dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
COL. POKROVSKY: That is possible. I shall repeat it. On the 13th of May, appeared the witness Wagner here before the Tribunal. Do you remember, or not?
JODL: I remember the witness Wagner. He testified that Field Marshal Keitel and I were present at every situation report, and I do not dispute it.
COL. POKROVSKY: He said either Field Marshal Keitel or Generaloberst Jodl was present. Is that correct? Do you catch the difference in the way this question is phrased?
JODL: In 99 percent of all cases, both of us were present at the situation conferences.
COL. POKROVSKY: So that if we forget for one minute such formal considerations, such formal circumstances, would it be right to conclude that it was precisely you, Jodl, who actually was Keitel's acting deputy in the eyes of Hitler, of the whole cadre of officers, and of the entire military machinery of the German Reich? Would that be correct, or not?
JODL: In individual cases, when the Field Marshal was not there, and in unimportant things, yes; but when it came to important things I could reach him by telephone, at any time, and so it hardly ever happened that I deputized. He was never ill, and was never away on leave. When he was away he was in Berlin at headquarters.
COL. POKROVSKY: In that case I would like to remind you of one such fact, which you yourself confirmed here on the 6th of June, while testifying to the Tribunal about the motives which caused you to sign Document UK-56, Exhibit RF-1438. You said that the document had had no connection with your sphere of activity. It concerned the deportation of Jews from Denmark and, you signed the document even though it actually had no connection with the operations staff work. You signed it because Keitel was away at the time. Was it not so? Is it true?
JODL: That is absolutely correct. It was an urgent matter and had to be signed immediately.
COL. POKROVSKY: Good. We can find a great many documents of that type; but I do not consider it necessary to waste any more time on the further elucidation of this point. Tell me, would it be correct to say that you were well aware of the entire work carried out by the OKW-that you well knew what important problems were occupying the OKW at that time?
JODL: Only to a limited extent-in individual matters. I was not at all aware of everything that took place in the numerous offices in Berlin. That was quite impossible. It did not concern me. I have testified already that my time was so fully taken up that I had much more to do than I had time for.
COL. POKROVSKY: Very well, you force me to revert to a question which I really wanted to have done with. Will you please now look at our new Document USSR-476. This document consists of excerpts from Keitel's testimony of 9 November 1945. It is stated there: "Question: 'Would it have been possible for General Jodl, without your knowledge to call such a meeting?"' We are talking, My Lord, of the conference in Reichenhall. Reply of Field Marshal Keitel: "Yes, it was quite possible, as I was frequently on official journeys; and General Jodl had authority to call a meeting because he represented me in my absence." Have you found the passage? Have you read it?
JODL: Colonel Pokrovsky, of course, it is very difficult for you to follow these military matters. It is ridiculous. Surely I may question my staff officers. I do not need to call a meeting for that. These were my General Staff officers with whom I worked in Reichenhall. Surely I could go to them. That was my office and my duty.
THE PRESIDENT: I do not think it is necessary for you to raise your voice in that way.
COL. POKROVSKY: It seems to me that you have still not answered two of my questions. First, have you read this document? Please tell me: Have you, or have you not, read the passage which I have just read into the record on Page 1?
JODL: Yes. Here, Field Marshal Keitel says, " . . . since I was very often away on official journeys . . . "
COL. POKROVSKY: You do not have to read it a second time. I have read it already. I merely want you to tell me whether you have read that passage?
JODL: Yes, I read that, and it says here, " ... to ask Generaloberst Jodl."
COL. POKROVSKY: No, you are reading beyond the passage which interests me at this moment. As for the words " . . . to ask Generaloberst Jodl."-rest assured, we shall get to that passage. But is it true that Keitel was often away, and that you deputized for him? I do not hear any answer. [There was no response.] I still hear no answer.
JODL: I have already said that, now and then, he went to the front for a day or so and that he was several times in Berlin for a few days; but he was at those offices which were subordinate to him. I was alone with my operations staff, and I could do whatever I pleased with my staff. During the entire war I never called a conference of other offices as a deputy of Field Marshal Keitel. I did not understand anything about those matters.
COL. POKROVSKY: You have uttered a great many words, but have not given me a clear answer to my very short and simple question-namely, do you confirm, or do you not confirm, the truth of Keitel's statement? "Yes" or "no." That is very easy to answer, is it not?
JODL: That is what it amounts to, but the thing as written down is ridiculous.
COL. POKROVSKY: We shall gauge the truth of your statement later. It is important to me to establish the fact. I am submitting our Document USSR-263 to the Tribunal. You will now have the pleasure of reading it yourself. It is an excerpt from the evidence of another officer who worked with you, General Warlimont. Please acquaint yourself with that passage which is marked on your copy while I read it aloud. That will be quicker. The question put to Warlimont: "When did the OKW first receive the order for preparing for the attack on the Soviet Union?" Have you found this passage?
JODL: That which I have before me-the passage which is marked in red-contains a statement by Warlimont as to the organization of the offices of the OKW. On the next page something follows about the preparations for the attack on the Soviet Union.
COL. POKROVSKY: "When did the OKW first receive the order for preparing for the attack on the Soviet Union?" Warlimont replies: "I personally first heard about the plan on 29 July 1940... On that day Generaloberst Jodl arrived by special train in Bad Reichenhall, where also Section 'L' of the Armed Forces Operations Staff was quartered." Have you found the passage?
JODL: Yes.
COL. POKROVSKY: My Lord, I do not consider it necessary to read a greater part of Warlimont's testimony, because we are dealing with a well-known fact, that is, the convocation of the conference during which Jodl gave his colleagues the order to prepare the plan for the attack on the Soviet Union. This document has already been accepted in evidence by the Tribunal. Warlimont then states, "Jodl stunned us by his announcement of the coming attack, for which we were not at all prepared." -Have you found the passage? Please look at the document. [There was no response.] Jodl, will you please take the document in your hand and see whether it has been read into the record correctly.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it not coming through properly? Wait a minute.
DR. EXNER: I just wanted to call the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that the translation and the transmission is coming through to us so very badly that I have scarcely understood anything. I hear only half a question at a time, and I am surprised that the defendant could answer at all.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it coming through better now? Is the translation coming through better now?
DR. EXNER: I am of the opinion that the translation itself is poor, not only the technical transmission. It is often very difficult to understand the question-it makes no sense at all. And my colleague, Dr. Stahmer, confirms this. Therefore it is difficult for us.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we had better go on and see, perhaps, if it will improve.
COL. POKROVSKY: I would like you to read one other sentence to yourself. It is the passage in which Warlimont states to whom the responsibility for elaborating the plans was entrusted and how the officers present had reacted. He testifies, "Jodl stunned us by this announcement..." It is on the first page at about the middle of the page. Have you found it?
JODL: I could not find the sentence which you have just read, "Jodl stunned us." I cannot find that sentence.
COL. POKROVSKY: In that case, I shall begin with the preceding sentence. Perhaps it will be easier for you. "Besides myself, he also ordered three other senior officers... Colonel Von Lossberg, Lieutenant Colonel Freiherr van Falkenstein of the Luftwaffe, and Captain Junge of the Navy to attend." Have you found it?
JODL: Yes.
COL. POKROVSKY: Thank you. "Jodl stunned us by this announcement... for which we were not at all prepared." And then a little further down: "Jodl announced that the Fuehrer had decided to prepare for war against Russia. The Fuehrer based his decision on the fact that war with Russia must come sooner or later and that it would be better to carry this campaign through in the course of this war..." Have you found the passage?
JODL: Yes, I have it.
COL. POKROVSKY: Very well. Now, I would like you to read one more paragraph from Document USSR-476, which has just been handed to you, on Page 1. It is, Jodl, the one which you began to read the first time, and I told you then that we should get back to it eventually. Keitel is asked whether he knows anything about that conference, and he answers: "I know nothing whatever about a conference with regard to an attack on the Soviet Union. I heard about it for the first time after I was imprisoned here." Have you found the place?
JODL: No. I have not found it, but I do recall it. I read it just a short while ago.
COL. POKROVSKY: I should like you to have it. We do not want any misunderstandings. A little lower down Keitel states that you did not inform him of this conference even later. Is that so? Do you confirm this statement, or do you not? Would you say that Keitel had testified correctly? '
JODL: Actually there is no such thing as a conference in these military matters. You have conferences in civil and parliamentary life, but we do not have conferences. I talked to my General Staff officers as often as I pleased. Therefore, it is...
COL. POKROVSKY: Excuse me, I am going to interrupt you here. Later on you may add all you wish to say, but I merely want a direct answer to the question: Is Keitel's testimony correct, that you never reported this conference to him? Is that true or not?
JODL: I certainly did not report to him on this very discussion; but that is not in the least important. I am certain that I reported to him what the Fuehrer told me, because that was an important matter; and later, because of this, he wrote a memorandum. Therefore, he must have heard about it-but that is only a supposition, a very likely supposition, which I am voicing here.
COL. POKROVSKY: Very well, I am perfectly satisfied with your reply. And to conclude my first group of questions, I want to ask just one more on this particular matter: Do you not agree with me that only the Deputy Chief of the OKW, and not just any other responsible official, could quite independently-without Keitel's knowledge, without any instructions, and without even a post-factum report to him-decide questions, such as the preparation of a plan for attacking another country? Have you understood my question?
JODL: I understood your words, but not their meaning. First of all, you put a wrong assertion in your question. You asserted that I did not report the preparation for an attack on a neutral country to Field Marshal Keitel. That is an assertion on your part which I refuted yesterday under oath. We were not concerned with an attack on the Soviet Union at this meeting. We were concerned with the defense against a Soviet attack on the Romanian oil fields. That is established in Document C-170, the War Diary of the Navy.
COL. POKROVSKY: Is that all you wanted to say on that question?
JODL: I believe that suffices.
COL. POKROVSKY: I do not intend to argue with you. I merely wish to say that we have two proofs of this conference. First, your testimony, in which you deny the fact of the preparation of a plan for attacking the Soviet Union; and second, the testimony of another participant at this conference, Warlimont, who says straight out that the meeting was specifically concerned with elaborating the plan of attack on the Soviet Union and that this directive greatly astonished all of them. I do not intend to deal with this question any further, but I should like to ask...
JODL: If you are interested, I could explain that divergence to you.
COL. POKROVSKY: No, at the present moment it does not interest me. Would it be correct to state that you were either the leading, or one of the leading, staff officers in Hitlerite Germany who were engaged in preparing measures for attacking the Soviet Union, as far back as the summer of 1940? It is precisely on this matter that I want to hear your reply. Is the question clear to you?
JODL: The question is clear, and my answer to it is that I was probably the first who learned of the Fuehrer's concern about Russia's political attitude. However, I was not the first who made preparations for an attack on the Soviet Union. To my surprise I discovered here, through the witness Paulus, that long before we concerned ourselves with any orders of this kind, plans of attack were already worked out in the General Staff of the Army. I cannot tell you with absolute certainty why it was done. Perhaps Generaloberst Halder can tell us about that. I can only express that as a supposition on my part.
COL. POKROVSKY: Suppositions are of no interest to us; we are only concerned with facts here. On the day before yesterday, the 5th of June, you stated that the attack on the Soviet Union, whereby Germany broke her non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union, was in the nature of a preventive war. That is what you then stated, is it not?
JODL: Yes, that is what I said, it was a preventive war.
COL. POKROVSKY: Very well. That is your opinion. Do you remember that from the testimonies of Milch and Raeder, from the testimony of Goering, from the testimonies of Paulus and Keitel, it seems that they were all opposed to the attack on the Soviet Union? I shall read into the record one sentence from Keitel's testimony here in court just to help you to remember. While General Rudenko, Chief Prosecutor for the U.S.S.R. was cross-examining Keitel, he put this question: "You stated that you especially went to Hitler with the request that he, Hitler, change his intentions with regard to the Soviet Union?" Answer (Keitel): "Yes, I asked him not only to change this plan, but to do away with these plans altogether, that is, not to wage war against the Soviet Union." Do you remember that testimony of Keitel?
JODL: Yes, I remember, and I know the memorandum as well.
COL. POKROVSKY: Very well. Do you not find it rather strange that a man-in this case yourself-who has in every way endeavored to disclaim the fact that he was Keitel's deputy, should emphasize before Hitler am here before the Tribunal, that he was better informed on current events than Keitel and could, therefore, find the courage to make a statement in direct opposition to the attitude of Keitel, Paulus, Raeder, Goering, and Milch?
JODL: I did not understand that.
COL. POKROVSKY: I shall be very pleased to make my meaning more explicit. Keitel did not appear to see any necessity for what you call a "preventive" war, and all the persons whose testimony I have just mentioned also saw no reason for waging a so-called "preventive" war. They did not believe that the Soviet Union intended to attack Germany, whereas you declared that the war was of a "preventive" nature. Now, do you understand my question?
JODL: Yes, now I understand you.
COL. POKROVSKY: Very well, would you like to answer the question?
JODL: Yes, I can give an explanation. First of all, it is not certain what stand Field Marshal Keitel took in the spring of 1941 with regard to this question. Secondly, the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy and the Commander-in-Chief of the Air Force-with due respect to both of these gentlemen-saw the problem as a whole only from the point of view of naval or air strategy, and they saw no danger whatsoever in the Russian Navy or the Russian Air Force. What was taking place on land, of course, was of less interest to them. That explains why the strongest opposition came from the Luftwaffe and the Navy; and only the Army, in this case, was much more inclined to see the tremendous danger with which it was confronted. But in spite of this, every one of us, I myself included, warned the Fuehrer most urgently against this experiment, which should have been undertaken only if there really was no other way out. I will not take it upon myself to judge whether there might perhaps have been a political possibility which was not exhausted; I cannot judge that.
COL. POKROVSKY: Very well. I am satisfied with your reply, and particularly with the fact that you have condescended to define the breaking of this treaty and the attack on the Soviet Union by the word "experiment." I want you to look at the document. . .
THE PRESIDENT: I think you should not make comments of that sort. You must ask questions and not make comments.
COL. POKROVSKY: My remark, My Lord, is connected with my next question. [Turning to the defendant.] Witness, please look at Document 865-PS. Have you got this document?
JODL: Yes, I have the document before me.
COL. POKROVSKY: Very well. In reply to the questions of your counsel, you stated that Lammers had, quite by accident, designated you as a collaborator of Rosenberg. There in your hands is a very brief document, which I shall now read aloud-a document signed by Keitel. It is a top-secret letter of 25 April 1941, addressed to Rosenberg personally. This letter states: "The Chief of the Reich Chancellery has sent me a copy of the Fuehrer's directive appointing you his plenipotentiary for dealing with questions relating to eastern European territories. I, on the part of the High Command of the Armed Forces, entrust the handling of these questions to the Chief of the Armed Forces Operations Staff, General of Artillery Jodl, with Major General Warlimont as his deputy. I request that your department contact these two persons only. "Hell Hitler! Yours truly"-signed-"Keitel." With this document in mind what do you say now in reply to the question as to whether or not you remember, that you, with Warlimont as your deputy, were charged by the High Command of the Armed Forces, as far back as April 1941, to deal with the practical problems of the Hitlerite expansion to the east in accordance with the directives of the Staff Rosenberg. Do you understand my question?
JODL: I already told the Court yesterday everything that can be said in connection with this formality. Minister Lammers sent the very same letter to all Reich Ministries. He asked every Ministry to designate a plenipotentiary and a deputy; and accordingly, Field Marshal Keitel naturally designated the two officers who were at headquarters. I never worked with Rosenberg, and it was not necessary to do so-except for one single talk with him, which I mentioned yesterday. Only my propaganda section conferred with the Ministry for the Eastern Occupied Territories about leaflets-quite simple matters which every soldier can understand.
COL. POKROVSKY: By the way, concerning the question of soldiers. You stubbornly affirm that you were only concerned with military questions of an operational nature and had nothing to do at all with political questions. Have I understood you correctly?
JODL: I gave that explanation yesterday as well, insofar as politics were not an integral part of the strategy. To a certain extent politics did come into it, for without politics there could be no strategy. It is an essential part of strategy. But since I was not a strategist, but only dealt with this matter as a General Staff officer, I was not concerned with this subject directly.
COL. POKROVSKY: You were not concerned with these matters? You will now look at Document C-26, Exhibit USSR-477, and I must ask you if you have found your own signature on the last page.
JODL: Yes, I see my signature.
COL. POKROVSKY: You have found it? It is a directive on the organization of propaganda in connection with "Case Barbarossa." Is that correct?
JODL: Yes.
COL. POKROVSKY: Are you going to deny that in that directive, issued by you, the question is clearly put that the U.S.S.R, as a sovereign state, should be destroyed and that you consider that a purely military problem-you, an officer of the General Staff, did not deal with politics?
JODL: I cannot find the place where it says that Russia is to be destroyed.
COL. POKROVSKY: You are quite right if you want to draw attention to the wording. It is not stated there in just these words. I am thinking of the general sense of the directive, particularly of Subparagraph "d."
JODL: Yes, but-I know the document.
COL. POKROVSKY: I want to read out one sentence: "Propaganda aiming at the dismemberment of the Soviet Union into separate states shall not be used for the time being." Further on there are a couple of technical remarks, and then it says in the same paragraph: "Nevertheless, we should avoid such terms as 'Russia,' 'Russians,' 'Russian Armed Forces,' et cetera , and substitute 'Soviet Union,' 'Peoples of the Soviet Union,' 'Red Army,' et cetera ." Have you found the place, Jodl?
JODL: Yes.
COL. POKROVSKY: Very well. What would you like to say if you want to say anything at all on the subject?
JODL: Why, certainly. I wish to answer the question.
COL. POKROVSKY: If you please.
JODL: As may be seen from the heading of this directive, it deals with the handling of propaganda. Compared with the British and the Soviet Union, we were mere schoolboys in propaganda. You are perhaps aware that propaganda is something quite justifiable and is not limited by any regulations of international law. At one time, in Geneva, there was a long debate about this; and the idea that propaganda should be restricted by international law was rejected. I have already stated that in my preliminary interrogation. In the field of propaganda, I can do whatever I wish. There is nor law, either criminal or international, in regard to that. But perhaps you do not know that this propaganda had to be in line with the political directives of the Fuehrer and this was being done here. I am very well acquainted with propaganda, for I studied it for 5 years-yours, too. That is still quite another type of propaganda.
COL. POKROVSKY: You preferred not to give a direct answer to the question you were asked. I am perfectly satisfied with that, too, since I have understood your attitude toward this subject. Now, I should be interested in receiving a reply to the following question: What connection did the Ministry of Propaganda have with the issue of this directive? Did this Ministry participate in the drafting of the directive, or were you and the OKW solely responsible? Did you understand me?