dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
MR. ROBERTS: He seems to have been a very good judge, at any rate, judging what happened afterwards. Well now, the next document-I know you were in Austria, but no doubt you heard about it from Keitel-was the Chancellery meeting the 23d of May 1939. That is L-79, it is Book Number 7, Page 275. Do you remember there that the Fuehrer said: "The Dutch and Belgian air bases must be militarily occupied. Declarations of neutrality must be ignored.... "In this matter, considerations of right and wrong or treaties have no significance.... "The Army will have to take positions essential to the Navy and the Air Force. If Belgium and the Netherlands are successfully occupied and held, if France is also defeated, then fundamental conditions for a successful war against England will have been secured.... "Daily attacks by the German Air Force and Navy will cut her life lines." There wasn't any doubt as to the policy of the Fuehrer in May 1939, was there?
JODL: It was in Court here that I first heard about this conference and about the things which were purportedly discussed at that time; and I am not able to judge whether it is correct, for I did not hear it, not even from Keitel, not even later.
MR. ROBERTS: Very good. Did you hear about the speech made by the Fuehrer on the 22d of August 1939? [Turning to the Tribunal.] I do not know if the Court has got this. It is not in the Document Book; 798-PS, in Document Book Number 4. There are some loose copies, My Lord. [Turning to the defendant.] "Those countries,'-Holland, Belgium-"and Scandinavia will defend their neutrality by all available means. England and France will not violate their neutrality." You always thought Hitler was a good prophet, didn't you? You thought Hitler was a good judge.
JODL: Very often, yes, very often.
MR. ROBERTS: And he was a good judge that England and France would keep their word, whereas Germany would break hers. Now, then, that is August. Now then I want to. ..
JODL: But that I don't know.
MR. ROBERTS: Very good. Now, I want to come to the document which you put in yesterday.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, wait a minute. Defendant, what do you mean by saying you don't know that? Do you mean that you did not know the document? You said, "I don't know that."
JODL: I do not know what the Fuehrer actually said in his conference on the 22d of August. I did not even know that a discussion had taken place, for I was in Vienna. I only know what is ostensibly in documents which have been submitted here.
MR. ROBERTS: Now I want to put the whole Document L-52. Dr. Exner, quite properly of course, read some extracts; but I want to read some more. Have you got copies for the Tribunal? Now, L-52 was Hitler's memorandum on the 9th of October 1939. May I point out that the 9th of October 1939 was 3 days after his renewed assurances to the western neutrals. I want to refer-certain passages you have read; I want to refer to others. [Turning to the Tribunal.] My Lord, what I am now reading from, starting with the outside page, is the 5th page. It is Page 27 of the original, which appears in the bottom right-hand corner. [Turning to the defendant.] I read the paragraph on Page 25 of your original, Witness. "Germany's military means of waging a lengthy war are, as far as our main enemy is concerned, the Air Force and the U-boat arm. "The U-boat can even today, if ruthlessly employed, become an extraordinary threat to England. The weaknesses of German U-boat warfare lie in the great distance of approach to the scene of their activity, in the extraordinary danger attached to these approaches, and in the continual threat to their home bases. That England has not, for the moment, laid the great mine fields as in World War I, between Norway and the Shetland Islands, is possibly connected-provided the will to wage war exists at all-with a shortage of necessary blockade materials. But if the war lasts long an increasing difficulty to our U-boats must be reckoned with in the use of these only remaining inward and outward routes. Every creation of U-boat bases outside these constricted home bases would lead to an enormous increase in the striking power of this arm." Is that a covert reference to the Norwegian bases, do you think, giving access to the Atlantic?
JODL: I do not believe 50. I believe it is a general correct naval strategic consideration and can apply Just as well to a base at Murmansk which, for instance, we already had at that time, or in Spain, or in some other state that was neutral at the time; but it is not a reference to Norway, for I have declared under oath that at the time, the Fuehrer never gave a thought to Norway, not the slightest thought, before he received the report from Quisling.
MR. ROBERTS: I have your answer. Now, may I go on reading? "The German Air Force: It can only succeed in effective operations against the industrial center of England and her south and southwest ports, which are gaining in importance during the war, when it is no longer compelled to operate offensively from our present small North Sea coast by tremendously devious routes involving long flights. If the Dutch-Belgian area were to fall into the hands of the English and French, then the enemy air forces, in order to strike at the industrial heart of Germany, would need to cover barely a sixth of the distance required by the German bomber to reach really important targets. If we were in possession of Holland, Belgium, or even the Straits of Dover as jumping-off bases for German air attacks, then, without a doubt, Great Britain could be struck a mortal blow, even if the strongest reprisals were attempted. "Such a shortening of the air approaches would be all the more important to Germany because of our greater difficulties in fuel supply. Every 1000 kilograms of fuel saved is not only an asset to our national economy, but means that 1000 kilograms more of explosive can be carried in the aircraft; that is, 1000 kilograms of fuel would become 1000 kilograms of bombs. This also leads to economy in aircraft, in mechanical wear and tear, and above all, in the precious blood of soldiers." Then I ask you to turn to your Page 41. My Lord, it is two pages on, and Your Lordship will see "41" nearly at the top of the page, with an asterisk, and the heading, "The German Attack." Has Your Lordship got it?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. ROBERTS: "The German Attach The German attack is to be launched with the fundamental object of destroying the French Army, but in any case it must create a favorable initial situation which is a prerequisite for a successful continuation of the war. Under these circumstances the only possible area of attack is the sector between Luxembourg in the south and Nijmegen in the north, excluding the fortress of Liege. The object... is to attempt to penetrate the area Luxembourg-Belgium, and Holland in the shortest possible time and to engage and defeat the opposing Belgian-French-English forces." I suppose I can't ask you to say what is your opinion of the honesty of giving those western neutrals a guarantee on the 6th of October and saying that is the only possible means of attack in that memorandum of the 9th. I suppose that is a question of politics, is it? ~ 6 June 46
JODL: That is a political question, but the declarations were always made only on the condition of the strictest neutrality of these countries. But this neutrality was not kept, for British fliers flew over this area by day and by night.
MR. ROBERTS: Why should the wretched people of the Netherlands and Belgium be destroyed and mutilated because British airmen fly over their territory-destroyed and mutilated by the German Army? What is the logic of your remark at all? [Turning to the Tribunal.] My Lord, there was one more passage from that document I should like to read. If Your Lordship is thinking of adjourning, perhaps I might read it, and then I win have finished with the document. My Lord, it is the next page, and it is toward the end of the page. It is against the lettering-the number L-52. It is just above, "Time of Attack." [Turning to the defendant.] It is on your Page 52, Witness, at the very beginning, or just at the end of Page 51: "AU the leaders must keep firmly fixed in their minds the fact that the destruction of the Anglo-French Army is the main objective, the attainment of which win make possible the prerequisite conditions for later and successful employment of the German Air Force against other objectives. The brutal employment of the German Air Force against the heart of the British will to resist can and win follow at the given moment." Did that mean terror attacks against the civilian population?
JODL: You are asking me continually about a document which from the first to the last word was written by the Fuehrer, as I have already told you. You are producing a rather interesting picture of the Fuehrer as a strategist and as a military leader, and it is of interest to the world; but I cannot see how this concerns me. These are the thoughts which the Fuehrer put down as military commander and are of great interest for an soldiers in the world. But what does it have to do with me? That I do not understand.
MR. ROBERTS: But may I point out, Witness, that your own counsel produced it and you relied on certain parts of it. That is how it concerns you; you relied on it.
JODL: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now. [The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours.] Afternoon Session
MR. ROBERTS: Witness, I only have two other questions on the alleged aggression against the Low Countries. Will you look at your diary, 1809-PS, for the 8th of May 1940. It is Page 141 in Document Book 7, and it is Page 115 in the German book. The actual quotation is Page 143 in the Document Book 7; at the top of the page: "8 May. Alarming news from Holland, canceling of furloughs, evacuations, road blocks, other mobilization measures." Were you afraid that the Dutch might actually take some steps to defend themselves against your invasion?
JODL: I was sure that the Dutch would defend themselves against Germany.
MR. ROBERTS: Was it alarming you because you thought the Dutch might have suspected you were going to break your treaties and assurances?
JODL: I did not understand the question.
MR. ROBERTS: I will go on: "According to the intelligence reports the British are said to have asked for permission to march in, but the Dutch refused. According to reports, measures of the Dutch partly directed against the coast and partly against us. Hot possible to obtain a clear picture whether the Dutch do not work hand in hand with the English or whether they really want to defend their neutrality against the first attacker." It is clear from that, is it not, that you had no information at all that Dutch neutrality was going to be broken?
JODL: That is not clear from the entry; it is only a brief argument on the basis of masses of reports which we received from Canaris on that day or on the previous day. If they were to be followed up accurately, the reports immediately preceding this entry would have to be at hand; the entry refers to the latest reports, and not to the many thousands which had come in before.
MR. ROBERTS: Now, on the 10th of May without any declaration of war these three countries, small countries, were invaded with all of the armed might of Germany, were they not?
JODL: The attack began on the 10th of May along the whole front.
MR. ROBERTS: What had those countries done at all to deserve the horrors of invasion and the misery of German occupation?
JODL: That, again, is a historical question. I have already said that according to my personal point of view England and France in fact forced them to give up their strictly neutral attitude. That was my impression.
MR. ROBERTS: Their only fault, was it not, was that they stood in the way of your air bases and U-boat bases?
JODL: They were not only in the way, but by tolerating actions incompatible with neutrality, they- helped England in the war against us. That was my subjective impression.
MR. ROBERTS: Now, I have only got-with the permission of the Tribunal, there was one question I should have asked on Norway; only one; and if I might go back to that, I want to ask you about your diary entry, 1809-PS, Page 143 in Document Book 7. I have not got a reference to the German but it is about at that place. I will read it slowly: "13 March: Fuehrer does not give order yet for 'W' "-Weser-"He is still looking for an excuse"-or "justification"-to use your word. And the next day: "14 March: Fuehrer has not yet decided what reason to give for Weser Exercise." If you had a good reason for breaking Norwegian neutrality, why should the Fuehrer be unable to find one?
JODL: Because for this operation the Fuehrer considered it absolutely necessary to have some documentary proof. So far, there had only been very strong indications which came near to a proof, but we had as yet no documentary evidence.
MR. ROBERTS: Very good. I leave that part of the case, and I now go to Yugoslavia, and I have only two or three questions on Yugoslavia. I want you to look at Document 1746-PS, Page 127 in Document Book 7; German book, 112. Before we deal with the document, Witness, Yugoslavia had also received assurances from Hitler. That is so, is it not, or do you not know?
JODL: Yes. Not only did Yugoslavia receive assurances from Hitler, but we also received them from the Yugoslav Government, which had concluded a treaty with us on the previous day.
MR. ROBERTS: Now, you will find the document I am going to refer to-it has got a piece of paper headed with the German word for "discussion," "Besprechung." Have you found it? It should be a piece of paper with the word "Besprechung."
JODL: "Discussion on the Situation in Yugoslavia"; yes.
MR. ROBERTS: Yes, that is right.
JODL: Yes.
MR. ROBERTS: Dated 27 March 1941?
JODL: Yes.
MR. ROBERTS: Now if you turn to-I think it is Page 2: "The Fuehrer is determined, without waiting for declarations of good faith from the new government, to make all preparations to destroy Yugoslavia militarily and as a national unit. No diplomatic inquiries will be made; no ultimatum presented. Assurances of the Yugoslav Government, which cannot be trusted for the future, will be taken note of. The attack will start as soon as the means and the troops suitable are ready. It is important that action be taken as fast as possible." Now I go to Page 3, Witness: "Politically it is especially important that the blow against Yugoslavia is carried out with unmerciful harshness and military destruction is done in a lightning-like undertaking." Now I go to Page 5, Witness: "The main task of the Air Force is to start as early as possible with the destruction of the Yugoslav Air Force ground installation, and to destroy its capital, Belgrade, in waves of attacks." The Fuehrer was not going to give the civilian population even half an hour's warning, was he?
JODL: I do not know what preparations for warning the Yugoslav Government had been made, but at the moment of the Putsch it immediately made military preparations and deployed its forces along our border.
MR. ROBERTS: May I ask you this? Do you approve, as an honorable soldier, of attacking a city crowded with civilians without a declaration of war or even half an hour's warning?
JODL: I do not hold that view. I have already said that I, personally, and half an hour or an hour later the Reich Foreign Minister, suggested an ultimatum.
MR. ROBERTS: When you lost air superiority and people were able to hit back, you Germans made a great deal of fuss then about terror attacks, did you not?
JODL: This city was at the same time the center of a Putsch government which had annulled a treaty concluded with Germany, and which from that moment on had made preparations along the whole front for war with Germany.
MR. ROBERTS: Well, I am going to leave the incident. Do you remember how you referred to it in the notes for your lecture? It appears on Page 127-no, My Lord, it does-I beg your pardon, it appears on 292 of Book 7 and at 304 of the German. You refer to it as "an interlude." Do you remember? The German word is "Zwischenspiel," "interlude." Is that your idea of an interlude?
JODL: To be juridically exact, you mean the first draft of my lecture and not my lecture which you do not know. However, even in this first draft I cannot recall mentioning an interlude.
MR. ROBERTS: How many civilians, how many thousands, do you think were killed in the first movement of that "interlude"-in the bombing of Belgrade without warning?
JODL: I cannot say, but surely only a tenth of the number killed in Dresden, for example, when you had already won the war.
MR. ROBERTS: Now I come to the alleged aggression against the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Hitler decided to attack the Soviet Republic in July of 1940, did he not?
JODL: In July of 1940 he had not yet reached that decision.
MR. ROBERTS: But at any rate-I do not want to waste time- we know that on the 22d of June 1941 Germany invaded the Soviet Union contrary to her non-aggression pact. That is history, is it not?
JODL: Yes. The surprise attack on 22 June 1941 is a historical fact which took place because the politicians were of the opinion that the Soviet Union had not kept the pact.
MR. ROBERTS: Now, Witness, I am going to pass from this part of the case altogether. I want to put one last question: Do you not think that this record of broken pledges will dishonor the name of Germany for centuries to come?
JODL: It might, if historical research after exact investigation of Russian documents delivers clear proof that Russia had no intention of strangling us politically or of attacking us. In that case, yes; otherwise, no.
MR. ROBERTS: I now want to ask-to come to quite a different part of the case under Count Three and Count Four. The documents have been put to you so often. I do not want to put them again. But, you remember the "Barbarossa" order. That is C-50, in Document Book 7, Page 187; and German book, 146. That was circulated by your office, was it not, Wehrmachtfuhrungsstab, L?
JODL: It was dealt with in the Quartermaster Section of the Wehrmacht uhrungsst ate.
MR. ROBERTS: Well now, would you agree that that was a shameful order to have to issue?
JODL: I agree. I have already said that there was no soldier who was not opposed to this order; they all did so.
MR. ROBERTS: Very good. Now we know that on the 17th of July-and this is Document C-51, which is in Document Book 7, at Page 190, German Page 150-we know that from the same office, the WFSt, L, there was issued an order that the previous order was to be destroyed, but its validity was not to be affected, destroyed below corps level. What was the object of the destruction of that order?
JODL: Unfortunately I cannot tell you; I do not recall this order. I do not believe I ever saw it, at least not before this Trial.
MR. ROBERTS: Perhaps you would look at it, Witness, C-51, Page 190, Book 7; 150, German book. Now, that comes from WFSt-that is, Wehrmachtfuhrungsstab-Department "L"; and then "Q" for "Quartermaster," in brackets. That is your office, is it not?
JODL: That is a part of the Wehrmachtfuhrungsstab.
MR. ROBERTS: It is signed Keitel.
JODL: Yes. But I do not know this order; it was shown to me for the first time here in Nuremberg; I had never seen it before. I do not know what it is about or what order is being rescinded. I have already said that these questions of military legal jurisdiction were dealt with by Field Marshal Keitel, and that he used my Quartermaster Section as a working staff without my having any part in these matters. I do not know this order.
MR. ROBERTS: And you cannot suggest any reason why it had to be destroyed?
JODL: No; I cannot give you any information about it.
MR. ROBERTS: Now then, I want C-52, which has not yet been put in. Your Lordships will find it on Page 191 of Book 7. I offer it as GB-485, and it is in the German book on Page 153. [Turning to the defendant.] Now, this is another Keitel order. It comes from Wehrmachtfahrungsstab, L; then, in brackets, "I Op." Is that your department?
JODL: That is the section which worked with me on all operational questions.
MR. ROBERTS: Do you remember that order?
JODL: Yes, I remember the order.
MR. ROBERTS: Now-I think you took part in drafting it; did you not?
JODL: Certainly, because it is an operational order which supplements a directive.
MR. ROBERTS: Yes, well, will you look at Paragraphs 6 and 7? Paragraph 6: "In view of the vast size of the occupied areas in the East, forces available for establishing security will be sufficient only if all resistance is punished not by legal prosecution of the guilty, but by the occupation forces spreading such terror as is alone appropriate to eradicate every inclination to resist. "The respective commanders, together with the troops at their disposal, are to be held responsible for maintaining peace in their respective areas. The commanders must find the means of keeping order within the regions where security is their responsibility, not by demanding more forces, but by applying suitable Draconian measures." That is a terrible order, is it not?
JODL: No, it is not at all terrible for it is established by international law that the inhabitants of an occupied territory must follow the orders and instructions of the occupying power, and any uprising, any resistance against the army occupying the country is forbidden; it is, in fact, partisan warfare, and international law does not lay down means of combating partisans. The principle of such warfare is an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, and this is not even a German principle.
MR. ROBERTS: Is it not the tooth and the eye of the innocent?
JODL: It is not a question of the innocent. It expressly states, "to eradicate every inclination to resist." It is a question of those who resist, that is, by partisan warfare.
MR. ROBERTS: I will not argue about it, Witness. I gather you approve of the order.
JODL: I approve it as a justified measure conforming to international law and directed against a widespread resistance movement which employed unscrupulous methods. Of that we had evidence.
MR. ROBERTS: Very good. Now I want to come to something quite different. I want to come to the Commando Order, and I desire to put in two documents which have not yet been put in, to trace the history of the making of this order, because I suggest it was drawn up in your office under your jurisdiction. Will you give the witness, please, 1266-PS, which I offer, My Lord, as GB-486. Now, this is the first document, dated the 8th of October. That is a memorandum from the "Q" branch of the Wehrmachtfuhrungsstab; that is right, is it not?
JODL: Yes.
MR. ROBERTS: And it was-that is the wireless order that you mentioned?
JODL: Yes.
MR. ROBERTS: First it deals with the "tying up," My Lord, which is not important. Secondly, the wireless announcement of the 7th of October 1942, which reads as follows: "All terror and sabotage detachments of the British and their accomplices who do not behave like soldiers but like bandits will in future be treated as such by German troops and will be ruthlessly slain in battle wherever they make their appearance." [Turning to the defendant.] Well, of course, that order does not mean very much, does it? It assumes that the enemy are not behaving like soldiers, but like bandits, and says they may be slain in battle. But then the second paragraph: "The Deputy Chief of the Operations Staff..." That was Warlimont, was it not, Witness?
JODL: Yes, that was Warlimont.
MR. ROBERTS: Yes. ". . . has given the following urgent task to 'Q': "1) Drafting of the order." Look at Number 2: "Like the Barbarossa order issued at the time this order must also be drawn up-in conjunction with the Armed Forces Legal Department and Counterintelligence-with great thought and care. Distribution down to armies only, from there forward only orally. To be destroyed after having been taken cognizance of." What was the nature of that order that was drawn up with so much care by your staff and the Legal Department and Counterintelligence?
JODL: I believe that was Document C-50, which you mentioned earlier. The Barbarossa order is not a clear term.