dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
THE PRESIDENT: I misheard the translation.
DR. EXNER: Did you know anything about concentration camps, or what did you know about them? Please be brief.
JODL: I can briefly say that I knew there were concentration camps at Dachau and Oranienburg. Some divisional officers visited Oranienburg once in 1937 and gave me very enthusiastic accounts of it. I heard the name of Buchenwald for the first time in the spring of 1945. When the name was mentioned, I thought it was a new troop training camp; and I made inquiries. The inmates were always described as German habitual criminals and certain inveterate political opponents, who however, like Schuschnigg or Niemoller, were held there in a kind of honorable detention. I never heard a single word about tortures, deported persons, or prisoners of war, crematoriums or gas vans, torments reminiscent of the Inquisition, and medical experiments. I can only say that, even if I had heard of these things, I would not have believed them until I had seen them with my own eyes.
DR. EXNER: The French prosecutor read a statement by the German Police General Panke, according to which you were present at a conference with Hitler on 30 December 1942, when terror and counterterror and so on, and reprisal murders in Denmark were said to have been discussed. What do you say to that?
JODL: I think it was on 30 December 1943.
DR. EXNER: Was it?
JODL: In some points that statement is correct; in others it is incorrect. During that conference, at least as long as I was present, the word "murder" was never mentioned. The Fuehrer said: "I want to fight the terror of sabotage and attacks, now beginning in Norway, with exactly the same weapons. That is to say, if a Danish factory working for Germany is blown up, which has happened, then a factory working solely for the Danes will be blown up also. If some of our strong points are attacked by terrorists, which has also happened, these terrorists will be hunted, surrounded, and wiped out in fighting; and I do not want courts martial, which only create martyrs." He did not say or suggest, however, that innocent Danes should now be murdered as a reprisal. I can only say that, in my presence and in the presence of Field Marshal Keitel, that and nothing else was said. Again, it is a very debatable question from the point of view of international law whether an army is not entitled to adopt the fighting methods of its opponents in its countermeasures, particularly in such franc-tireur warfare and in rebellions like these. It seems to me a very moot point.
DR. EXNER: You just said, "as long as I was present." Were you not present during the entire conference? Can you remember?
JODL: I do not think that even in my absence any other statements were made. Once during the conference I went out to telephone and was away for a short time, perhaps 15 minutes.
DR. EXNER: We now come to the partisan fighting. Partisan fighting and partisans have been mentioned frequently here. Can you say briefly what these partisans were?
JODL: It is not easy to define that clearly, considering all the types of fighting adopted in this world war; but there are five characteristics: 1) A partisan group is a fighting unit formed behind one's own front; 2) it is not or is only partly in uniform; 3) it is not an organic part of the Armed Forces even though it receives its orders from them; 4) it must be in a position, or it generally is in a position to...
THE PRESIDENT: We don't require a lecture about this matter.
DR. EXNER: Well, then we know approximately what partisans are. I now want to ask you about the fighting against partisan groups. First of all I must read what we have heard here about partisans, Document L-180, USA-276, which is contained in the second volume of my document book, Page 121. That is a complete report of an Einsatzgruppe in action against partisans; it is Appendix Number 9. What is found on Page 122 is, I think, of importance. First of all under Roman Numeral I, Figure 5, I quote: "In the larger cities, especially those with industrial works, so-called istrebitelui battalions (i. e. destruction battalions) were formed by the Soviets before the entry of the German troops...." Then, under Roman Numeral III: ". . . the tasks and fighting methods of the various partisan groups have become known . . . partly from the captured combat directives of the partisans themselves. This statement of a captured partisan . . . is significant: 'A partisan must destroy everything that he can reach....) ,, And then, in one of the "Combat Directives for Partisan Groups" received by us from the commander of the army, rear area North, we find stated: "Unbearable conditions are to be created for the enemy and his allies in territories occupied by him. All the measures of the enemy are to be opposed." And then instructions are given to blow up bridges, to destroy roads, et cetera. I shall not read it all. In the last paragraph, which I have on Page 123, it expressly states that partisans are to disguise themselves cleverly; that they will sometimes appear as farmers or will work in the fields as soon as German forces appear in the vicinity. The witness Von dem Bach-Zelewski stated here that the fight against partisans was carried out in a chaotic manner. He meant by that that it was not directed from higher quarters. You must be informed about that. Is that correct?
JODL: No, that is not correct. This expert on partisan fighting obviously has a bad memory. I draw attention to Document F-665, in Document Book 2, Page 126. Here the first page is given of a directive for partisan warfare. It is called "Instructions for Partisan Warfare," and was signed by me personally on 6 May 1944. The Tribunal will see that in the second sentence it says that...
DR. EXNER: Page 126.
JODL: . . . the instructional pamphlet number so-and-so, "Instructions for Partisan Warfare in the East," issued by the OKW, Armed Forces Operations Staff, dated 11 November 1942, is canceled. That proves that at least since 11 November 1942, the troops had in their possession instructions issued by the Armed Forces Operations Staff as to how the battle against partisans should be conducted.
DR. EXNER: May I now draw attention to my Document AJ-1, Page 133. It is an affidavit of a Pastor Wettberg; I do not want to read it. Pastor Wettberg contacted me because he himself had been engaged in the warfare against partisans, and he confirmed that the fighting was perfectly well directed even before the new instructions were issued, that is, from 1942 onwards. In 1944 you issued this new directive without Hitler's permission; is that correct?
JODL: Yes.
DR. EXNER: What made you do that? Was it not an unusual step?
JODL: I want to state that I did not submit this directive either to Field Marshal Keitel or to the Fuehrer, because it was a contradiction of all existing orders. I shall prove in detail later that it gives instructions for all so-called partisans in France and Yugoslavia-partisan areas in Russia were now in front of our lines-to be treated immediately as regular fighting troops, and thus as prisoners of war. I took this unusual step because I became convinced, after the shooting of the English Air Force officers at Sagan, that the Fuehrer no longer concerned himself with the idea of human rights; and also because after 1 May 1944 I myself felt responsible for questions of international law, as the "Canards" department had been dissolved on that day and the foreign section, together with the international law department, had come under my command. I was resolved not to tolerate and not to participate in any such violations of international law on our part, and I acted accordingly from that day up to the end of the war. In this order I declared all partisans and those supporting them, and even those wearing civilian clothes, to be regular troops and prisoners of war, long before Eisenhower-on 7 July 1944 only-demanded that terrorists in France should be given that status.
DR. EXNER: The Prosecution asserts that the fight against partisans was only a code name under which Jews and Slavs were killed; is that true?
JODL: The fight against partisans was a horrible reality. In July 1943. to quote some figures, 1,560 instances of railway sabotage occurred in Russia. There were 2,600 in September; that is 90 per day. A book by Ponomarenko was published from which an American paper quoted 500,000 Germans as having been killed by the partisans. If a nought is crossed off from that figure, it is still quite a considerable achievement for a peaceful Soviet population. But the book is also said to have stated that the population became increasingly hostile; that murder and terror became more frequent; and that the peaceful Quisling mayors were being killed. At any rate it was a tremendous fight which was taking place in the East.
DR. EXNER: In this connection, I would like to draw the Tribunal's attention to an entry in Jodl's Diary, Document 1807-PS. It is on Page 119 of the second volume of my document book. Under 25 May it says, "Colonel General Halder draws the attention of the Fuehrer to increasing partisan activity..."
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute. The defendant stated, I think, that in this directive of his on the 6th of May 1944 there was an order that guerrillas should be treated as prisoners of war. Will you refer us to the passage?
DR. EXNER: Will you name the passage, Defendant?
JODL: It is under Figure 163, on Page 131.
DR. EXNER: Page 131 of the second volume.
JODL: May I read it?
DR. EXNER: Yes.
JODL: "All partisans captured in enemy uniform or civilian clothing or surrendering during combat are to be treated in principle as prisoners of war. The same applies to all persons encountered in the immediate fighting area who may be considered as supporting the partisans, even when no combat action can be proved against them. Partisans in German uniform, or in the uniform of an allied army, are to be shot after careful interrogation if captured in combat. Deserters, no matter how they are dressed"-and, may I add, even if dressed in German uniform-"are, on principle, to be well treated. The partisans must hear of this." The; PRESIDENT: Just a minute. Well, perhaps-it is 1 o'clock-we might break off now. [The Tribunal recessed until 1400 Hours.] Afternoon Session
DR. EXNER: I have one further question concerning the partisan regulations. The Prosecution brings the charge that you, through Number 161 of the partisan regulations-that, Your Honors, is in the document we used last, F-665, Page 130 of Volume II- were responsible for the destruction of whole villages, and even of the total population of villages in France. Will you please comment on this?
JODL: I believe the opposite is true. Through Number 161, I reduced the collective measures and collective punishments that the Fuehrer had decreed without restraint, to what was permitted by Article 50 of the Hague Rules of Land Warfare. In this article collective punishment is prohibited unless the entire population is equally guilty in terror activities of any kind. Therefore, with this Number 161 I did not order the burning down of villages, not even in exceptional cases, but on the contrary I said that such collective measures might be used only in very exceptional cases, and then only with the approval of a divisional commander, for he would have a tribunal and could make a judicial investigation. I do not wish to trouble the Tribunal with any other merits of mine, which may be read in this document. I discussed the good treatment of the population; the necessity of leaving them the necessaries of life, et cetera. I believe, at any rate, that this document actually serves as a model of how this sort of war may be brought within the scope of international law. I did this as I was convinced that at that time the French Maquis movement, and also the Tito revolt had gradually begun to develop into a regular war. Now the case of the 2d SS Panzer Division is cited as an example of things that I caused through this Number 161. I can say only that the behavior of the SS Panzer Division is the responsibility of its commander. I learned about it only months afterwards. I am grateful to the French Prosecution for having submitted this document, and I am grateful also for the statement that the Maquis movement in the beginning was nothing else than franc-tireur warfare, the heroism of which I do not dispute.
DR. EXNER: Now we shall turn to a different problem, the low-level fliers. From Document 731-PS, Page 139 of the second document book, and Page 144 of Volume II of my document book- from these documents it can be seen that from various sources proposals had been made as to the treatment of enemy airmen who had made emergency landings. Can you tell us, first of all, the reason for this, and what your attitude was toward these proposals?
JODL: I shall try to be as brief as possible. The reason was that numerous reports had been received of people being attacked by individual enemy aircraft contrary to international law. The Fuehrer demanded countermeasures, and that is the origin of the memorandum 731-PS, Exhibit RF-1407. It is not a draft for an order, still less an order. It is a note containing proposals made by the Luftwaffe in that connection. There was no talk as yet about lynching. The fact that I concerned myself with this problem at all may find its explanation in the responsibility which, as I have previously mentioned, I believed had rested with me since 1 May with regard to questions of international law. The note which I wrote on the document has already been read. I objected to one paragraph-a case which I nevertheless considered entirely admissible according to international law. This was later crossed out and replaced by a statement that it was to be considered murder if one of our soldiers landing by parachute was shot. I wrote this objection on Document 735-PS. The concept of lynching . . .
DR. EXNER: I should like to state, for the assistance of the Tribunal, where this passage is. The remark made by Jodl in his handwriting is found on Page 144 of the document book. Various proposals are made in this memorandum, and then Jodl adds "To Number 3..."; and then there is a notation. [Turning to the defendant.] Please comment on this.
JODL: My notation was: "Is the Foreign Office in agreement with Number 3b?"-namely, that the shooting of our own airmen who have been shot down and are parachuting to earth is to be considered a mean terrorist act.
DR. EXNER: This Number 3b is on the same page, at the top.
JODL: I just wanted to add that lynching was suggested in an article by Goebbels, published in the Volkischer Beobachter . The more I concerned myself with this problem, the more it was obvious that nothing at all could be achieved with measures of this kind, for one could never capture a guilty low-flying airman, for he would either escape or he would be dashed to pieces on the ground. This would only lead to a general murder of airmen. Therefore, I decided-and I was in complete agreement with Field Marshal Keitel on this point-to cause this entire action to fail. The Court can see that between Document 731-PS, which was compiled on 21 May, and Document 735-PS, 16 days had elapsed wherein nothing had been done. When on 6 June I received a rather lengthy report, I noted on it, "This is not sufficient; we have to start all over again; how can we be certain that other enemy airmen will not be treated in the same way? Should some legal procedure be arranged or not?" If I wrote that, then, Your Honors, it is absolute proof, if you consider my general method of work, that I had no other intention than to delay and drag things out until the matter had solved itself. And I succeeded in this case. No military authority issued an order. We did not even go so far as to make a draft of an order. The only thing we had were these scraps of paper. It has been proved, and it will be proved further, that many months afterwards the Fuehrer brought the gravest charges against us, and against the Luftwaffe in particular, of having torpedoed his order.
DR. EXNER: Now we shall turn to something entirely different. The Chief of the OKW, in a letter written in 1941, called you and Warlimont his representatives for collaborating with Rosenberg's Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories. That is Document 865-PS, Exhibit USA-143. How did that work out in practice?
JODL: Not at all. Apart from one conference in 1943 dealing with an appeal to the peoples of the East, I had no connection with Rosenberg's Ministry whatsoever. The only collaboration which took place constantly was carried on by my propaganda division, for all pamphlets which it compiled and which were dropped over Russia were discussed first with the Ministry of the Occupied Eastern Territories.
DR. EXNER: Then why were you appointed at all? Why was that necessary?
JODL: That was purely a matter of form, because Minister Dr. Lammers wrote to each of the higher Reich authorities in general asking that a deputy be designated; and so Field Marshal Keitel also designated a deputy.
DR. EXNER: We shall now turn to something new. You have been shown the rather strange Document C-2, Exhibit USA-90. It is not contained in my document book, but the Court will remember it at once. It is a compilation in tabular form in which certain incidents of significance in international law are cited in the first column. In the second column there are examples; in the third and fourth...
MR. ROBERTS: It is Page 163 in the big document book.
DR. EXNER: This is a diagramatic compilation which sets down on one side a certain incident, and on the other enumerates the consequences of this incident: its appraisal in the light of international law, its use for propaganda, and so forth Will you explain how this came about? It is really a very strange document. Twelve infringements of international law by our side are set down, and, I believe, 13 infringements by the enemy.
JODL: I do not think this document is so remarkable after all. It was compiled at the end of September 1938, shortly before the Munich Conference. As I, in my department, did not know for certain whether we would have an armed conflict or not, and as at that time the stipulations of international law were not clear to us, I wanted, by taking various examples, to find out from the experts on international law what the present attitude was towards such infractions. Every officer in my division then racked his brain to find an example, and we tried to cover every branch of international law through some specific instance. I consider it worthy of note that even then we concerned ourselves with the conception of international law. There can be no doubt whatsoever that I alone carry responsibility for having thought out these examples. But if one were to take exception to the reply to these examples, that is to the judgment on the lines of international law or to justification according to the rules of warfare, I can only say that this did not come from me; it emanated from the office of Canaris. Apart from that, it shows a very careful and noteworthy attitude toward international law, especially concerning air warfare. At any rate, it was on a much higher level than what took place in actual practice.
DR. EXNER: Therefore, was it the intention to commit these infractions of international law?
JODL: Not at all, but as one Conversant with the history of warfare, I knew that there has never yet been in this world a war in which infractions of international law did not occur. If, perhaps, objection should be raised that quite at the end of the paragraph there appears: "Explanation by the Propaganda Ministry," I should like to say that that comes at the end, after the justification according to the laws of war and the judgment from the standpoint of international law, and that Admiral Burckner, who gave the reply, himself referred to it-that propaganda could be put into practice only after the aspects of international law had been clarified. Moreover the whole answer was only a preliminary one, as first the Foreign Office and the various branch chiefs of the Wehrmacht would have had to be heard on the subject.
DR. EXNER: I asked for Admiral Burckner as a witness on this question, but it really seems to be too unimportant a matter, and I shall therefore forego the calling of this witness. [Turning to the defendant.] I want to ask you the following question in this connection: What was your attitude in general as to the limitations placed on the conduct of war by international law?
JODL: I recognized and valued international law with which I was well acquainted, as a prerequisite for the decent and humane conduct of war. Copies of the Hague Rules of Land Warfare and the Geneva Convention were always lying on my desk. I believe that by my attitude toward the Commissar Order, toward lynching, and toward the intention to repudiate the Geneva Convention- bluntly rejected by all Commanders-in-Chief and all branches of the Wehrmacht, and by the Foreign Office-I have proved that I tried, as far as it was possible for me, to observe international law. Of course, there is a wealth of positive proof available. The pertinent documents will probably be submitted by my defense counsel. I will refer only to the behavior of the German Wehrmacht in Norway, a matter in which I collaborated. I refer to the partisan regulations...
DR. EXNER: I submit Document AJ-14, Pages 99 and 100 in my document book, Volume I. These are special directives for conduct during the occupation of Norway and Denmark, directives which, therefore, were issued when those countries were occupied. There are some very characteristic sentences contained in this document, sentences which I should like to read. You will find on Page 98, Figure I: "The military occupation of Denmark and Norway is taking place for the purpose of ensuring the neutrality of these countries. The aim must be to carry this out in a peaceful way." Then on Page 99, at the top it says: "Directives for conduct in personal intercourse with the Norwegian population. ' "Every member of the Armed Forces must remember that he is not entering enemy country, but that the troops are moving into Norway for the protection of the country and for the safety of its inhabitants. "Therefore, the following is to be observed: "I. The Norwegian has a strongly developed national consciousness. Moreover the Norwegian people feel themselves closely related to other Nordic peoples. "Therefore avoid anything that might wound national honor." Figure 2 is also very characteristic. Then I shall turn to Figure 4: "The home of the Norwegian is sacred according to the old Germanic conception. Hospitality is offered generously. Property is inviolable. The house remains..."
THE PRESIDENT: It is not necessary to read all of this. One paragraph is enough to show the nature of the document, isn't it?
DR. EXNER: Then I will make mention of the remainder of the document which I shall not read, and ask that the Tribunal take official notice of this document. Then there is a directive here, Document AJ-16...
THE PRESIDENT: But, Dr. Exner, that last document does not appear to have been signed by the defendant, does it?
DR. EXNER: [Turning to the defendant.] What had you to do with this document? Did you..
JODL: It is signed by Von Falkenhorst, but it is well known that we-the Armed Forces Operations Staff and the staff of Von Falkenhorst-comprised one unit for the Norwegian enterprise. I participated in the drawing up of this document, and I submitted it to the Fuehrer and the Fuehrer approved of it. There is even an entry to that effect in my diary.