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,
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.