dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
JODL: It was never a really serious proposition. On the contrary, I had the biggest row of my life with the Fuehrer 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 Fuehrer.
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 Fuehrer 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 socalled RSHA. The participation of the sub-department 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 Fuehrer'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 Fuehrer, 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 Fuehrer; 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." I will leave out a few sentences and proceed to the next page: "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 Osterreich?
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 Fuehrer 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 Fuehrer 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 Fuehrer's headquarters, the following statement was made: "The Finns are claiming the district of Leningrad. The Fuehrer 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 Fuehrer 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 Fuehrer 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 OKAY 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-ll, 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 Fuehrer, 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 Rohm. 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 Rohm a criminal and the Fuehrer a charlatan? Is that correct?
JODL: Yes, that is right, because at that time it was my opinion. I knew Rohm, 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. I have no more questions, Your Honor.
DR. NELTE: I should like to call the attention of the Tribunal to the Document Number USSR-151, which was submitted by Colonel Pokrovsky. I should like to ask for this document to be admitted only if General Osterreich can be produced as a witness for cross-examination. My reasons for this are the following: 1. The document as submitted contains the heading "Aussagen" or "statements," but we cannot make out before whom these statements were made. 2. The document contains no mention of the place where it was drawn up. 3. The document is not an affidavit, although according to the last paragraph General Osterreich set it down in his own handwriting; and, therefore, it could have been certified as a statement under oath. Because of the severity of the accusation which this document brings forward against the administration of the prisoner-of-war system, it is necessary in my opinion to order this general to appear here in person.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes; go on.
DR. NELTE: Those are the reasons for my request. In conclusion I should just like to point out that General Von Graevenitz is no longer alive. At all events, he cannot be located. I tried to find him as a witness on behalf of Defendant Keitel.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it a fact that this document was offered in evidence as long ago as February or March?
DR. NELTE: I do not remember that, nor-and I know this for certain-was it issued to us through the Document Division; I am seeing this document for the first time now. But perhaps Colonel Pokrovsky can give some information about it.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider your request.