JODL: I have already said that, now and then, he went to the front for a
day or so and that he was several times in Berlin for a few days; but he
was at those offices which were subordinate to him. I was alone with my
operations staff, and I could do whatever I pleased with my staff.
During the entire war I never called a conference of other offices as a
deputy of Field Marshal Keitel. I did not understand anything about
those matters.
COL. POKROVSKY: You have uttered a great many words, but have not given
me a clear answer to my very short and simple question—namely, do you
confirm, or do you not confirm, the truth of Keitel’s statement? “Yes”
or “no.” That is very easy to answer, is it not?
JODL: That is what it amounts to, but the thing as written down is
ridiculous.
COL. POKROVSKY: We shall gauge the truth of your statement later. It is
important to me to establish the fact.
I am submitting our Document USSR-263 to the Tribunal. You will now have
the pleasure of reading it yourself. It is an excerpt from the evidence
of another officer who worked with you, General Warlimont. Please
acquaint yourself with that passage which is marked on your copy while I
read it aloud. That will be quicker.
The question put to Warlimont:
“When did the OKW first receive the order for preparing for the
attack on the Soviet Union?”
Have you found this passage?
JODL: That which I have before me—the passage which is marked in
red—contains a statement by Warlimont as to the organization of the
offices of the OKW. On the next page something follows about the
preparations for the attack on the Soviet Union.
COL. POKROVSKY: “When did the OKW first receive the order for
preparing for the attack on the Soviet Union?”
Warlimont replies:
“I personally first heard about the plan on 29 July 1940... On
that day Generaloberst Jodl arrived by special train in Bad
Reichenhall, where also Section ‘L’ of the Armed Forces
Operations Staff was quartered.”
Have you found the passage?
JODL: Yes.
COL. POKROVSKY: My Lord, I do not consider it necessary to read a
greater part of Warlimont’s testimony, because we are dealing with a
well-known fact, that is, the convocation of the conference during which
Jodl gave his colleagues the order to prepare the plan for the attack on
the Soviet Union. This document has already been accepted in evidence by
the Tribunal.
Warlimont then states, “Jodl stunned us by his announcement of the
coming attack, for which we were not at all prepared.” Have you found
the passage? Please look at the document.
[_There was no response._]
Jodl, will you please take the document in your hand and see whether it
has been read into the record correctly.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it not coming through properly? Wait a minute.
DR. EXNER: I just wanted to call the attention of the Tribunal to the
fact that the translation and the transmission is coming through to us
so very badly that I have scarcely understood anything. I hear only half
a question at a time, and I am surprised that the defendant could answer
at all.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it coming through better now? Is the translation
coming through better now?
DR. EXNER: I am of the opinion that the translation itself is poor, not
only the technical transmission. It is often very difficult to
understand the question—it makes no sense at all. And my colleague, Dr.
Stahmer, confirms this. Therefore it is difficult for us.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we had better go on and see, perhaps, if it will
improve.
COL. POKROVSKY: I would like you to read one other sentence to yourself.
It is the passage in which Warlimont states to whom the responsibility
for elaborating the plans was entrusted and how the officers present had
reacted. He testifies, “Jodl stunned us by this announcement...” It is
on the first page at about the middle of the page. Have you found it?
JODL: I could not find the sentence which you have just read, “Jodl
stunned us.” I cannot find that sentence.
COL. POKROVSKY: In that case, I shall begin with the preceding sentence.
Perhaps it will be easier for you.
“Besides myself, he also ordered three other senior officers ...
Colonel Von Lossberg, Lieutenant Colonel Freiherr von
Falkenstein of the Luftwaffe, and Captain Junge of the Navy to
attend.”
Have you found it?
JODL: Yes.
COL. POKROVSKY: Thank you.
“Jodl stunned us by this announcement ... for which we were not
at all prepared.”
And then a little further down:
“Jodl announced that the Führer had decided to prepare for war
against Russia. The Führer based his decision on the fact that
war with Russia must come sooner or later and that it would be
better to carry this campaign through in the course of this
war...”
Have you found the passage?
JODL: Yes, I have it.
COL. POKROVSKY: Very well. Now, I would like you to read one more
paragraph from Document USSR-476, which has just been handed to you, on
Page 1. It is, Jodl, the one which you began to read the first time, and
I told you then that we should get back to it eventually. Keitel is
asked whether he knows anything about that conference, and he answers:
“I know nothing whatever about a conference with regard to an
attack on the Soviet Union. I heard about it for the first time
after I was imprisoned here.”
Have you found the place?
JODL: No. I have not found it, but I do recall it. I read it just a
short while ago.
COL. POKROVSKY: I should like you to have it. We do not want any
misunderstandings. A little lower down Keitel states that you did not
inform him of this conference even later. Is that so? Do you confirm
this statement, or do you not? Would you say that Keitel had testified
correctly?
JODL: Actually there is no such thing as a conference in these military
matters. You have conferences in civil and parliamentary life, but we do
not have conferences. I talked to my General Staff officers as often as
I pleased. Therefore, it is...
COL. POKROVSKY: Excuse me, I am going to interrupt you here. Later on
you may add all you wish to say, but I merely want a direct answer to
the question: Is Keitel’s testimony correct, that you never reported
this conference to him? Is that true or not?
JODL: I certainly did not report to him on this very discussion; but
that is not in the least important. I am certain that I reported to him
what the Führer told me, because that was an important matter; and
later, because of this, he wrote a memorandum. Therefore, he must have
heard about it—but that is only a supposition, a very likely
supposition, which I am voicing here.
COL. POKROVSKY: Very well, I am perfectly satisfied with your reply. And
to conclude my first group of questions, I want to ask just one more on
this particular matter: Do you not agree with me that only the Deputy
Chief of the OKW, and not just any other responsible official, could
quite independently—without Keitel’s knowledge, without any
instructions, and without even a _post factum_ report to him—decide
questions, such as the preparation of a plan for attacking another
country? Have you understood my question?
JODL: I understood your words, but not their meaning. First of all, you
put a wrong assertion in your question. You asserted that I did not
report the preparation for an attack on a neutral country to Field
Marshal Keitel. That is an assertion on your part which I refuted
yesterday under oath. We were not concerned with an attack on the Soviet
Union at this meeting. We were concerned with the defense against a
Soviet attack on the Romanian oil fields. That is established in
Document C-170, the War Diary of the Navy.
COL. POKROVSKY: Is that all you wanted to say on that question?
JODL: I believe that suffices.
COL. POKROVSKY: I do not intend to argue with you. I merely wish to say
that we have two proofs of this conference. First, your testimony, in
which you deny the fact of the preparation of a plan for attacking the
Soviet Union; and second, the testimony of another participant at this
conference, Warlimont, who says straight out that the meeting was
specifically concerned with elaborating the plan of attack on the Soviet
Union and that this directive greatly astonished all of them. I do not
intend to deal with this question any further, but I should like to
ask...
JODL: If you are interested, I could explain that divergence to you.
COL. POKROVSKY: No, at the present moment it does not interest me.
Would it be correct to state that you were either the leading, or one of
the leading, staff officers in Hitlerite Germany who were engaged in
preparing measures for attacking the Soviet Union, as far back as the
summer of 1940? It is precisely on this matter that I want to hear your
reply. Is the question clear to you?
JODL: The question is clear, and my answer to it is that I was probably
the first who learned of the Führer’s concern about Russia’s political
attitude. However, I was not the first who made preparations for an
attack on the Soviet Union. To my surprise I discovered here, through
the witness Paulus, that long before we concerned ourselves with any
orders of this kind, plans of attack were already worked out in the
General Staff of the Army. I cannot tell you with absolute certainty why
it was done. Perhaps Generaloberst Halder can tell us about that. I can
only express that as a supposition on my part.
COL. POKROVSKY: Suppositions are of no interest to us; we are only
concerned with facts here. On the day before yesterday, the 5th of June,
you stated that the attack on the Soviet Union, whereby Germany broke
her nonaggression pact with the Soviet Union, was in the nature of a
preventive war. That is what you then stated, is it not?
JODL: Yes, that is what I said, it was a preventive war.
COL. POKROVSKY: Very well. That is your opinion. Do you remember that
from the testimonies of Milch and Raeder, from the testimony of Göring,
from the testimonies of Paulus and Keitel, it seems that they were all
opposed to the attack on the Soviet Union? I shall read into the record
one sentence from Keitel’s testimony here in court just to help you to
remember.
While General Rudenko, Chief Prosecutor for the U.S.S.R. was
cross-examining Keitel, he put this question:
“You stated that you especially went to Hitler with the request
that he, Hitler, change his intentions with regard to the Soviet
Union?”
Answer (Keitel): “Yes, I asked him not only to change this plan,
but to do away with these plans altogether, that is, not to wage
war against the Soviet Union.”
Do you remember that testimony of Keitel?
JODL: Yes, I remember, and I know the memorandum as well.
COL. POKROVSKY: Very well. Do you not find it rather strange that a
man—in this case yourself—who has in every way endeavored to disclaim
the fact that he was Keitel’s deputy, should emphasize before Hitler and
here before the Tribunal, that he was better informed on current events
than Keitel and could, therefore, find the courage to make a statement
in direct opposition to the attitude of Keitel, Paulus, Raeder, Göring,
and Milch?
JODL: I did not understand that.
COL. POKROVSKY: I shall be very pleased to make my meaning more
explicit. Keitel did not appear to see any necessity for what you call a
“preventive” war, and all the persons whose testimony I have just
mentioned also saw no reason for waging a so-called “preventive” war.
They did not believe that the Soviet Union intended to attack Germany,
whereas you declared that the war was of a “preventive” nature. Now, do
you understand my question?
JODL: Yes, now I understand you.
COL. POKROVSKY: Very well, would you like to answer the question?
JODL: Yes, I can give an explanation. First of all, it is not certain
what stand Field Marshal Keitel took in the spring of 1941 with regard
to this question. Secondly, the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy and the
Commander-in-Chief of the Air Force—with due respect to both of these
gentlemen—saw the problem as a whole only from the point of view of
naval or air strategy, and they saw no danger whatsoever in the Russian
Navy or the Russian Air Force. What was taking place on land, of course,
was of less interest to them. That explains why the strongest opposition
came from the Luftwaffe and the Navy; and only the Army, in this case,
was much more inclined to see the tremendous danger with which it was
confronted. But in spite of this, every one of us, I myself included,
warned the Führer most urgently against this experiment, which should
have been undertaken only if there really was no other way out. I will
not take it upon myself to judge whether there might perhaps have been a
political possibility which was not exhausted; I cannot judge that.
COL. POKROVSKY: Very well. I am satisfied with your reply, and
particularly with the fact that you have condescended to define the
breaking of this treaty and the attack on the Soviet Union by the word
“experiment.” I want you to look at the document...
THE PRESIDENT: I think you should not make comments of that sort. You
must ask questions and not make comments.
COL. POKROVSKY: My remark, My Lord, is connected with my next question.
[_Turning to the defendant._] Witness, please look at Document 865-PS.
Have you got this document?
JODL: Yes, I have the document before me.
COL. POKROVSKY: Very well. In reply to the questions of your counsel,
you stated that Lammers had, quite by accident, designated you as a
collaborator of Rosenberg. There in your hands is a very brief document,
which I shall now read aloud—a document signed by Keitel. It is a
top-secret letter of 25 April 1941, addressed to Rosenberg personally.
This letter states:
“The Chief of the Reich Chancellery has sent me a copy of the
Führer’s directive appointing you his plenipotentiary for
dealing with questions relating to eastern European territories.
I, on the part of the High Command of the Armed Forces, entrust
the handling of these questions to the Chief of the Armed Forces
Operations Staff, General of Artillery Jodl, with Major General
Warlimont as his deputy. I request that your department contact
these two persons only.
“Heil Hitler! Yours truly”—signed—“Keitel.”
With this document in mind what do you say now in reply to the question
as to whether or not you remember, that you, with Warlimont as your
deputy, were charged by the High Command of the Armed Forces, as far
back as April 1941, to deal with the practical problems of the Hitlerite
expansion to the east in accordance with the directives of the Staff
Rosenberg.
Do you understand my question?
JODL: I already told the Court yesterday everything that can be said in
connection with this formality. Minister Lammers sent the very same
letter to all Reich Ministries. He asked every Ministry to designate a
plenipotentiary and a deputy; and accordingly, Field Marshal Keitel
naturally designated the two officers who were at headquarters. I never
worked with Rosenberg, and it was not necessary to do so—except for one
single talk with him, which I mentioned yesterday. Only my propaganda
section conferred with the Ministry for the Eastern Occupied Territories
about leaflets—quite simple matters which every soldier can understand.
COL. POKROVSKY: By the way, concerning the question of soldiers. You
stubbornly affirm that you were only concerned with military questions
of an operational nature and had nothing to do at all with political
questions. Have I understood you correctly?
JODL: I gave that explanation yesterday as well, insofar as politics
were not an integral part of the strategy. To a certain extent politics
did come into it, for without politics there could be no strategy. It is
an essential part of strategy. But since I was not a strategist, but
only dealt with this matter as a General Staff officer, I was not
concerned with this subject directly.
COL. POKROVSKY: You were not concerned with these matters? You will now
look at Document C-26, Exhibit USSR-477, and I must ask you if you have
found your own signature on the last page.
JODL: Yes, I see my signature.
COL. POKROVSKY: You have found it? It is a directive on the organization
of propaganda in connection with “Case Barbarossa.” Is that correct?
JODL: Yes.
COL. POKROVSKY: Are you going to deny that in that directive, issued by
you, the question is clearly put that the U.S.S.R., as a sovereign
state, should be destroyed and that you consider that a purely military
problem—you, an officer of the General Staff, did not deal with
politics?
JODL: I cannot find the place where it says that Russia is to be
destroyed.
COL. POKROVSKY: You are quite right if you want to draw attention to the
wording. It is not stated there in just these words. I am thinking of
the general sense of the directive, particularly of Subparagraph “d.”
JODL: Yes, but—I know the document.
COL. POKROVSKY: I want to read out one sentence:
“Propaganda aiming at the dismemberment of the Soviet Union into
separate states shall not be used for the time being.”
Further on there are a couple of technical remarks, and then it says in
the same paragraph:
“Nevertheless, we should avoid such terms as ‘Russia,’
‘Russians,’ ‘Russian Armed Forces,’ _et cetera_, and substitute
‘Soviet Union,’ ‘Peoples of the Soviet Union,’ ‘Red Army,’ _et
cetera_.”
Have you found the place, Jodl?
JODL: Yes.
COL. POKROVSKY: Very well. What would you like to say if you want to say
anything at all on the subject?
JODL: Why, certainly. I wish to answer the question.
COL. POKROVSKY: If you please.
JODL: As may be seen from the heading of this directive, it deals with
the handling of propaganda. Compared with the British and the Soviet
Union, we were mere schoolboys in propaganda. You are perhaps aware that
propaganda is something quite justifiable and is not limited by any
regulations of international law. At one time, in Geneva, there was a
long debate about this; and the idea that propaganda should be
restricted by international law was rejected. I have already stated that
in my preliminary interrogation. In the field of propaganda, I can do
whatever I wish. There is no law, either criminal or international, in
regard to that. But perhaps you do not know that this propaganda had to
be in line with the political directives of the Führer, and this was
being done here. I am very well acquainted with propaganda, for I
studied it for 5 years—yours, too. That is still quite another type of
propaganda.
COL. POKROVSKY: You preferred not to give a direct answer to the
question you were asked. I am perfectly satisfied with that, too, since
I have understood your attitude toward this subject.
Now, I should be interested in receiving a reply to the following
question: What connection did the Ministry of Propaganda have with the
issue of this directive? Did this Ministry participate in the drafting
of the directive, or were you and the OKW solely responsible? Did you
understand me?
JODL: Yes, I understood you. My propaganda division worked in Berlin. I
cannot tell you in detail how it worked with Minister Rosenberg or with
the Ministry of Propaganda on such a document. But General Von Wedel,
the chief of this division, could tell you. I only knew it was drawn up
in agreement with the Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories, for
I was always eager that we should not take separate lines but rather
work in line with the competent civilian authorities. But it is only
propaganda; it is not a directive to destroy Russia. Propaganda is a
spiritual weapon.
COL. POKROVSKY: I do not propose to enter into a discussion with you on
what constitutes propaganda and whether you were only responsible for
propaganda. We shall have quite a number of other questions to ask.
Do you suggest that this directive was issued after a certain pattern
decided upon with other departments? That is how I understood you. Is
this correct? Partly by agreement with “Stab Rosenberg”?
JODL: Yes, I believe that.
COL. POKROVSKY: Very well. Now let us pass on to a second complex of
questions. Do you dispute the fact that the document regarding the
conference at Hitler’s headquarters on 27 March 1941 dealt with the
subject of Yugoslavia? You, of course, remember that conference?
JODL: Yes, I remember that.
COL. POKROVSKY: Would you argue the fact that the documents describing
this conference and the directive for operations against
Yugoslavia—both documents are dated 28 March 1941, in other words, they
were issued on the following day—would you still argue that these
documents did not emanate from the Armed Forces Operations Staff, that
is, from you personally? You can, if you like, take a look at Document
1746-PS. It might help you to remember events.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Pokrovsky, you are not losing sight of the fact
that this subject was fully gone into by Mr. Roberts in
cross-examination of the defendant?
COL. POKROVSKY: My Lord, if you consider that the question has already
been completely clarified, I shall refrain from asking it. But it seems
to me that insofar as I understood him, he analyzed this question in
another sense. But if you think the matter is clear, I shall withdraw
it.
THE PRESIDENT: I do not know yet. But I was only pointing out to you
that it had been fully gone into by Mr. Roberts. I do not know what this
document you are suggesting is.
COL. POKROVSKY: I offered for the attention of the defendant two
documents, My Lord: the directive for operations against Yugoslavia,
dated 28 March, and the minutes of the conference. Both documents were
submitted to the Tribunal. If you think that the matter has been fully
covered already, I will not ask the questions. However, it appears to me
that there is some reason for asking the question.
THE PRESIDENT: All the Tribunal want to know is whether there is some
really fresh point which is being brought out. You must have heard Mr.
Roberts’ cross-examination of the defendant upon the Yugoslavian attack.
And I do not know what these documents of the 22d of March and the 28th
of March are, or what you are asking to get out of them. If there is
anything that is really fresh or new, of course, you may put it; but if
it is not, then it is covered by what the Tribunal have already said,
that cross-examination ought not to go over the same ground again.
COL. POKROVSKY: If you will permit me to say so, My Lord, I understood
Jodl to mean that for him...
THE PRESIDENT: I am asking you, too.
COL. POKROVSKY: I understood in Jodl’s testimony, in reply to Mr.
Roberts’ question, that it is still not quite clear as to who was in
charge of the operations against Yugoslavia; and I only want to have
this point elucidated. Now, if the Tribunal consider that this question
has already been replied to, I shall, of course, withdraw it.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Colonel Pokrovsky, the Tribunal are not able to see
what there is fresh in this method of questioning that you are now
raising; and unless you insist upon it yourself because you think it is
of great importance, I think you should pass on to the next matter in
your cross-examination.
COL. POKROVSKY: Very well. I shall continue, My Lord.
[_Turning to the defendant._] Your counsel has submitted Document L-172,
containing the following sentence made by you in your speech to the
Gauleiter of 7 November 1943. I shall read out this sentence: “This
dilemma of the shortage of men has brought us to the idea of utilizing
more fully the reserves of manpower in the occupied territories.”
Do you remember this document?
JODL: I did not understand the question.
COL. POKROVSKY: I can repeat it. Your counsel submitted to the Tribunal
Document L-172, which is a speech made by you before the Gauleiter.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the matter now? You cannot hear without your
earphones on.
[_Turning to Dr. Exner._] Do you wish to say something?
DR. EXNER: If you please, Mr. President, the translation is such that we
simply cannot understand anything. We receive half a sentence which
makes no sense at all—at least, that is our opinion—and I believe the
other gentlemen, including the defendant, have the same difficulty...
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant has not shown any sign that he was unable
to understand the translation; he has never protested, and he has
answered the questions.
DR. EXNER: Do you understand, Defendant?
JODL: I would say that I can guess what most of the questions mean.
Since I am fully acquainted with the problem, it is easy for me; but I
am not sure...
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Pokrovsky, will you go a little slower. You
heard, did you not, what Dr. Exner said?
COL. POKROVSKY: Yes, I heard him. I fear, however, My Lord, that the
tempo of my speech may impede the interrogation, but I shall try to
speak more slowly.
[_Turning to the defendant._] In the speech with which you addressed the
Gauleiter on the 7th of November 1943, you expressed, _inter alia_, the
following idea: “The dilemma of the shortage of men has brought us to
the idea of utilizing more fully...”
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Pokrovsky, can you possibly indicate to us what
page this is on. In our book we have not any single document in English,
as yet. This document we have not had in English.
COL. POKROVSKY: It is Document L-172, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Pokrovsky, this very passage that you have just
read, or part of which you just read, was put by Mr. Roberts yesterday
to the defendant. Surely that is contrary to our rules; we cannot have
the same subject gone over twice. We already have it marked.
COL. POKROVSKY: I am quoting this sentence, My Lord, not as a question
to the witness, but only as an introductory remark to the question which
is to follow this sentence. I am reminding him of this sentence in order
to receive an answer. The sentence as such is not to be considered as a
question.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat what you said?
COL. POKROVSKY: My Lord, he will now receive the document in order to
save time, and I shall then ask him the question. I want...
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Pokrovsky, we want to know what the question is,
so we may see if it is not a question which has been gone into by Mr.
Roberts. Colonel Pokrovsky, the Tribunal have indicated to you that they
do not want you to go over the same ground which was gone over
yesterday. If you have some new question, by all means put it.
COL. POKROVSKY: I do not intend, Mr. President, to repeat in my
questions any question previously asked by Mr. Roberts. Therefore, with
your permission, I shall now continue, and I should like you, Witness,
to look at Document J-6, Exhibit Number USSR-130. It is stated in these
documents that they were issued with the consent of the OKW. They deal
with the introduction of general conscription in the occupied
territories of Carinthia and Krain. Have you found it? Have you found
the passage that I have just read, that is, the decree dealing with the
introduction of conscription in the occupied territories of Carinthia
and Krain?
JODL: Yes, that document begins with the following sentence...
COL. POKROVSKY: It begins with the following sentence, “In agreement
with the OKW...” Is that correct?
JODL: Yes.
COL. POKROVSKY: As Chief of the Armed Forces Operations Staff, you could
not but know of such facts as the conscription for service in the German
Army of the population of the occupied Yugoslav territories. What do you
have to say about this decree, which is a gross violation of
international law? Do you understand my question?
JODL: Yes. I can only say that I see it here for the first time. This is
the first I have heard of it. After all, I am not the OKW. I am Chief of
the Armed Forces Operations Staff. I never read this document during the
war.
COL. POKROVSKY: Will you read it, then, immediately. Do you not consider
it a gross violation of international law?
JODL: In order to give my opinion, I would have to go into it more fully
from a legal point of view, and I am not in a position to do that, and I
believe it is not of interest to the Tribunal.
COL. POKROVSKY: Well, on 4 June you testified before the Tribunal that
the decisions of the Hague and Geneva Conventions were your reference
book. You will now be shown Document 638-PS, submitted to the Tribunal
on 20 March as Exhibit USA-788. The authenticity of this document...
THE PRESIDENT: Well, 638 is the document which has been handed up.
COL. POKROVSKY: It is Document 638-PS, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Pokrovsky, is the document that you just handed
up to us J-6? Are you offering that in evidence? Are you offering that?
COL. POKROVSKY: No, I am not submitting a new document. It was already
submitted as evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute. Are you referring to the Document 638-PS,
or are you referring to Document J-6?
COL. POKROVSKY: I am referring to Document 638-PS, accepted by the
Tribunal as U.S.A. evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: I was not. I was referring to the Document J-6. The
document which is here before me, which is 638, is the Yugoslav
document.
COL. POKROVSKY: The document to which you refer, My Lord, bears a double
number, USSR-130 and J-6; and the second document also bears a double
number, USSR-447.
THE PRESIDENT: I do not want to know about the second document. I only
want to know whether you are offering the first document in evidence, or
has it already been offered in evidence?
COL. POKROVSKY: It has already been submitted, My Lord, by the
Delegation of the Soviet Union.
[_Turning to the defendant._] You, Jodl, have probably had sufficient
time to read the document. Is that right? Have you read it?
JODL: I know about this document from these proceedings.
COL. POKROVSKY: Quite correct. I only wish to remind you that Göring has
twice confirmed the authenticity of this document and merely questioned
the accuracy of certain entries in individual sentences. I should now
like to ask you how you reconcile your concepts of international law
with the formation of bands under German command, attired in German
military uniforms, bands recruited from the dregs of the criminal
classes, who were officially authorized to plunder, murder, burn, and
violate—they could also do all this during military operations. Have
you understood my question?
You, of course, well remember that these bands were actually created and
entered the ranks of the Armed Forces of the German Reich. You remember
the testimony of the witness Von dem Bach-Zelewski, of 7 January 1946,
concerning the special commands acting on these principles?
JODL: I do not know just how you come to know that the High Command gave
its approval and that this actually took place; I do not know. These are
merely the notes of alleged statements by the Reich Marshal, but I do
not know how they concern me.
COL. POKROVSKY: I shall try to help you to understand this fact. Do you
remember that at the end of 1941 and the beginning of 1942 a special
command was formed to operate against the partisans? The first
commanding officer of that unit was Dirlewanger, and Von dem
Bach-Zelewski testified about him here on 7 January 1946. Do you
remember that?
JODL: No, I do not remember that.
COL. POKROVSKY: You cannot remember? Very well. Then we shall prove it
without your testimony. Do you remember the fact that units of the
Yugoslav Army wore regulation uniforms, complete with insignia, numbers
of regiments and divisions? Do you remember that? Do you understand my
question, or do you not?
JODL: I understood. Do you mean the Brandenburg Regiment? I have some
idea of that.
COL. POKROVSKY: No, I have something else in mind. I wish to remind you
that despite the fact that parts of the Yugoslav Army did not come under
these descriptions which you have enumerated here before the Tribunal in
speaking of bands—that these parts of the Yugoslav Army were referred
to in every official document of the German High Command as bands, in
order to justify any atrocity perpetrated against them, and only in the
top-secret correspondence between German officers and staffs was the
correct, factual nomenclature of these divisions, regiments, and
brigades indicated. Perhaps this fact, in your opinion, also testifies
to the adherence of the German High Command to the standards of
international law? Have you understood me?
JODL: I understand you very well, yes.
COL. POKROVSKY: Do you wish to say anything on the matter?
JODL: Yes. I can only say this assertion of yours is untrue. We...
COL. POKROVSKY: I would ask you to reply as briefly as possible.
JODL: Yes, I was going to answer very briefly. We always called these
Yugoslav bandits “bands” for propaganda reasons, but in practice
uniformed fighters always were treated as prisoners of war; and there is
no order which would have prevented them from receiving such treatment
as prisoners of war. Otherwise, we would not have had so many prisoners.
COL. POKROVSKY: I am very much obliged to you for having raised the
question of the prisoners of war. You have testified on oath before the
Tribunal that there was no decree which forbade taking prisoners of war.
You have not yet forgotten that testimony of yours?
JODL: No, there are no international law regulations which apply to a
rebellion. There is no such thing.
COL. POKROVSKY: No, I asked you to confirm only if I have rendered your
testimony correctly to the Tribunal. You stated, before the Tribunal,
that there was no decree against taking prisoners of war. Did you give
such testimony before the Tribunal, or did you not?
JODL: What you have stated here is not my verbatim testimony.
COL. POKROVSKY: Just a minute, just a minute. We shall discuss in detail
the matter I have mentioned. First, I want you to tell me the following:
You stated, before the Tribunal, on oath, that there was no decree in
the German Armed Forces to the effect that prisoners of war were not to
be taken. Did you give this testimony or not? Have you understood me?
JODL: I think I remember. I do not know of any such order that no
prisoners of war were to be taken.
COL. POKROVSKY: Good. One moment more. I now want you to help me to
elucidate another matter. A sentence of yours appears in this typed
script to the effect that you considered it improper to question a
prisoner-of-war if a decision had already been made that the
prisoner-of-war was to be shot. Is that so? Is it correct?
JODL: Yes, I testified to the effect that I rejected that sentence from
the moral and from the humane point of view.
COL. POKROVSKY: Excellent. Now I want you to tell me the following: Do
you remember that there was a 4th Mountain Division in the German Army?
It seems that you, at one time, were directly connected with it? Was
there such a division or not?
JODL: That there were four mountain divisions, that I do not remember,
there were many more.
COL. POKROVSKY: I am not talking about four divisions. You have been
given an inaccurate translation. I am asking you whether you remember
that there was a 4th Mountain Division?
JODL: I certainly knew about that. I wanted to be the commander of that
division.
COL. POKROVSKY: Very well. In that case, you may also remember another
responsible officer of the German Army, whose name was Kübler? He
operated in Yugoslavia.
JODL: There were two men of the name of Kübler, an older man and a
younger man.
COL. POKROVSKY: Major General Kübler is the one who interests me. I am
not asking you who Keitel was. You know that better than I do.
THE PRESIDENT: Shall we adjourn now for a few minutes?
[_A recess was taken._]
COL. POKROVSKY: Now, you and I, Defendant Jodl, will attend to these two
documents. Please take Document J-67, Exhibit Number USSR-132. It is a
directive to the 118th Infantry Division.
JODL: 118th Infantry Division.
COL. POKROVSKY: I will read to you the “Instructions for Conduct of
Troops during Operations,” Paragraph 2. “Prisoners: Any man who has
obviously fought against the German Armed Forces, and has been captured,
is to be shot after interrogation.” Is that correct? It says so
precisely in those words? Do you hear me?
JODL: That is approximately what it says in that one sentence, but I
should like to have the whole document. Nothing can be gathered from one
sentence. What is decisive is what comes before it, and that is not
stated in the document.
COL. POKROVSKY: It is written above: “Instructions for the Conduct of
Troops during Operations.”
Now for the second document. It bears the stamp of the IV Mountain
Regiment. It was issued on 6 October 1943 and contains Keitel’s personal
instructions, written in his own hand, on how to deal with prisoners of
war. I will ask you to revert to Subparagraph 3. It says, in the second
part of this subparagraph, “...commanders having at least the rank of
divisional commanders are authorized to issue orders to take no
prisoners, and the civilian population in the combat area may be shot.”
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute. Apparently the translation was not coming
through correctly. Perhaps you are going too fast. It was coming through
correctly to me, but it apparently was not coming through correctly to
the defendants. Would you put your question again?
COL. POKROVSKY: In Subparagraph 3 of the document issued by the IV
Mountain Regiment it says...
THE PRESIDENT: Did you give us the number of it?
COL. POKROVSKY: Yes, My Lord. It is Exhibit USSR-470; and it bears a
double number, Document J-127.
[_Turning to the defendant._] Have you found Subparagraph 3, Defendant
Jodl?
JODL: Yes, but this cannot possibly be described as a document. That is
not a document.
COL. POKROVSKY: This document says how prisoners of war are to be
treated.