“Several intelligent camp commanders have taken this line with
some success.”
Before it had been a question of the population being willing to supply
the prisoners of war with food of their own accord.
“In the majority of cases, however, the camp commanders have
forbidden the civilian population to give any food to the
prisoners of war and have preferred to let them die of
starvation.... Moreover, in many cases, when prisoners of war on
the march could no longer keep up from sheer hunger and
exhaustion, they were shot in full view of the horrified
civilian population; and the corpses were left by the roadside.”
And further on:
“Remarks have been heard like these: ‘The more of these
prisoners that die, the better it will be for us.’”
And again on Page 3:
“It would be too naive to imagine that what went on in the
prisoner-of-war camps could be concealed from the Soviet
Government. It is obvious from Molotov’s circular note that the
Soviets are perfectly well aware of the conditions described
above....”
Have you found the passages in question?
JODL: Yes, I have found them.
COL. POKROVSKY: Now, did you really know nothing of the reasons for this
high mortality?
JODL: No. I heard of the letter here in court for the first time.
COL. POKROVSKY: Defendant Jodl, I am not asking you about the letter. I
am asking you about the reasons for these mass deaths among the Soviet
prisoners. So you did not know of the reasons which led to these mass
deaths?
THE PRESIDENT: Is the document signed?
COL. POKROVSKY: The document bears no signature. It is a captured
document, Number 081-PS. It belongs to the documents captured by the
United States and was handed to us so that we could submit it to the
Tribunal.
[_Turning to the defendant._] I did not hear your reply, Defendant.
JODL: I knew nothing about these reasons for the mass deaths. In any
case they are completely wrong; that I do know, because I can give rough
figures from memory as regards the number of Soviet prisoners of war and
their whereabouts.
COL. POKROVSKY: Good. We will now deal with this question from a
different angle. Are you familiar with the name of Von Graevenitz?
JODL: Von Graevenitz? Yes, the name is familiar to me.
COL. POKROVSKY: Did he not work in the OKW?
JODL: He was, if I am not mistaken, in the Armed Forces Department as a
subordinate of General Reinecke.
COL. POKROVSKY: This time you are quite accurate; you are right. Do you
know General Österreich?
JODL: No, I do not know that general.
COL. POKROVSKY: You have never even heard the name?
JODL: I do not recall it.
COL. POKROVSKY: This general was chief of the department in charge of
prisoners of war in one of your military districts. Do you perhaps
remember this general’s testimony about the directive he had received
from Von Graevenitz in the OKW with respect to the Soviet prisoners of
war? You will now be shown Document Number USSR-151, Page 5 of the
German text. You will find there the passage to which I should like to
draw your attention.
“At the end of 1941 or the beginning of 1942 I was repeatedly
called to Berlin to attend conferences held by the commanders in
charge of prisoners of war in the military districts.
“The newly appointed commander of the Prisoners of War
Organization in the headquarters of the OKW, Major General Von
Graevenitz, presided over the conference.
“During the conference there was a discussion about the
treatment of prisoners of war who, because of their wounds or
from exhaustion and disease, were unfit to live and unfit to
work. At the suggestion of General Von Graevenitz several of the
officers present, among them several doctors, gave their
opinions on it and declared that such prisoners of war should be
concentrated in a camp or in a hospital and be poisoned.
Following this discussion, Major General Von Graevenitz issued
an order to the effect that all prisoners of war who were unfit
to live and to work should be killed and that medical personnel
should be employed for this purpose.”
Did you know anything at all about that?
JODL: I knew nothing about that at all, and I cannot comment on this
document. It has nothing to do with me and I do not know whether what
has been said here is true, but General Von Graevenitz must certainly
know about it. I had no connection whatsoever with prisoners of war.
That was another office, General Reinecke.
COL. POKROVSKY: Von Graevenitz himself defends his statement. He was an
executive; he put the directives of the OKW into effect and also issued
the relevant instructions and yet you tell me you knew nothing about
them?
JODL: I did not say that. General Von Graevenitz is no subordinate of
mine. I had no interviews of any kind with him. I have seen him perhaps
twice in all my life. I was not responsible for prisoners of war, and I
was not competent to deal with them.
COL. POKROVSKY: Very well. We will now pass on to my last group of
questions. There are very few of them.
When Defendant Keitel was cross-examined here before the Tribunal, as
well as in the preliminary interrogations preceding the Trial—I believe
these particular subjects arose during the preliminary interrogation—he
said that you would give us more detailed information about directives
for the destruction of Moscow and Leningrad. You stated here before the
Tribunal that the directives were issued for two reasons: First, because
General Von Leeb had reported on the gradual seeping through of the
Leningrad populations to the west and south to the front lines; and
secondly, they were issued as a reprisal for Kiev. Is that correct?
JODL: Not reprisals, but the justifiable fear that whatever could happen
to us in Kiev could also happen to us in Leningrad; and the third reason
was the announcement by the Soviet Russian radio that this would
actually take place.
COL. POKROVSKY: Good. The only important thing for me is to establish
the fact that you connected the issuing of this directive with the
report from the Leningrad front and with the affair in Kiev; is that
correct?
JODL: I did not connect them; but events, as they actually happened,
necessarily influenced the decision of the Führer in this direction.
These were the reasons which he gave himself.
COL. POKROVSKY: Very well. Perhaps you will remember when the High
Command received this information from Leeb—in what month?
JODL: It was in the first days—as far as I remember in the first days
of September.
COL. POKROVSKY: Very well. Perhaps you can also remember the date on
which the Germans captured Kiev. Was it not towards the end of September
1941?
JODL: As far as I remember, Kiev was occupied at the end of August. I
believe it was on 25 August or about that date. But I cannot...
COL. POKROVSKY: Was that not on 22 September?
JODL: That is entirely out of the question. We have a document here, a
report about the incidents in Kiev; I do not know the date of it from
memory, but it is Document 053-PS. We must be able to see the date from
that document.
COL. POKROVSKY: It is precisely in that document that 23 and 24
September are mentioned. Well, let us, however, suppose that it really
did happen in August. Would you not remember the date when Hitler first
declared that Leningrad should be razed to the ground?
JODL: I beg your pardon. I have made a mistake all the time about the
date. This document is—Document C-323, the Führer decree, is dated 7
October. So, your statement may be correct. I was a month off in my
calculations, and the taking of Kiev was actually at the end of
September. The reports which we received from Leeb came in the first
days of October. I made a mistake. I am sorry.
COL. POKROVSKY: Please, do not mention it; it is of no importance. I
only want you to remember when Hitler first stated categorically that he
would raze Leningrad to the ground. That is important for me.
JODL: You are referring to the naval document, I assume, the document of
the SKL, the Naval Operations Staff.
COL. POKROVSKY: You will now be handed Document L-221 and will be shown
the passage where it is written that, on 16 July 1941, during a
conference in the Führer’s headquarters, the following statement was
made:
“The Finns are claiming the district of Leningrad. The Führer
wants to raze Leningrad to the ground and then hand it over to
the Finns.”
Have you found the passage?
JODL: Yes, I have found the place.
COL. POKROVSKY: This took place on 16 July 1941, did it not?
JODL: The document was written on 16 July 1941, yes.
COL. POKROVSKY: That was considerably earlier than the date you received
the report from the Leningrad front?
JODL: Yes, it was 3 months before then.
COL. POKROVSKY: It was also long before the day when explosions and
fires first occurred in Kiev. Is that correct?
JODL: Quite correct.
COL. POKROVSKY: It was clearly not by accident that in the directive you
drew up yourself and in the statements you made before the Tribunal, you
declared that the Führer had again decided to raze Leningrad to the
ground. It was not the first time he had made this decision.
JODL: No, this decision, if it actually was a decision—and the
statements made at this conference—I learned for the first time here in
Court. I personally did not take part in the discussion, nor do I know
whether the words were said in that way. My remark that the Führer had
again taken a decision refers to the verbal order he had given to the
Commander-in-Chief of the Army shortly before, perhaps 1 or 2 days
earlier. It is quite clear that there was already talk of this and that
in the order I am referring to—a letter of the High Command of the Army
of 18 September—and in that way the word “again” is to be explained. I
was quite unaware of the fact, and I heard of it for the first time here
in Court. It was only here in Court that I heard of the conference
taking place at all.
COL. POKROVSKY: Very well. The Tribunal will probably be able to judge
precisely when Hitler made this statement for the first time.
You have declared that you knew nothing about reprisals against the
Jews?
JODL: No.
COL. POKROVSKY: And yet you have just referred to Document Number
053-PS.
[_The document was submitted to the defendant._]
It is a report from Koch, personally signed by him. Maybe you will
confirm that it states quite clearly that Koch held the civilian
population of the city responsible for the Kiev fires and exterminated
the entire Jewish population of Kiev, numbering some 35,000 souls, over
half of whom were women. That is what the report says. Is it correct?
JODL: I know that very well indeed, but I only found this document here
in the document room; and I used it as a good piece of evidence for the
incidents in Kiev. The existence of the document was unknown to me until
I came to Nuremberg and it never went to the OKW either. At all events,
it never came into my hands. I do not know whether it was ever sent.
COL. POKROVSKY: You also did not know whether the Jews were exterminated
or not? Is that true?
JODL: I certainly believe it today. There can be no more doubt about
that; it has been proved.
COL. POKROVSKY: Very well. In the document submitted by your defense
counsel as Exhibit Number Jodl-3, Document Number 1780-PS, Page 6 of
your document book, in the last entry made on that page, you will read
the following: “A large proportion of senior generals will leave the
Army.”
This refers to the entry in your diary of 3 February 1938. Do you
remember?
JODL: Yes, that is from my diary.
COL. POKROVSKY: Are we to understand that resignations from the Army
could take place at any time, in other words, that any general could
retire or resign from the Army whenever he wanted to? That is what you
say here.
JODL: At that time, I believe it was quite possible. In the year 1938 I
knew of no decree which prohibited it.
COL. POKROVSKY: Very well. In Document Number Jodl-64, Exhibit Number
AJ-11, which was submitted by your defense counsel, we find a passage
which, for some reason or other, was not read into the record; and I
would like to quote it now. It is the testimony of General Von Vormann,
who states under oath that you, together with General Von Hammerstein,
often used such expressions as “criminal” and “charlatan,” when
referring to Hitler?
Do you confirm the accuracy of that testimony, or has Vormann expressed
himself incorrectly?
JODL: To the best of my knowledge, and in all good conscience, I believe
that he is confusing two things. In talking about the Führer, I very
often said that I looked on him as a charlatan; but I had no cause or
reason to consider him a criminal. I often used the expression
“criminal”; but not in connection with Hitler, whom I did not even know
at the time. I applied it to Röhm. I repeatedly spoke of him as a
criminal, in my opinion; and I believe that Vormann is confusing these
statements just a little. I often used the expression “charlatan”; that
was my opinion at the time.
COL. POKROVSKY: That is to say, you considered Röhm a criminal and the
Führer a charlatan? Is that correct?
JODL: Yes, that is right, because at that time it was my opinion. I knew
Röhm, but I did not know Adolf Hitler.
COL. POKROVSKY: Then how are we to explain that you accepted leading
posts in the military machine of the German Reich, after the man whom
you yourself described as a charlatan had come to power?
JODL: Because in the course of the years I became convinced—at least
during the years from 1933 to 1938—that he was not a charlatan but a
man of gigantic personality who, however, in the end assumed infernal
power. But at that time he definitely was an outstanding personality.
COL. POKROVSKY: Did you receive the Golden Party Badge of the Hitler
Party?
JODL: Yes, I have already testified to that and confirmed it.
COL. POKROVSKY: In what year did you receive the badge?
JODL: On 30 January 1943.
COL. POKROVSKY: Was it after that when you came to the conclusion that
Hitler was not a “charlatan”? Did you hear my question?
JODL: Yes. It became clear to me then that he was, as I said before, a
gigantic personality, even if with certain reservations.
COL. POKROVSKY: And after you had reached that conclusion you promptly
received the Golden Party Badge? I thank you.