders? carried this out correctly; the order about the Jews, I did not.
Q Why not? when it was given in Pretsch that I had decided to do everything in order to avoid the execution of the order for my part and for my commando's part.
Q Why did he just give you those two orders? these two points most important; the special order about the Jews in Estonia, he gave me because he knew that there was only a relatively small number of Jews in Estonia and because he believed and wished here to be able to report for a part of his area very quickly that this area was free of Jews. By this he wanted to show Berlin that he was especially ambitious about carrying out this order. Q Will you please comment on two situation reports which are contained in two reports of the events, namely, about the situation report which is contained in Volume III A, Document No. 4536. There is no exhibit number available as yet for this exhibit.
This is the report of the 1st of July 1941. On page 50 of the German text - page 35 in the English.
A This report is wrong. On the 28th of June I was not in Mitau, as is stated in this situation report, but on that day I was already before Riga, already on the day before, namely, since the 27th of June. Since the 27th of June I was, as I already stated on Friday, in a western suburb of Riga with an advance unit of the army under the command of Colonel Lasch. On the way to Riga I did not even come through the town of Mitau because on the 27th of June the commanding general of an army corps told me that Mitau was still in the hands of the enemy, that one, therefore, could not pass through Mitau at all, therefore, I took a different route, namely, by way of the city of Bausk. This town is southeast of Mitau. I was in Mitau for the first time end of October 1941 when I went from Riga to Tilsit on a subiness trip. I do not know whether on the 28th of June even a single man of my commando was in Mitau. The fact that parts of my commando were in Libau at that time is correct. From there they were to move on to Riga together with the 219th Infantry Division. The largest part of my commando was at that time from the 28th of June to the 30th of June in the town of Memel. That is the last headquarters on Reich territory. It doesn't say anything about this in this operation report, it says on one part was in Schaulen, whether this is correct, I do not know. The various parts of this situation report cannot possibly come from me because the advance unit Lasch with which I was from the 27th to the 30th of June, right before Riga, had been cut off from its rear communications.
Einsatzgruppe, or with my commandos. On top of the page in this operational report it says that the leader of the Einsatzgruppe, Brigadier General Stahlecker, was on his way to Riga on 30 June. This report is Correct. II-A, Exhibit No. 37, Document NO-2935. A The first page of this report reads as follows: "Group Leader, together with Einsatzcommandos I-A and II, has moved into Riga," End of quote. This sentence is correct. of page 2, and there it reads that,"The subcommandos of the Commando I-A were to move to the City of Wenden, to Derpat, and possibly for Psckew, and it also says here, page 1 of the English, Your Honor, and it also says that another part of Einsatzcommando I-A is intended for Reval, and is already on the move." End of quote. This is correct. This subcommando destined for Reval left Riga on 4 July in order, as I have already said, to join up with the advanced unit of General von Zelle, and to reach Reval by way of Velini. I commanded this subcommando myself. the area of the 18th Army?
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, please. Just which document and which page are you now commenting on?
DR. VONSTEIN: Up to this time it was in Vol. II-A, Exhibit No. 37, Document NO-2935, page 41 of the English text.
THE PRESIDENT: You were referring then, I take it, to what is marked as page 5 of the original?
MR. GLANCY: I believe that he is referring to page 5 of the original found on page 41 of the Document Book, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Now on page 4 of the original there is a state ment that Einsatzcommando I-A entered Riga.
Is that correct?
THE WITNESS: Yes, I stated that the first sentence of this report is correct.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Now how about the sentence in the second paragraph: "All synagogues have been destroyed." Is that correct?
THE WITNESS: I didn't know anything about this at the time. I didn't hear this until later. During a conversation which I had with Stahlecker on 4 July, which was described in detail before, Stahlecker merely told me that he had made attempts to induce the Latvian Auxiliary Police to carry out such measures. I personally never had any dealings with the Latvian Police or the Latvian Auxiliary Police, and had no contact with them, and I had nothing to do with these measures.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you were in Riga, Didn't it come to your attention that the synagogues had been destroyed?
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, at the time when the synagogues were destroyed I had already left Riga. On 4 July, as I stated, I left Riga, Whether this took place on the 4th or 5th or later on, I don't know, Stahlecker told me later, about the 20th of July, that he personally had induced Latvian Police forces under Latvian officers to carry out these measures. Whether the Einsatzcommando II had any knowledge of this, which also was in Riga from 1 July on, and which remained in Riga constantly, and which was competent constantly for police missions in Riga, I don't know.
THE PRESIDENT: Now you were in Riga on July 4th?
THE WITNESS: On the morning of 4 July I left the town of Riga.
THE PRESIDENT: You left Riga on the morning of July 4th?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Didn't you tell us you had a conversation with Stahlecker on July 4th, in Riga?
THE WITNESS: Yes. In the early morning of 4 July, before I left Riga, I reported to Stahlecker before leaving, in order to join with the advance unit Zelle, and on the occasion of this conversation the conference between Stahlecker and myself took place.
THE PRESIDENT: What time in the morning did you speak to Stahlecker?
THE WITNESS: Between eight and nine. It was in the hotel, in his hotel room.
THE PRESIDENT: Then after the conversation you immediately left?
THE WITNESS: After an hour, yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Then you don't know anything about the hundred Jews who were shot on that day by a commando of the Security Police and SD?
THE WITNESS: I merely knew that they were shot by a Commando of Einsatzcommando II on order of Stahlecker. Stahlecker also told me about this on that morning.
THE PRESIDENT: He told you about this on the morning of July 4th that he had ordered the shooting of one-hundred Jews?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: What time did the execution take place?
THE WITNESS: I don't know.
THE PRESIDENT: What other commando was In Riga on that date?
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, the first sentence of this document shows that Einsatzcommando II also was in Riga during the same time. Stahlecker and my commando and this commando moved into Riga simultaneously on 1 July. My commando was to move on as quickly as possible, and Commando II was to remain in Riga, and always remained in Riga, and later became the agency of the Security Police and SD for Latvia.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed, Dr. von Stein. DR. VON STEIN: destruction of the synagogues, I would like to ask you the following questions: Your commando was destined for Estonia, is that right? Estonia were still intact in 1943 with a "yes"? were still intact when I left Estonia.
the destruction of the synagogues in Riga? through the area of the 18th Army about the conduct of the Soviets? received reports from the population about the measures which had been taken there in the preceding year by the Soviets and, under their leadership, by the indigenous Communists, There were numerous executions and deportations. I don't think I have to go into details here, because sofar as this concerns Estonia, the witness Dr Mae has already reported on this. I would only like to say that all this which we heard about this from all classes of the population was to a large extent a confirmation for us of what we had been told before the march started. your attitude? change because of these experiences or findings, but these experiences did influence.- -
THE PRESIDENT: Give us just in a word what you mean by "these experiences."? measures which had been taken in the years of 1940 and 1941 by the Soviets and, together with them, by the indigenous Communists, in reference to the killings and deportations of many inhabitants, and the measures connected with this. I said to the preceding question that through this my human attitude did not change, but when judging the legal situation I was influenced. It was clear from the beginning, as I already said when explaining my thoughts in Pretsch, that any illegality was out of the question for a Fuehrer Order, but when we saw in this Baltic area to what a large extent the forces then in power there had deviated in the preceding years from the basic principles of law, we were doubtlessly influenced in the sense that any possible misgivings about the legality which one still might have had were removed by this.
We had to consider that in an area in which law and morality were disregarded to such a large extent, extraordinary measures might be justified, even these measures which were beyond our imagination up to this moment.
Q what situation did you find when you got to Estonia? advance met stubborn resistance. This resistance was met in the whole area of Central Estonia. On the German side voluntary formations of the Estonian Home Guard participated in these fights, on the side of the Red Army destruction battalions participated primarily. The expression "fight" is actually the wrong word here, for it was the nature of these destruction battalions never to be committed in battle, but after the withdrawal of the Red Army from a certain area, they were to be left behind, and they were to destroy everything behind the German lines, which was still there and which would be important for the German troops. In a sense, those destruction battalions were thus to operate behind the lines of the German Army, and they were to destroy the bridges, public installations of every kind, buildings to a large extent, and etc.
Estonia is a country which has many forests and many swamps. Through all these pecularities of the situation, a condition arose which can only be designated as a Civil War. The larger part of the Estonian people was anti-Communist, only a small part was Communist.
THE PRESIDENT: Were these Destruction Battalions organized? You use the word "Battalions" which suggests organization. I merely went a confirmation of that?
THE WITNESS: Yes, the name was "Destruction Battalions". These were units of the Red Army which were not committed in combat, but which were committed behind the German lines.
THE PRESIDENT: But they formed part of the Red Army?
THE FITNESS: They were no regular part of the Red Army, but they were in some form subordinate to the commanding general or the divisional commander.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
THE FITNESS: In order to understand the intervention of the Estonian Home Guard in these fights on the German side, I must explain in a few words what this Estonian Home Guard was. A short time after the foundation of the Estonian Republic was formed, a Communist uprising took place in 1924. Since the Sovietization of Estonia would have meant less of sovereignty for Estonia, that is, absorption into the Soviet State, this was not only an ideological and political question, but the Nationalist Estonian circles considered this as a question of existence for the State Itself. Therefore, a militia was set up of volunteer citizens and farmers in the whole country, who had their arms with them constantly. Only part of the officer corps was concerned full-time with this militia, and this militia, the so-called Home Guard, was the armed organization of all ablebodied men of the country. This organization existed up to 1940, until the country was annexed by the Soviet Union. During the fights, before the German Army moved in, units of the Home Guards were reformed spontaneously and voluntarily by the men who had fled into the forests and swamps before, and these units now intervened partly independently, and partly on the German side of these fights.
The Estonian Home Guard, during the entire time of the German occupation, from 1941 to '44, continued to exist as an armed national militia, and it was the actual bearer of the security of the country from 1941 to '44. This was an advantage to the German Army leadership, because thus hardly any German troops had to be in Estonia, because all the functions which had to be assumed by the German troops could thus be handled by the Estonian Home Guard. This solution had the great advantage for the Estonians, that they did not have to surrender their arms, as it had to be enforced with strict directives in the rest of the Eastern area; but (every home guard member) that is, every farmer and citizen, was able to keep his arms, and that was so-to-speak a question of his national honor for him. BY DR VON STEIN: and the Estonian Communists?
THE PRESIDENT: Dr Von Stein, this might be an appropriate moment to have our recess, since you are going to open up another field of discussion. The Tribunal will be in recess for fifteen minutes.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is in recess for fifteen minutes.
(recess)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. ASCHENAUER (Counsel for Ohlendorf) Your Honor, I ask that the defendant Ohlendorf he excused from this afternoon's session, because the prosecution wants to interrogate Ohlendorf for Case 6 in my presence.
THE PRESIDENT: In accordance with the statement made by Dr. Aschenauer, attorney for the defendant Ohlendorf, the defendant Ohlendorf will he excused from attendance in Court this afternoon. Dr. Aschenauer, will it take all afternoon?
DR. ASCHENAUER: I don't know yet, your Honor,
THE PRESIDENT: Well, for as long as will be required for the interrogations the defendant Ohlendorf will be excused from attendance in Court. this afternoon. Dr. Aschenauer, will it take all afternoon?
DR. ASCHENAUER: I don't know yet, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, for as long as will be required for the interrogations the defendant Ohlendorf will be excused from attendance in Court.
DR ASCHENAUER: Thank you, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: You are very welcome.
DR. KOESSLER (Counsel for Ott): Koessler for Ott and also as deputy for Dr. Stubinger for defendant Braune. In order to prepare the defense I ask that the defendants Ott and Braune be excused this afternoon from attending sessions.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendants Ott and Braune will be excused from attendance in Court afternoon.
DR. KOESSLER: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: You are welcome. You may proceed.
Q (By Dr. Von Stein) Witness, I repeat the question, what did you hear in Estonia about the activity of the Soviets. and the Estonian Communists? Estonian people had anti-Communist views and were not in agreement with the annexation of Estonia by the Soviet Union.
This annexation was rather considered as illegal and all measures which were taken in the time of the annexation of the Bolsheviste in 1940 to '41 and had occurred then were also considered as a violation of the Estonian law and as incorrect and inhumane towards the Estonian population. areas, had Communist views, but a great number, in fact the majority of the population, were national Estonians and anti-Communists. This was not equivalent to being pro-German tendency only resulted in the summer of 1941 insofar as the Estonians could not expect help against the Russians from England, but could only expect it from Germany at that time.
innumerable Estonians who reported to us what they and their relatives and their friends had suffered in the preceding months through the measures during the time under the Soviets. This was particularly characterized by the fact that the Estonians held the opinion that the great number of persons who had been deported most probably would sooner or later meet certain death. I cannot judge in how far this opinion was correct. I can only say that at the time it was the opinion of the Estonians that they would most probably never again see their relatives and friends who had been deported in the previous months and because of this circumstance in particular, the feelings and opinions of the Estonians were particularly articulate. In detail I believe that the things which happened in this time, 1940 - 1941, through the Soviets and through the Estonian Communists in Estonia, I think I can limit myself to merely indicating them, because the witness who has been heard here in part last Friday, Dr. Mae, has testified about the things in his official position since he is better informed because of his position than I am and since, I believe, that in as far as these things have not been cleared up sufficiently, he will be permitted to complete his statement.
Q What did you hear about the Jews in Estonia? of the Soviet annexation, had been very active for the Bolshevists.
Q I refer to Document L-180. This is an extensive report by Stahlecker. I shall come back to this document in detail, hut just now I would like to ask you to look at pages 122 to 124 of the photostatic copy, and for identification, to state your views on the most important points.
THE PRESIDENT: Which document is this, Dr. von Stein?
DR. VON STEIN: The document is in Volume II-A, Exhibit 34, probably also on page 1 of the German text - of the English text.
Your Honor, this document is only contained as an excerpt. The pages to which the witness will now refer are only in the photostatic copy. I don't know whether they are already contained in the English text.
A (Continuing) I believe the most important sentences in this report are the following: The report contains three typewritten pages concerning the Jews in Estonia. The most important sentences are the following: "Estonia, until the middle of the last century, belonged to a blocked-off zone of the Russian state where it was prohibited -"
THE INTERPRETER: I am having the sentence repeated.
A (Continuing) "Until the middle of the previous century Estonia belonged to a blocked zone of the Russian State where it was prohibited for Jews to move into this territory. For that reason there are very few Jews in Estonia. In the free state of Estonia, of a total population of 1.2 million inhabitants, about 4,500 Jews were counted". I pass over several sentences. Another sentence: "Of the minorities in Estonia, the Germans and the Jews were the only ones who had the right of cultural autonomy according to an Estonian law of the year 1942". I now leave out a few sentences again and continue: "The Jews in Estonia, contrary to the loyalty pretended to the Estonians, changed their attitude when the Bolshevists took over power and put themselves at their disposal. Some of the young Jews were under Communist influence and some of them were organized. The most important figure in the Bolshevist coup d'etat is the Jew Kutkin from Reval, the son of the representative of the Jews in the Estonian State Council. He was NKWD agent, and together with the Jew Freigin , who became prominent in the coup d'etat, he entered into the NKWD on a completely full time basis. Exactly as in the other Baltic States, Jewish private property was also nationalized. The Jews themselves, however, were left as directors of their former enterprises. A great number of Estonian business enterprises were given Jewish directors upon nationalization.
Immediately after the coup d'etat a great number of Jews were sent to Reval and the other Estonian cities as a result of the Bolshevization. These escaped from the German troops without exception. In Estonia the NKWD was the stronghold of the Jews, Haring the Bolshevist regime. From it they exercized their influence, not always visible, out decisively, in all spheres of life. A great number of indigenous Jews, particularly in Reval, joined the NKWD. She economic commissars in Estonia were all Jews. Here Jews were given specialized positions without training. For example, a, Jewish shoemaker became director of a. glove factory. Jews were given positions in the press of Estonia by the Bolshevists. The greatest number of-Cultural institutes passed into the hands of Jews who immediately introduced tne kind of cultural life which existed in the Soviet Union." End of quote. office by the Estonians at the time? reported to us at the time, but I am convinced that today hardly any Estonian will confess to having made such a report, commando?
A. According to the necessities as they arose, three, four or five subkommandos were established. According to military circumstance it had to be changed. One subkommando was in Derpat and had to deal with South Estonia from there. Another one was in Pernau. That is a harbor town in the southwest of Estonia. A third subkommando had remained with the Thirty-Eighth Army Corps of the Army and was with them in the east of the Peipus Lake, about a hundred kilometers to the south of the City of Narva, and there they had met with strong enemy resistance which could not be overcome for many weeks. Smaller subkommandos, when necessary, were formed. A larger subkommando, of which I was in charge, at the beginning of August was assigned to the fighting territory in the northeast of Estonia, All these subkommandos, but in particular the latter one under my charge, were active to assist the G-2 of the Army. Only to a very small extent did they carry out security Police measures. Almost through the entire time they were occupied by conforming with the wishes of the G-2 sections of the Army Corps of the divisions, and the I-A's of the advance kommandos. that this G-2 service in the German Army is about the same as, as far as I know, the Department G-2 in the American Army, only there is a great difference in the following: In the German Army these tasks of enemy reconnaisance were given less consideration than they were given in the American Army. If I am not very much mistaken in the American Army there often are G-2 officers - that is, the American Army has the G-2 service also in the regiments, while in the German Army this G-2 service is only extended to the divisions. The result of this is that in the German Army the regiment does not have a G-2 section and an advance kommando does not have a G-2 section either. The advance department, meant units COURT II CASE IX of the Army which had been taken out of a division, and the G-2 of the division remained with the division staff and did not move up with the advance unit.
The result was that, as I have often witnessed myself, an advance unit who got stuck somewhere in the forests of Estonia, not only did not have a G-2 officer, but did not have one single man who could speak Estonian, so that a commander of an advance unit once told me, he was stuck. Now since the forests in the territory were full of enemies and he did not have one man who could speak one word of Estonian or Russian in his advance unit. The result of these total conditions was that those parts of my kommando which, according to the orders of the Commander-in-Chief and of the Einsatzgruppe Chief were in the combat territory, were constantly asked by the Regiments to help with their tasks.
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, I, of course, do not know the make-up of the German Army organizations, but it is rather difficult to grasp that there would not be, below the division organization in the regiments and even in the battalions, something which corresponds to the G-2. Certainly in the German Army organization there must be something below the division to handle enemy intelligence. A regiment may be quite far removed from division headquarter and must be aware of enemy intelligence. Do I understand from you that there is nothing in the regiment which corresponds to G-2?
THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well,
THE WITNESS: The case which I just explained, that a commander of an advance unit which had the strength of a strong regiment, did not have an officer with them who was able to make enemy reconnaissance and did not have any men with him who spoke Estonian, this happened, as I can COURT II CASE IX say decisively in the time between the 10th and 15th of June in Meriamar.
That is a village about one hundred and fifty kilometers to the south of Reval, and the commander of this advanced unit was a Colonel of the Peoneers, with the name of Ullesberger. Owing to these conditions it came about that each G-2 of a division and each regiment commander employed those people of my subkommandos who appeared there immediately for their G-2 jobs. These members of my kommando who were qualified for such tasks were not very numerous, I myself only had four interpreters and only very few officials who were able to carry out such interrogations; but these few people, nearly all of them, had been assigned to help with these military G-2 duties and it corresponded completely with the orders which I had received from my Einsatzgruppen chief and from the high kommando of the Army: that all such wishes by the front troops were to be conformed with and any other task be put aside.
Q. During what period were you absent from the headquarters of your kommando in July and August?
A. In July and August there was no kommando leader in my Kommando. I was always traveling and had no staff, and wherever I was present at subkommandos I inquired about the news. I made decisions which had to be made concerning the general tasks, I called on the commanding generals and division commanders and the regimental commanders and took along any written reports which were there.