dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
MR. ROBERTS: You could have refused. You could have said, and the other generals could have said, could you not: "We are all honorable soldiers. We will not publish and issue those orders"?
JODL: Certainly under other circumstances it might have been possible, first, if at the time I had not had that conflict with the Fuehrer, and secondly, if the British Ministry of War had made my task a little easier. However, these events and the statement made by the British on the 2d of September put the Fuehrer into a rage against which I was powerless. How much I tried to resist, for that the document itself is the best proof, because the threat of punishment and detailed justification for it were directed against me personally.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Roberts, would that be a convenient time to break off? [A recess was taken.
MR. ROBERTS: I want to ask you a few questions about the deportation of the Jews from Denmark. Will you look, please, at a new exhibit, D-547, which I offer as GB-488. Now, that is the OKW Operational Staff from the commander, Denmark, dated 20 September 1943. That is before the teletype which has been put in, 2 days before: "The Fuehrer has agreed in principle with Dr. Best's telegram that the Jewish question in Denmark be solved very soon by deportation. "Execution of this measure should take place while the state of military emergency still exists. It is not certain if sufficient police forces can be provided for the arrest of the Jews and their families, about 6,000 persons, most of whom live in Copenhagen. The Army would be heavily burdened .... "I believe that the results of the deportation will be serious.... "The armament industry deliveries will be prejudiced. Considerable disturbances will have to be reckoned with." And you made a note on the back of it: "I know nothing of this. If a political measure is to be carried out by the commander of Denmark the OKW must be notified by the Foreign Office." Is that right?
JODL: Yes. I would not have recalled this document, but I certainly wrote the note. It proves that I did not remember until now that obviously this question had been discussed in Denmark some days before and that the commander in Denmark had been making objections. Consequently I wrote, I know nothing of this. This is a political measure, and if a political measure is to be carried out in Denmark, then the Foreign Office should kindly notify us.
MR. ROBERTS: I omit one or two unimportant documents. Will you go to document dated 1 October 1943-the fifth or sixth document of Your Lordship's file, Number D-547, dated 1 October 1943. It is to the OKW from Denmark, and quotes as follows: "The Reich Plenipotentiary in Denmark has given the following report to the Minister for Foreign Affairs: "1) The arrest of the Jews will take place on the night of 1-2 October. Transportation from Zealand will be carried out by ship.... "2) Should I receive no contrary instruction, I do not intend allowing the Jewish action to be mentioned, either on the radio or in the press"-and then "3) . . . I intend leaving the possessions of the evacuated Jews undisturbed in order that the seizure of these possessions cannot be imputed to be the reason or one of the reasons for the action." Then you deal with the disadvantages-the writer does-and there is a question: "Does the Reichsfuehrer SS know?" The answer: "The Reichsfuehrer SS knows, is in agreement," and then a pencil note in Jodl's handwriting, "The Fuehrer agrees." Is that in your writing?
JODL: Yes, that is my handwriting, but that refers only to the announcement of the release of the interned Danish soldiers.
MR. ROBERTS: I see.
JODL: Then it is important to note in this document that the commander in Denmark said that he did not intend having the property of the evacuated Jews disturbed. He said: ". . . I intend leaving the possessions of the evacuated Jews undisturbed...." He had the executive power at that time.
MR. ROBERTS: Have you got the next document in the same bundle, 2d of October 1943, to OKW Operations Staff, from Denmark? I quote: "Jewish action carried out in the night of the 1-2 October by the German Police without incidents." And then the last document, dated 3 October 1943, to the OKW Operations Staff: "According to the statement of the Reich Plenipotentiary, the Reichsfuehrer SS has ordered that the Reichsfuehrer SS alone as the person ordering the Jewish action is to receive the exact figures on arrests. "The Plenipotentiary has, therefore, given no figures to the commander of the German troops in Denmark. 232 Jews have been handed in by the Police via the collecting points set up by the Watch Battalion, Copenhagen." What was the Watch Battalion?
JODL: I cannot say that at the moment; I do not know how it was composed. It might have been a unit of the Police; it might have been part of the Army; I cannot say with certainty. At any rate it was a unit which was used only for guard duties. But it is interesting that I wrote the remark: "Is a matter of complete indifference to us," which proves that I was not interested in the affair, and refused to have any part in it.
MR. ROBERTS: Yes, I wonder. First of all, you said that the Watch Battalion might have been a part of the Wehrmacht. Were you . . .
JODL: That is not certain. I do not wish to dispute it definitely. There were also watch battalions of the Army, but it might equally well have been a watch unit of the Police. I cannot say it with certainty, but General Von Hannecken should have information about it.
MR. ROBERTS: But were your "decent German soldiers," whom you mentioned yesterday, were they called upon to round up Jews who managed to get through the SS net?
JODL: No, it says here, ". . . it was carried through by the Police," and I do not believe that any unit of the Wehrmacht concerned itself with deportation of Jews. I do not believe it; the Wehrmacht rejected that.
MR. ROBERTS: Dirty work, was it not?
JODL: I do not believe that it happened; I do not believe it.
MR. ROBERTS: Then your note: ". . . is a matter of complete indifference to us"-it was a matter of complete indifference to you how many Jews were deported, you did not care?
JODL: The note does not imply that, but it does prove that the matter was a political one, and with political matters I was not concerned. My attitude to the Jewish question has, I believe, been made clear already.
MR. ROBERTS: Where did the Jews go to, Auschwitz?
JODL: No. The French Prosecution read it here; these Jews of whom we are speaking now were taken to Theresienstadt; a few of the older people died there, but all of them were treated well, and received clothing and food. I had the same information, and this document of the Danish Government confirms it.
MR. ROBERTS: You believe that, do you?
JODL: Yes, I believe that, because the Danish Government confirms it here; it was confirmed in this court by the Prosecution itself.
MR. ROBERTS: Now I want to deal with one other topic, the topic of forced labor. Did you say in your speech-will you look at your notes of your speech, Pages 38 and 39, and it is Page 298 of Document Book 7, the big one, the paragraph, which begins on Page 38 in the witness' copy. It has got a frame; I think it is a piece of paper headed "38." I wonder if you can find it for him. "This dilemma of manpower shortage has led to the idea of making more thorough use of the manpower reserves in the territories dominated by us. Right thinking and wrong thinking are mixed up together. I believe that insofar as concerns labor, everything has been done that could be done. Where this has not yet been achieved, it appeared to be more favorable politically to refrain from measures of compulsion, and secure in turn order and economic aid. In my opinion, however, the time has now come to take steps with remorseless vigor and resolution in Denmark, Holland, France, and Belgium to compel thousands of idlers to carry out the fortification work which is more important than any other work. The necessary orders for this have already been given." (Document Number L-172, Exhibit Number USA-34.) Do you remember them?
JODL: There is no doubt that I drafted this once.
MR. ROBERTS: Yes?
JODL: But that does not prove that I said it.
MR. ROBERTS: But had the necessary orders been given for the civilians in the occupied territories to work on the German fortification?
JODL: A compulsory labor order was issued in most countries, but I-you may not know it-I state under my oath that in Denmark and Holland, and also in Belgium, local firms, which recruited their own labor under the labor order, worked on these fortifications and that the populations of these areas were particularly glad about this, because the stronger their coast was fortified, the more certain were they that the invasion would not take place in their neighborhood. And, of course, they were greatly interested in preventing an invasion, which they knew would destroy everything. Though it sounds incredible, the local inhabitants did work on these fortifications, some of them with the greatest enthusiasm. That is a fact.
MR. ROBERTS: No, I did not stop you. But had the necessary orders been given-that is in the last sentence-to compel these people who did not want to, to compel them to work on fortification? I am not talking about the people who did want it, but the people who did not.
JODL: I understand. I did not know details of the procedure, as I did not concern myself with it, but I did know that compulsory labor orders had been issued in the occupied countries.
MR. ROBERTS: Very good. I will leave that, if you have said all you want to say. Will you look now, please, at a new document, Number 1383-PS, which I offer as GB-489. This is a report of a discussion of the current military situation, 12 December 1942, Pages 65 and 66, Jodl speaking: "The military commander of France reports: The number of French workers deported into the Reich since 1 June has now passed 220,000. There are in round figures 100,000 skilled laborers in Berlin." How many of these 220,000 were volunteers, did you find out?
JODL: I cannot say that; I only quoted from a report which was appended to the situation report from France. That a largescale exchange between prisoners of war and workers had been in progress has already been stated in detail by Sauckel.
MR. ROBERTS: I will leave that. I ask only two questions now on Sagan, Stalag Luft III. You said yesterday that after the incident of the Sagan shooting, you thought Hitler was no longer "humane." Did you say that?
JODL: I said yesterday, I had the impression then that he was disavowing all humane conceptions of right.
MR. ROBERTS: Had you thought that he was humane up to March of 1944?
JODL: Before this time, I personally knew of no action of his which could not be justified legally, at least under international law. All his previous orders, so far as I knew, could still be justified in some way. They were reprisals. But this act was not a reprisal.
MR. ROBERTS: This was-would you agree with me-the word is not too strong-that this was sheer murder of these 50 airmen?
JODL: I completely agree with you: I consider it sheer murder.
MR. ROBERTS: How could you honorable generals go on serving a murderer with unabated loyalty?
JODL: I did not serve with unabated loyalty after this event, but I did everything in my power to avoid further injustice.
MR. ROBERTS: Now I come to something else, the question of destruction in Norway. The document is 754-PS. It has not yet been exhibited. I offer it as GB-490. This document is signed by you, is it not?
JODL: I have known this document for a long time; it is signed by me.
MR. ROBERTS: Yes. Perhaps I might just read parts of it to the Tribunal. Dated 28 October 1944. It is from your staff, and the distribution is to the Army supreme command; commander-in-chief, Norway; to the Reich Commissioner, Norway; and the Navy. "Because of the unwillingness of the northern Norwegian population to evacuate voluntarily the Fuehrer has agreed to the proposals of the Reich Commissioner and has ordered that the entire Norwegian population east of the Fjord of Lyngen be evacuated by force in the interest of their own security, and that all homes are to be burned to the ground or destroyed. "The commander, Northern Finland, is responsible that the Fuehrer's orders be carried out without consideration. Only by this method can the Russians with strong forces, aided by these homesteads and the population familiar with the terrain, be prevented from following our withdrawal operations during the winter and shortly appearing in front of our position in Lyngen. This is not the place for sympathy for the civilian population." Lyngen is in the very north of Norway, is it not, on the west coast?
JODL: No, on the northern coast, where Finland is closest to the coast of the polar region and very near Norway.
MR. ROBERTS: Now, that order was carried out, according to the Norwegian report, UK-79, which the Tribunal will find as the last document in the small book, 7A, Page 26 of the Norwegian report, at the bottom of the page, Page 26: "As a result of the advance of the Russian troops and the retreat of the German Army in Finnmark, October-November 1944, the Germans practiced the 'scorched earth' policy for the first time in Norway. Orders were issued that the civilian population was to evacuate, and that all houses, transport, and stores were to be destroyed. As a result of this, about 30,000 houses were damaged apart from 12,000 items of damage to chattels amounting to 176 million kroner." And then, for photographs will the Tribunal turn to Pages 62 and 63; 62 is a copy of the German order, and 63 is a photograph of the ruins of a fishing village. That was a cruel order, was it not, Witness?
JODL: No, not exactly. I should like to make a few explanatory remarks about it. Typically, as I have always said, this order was urged upon the Fuehrer by the Reich Commissioner Terboven; not by the soldiers but much against their will. Secondly, this order was not carried out, because otherwise the cities of Kirkenes, Hammerfest, and Alta would today no longer exist. All these cities are east of the Lyngen Fjord. In practice this order was moderated by our forces in agreement with me, and in conversations I had with my brother, who was the commanding general in that region-and whom I wanted to call as a witness since I expected this document to be produced- it was moderated to such an extent that, in fact, only what was necessary from a military point of view and could be justified under Article 23 of the Hague Regulations on Land Warfare was destroyed. Otherwise no city or house would be left today in northern Norway; and if you were to travel there, you would see that these cities are still standing, not destroyed. The Armed Forces commander in Norway strongly protested against this attitude of Terboven, and I repeated these objections to the Fuehrer in similarly strong terms, but nevertheless he demanded that this order be issued. We who retained our humanitarian sentiments carried out the order only insofar as it was absolutely necessary for military reasons. These are the facts.
MR. ROBERTS: I think you said, when you were interrogated, that your brother complained of this order, did he not?
JODL: Yes, quite, he was enraged by this decree.
MR. ROBERTS: Very well. I am now going to turn to two documents with regard to the treatment of the Norwegian civilian population. They are in your Document Book 1, Pages 99 and 100-well, it begins at Page 98. These are regulations on the conduct during the occupation of Denmark and Norway. And there are instructions to the troops to treat the inhabitants politely and well and to behave themselves with due decorum. That is right, is it not?
JODL: Yes, that is correct.
MR. ROBERTS: And they must be told that they are entering Norway for the protection of the country and the safety of its inhabitants. That appears on Page 99. What is rather a euphemistic description of a sudden invasion with no declaration of war, is it not?
JODL: Yes, but at first it was carried out in a fairly peaceful manner on the whole.
MR. ROBERTS: From your point of view?
JODL: No, from the point of view of the Norwegians as welt The most extraordinary things...
MR. ROBERTS: Well, you know, we have seen-we can see in the Norwegian Government's report photograph after photograph of these towns and villages bombed to ruins. Is that your idea of an orderly occupation?
JODL: What was bombed on the day of the landing is hardly worth mentioning; just a few coastal batteries and a few fortifications, but no cities. Villages were destroyed only later in the battle with the English brigade at Dombass and at Lillehammer, but nothing was destroyed when the country was first occupied. Then the Norwegians only stood at the quays, hands in their pockets, and looked on with great interest.
MR. ROBERTS: And naturally, Witness, if you could have landed without and occupied the country without opposition, so much the better for you? That is obvious, is it not?
JODL: Yes, undoubtedly; that would have been even better; and the Norwegians would certainly have fared very well during the occupation if Terboven had not come.
MR. ROBERTS: Now, I want you to look at a part of that document which, quite properly, of course, was not read. It is Appendix 5 which will be part, My Lord, I assume, of Exhibit AJ-14, the number which this document was given when it was put in in the examination-in-chief. But I am handing the Tribunal copies of Appendix 5, because it does not appear in the Jodl document book. [Turning to the defendant.] Well, now, Appendix 5, I can describe as the sting in the tail of this document: "Guiding Principles for the Attitude of Troops in Occupied Areas. "Only"-I do not read the first few paragraphs-"Only in the event of the civil population's putting up a resistance or behaving rebelliously can the following decisions be carried out: "1) If the civilian population offers resistance or if attacks are to be feared, the arrest of hostages should, on principle, be resorted to. Hostages should only be arrested on orders of the commander of a regiment or a commander of equivalent rank. "When accommodating and feeding hostages it should be borne in mind that they are not imprisoned because of crimes. Hostages and population are to be informed that the hostages will be shot at any sign of hostile action. Previous sanction of the shooting by the divisional commander must be obtained...." Then: "Armed resistance by the civilian population is to be crushed by force of arms." The last sentence on that page: "The death penalty will be imposed for violence of any kind against the German Armed Forces. Immediate trials will be held by a field court martial. The regimental commander can appoint the summary court, composed of one captain, one sergeant, one corporal, hear witnesses, draw up the sentence in writing. The verdict will be the death penalty if guilty, otherwise acquittal. The sentence will be executed immediately after confirmation by the regimental commander.
MR. ROBERTS: "The following are to be considered as acts of violence: Sabotage, destruction of our lines of communications, cutting of telephone wires, demolitions, et cetera." (Document Number Jodl-37, Exhibit Number AJ-14.) A little drastic, that, was it not? Only the death penalty?
JODL: These instructions are, word for word, in complete accord with our directives which, in times of peace, were laid down by the group of experts on international law in co-operation with the Foreign Office and with German professors of international law. It would have been well, if only these, our military precepts, our military court procedure laid down before we went to war, had been followed consistently everywhere. Our official directives laid down the question of hostages from the point of view of international law, and there is no doubt that under international law as applicable in the year 1939, the taking of hostages was admissible.
MR. ROBERTS: I suggest to you, as you raise that point, that nowhere in international law will you find the shooting of hostages legalized at ale
JODL: Then it is not with certainty prohibited anywhere in international law. I believe it is an open question. In our directives, even in the Handbook on Tactics , the concept of taking hostages had been laid down for years.
MR. ROBERTS: That may be so, and I do not want to argue with you about it. I suggest to you that the Hague Regulations protect the lives of civilians in, occupied countries, Unless they commit crimes, of course, and also prohibit collective punishment of the innocent. If you do not want to say any more on that-I do not want to stop you if you do.
JODL: I can only summarize and say that every word here is in accord with the directives applicable in the German Army, and these directives were not illegal. But one would have to argue this problem with experts on international law.
MR. ROBERTS: Very good. Now, will you look at one other document dealing with Norway? It is D-582. My Lord, it is a new document, and I offer it as GB-491. [Turning to the defendant.] Is that a document which comes from your office?
JODL: Yes. It originated with the Armed Forces Operations Staff, Quartermaster Section.
MR. ROBERTS: Do you know of it or not?
JODL: I cannot recall it, but there are some notes of mine on it, and so I undoubtedly saw the document.
MR. ROBERTS: Oh, yes. Where are the notes, Witness?
JODL: They are on the back page of the last teleprint message. MR. ROBERTS: Oh, I see what you mean, yes. Well, will you take first of all-I had forgotten that you were getting more than one document. Will you take first of all the document dated the 2d of February 1945? I think it is the top one.
JODL: There are no remarks of mine on that document, so I cannot say with certainty whether I have seen it.
MR. ROBERTS: Just have a look at it and tell me whether you have seen it.
JODL: I do not think I have seen this. I do not-I have no recollection of having ever read it.
MR. ROBERTS: Well, then, I do not think it would be right to cross-examine you on that document. My Lord, in that case, I would ask to withdraw it, and I will not put it in as an exhibit.
THE PRESIDENT: I think the defendant said that it was from his office.
MR. ROBERTS: Very well, then. I will-he did that. [Turning to the defendant.] You see what the document says, Defendant. It is dated 2 April 1945; it deals with...
JODL: The 2d of February.