Court No. II, Case No. IX.
I can not judge here, that it is unethical and criminal on both sides, just because I do not know the very last reasons which caused the supreme commanders of States togive such orders.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, then if the Chiefs of States decree a certain program, then it is not for you to say if that program is legal; is that what you are telling us?
THE WITNESS: First, it is my opinion that I am not entitled to judge the highest authorities of a State; I am not competent to tell, but I can not overlook the entire connection and the valid reason which would enable me to judge now: ethical or unethical.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I understood you to say that taking everything into consideration, the nature of modern warfare, and you even gave an illustration from the First World War, that in taking all that into consideration, you don't see how it would be just, to declare that the war in the East was unethical, that is, the methods of the prosecution of the war in the East were unethical. Did I understand you correctly to say that?
THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor, as part of these total events which were so great and so important, not only on this one point but on many other points, I can not pass such a judgment. BY DR. MAYER: agreed with International Law? right nor a duty to examine whether an order agrees with International Law. In Germany, according to German circumstances, neither at the time of the Weimar Republic, nor after 1933, was this possible. From my study of law I remember that already in peacetime not even a judge was entitled to examine whether a law conformed to the International Law or not, but so far as I remember there was only one agency, and this was the National Court. I remember that the officials and the soldiers even more so had Court No. II, Case No. IX.
to carry out such orders and laws, and it was up to the administrative officials to think of the difficulties which might arise, concerning International Law. was also mentioned by the prosecution make it a duty for you to check up on this? the company leader, or, towards a battalion commander, for example. But in every state there is and must be one highest authority where nobody can examine this any further, because Adolph Hitler as the legislator could have changed this any time through a law which could have taken this limitation out of paragraph 47. He had the right to do that in accordance with the Constitution.
THE PRESIDENT: That as a matter of fact he did not say so, therefore, it was not in existence, was it?
THE WITNESS: Right, Your Honor, but I think it is not applicable to the Supreme Commander and the Legislator.
Court No. II, Case No. IX.
BY DR. MAYER:
Q This order of Hitler you, therefore, consider legal? The supreme head of state had the right by constitution to decide about war or peace and, therefore, as reality showed in modern warfare, to decide about the lives of millions of people. He also had to decide what was necessary in order to win this war. came to such conclusions on your own decision and on your own will, did you carry out the order and act according to the order on your own authority?
A No. I did not carry out this order on my own free will and on my own decision. I would never have acted in such a manner if I had been able to make a decision myself. I considered myself here a small wheel in a large machinery, the connection of which I could not overlook, although it was my absolute duty as a soldier to obey. And, therefore, I had no possibility of evading, avoiding or preventing this order in any way.
BY THE PRESIDENT: issue orders? the war is the only competent authority. the right to issue such orders as he deemed necessary to win the war?
A No, Your Honor. I believe that one has to leave the decision of what is necessary in a war up to the supreme commander. He is responsible for it. of the state to issue such orders as he deemed necessary to Win the war? supreme Head of State according to the constitution. Another question is Court No. II, Case No. IX.
whether one entirely agrees to it.
Q Well, you have merely put it in other words. I said that you intellectually agreed that since Hitler was the supreme chief of the German Reich that ha had the right to issue such orders as he deemed necessary to win the war. That is a logical conclusion on your part, is it not? that right. But, he must be held responsible. the situation in which I was in the east there was no choice for me but to obey.
DR. MAYER: Your Honor, I believe that part of the testimony of the witness did not quite come through in the translation. Seeing the importance of this matter, it seems necessary to me to explain and establish this, because such omissions may help to give this a different sense. I, therefore, ask that the interpreter be so kind and go back three or four sentences and read out the sentence again which left out the statement of the witness "in order to win the war". I ask the witness in particular to take note of this. My colleague, Gawlik, just tells me it concerns the question where this sentence "in order to win the war" was not translated.
PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Mayer. Why don't you do it this way, just please repeat the question and we will go over that ground again so that there can be no doubt that the witness views acre actually reported?
WITNESS: Well, I don't know which sentence you are referring to.
PRESIDENT: Why don't you ask that question again?
DR. MAYER: Your Honor, I think this will be explained when I see the transcript and then I can correct this with the aid of the English record. Your Honor, it was your own question where this part was left out in the interpretation. The reporter will have it in the English record. It is a question which the President addressed to the witness.
Court No. II, Case No. IX.
I, therefore, ask that the reporter would mention this in this report.
PRESIDENT: If you would like to have the reporter read it back now, we will gladly ask her to do so, if you can identify the sentence or give us an idea where that sentence occurred, and then she can read a little before and go through to a little bit afterward.
DR. MAYER: I, myself, of course, did not take stenographic notes so that the actual formation of the question I cannot remember any more in particular, as I eagerly followed the answers by the witness. The question was, as my colleague, Gawlik, just tells me, was whether in the opinion of the witness the supreme head of State would be allowed to issue any order which he considered necessary in order to win the war, and "in order to win the war" was left out on the record.
PRESIDENT: Yes. Now, that is a very important part of the question.
BY THE PRESIDENT: tellectually accept that the supreme ruler of the state, Adolf Hitler, had the right to issue such orders as he deemed necessary to win the war? head of state such power to give such orders which he considers necessary in his inner conviction in order to win the war.
Q Well, then you answered it, "Yes"? personal view of this order and, therefore, I have to say "Yes" from a legal point of view. BY DR. MAYER: object to obeying this order? I was only a small wheel, there was for me no such possibility. To refuse to obey an order in front of the enemy would have only meant death for me. BY THE PRESIDENT:
Court No. II, Case No. IX.
meant that as a humane individual you did not like to put into affect an order which would destroy innocent human beings, is that right? thought this was necessary then it was necessary because we have to obey the supreme chief--did you come to that conclusion intellectually? then I, as a small wheel cannot judge and decide that such a thing is not necessary. May I conclude this, Your Honor, I would like to make the same restriction here as on the question of being ethical or unethical, Here again I can only say what is necessary, after all and what is not necessary can only be decided by that man who can overlook the entire situation and who bears the entire responsibility.
Q Yes. You have told us that, and there is no question about your statement in that respect. Now, did it ever occur to you intellectually-let's leave out the sentiment--just intellectually to revolve in your mind without expressing it whether there was the necessity to kill these people or not--did you ever in your brain just try to reason out whether in your own mental laboratory you tried to figure out whether Hitler had a logical reason to say it was necessary to kill these people in order to win the war? as how -
Q Well, no, you didn't answer my question. I only asked you whether you at any time in your own thoughts deliberated as to whether Hitler was right in his conclusion that it was necessary to kill these people in order to win the war? whether this conclusion by Hitler was right or not because-
Court No. II, Case No. IX.
Q But, witness, you don't listen to the question. I have only asked you whether you ever thought about it. I am not asking what conclusion you came to. result somehow. I would like to say I considered the order wrong because of the effects which would result from it, but whether it was necessary, whether Hitler considered it necessary in order to win this fight, for our existence, that I cannot judge. war to carry out this order?
DR. MAYER: Your Honor, may I address another question which will probably make the witness understand?
THE PRESIDENT: Surely.
BY DR. MAYER: after you had left the East, from discussions with comrades or from your studies, or from the situation reports that you somehow doubted the necessity of this Fuehrer order? about it, whether it was necessary, but I could not draw any conclusion and I still cannot until now, because I could not understand the conditions and overlook the entire situation. consider what were the motives of this order? necessary was the dispute with Russia which was not only a war between the West and the East, but where he had an enemy who from the very beginning put himself beyond all rules of international law. I would like to say that he thought that the end justified the means that owing to this special situation he drew this conclusion and took this responsibility before God and History.
Court No. II, Case No. IX.
you learnt: Did you not go through considerations to the effect that concerning the facts themselves you drew soma conclusions about what might have caused this order to be given? the first day on,the enemy fought beyond all rules of international law. I know that Russia throughout the revolution, fought in the partisan battles, where women, man and children took part and considered this part of the warfare. I can imagine that such considerations caused the supreme head of the state to give such orders with the conviction that against an enemy who fought with such means, the war would be lost right from the start if one fought it on a basis of a Geneva Convention of the Hague Laws of warfare, but this is only an idea. Whether this is so, I don't know. I only know so much, that the order was made known and the reason which was given was that it was a fight for our existence, that the Jews in the East were the decisive bearer of Communism and its illegal manner of fighting. As far as I remember, those were the official reasons which were made known. BY THE PRESIDENT: enemy was fighting illegally, and that Hitler, having this over-all view of everything, could know what to do, do you now tell us that since Hitler had that benefit of knowledge and facts and you yourself knew that the enemy was fighting illegally, that you therefore accepted the order intellectually in order to win the war? considered it necessary, but whether it really was necessary, I cannot judge from my own limited experience. I cannot pass a judgment about orders given by the supreme commander and the head of the state.
Q Let's use an illustration. Suppose a soldier in war, let's say an artillery officer, is ordered to destroy a certain bridge on the theory that by destroying that bridge the enemy may not be able to get supplies. Now, the soldier knows that even if he destroys this bridge, there are Court No. II, Case No. IX.
five other bridges so therefore nothing is accomplished in destroying this one bridge, but since it is an order he destroys the bridge. But in his own mind, he is of the opinion that the order was certainly a very bad order because it didn't achieve and couldn't achieve what it was supposed to do. You can understand that illustration, can't you?
Q All right, we at least got that far. Now, did you at any time reason in your mind whether what Hitler was attempting to do with this order would achieve its objective? judgment whether it achieved its purpose. I cannot judge this.
Q Then you say that it could possible leave achieved its objective?
Q Well, you won't say that it would not achieve its objective and you won't say that it could achieve its objective, but you didn't in your own mind attempt to determine whether there was any sense to the order or not? not decide. I cannot come to any decision, because I simply do not have the basis for it. Your Honor, I am under oath here. I do not know when I say yes or no now what is the right thing to do. What can my conscience answer for?
Q Well, please don't ever entertain in your mind the thought for an instant that attempt is being made to have you answer on, way or another for the purpose of in any way tripping you in your position. It is merely an effort to get at your conclusions, just why you did curtain things. That is the only way the issue can be decided by the Tribunal.
A I understand, Your Honor, and I don't think of anything else,
PRESIDENT: Proceed, Doctor Mayer. BY DR. MAYER:
Court No. II, Case No. IX.
of refusing to obey the order, and you explained that in your opinion a refusal to obey the order by you would have meant death for you. What reasons did you have to believe that? enemy could only result in execution. gruppe you came under a particularly severe martial law? already said about the SS and police jurisdiction, I cannot add anything further.
Q In view of the situation, should you not have made that sacrifice?
A I don't know whether one can expect a man to sacrifice himself to such an extent, end in particular under such circumstances, but such a self-sacrifice would at least have to have some purpose, but any sacrifice would not have helped at all. In my opinion, it would not have stopped this order from being carried out.
Q Could you not evade this task under some pretense? seeing that I was in the East in the middle of these events. by being sick, and, therefore, have made it impossible to be sent to the East? of tasks would be given to me in the Fast, and every soldier knows that one cannot go to a superior and tell him, "I am sick, please send me home," In any case, in my situation it wouldn't have been like that.
Q But didn't you have a possibility of desertion? existence, but I shall certainly not desert and run over to an enemy like the Bolshevists. BY THE PRESIDENT:
Court No. II, Case No. IX.
Ohlendorf, did ha discuss with you the nature of the duties which were awaiting you in Russia? already mentioned. He was in a hurry. We only talked briefly about matters and then I made efforts to get the car and the driver. During the journey, I wasn't in Ohlendorf's car for three or four days. That must have been a mistake in his statement, because he travelled together with Minister Lie and I travelled in my car with my driver throughout the whole journey, so that even there I had no opportunity to discuss this with Herr Ohlendorf, but I can only assure you again that the special task which is contained in the Fuehrer order I heard about for the first time in Nikolaiew.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess until tomorrow morning at 9:30.
(The Tribunal recessed until 26 November 1947 at 0930 hours.)
THE MARSHAL: The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal II. able Tribunal.
JUDGE SPEIGHT: Witness, raise your right hand. Now, repeat the oath after me: will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
JUDGE SPEIGHT: You may be seated.
DR. RIEDIGER: Your Honor, may I now start to examine the witness?
PRESIDENT: You may if you will, Dr. Riediger. testified as follows:
Q. Frau Weinmann, will you please tell us when and where you were born?
A. I was born 7 August 1911 in Reutlingen, in Wuertemberg.
Q. Where is your permanent address now?
A. In Reutlingen, Schumann Street 15.
Q. Do you know Herr Walter Haensch?
A. Yes.
Q. When and where did you meet him?
A. In Berlin during a small invitation. It might have been in '39 or '40.
Q. After meeting him did you meet him again repeatedly, after this?
A. No, I cannot remember that.
Q. When did you meet Haensch again?
A. At the end of February 1942.
Q. On what occasion?
A. Herr Haensch and my husband travelled together from a station in Berlin, I believe it was Charlottenburg station.......they travelled to the East.
Q. Do you know exactly that this was at the end of February 1942, and do you have a special reason for remembering that?
A. Yes. On 6 February 1942 my second child was born in Berlin.
Q. How old was the child when your husband and Herr Haensch started to go to the East......started out on this journey?
A. I know this almost exactly, because my mother-inlaw was in Berlin at the time, and I told her, "Well, the child is just three weeks old, and father already has to leave". I was very worried about this because already then things were very dangerous because of the air raids attacks. We women were Very much afraid to be left alone like this with the two small children and to have to do without my husband.
Q. Do you know whether your husband and Haensch travelled immediately to this commando of which he was going to put in charge, or whether this journey was interrupted at all?
A. Yes. In the first letter which I received from my husband it said that they had stayed in Luov and Kiev for a few days during the journey, and after they had finished travelling by train they had to travel by car for some distance.
Q. Do you know when your husband arrived at the front?
A. That must have taken a long time from Berlin to the point where he was assigned because I had to wait a long time for the first letter, but from his explanations I realized that he had already written from the place from where he had arrived one or two days after he arrived there.
Q. Can you not give any further dates.....no more exact dates?
A. No, I cannot do that.
Q. Do you know when your husband heard that he was to be assigned in the East?
A. That must have been sometime before the child was born because I always said I hoped that he would still be there when the child would be born; and then he was there on 6 February. The actual time of his departure he only heard about a week before because everything happened very quickly, then.
Q. That was the actual departure. But concerning his assignment to the East, you just said he already heard about it before the child was born?
A. Yes.
DR. RIEDIGER: I have no further questions of the witness.
PRESIDENT: Very well. Cross examination, Mr. Hochwald.
By MR. HOCHWALD:
Q. Witness, were you a member of the Nazi Party?
A. No.
Q. Were you a member of one of the affiliations of the Nazi Party?
A. No.
Q. Your husband was a member of the SS, was he not?
A. Yes.
Q. What was his rank?
A. At what time?
Q. 1939 to 1945.
A. In 1939 my husband was Sturmbannfuehrer to Obersturmbannfuehrer. I am sorry, I don't know exactly any more, but in 1945 he was Oberfuehrer.
Q. You said that you met the defendant, Haensch in 1939, and then you did not see him up to February 1942, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. When he went with your husband to the East, was your husband assigned to an Einsatzkommando or an Einsatzgruppe in the East?
A. The word "Einsatzkommando" I believe, I only properly got to know. At the time I Knew that my man was going to be put in charge of a commando in the East.
Q. Is it known to you whether Haensch was supposed to serve together with your husband?
A. I Knew that they left Berlin at the same time, but I also knew at the time that they were being sent to different destinations.
Q. Now I want to speak to you about a letter to which you have referred, which was written by your husband and and from which you deduced that Haensch came very much later to his assignment.
There were different assignments. May I assume that your husband wrote to you in this letter "Haensch and I" or "I and Haensch", or that he wrote "we", and you were of the opinion that that was Haensch. Can you tell the Tribunal whether the name of Haensch appeared in this letter you have been referring to just now, or whether your husband wrote just generally about the delay of his assignment?
A. My husband wrote "we". I am certain of that.
Q. So you can't say, in other words, the name of Haensch did not appear in this letter?
A. I cannot say this for certain any more.
Q. You told the Tribunal that it took a very long time before you got your first information from your husband. Can you tell the Tribunal.......you very likely have received later letters, too.......how long it usually took to get a letter from the East to Berlin?
A. Of course, I did receive some letters from my husband from the front, and for a wife who is waiting, it took rather long.
Q. I understand that. Can you tell the Tribunal how long approximately it took?
A. No, I don't know exactly. I cannot determine a definite period.
MR. HOCHWALD: Thank you very much. No further questions.
PRESIDENT: The witness will be excused. You have no further questions, Dr. Riediger?
DR. RIEDIGER: No.
PRESIDENT: Very well. The witness will be excused.
PRESIDENT: The defendant, Braune, will be taken to the witness stand.
DR. MAYER: Dr. Mayer for Braune. Your Honor, I ask that I may continue with the examination of yesterday of the defendant, Braune.
PRESIDENT: Please do. BY DR. MAYER:
Q Dr. Braune, yesterday we had arrived at the question whether you had the possibility of desertion, and thus evade carrying out the Fuehrerorder; you answered "No" to this question. I now ask you the question: Was there a possibility for you to avoid the carrying out the order?
A No. Even with the strictest measures and the strictest standards, I saw no possibility in my situation to do so. silently, that is, sabotage its execution?
A No. There was no such possibility for me either. Please consider, I took over the commando in November. For months the commando had been in the assignment already, and under my predecessor they had carried out their tasks. The Fuehrerorder was known to the leaders and the men. Under those circumstances, there was no such possibility. In addition, the measures in Simferopol were given through an order by the army which was at the headquarters of the Einsatzgruppe. reasons, but you considered it your duty to carry it out, being an order from your supreme commander, and you saw no possibility of avoiding its being carried out?
Q But couldn't you have tried through your superior, Herr Ohlendorf, to have the order changed somehow -- did you try that? Ohlendorf, too, could not change the Fuehrerorder because of the prevailing situation. I knew Herr Ohlendorf. I Knew his inner attitude towards this order. Until this day I am convinced if there had been one possibility for him to change or have the order revoked, he would have done this. In October, when Himmler was present, he made a last attempt. He wasn't even given a reply. What could I do as his subordinate in such a situation . After this, Herr Ohlendorf expressed that such an attempt on my part would have had no sense. BY THE PRESIDENT: Ohlendorf? between us on a comradely and human basis. about some personal problem in which you thought that he might be able to assist you with counsel and advice? Ohlendorf with personal matters.
Q Well, then, why didn't you talk with him about this -- why didn't you say to him, "that it is very difficult for me to execute this order, can't you do something to save me from it, can't you put me on some other assignment", why didn't you ask him to use his efforts to cause you to avoid the execution of the order?
I think during the winter months we talked about it repeatedly, but I knew from these very discussions that in spite of the very good relation between us and considering our friendship, Herr Ohlendorf would not have understood me at all if I had come to him and said, "Please send me home, and let somebody else do this very difficult task instead of me." I believe Herr Ohlendorf would have considered me a shirker if I had done this and he would not have had the slightest understanding in spite of our good relation. That is how I understood him, even during our conversations which we had. coward than to take the chance in asking him to relieve you from this task which you found so onerous and distateful?
A No, Your Honor. I was convinced that there would be no point in it, and that Herr Ohlendorf would not have been able to do anything. without even putting the question to him? and his general attitude toward these things -- I knew his opinion about this, but I think one thought never occurred to him which was to go and say, "Take me away from this difficult task, allow me to withdraw from this difficult task, and give it to somebody else", and that is why I was convinced that he would not understand such a request on my part. I point out that such a request would have been considered shirking and cowardice in front of the enemy, and, therefore, it would have been considered a crime according to martial law. A soldier who comes and says, "I want to go away from the front, I want to go home", in my conviction will be put before a court martial.
Q But that wasn't the situation as you described it; you had a very friendly relationship with Ohlendorf. You discussed this very question. Why couldn't you have said to him, "General, I find myself in a very difficult situation, I want to do my duty where it comes to fighting the enemy, but where it comes to shooting down defenseless people, I just can't do it; now, can't you, as a friend, see to it that I will not be called upon to do this, assign me to some other work, have me relieved anything so that I won't have to do this", why couldn't you have said this in effect, not those words, but that thought -- why couldn't you have expressed that thought to him? of Herr Ohlendorf that it was not easy for me to do this task, but I can only repeat what I said before, and this is how it was, in fact; according to the general situation, I thought there was no point in asking for this request because I was convinced that the answer would be in the negative.
Q Well, then you decide Ohlendorf's mind without giving him a chance to express it to you? to that effect, and that is why I never mentioned it to him. What also played a part in this way was that I felt somehow at the time myself that it would not be decent to try to shirk from a very difficult task in wartime, and to give it to somebody else, to get rid of inner misgivings and worries myself and pass them on to somebody else. sensitive than others, and it is no reflection upon an individual if he happens to be in that category of hypersensitive people.