dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
DR. NELTE: May I also call the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that the document is dated 28 December 1945, and it is to be assumed that General Osterreich can also be produced by the people who took his testimony at that time.
COL. POKROVSKY: Mr. President, I believe that I can give some information about this document. It was submitted by the Soviet Delegation on 12 February 1946, when it was accepted as evidence by the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Pokrovsky, just a moment. Was it translated into German then or was it read in Court?
COL. POKROVSKY: I have just received a memorandum from our document room. The document was submitted on 13 February, at the time when I was presenting documentary evidence with regard to the subject of prisoners of war. It is all I have on the matter. I personally assume that the document was translated into German as a matter of course at that time. I have almost no doubt about it. However, we can easily make sure.
THE PRESIDENT: Do any other defendants' counsel wish to reexamine the defendant?
DR. EXNER: First of all, I should like to put one question which came up again during the interrogation by the Defense Counsel. It was a point which seems to me in need of clarification. One of the Defense Counsel reminded you of the photographs which were shown us here depicting atrocities in the occupied countries, and you said that the pictures were genuine. What do you mean by that?
JODL: I meant to say that it was not trick photography, at which the Russian propagandists were past masters, according to my experience. I meant that they were pictures of actual events. But I also meant to say that the pictures offered no proof of whether it was a matter of atrocities at all, nor did they show who committed them. The fact that they were found in the possession of Germans would even lead us to assume that they were pictures of things which had been perpetrated by the enemy, by the forces of Tito or perhaps the Ustashi. Generally one does not take a picture of one's own acts of cruelty if any were ever committed.
DR. EXNER: Very well. The English Prosecutor has submitted a new document, 754-PS, dealing with the destructions during the retreat in Norway. Why in this purely military Fuehrer Decree did you write: "The Fuehrer had agreed to the proposals of the Reich Commissioner for the occupied Norwegian territories, and has given his orders accordingly...." and so on? Why did you deliberately put in "to the proposals," and so forth?
JODL: In issuing orders I had a kind of secret code for the commanders-in-chief. If an order was the result of an agreement between the OKW and the Fuehrer, then I started with the words "The Fuehrer has decreed...." If a decree originated from the Fuehrer himself, I started the decree with a preamble which gave the Fuehrer's reasons and the arguments in favor. Then, after the preamble, I wrote "The Fuehrer, therefore, has decreed...." If the Fuehrer was prompted by the proposal of a nonmilitary agency to issue a decree, then, as a matter of basic principle, I added, "The Fuehrer, on the proposal of this or that civil authority, has decided...." In this way the commanders-in-chief knew what it was all about.
DR. EXNER: Did you draft this decree-Document Number 754-PS-without objection or resistance?
JODL: This decree originated in much the same manner as the Commando Order. One of the Fuehrer's civilian adjutants advised me that Terboven wished to speak to the Fuehrer. He had had trouble with the Wehrmacht in Norway because of the evacuation of the civilian population from northern Norway. The civilian adjutant said he wanted to advise me first before he established connections with Terboven by telephone. Thereupon I at once had inquiries made through my staff of the commander in Norway-Finland. I was told that the Wehrmacht-the commander of the Wehrmacht in Norway had rejected Terboven's proposals and did not consider them possible on such a large scale. In the meantime Terboven had spoken with the Fuehrer. I then remonstrated with the Fuehrer and told him that, in the first place, the decree and Terboven's intention were not practicable on such a scale, and secondly, that there was no necessity for it on such a large scale. I said that it would be better to leave it to the discretion of Generaloberst Rendulic to decide what he wanted or had to destroy for military reasons. The Fuehrer however, incited by Terboven, insisted on the decree's being issued on the grounds of these arguments which I had to set down. But it was certainly not carried out to this extent. This is also shown by the report of the Norwegian Government, and it can also be seen from personal discussions between me and my brother.
DR. EXNER: Now let us turn to something else. When there were drafts and proposals to be submitted to the Fuehrer, you often voiced objections and presented arguments. It seems remarkable that when matters contrary to international law were contemplated you raised no objections on the grounds of international law or on moral grounds, but you mostly voiced objections of a practical nature or from considerations of opportunity. Can you tell us briefly why you acted in this manner?
JODL: I already told you that when I gave my reasons for the formulation of the proposal not to renounce the Geneva Convention.
DR. EXNER: Namely?
JODL: This form had to be chosen to meet with any success with the Fuehrer.
DR. EXNER: Yes, that is sufficient. Now, you said yesterday . . .
MR. ROBERTS: Your Lordship, I object to this merely in the interest of time, because it is exactly the same evidence which was given yesterday; and, in my submission, it is pure repetition.
DR. EXNER: This discussion at Reichenhall was mentioned today. Please tell us briefly how it came about that you made such statements in Reichenhall or how such directives as you described today were decided upon in Reichenhall?
JODL: I have already testified about the conversation with the Fuehrer.
DR. EXNER: Yes, it was only a question of provisions . . .
TILE PRESIDENT: Dr. Exner, the defendant has just told us that he has given evidence about this already.
DR. EXNER: Yes, about the conversation which preceded it, but you did not testify about the actual conversation at Reichenhall.
JODL: No, I have not yet spoken of the actual conversation at Reichenhall.
DR. EXNER: Please be brief.
JODL: In regard to this conversation at Reichenhall-that is, the orientation of the three officers of my staff-Warlimont's description is somewhat different from mine. He is confusing here the earlier events with the later ones, which is not surprising, because from 20 July until the time he was arrested, he was ill at home with severe concussion of the brain and complete loss of memory. Up to the time he was captured he was no longer fit for service. That my description is the right one may be readily seen from the notes in the War Diary of the Naval Operations Staff. It is stated there that these divisions would be transferred to the East only to prevent Russia from taking the Romanian oil fields.
DR. EXNER: I should like to correct one point which, it seems to me, was presented erroneously by the Russian prosecutor. He said that Goering and Keitel did not consider the war against Russia to be a preventive war. On Page 5956 of the record (Volume IX, Page 344) it states that Goering, too, considered the war to be a preventive one and that he only differed in opinion from the Fuehrer insofar as he would have chosen a different period of time for this preventive war. Keitel was, in general, of the same opinion. Furthermore, the Russian prosecutor submitted a document, Number 683-PS. I do not know what exhibit number he gave. I cannot quite see how this document is to be connected with Jodl; and I have the idea that may be a matter of signature, for the document is signed "Joel," who is not at all identical with the Defendant Jodl. I just wanted to draw attention to this point. Perhaps there is simply a mistake in the names. Further, the Prosecution said that the defendant made a remark about partisans being hanged upside down, and so on.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Exner, you have simply made a statement, which you are not entitled to do, about this document. If you want to prove it by evidence you should ask the witness about it. You have told us that this document has nothing to do with Jodl, and that the signature on it is somebody else's. Why didn't you ask the witness? I am told just now that it has already been proved that it isn't Jodl's document.
DR. EXNER: The translations this morning were bad; I do not remember having heard that. I do not know whether it is possible for me now in this connection to read something from a questionnaire? It is only one question and an answer in connection with this remark about the hanging of prisoners, and so on. Is that permissible?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, if it arises out of the cross-examination. DR. EXNER: Yes; the Russian prosecutor brought up the question of whether the defendant made this remark during the discussions about the prisoners, in connection with the guerrilla directive- that members of guerrilla bands could also be quartered during combat. There it says: "Question: Is it true or not...?" Oh yes, I must say that is my Document Number Jodl-60, Exhibit Number AJ-7. Page 189 of Volume III of my document book. It is an interrogatory of General Buhle, which was made in America. Then it says: 'question: 'According to a stenographic transcript, you also took part in a report on the military situation on the evening of 1 December 1942, which resulted in a lengthy discussion between the Fuehrer and Jodl as to combating partisans in the East. Is that correct?' "Answer: 'I took part in this discussion, but I no longer remember the exact date."'
THE PRESIDENT: What page did you say, Dr. Exner?
MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, it is the third page of the third book- or the third document in the third book.
DR. EXNER: It is Page 189. I have just read Question 4. Now I come to Question 5: "Question: 'Is it or is it not correct that on this occasion Jodl asked the Fuehrer to return the directive which had been drawn up in his office relative to the combating of partisans?' "Answer: 'That is correct.' "Question 6: 'Is it or is it not correct that in this draft the burning of villages was expressly prohibited?' "Question 7: 'Is it or is it not correct that the Fuehrer wanted to have this prohibition rescinded?' "Answer: 'Since I never had the draft of the directive in my hands, I do not know for certain if the burning of villages was expressly prohibited. However this is to be assumed, because I remember that the Fuehrer protested against individual provisions of the directive and demanded the burning down of villages.' "Question 8: 'Is it or is it not correct that the Fuehrer also had misgivings about the draft because he did not want any restrictions to be placed on soldiers who were directly engaged in combating the partisans?' " According to the minutes Jodl stated in reply: "This is out of the question here. During the fighting they can do whatever they like, they can hang them, hang them upside down or quarter them; it says nothing about that. The only limitation applies to reprisals after the lighting in those areas in which the partisans were active.... "Answer: 'It is correct that the Fuehrer had fundamental misgivings about these restrictions. Jodl's remark is correct as far as its contents are concerned. I can no longer recall his exact words.' "Question 9: 'Is it or is it not correct that following thin remark all those present'-Fuehrer, Keitel, Kranke, and you yourself-'including the Fuehrer, laughed and the Fuehrer abandoned his standpoint?' "Answer: 'It is probable that all of us laughed on account of Jodl's remark. Whether after this the Fuehrer really abandoned his standpoint I do not know for certain.
DR. EXNER: However, it seems probable to me.' "Question 10: 'Then how were the expressions "hang, hang upside down, quartered," interpreted?' `'Answer: 'The expressions, "hang," "hang upside down," "quartered," could in this connection only be interpreted as an ironical remark and be understood to mean that in accordance with the directive no further restrictions were to be placed on the soldiers in combat.' "Question 11: 'Could you perhaps say something about Jodl's fundamental attitude towards the obligation of the Wehrmacht to observe the provisions of international law in wartime?' "Answer: 'I do not know Jodl's fundamental attitude. I only know that Keitel, who was Jodl's and my own immediate superior, always endeavored to observe the provisions of international law...' "Question 12: 'Did you ever have the experience yourself that Jodl influenced the Fuehrer to issue an order which violated international law?' "Answer: 'No."'
THE PRESIDENT: None of that last part arises out of the crossexamination.
DR. EXNER: Did you have anything to do with prisoners of war?
JODL: I had nothing at all to do with prisoners of war. It was the general Armed Forces Department which dealt with them.
DR. EXNER: Now, one last question. It is alleged by the Prosecution, and during yesterday's examination it was reaffirmed, that there was or had been a conspiracy between political and military leaders for the waging of aggressive wars and that you were a member of that conspiracy. Can you say anything else about that before we finish?
JODL: There was no conspiracy. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Exner, the Tribunal does not think that that really arises out of the cross-examination. Anyhow, he said it already; he said that he was not a member of a conspiracy. There is no use repeating his evidence.
DR. EXNER: It was again said yesterday that there was a very close connection with the Party and the members of the Party and, of course, that is connected with the conspiracy. That is why I should have thought the question permissible.
THE PRESIDENT: He said already that he was not a member of the conspiracy.
DR. EXNER: In that case, I have no further questions.
DR. LATERNSER: Mr. President, I merely wish to join in the objection which Dr. Nelte has raised to the written statement of Lieutenant General Von Osterreich. I refer to the reasons which he has given. That is all.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Defendant Jodl, you spoke-I think it was the day before yesterday-about the number of SS divisions at the end of the war. Do you remember that?
JODL: Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I think you said there were 35 at the end of the war. Is that right, 35 about?
JODL: If I remember rightly, I said between 35 and 38.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Right. Now, what I want to be clear about is this. You were referring only to Waffen-SS divisions, were you not? Only the Waffen-SS?
JODL: Yes, only the Waffen-SS. It is true they were. . .
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Were they completely co-ordinated into the Army and under the command of the Army?
JODL: For tactical operations they came under the Wehrmacht commanders, but not for disciplinary matters. As regards the latter their superior was, and remained, Himmler, even when they were fighting.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Was discipline the only thing that brought them under Himmler's jurisdiction?
JODL: He was also looked upon as their commander for all practical purposes. That is seen from the fact that the condition of the divisions, their equipment, and their losses were frequently or almost exclusively reported to the Fuehrer by Himmler himself.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): When had they been co-ordinated into the Army? When? What year?
JODL: They were co-ordinated into the Wehrmacht at the beginning of the war, at the moment when the Polish campaign began.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Now, only one other question, about Russia; I want to see if I understood your point of view clearly. You feared an invasion of Germany by Russia; is that right?
JODL: I expected, at a certain moment, either political blackmail on the strength of the large troop concentration or an attack.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Now, please, Defendant, I asked you if you did not fear an attack by Russia. You did at one time, did you not?
JODL: Yes, I was afraid of that.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): All right. When was that? When?
JODL: It began through. ..
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): When did you fear it? When did you first fear that attack?
JODL: I had that fear for the first time during the summer of 1940; it arose from the first talks with the Fuehrer at the Berghof on 29 July.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Then from the military point of view, from that moment on, it was necessary for you to attack first, was it not?
JODL: After the political clarification, only then; up to then it had only been a conjecture.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): How could you afford to wait for the political clarifying work if you were afraid of an immediate attack?
JODL: For that reason we increased our defensive measures to begin with, until the spring of 1941. Up to then we only took measures for defense. It was not until February 1941 we began concentrating troops for an attack.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Now, then, just one other question. I am not at all clear on this. During that attack did you then advise that Germany attack first, or did you advise that Germany should not attack? What was your advice? You saw this danger; what did you do about it?
JODL: That problem, too, like most of the others, was the subject of a written statement I made to the Fuehrer in which I drew his attention to the tremendous military effects of such a decision. One knew of course how the campaign would begin, but no human being could imagine how it would end...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): We have heard all that. I did not want to go into that. What I wanted to get at is this: You were afraid that Russia was going to attack. If that was true, why didn't you advise Germany to attack at once? You were afraid Russia would attack, and yet you say you advised against moving into Russia. I do not understand.
JODL: That is not the case. I did not advise against marching into Russia; I merely said that if there were no other possibility and if there was really no political way of avoiding the danger, then I, too, could only see the possibility of a preventive attack.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): That is all. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant can return to the dock. [The defendant left the stand.]
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Exner?
DR. EXNER: I have four witnesses to bring before the Tribunal, but I should like to begin by making a request. In consideration of my lame leg may I leave it to my colleague Jahrreis to question these four witnesses?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly, Dr. Exner. Dr. Exner, the Tribunal wishes me to say that we allow another counsel to examine the witnesses as an exception to our general rule that only one counsel may appear in court and in the presentation of the case on behalf of the defendant. We will make this exception in your favor.
PROFESSOR DR. GERMANE JAHRREISS (Counsel for Defendant Jodl): In that case, with the permission of the Tribunal, I will call the first witness, General Horst Freiherr von Buttlar-Brandenfels. [The witness Von Buttlar-Brandenfels took the  stand.]
THE PRESIDENT: Will you state your name, please?
GENERAL HORST FREIHERR VON BUTTLAR-BRANDENFELS (Witness): Horst Freiherr von Buttlar-Brandenfels.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat the oath after me: I swear by God-the Almighty and Omniscient-that I will speak the pure truth-and will withhold and add nothing. [The witness repeated the oath.]
THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down.
DR. JAHRREISS: Witness, were you in the Wehrmacht Operations Staff during the war?
VON BUTTLAR-BRANDENFELS: Yes.
DR. JAHRREISS: During what period?
VON BUTTLAR-BRANDENFELS: I was a member of the Wehrmacht Operations Staff from 1 January 1942 until 15 November 1944.
DR. JAHRREISS: What was your position on the staff?
VON BUTTLAR-BRANDENFELS: I was first General Staff officer of the Army, and in my capacity as department chief I was in charge of the Operations Department of the Army.
DR. JAHRREISS: I am going to have a document shown you, Document Number 823-PS, Exhibit Number RF-359. It is in document book Jodl, second volume, Page 158. Will you please be good enough to have a look at it.
VON BUTTLAR-BRANDENFELS: Do you want me to read the whole document?
DR. JAHRREISS: I want you to glance through it. Who is the author of the document?
VON BUTTLAR-BRANDENFELS: It is written by the Wehrmacht Operations Staff, Department QU, Administration Group.
DR. JAHRREISS: By whom is it signed?
VON BUTTLAR-BRANDENFELS: It is signed by me.
DR. JAHRREISS: By you. To what extent is that document connected with the Defendant Jodl?
VON BUTTLAR-BRANDENFELS: The document has nothing at all to do with the Defendant Jodl.
DR. JAHRREISS: Then please will you look at the signatures at the upper right-hand corner on the first page; there is an initial which can be read as a "J."
VON BUTTLAR-BRANDENFELS: That must be a mistake. The initial is exactly the same as the one which appears below in the signature to the written note, and this initial is that of the Chief of the Quartermaster Department, Colonel Polleck.
DR. JAHRREISS: Colonel Polleck?
VON BUTTLAR-BRANDENFELS: If you will look at Page 2, you will see two signatures at the bottom. The first must be that of the expert. I cannot recognize it for certain. I take it for the signature of the Senior Administrative Counsellor Niehments.
DR. JAHRREISS: You mean the initial behind which there are the Numbers 4 or 9 for the date?
VON BUTTLAR-BRANDENFELS: I mean the top one.
DR. JAHRREISS: The top one?
VON BUTTLAR-BRANDENFELS: The top one. The bottom initial is the signature, the initials of Colonel Polleck. When the document had been submitted to the Chief of the OKW it was returned to me. Then I initialed it again at the top, and marked it for the Quartermaster Department, that is the "QU" underlined at the top. Then it was again initialed by the "QU" chief, and after that it is marked "Administrative Group" and initialed again by the man who dealt with it. In addition I should like to point out that all this relates to prisoners of war, and that was a field of work with which Jodl actually had nothing to do. In the quartermaster and organizational branches of the Armed Forces Operations Staff we had several fields of work which, although they came from his staff . . .
DR. JAHRREISS: Just a minute, Witness. I do not mind your giving us a lecture, but I should like to get to the point. There are remarks in the margin of this document, do you see them?
VON BUTTLAR-BRANDENFELS: Yes.
DR. JAHRREISS: Is any one of them written by Jodl?
VON BUTTLAR-BRANDENFELS: No, they are initialed with a "K" for Field Marshal Keitel
DR. JAHRREISS: But the French Prosecution assert that these are comments made by Jodl on the prisoner-of-war question; and if I understood you correctly, you mean to say that this was not possible at all for reasons of competency?
VON BUTTLAR-BRANDENFELS: Apart from the fact that there is not a mark on the document made by Jodl it is unlikely that Jodl had any knowledge of the affair at all, because of the way in which it had to be dealt with.
DR. JAHRREISS: But is it not correct, Witness, that Department "QU" came under Jodl?
VON BUTTLAR-BRANDENFELS: Actually, it is correct, but in "QU" Department, just as in "Org." Department there were several fields of work which the Generaloberst had given up and which were dealt with either directly by the head of the department, or through the deputy chief, with the Chief of the OKW.
DR. JAHRREISS: You say prisoner-of-war questions were among those, is that true?
VON BUTTLAR-BRANDENFELS: Among other things also the question of prisoners of war.
DR JAHRREISS: What other work did this Department "QU" have?
VON BUTTLAR-BRANDENFELS: As its main task or in its first department, "QU-1," Department "QU" looked after nothing but supplies and also supervised the provisioning of the various theaters of war, which came directly under the OKW. The second department was occupied mainly with military administration, and the third department dealt with general questions, such as the prisoner-of-war system-for example, questions concerning international law and so on.