dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
MR. ROBERTS: Well, why not say so? Now then, let's just look at the document. It is from the Reich Minister of Defense; that is Von Blomberg, isn't it? It is the second copy, "By hand only." It is, to the Chief of the High Command, Chief of the Naval High Command, and the Reich Minister for Air. "For the operation suggested in the last staff talks"-that is why I asked you whether you went to staff talks, you see- "of the Armed Forces, I lay down the code name, 'Schulung."' Then, may I just refer briefly to the contents: "This is a joint undertaking of the three branches of the Wehrmacht. . . The operation must be executed"-and this is a phrase we have become familiar with later-"by a surprise blow at lightning speed. "Strictest secrecy is necessary.... only peacetime strength...." And Number 3: "Every improvement of our armaments will make possible a greater measure of preparedness...." And then: "The High Command of the Army is asked: How many divisions ready for action?" Not one token battalion as you said yesterday. "Reinforcement of the necessarily inadequate forces there"- that is in the West-"by the East Prussian divisions which will be brought here at once by rail or sea transport. . . High Command of the Navy to look after the safe transport of the East Prussian troops by sea, in case the overland route is closed." What could that refer to, that secret instruction-so secret it had to be in manuscript-if it wasn't the reoccupation of the Rhineland?
JODL: If you will permit me to make quite a brief explanation, then the Tribunal will be saved a tremendous lot of time.
MR. ROBERTS: Please, Witness, answer my question first and then make an explanation after, if it is brief. The question is, what could it refer to except the reoccupation of the Rhineland?
JODL: I am not here as a clairvoyant; I do not know the document; I have never read it; at this time I was not in the Armed Forces Department-that has entirely different signatures-I was in the operations section of the Army. I neither saw nor ever heard of this paper. If you look at the date, 2 May 1935, it is proven there in writing, for I entered the Armed Forces Department only in the middle of June 1935. Thus, only on the basis of my general staff training can I give you some assumptions; but the Court do not want assumptions.
MR. ROBERTS: Very good, if that is your answer. And are you saying that you, who heard General Field Marshal Von Blomberg's staff talk, cannot help the Court at all as to what that secret operation order is about?
JODL: It was before my time. I was not with Von Blomberg then.
MR. ROBERTS: Very good. Now, will you look, please at EC-405. Now-let him see the German book, Page 277. My Lord, that is Page 26. Hasn't he a German book?
THE PRESIDENT: Defendant, you did say, did you not, that you remember that the Operation Schulung was the preparation for the occupation of the Rhineland?
JODL: No, I said the contrary. I said that I heard the word, Schulung, for the first time here in the Court; and then I wondered what that could have been.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Court will be able to judge as to what you said by the shorthand notes. You say, do you, that you did not say Schulung meant the preparation for the occupation of the Rhineland? Is that right?
JODL: I mean, that as General Staff officer of the operations section at that time I had to know what military preparations were made.
THE PRESIDENT: But, that is not what I asked you. What I want to know is what you said just now when you were asked if you remembered what Operation Schulung meant. What did you say? It is suggested that it may have come through wrongly to us in the translation. What did you say?
JODL: I said, "I believe I recall, but I am not certain whether this recollection did not result from studying the documents here or earlier, that the word, Schulung, meant the preparations for the evacuation of the western Rhine territory and occupation of the Rhine boundary in case of French sanctions, for that was the only thing with which we were concerned at that time." All the evacuation measures which I later mentioned anyway in Document EC-405 were part of that.
MR. ROBERTS: Well, you remember the date of that first document, 2d of May 1~935. Now I refer to EC-405 which is in the big Document Book 7, Page 261, and it is on Page 277 of the German book, 277. Now this, Witness, is a meeting-I want you to look, please, at Pages 43 and 44 of the original which you have. Have you got 43 and 44?
JODL: 43 and 44, yes.
MR. ROBERTS: Very good. Well, now, you see there-it is a meeting of the working committee of the Reich Defense Council. It is dated the 26th of June 1935 and at letter "F:" "Lieutenant Colonel Jodl. . . about 'participation in Mobilization Preparations,"' and the first three paragraphs deal with general mobilization; and I do not want to read them, but the fourth paragraph reads: "Demilitarized zone requires special treatment. In his speech of 21 May 1935 and other utterances the Fuehrer has stated that the stipulations of the Treaty of Versailles and the Locarno Pact regarding the demilitarized zone are being observed. To the aide-memoire of the French Charge d'Affaires of 17 June 1935 on 'Recruiting Offices in the Demilitarized Zone, the German Reich Government has replied that neither civilian recruiting authorities nor other offices in the demilitarized zone have been entrusted with mobilization tasks such as the raising, equipping, and arming of any kind of formations for the event of war or in preparation thereof." Now, if Von Blomberg's handwritten letter of the 2d of May 1935 did refer to preparations for reoccupying the Rhineland by surprise, it was highly dishonest of the Fuehrer, 19 days later on the 21st of May, to say that the Locarno and Versailles treaties were being observed, wasn't it?
JODL: No, it wasn't dishonest, for if it is true at all that the term, Schulung...
THE PRESIDENT: I think that is a matter of comment, if you please.
MR. ROBERTS: I shall, of course, My Lord, have to make certain cotangents on the witness as I proceed. No doubt Your Lordship will realize that I am not endeavoring to depart from this particular ruling which is only for this particular question, presumably.
THE PRESIDENT: I think-the Tribunal think that you ought not to make comments but you ought to confine yourself as far as possible to cross-examination about the facts.
MR. ROBERTS: Well, My Lord I-about your Lordship's ruling- I have had, of course, a very extensive experience in cross-examination in many courts, and I bow entirely to Your Lordship's ruling; but it is very difficult for a cross-examiner to confine himself entirely to the facts. But I shall do the very best I can. [Turning to the defendant.] Then I shall read on: "Since political entanglements abroad must be avoided at present under all circumstances, only those preparatory measures that are urgently necessary may be carried out in the demilitarized zone. The existence of such preparations or the intention of making them must be kept strictly secret in the zone itself as well as in the rest of the Reich.... "Weapons, equipment. insignia, field-gray uniforms, and other items stored for mobilization purposes must be kept from sight." And now I want to refer to the last paragraph: "Commitment to writing of directives for mobilization purposes is permissible only insofar as it is absolutely necessary to the smooth execution of the measures provided for the demilitarized zone. Without exception such material must be kept in safes." You were collecting weapons and uniforms in the demilitarized zone, were you?
JODL: They were weapons and items of equipment of the Landespolizei, the Order Police, and the Gendarmerie. There were no troops there. Consequently, there were no weapons there for them.
MR. ROBERTS: Did the Police wear field-gray uniforms?
JODL: To my knowledge the Police wore a gray-green uniform or a green uniform.
MR. ROBERTS: Then what was the need of this great secrecy if this was only police equipment?
JODI.: It was the equipment in addition for the reinforced border guards-the customs inspectors-about which I have already said that it was intended...
MR. ROBERTS: My question, Witness, was what was the need for secrecy? What was the need for secrecy if you were not breaking the Treaty of Versailles? Can't you answer that?
JODL: I have already testified to the reasons for keeping all these measures secret in detail during my direct examination, and I confirm that in all these preparations it was a question-in case of an occupation of the western Rhenish territory by France-of setting up a blockade along the line with the aid of the Police, the Gendarmerie, and the reinforced border guards. That was the intention at that time, only for this eventuality. I have already testified under oath that I learned about the occupation of the Rhineland only 6 or 8 days beforehand.
MR. ROBERTS: I know you have, you see, and I am suggesting to you that your evidence was quite untrue on that point; and I am going to suggest it is quite untrue on many points. Now then, will you please go back to the first paragraph that I read. You say: "To the aide-memoire of the French Charge d'Affaires. . . the German Reich Government has replied that neither civilian recruiting authorities nor other offices . . . have been entrusted with mobilization tasks such as the raising, equipping, and arming of any kind of formations for the event of war...." Doesn't that subsequent paragraph about the weapons, equipment, insignia, and field-gray uniforms show that the truth was not told to the French Charge d'Affaires?
JODL: I only repeat the answer that was given to the French Charge d'Affaires. I believe that that was essentially true: No mobilization tasks, such as disposition, equipment, and arming of formations for the event of war. There was no thought of war, no one mentioned it with even one word.
MR. ROBERTS: I will not repeat the point, I submitted-may I just remind you and I think there are copies for the Tribunal too-of Article 43 of the Versailles Treaty. Article 42 defines the area, the left bank of the Rhine and the right bank to the west of a line drawn 50 kilometers to the east. Article 43: "In the area defined above the maintenance and the assembly of armed forces, either permanently or temporarily, and military maneuvers of any kind; as well as the upkeep of all permanent works for mobilization, are in the same way forbidden." I suggest to you the step you were taking-mentioning at that meeting-was a clear breach of Versailles. Do you agree, or don't you?
JODL: No, I do not agree to that. They were taken in the event that the enemy should not abide by the treaty and should, attack us again, as that time in the Ruhr district.
MR. ROBERTS: Very good. Now I propose to refer to you a document which has been described as your speech, L-172, from time to time-and I want to make it quite clear first as to what you say the document is, because you wouldn't say one thing one day and the opposite the next, would you, Witness? That document has your writing in places, has it not? I can refer you to the pages if you like. If you look at page...
JODL: That is unnecessary. It contains many handwritten corrections and notations by me. But I have...
MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Witness, for saving me that trouble then. And is that a speech-the notes of a speech-which you delivered at Munich to the Gauleiter in 1943?
JODL: I have already clearly said that this was the rough draft, not the speech that I made but parts of the first draft and most of the contents consist of notes by my staff, which they sent me for the preparation of this speech. I crossed out whole pages and sent the whole rough draft back again and only then did I make my speech.
MR. ROBERTS: Well now, I want to examine that, because you said quite differently, did you not, when you were interrogated by one American officer on two separate occasions? You said quite differently, did you not? [There was no response.] Were you interrogated on this matter on the 8th of October last year by Colonel Thomas Hinkel? Do you remember that? Perhaps you would not remember the date.
JODL: No. Oh, we spoke about this matter a few times.
MR. ROBERTS: Yes, and you were sworn when you gave your answers to the interrogators?
JODL: Yes.
MR. ROBERTS: Well now, may I read, to refresh your memory, a copy from the shorthand notes of the interrogation? "I show you a photostatic reproduction of a number of pages of a lecture, which was purported to have been given by you on the 7th of November 1943, and ask you if those pages represent the lecture that was delivered. For the record, that is identified as L-172." Then you answer: "Yes. A number of things are not contained therein, which I explained with the map. "Question: 'You interpolated the remarks that do not appear in the written part; is that correct?' "Answer: 'Yes, many particulars I set forth just with the map at hand.' "Question: 'Is that your handwriting appearing on the cover page?' "Answer: 'No, it is not mine.' "But the remaining sheets you identify as the written version of a lecture at Munich? "Answer: 'I cannot say whether it was actually my lecture as it was, because I see the signature of Buttlar. It isn't the lecture itself. That is the materials of the brochures which had been furnished to me."' Then: 'Do you identify . . ." Just follow this, will you, Witness? "Do you identify the first 29 pages as constituting the lecture that you delivered? "Answer (after examining the document): 'Yes, that is my lecture."' Do you want to alter that sworn answer now? Do you?
JODL: I have not read the transcript of the notes which were taken here. I do not know the translation. I made several other statements in that regard. I observed in the second interrogation that that was not actually my speech, and that. . .
MR. ROBERTS: I will read the second one, Witness. I have that for you. This was on the 16th...
THE PRESIDENT: Defendant, had you finished what you wanted to say?
JODL: No, I had not finished. I was interrupted.
THE PRESIDENT: Then finish what you want to say.
JODL: I wanted to say that before I had looked over the whole document, at the first moment, of course, I had the impression that that was the copy from which I delivered my speech. However, when I looked at it more carefully in the course of the interrogations, I noticed that it vitas only the material collected for this speech, and I said clearly and distinctly: "It contains the first draft, the outline and the conclusion by me. The whole middle part is only material furnished by my staff, and the whole thing is not at all the speech which I gave." That is word for word what I told Colonel Hinkel.
MR. ROBERTS: Yes. Let me read now what I was going to read, the second interrogation. This is the 16th of November 1945, 4 flays before the Trial: "This document is identified for the record as L-172. I show you the photostatic reproduction in order to refresh your recollection concerning it. "As I remember your previous testimony, it was to the effect that the first part of the document is the speech that you wrote for delivery to that meeting. The second part consists of various thoughts on the basis of which this speech was prepared; is that right? "Answer: 'One moment, please. This is not my real lecture. This is a conglomeration of the pieces of writings which are partly drafts of my own, that is, the introduction; but all the appendices are the basis of my lecture furnished me by my staff. " 'The photostats appended to the original lecture-it was a photographed copy-and also a number of maps which were drawn up were included. " 'This is not my lecture as such; and the annotations made here, in this calligraphic manner, were not mine. I made them in my own handwriting. " 'I do not know the origin of this copy. Most likely it was furnished me by the OKW for the purpose of my giving this lecture. It is altogether a conglomeration of various pieces of writing, and it is usable only with limitations. However. . ."' And just listen to this, will you? " '. . . as to the broad lines of it, this is what I have used as a lecture."' Then the next question was: "I believe you stated before that the written speech that you had was not given as set forth in the text because you interpolated various remarks in the course of the speech, particularly whenever you referred to one of the maps that you placed before the audience, in order to follow the campaigns which you discussed. Isn't that correct?" Now listen to this: "What I have written down I have actually spoken and I followed this text written down by myself.
MR. ROBERTS: But in regard to the momentary situation on the various fronts"-and that is Part 3 and 4, where you will find a note "delivered extemporaneously"-"I had that so clearly in mind that I did not need to base my speech on any written statements. Also, I referred to the maps freely." Then the last question on this point: "Is it not true, however, that the document before you represents, in general, the speech that you gave at Munich in November 1943 to this meeting?" The answer is: "Yes; much, without doubt, is the same. All the appendices with regard to these various theaters of war and other appendices I had not used during my speech. I had returned them." Do you agree with your answer to that interrogation?
JODL: On the whole, you have confirmed just what I said. However, I do not know why we have to talk so long about it. The case is completely clear. It is...
MR. ROBERTS: Well, please do not worry yourself. I know I am stopping you; but I apprehend that I am stopping you from saying something quite irrelevant, and in the interest of time I regard it as my duty to stop you. Please do not worry about why I should do something. I want to know whether that document roughly represents what you said in the speech. It is quite a different thing to being in a wastepaper basket.
JODL: The introduction and the conclusion, as contained here in the first draft were, of course, basically retained in the speech in this form. However, the whole speech was only finally worked out on the basis of this first draft; it was shortened, changed, parts were crossed out, and mistakes were eliminated. And only then came the main part of the speech for which only the material is here. There is no proof, and I am not in a position to say whether I actually spoke even one sentence of those which are here in the form in which it is found in the first draft.
MR. ROBERTS: Very good; I will accept that.
JODL: If you give me a copy of my actual speech I will recognize it.
MR. ROBERTS: That is all we can give you, Witness, because that is all we found.
THE PRESIDENT: I think we might as well adjourn now.
MR. ROBERTS: If Your Lordship please. [A recess was taken.]
DR. EXNER: Mr. President, I should like to call attention to the following: When my client was interrogated here, he was heard through an interpreter, since he does not understand the English language. On the basis of this testimony the minutes were, as I have just heard, set down in the English language. These minutes he never saw and he did not sign them. And now these minutes, which were compiled in English, are submitted to him in a German translation. In my opinion it is quite impossible under such circumstances to tie the defendant down to specific words which are contained in the minutes. He abides by what he said, but he cannot recognize everything that is in those minutes when...
THE PRESIDENT: That is true. We will keep these facts in mind. The Tribunal will keep these facts in mind, if you will draw them to their attention.
MR. ROBERTS: If it please the Tribunal, I am passing from that point. The witness, I think, said the document was the basis of his speech; and I accept that answer and I pass to another point. Would you please give the witness his diary, 1780-PS, German C-113. And it is Page 133 in the large document book, Page 133. Witness, I think you have seen this entry. My Lord, it is the 5th of November 1937 I am dealing with: "Fuehrer develops his ideas about intentions for future course and conduct of policy...." - Page 133 of the large book.
THE PRESIDENT: When you say, large book, you mean Number 7?
MR. ROBERTS: Yes, Number 7; I am sorry. I should have given it a number. [Turning to the defendant.] 5th of November 1937: "Fuehrer develops his ideas about intentions for future course and conduct of policy to the Commanders-in-Chief of the Armed Forces..."-et cetera. There is a divergence in the recording of his ideas as made by the chief of Armed Forces and by the Commander-in-Chief of the Air Force. ". . .the intention of L. . ."does that mean your department, Landesverteidigung-its intention to have these thoughts put on paper? [There was no response.]
MR. ROBERTS: Please answer my question, Witness.
JODL: "Intention of L," that means the intention of the Department of National Defense (Landesverteidigung) to have these thoughts put down on paper and transmitted to the branches of the Wehrmacht.
MR. ROBERTS: Very good. Now, the meeting that you were talking about was what we have called the Hossbach Conference, was it not, which is 386-PS? The Tribunal is very familiar with it. You remember the conference, do you not? You have read it many times here?
JODL: Yes, but I was not present at this conference. I do recall the things that were read here.
MR. ROBERTS: I know you were not present. But presumably you, as head of the Home Defense Department, were told of what was said at the conference?
JODL: I have already stated with regard to that that the report which I received was in no way sensational. The directives for the preparations after this time are available to the Court in writing; what we prepared and worked out at the time is proved thereby. We have the orders of 20 May and of 14 June; they are available.
THE PRESIDENT: Defendant, you were only asked whether you were told what happened at the conference. It was not necessary to make a long statement about that.
MR. ROBERTS: You see, I try to put simple questions, and I am asking for simple answers. The last thing I want is to interrupt you. Were you told that at that conference Hitler said that Germany's problem was a question of space?
JODL: No, not one word.
MR. ROBERTS: Were you told that Hitler said that the German question could only be solved by force?
JODL: No.
MR. ROBERTS: And were you told that Hitler said that German rearmament was practically complete?
JODL: No.
MR. ROBERTS: And the last question I will ask you: Were you told that Hitler said that the first aim in the event of war would be Austria and Czechoslovakia?
JODL: The report about the more active preparations for the march against Czechoslovakia was, I believe, contained in these statements. But I can only say that the details which I received from Field Marshal Keitel are not in my recollection at present. I recall only one thing, that it was no surprise or sensation for me, and only small corrections of the directives which had been given out up to that point were necessary.
MR. ROBERTS: Very good. Thank you. Now then, you were not present at Obersalzberg when Keitel was there with Schuschnigg the following February, were you?
JODL: No, I was not present.
MR. ROBERTS: But Keitel later told you what had happened?
JODL: He made a few brief remarks about that in narrative form, for after all, I had no further concern in this matter.
MR. ROBERTS: Did you make that entry in your diary; that is, the next entry to the one I was referring to, Page 133, Book 7, the same page, under 11th of February 1938: "Evening 12 February General Keitel, with General Reichenau, and Sperrle at Obersalzberg. Schuschnigg and Schmidt were again put under severest political and military pressure." Did Keitel tell you that?
JODL: Yes. You have only inserted the word "again." That is not in my diary. This entry I made personally, because Keitel told me that during lunch Reichenau and Sperrle had carried on warlike conversations, that they had talked about the new rearmament of Germany.
MR. ROBERTS: Very good. Now, in March-I think this is common ground-you signed or initialed one or two orders for the "Operation Otto."