In order to facilitate proper judgment, a clear distinction must be made
between the different bearers of responsibility. The works manager was
responsible for general labor conditions in the works, while the general
conditions of life outside the works were the competence of the German
Labor Front.
These spheres of responsibility become clearly apparent through the fact
that two exponents for them are mentioned in the Indictment, namely,
Krupp and Dr. Ley. The Defendant Sauckel can be held responsible for
what happened in these spheres only insofar as events were due to his
decrees, or where, contrary to his duty, he failed to exercise direct
supervision. The Defendant Sauckel was directly responsible for the
wages. On assuming office he found a table of wages which he could not
modify on his own responsibility; to do so he had to apply for
permission to his superior office, which was the Four Year Plan, and for
the consent of the competent Reich minister. The legal regulations
compiled in the chapter on wages of my Document Book 2 show that the
basic decrees were not issued by the Defendant Sauckel, but by the
Ministerial Council for the Defense of the Reich (see Documents
Sauckel-50, 17, and 58) and the Reich Minister of Economics (Document
Sauckel-51) and the Reich Minister of Finance (Document Number
Sauckel-52).
The Defendant Sauckel could schedule wages and fix wages for piece work
only within the general outlines existing for him, and in so doing he
had to consider the interests of the ministries in question. So far as
it was at all possible for the Defendant Sauckel to do so, he worked for
an amelioration; thus a series of his decrees show that he granted
premiums such as bonuses, compensatory payments, and the like [see
Document Numbers Sauckel-54 and 58(a)].
The Defendant Sauckel’s activity, however, could on the whole only aim
at increasing wages by influencing the competent agency. This is shown
in Document 021-PS of 2 April 1943. There we find as appendix a treatise
with statistical material bearing on a proposal for a basic improvement
of wages for Eastern Workers. From a study of wage sheets dating from
different periods it will also be seen that the average wages of Eastern
Workers were raised several times during the Defendant Sauckel’s term of
office.
It was for the Defendant Sauckel to determine the working hours, but
only within the framework of the superior competence of the Reich
Minister of Labor Seldte. This is shown by Document Number Sauckel-67,
where Seldte fixes the working hours for Eastern Workers in Paragraph 3
of the Decree of 25 January 1944. Generally speaking, the working hours
were the same as for the German workers, depending upon the output in
each factory. This is also admitted by the French Government Report,
Document UK-783; the cases enumerated there, on Page 580, of excessive
working hours are contrary to the orders of the Defendant Sauckel.
Since they do not specify any year, it cannot be ascertained if they
deal only with temporary measures or with permanent conditions. The same
lack of clarity obtains in the French Report RF-22, Page 101; there the
minimum working time is given as 72 hours, which was liable to increase
to 100 hours. This may refer to the work of concentration camp inmates.
Working hours were then changed by Goebbels, who on the basis of his
powers of plenipotentiary for the waging of total war introduced the
10-hour day for Germans and foreigners alike, although in practice this
could not be applied generally. Unreasonably long working hours cannot
be maintained and will lead to setbacks. I should like to add that
Sauckel was responsible for the fact that these extra hours were paid
for, or compensated, in the same manner as overtime work.
Special attention has been paid by the Prosecution to the regulation of
the working hours of female domestic workers from the East, of whom,
instead of the 400,000-500,000 girls originally demanded by Hitler; only
13,000 actually came to Germany. The Prosecution has presented the
instructions for the employment of these female domestic workers as
Document USSR-383. There it says under Number 9 that they shall not be
entitled to take time off. The purpose of this was to leave the
settlement of their time off to each household according to convenience.
Any other interpretation of the regulation is hardly imaginable, because
after all it was intended permanently to receive these female domestic
workers into the families, and to give them the chance to remain in
Germany. They had been selected as girls who were considered
particularly dependable, and had all reported voluntarily for domestic
work. In the light of new experiences the order was later modified by a
subsequent decree (Document Number Sauckel-26), by which all remaining
limitations were also canceled.
Determination of working hours for children took place within the scope
of the German labor protection legislation. This referred to children
who, contrary to the decrees of the Defendant Sauckel, had come to
Germany with their parents in an irregular manner. Their work can have
concerned only rural occupations, since that applies equally to German
children. In this context it may be pointed out that during the war
schoolchildren in Germany as from 10 years of age could be employed for
work in accordance with the decree of the Reich Youth Leader of 11 April
1942 [Document Number Sauckel-67(a)].
A general survey by Dr. Blumensaat in the complete Document Number
Sauckel-89 provides full information about the entire complex of wages
and working hours as finally established by laws.
This factor of immediate responsibility alone, however, cannot serve the
Defendant Sauckel as an excuse, if he knew and tolerated those things
which, according to the Prosecution’s assertion, characterized the
transports and life in the camps and factories. It was his duty to
superintend even where he was not directly responsible.
The accommodation and feeding of the workers was the responsibility of
the industries. With regard to the installations of the camps for
foreigners, the same regulations as for the camps for German workers
applied by virtue of decrees by the Reich Minister of Labor, Seldte
(Documents Number Sauckel-42, 43 and 44). It is indisputable that the
accommodation suffered as a result of difficulties, in particular from
the effects of air warfare. The deficiencies, however, were remedied as
far as at all possible. The situation of the foreign workers was not
different from that of the German civilian population.
The food supply suffered from the blockade and transportation
difficulties. The established rations, contrary to the notorious
statements on the feeding of the Russians, amounted to 2,540 calories
for the Soviet prisoners of war, according to the table of 24 November
1941 in Document USSR-177. A further table has been submitted with the
affidavit of the witness Hahn as Exhibit Number Sauckel-11. According to
this rations in the Krupp works amounted to 2,156 calories for the
ordinary Eastern Worker and 2,615 calories for those performing heavy
work; supervision insured a proper distribution.
The Reich Ministry of Food was responsible for the supply of food. Grave
accusations have been made by the Prosecution with regard to both
points. These, however, can only apply where the existing regulations
were not observed. It is quite likely that mistakes should have been
made in this large sphere of activity in the course of years, but the
general picture is not composed of mistakes, and judgment cannot be
based thereon. The actual conditions have not been clarified in this
procedure to the extent that one might contend that deficiencies were so
general and obvious that the Defendant Sauckel must have known them, and
did in fact know them.
In contrast to the vague statements of the witness Dr. Jäger we have the
affidavit of the witness Hahn, which refutes the former to a large
extent. The affidavits of the witnesses Scharmann and Dr. Voss (Exhibits
Number Sauckel-17 and 18) confirm that no serious deficiencies existed
in their spheres of activity.
In addition to the obligations on the part of the works managers, the
German Labor Front had to look after the foreign workers (Document
Number Sauckel-16). Its tasks included transports and the supervision of
medical care, as well as general welfare activities. The extensive
activity which this very large organization developed has not been
described in these proceedings. The basic principles of the German Labor
Front can be seen from Document Number Sauckel-27, which is the
ordinance of the German Labor Front regarding the status of foreign
workers at their working site. The aim is characterized as maintenance
of morale by observing conditions of contracts, absolutely fair
treatment, and comprehensive care and attention.
The German Labor Front was also responsible for transports, according to
Regulation Number 4 (Document Number Sauckel-15), wherein Sauckel’s
instructions are contained. This task included transport as far as the
working site. The witnesses Timm, Stothfang, and Hildebrandt have
testified about this and did not report anything about bad conditions.
The description in the Molotov Report (USSR-51) cannot refer to
transports carried out under orderly direction, but only to so-called
“pirate” convoys. The same applies to convoys which, according to the
Indictment, were heading for the concentration camps. The special
attention which the Defendant Sauckel from the very beginning accorded
to the transport problem, is shown particularly by Document 2241-PS,
submitted by the Prosecution. It contains a decree where detailed
directives to prevent the utilization of unsuitable trains are given.
However, mistakes did occur, especially the incident mentioned in
Document 054-PS in connection with a return transport of workers. These
had been brought into the Reich before Sauckel’s time in a manner
contrary to his basic principles. The matter was an isolated incident,
and the necessary steps were immediately taken. The return of sick
persons unfit for travel was prohibited, and Bad Frankenhausen was
placed at their disposal, Document 084-PS, Page 22. This was followed by
the order specifying the attendance at such transports of male and
female Red Cross nurses (Document Number Sauckel-99).
The carefully and thoroughly organized system of medical care, which
operated in collaboration with the Association of Panel Doctors did not
break down in the face of the greatest difficulties; rather is it a fact
that no epidemics or serious diseases broke out.
The cases presented by the Prosecution from some camps among the total
of 60 run by Krupp’s can only have arisen out of an unusual chain of
circumstances. They cannot prove that bad conditions, of which these
examples might have been typical, prevailed generally.
Another document, RF-91, has been presented, which contains the medical
report of Dr. Février of the French Delegation of the German Labor
Front, which was compiled after the beginning of the invasion on 15 June
1944. Besides deficiencies it is intended to correct, the report also
points out favorable aspects. It speaks with particular acknowledgement
of leaders of youth camps, of the systematic X-ray examinations, and of
the support given by district administrations, and similar things. A
genuine over-all picture of conditions could only be obtained by the
study of the medical reports of the health offices of the German Labor
Front existing everywhere.
For the defense of the Defendant Sauckel it may be said here that from
his remote post he could not obtain a clear picture of unsatisfactory
details. Any sanctioning of such bad conditions would have been in
striking contrast to the actions and declarations of Sauckel. The
Defendant Sauckel did not acquiesce when, for instance, one Gauleiter
said: “If anybody is going to be cold, then first of all let it be the
Russians.” He intervened and publicly proclaimed his views in his
official Handbook on the Allocation of Labor (Document Number
Sauckel-19). The Defendant Sauckel also made efforts to improve the
food, although this was outside his competence. That has been confirmed
by several witnesses, among others the witness Goetz (Exhibit Number
Sauckel-10). It is also shown by the record of the Central Planning
Board (Document R-124, Page 1783). The Defendant Sauckel did not let
matters slide, but established a personal staff of his own, whose
members traveled around the camps and corrected bad conditions on the
spot. He also endeavored to obtain clothing, and put factories to work
to a large extent for the purpose of supplying Eastern Workers. All the
witnesses heard regarding this problem have again and again unanimously
confirmed that the Defendant Sauckel basically took great interest in
the welfare of workers.
I would also refer to the announcements and speeches of the Defendant
Sauckel, which always advocate good treatment. I do not wish to
enumerate the documents in detail, and shall only mention in particular
the “manifesto” on the allocation of labor, Document Number Sauckel-84,
in which he refers to his binding basic principles, and demands that
these be constantly kept in mind. I also refer to the speeches to the
presidents of the provincial labor offices of 24 August 1943 (Document
Number Sauckel-86), and of 17 January 1944 (Document Number Sauckel-88).
The Defendant Sauckel finally got even Himmler, Goebbels, and Bormann to
acknowledge his ideas as correct. That is shown by Document 205-PS of 5
May 1943, which is a memorandum regarding the general basic principles
for the treatment of foreign workers. There the basic principles of a
regulated mobilization of labor are accepted.
How do the statements of the Prosecution on ill-treatment of workers as
slaves correspond with this? It will be necessary to examine closely
whether the cases referred to involve real abuses affecting workers in
the process of normal mobilization, or abuses incidental to the
deportation of prisoners and to their work. Next, one should investigate
exaggerations and distortions such as may be due to human weakness and
foibles. In my opinion no adequate clarification of this subject has so
far been obtained, and press reports have already begun to appear which
are bound to increase doubts as to the accepted standard applying to the
life of foreign workers.
The plan submitted as Exhibit Number Sauckel-3 displays the numerous
offices for checking and inspection relative to the question of
laborers. They did not report any particular abuses to the offices of
the Defendant Sauckel. Perhaps the fact that these offices were so
numerous constitutes a weakness: It is quite possible that each
government department kept silent about whatever mistakes originated
under its own jurisdiction and failed to bring them to the attention of
the Defendant Sauckel, because as a rule the controlling agencies were
on a higher level than the Defendant Sauckel. This should be considered
particularly with regard to relations between the most important agency,
the German Labor Front, under the leadership of Reichsleiter Dr. Ley,
and Gauleiter Sauckel.
On closer examination of the document submitted as 1913-PS, an agreement
on the creation of “central inspection offices for the care and welfare
of foreign labor,” it appears to have been carefully designed as an
instrument of defense against the Defendant Sauckel. The document was
devised by Dr. Ley and signed on 2 June 1943, then submitted for his
signature to the Defendant Sauckel who did not approve or publish it
until 20 September 1943. It is quite possible that Dr. Ley did not wish
to invite criticism. On the other hand, there is little likelihood that
the abuses were general and manifested themselves openly. Otherwise they
would obviously have become known to the Defendant Sauckel through his
own control agencies.
In addition to his own staff, the Defendant Sauckel on 6 April 1942
appointed the Gauleiter as “Commissioners for the Mobilization of
Labor,” impressing upon them as their foremost duty that of supervision
with regard to the enforcement of his orders. This becomes apparent from
Document Number Sauckel-9, Figure 5; the same applies to Document 633-PS
of 14 March 1943. Several Gauleiter were examined by the Tribunal as
witnesses, and they have confirmed the fact that the supervision was
carried out as ordered and that Sauckel checked it through members of
his staff. No abuses were reported.
After due consideration of the matter, whom should one believe? Are we
concerned here with exaggerated complaints, or do findings to the
contrary command credibility? There is no testimony by those Frenchmen
who, according to Document UK-783, Draft III, were taken to the real
slave centers; there is no testimony by those Russians, who, according
to Document USSR-51, were sold at 10 or 15 Reichsmark.
In any case one fact clearly speaks in favor of the Defendant Sauckel,
one which has always been confirmed by competent witnesses, namely, that
the workers were willing and industrious and that when the collapse came
no uprising occurred in which they would have given vent to their
natural wrath against the slaveholders.
I have summarized actual happenings and appraised them juridically. All
this, however, must appear to be juridical quibbling when a higher
responsibility is involved. It has been stated here that it would not do
to let the insignificant works managers take the blame, and that the
moral responsibility must go to the highest Reich Government offices: On
their own initiative they ought to have introduced corrections on a
larger scale to cope with the difficulties inherent in the circumstances
of that time. This might have applied to offices which had the power and
the means to bring about improvement. The Defendant Sauckel and his
small personal staff had merely been incorporated in a ministry already
in existence, and he had no such means at his disposal. His authority
consisted of a narrowly defined power to give directives on the
mobilization of labor, and he untiringly made use of this authority.
The works managers in the armament industry formed an independent
administration and were secure from so-called bureaucrats. The duty of
self-maintenance results from such a privilege of self-administration.
Consequently, if something was to be done to improve the security of
foreign workers, or their situation in armaments works, it was up to
these establishments and to the armaments ministry, under whose
supervision they operated, to deal with the matter. It was not the duty
of the office of the Defendant Sauckel to intervene in these matters,
since it was under the armaments ministry. That is clearly evident from
Document 4006-PS, containing the decree of 22 June 1944, and is also
borne out by the most intimate personal relations between the armaments
minister and Hitler, which made him the most influential man in the
economic sphere. If higher responsibility existed for mistakes made in
the factories, such responsibility can be placed only at the door of
those who had knowledge of such conditions and the power to correct
them.
There is still another legal question to be considered with regard to
the Indictment; namely, whether the position of the Plenipotentiary
General for the Allocation of Labor is determined by Article 7 or
Article 8, in other words, whether the Defendant Sauckel was an
independent government official or whether he acted on orders. The
requests for labor were placed from time to time on Hitler’s special
orders, in the form of a general program, and only the subsequent
distribution was left to Sauckel. This is also confirmed by the fact
that the Defendant Sauckel always refers to Hitler’s “orders and
instructions,” as in the manifestos of the Plenipotentiary General for
the Allocation of Labor (Document Number Sauckel-84, in circulars to the
Gauleiter, Figure 7, Document Number Sauckel-83 and others). From this
also derives the fact that the Defendant Sauckel in every case
specifically reports execution of the orders, as well as the beginning
and end of his official journeys (Document 556-PS of 10 January 1944 and
28 July 1943).
Another argument against his working independently is that according to
the nomination decree the Defendant Sauckel was immediately subordinate
to the Four Year Plan and attached to the Reich Ministry for Labor,
which had been preserved with its state secretaries; only two
departments were placed at his disposal. If the form of responsibility
is to be determined, it can thus only be within the limits of Article 8
of the Charter.
Herewith I conclude my exposition regarding the special field of labor
allocation.
The Defendant Sauckel is accused on all Counts of the Indictment, in
addition to labor mobilization; specific acts however are not charged
against him. A closer characterization of the accusation has been
effected in the course of the proceedings only with regard to the
concentration camps. In this connection, however, it has been proved by
a sworn statement by the witness Falkenhorst (Exhibit Number 23) and an
affidavit by the witness Dieter Sauckel (Exhibit Number 9) that no order
for the evacuation of the Buchenwald Camp upon the approach of American
troops was given. Knowledge and approval of conditions at the camp
cannot be deduced from two visits of the camp before 1939, because the
excesses submitted by the Prosecution had not yet occurred. Nor did the
geographical proximity of the camp to the Gauleitung of the Defendant
Sauckel bring about any close connection with the SS staff, as they had
their seat in Kassel and Magdeburg. Finally it must be remembered that
the human convictions of the Defendant Sauckel, which were based on his
earlier career, were irreconcilable with Himmler’s point of view.
What part can the Defendant Sauckel have played in the conspiracy? He
was Gauleiter in Thuringia and did not rise above the rest of the
Gauleiter. His activities and his aims can be deduced from his fighting
speeches, which have been submitted as Document Number Sauckel-95. They
consistently show the fight for “liberty and bread,” and a desire for
real peace.
During his activity, extending over many years in the Party, the Party
program was authoritative for the Defendant Sauckel; the aims and plans
contained therein required neither war nor the extermination of the
Jews. The practical realization of the program alone could disclose the
reality. For every convinced Party exponent, however, the official
explanation of events was authoritative and met with no doubts. Up to
his nomination as the Plenipotentiary General for Allocation of Labor in
March 1942, the Defendant Sauckel did not belong to the narrow circle of
those who had access to Hitler’s plans. He had to rely upon the press
and the broadcasts like everybody else. He had no contact with the
leading men. This is demonstrated somewhat tragically by his action, so
often ridiculed, of boarding a submarine as an ordinary seaman for some
mission. That is no way to participate in conspiracies.
As a faithful follower of Hitler, the Defendant Sauckel remained
isolated in the circle of the initiated. It is understandable that the
extremists should have shunned him owing to his well-known opinions. He
was not initiated into the secrets of people who aspired to be Hitler’s
friends and murderers at the same time, nor was he kept informed by the
group of people who were Hitler’s enemies, but who kept their knowledge
secret with a novel kind of courage. A believer to the end, the
Defendant Sauckel cannot to this day understand what has happened. Must
he, like a heretic, recant his error in order to find mercy? He lacks
the contact with reality, which would make understanding possible.
Does his sentence depend on his having unknowingly served a good or a
bad cause? Nothing is either good or bad, but thinking makes it so. One
thing, however, is always and under all circumstances good, and that is
a good intention. This good intention was shown by the Defendant
Sauckel. Therefore, I ask that he be acquitted.
THE PRESIDENT: I call on Dr. Exner for the Defendant Jodl.
PROFESSOR DR. FRANZ EXNER (Counsel for Defendant Jodl): May it please
the Tribunal, in this unique Trial the discovery of the truth is faced
with difficulties of an exceptional nature. At a time when the wounds of
the war are still bleeding, when the excitement of the events of the
last few years is still felt, at a time when the archives of one side
are still closed, it is asked that a just verdict be given with
dispassionate neutrality. Material for the Trial has been spread out
before us covering a quarter of a century of world history and events
from the four corners of the globe.
On the grounds of this tremendous amount of material we see 22 men being
accused simultaneously. That makes it immensely difficult to gain a
clear picture of the guilt and responsibility of each individual, for
inhumanities of an almost unimaginable vastness have come to light here,
and there exists a danger that the deep shadow which falls upon some of
the defendants may also darken the others. Some of them, I fear, appear
in a different light because of the company in which they now sit than
they would if they were alone in the dock.
The Prosecution has promoted this danger by repeatedly making joint
accusations, thereby mixing legal and moral reproaches. They have said
that all the defendants had enriched themselves from the occupied
territories, that there was not one who did not shout, “Perish, Judah!”
and so forth. No attempt to prove this in the case of any single
individual was made, but the statement in itself creates an atmosphere
hostile toward all of them.
Another fact brought about by the Prosecution which renders elucidation
of the question of individual guilt still more difficult is that the
Defendants Keitel and Jodl are treated as inseparable twins: One common
plea against them by the British prosecutor, one common trial brief by
the French Prosecution; the Russian Prosecution indeed spoke very little
about the individual defendants but preferred to heap reproach after
reproach upon all of them.
All of this is presumably intended to shorten the Trial, but it hardly
serves to clear up the question of individual responsibility. Indeed,
the Indictment goes still further. It reaches beyond these 22 defendants
and affects the fate of millions through a prosecution of certain
organizations, which, taken in conjunction with Law Number 10, leads to
the result that one can be punished for the guilt of other persons.
Something that is more important at the moment is a further form of
summary treatment of the defendants. The Prosecution is bringing in the
conception of a “conspiracy” in order once more to obtain the result
that persons may be made individually responsible for some wrong that
others committed. I must deal with this point in greater detail, since
it also concerns my client.
It is actually clear, I think, from the previous speakers’ statements
that a conspiracy to commit Crimes against Peace and the laws of war and
humanity did not in fact exist. Therefore, I shall demonstrate only
that, if such a conspiracy did actually exist, Jodl at least did not
belong to it.
The Prosecution has admitted that Jodl’s participation in the conspiracy
before 1933 could not be proved. In fact, anyone whose attitude toward
the whole National Socialist movement was so full of distrust and who
spoke with such skepticism about its seizure of power did not conspire
to help Hitler take over the reins of Government. But the Prosecution
seems to think that Jodl joined the alleged conspiracy in the period
before 1939. In truth, during this time, too, nothing essential changed
as far as he was concerned. True, his attitude toward Hitler was now an
entirely loyal one. But it was Jodl’s respected Field Marshal Von
Hindenburg who had called Hitler into the Government, and the German
people had confirmed this decision with more than 90 percent of its
votes. Added to this was the fact that in Jodl’s eyes—and not only in
his—Hitler’s authority was bound to rise by leaps and bounds in view of
his remarkable successes at home and abroad, which now followed one
after another in quick succession; yet personally Jodl remained without
any connection with Hitler. He did not participate in any of the big
meetings at which Hitler developed his program. He had only read
extracts of Hitler’s book _Mein Kampf_, the bible of National Socialism.
Jodl remained just an unpolitical man, quite in line with his personal
inclinations, which were far removed from Party politics and in
accordance with the traditions of the old family of officers from which
he sprang. Of liberal leanings, he had little sympathy for National
Socialism; as an officer he was forbidden to belong to the Party, and he
had no right to vote or be politically active.
If, as the Prosecution says, the Party held the conspiracy together and
was the “instrument of cohesion” between the defendants, then one asks
with wonder what cohesion actually existed between Jodl and, let us say,
Sauckel, or between Jodl and Streicher. Of all the defendants, the only
one he knew before the war, outside of the officers, was Frick, from one
or two official conferences in the Ministry of the Interior. He kept
clear of the NSDAP, and his attitude toward its organizations was even
in a certain sense inimical. His greatest worry during these years,
right up to the end, was the danger of Party influence in the Armed
Forces.
Jodl did what lay in his power to prevent the SS from being puffed up
into a subsidiary Wehrmacht, to prevent the transfer of the customs
frontier guards to Himmler, and he notes triumphantly in his diary that
after the withdrawal of General Von Fritsch, Hitler did not, as had been
feared, make General Von Reichenau, who had Party ties,
Commander-in-Chief of the Army, but the unpolitical General Von
Brauchitsch, and so forth. If Jodl had conspired for National Socialism
in any way, his attitude would have been the opposite on every one of
these points.
Nor was Jodl present at any of the so-called meetings of the
conspirators, as on 5 November 1937—Hitler’s testament was unknown to
him—at Obersalzberg in February 1938, and at the meetings on 23 May
1939 and 22 August 1939.
No wonder; for Jodl was after all at that time still much too
insignificant to be permitted to participate in conferences and meetings
which were of such decisive importance to the State. People do not
conspire with lieutenant colonels or colonels of the General Staff. They
simply tell them what to do, and that settles the matter.
However, the most incontrovertible proof of the fact that Jodl can have
belonged to no conspiracy to wage aggressive war is his absence for 10
months just before the beginning of the war. Jodl had left the OKW in
October 1938 and was sent to Vienna as artillery commander. At that time
there was in his mind so little probability of war that before leaving
Berlin he drafted, on his own initiative, a plan of deployment in all
directions for security purposes. In this he disposed the bulk of the
German forces in the center of the Reich because he could not see any
definite opponent against whom a deployment plan might have to be
prepared.
Exactly a year before the beginning of the attack, this alleged
conspirator for aggressive wars drew up a purely defensive General Staff
plan, and, although he knew definitely that in case of war he would have
to return to Berlin, this possibility seemed so remote that he moved to
Vienna, taking along all his furniture.
Besides, since he wished to get away from office work again, he arranged
to have the mountain division at Reichenhall promised him for 1 October
1939. Lastly, as late as July he obtained passage on a sea cruise
planned to last several weeks, which was to have started in
September—so sure was he of peaceful developments during these 10
months.
Up to the time he was called to Berlin shortly before the outbreak of
the war, Jodl had no official or private connections with the OKW. The
only letter he got from them at that time was the one which promised him
his transfer to Reichenhall on 1 October.
Note that at the most critical time when the alleged conspirators were
discussing and working out the Polish plan, Jodl was for 10 months out
of all contact with the authoritative persons and knew no more of what
was happening than one of his second lieutenants.
When the Führer came to Vienna during the summer, it did not even seem
worth while to Keitel to introduce Jodl to him, although Jodl, as the
Supreme Commander’s strategic adviser, was called upon in the event of
war to carry out the allegedly common aggressive plan.
One can imagine how astonished Jodl was to read in the Indictment that
he had been a member of the conspiracy to launch the war.
Mr. President, I have reached the end of a paragraph, and this perhaps
might be an opportune moment to recess.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
[_The Tribunal adjourned until 19 July 1946 at 1000 hours._]