Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-21/tgmwc-21-199.09
Last-Modified: 2000/11/14

THE PRESIDENT: Does the prosecution wish to cross-examine?

CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY GENERAL TELFORD TAYLOR:

Q. Witness Brauchitsch, counsel for the General Staff has
made reference to two - Can you hear me? Can the witness
hear me?

A. Yes.

Q. Counsel for the General Staff has made reference to two
affidavits which you signed. Did you have full opportunity
to make changes in those affidavits before you signed them?

A. Yes.

Q. I will ask that a copy of the original of affidavit No. 2
be shown to you. Did you, in fact, make changes in the
affidavits before you signed them?

A. I did not understand your question.

Q. Did you make changes in the affidavits before you signed
them?

A. I made a few changes in them.

Q. Will you please look at the last sentence in the
affidavit that I have just handed you? Is that sentence -

A. Which part do you mean?

Q. The very last sentence, Page 2. Is that last sentence
entirely in your own handwriting?

A. Yes.

Q. And that last sentence, would you read it, please? Would
you please read the last sentence in your own handwriting?

A. "In the hands of those departments shown in the chart
was, in fact, the direction of the armed forces."

Q. Is that sentence, as you wrote it, correct?

A. Supplementary to what I said before, I had pointed out
that the chart might lead to misunderstanding, whereupon I
was told that that was already known. For that reason I
connected the chart with the departments of the hierarchy.

Q. The chart is attached to the affidavit which you signed
and the last sentence, as you have read it, says that, "in
the hands of those departments shown in the chart was, in
fact, the direction of the armed forces." There is no
misunderstanding or qualification about that sentence, is
there?

A. General, only as far as I have pointed it out that the
individual sections of the staffs did not fit in as shown in
the chart, but belonged directly to them and that in reality
all the other sections of the working staffs belonged to
them too.

GENERAL TELFORD TAYLOR: Your Honour, with respect to the
question concerning the Eastern Front, I am bearing in mind
that the witness von Mannstein, who is next to be called,
was on the Eastern Front and remained there until 1944,
while the witness von Brauchitsch retired in 1941. The
prosecution prefers to reserve this question on those
matters for the witness von Mannstein. With respect to the
questions on aggressive warfare, those relate almost
entirely to documents which have been before the Tribunal
for a long time. The American prosecution sees nothing to be
gained by putting those documents to this witness. It is
entirely a matter of argument which will be made at a proper
time. Accordingly, the American prosecution has no further
questions to the witness.

THE PRESIDENT: Do the Chief Prosecutors wish to ask any
questions?

                                                   [Page 37]

BY GENERAL ALEXANDROV:

Q. Witness, you stated here today that the planning
concerning the seizure of Czechoslovakia did not exist, and
that in any case you were not informed about it. Did I
understand you correctly?

A. Yes.

Q. And you were not aware of "Case Green"?

A. "Case Green" was known to me but it referred to something
quite different. "Case Green" was prepared earlier, based on
the assumption that a joint attack by France and
Czechoslovakia was to take place against Germany. Thus the
problems were treated before my time. I myself did not know
the details of "Case Green."

Q. But "Case Green" dealt with the seizure of
Czechoslovakia, is that right? I repeat the plan called
"Case Green" was a plan for the seizure and attacking of
Czechoslovakia, was it not?

A. As far as I know, "Case Green" was only connected with an
attack without a declaration of war on the part of France
and Czechoslovakia.

Q. In that case, I shall remind you of another document. I
mean Hitler's decree of 30th May, 1938, the first copy of
which was sent to you as Commander-in-Chief of the land
forces. This directive was issued for the purpose of
fulfilling "Case Green." I shall read into the record clause
one of the second paragraph of the decree, which states:

  "It is my firm decision that Czechoslovakia, in the near
  future, will have to be conquered thoroughly by means of
  a decisive military operation."

Did you have knowledge of that directive?

A. Yes, I know that directive.

Q. Thus there was really a plan for seizure and invading
Czechoslovakia, is that not so?

A. I do not understand the meaning of that question.

Q. I am asking you, was there actually a plan for the
seizure of Czechoslovakia, or not?

A. In May, 1938, Hitler told me about that idea of his for
the first time. But you have to take into consideration in
this connection that Hitler, as is generally known, always
expressed himself in the strongest terms. It was extremely
difficult for one to discern Hitler's actual will from his
speeches.

Q. The next question is this. Tell me, witness, by what
means did you learn about conversations between General
Wagner and Heydrich, the Chief of the Security Police and
the Security Service? How did you know that talks c, ere
taking place between those two men?

A. From a report received from General Wagner.

Q. Was General Wagner subordinate to your office?

A. He came under the Chief of the General Staff and as such
he was subordinate to me.

Q. That means that the talks between General Wagner and
Heydrich were taking place with your knowledge?

A. I do not understand.

Q. I repeat it, that means that the talks between General
Wagner and Heydrich were taking place with your knowledge?

A. It was reported to me afterwards.

Q. And you assert that you did not know anything either
about the tactical activity of the "action" groups of
police, which were created as a result of these talks, or
about the fact of their close co-operation with the armed
forces.

A. I shall repeat my previous testimony. There was an order
of the OKW to the effect that the Reichsfuehrer SS was to
set up "operational" units and they were to prepare the
necessary steps for the transfer of States to political
States. Nothing more than that was ever known to me and the
General did not make a

                                                   [Page 38]

report to me. No other reports of that kind ever reached me.
Had I received such reports I would have taken steps against
them just as in the case of Poland. I would not have
connived at them in any way had I known of them.

Q. You were not even aware of the fact that these
Einsatzkommandos worked in close contact with the Army
Command. Did you know about that?

A. No, they did not work together with the Commands of the
Wehrmacht or of the Army.

Q. I shall quote an extract from Document L-180, which is a
report of the Einsatz group of the SD on 15th October, 1941.
The report of this Einsatz group states.

  "Einsatz group A, after preparing their vehicles for
  action; proceeded to their area of concentration, as
  ordered, on 23rd June, 1941, the second day of the
  campaign in the East. Army Group North consisting of the
  16th and 18th Armies and Panzer Group 4 had left the day
  before.
  
  Our task was hurriedly to establish personal contact with
  the commanders of the armies and with the commander of
  the army of the rear area. It must be stressed from the
  beginning that co-operation with the armed forces was
  generally good, in some cases, for instance, with Panzer
  Group 4 under General Hoeppner, it was very close, almost
  cordial."

And farther on:

  "At the start of the Eastern campaign it became obvious
  with regard to the Security Police that its special work
  had to be done not only in the rear area of the armies as
  was provided for in the original agreements with the High
  Command of the Army, but also in the combat areas."

Q. Did you have knowledge about such a close contact between
these Einsatz groups and the OKW?

A. No report reached me about it and consequently I knew
nothing about it.

Q. You stated here that you had cancelled Hitler's decrees
about the shooting of captured Soviet Commissars. Did I
understand you right?

A. Yes.

Q. What was Hitler's reaction to your disregarding this
decree?

A. He never said anything to me about it - I do not know, he
never reacted.

Q. And you never notified Hitler that you were suspending
his decree?

A. No.

Q. How did it happen that actually the decree was carried
out, as a great many Soviet Commissars were annihilated by
the German armed forces?

A. I am not in a position to answer that because I never
received a report about it. I only received a report that
the order had not been carried out.

Q. Now a last question. When counsel for the defence asked
you your reasons for leaving the Army you stated that you
retired because of differences of opinion about Hitler's
policy and, because of these differences, you asked for and
received the right to resign. Is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. That means that those generals of the German Army who did
not agree with Hitler's policy and his form of government
did have the right to resign and not to follow this policy.
Is that correct?

A. Unfortunately, no. Hitler had explicitly decreed that no
one was allowed to leave his command. One could not go even
if one wanted to. In my case it suited him, because he
needed a scapegoat for the failure of the Russian winter
campaign. That was expressed later on in the propaganda
spread in Germany, which blamed me for these matters.

GENERAL ALEXANDROV: I have no further questions, Mr.
President.

                                                   [Page 39]

RE-EXAMINATION

BY DR. LATERNSER:

Q. I have only a very few questions, which I wish to put
following the cross-examination. In this Document L-180,
which has just been quoted by the Russian Prosecutor,
Generaloberst Hoeppner is mentioned. Did you know General
Hoeppner well?

A. I have known him since 1914. He was my Chief of Staff in
East Prussia and therefore I knew him extremely well.

Q. You surely knew his attitude then with regard to the use
of violence, such as was displayed later on by the Einsatz
forces?

A. General Hoeppner was a straightforward and honest
soldier. He would refuse to do anything which would not be
in keeping with his education and his training.

Q. Is General Hoeppner alive?

A. He became a victim of the events of 20th July.

Q. In other words, it was because of his action against such
methods that he was sentenced to death. Is that right?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. Could you explain how it was possible that, according to
the report, an almost cordial co-operation was said by the
writer to have existed between the Einsatz group and General
Hoeppner?

A. The only way I could explain what happened, as I said
earlier in my testimony in regard to my negotiation with
General Wagner and the leader of the SS department,
Heydrich, is that there might have been co-operation at the
actual fighting front. Conditions in the North were
extraordinarily difficult. The tanks were in front, part of
the Russians were behind them and behind them again the
German divisions. There were the difficulties of bringing up
reinforcements and supplies. I can well imagine that these
groups may have assisted in securing communication lines. As
already stated, I never received reports about that.

Q. Did you know General Wagner well?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. What was his attitude in regard to such methods of
violence?

A. He committed suicide on 20th July, 1942. He was in any
case against any measures which would have been a
contradiction of rights, decency and humanity or any
violation of the rules of the Hague and the Geneva
Conventions.

Q. One would have expected that if he knew through a
conference with Heydrich that mass executions were to be
effected by these special Einsatz units, in view of his own
attitude he would have made a report to you.

A. Yes, surely.

Q. Thank you, I have no further questions.

THE PRESIDENT: Witness, you read the evidence of the witness
Gisevius?

THE WITNESS: Yes, Sir.

THE PRESIDENT: And are you telling the Tribunal that in so
far as it refers to yourself it is entirely untrue?

THE WITNESS: Yes, Sir.

THE PRESIDENT: Now I want to ask you another question. When
the Commissar order was communicated to you, before the war
upon the Soviet Union was made, what orders did you give?

THE WITNESS: I gave the order, which I mentioned earlier, to
maintain discipline and see that correct treatment was to be
accorded to the population by the German soldiers, and that
all excesses were to be punished.

                                                   [Page 40]

THE PRESIDENT: That is to say that you did not give any
order directly referring to the Commissar Order?

THE WITNESS: No, I could not rescind the order directly, but
I did give an order which was unmistakable and which gave my
views and convictions.

THE PRESIDENT: You gave your order in writing, did you?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: And are you telling the Tribunal that you
never knew during the rest of 1941 that the Commissar Order
was being carried out?

THE WITNESS: Mr. President, I am not trying to tell stories.
I am merely telling the truth when I say that I did not
receive any reports on it and consequently cannot say
anything about it. Wherever I made inquiries about it I only
received the information that the order was not being
carried out.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, then you are saying that as far as you
know it was not carried out until the time you retired?

THE WITNESS: Yes, and more I cannot say, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: I am only trying to find out what you do say.
The witness can now retire.

THE WITNESS: Mr. President -

THE PRESIDENT: Witness, did you want to say anything more?

THE WITNESS: No, Mr. President.

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor