JODL: But it is not an original. It is a fantastic translation. Any
soldier would have thrown it straight into the wastepaper basket. It is
a falsification. But I admit that it may be due to the foolish
translation. In my opinion, all it contains is nonsense. The heading
says “IV Mountain Regiment,” and it is a Roman four. It should be an
Arabic number. It is never called Mountain Regiment. It then goes on to
say, the commander of the IV Mountain Division, Section Ic, delivers
under number such and such the following—all that is nonsense, pure,
unadulterated nonsense! This is not a document. It is a scrap of paper.
COL. POKROVSKY: I am not responsible for the translation.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to see the original of these
documents. They were put in, apparently, as USSR-132 and USSR-470. Is
USSR-470 a new document?
COL. POKROVSKY: No, My Lord, this document has already been submitted,
and the original is in the records of the Tribunal. Now I am only
submitting a copy of this document which is at our disposal. Both
documents were previously submitted in the original. If it is necessary,
we can obtain these original documents and submit them a second time.
THE PRESIDENT: One of the secretaries of the Tribunal says that it was
not submitted before—not offered in evidence before—USSR-470. Are you
sure?
COL. POKROVSKY: There may have been some technical error. I was informed
that it had already been submitted. We shall now go into this matter
thoroughly. I believe, My Lord, that the original of the second document
is in your possession.
JODL: I can say something to clarify this.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Pokrovsky, the Tribunal are uncertain about the
admission of this Document 470. Could you tell us exactly what the
document is, and in what circumstances it is now being offered in
evidence? What the document is, and where it came from?
COL. POKROVSKY: I can give quite a definite answer to the last question,
My Lord, but perhaps I shall have to answer the first part of your
question a few minutes later. The matter is being investigated.
On the second page of Exhibit USSR-470, at the bottom of the page, there
is an affidavit:
“This is to certify that this is a correct and certified copy of
the original document which was captured during military
operations in June 1944, at Pakracu, by the Yugoslav National
Army of Liberation. The original document is kept in the
archives of the State Commission for the Investigation of
Atrocities perpetrated by the occupants and their collaborators
in Belgrade, dated 4 January 1946, Belgrade,”
signed by the President of the State Commission, University Professor
Dr. D. Nedelkovitsch.
I am just having investigations made as to whether this document has
already been submitted, by what member of the Soviet Delegation it was
submitted, and on what date. If the document has not yet been submitted,
then we can demand the original from the Belgrade archives—the German,
the captured copy—or else a certified photostat, whichever is most
acceptable to the Tribunal and have it presented in evidence.
My Lord, I have just been informed that this document was not presented.
Therefore, it will be submitted for the first time, and we shall
immediately ask for the original as additional evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Pokrovsky, with reference, for the moment, to
Document USSR-132, which I understand has already been put in
evidence—offered in evidence—the Tribunal would like to see the
original of that document because there are only two paragraphs put out
in the copy that we have before us, and that was the point that was
taken by the Defendant Jodl, that he wanted to see the whole document.
Colonel Pokrovsky, first of all, with reference to Document 132, which
the Tribunal understand has already been offered in evidence, the
Tribunal think that that document in full should be put before the
defendant for him to make any comments. With reference to Document 470,
which you are now offering in evidence, the Tribunal are of the opinion
that you should go on cross-examining with reference to that document,
subject to the production, as soon as possible, of the original or a
photostatic copy of the original, and subject to the right of the
defendant’s counsel to apply to have that cross-examination struck out
if there is any substantial difference between the translation in the
Yugoslav language—which is now being put to the defendant, or used for
the purpose of cross-examination of the defendant—and the original
document.
Is that clear to you and to Dr. Exner?
COL. POKROVSKY: It shall be done, My Lord.
DR. EXNER: Mr. President, I think that a discussion of this document
ought not to be permitted at the moment. There are too many
discrepancies in it. As it stands, it cannot be correct. Roman numeral
IV, for instance, “the IV Mountain Regiment,” is referred to. That Roman
numeral IV is quite wrong. Then it says “the commander delivers...”
which is not German. Then, on Line 4 there is mention...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Exner, the Tribunal want to know what you are talking
about. Are you talking about 470?
DR. EXNER: Yes. I am merely trying to show that this cannot be a genuine
document because it is not proper German at all.
For instance, in Line 4 it says, “Armed Forces Operations Staff, Ob.H.”
The Armed Forces Operations Staff is attached to the OKW, not to the
Ob.H.
Then, there is no signature. It is signed “Keitel” on the first page;
but he signs as a Generaloberst, whereas I am told he was already a
Field Marshal at that time.
Furthermore, this signature is part of the quotation and it says, “The
OKW supplies the following...” Then there is the quotation—and Keitel’s
signature is a part of that—whereas the document itself is supposed to
originate from the 4th Mountain Regiment, and there is no signature of
the 4th Mountain Regiment. I really do not think there would be any
sense in talking about the document until the original has been
supplied. For instance, on Page 2 of the document there is the statement
that this goes to the commanders of 6, 7, _et cetera_. They are not
commanders, these company commanders. No German military person could
have written this document.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Exner, the Tribunal adhere to the decision that this
document may be used now. All the points which you are now raising and
any other points which you may wish to raise upon the document will be
open to you if you wish to move to have the cross-examination struck out
at a later stage when the original had been produced.
DR. EXNER: I understand.
THE PRESIDENT: For the purposes of not wasting time, it is, the Tribunal
think, more convenient to have the cross-examination now upon this
document. We will leave it to you to move hereafter to strike the whole
cross-examination out.
DR. EXNER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, Colonel Pokrovsky, here is the original Document
USSR-132 which the defendant ought to have for the purpose of making any
comments that he wishes to make.
COL. POKROVSKY: The instructions of the Tribunal will be carried out, My
Lord. We shall submit the original document.
[_Turning to the defendant._] Have you acquainted yourself with the
contents of the document?
JODL: It is an order of the 118th Infantry Division.
COL. POKROVSKY: You have no doubts at all about the authenticity of the
document?
JODL: No, there is no doubt that it is an order of the 118th Infantry
Division, but the connection between the 118th Infantry Division and
myself is puzzling. But the order is genuine.
COL POKROVSKY: Perhaps you would like to admit now that this is not a
question of stupidity but of villainy. Perhaps you would like to amplify
your testimony in this sense?
JODL: I did not understand you.
THE PRESIDENT: Defendant, when you were asked about Paragraph 2 of
Document USSR-132, you said that the whole document was not before you.
Now you have the whole document.
JODL: I have it, yes. I have the entire document. The entire order from
Kübler is perfectly in order in my opinion. Apparently the doubts which
the Prosecutor has refer to Point 2, where it says, “Any man who has
obviously fought against the German Armed Forces and has been captured
is to be shot after interrogation.”
That, of course, does not refer to normal troops. That refers to the
population. At least, that is how I see it. Paragraph 8 says, “Attitude
towards the Population.”
That is also in order from the point of view of international law. It
draws a distinction between the attitude towards a hostile population
and the attitude towards a peaceful population.
COL. POKROVSKY: Is that all you wish to say?
JODL: Yes, but as I said, I do not understand the connection between
Major General Kübler’s order and myself. I do not understand it.
COL. POKROVSKY: You confirm that the question of the treatment of the
civilian population has been isolated to form an independent paragraph,
Number 8? Is that correct? You have just referred to that.
JODL: Yes, Paragraph 8 mentions the treatment to be meted out to the
civilian population.
COL. POKROVSKY: I am satisfied with your answer. Let us pass on to
another group of questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute.
JODL: But I wished, with the permission of the Tribunal, to object...
THE PRESIDENT: One moment. Defendant, are you suggesting that there is
anything in the order itself which indicated that the prisoners dealt
with in Paragraph 2 are not, as you have put it, normal troops?
JODL: In that respect, the paragraph is not very clear; but the next
document which the Prosecutor has submitted might give the proof
regarding what other orders have been issued. However, I consider that
it is out of the question that Kübler gave an order saying that Yugoslav
troops captured in battle should be shot. That is quite impossible. And
had he done so, then he would have done so against the orders of the
High Command of the German Armed Forces. But how can I give my views on
an order from Major General Kübler? It would be best to ask him, he is
alive.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, your answer to my question, then, is in the
negative, that there is nothing in the order itself which shows or
indicates that the prisoners referred to in Paragraph 2 are not normal
troops.
JODL: That cannot be concluded from the wording of that order.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps I ought to draw your attention to the words under
“General Directives for the Conduct of Troops in Action.”
At any rate, that is your answer upon the whole document.
JODL: May I please have permission to look at the original again? I have
only a copy here before me.
[_The document was submitted to the defendant._]
THE PRESIDENT: You now have the original document before you. Do you
want to add anything to what you have said?
JODL: I just wanted to add—if you are dealing with this order of Major
General Kübler—that it is not certain whether this order refers to any
particular action, for example, the mopping up of guerrillas in a given
territory who were not regarded as regular troops at that particular
moment, but were regarded as a revolt of the population. That is
feasible.
At any rate, I cannot answer these questions because I am not Major
General Kübler.
THE PRESIDENT: Now you can pass on to 470.
JODL: May I ask the Tribunal for permission to make a correction in my
objection to this document?
THE PRESIDENT: Which document are you speaking of?
JODL: Document USSR-470.
THE PRESIDENT: What do you want to say about it?
JODL: I previously described that document as nonsensical because, at
the first moment, I regarded it as a German order. In the meantime I
have ascertained that it is obviously a Croatian order, because it is
addressed to three Ustashi battalions. In this Croatian order the
Croatian commander of this mountain regiment tells his troops something
which he had apparently received in the way of orders from the 4th
German Mountain Division, regarding the treatment of prisoners. He, in
turn, traces it back to an order from Keitel which, however, is
misrepresented and which, if it were correct, would best be handed in to
the counsel for Field Marshal Keitel, because it is the best example of
the attitude toward the guerrillas in Yugoslavia in keeping with
international law—that is, if it is correct. Therefore, it is not a
German order; it is apparently a draft or a translation of a Croatian
order of the 4th Mountain Regiment. But what the 4th Croatian Regiment
has to do with the General or the Defendant Jodl is a puzzle to me. I do
not understand it.
THE PRESIDENT: Go on, Colonel Pokrovsky.
COL. POKROVSKY: I ask you, Defendant Jodl, whether you knew of such a
directive by Keitel to the effect that division commanders or officers
of higher rank were entitled to issue orders that no prisoners should be
taken. Do you know of such a directive?
JODL: No, it is not known to me; and it is not certain that the order
was issued in that way. However, in certain cases it is permissible
under international law.
COL. POKROVSKY: I have no further questions to ask in connection with
this document. The defense counsel will obviously ask some questions
when the original document is submitted to the Tribunal.
I shall now proceed to another group of questions. If I am not mistaken,
you confirmed the authenticity of your so-called notes for “Plan Grün”
where it dealt with the creation of an incident on the borders of
Czechoslovakia. It is stated quite clearly there that the organization
of this incident was to be entrusted to the counterintelligence. Have I
interpreted the idea of your notes correctly?
JODL: No. The translation as it came over to me is completely distorted.
But there has been a full discussion about that, too.
COL. POKROVSKY: To facilitate the task of the interpreters, I shall
simplify the question. You, I believe, confirmed the authenticity of
this document dealing with the incident and the organization of the
incident. This is Defense Document Jodl-14.
THE PRESIDENT: I do not think it has come through properly.
JODL: No. It did not make any sense to me at all.
COL. POKROVSKY: All right. I shall repeat it. Do I clearly understand
that you do not contest the authenticity of Document Jodl-14?
JODL: If that is the letter from me to Major Schmundt, then that is an
absolutely genuine document, which I wrote myself.
COL. POKROVSKY: In this connection I should like to ask you one precise
question: Do you confirm that the provocation which you call the
“organization of an incident” had two objectives: First, to give a
pretext for an attack against Czechoslovakia; and secondly—to use your
own terminology, which we heard here on 4 June—to shift the blame for
the war on to somebody else’s shoulders? Had you these two objectives
when you proposed to organize an incident? Do you understand my
question?
JODL: I understood roughly what you said.
COL. POKROVSKY: Can you give an answer?
JODL: Yes, I can repeat the answer I gave yesterday. I have...
COL. POKROVSKY: You confirm this?
JODL: My testimony of yesterday? Yes, of course. I still maintain today
something which I said yesterday.
COL. POKROVSKY: Very well. I would like you to tell the Tribunal
everything you know about the supplying of weapons to the Sudeten
Germans organized into the Henlein Corps, which you mentioned to the
Tribunal in passing. You stated that this corps contained a certain
number of officers. Do you remember?
JODL: Yes, I remember.
COL. POKROVSKY: In order to help you, I will show you a document.
[_The document was submitted to the defendant._]
It is the testimony of Karl Hermann Frank. He declares in this testimony
that the Henlein Corps received a certain quantity of weapons. Do you
know anything about this?
JODL: I only know of weapons supplied to the Henlein Free Corps at the
time when it was being formed on German territory. Whether arms had been
previously smuggled into Czechoslovakia for that Sudeten-German group,
or how they were brought in, is something which I know nothing about.
The Armed Forces were never in any way concerned with that, just as
later on they were not concerned with the Henlein Free Corps.
COL. POKROVSKY: Do you know what kind of weapons were sent there? Were
they of German origin or not?
JODL: The fact that arms were taken into Czechoslovakia is something I
know absolutely nothing about. I was not a smuggler of arms; I was a
General Staff officer.
COL. POKROVSKY: That is why I am asking you, since you have said that
you received reports on the arming of the Henlein Free Corps when it
arrived on German territory. That is why I asked you, an officer of the
General Staff, were these weapons of German origin or not? You must know
that.
JODL: Henlein’s Free Corps—which was formed near Hof, and in the
district to the North, on 17 September—received, in my opinion, former
Austrian, or even German, arms. I think they were Austrian weapons, but
I do not know that for certain.
COL. POKROVSKY: Then it is not necessary. We only need definite
information and definite facts. You will now be handed a photostatic
copy of the Case Green folder.
[_The folder was submitted to the defendant._]
You will look at the passage which has been marked. The marked passage
says, “For the success of the operation, the penetration into Sudeten
Germany with parachute troops will be of great value.” The Defendant
Keitel, on 6 April 1946, when questioned regarding this part of the
document, said that it is precisely you who could give the requisite
explanations with regard to this document.
JODL: With reference to this paragraph I have to say that, in the
preparation for a possible war, the Army had a notation inserted to the
effect that fortifications would have to be penetrated quickly or would
have to be opened up from the rear and that for the success of this
joint action the co-operation of airborne troops, together with the
border population and the Sudeten Germans who deserted to us, might be
of value. For, of course, it was a fact that among the Germans who had
been drawn into the ranks and who numbered about 100,000, not one would
have turned his weapon upon us but would have deserted on the spot. They
wrote that to me personally while in Czech uniform. These Germans would
have deserted on the spot. That, of course, we expected and had taken
into account in our military calculations.
COL. POKROVSKY: I fear that you have not understood me quite correctly
or that you did not wish to understand the question which I put to you.
Defendant Jodl, I am interested in something else. Do you confirm the
fact that prior to the attack on Czechoslovakia you had planned
diversionary activity on the territory of Czechoslovakia proper. That is
what I am interested in. Yes or no?
JODL: First, there was no attack upon Czechoslovakia at all; that is a
historical untruth. Second, this was General Staff work, which was
prepared for a possible war; and there is nothing else to be said about
that.
THE PRESIDENT: That is not an answer to the question. The question was
whether you planned before the war—or the possible war—diversionary
activity in Czechoslovakia. Did you plan that? Can you answer that?
JODL: No, I did not. You will have to ask Admiral Canaris about that.
Such matters were not in my jurisdiction.
COL. POKROVSKY: Keitel advised us to ask you, and you advise us to
question Canaris. Very well; I have another question to ask you. Was the
unification of all pro-Fascist forces and armed Fascist bands in
Yugoslavia, which fought against the Allies, carried out with your
knowledge? Or do you know nothing about that?
JODL: You mean the military organization under Marshal Tito. That is
known to me, yes.
COL. POKROVSKY: No, I am referring to the organization under the
direction of the German High Command, of a united front of all
pro-Fascist bands—of Nedish, Michailovič, and others—financed by
Germany, helped by Germany, and under the leadership of the German High
Command. Do you know anything about that, or do you not?
JODL: I do not know whether you have in mind the Chetniks. They were
under Italian command. Because of this there was always a big row
between us and the Italians. Then there was the Ustashi, they were
Croatians. But the other pro-Fascist organizations are not known to me.
COL. POKROVSKY: Very well. You will look at Document J-95, Exhibit
USSR-288. It has already been submitted to the Tribunal. It is the
testimony of Nedish. Two or three sentences from this document have a
direct bearing on the questions that I have asked you. Nedish testified
under oath, naming those who had helped him to form and to finance his
bands. He named the representatives of the German High Command and the
Gestapo who helped him to create his armed forces.
Have you found that?
JODL: That is right. Nedish formed a Serbian unit. I forgot that before.
Nedish had a—what shall I say—a Serbian...
COL. POKROVSKY: Do you remember it?
JODL: Yes. Nedish had a small unit. That is right. There were perhaps
5,000 to 6,000 men. They were Serbs.
COL. POKROVSKY: Did you give financial support to this organization?
JODL: No. I had no money. I did not back these things.
COL. POKROVSKY: No, I am not speaking of your personal means, but the
means of the German Reich.
JODL: I cannot tell you that. I did not concern myself with money in
this war.
COL. POKROVSKY: Was the German High Command at the head of the work of
controlling the organization of these bands, or was it not?
JODL: No. I did not organize it. The Commander, Southeast, probably
discussed that with Nedish. But it was Nedish’s own private affair if he
wished to call on the Serbs to fight.
COL. POKROVSKY: I do not know whether it was his private business or
not. But it is most important to me that you confirm the fact that these
bands actually existed. How Nedish organized them does not interest me.
JODL: I can confirm that. There were about 5,000 to 6,000 men of the
Serbian auxiliary police.
COL. POKROVSKY: Very well. You will be shown another report from this
group of questions. It is an official report of the Polish Government
sent to the Military Tribunal. You will find that it contains some very
valuable information about the activities of the Fifth Column. Please
turn to the sentence which is marked “B.” It is said there:
“In addition to the agents selected from among the young people
and appointed to co-operate with the German civilian population,
there also existed a group of leaders and instructors made up of
officers who had come to Poland, supplied with valid passports,
weeks before the outbreak of hostilities.”
Do you, as the direct leader of the counterintelligence—this section
was subordinate to you—know anything about this Fifth Column
organization in Poland?
JODL: There are two small errors you have made, Colonel Pokrovsky: first
of all, counterintelligence was not under me but under the Chief of the
High Command of the Armed Forces; and secondly, I stated at length
yesterday that I know nothing about any of the preparations for the
Polish campaign, either from the point of view of operations or
otherwise, because I was Artillery Commander in Vienna and Brünn. What
Canaris did at that time with respect to Poland is something I know
absolutely nothing about. I am afraid, therefore, that I cannot be of
any help.
COL. POKROVSKY: Well, let us proceed to the next group of questions. You
were examined on 8 November by the Soviet Prosecution, and you were
asked whether Germany was pursuing a predatory policy when attacking the
Soviet Union? Do you remember being asked this question?
JODL: I remember very well, yes.
COL. POKROVSKY: You will now be handed a copy of your answer. You
replied:
“I admit that the question of the expansion of Germany’s
‘Lebensraum’ and the utilization of Russian economy for
Germany’s needs did play a certain part, but it was not the
basic reason for the attack on the Soviet Union.”
Do you remember answering in this sense?
JODL: It is possible. I did not sign it. At any rate, I said it was not
the chief cause.
COL. POKROVSKY: You also said in the same answer:
“It was never our intention to keep enlarging our ‘Lebensraum’
and thereby create new enemies.”
It appears that you do remember that?
JODL: Yes, I do.
COL. POKROVSKY: Very well. Perhaps you will now recall that the witness
Ohlendorf testified before the Tribunal that prior to the outbreak of
hostilities against the Soviet Union, Himmler, in his speech, had
outlined a program for the annihilation, in the East, of 10,000,000
Slavs and Jews? Do you remember this statement?
JODL: I recollect having heard that testimony in this courtroom, yes.
COL. POKROVSKY: In the light of this—in the light of Ohlendorf’s
testimony—would you not like to answer more precisely the question as
to whether the war against the Soviet Union was waged with a predatory
purpose, with the purpose of seizing territory, annihilating the
population, and then of transforming the occupied territories, to quote
Hitler’s own words, “into a paradise for the Germans”? Do you not think
that is exactly what did happen?
JODL: What the Führer might have wanted to create later on I do not
know; but the military and strategic reasons, which he gave us and which
were definitely confirmed by the many reports received, I explained
yesterday in great detail. The main reason was the feeling that we were
under a dire threat of being attacked by Russia. That was the decisive
point.
COL. POKROVSKY: Very well. You will now be handed Document C-57. It has
already been submitted to the Tribunal, My Lord. On the evening of 5
April 1946 this document was put to Defendant Keitel as Exhibit
USSR-336. I must ask you to turn to Subparagraph 4 of this document and
to Subparagraph 7, for Defendant Keitel stated that you could give far
more detailed explanations about these documents. Point 4 referred to
the active participation of Spain in the seizure of Gibraltar as far
back as 1941. Tell us, how was this active participation of Spain to be
expressed? Have you found this passage in the document?
JODL: Yes, I already know the document. But nobody signed it. First of
all, I have to give an explanation of what this document is, so that it
is not mistaken for an order.
COL. POKROVSKY: But I do not believe I ever said that it was an order.
JODL: That is all right, because it is not an order. I cannot say what
the people who drew up this document had in mind at the time. It was
obviously a draft which the General Staff officers, presumably from my
department, together with the operations expert of the Navy, prepared in
my office and which they submitted to the Naval Operations Staff for
their perusal, according to the principle that General Staff officers
must think and plan a long time ahead. They had these personal ideas and
put them down on paper without my ever having seen them.
THE PRESIDENT: What was your question, Colonel Pokrovsky? It was whether
the draft did not...
COL. POKROVSKY: I asked a question to which I received no answer. My
Lord, I asked him what he could say about the actual part which Spain
was to play in the seizure of Gibraltar in 1941.
JODL: I cannot make a statement on what other people thought. I can only
talk about serious intentions in connection with Spain in 1940. That I
can talk about. But as far as this paper is concerned, I can say nothing
about it. For at the time I had long ago dismissed the thing as
impossible. I know of it only since I have been in Nuremberg; I never
saw it before.
COL. POKROVSKY: Whether that plan could not be fulfilled is quite
another question. Defendant Keitel said that you could give an
explanation. You declare that you cannot say anything.
JODL: As I have just said, it is some preliminary work carried out by
the younger General Staff officers, which I saw here in the document
room for the first time with great interest and some amusement. It was
not shown to me at the time, because it could already be seen that in a
week’s time the situation would change.
COL. POKROVSKY: You know nothing about the proposed dispatch of an
expeditionary corps to Egypt, Iran, and Iraq, through Trans-Caucasia in
the direction of the Persian Gulf, if the Soviet Union had fallen, as is
stated here; you did not know anything about that either?
JODL: It was never a really serious proposition. On the contrary, I had
the biggest row of my life with the Führer because I refused to attack
beyond the Caucasus in the direction of Baku. But the General Staff
officers did entertain such ideas in the first flush of optimism because
of the big victories in the summer. That is what they are there for—to
have ideas. But the decisions are made by the older and more
level-headed men.
COL. POKROVSKY: So you confirm that the success of the Red Army upset
what you call “the bold and far-reaching plans” of Hitler to send an
expeditionary corps to Syria and Egypt? Is that right?
JODL: If the Soviet Union had collapsed, then one might have entertained
such ideas for continuing the war. But never the idea, for instance, of
attacking Turkey. She would have come over to our side anyway
voluntarily. That was the opinion of the Führer.
COL. POKROVSKY: How do you know that?
JODL: How do I know it? Even the document says so. And there are the
entries in the Diaries of the Armed Forces Operations Staff, which are
here in Court. It says:
“After big German victories, Turkey will come over to our side,
anyway. I order that she be given preferential treatment in the
supply of munitions and arms and tanks.”
In fact, Turkey had expressed such a wish, and she was very grateful to
receive from us tanks equipped with arms. The Führer would never have
done that if he had expected Turkey to join our opponents.
COL. POKROVSKY: We shall proceed to another group of questions. On the
eve of the campaign against Russia, a conference was held between the
representatives of the OKW, the OKH, and the so-called RSHA. The
participation of the subdepartment SIPO was being considered. Do you
know anything about this conference, at which the witness Ohlendorf was
present?
JODL: I know nothing about that. I was working on quite different
matters, and I have never had any conferences or connections with the
Reich Security Main Office at all.
COL. POKROVSKY: Are you acquainted with Wilhelm Scheidt, a colleague in
the Prisoners of War Organization of the OKW?
JODL: Yes, I know him. He was an assistant to General Scherff.
COL. POKROVSKY: Are you acquainted with his testimony which was given
before the Tribunal? It is, My Lord, on Page 2207 of the English
transcript (Volume IV, Page 467). He testifies that the criminal
practice of inflicting punitive measures on the peaceful civilian
population was known to the leading officers of the Armed Forces
Operations Staff and of the General Staff of the Army. Do you remember
that?
JODL: I do not know the words that he used. Criminal actions were
neither known to the Armed Forces Operations Staff nor to me. I rejected
criminal actions and fought against them, and I made that abundantly
clear here.
COL. POKROVSKY: Am I to understand that you deny all knowledge of the
criminal punitive measures taken against the civilian population? Do you
mean to say you knew nothing about them?
JODL: Of course, I know of the fight against your partisans. That is
quite clear. I have shown two instructions which were issued by the
Armed Forces Operations Staff in this connection.
COL. POKROVSKY: On 7 January 1946, the witness Von dem Bach-Zelewski
testified that the real aim of this struggle against the partisans was
the extermination of the Slavs and the Jews, and that the methods used
in this struggle were known to the High Command. Do you wish to deny
this, too?
JODL: It might have been the intention of Bach-Zelewski; it was not
mine. My instructions were different. I already described the intention
yesterday as completely senseless. The numbers of guerrillas made no
difference at all in the gigantic struggle between the German and the
Soviet Armies. It was a minute percentage.
COL. POKROVSKY: Could you perhaps recollect, Defendant Jodl, when and in
what circumstances you yourself said, at one of Hitler’s conferences,
that the German troops were entitled to treat the partisans as they
wished and to subject them to any kind of death by torture, by
quartering, hanging them head downward, _et cetera_. Do you remember
having said something of the kind at that time?
JODL: About this matter—which is more comical than serious—we talked
for quite some time during the preliminary interrogation.
COL. POKROVSKY: Perhaps you can tell us about this matter at less length
but with greater precision. Will you answer my question whether you
spoke these words or anything like these words, and in what
circumstances did you say them?
JODL: I want to explain it briefly. It was on 1 December 1942. As the
Tribunal will remember, a directive in regard to combating the
guerrillas was issued on 11 November by the Armed Forces Operations
Staff, which we declared to be outdated by the new issue on 6 May 1944.
In that directive, which was issued on 11 November, I had written the
sentence: “The burning down of villages as a reprisal is forbidden,
because it necessarily only creates new partisans.”
The draft of that instruction remained in the Führer’s hands for weeks.
He always objected that this instruction would hamper the troops in
ruthlessly combating the guerrillas. As at that time I had already
issued that instruction and he still had not given his approval, I
became rather rude; and when he once more came with lengthy explanations
of his fighting experience, his experience of fighting the Communists in
Chemnitz, I said, in order to break the ice at last, “My Führer, what
people do in battle does not come into this instruction at all. As far
as I am concerned, they can quarter them or they can hang them upside
down.”
If I had known that the Russian gentlemen have so little sense of irony,
I would have added, “and roast them on the spit.” That is what I said
and I added, “But in this instruction we are concerned with reprisals
after the battle, and they must be prohibited.”
Then there were roars of laughter from all the officers present, and
also from the Führer; and he gave me permission to issue that directive;
and the testimony of a witness, General Buhle, who was present, will
confirm that to you. That quartering people has not been the custom in
Germany since the sixteenth century, any more than hanging people upside
down, everybody in the world certainly knows. Therefore that remark
could only be an ironical one.
COL. POKROVSKY: I ask the Tribunal to grant me one minute for one last
question, literally one minute only.
[_Turning to the defendant._] Do you know that the German troops,
evidently understanding irony better than we do—and in the literal
sense of the word—quartered, hanged upside down, and roasted Soviet
captives over the fire? Did you know of that?
JODL: Not only I did not know it, but I do not even believe it.
COL. POKROVSKY: With the permission of the Tribunal I shall proceed to
the last group of questions left to me after the recess.
THE PRESIDENT: How much longer will that take, Colonel Pokrovsky?
COL. POKROVSKY: I have only a very few questions to put, and I believe
it will not take very long.
[_The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours._]
_Afternoon Session_
COL. POKROVSKY: You have given very important testimony before the
Tribunal. You have admitted that in 1941 the warriors of the Red Army at
Vyazma were fanatically resisting the Fascist invaders. Many of them
were taken prisoner only because they were too exhausted to move. You
thereby explained the abnormally high mortality among the Soviet
prisoners of war. Is that correct?
JODL: That is true with regard to the prisoners, particularly in the
Vyazma pocket.
COL. POKROVSKY: Can you think of any other reasons you know which would
account for this high mortality among the Soviet prisoners of war?
JODL: I did not hear of any other reasons.
COL. POKROVSKY: Then I will refresh your memory a little and draw your
attention to a short excerpt from our Exhibit Number USSR-353. It is a
letter from Rosenberg to the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces,
that is, it was sent directly to the OKW. The letter is dated 28
February 1942. I would draw your attention to a few short extracts from
this document. On Page 1, I believe, the following sentences are
underlined:
“The fate of the Soviet prisoners of war in Germany is a
large-scale tragedy.... A great part of them have died of hunger
or from the inclement weather. Thousands have also died of
typhus.”