dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
DR. EXNER: Mr. President, I think that a discussion of this document ought not to be permitted at the moment. There are too many discrepancies in it. As it stands, it cannot be correct. Roman numeral IV, for instance, "the IV Mountain Regiment," is referred to. That Roman numeral IV is quite wrong. Then it says "the commander delivers. . ." which is not German. Then, on Line 4 there is mention...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Exner, the Tribunal want to know what you are talking about. Are you talking about 470?
DR. EXNER: Yes. I am merely trying to show that this cannot be a genuine document because it is not proper German at all. For instance, in Line 4 it says, "Armed Forces Operations Staff, Ob.H." The Armed Forces Operations Staff is attached to the OKW, not to the Ob.H. Then, there is no signature. It is signed "Keitel" on the first page; but he signs as a Generaloberst, whereas I am told he was already a Field Marshal at that time. Furthermore, this signature is part of the quotation and it says, "The OKW supplies the following..." Then there is the quotation-and Keitel's signature is a part of that-whereas the document itself is supposed to originate from the 4th Mountain Regiment, and there is no signature of the 4th Mountain Regiment. I really do not think there would be any sense in talking about the document until the original has been supplied. For instance, on Page 2 of the document there is the statement that this goes to the commanders of 6, 7, et cetera. They are not commanders, these company commanders. No German military person could have written this document.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Exner, the Tribunal adhere to the decision that this document may be used now. All the points which you are now raising and any other points which you may wish to raise upon the document will be open to you if you wish to move to have the cross-examination struck out at a later stage when the original had been produced.
DR. EXNER: I understand.
THE PRESIDENT: For the purposes of not wasting time, it is, the Tribunal think, more convenient to have the cross-examination now upon this document. We will leave it to you to move hereafter to strike the whole cross-examination out.
DR. EXNER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, Colonel Pokrovsky, here is the original Document USSR-132 which the defendant ought to have for the purpose of making any comments that he wishes to make.
COL. POKROVSKY: The instructions of the Tribunal will be carried out, My Lord. We shall submit the original document. [Turning to the defendant.] Have you acquainted yourself with the contents of the document?
JODL: It is an order of the 118th Infantry Division.
COL. POKROVSKY: You have no doubts at all about the authenticity of the document?
JODL: No, there is no doubt that it is an order of the 118th Infantry Division, but the connection between the 118th Infantry Division and myself is puzzling. But the order is genuine.
COL. POKROVSKY: Perhaps you would like to admit now that this is not a question of stupidity but of villainy. Perhaps you would like to amplify your testimony in this sense?
JODL: I did not understand you.
THE PRESIDENT: Defendant, when you were asked about Paragraph 2 of Document USSR-132, you said that the whole document was not before you. Now you have the whole document.
JODL: I have it, yes. I have the entire document. me entire order from Kubler is perfectly in order in my opinion. Apparently the doubts which the Prosecutor has refer to Point 2, where it says, "Any man who has obviously fought against the German Armed Forces and has been captured is to be shot after interrogation." That, of course, does not refer to normal troops. mat refers to the population. At least, that is how I see it. Paragraph 8 says, "Attitude towards the Population." That is also in order from the point of view of international law. It draws a distinction between the attitude towards a hostile population and the attitude towards a peaceful population.
COL. POKROVSKY: Is that all you wish to say?
JODL: Yes, but as I said, I do not understand the connection between Major General Kubler's order and myself. I do not understand it.
COL. POKROVSKY: You confirm that the question of the treatment of the civilian population has been isolated to form an independent paragraph, Number 8? Is that correct? You have just referred to that.
JODL: Yes, Paragraph 8 mentions the treatment to be meted out to the civilian population.
COL. POKROVSKY: I am satisfied with your answer. Let us pass on to another group of questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute.
JODL: But I wished, with the permission of the Tribunal, to object . . .
THE PRESIDENT: One moment. Defendant, are you suggesting that there is anything in the order itself which indicated that the prisoners dealt with in Paragraph 2 are not, as you have put it, normal troops?
JODL: In that respect, the paragraph is not very clear; but the next document which the Prosecutor has submitted might give the proof regarding what other orders have been issued. However, I consider that it is out of the question that Kubler gave an order saying that Yugoslav troops captured in battle should be shot. mat is quite impossible. And had he done so, then he would have done so against the orders of the High Command of the German Armed Forces. But how can I give my views on an order from Major General Kubler? It would be best to ask him, he is alive.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, your answer to my question, then, is in the negative, that there is nothing in the order itself which shows or indicates that the prisoners referred to in Paragraph 2 are not normal troops.
JODL: That cannot be concluded from the wording of that order.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps I ought to draw your attention to the words under "General Directives for the Conduct of Troops in Action." At any rate, that is your answer upon the whole document.
JODL: May I please have permission to look at the original again? I have only a copy here before me. [The document was submitted to the defendant.]
THE PRESIDENT: You now have the original document before you. Do you want to add anything to what you have said?
JODL: I just wanted to add-if you are dealing with this order of Major General Kubler-that it is not certain whether this order refers to any particular action, for example, the mopping up of guerrillas in a given territory who were not regarded as regular troops at that particular moment, but were regarded as a revolt of the population. That is feasible. At any rate, I cannot answer these questions because I am not Major General Kubler.
THE PRESIDENT: Now you can pass on to 470.
JODL: May I ask the Tribunal for permission to make a correction in my objection to this document?
THE PRESIDENT: Which document are you speaking of?
JODL: Document USSR-470.
THE PRESIDENT: What do you want to say about it?
JODL: I previously described that document as nonsensical because, at the first moment, I regarded it as a German order. In the meantime I have ascertained that it is obviously a Croatian order, because it is addressed to three Ustashi battalions. In this Croatian order the Croatian commander of this mountain regiment tells his troops something which he had apparently received in the way of orders from the 4th German Mountain Division, regarding the treatment of prisoners. He, in turn, traces it back to an order from Keitel which, however, is misrepresented and which, if it were correct, would best be handed in to the counsel for Field Marshal Keitel, because it is the best example of the attitude toward the guerrillas in Yugoslavia in keeping with international law-that is, if it is correct. Therefore, it is not a German order; it is apparently a draft or a translation of a Croatian order of the 4th Mountain Regiment. But what the 4th Croatian Regiment has to do with the General or the Defendant Jodl is a puzzle to me. I do not understand it.
THE PRESIDENT: Go on, Colonel Pokrovsky.
COL. POKROVSKY: I ask you, Defendant Jodl, whether you knew of such a directive by Keitel to the effect that division commanders or officers of higher rank were entitled to issue orders that no prisoners should be taken. Do you know of such a directive?
JODL: No, it is not known to me; and it is not certain that the order was issued in that way. However, in certain cases it is permissible under international law.
COL. POKROVSKY: I have no further questions to ask in connection with this document. The defense counsel will obviously ask some questions when the original document is submitted to the Tribunal. I shall now proceed to another group of questions. If I am not mistaken, you confirmed the authenticity of your so-called notes for "Plan Grun" where it dealt with the creation of an incident on the borders of Czechoslovakia. It is stated quite clearly there that the organization of this incident was to be entrusted to the counterintelligence. Have I interpreted the idea of your notes correctly?
JODL: No. The translation as it came over to me is completely distorted. But there has been a full discussion about that, too.
COL. POKROVSKY: To facilitate the task of the interpreters, I shall simplify the question. You, I believe, confirmed the authenticity of this document dealing with the incident and the organization of the incident. This is Defense Document Jodl-14.
THE PRESIDENT: I do not think it has come through properly.
JODL: No. It did not make any sense to me at all.
COL. POKROVSKY: All right. I shall repeat it. Do I clearly understand that you do not contest the authenticity of Document Jodl-14?
JODL: If that is the letter from me to Major Schmundt, then that is an absolutely genuine document, which I wrote myself.
COL. POKROVSKY: In this connection I should like to ask you one precise question: Do you confirm that the provocation which you call the "organization of an incident" had two objectives: First, to give a pretext for an attack against Czechoslovakia; and secondly-to use your own terminology, which we heard here on 4 June-to shift the blame for the war on to somebody else's shoulders? Had you these two objectives when you proposed to organize an incident? Do you understand my question?
JODL: I understood roughly what you said.
COL. POKROVSKY: Can you give an answer?
JODL: Yes, I can repeat the answer I gave yesterday. I have...
COL. POKROVSKY: You confirm this?
JODL: My testimony of yesterday? Yes, of course. I still maintain today something which I said yesterday.
COL. POKROVSKY: Very well. I would like you to tell the Tribunal everything you know about the supplying of weapons to the Sudeten Germans organized into the Henlein Corps, which you mentioned to the Tribunal in passing. You stated that this corps contained a certain number of officers. Do you remember?
JODL: Yes, I remember.
COL. POKROVSKY: In order to help you, I will show you a document. [The document was submitted to the defendant.] It is the testimony of Karl Hermann Frank. He declares in this testimony that the Henlein Corps received a certain quantity of weapons. Do you know anything about this?
JODL: I only know of weapons supplied to the Henlein Free Corps at the time when it was being formed on German territory. Whether arms had been previously smuggled into Czechoslovakia for that Sudeten German group, or how they were brought in, is something which I know nothing about. The Armed Forces were never in any way concerned with that, just as later on they were not concerned with the Henlein Free Corps.
COL. POKROVSKY: Do you know what kind of weapons were sent there? Were they of German origin or not?
JODL: The fact that arms were taken into Czechoslovakia is something I know absolutely nothing about. I was not a smuggler of arms; I was a General Staff officer.
COL. POKROVSKY: That is why I am asking you, since you have said that you received reports on the arming of the Henlein Free Corps when it arrived on German territory. That is why I asked you, an officer of the General Staff, were these weapons of German origin or not? You must know that.
JODL: Henlein's Free Corps-which was formed near Hof, and in the district to the North, on 17 September-received, in my opinion, former Austrian, or even German, arms. I think they were Austrian weapons, but I do not know that for certain.
COL. POKROVSKY: Then it is not necessary. We only need definite information and definite facts. You will now be handed a photostatic copy of the Case Green folder. [The folder was submitted to the defendant.] You will look at the passage which has been marked. The marked passage says, "For the success of the operation, the penetration into Sudeten Germany with parachute troops will be of great value." The Defendant Keitel, on 6 April 1946, when questioned regarding this part of the document, said that it is precisely you who could give the requisite explanations with regard to this document. JODL. With reference to this paragraph I have to say that, in the preparation for a possible war, the Army had a notation inserted to the effect that fortifications would have to be penetrated quickly or would have to be opened up from the rear and that for the success of this joint action the co-operation of airborne troops, together with the border population and the Sudeten Germans who deserted to us, might be of value. For, of course, it was a fact that among the Germans who had been drawn into the ranks and who numbered about 100,000, not one would have turned his weapon upon us but would have deserted on the spot. They wrote that to me personally while in Czech uniform. These Germans would have deserted on the spot. That, of course, we expected and had taken into account in our military calculations.
COL. POKROVSKY: I fear that you have not understood me quite correctly or that you did not wish to understand the question which I put to you. Defendant Jodl, I am interested in something else. Do you confirm the fact that prior to the attack on Czechoslovakia you had planned diversionary activity on the territory of Czechoslovakia proper. That is what I am interested in. Yes or no?
JODL: First, there was no attack upon Czechoslovakia at all; that is a historical untruth. Second, this was General Staff work, which was prepared for a possible war; and there is nothing else to be said about that.
THE PRESIDENT: That is not an answer to the question. The question was whether you planned before the war-or the possible war-diversionary activity in Czechoslovakia. Did you plan that? Can you answer that?
JODL: No, I did not. You will have to ask Admiral Canaris about that. Such matters were not in my jurisdiction.
COL. POKROVSKY: Keitel advised us to ask you, and you advise us to question Canaris. Very well; I have another question to ask you. Was the unification of all pro-Fascist forces and armed Fascist bands in Yugoslavia, which fought against the Allies, carried out with your knowledge? Or do you know nothing about that?
JODL: You mean the military organization under Marshal Tito. That is known to me, yes.
COL. POKROVSKY: No, I am referring to the organization under the direction of the German High Command, of a united front of all pro-Fascist bands-of Nedish, Michailovic, and others- financed by Germany, helped by Germany, and under the leadership of the German High Command. Do you know anything about that, or do you not?
JODL: I do not know whether you have in mind the Chetniks. They were under Italian command. Because of this there was always a big row between us and the Italians. Then there was the Ustashi, they were Croatians. But the other pro-Fascist organizations are not known to me.
COL. POKROVSKY: Very well. You will look at Document J-95, Exhibit USSR-288. It has already been submitted to the Tribunal. It is the testimony of Nedish. Two or three sentences from this document have a direct bearing on the questions that I have asked you. Nedish testified under oath, naming those who had helped him to form and to finance his bands. He named the representatives of the German High Command and the Gestapo who helped him to create his armed forces. Have you found that?
JODL: That is right. Nedish formed a Serbian unit. I forgot that before. Nedish had a-what shall I say-a Serbian. . .
COL. POKROVSKY: Do you remember it?
JODL: Yes. Nedish had a small unit. That is right. There were perhaps 5,000 to 6,000 men. They were Serbs.
COL. POKROVSKY: Did you give financial support to this organization?
JODL: No. I had no money. I did not back these things.
COL. POKROVSKY: No, I am not speaking of your personal means, but the means of the German Reich.
JODL: I cannot tell you that. I did not concern myself with money in this war.
COL. POKROVSKY: Was the German High Command at the head of the work of controlling the organization of these bands, or was it not?
JODL: No. I did not organize it. The Commander, Southeast, probably discussed that with Nedish. But it was Nedish's own private affair if he wished to call on the Serbs to fight.
COL. POKROVSKY: I do not know whether it was his private business or not. But it is most important to me that you confirm the fact that these bands actually existed. How Nedish organized them does not interest me.
JODL: I can confirm that. There were about 5,000 to 6,000 men of the Serbian auxiliary police.
COL. POKROVSKY: Very well. You will be shown another report from this group of questions. It is an official report of the Polish Government sent to the Military Tribunal. You will find that it contains some very valuable information about the activities of the Fifth Column. Please turn to the sentence which is marked "B." It is said there: "In addition to the agents selected from among the young people and appointed to co-operate with the German civilian population, there also existed a group of leaders and instructors made up of officers who had come to Poland, supplied with valid passports, weeks before the outbreak of hostilities." Do you, as the direct leader of the counterintelligence-this section was subordinate to you-know anything about this Fifth Column organization in Poland?
JODL: There are two small errors you have made, Colonel Pokrovsky: first of all, counterintelligence was not under me but under the Chief of the High Command of the Armed Forces; and secondly, I stated at length yesterday that I know nothing about any of the preparations for the Polish campaign, either from the point of view of operations or otherwise, because I was Artillery Commander in Vienna and Brunn. What Canaris did at that time with respect to Poland is something I know absolutely nothing about. I am afraid, therefore, that I cannot be of any help.
COL. POKROVSKY: Well, let us proceed to the next group of questions. You were examined on 8 November by the Soviet Prosecution, and you were asked whether Germany was pursuing a predatory policy when attacking the Soviet Union? Do you remember being asked this question?
JODL: I remember very well, yes.
COL. POKROVSKY: You will now be handed a copy of your answer. You replied: "I admit that the question of the expansion of Germany's 'Lebensraum' and the utilization of Russian economy for Germany's needs did play a certain part, but it was not the basic reason for the attack on the Soviet Union." Do you remember answering in this sense?
JODL: It is possible. I did not sign it. At any rate, I said it was not the chief cause.
COL. POKROVSKY: You also said in the same answer: "It was never our intention to keep enlarging our 'Lebensraum' and thereby create new enemies." It appears that you do remember that?
JODL: Yes, I do.
COL. POKROVSKY: Very well. Perhaps you will now recall that the witness Ohlendorf testified before the Tribunal that prior to the outbreak of hostilities against the Soviet Union, Himmler, in his speech, had outlined a program for the annihilation, In the East, of 10,000,000 Slavs and Jews? Do you remember this statement?
JODL: I recollect having heard that testimony in this court room, yes.
COL. POKROVSKY: In the light of this-in the light of Ohlendorf's testimony-would you not like to answer more precisely the question as to whether the war against the Soviet Union was waged with a predatory purpose, with the purpose of seizing territory, annihilating the population, and then of transforming the occupied territories, to quote Hitler's own words, "into a paradise for the Germans"? Do you not think that is exactly what did happen?
JODL: What the Fuehrer might have wanted to create later on I do not know; but the military and strategic reasons, which he gave us and which were definitely confirmed by the many reports received, I explained yesterday in great detail. The main reason was the feeling that we were under a dire threat of being attacked by Russia. That was the decisive point.
COL. POKROVSKY: Very well. You will now be handed Document C-57. It has already been submitted to the Tribunal, My Lord. On the evening of 5 April 1946 this document was put to Defendant Keitel as Exhibit USSR-336. I must ask you to turn to Subparagraph 4 of this document and to Subparagraph 7, for Defendant Keitel stated that you could give far more detailed explanations about these documents. Point 4 referred to the active participation of Spain in the seizure of Gibraltar as far back as 1941. Tell us, how visas this active participation of Spain to be expressed? Have you found this passage in the document?
JODL: Yes, I already know the document. But nobody signed it. First of all, I have to give an explanation of what this document is, so that it is not mistaken for an order.
COL. POKROVSKY: But I do not believe I ever said that it was an order.
JODL: That is all right, because it is not an order. I cannot say what the people who drew up this document had in mind at the time. It was obviously a draft which the General Staff officers, presumably from my department, together with the operations expert of the Navy, prepared in my of lice and which they submitted to the Naval Operations Staff for their perusal, according to the principle that General Staff officers must think and plan a long time ahead. They had these personal ideas and put them down on paper without my ever having seen them.
THE PRESIDENT: What was your question, Colonel Pokrovsky? It was whether the draft did not. . .
COL. POKROVSKY: I asked a question to which I received no answer. My Lord, I asked him what he could say about the actual part which Spain was to play in the seizure of Gibraltar in 1941.
JODL: I cannot make a statement on what other people thought. I can only talk about serious intentions in connection with Spain in 1940. That I can talk about. But as far as this paper is concerned, I can say nothing about it. For at the time I had long ago dismissed the thing as impossible. I know of it only since I have been in Nuremberg; I never saw it before.
COL. POKROVSKY: Whether that plan could not be fulfilled is quite another question. Defendant Keitel said that you could give an explanation. You declare that you cannot say anything.
JODL: As I have just said, it is some preliminary work carried out by the younger General Staff officers, which I saw here in the document room for the first time with great interest and some amusement. It was not shown to me at the time, because it could already be seen that in a week's time the situation would change.
COL. POKROVSKY: You know nothing about the proposed dispatch of an expeditionary corps to Egypt, Iran, and Iraq, through Trans-Caucasia in the direction of the Persian Gulf, if the Soviet Union had fallen, as is stated here; you did not know anything about that either?