Kotkaristide ja Saksa Kotka ordeni vastastikune annetamine kui Eesti ja Saksamaa sõjaliste suhete peegelpilt 1930. aastate teisel poolel

Abstract

The mutual awarding of the Eagle Cross and the Order of the German Eagle as a mirror image of military relations between Estonia and Germany in the second half of the 1930s

The aim of this article is to observe and analyse the military contacts that took place between the two countries in the second half of the 1930s from an externally visible aspect, i.e. the reflection of cooperation through the decorations donated by each side. The Estonian side awarded the Eagle Cross for military merit. The German side awarded the Order of the Ger­man Eagle, which was only intended for foreigners. The original idea of analysing the awarding of the Eagle Cross to study bilateral relations at that time was proposed by Ivo Juurvee, who writes in his article: “Evaluating how close cooperation was between the military forces, including intelligence cooperation, is certainly a difficult task. One indirect method could be the awarding of decorations” and continues: “The dynamics of the awarding of the Eagle Cross can be read as a warming of relations with Germany and a certain cooling with Poland before the Second World War.” Unfor­tunately, the author of these lines does not currently know whether any author has already made such a comparison for other relevant countries.

Obviously, the author’s claim that writing about intelligence coopera­tion and intelligence in general is a very thankless task is not very original because of a certain prejudiced attitude that already covers the entire topic in advance and due to the usual scarcity of sources in the case of secret services. Estonia is no exception here, in terms of both the participants themselves and the sources. The Second World War and the Soviet era have had a downright catastrophic effect. This topic has been illuminated to some extent. As befits a border country at that time, the picture is mixed.

Tiit Noormets writes that cooperation with British intelligence already began during the War of Independence and the same was true for Latvia. Cooperation with the French was more at French initiative, and there were problems with Lithuania due to their complicated relations with Poland. Japan was added only in 1938. Raimo Pullat has written at length about cooperation with Polish military intelligence. According to him, cooper­ation began as early as the start of the 1920s and was mediated by Polish military attaches in Tallinn. He also writes at length about intelligence con­sultations between Estonia, Poland, Latvia, and Finland. Both the Com­mander-in-Chief General Laidoner and the Chief of Staff General Reek participated in the meetings held in 1935. The latter spoke of the need for joint action aimed at Germany as well. Unfortunately, it is not clear what Reek meant by joint action. According to Urmas Salo, Estonian cooperation with the Germans probably started growing from 1936 and relations with Poland remained close at least until 1938. One must agree with Ivo Juur­vee that in such cases it is very difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish between intelligence cooperation and military contacts. However, the table of the awarding of the Eagle Cross generally confirms Salo’s assessment.

During the Soviet era, KGB officer Leonid Barkov covered the topic of military relations between Estonia and Germany in several of his books in both Estonian and Russian and also in his thesis defended in 1968 at the Tartu State University Faculty of Law. Igor Kopõtin’s study is the most recent and thorough. Kopõtin analyses Germany’s interests in the region, the development of military relations, and their division into legal (mili­tary attaches) and covert (Abwehr activities in Estonia) relations. The lat­ter statement is particularly relevant to technical cooperation, the targets of which were the Soviet Baltic Fleet’s radio communication, the moni­toring of their movements in Estonia’s coastal waters, and other military activities beyond Estonia’s eastern border. Here, Kopõtin sees Estonia’s geographical location as the broader reason for cooperation: “...the bor­der with the Soviet Union, the proximity to Leningrad and its coastline in the Gulf of Finland.” The German navy was also interested in the Esto­nian oil shale industry, which supplied it with fuel. Kopõtin uses the term “German-oriented armed neutrality” to characterise the relations between Estonia and Germany at that time. One can only agree with that assess­ment, considering the relative unpopularity among the wider population of the state of affairs and the mutual cooperation. Magnus Ilmjärv has shed extensive light on this topic. He has written in various publications, rely­ing exclusively on Barkov and the author Joachim Mader, an East German security officer, that in the autumn of 1935, the Military Staff decided to establish ties with Germany (keyword “foreign policy of the the colonels of Pagar Street” (i.e. military) and to initiate intelligence activities against the Soviet Union in cooperation with the Abwehr. In his article, Ivo Juur­vee has drawn attention to Mader’s activities and the origin of his claims in greater detail. However, considering the mutual interest in cooperation, the larger party’s interest was likely decisive, especially since the Abwehr also approached other border and neighbouring countries on a broad front, including Estonia’s direct neighbours Finland and Latvia.

What could be the reason for awarding such a large number of deco­rations to military personnel of another country in such a relatively short period of time under Estonian conditions? Some statistics are needed to begin with. In 1928–40, Eagles were awarded to foreign citizens as follows: Poland 224, Finland 199, Latvia 157, Sweden 97, Hungary 49, France 48, Bel­gium 40, Germany 45, Lithuania 30, Denmark 28, Great Britain 27, Czech­oslovakia 16, and Romania 12. Less than 10 went to other countries. How­ever, it must be taken into account that before the reform implemented by the Decorations Act of 1936, Eagle Crosses were also awarded to diplo­mats, actors from kindred nations, and other foreigners. Hannes Walter has calculated that in 1936–40, the Cross of the Eagle was awarded as fol­lows: Finland 32, Sweden 30, Germany 30, Poland 17, and Latvia 11 (again, less than 10 went to other countries). Walter’s numbers do not match those of the Government Chancellery, therefore the author counted the foreign­ers awarded the Cross of the Eagle after 7 October 1936 with the following results: Germany 30, Sweden 30, Finland 27, Poland 16, France 7, Latvia 5, and Lithuania 4, along with a few individual crosses per country (of the new actors, Japan with 3 Crosses of the Eagle, but these were due more to protocol, i.e. given to military attaches). In summary, it can be said that the previous cooperation partners did not disappear, but Germany had come on strong as a new actor. Polish military cooperation had been ongoing since the 1920s and its prominent figures had received their awards by the second half of the 1930s, as had Finns and Latvians. The British, whose leg­islation does not allow them to accept orders from other countries while in state service (the only recipient of the award during this period was a member of the Defence League), are completely out of this picture. How­ever, Germany did not suddenly emerge out of nowhere. The number of Eagle Crosses awarded to them can be seen as a sign of the intensity of military cooperation between the two countries. Cooperation with foreign intelligence services that viewed Estonia, if not amicably, then at least neu­trally was an obvious necessity for a small country. Nothing of the sort was possible with the Soviet Union, which was clearly hostile towards Estonia; rather, they were in constant conflict with them.

Colonel Ludvig Jakobsen, Estonian Military Attaché in Berlin, explains this practice of exchanging decorations in his letter of 6 May 1939 to the head of the 2nd Department: “By awarding decorations, we can express our gratitude to the German army for the constant hospitality that it has shown towards us, allowing a relatively large number of Estonian officers to continue their education in educational institutions and military units. The Finnish state, whose military personnel have been here in much smaller numbers in recent years, only recently awarded nearly 30 higher decorations to the German military /…/”. From the Estonian side, almost the entire field of military cooperation appears to have been covered. It currently seems that in this light, the Abwehr initiative to start intelligence cooperation was the first step, which was followed by other areas of activity – the acquisi­tion of military equipment from Germany led to interaction with intend­ants (in addition to direct communication with military industrial com­panies), in the field of military medicine and, as a sub-branch of Abwehr cooperation, in the field of communications and ciphering. Military educa­tion played its part (especially studies at the Military Academy and in the field of engineering, resulting from General Rieberg’s visit). The positions of bearers of the Cross of the Eagle in various units (but with an emphasis on the Abwehr) seem to confirm the statement made at the beginning of the article. In any case, it was a custom that clearly visualised cooperation. At least the Estonian side quite clearly intended to express appreciation of mutual cooperation in this way, identifying certain individuals for this purpose. At any rate, the undersigned argues that in light of the available sources, it was more than just military contacts between the two countries, i.e. confirmation of Igor Kopõtin’s thesis of armed neutrality towards Ger­many. However, as the situation changed – and despite the personal sym­pathies of the parties involved – the larger party had no problem changing direction and entering into close cooperation with another major power.