dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
JODL: Yes, I understood you.- My propaganda division worked in Berlin. I cannot tell you in detail how it worked with Minister Rosenberg or with the Ministry of Propaganda on such a document. But General Von Wedel, the chief of this division could tell you. I only knew it was drawn up in agreement with the Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories, for I was always eager that we should not take separate lines but rather work in line with the competent civilian authorities. But it is only propaganda; it is not a directive to destroy Russia. Propaganda is a spiritual weapon.
COL. POKROVSKY: I do not propose to enter into a discussion with you on what constitutes propaganda and whether you were only responsible for propaganda. We shall have quite a number of other questions to ask. Do you suggest that this directive was issued after a certain pattern decided upon with other departments? That is how I understood you. Is this correct? Partly by agreement with "Stab Rosenberg"?
JODL: Yes, I believe that.
COL. POKROVSKY: Very well. Now let us pass on to a second complex of questions. Do you dispute the fact that the document regarding the conference at Hitler's headquarters on 27 March 1941 dealt with the subject of Yugoslavia? You, of course, remember that conference?
JODL: Yes, I remember that.
COL. POKROVSKY: Would you argue the fact that the documents describing this conference and the directive for operations against Yugoslavia-both documents are dated 28 March 1941, in other words, they were issued on the following day-would you still argue that these documents did not emanate from the Armed Forces Operations Staff, that is, from you personally? You can, if you like, take a look at Document 1746-PS. It might help you to remember events.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Pokrovsky, you are not losing sight of the fact that this subject was fully gone into by Mr. Roberts in cross-examination of the defendant?
COL. POKROVSKY: My Lord, if you consider that the question has already been completely clarified, I shall refrain from asking it. But it seems to me that insofar as I understood him, he analyzed this question in another sense. But if you think the matter is clear, I shall withdraw it.
THE PRESIDENT: I do not know yet. But I was only pointing out to you that it had been fully gone into by Mr. Roberts. I do not know what this document you are suggesting is.
COL. POKROVSKY: I offered for the attention of the defendant two documents, My Lord: the directive for operations against Yugoslavia, dated 28 March, and the minutes of the conference. Both documents were submitted to the Tribunal. If you think that the matter has been fully covered already, I will not ask the questions. However, it appears to me that there is some reason for asking the question.
THE PRESIDENT: All the Tribunal want to know is whether there is some really fresh point which is being brought out. You must have heard Mr. Roberts' cross-examination of the defendant upon the Yugoslavian attack. And I do not know what these documents of the 22d of March and the 28th of March are, or what you are asking to get out of them. If there is anything that is really fresh or new, of course, you may put it; but if it is not, then it is covered by what the Tribunal have already said, that crossexamination ought not to go over the same ground again.
COL. POKROVSKY: If you will permit me to say so, My Lord, I understood Jodl to mean that for him . . .
THE PRESIDENT: I am asking you, too.
COL. POKROVSKY: I understood in Jodl's testimony, in reply to Mr. Roberts' question, that it is still not quite clear as to who was in charge of the operations against Yugoslavia; and I only want to have this point elucidated. Now, if the Tribunal consider that this question has already-been replied to, I shall, of course, withdraw it.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Colonel Pokrovsky, the Tribunal are not able to see what there is fresh in this method of questioning that you are now raising; and unless you insist upon it yourself because you think it is of great importance, I think you should pass on to the next matter in your cross-examination.
COL. POKROVSKY: Very well. I shall continue, My Lord. [Turning to the defendant.] Your counsel has submitted Document L-172, containing the following sentence made by you in your speech to the Gauleiter of 7 November 1943. I shall read out this sentence: "This dilemma of the shortage of men has brought us to the idea of utilizing more fully the reserves of manpower in the occupied territories." Do you remember this document?
JODL: I did not understand the question.
COL. POKROVSKY: I can repeat it. Your counsel submitted to the Tribunal Document L-172, which is a speech made by you before the Gauleiter.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the matter now? You cannot hear without your earphones on. [Turning to Dr. Exner.] Do you wish to say something?
DR. EXNER: If you please, Mr. President, the translation is such that we simply cannot understand anything. We receive half a sentence which makes no sense at all-at least, that is our opinion- and I believe the other gentlemen, including the defendant, have the same difficulty...
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant has not shown any sign that he was unable to understand the translation; he has never protested, and he has answered the questions.
DR. EXNER: Do you understand, Defendant?
JODL: I would say that I can guess what most of the questions mean. Since I am fully acquainted with the problem, it is easy for me; but I am not sure. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Pokrovsky, will you go a little slower. You heard, did you not, what Dr. Exner said?
COL. POKROVSKY: Yes, I heard him. I fear, however, My Lord, that the tempo of my speech may impede the interrogation, but I shall try to speak more slowly. [Turning to the defendant.] In the speech with which you addressed the Gauleiter on the 7th of November 1943, you expressed, inter alia , the following idea: "The dilemma of the shortage of men has brought us to the idea of utilizing more fully..."
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Pokrovsky, can you possibly indicate to us what page this is on. In our book we have not any single document in English, as yet. This document we have not had in English.
COL. POKROVSKY: It is Document L-172, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Pokrovsky, this very passage that you have just read, or part of which you just read, was put by Mr. Roberts yesterday to the defendant. Surely that is contrary to our rules; we cannot have the same subject gone over twice. We already have it marked.
COL. POKROVSKY: I am quoting this sentence, My Lord, not as a question to the witness, but only as an introductory remark to the question which is to follow this sentence. I am reminding him of this sentence in order to receive an answer. The sentence as such is not to be considered as a question.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat what you said?
COL. POKROVSKY: My Lord, he will now receive the document in order to save time, and I shall then ask him the question. I want...
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Pokrovsky, we want to know what the question is, so we may see if it is not a question which has been gone into by Mr. Roberts. Colonel Pokrovsky, the Tribunal have indicated to you that they do not want you to go over the same ground which was gone over yesterday. If you have some new question, by all means put it.
COL. POKROVSKY: I do not intend, Mr. President, to repeat in my questions any question previously asked by Mr. Roberts. Therefore, with your permission, I shall now continue, and I should like you, Witness, to look at Document J-6, Exhibit Number USSR-130. It is stated in these documents that they were issued with the consent of the OKW. They deal with the introduction of general conscription in the occupied territories of Carinthia and Krain. Have you found it? Have you found the passage that I have just read, that is, the decree dealing with the introduction of conscription in the occupied territories of Carinthia and Krain?
JODL: Yes, that document begins with the following sentence.. .
COL. POKROVSKY: It begins with the following sentence, "In agreement with the OKW..." Is that correct?
JODL: Yes.
COL. POKROVSKY: As Chief of the Armed Forces Operations Staff, you could not but know of such facts as the conscription for service in the German Army of the population of the occupied Yugoslav territories. What do you have to say about this decree, which is a gross violation of international law? Do you understand my question?
JODL: Yes. I can only say that I see it here for the first time. This is the first I have heard of it. After Al, I am not the OKW. I am Chief of the Armed Forces Operations Staff. I never read this document during the war.
COL. POKROVSKY: Will you read it, then, immediately. Do you not consider it a gross violation of international law?
JODL: In order to give my opinion, I would have to go into it more fully from a legal point of view, and I am not in a position to do that, and I believe it is not of interest to the Tribunal
COL. POKROVSKY: Welt, on 4 June you testified before the Tribunal that the decisions of the Hague and Geneva Conventions were your reference book. You will now be shown Document 638-PS, submitted to the Tribunal on 20 March as Exhibit USA-788. The authenticity of this document..
THE PRESIDENT: Well, 638 is the document which has been handed up.
COL. POKROVSKY: It is Document 638-PS, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Pokrovsky, is the document that you just handed up to us J-6? Are you offering that in evidence? Are you offering that?
COL. POKROVSKY: No, I am not submitting a new document. It was already submitted as evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute. Are you referring to the Document 638-PS, or are you referring to Document J-6?
COL. POKROVSKY: I am referring to Document 638-PS, accepted by the Tribunal as U.S.A. evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: I was not. I was referring to the Document J-6. The document which is here before me, which is 638, is the Yugoslav document.
COL. POKROVSKY: The document to which you refer, My Lord, bears a double number, USSR-130 and J-6; and the second document also bears a double number, USSR-447.
THE PRESIDENT: I do not want to know about the second document. I only want to know whether you are offering the first document in evidence, or has it already been offered in evidence?
COL. POKROVSKY: It has already been submitted, My Lord, by the Delegation of the Soviet Union. [Turning the defendant.] You, Joel, have probably had sufficient time to read the document. Is that right? Have you read it?
JODL: I know about this document from these proceedings.
COL. POKROVSKY: Quite correct. I only wish to remind you that Goering has twice confirmed the authenticity of this document and merely questioned the accuracy of certain entries in individual sentences. I should now like to ask you how you reconcile your concepts of international law with the formation of bands under German command, attired in German military uniforms, bands recruited from the dregs of the criminal classes, who were officially authorized to plunder, murder, burn, and violate-they could also do all this during military operations. Have you understood my question? You, of course, well remember that these bands were actually created and entered the ranks of the Armed Forces of the German Reich. You remember the testimony of the witness Von dem Bach-Zelewski, of 7 January 1946, concerning the special commands acting on these principles?
JODL: I do not know just how you come to know that the High Command gave its approval and that this actually took place; I do not know. These are merely the notes of alleged statements by the Reich Marshal, but I do not know how they concern me.
COL. POKROVSKY: I shall try to help you to understand this fact. Do you remember that at the end of 1941 and the beginning of 1942 a special command was formed to operate against the partisans? The first commanding officer of that unit was Dirlewanger, and Von dem Bach-Zelewski testified about him here on 7 January 1946. Do you remember that?
JODL: No, I do not remember that.
COL. POKROVSKY: You cannot remember? Very well. Then we shall prove it without your testimony. Do you remember the fact that units of the Yugoslav Army wore regulation uniforms, complete with insignia, numbers of regiments and divisions? Do you remember that? Do you understand my question, or do you not?
JODL: I understood. Do you mean the Brandenburg Regiment? I have some idea of that.
COL. POKROVSKY: No, I have something else in mind. I wish to remind you that despite the fact that parts of the Yugoslav Army did not come under these descriptions which you have enumerated here before the Tribunal in speaking of bands-that these parts of the Yugoslav Army were referred to in every official document of the German High Command as bands, in order to justify any atrocity perpetrated against them, and Only in the top secret correspondence between German officers and staffs was the correct, factual nomenclature of these divisions, regiments, and brigades indicated. Perhaps this fact, in your opinion, also testifies to the adherence of the German High Command to the standards of international law? Have you understood me?
JODL: I understand you very well, yes.
COL. POKROVSKY: Do you wish to say anything on the matter?
JODL: Yes. I can only say this assertion of yours is untrue. We . . .
COL. POKROVSKY: I would ask you to reply as briefly as possible.
JODL: Yes, I was going to answer very briefly. We always called these Yugoslav bandits "bands" for propaganda reasons, but in practice uniformed fighters always were treated as prisoners of war; and there is no order which would have prevented them from ? June 46 receiving such treatment as prisoners of war. Otherwise, we would not have had SD many prisoners.
COL. POKROVSKY: I am very much obliged to you for having raised the question of the prisoners of war. You have testified on oath before the Tribunal that there was no decree which forbade taking prisoners of war. You have not yet forgotten that testimony of yours?
JODL: No, there are no international law regulations which apply to a rebellion. There is no such thing.
COL. POKROVSKY: No, I asked you to confirm only if I have rendered your testimony correctly to the Tribunal. You stated, before the Tribunal, that there was no decree against taking prisoners of war. Did you give such testimony before the Tribunal, or did you not?
JODL: What you have stated here is not my verbatim testimony.
COL. POKROVSKY: Just a minute, just a minute. We shall discuss in detail the matter I have mentioned. First, I want you to tell me the following: You stated, before the Tribunal, on oath, that there was no decree in the German Armed Forces to the effect that prisoners of war were not to be taken. Did you give this testimony or not? Have you understood me?
JODL: I think I remember. I do not know of any such order that no prisoners of war were to be taken.
COL. POKROVSKY: Good. One moment more. I now want you to help me to elucidate another matter. A sentence of yours appears in this typed script to the effect that you considered it improper to question a prisoner of war if a decision had already been made that the prisoner of war was to be shot. Is that so? Is it correct?
JODL: Yes, I testified to the effect that I rejected that sentence from the moral and from the humane point of view.
COL. POKROVSKY: Excellent. Now I want you to tell me the following: Do you remember that there was a 4th Mountain Division in the German Army? It seems that you, at one time, were directly connected with it? Was there such a division or not?
JODL: That there were four mountain divisions, that I do not remember, there were many more.
COL. POKROVSKY: I am not talking about four divisions. You have been given an inaccurate translation. I am asking you whether you remember that there was a 4th Mountain Division?
JODL: I certainly knew about that. I wanted to be the commander of that division. 1 529
COL. POKROVSKY: Very well. In that case, you may also remember another responsible officer of the German Army, whose name was Kubler? He operated in Yugoslavia.
JODL: There were two men of the name of Kubler, an older man and a younger man.
COL. POKROVSKY: Major General Kubler is the one who interests me. I am not asking you who Keitel was. You know that better than I do.
THE PRESIDENT: Shall we adjourn now for a few minutes? [A recess was taken.]
COL. POKROVSKY: Now, you and I, Defendant Jodl, will attend to these two documents. Please take Document J-67, Exhibit Number USSR-132. It is a directive to the 118th Infantry Division.
JODL: 118th Infantry Division.
COL. POKROVSKY: I will read to you the "Instructions for Conduct of Troops during Operations," Paragraph 2. "Prisoners: Any man who has obviously fought against the German Armed Forces, and has been captured, is to be shot after interrogation." Is that correct? It says so precisely in those words? Do you hear me?
JODL: That is approximately what it says in that one sentence, but I should like to have the whole document. Nothing can be gathered from one sentence. What is decisive is what comes before it, and that is not stated in the document.
COL. POKROVSKY: It is written above: "Instructions for the Conduct of Troops during Operations." Now for the second document. It bears the stamp of the IV Mountain Regiment. It was issued on 6 October 1943 and contains Keitel's personal instructions, written in his own hand, on how to deal with prisoners of war. I will ask you to revert to Subparagraph 3. It says, in the second part of this subparagraph, ';. . . commanders having at least the rank of divisional commanders are authorized to issue orders to take no prisoners, and the civilian population in the combat area may be shot."
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute. Apparently the translation was not coming through correctly. Perhaps you are going too fast. It was coming through correctly to me, but it apparently was not coming through correctly to the defendants. Would you put your question again?
COL. POKROVSKY: In Subparagraph 3 of the document issued by the IV Mountain Regiment it says...
THE PRESIDENT: Did you give us the number of it?
COL. POKROVSKY: Yes, My Lord. It is Exhibit USSR-470; and it bears a double number, Document J-127. [Turning to the defendant.] Have you found Subparagraph 3, Defendant Jodl?
JODL: Yes, but this cannot possibly be described as a document. That is not a document.
COL. POKROVSKY: This document says how prisoners of war are to be treated. I do not know how you feel about it, but it is quite clear to me.
JODL: But it is not an original. It is a fantastic translation. Any soldier would have thrown it straight into the wastepaper basket. It is a falsification. But I admit that it may be due to the foolish translation. In my opinion, all it contains is nonsense. The heading says "IV Mountain Regiment," and it is a Roman four. It should be an Arabic number. It is never called Mountain Regiment. It then, goes on to say, the commander of the IV Mountain Division, Section Ic, delivers under number such and such the following-all that is nonsense, pure unadulterated nonsense! This is not a document. It is a scrap of paper.
COL. POKROVSKY: I am not responsible for the translation.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to see the original of these documents. They were put in, apparently, as USSR-132 and USSR-470. Is USSR-470 a new document?
COL. POKROVSKY: No, My Lord, this document has already been submitted, and the original is in the records of the Tribunal. Now I am only submitting a copy of this document which is at our disposal. Both documents were previously submitted in the original. If it is necessary, we can obtain these original documents and submit them a second time.
THE PRESIDENT: One of the secretaries of the Tribunal says that it was not submitted before-not offered in evidence before- USSR-470. Are you sure?
COL. POKROVSKY: There may have been some technical error. I was informed that it had already been submitted. We shall now go into this matter thoroughly. I believe, My Lord, that the original of the second document is in your possession.
JODL: I can say something to clarify this.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Pokrovsky, the Tribunal are uncertain about the admission of this Document 470. Could you tell us exactly what the document is, and in what circumstances it is now being offered in evidence? What the document is, and where it came from?
COL. POKROVSKY: I can give quite a definite answer to the last question, My Lord, but perhaps I shall have to answer the first part of your question a few minutes later. The matter is being investigated. On the second page of Exhibit USSR-470, at the bottom of the page, there is an affidavit: "This is to certify that this is a correct and certified copy of the original document which was captured during military operations in June 1944, at Pakracu, by the Yugoslav National Army of Liberation. The original document is kept in the archives of the State Commission for the Investigation of Atrocities perpetrated by the occupants and their collaborators in Belgrade, dated 4 January 1946, Belgrade," signed by the President of the State Commission, University Professor Dr. D. Nedelkovitsch. I am just having investigations made as to whether this document has already been submitted, by what member of the Soviet Delegation it was submitted, and on what date. If the document has not yet been submitted, then we can demand the original from the Belgrade archives-the German, the captured copy-or else a certified photostat, whichever is most acceptable to the Tribunal and have it presented in evidence. My Lord, I have just been informed that this document was not presented. Therefore, it will be submitted for the first time, and we Shall immediately ask for the original as additional evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Pokrovsky, with reference, for the moment, to Document USSR-132, which I understand has already been put in evidence-offered in evidence-the Tribunal would like to see the original of that document because there are only two paragraphs put out in the copy that we have before us, and that was the point that was taken by the Defendant Jodl, that he wanted to see the whole document. Colonel Pokrovsky, first of all, with reference to Document 132, which the Tribunal understand has already been offered in evidence, the Tribunal think that that document in full should be put before the defendant for him to make any comments. With reference to Document 470, which you are now offering in evidence, the Tribunal are of the opinion that you should go on cross-examining with reference to that document, subject to the production, as soon as possible, of the original or a photostatic copy of the original, and subject to the right of the defendant's counsel to apply to have that cross-examination struck out if there is any substantial difference between the translation in the Yugoslav language-which is now being put to the defendant, or used for the purpose of crossexamination of the defendant-and the original document. Is that clear to you and to Dr. Exner?
COL. POKROVSKY: It shall be done, My Lord.