...
QAnd were these individual people that you speak of a part of the police organizations, or were they just -
AYes, there were also members of the police. Higher leaders could also have been among them.
QThen, I understand our testimony that they had these police agencies supervising the actions of the Commanders of the Wehrmacht or of the Army?
ANo, no, that was not the case. Particular agencies belonging to the police who supervised us were not in existence agencies especially set up for this purpose.
QWhat I am trying to get at is what those agencies were who would report with regard to your activities to the leaders of the Reich.
AWe came into contact with all possible kinds of civilian agencies who were ordered to work in our area and had a say there. There was a Sauchel organization for the employment of labor. There was a Rosenberg organization. The representatives of these agencies heard and saw what we did there and what happened in our areas and they reported, of course, to the higher levels what they did not agree with, when perhaps they had had difficulties either with our Commanders or subordinates of these commanders.
QNow at one time or at least during the war, there was an apparent effort to nazify the Army or make it National Socialistic, is that correct?
AYour Honor, you mean the work done by the National Socialist Guidance Officers on our staff?
QThat's right.
AYes.
QWho were these National Socialist Guidance Officers and what were their functions?
AThey were officers who were selected from all troop formations and staffs who were specially trained for their particular task. They had to convey to uniform idea of total war and other tasks to the troops. And those troops whoes senses during battle were sometimes deadened, had to be mentally educated to one idea and intentions.
QWere these officers under the direct command of the army organization or did they report through independent channels to the higher authorities?
AThese officers were definitely subordinate to their commanders. They had courses and discussions and received new information from time to time from higher quarters, but they ware supervised by the commanders.
QDid they have direct channels of communication to the office in Berlin which had supervision of this matter or did they have to proceed in matters of that kind through army channels?
AI don't know exactly, Your Honor, whether they ever re ported direct too:
I know that the impressions which these officers gained about the troops were certainly not passed on without the knowledge of the commanders.
QThis organization that had this matter under its supervision in the Wehrmacht-OKW, just what did it do with reference to this matter? How did it proceed in bringing about the National Socialization of the army?
AThrough these channels we received a large number of printed communications and documents, according to which the mental attitude of the troops had to be educated. These officers listened to the conferences at the OKW to which they were occasionally called, and learned all the latest news about what was happening in the sphere of total war which should be passed on to the troops, and these ideas they passed on to us.
QThen these officers were sent to the OKW for instructions and reporting?
ANow and again they were called together for conferences and discussions. I don't know what the period of time was in particular, but the National Socialist Guidance Officers were occasionally surrounded to Berlin or womewhere else for conferences.
QAnd on those occasions they would both report and receive instructions, is that right?
AThey received Instructions and reported about the morale of the troops.
QAnd then they came back to the troops and carried out the instructions they had received directly from the OKW, is chat right?
AYour Honor, I must state once again that the activity of these officers among the troops was responsibly conducted by the commanders. Against our wishes, nothing happened at all. I can say for myself personally that these Guidance Officers in my entire army area were not only called together by me once but quite often for discussions, and these discussions were directed by the guidance officer of the army, and this officer passed on the information which he had received. But there was no information passed on which I had not personally discussed beforehand with these Guidance Officers in my army. These guidance officers constituted, I assume that's the connection, no danger at all for us as regards supervision.
QThat is the way you did it in your commands, but how it was done in other com lands, you can't say, I assume.
AI think, Your Honor, that we were all agreed on the fact that the Guidance Officer was an instrument of his commanding officers toward the troops.
THE PRESIDENT:The Tribunal will be in recess for 15 minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL:The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT:Did any others of Defense counsel have any direct examination they desire to make?
DR.MUELLER (Counsel for von Kuechler): Yes. BY DR. MUELLER-TORGOW:
QGeneral, a few questions. Were you ever, in the period in which Field Marshal von Kuechler was Commander-in-Chief of Army Group North, that is, from the 18 January 1942, committed in the area of Army Group North?
ANo.
QFrom which military agency did you receive the directives and orders regarding employment of labor and economic matters to which you referred?
AThere were two channels: the so-called Sauckel Organization and the channel via the economic agencies.
QDid you ever exchange views about measures of an economic or labor political nature agencies of other Army Groups, especially Army Group North?
ANo.
QWere communications from the area of Army group North ever made to you, communications dealing with the economic agencies.
QDid you ever exchange views about measures of an economic or labor political nature agencies of ocher Army Groups, especially Army Group North?
ANo.
QWere communications from the area of Army Group North ever made to you, communications dealing with the economic measures which were described by you?
ANo; I know nothing about what happened with Army Group North.
QWere the economic and staff political matte s in Army Group North and Army Group Center different because the Baltic Countries lay in the real of Army Group North?
AI believe the areas of all Army Groups were quite different from each other.
QIs it correct that not all OKW or OKH orders were sent to all Army Groups or all Armies?
AThere were such cases.
QThat is, cases in which orders were not transmitted to all Armies or Army Groups?
AYes.
QIf I understood you correctly, your statements do not refer to, as far as they cover the period from September 1941, to the area of Army Group North but to the area of Army Group Center?
AI can merely state here anything that concerns my Army and my Army Group and that is my testimony. How things were with one other Army Groups I don't know.
DR.MUELLER-TORGOW: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT:Is there any other direct examination by counsel? You may cross examine.
JUDGE HALE:Mr. Niederman-
MR. NIEDERMAN:Yes, sir?
JUDGEHALE: -- If you are to refer to any documents that are not here will you give us a list?
MR. NIEDERMAN:I think we have translations here of all the documents that we are going to refer to and I will pass them out to you at the time I refer to them, if that is convenient.
JUDGE HALE:Yes.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. NIEDERMAN:
QDefendant, this Exhibit No. 30, which is the new document that was identified this morning, was issued by your Army on 30 May 1943, was it not?
AWhat exhibit is that supposed to be?
QI am reading from the "Political Task of the German Soldier in Russia During the Total War," the pamphlet that was issued by your Army and described by you a short time ago this morning.
AIt was printed under the date of 30 May and issued under that date.
Q 1943. Now, that was almost exactly two years after you issued your first battle instructions for Russia, was it not?
A.Yes.
Q.Now also you referred this morning to exhibit in your document book, I believe No. 20, Reinhardt 204. You will recall that that was an instruction by you to be severe where it is necessary and to be just, and the date I see on that is April, 1944. That is almost three years, is it not, after your first battle instructions in May 1941? So I submit to you now, then, is it not true that asHimmler expressed it, the waste of labor resources by useless exterminations, the fact that the civilians of Russia were driven into partisan warfare, the fact that you were losing the war, is what actually induced you finally, after three years, to issue these kind of instructions?
A.That is completely out of the question, that we in our last emergency took such a measure because the end of the war and defeat was looming ahead, and I really must repudiate such an insinuation.
Q.Well then, we will go into your earlier orders later in the examination. Now I would like todiscuss with you very briefly your participation in the invasions. You participated in the occupation of the Sudetenland?
A.Yes
Q.You were in command a division which participated in the occupation of the rest of Czechoslovakia?
A.Yes.
Q.As one commander of the 4th Panzer Division, you inva ded Poland and reached Warsaw?
A.Yes.
Q.In the offensive against France you were in command of the 41st Corps and invaded, I think, through Luxembourg, did younot?
A.I was Commander of the 41st Panzer Corps. I participated in the war against France, and I went through Luxembourg in the wake of other troops.
Q.In April -
A.I have explicitly stated that was in the wake of other troops in the 2nd wave.
Q.We will just, if we may, make a brief resume here of your testimony. Now, in April, 1941, you invaded Yugoslavia and penetrated to Belgrade?
A.Yes.
Q.Then in the campaign against Russia you invaded from East Prussia towards Leningrad?
A.Yes.
Q.So , in resume again, you participated in all the German invasions with the exception of the Scandinavian Campaign?
A.Yes.
Q.And in each of these you were at the head of the striking force; in each of them you were a spearhead with a mission of particularly strategic importance, with the exception, as you have specified, of France?
A.As I was in charge of a panzer corps, or a panzer division, of course I participated in the first attack with special aims and tasks.
Q.Now, I would like to direct your attention to the Western Campaign.
You recall that you stated that you attended the conference of 20 November, 1939, with Hitler?
A.Yes.
Q.Now you also recall that at that date it had already been determined, had it not, that the neutrality of Holland would be violated?
A.No. There was no mention of a violation of Dutch neutrality. I expressly stated that the conference find my mission were concerned with the so-called "Sofort-Fall" operation,"Sofort-Fall". That is, I waste start my attack if the French or the British invaded Belgium from the west in the direction towards the Ruhr area of Germany, that is, if our opponent had already violated the neutrality of the Low Countries; and I expressly stated before this Tribunal that the main substance of the conference was the question of timing, as to how fast I would be able to make my goal in view of the enemy who was advancing towards me.
Q.And your goal, as you described it, was to make certain objectives in Southern Holland, is that not true?
A.Yes.
Q.Now, you recoil that at that conference there were only a few high-ranking officers and Hitler, in addition to yourself?
A.Yes.
Q.Now, considering the importance of the persons present, and the fact and the status, this did not impress you as a hypothetical conference, did it, but rather a conference concerning events which were to take place?
A.I do notunderstand your question.
Q.Let me approach it from another angle. There was hitler; there was the Chief of the German Army; there wasGoering; there was Halder, several other people whom I do not recall, and you were there. Certainly personages of that status were assembled for an important conference, an importat decision, were they not?
A.Yes.
Q.Did you attend the conference of 23rd November 1939?
A.No.
Q.I notice an entry in Halder's diary, Document NOKW-3140, for that date, which I will show to you.
JUDGE HARDING:What is the exhibit number?
MR. NIEDERMAN:I will get that for you in just one minute. That is Exhibit 1359, if the Court please. BY MR. NIEDERMAN:
Q.It appears from the entry in the diary which states that at twelve o'clock the Fuehrer addressed the Commanding Generals, the Army Commanders, etc., and at 1430 addressed the Division Commanders, that all commanders of your rank were probably there, is it not true? Perhaps I might refresh your memory by reading you a brief excerpt of the speech that Hitler made at that conference. He said; "The permanent sowing of mines on the English coast will bring England to her knees. However, this can only occur if we have occupied Belgium and Holland. Broach of the neutrality of Belgium and Holland is meaningless. No one will question that when we have won." Do you recall hearing that speech?
A.No, I was not present at the conference. I was a Divisional Commander and the document explicitly states Commanding Generals.
Q.I think you misread that, Defendant. The document says that at 1430 the Divisional Commanders were addressed by Hitler.
JUDGE HARDING:What page?
MR. NIEDERMAN:The entry is the 23rd of November, 1930, Page 8 of the document before you.
A.In my document there is no mention of Divisional Commanders. It says, "Address by the Fuehrer to the Troop leaders about projected operations," and the troop leaders referred to must have been those who were there two hours hours previously. BY MR. NIEDERMAN:
Q.I think the document speaks for itself. Now, if we may continue, in an affidavit signed by you, you stated that you participated in a conference in the middle of December concerning tasks given to you for the Western Campaign. Do you recall that?
A.Where did I state that?
Q.And affidavit signed by you, "NOKW-2614, Exhibit 1107, Book XIII, Page 230 of the English, German Book XIII, Part II, Page 339. Did you notice under Arabic numeral 2, subparagraph "b" you state about the middle of December you participated in a meeting in the Reich Chancellory?
A.Yes, that is the conference which is actually corroborated by the diary of General Halder. It took place in November, not in December. It isthe same I referred to .
Q.You mean then that the date in the this affidavit should really read the middle of November rather than the middle of December?
A.The date December is wrong. It ought to read November.
Q.Now -
A.I expressly stated that I was not sosure of the date because I couldn't recollect it.
Q.Yes. I just wanted to clarify whether there was another conference or not. Now, March 1940, you stated you participated in still another meeting with Hitler in which you reported on your intended committment in the Western Campaign. What wasthat committment exactly on which you reported at that time?
A.The committment of my Panzer Corps within the scope of the von Kleist Group in order to take France.
Q.Didn't that mission involve the violation of the neutrality of the Low Countries?
A.This mission had nothing to do with the Low Countries because with my Panzer Corps I was subordinated to the Panzer Group von Kleist and in turn to the Army Group von Runstedt which was to attack in the center of the front. That was not against the Low Countries. I did not go via the Low Countries.
JUDGE HALE:That was the movement by Sedan you spoke of?
THE WITNESS:Yes, that was an attack via Sedan towards the west. Yes, your Honor.
Q (By Mr. Niederman) And the attack did go through Luxembourg, did it not?
AYes.
QAt that conference, didn't Hitler make a speech to everyone assembled?
AI have testified about this conference, that I was the last and the most junior officer who was called into the room in order to report about my mission after the other officers had already reported. There was no address by Hitler at that time.
QYou do not -
AWhat happened before I entered the room, of course I do not know.
QYou don't recall a speech given by Hitler to all the attendees at this conference?
AI know nothing of a speech by Hitler.
QNow, in the discussion of your campaign against Yugoslavia I want again to call your attention to the Halder diary which is still before you, to the entry for 28 March, 1941. That again is NOKW-3140, Exhibit 1359.
JUDGE HALE:Let us in on the page number, please.
MR. NIEDERMAN:I believe it is 31. I am just going to check it. Yes, it is 31, Page 31. It is Page 41 in the German, the entry of 28 March 1941.
QCan you explain to me the sense of that entry, "Temischwar, Reinhardt 41st Motorized Corps"?
AThis entry under the 28th of March, 1941, says that my 41st Panzer Corps, motorized corps, was to be committed at Temischwar, in addition to the other troops which were made subordinate to me subsequently.
QWell, that is the sense I gathered from it too.
ANow, in conjunction with this I may perhaps state that General Halder has already testified here that my Corps Headquarters was subsequently destined, in addition to the other troops, to carry out the attack.
QYou did, in fact, launch your attack into Yugoslavia from Temischwar, didn't you?
AYes.
QSo that on the 28th of March, at any rate, it had been fully determined that that was what was to happen. Now, I would like to talk to you about your attack against Russia. Shortly after that attack you recall you took the town of Tauroggen, spelled T-a-u-r-o-g-g-e-n ?
AYes.
QYou also recall that in your briefing of the 2nd of May 1941, about which you testified yesterday, one of your objectives was the town of Tauroggen?
AOn the 2nd of May, 1941, as far as I recall, I think it is supposed to be in a document. I received my briefing with my mission with the Panzer Group.
QAnd do you recall that the seizure of this town of Tauroggen was one of your first objectives?
AYes.
QSo that the actual attack, therefore, was in fact a culmination of the planning which was started, at least, on the 2nd of May, 1941?
AIn the directive received by the Panzer Corps on the 2nd of May, 1941, the mission was designated. That was my mission, to prepare the committment within the scope of the Panzer Group Hoeppner with my objective the capture of Tauroggen.
QYou will recall that you testified concerning NOKW-2510, that is Exhibit 1226, in Document Book XVII, Part II. That is Page 52 of the English, 88 of the German. I want to show you that document again. This is the document about which you testified yesterday as being signed by you, issued on 11 May 1941, and consisting of battle instructions for the Russian invasion. Do you recall that?
AYes.
QAnd you further testified that they were battle instructions issued by you to acquaint your Divisional Commanders with their tasks in the impending engagement?
AYes.
QAt that time you already considered war against Russia as inevitable did you not?
AI expressly stated -- No, I didn't. I stated that I carried out preparatory work in accordance with the mission which I had received for a war against Russia, which might come about tut which was not bound to happen. It was a preparation without any knowledge as to whether be war with Russia, but a preparatory task, as seen from the military point of view, probably occurs frequently and is not always carried out.
QBut then in the first sentence of this order you say, "The war against Russia is the inevitable result of the struggle for survival forced upon us". What do you mean by that?
AIf a war with Russia was to come, a contingency which I could not foresee, then this sentence had validity. The first sentence then states, "the stake for which we had to fight, and the troops or the commanding officers were to be aligned in that direction."
QYou will notice further in the first paragraph, again you discuss the old fight of the Germanic race against the Slavs, the defense of European culture, and the thrusting back of Jewish Bolshevism. That sounds very much, does it not, as the same sort of order that the Nazis, that the National Socialists would issue?
AI have not got a question yet.
QI repeat my question. That is the same sort of order, is it not, that the National Socialists were issuing concerning Russia in this and later periods of time?
AThis wording is a verbatim reproduction from an order which we received from top level. It states explicitly under the last paragraph, quotation, in brackets "Contains excerpt from Enclosure 2 of Commander of Panzer Group 4", etc. Now, you only add such a thing in exceptional cases. That was done by the leading official whenever he wanted to explain that he did not identify himself with the wording but was compelled to transmit it, in order to show that he was not the author of the wording.
QAnd, therefore, you felt compelled, did you not, to pass on all orders from higher levels whether you identified yourself with such orders or not?
Is that question clear? Perhaps I can make it a little clearer for you. You would pass on all orders from higher levels whether you agreed with them or not, wouldn't you?
ANo. I expressly transmitted the wording which was not my own, and in brackets I stated the source, but whatever had been ordered from top level, as in this case, everything concerning the fight, had to be transmitted.
QIn the second paragraph I notice you state, "The fight must be conducted with utter ruthlessness. The complete merciless annihilation of the enemy must be the inflexible purpose. In particular no mercy must be shown to the followers of the present Russian Bolshevist system." Did you define in your mind commissars as the followers of the present Russian Bolshevist system?
AFirst of all the task of the Wehrmacht in wartime is to annihilate their enemy. In the second place, whether in dealing with this combot directive at the beginning of May, 1941, I oven knew of the existence of commissars, I don't know. I cannot tell you. At any rate, the Commissar Order had not existed at that time. I only received it at the beginning of June.
QIn any event, it was not abhorrent to you personally, was it, that whoever they might be, that the representatives of the Russian Bolshevist system should be shown no mercy?
AIf he appeared as the enemy - we didn't know definitely in what from he would show himself then certainly.
QYou have testified that you orally received the Commissar order from your superior Hoeppner, did you not?
AWhether I received it orally or in writing, I do not know, but I did receive it from the Panzer Group 4. That is certain.
QYou did see a printed copy of that Commissar Order, did you not?
AI believe I did; possibly it was read to me; I don't know.
QYou also testified that you thereafter orally transmitted this order to all subordinate commanders. Now, that oral distribution was in accord with the provisions of the Commissar Order which provided that oral distribution should be made to lower commanders, wasn't it?
AI believe it was ordered so.
QCan you now recall who was present at the conference in which you made this oral distribution of the Commissar Order?
AI have testified previously that it was attended by the commanders of the two panzer divisions, the 1st and the 6th Panzer Division.
QWill you give their names, please; one moment, please. Will you give the names of these individuals?
AGeneral Kirchner of the 1st Panzer Division, and General Landgraf of the 6th Panzer Division. And I believe I am almost certain in saying that the two 1-C officers attached to the divisions were present.
QWas anyone else present?
AYes. I can't say for certain, but I em almost certain that the conference was attended by the Commander of the 269th Division and his 1-C Officer, that was General von Leyser; the Commander of the 36th Motorized Division was probably not present, that was General Ostfacher, because this division in the last days had only been sent to me from the zone of interior in Germany. Now, if there is any doubt in my mind as to the attendance of General von Leyser of the 269th Division, then that is due to the fact that this division was an infantry division and was committed for the protection of the frontier, whereas we others were in East Prussia in reserve.