BY MR. ROBERTS, K.C.: in the blood, is that right? the German soldier, is that right?
A Yes. I do that to a high degree. six or seven years, do you think your honor has become at all soiled?
Q Very good. You say your honor isn't soiled. which you say you had to circulate, has your truthfulness remained at the same high standard?
A (No response)
Q Can't you answer that question?
Q Well then, if you are too dumb, I won't persist in it; I will go on. I will leave the question and I will go on. Department of the Wehrmacht, is that right?
Q That is Department L, that is, Landesverteidigung, is that right?
Q And was Field marshal von Blomberg your superior? superiors.
Q Did you work a good deal with Field Marshal von Blomberg? nearly so much as the Chief of the Wehrmacht Office.
Q Did you attend staff talks with him?
A I did not attend conferences in a large circle with Blomberg. At least General Keitel and I and a few others were present.
Q And would they be called staff talks? Wehrmacht.
Q Did you go to staff talks?
Q Very good; I thought that.
Now, will you please look at Document C-139, US-53. Just look at the signature, will you. That is signed by Blomberg, is it not?
Q Now, that is dealing with Operation Schulung. Do you remember what Operation Schulung was?
A (No response.)
Q That is the reoccupation of the Rhineland, isn't it?
A (No response.)
Q Can't you answer me?
THE PRESIDENT: Defendant, the question was whether you remember what Operation Schulung was. It isn't necessary to read the document in order to answer that question.
AAccording to my recollection -- I don't know whether it comes from studying the documents here in Nurnberg -- the term "Schulung" was preparations for the occupation of the Rhineland after evacuation -
Q Now, wait a moment. That is then dealing with the reoccupation of the Rhineland; do you agree with that?
A No, that docs not deal with the reoccupation of the Rhineland. That is absolutely false.
"For the operation" -- I am reading it to you if you will follow it, and might I make this point first: It is apparently so secret that it couldn't be entrusted to a stenographer, isn't it? The whole document is written in manuscript, handwriting, isn't it?
A (No response.)
Q You can answer that question surely. Can't you see whether it is in handwriting or not?
Q 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 Army High Command, Chief of the Navy 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 services. 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 No. 3, "Every improvement of our armaments will make possible a greater measure of preparedness."
Then, "I ask the Army: How many divisions ready for action?" Not one token battalion as you said yesterday.
"Reinforcement of the inadequate forces there" -- that is in the West -
"by the East Prussian divisions which will be transported by rail and sea.... The High Command of the Navy to look after the safe transport of the East Prussian troops."
had to be in manuscript, if it wasn't the reoccupation of the Rhineland?
A. If you will permit me to make a very brief explanation -
Q. 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?
A. I am not a clairvoyant, I do not know the document, I have never had it; at this time I was not in the Wehrmacht office, it has entirely different signature; I was in the Operational Section of the Army. I neither saw nor ever heard of this paper. If you look at the date, the 2nd May '35, it is proven there. I entered the Wehrmacht office only the middle of June. Then, only on the basis of my general staff training can I give you some assumptions, but the Court does not want assumptions.
Q. Very good, if that is your answer. But you say that you who heard General Field Marshal von Blomberg's staff talk, you cannot help the Court at all as to what that secret operation order is about?
A. It was before my time. I was not with von Blomberg then.
Q. Very good. Now, will you look, please, at E.C. 405. Now -- let him see the German book, page 277.
MR. ROBERTS: My Lordship, that is page 26. -- Hasn't he a German book?
THE PRESIDENT: Defendant, you said, did you not, that you remember that the operation "Schulung" was the preparation for the operation of the Rhineland?
THE WITNESS: No, I said the contrary. I said the word "Schulung" I heard for the first time here in the court, and then I wondered what could that have been.
THE PRESIDENT: 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 that "Schulung" meant the preparation for the occupation of the Rhineland? Is that right?
THE WITNESS: I said as General Staff officer of the Operation section at that time I had to know what military preparations were made.
THE PRESIDENT: 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 may have come through wrongly in the translation. What did you say?
THE WITNESS: I said I believe I recall, I am not certain whether that didn't result from studying the documents here, this recollection -- or perhaps from earlier -- that the word "Schulung" means preparations concerning the evacuation of the western Rhenish territory in case of French sanctions. That was the only thing that we concerned ourselves with at that time; all the evacuation measures which I later mentioned in document EC-405. BY MR. ROBERTS:
Q. Well, you remember the date of that last document, 2nd of May 1935. 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. 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?
A. 43 and 44, yes.
Q. 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" Colonel Jodl talks about participation in mobilization preparation, and the first three paragraphs deal with general mobilization and I don't want to read them but the fourth paragraph reads:
"Demilitarized zone requires special treatment. In his speech of 21st of May 1935 and other utterances the Fuehrer has stated that the stipulations of Versailles and Locarno 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 therefor."
Now, if von Blomberg's hand-written letter of the 2nd of May 1935 did refer to preparations for occupying 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 are being observed, wasn't it?
A. No, it wasn't dishonest. If it is true at all that the term "Schulung" -
TEE PRESIDENT: I think that is a matter of comment.
MR. ROBERTS: I shall of course, My Lordship, let you make certain comments 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 on this particular question.
THE PRESIDENT: I think that the Court stated that you ought not to make comments but ought to confine yourself to cross-examination about the facts.
MR. ROBERTS: Regarding Your Lordship's ruling, I have had a very extensive experience in cross-examination in many courts, 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. BY MR. ROBERTS:
Q. 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. The existence of such preparations or the intention of them must be kept in strictest secrecy, in the zone itself as well as in the rest of the Reich."
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, and without exception such material must be kept in safes. Weapons, equipment, insignia, field-gray uniforms and other items stored for mobilization purposes must be kept from sight."
were you?
A. They were weapons and items of equipment of the police, the gendarmerie; there were no troops there. Consequently, there were no weapons there for them.
Q. Did the police wear field-gray uniforms?
A. To my knowledge the police wore a gray-green uniform or a green uniform.
Q. What was the need of this great secrecy if this was only police equipment?
A. It was the equipment in addition for the reinforced border guards, which I have already said.
Q. My question, Witness, was what was the need for s ocrecy? That was the need for secrecy if you weren't breaking the treaty of Versailles? Can't you answer that?
A. The reasons for keeping all these measures secret I testified to in detail and I said that in all those preparations it was a question in case of an occupation of the western Rhenish territory by France, to set up a blockade along the line with the aid of the police, the gendarmarie and the border guards. That was the intention at that time. Only in this eventuality I have already testified under oath that I meant occupation of the Rhineland, only six days before hand.
Q. You have, and I an 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 Change d'affaires the German Reich Government has replied that neither civilian recruiting authorities not 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?
A. I only repeat that this was answered -- that answer was given to the French Charge d'affaires. I believe that that was essentially true: He mobilization tasks, establishment, equipment and forming of formations for the event of war. There was no thought of war, no one mentioned at with one word.
Q. Well, now, 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, cither 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." the Treaty of Versailles. Do you agree, or don't you?
A. No, I do not agree to that. They were taken in the event that the enemy did not hold the treaty and would attack us again as in the Ruler.
Q. Very good. Now I propose to refer to a document which has been described as your speech, L.172, from time to time. 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? The document has your writing in places, has it not? I can refer to the pages if you like. If you look at page -
A. That is unnecessary. For many hand written notations and words crossed out by me -
Q. 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 Gauleiters in 1943?
A. This -- I have already clearly said that this was a waste-basket, root the speech that I held but parts of the first draft, a mass of matter in it of notes of reports of my staff which they gave to work out this speech. I crossed out whole pages and sent the whole waste-basket back again and then I made my speech.
did you not, when you were interrogated by one American Officer on two sparate occasions? You said quite differently, did you not?
(No response) Colonel Thomas Hinkel? Do you remember that? Perhaps you won't remember the date.
Q Yes, and you were sworn when you gave your answers to the interrogator? of 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 these pages represent the lecture that was delivered. For the record, that is identified as L-172."
Then you answered:
"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 Putlag. It isn't the lecture itself. That is the material of the brochures which had been furnished to me."
Now, witness, just follow this, will you?
"Do you identify the first 29 pages as constituting the lecture that you delivered?
"Answer: (after examining document) Yes, that is my lecture."
Do you want to alter that sworn answer now? Do you?
A I have not read the transcript of the notes which were taken there. I don't know the translation.
I made several statements in that regard. When I observed in the second interrogation that, that was not actually my speech, I said-
Q I will read you the second one two, witness. I have that for you. This was on the 16th of November.
THE PRESIDENT: Defendant, had you finished what you wanted to say?
THE WITNESS: No, I had not finished.
THE PRESIDENT: Then finish what you want to say.
THE WITNESS: 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 my speech, or a copy of my speech. However, when I looked at it more carefully in the course of the interrogations, I noticed that it was only the material selected for this speech, and I said clearly: "It contains the first draft, or the outline, by me. The whole middle part is only material furnished by my staff therefore, the whole thing is not at all the speech which I gave." That is what I told Colonel Hinkel BY MR. ROBERTS: ion. This is the 16th of November, 1945 four days before the trial:
"This document is identified for the record as L-172. I show you the photostatic reproduction again, 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 conglomerate of the pieces of writings which are partly drafts of my own, that is, the introduction, but all the appendices are the basis for my lecture, furnished me by my staff.
"The photostats appended to the criminal lecture--it was a photographed copy also, a number of maps which were drawn up were included.
"This is not my lecture as such, and the annotations male here, in this calligraphic manner, were not mine. I had 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 conglomerate of various pieces of writing, and it is usable only with limitations.
Now just listen to this, will you?
"However, as to the bread 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: text, written down by myself. 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 to this meeting in Munich in November 1943?"
The answer is:
"Yes; much, without doubt is the same. All the appendices in 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 answers to that interrogation?
A On the whole, I will confirm what I said. However, I don't know why we have to talk so long about it. The case is completely clear.
Q Well, please don't worry yourself. I know I am stepping 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 don't worry about why I should do something. in the speech. It is quite a different thing than being in a waste paper basket. basic thoughts, were, of course, in the speech in this form basically. However, the whole speech was worked out on the basis of this first draft; it was shortened, changed, parts were eliminated, mistakes were eliminated, and so on. Then came the main part of the speech. There is no proof, and I am not in a position to say whether I used one sentence of the material given here.
Q Very good; I will accept that. found.
THE PRESIDENT: I think we might as well adjourn now.
MR. ROBERTS: If your Lordship please.
(A recess was taken.)
DR. EXNER: (Counsel for Defendant Jodl) Mr. President, I should like to call the attention of the High Tribunal to the following: when my client was interrogated at that time here, he was heard through an interpreter, since he does not understand English; and on the basis of this testimony of his, the minutes were established and set down in the English language. This record, was never submitted to the defendant; he had never seen it, and he did not sign these minutes. submitted to him in the German language through the interpreter, and in my opinion, it is quite impossible, under these circumstances, to tie the defendant down to certain words which are contained in the record. He will, of course, stand on what he said, and support it, but he cannot recognize that he said everything that is in that record.
THE PRESIDENT: That is true. We will keep these facts in mind. The Tribunal will keep these facts in mind, if you will craw 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 the speech, and I accept that answer, and I pass to another point. 113 -PS. It is page 133 in the large document book. BY MR. ROBERTS: November, 1937, which I am dealing with, "Hitler develops his ideas of future development intentions and conduct of policy"; page 133 of the large book.
THE PRESIDENT: When you say "large book", you mean "No 7"?
MR. ROBERTS: Yes, No. 7; I am sorry. I should have given it, a number. BY MR. ROBERTS:
Q This is the 5th of November, 1937: "Hitler develops his ideas of future development intentions and conduct of policy to the commanders-in-chief of the armed forces", etc.
chief of armed forces' office 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?
A (No response)
A That means "Intention L"; that means the intention of the department of defense to have these thoughts put down on paper, and to have these ideas transmitted through the Wehrmacht branches.
Q Very good. Now, the meeting that you were talking about was what we have called the Hoszbach conference, was it not, which is 386-PS? The Tribunal are very familiar with it. You remember the conference, do you not? You have read it many times here?
A Yes. I was not present at this conference, but I do recall the things that were read here.
Q 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? ceived was in no way sensational. The directives for the preparation at this time are available to the Court in writing; and everything -which we prepared and worked with at the time is proved thereby. It is set down. We have the order of the 20th of May and of the 14th of June; all these 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. BY DR. ROBERTS: 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? only be solved by force? practically complete? said that the first aim in the event of war would be Austria and Czechoslovakia? Czechoslovakia, I believe, was contained in these statements. But I can say only the details which I received from Field Marshal Keitel are not in my recollection at present. I do recall one thing, that it was no surprise or no sensation for me in any way -- only small corrections of the directive which had been given out up to that point.
Q Very good. Thank you. Now, then, you were not present at Obersalzburg when Keitel was there with Schuschnigg in the following February, were you?
Q But Keitel later told you what had happened?
A He made a few brief remarks. He made a few brief remarks just in the manner of conversation, for after all, I was not concerned with this matter.
Q 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 the 11th of February, 1938: "In the evening, around the 12th of February, 'K' (Keitel) came with Reichenau and Sperrle at Obersalzburg.
Schuschnigg and Schmidt are again being put under heaviest political and military pressure." Did Keitel tell you that?
A Yes. You only included the word "again." That word is not found in my diary. This entry I made personally, and I made it for this reason, since Keitel had told me at the luncheon period Reichenau and Sperrle had carried on warlike conversations to the effect that they had talked about the rearmament of Germany.
Q Very good. Now, in March -- I think this is common ground -- you signed or initialed one or two orders for the operation "Otto."
A Yes; but at that time, it was not called "Operation Otto"; rather "marching into Austria." of the people by plebiscite, he decided to invade at once, did he not? of public opinion through the trick of a plebiscite, he said "I will certainly not tolerate this under any circumstances." This is what I was told.
Q He would not tolerate public opinion's being ascertained?
A No; he would not tolerate public opinion's being abused through this trick.
Q So the armed forces of Germany then marched into Austria' A That is right; the Wehrmacht did march in.
Socialism; is that right?
A That is a political question. It could have become the happiest country on earth.
Q. I wasn't asking what it could have become, but what it received.
It received the SS, the Gestapo, the concentration camps, suppression of opponents and the persecution of Jews, didn't it?
A. These are questions with which I did not concern myself, and these questions you have to put to the competent authorities.
Q. Very good. You say the people appeared pleased to see you?
A. The people who were under my jurisdiction were very happy about this, that I can tell you.
Q. They had to appear to be, whether they were or not, didn't they?
A. No, they did not have to be. After I had been away for a long time, they certainty didn't have to write enthusiastic letters to me, letters which I received throughout the war, and from Austrians to whom my heart belonged.
Q. There was one man who wasn't please to see you, wasn't there?
A. I know no such person.
Q. Don't you?
A. No.
Q. What about Schuschnigg?
A. I never saw Schuchnigg. I do not know lain and he doesn't know no.
Q. He wasn't pleased to see you cone in, was he? What happened to lain -
THE PRESIDENT: he know that, Mr. Roberts.
MR. ROBERTS: I quite realize that. I can't imagine my question is not admissable, but if you don't want me to put it -- it is one of a series of questions -- I won't.
Q. Schuschnigg was put in a concentration camp, wasn't he?
A. I was told that the Fuehrer had decreed that he did not want him to become a martyr, but he could not liberate him and he had to put him in honorary (sic) (honorable custody.
That was the impression I had during the entire war.
Q Honorary?
Q Was he an honorary member of Dachau?
A That I don't know. Those are not questions that you can put to me, for I was a soldier and not the commandant of a concentration camp. with, isn't it? during these years.
DR. EXNER: I am sorry but I have to object to questions like that. They are political and based on legal matter, matters which the Defendant cannot answer through his own knowledge. It is not a concern whether Schuschnigg was happy or not.
MR. ROBERTS: In my respectful submission, these questions are perfectly proper, the like of which have been put over and over again by Defense and Prosecution Counsel.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Roberts, the Tribunal thinks that the cross-examination is proper.
MR. ROBERTS: I am grateful to you, but I am passing from that point.
Q. The only question I ask in conclusion is that Schuschnigg was kept in prison or kept in confinement for several years without any charge and any trial. That is right, isn't it?
A. It may be, although I don't know.
Q. You know, did you not, when you signed those orders for the march into Austria, that Germany had given an assurance in May 1935, that she would respect the territorial integrity of Austria, and that on the 11th of July 1936, there had been entered into by your government and the Austrian government an agreement by Germany to recognize the full sovereignty of the Federal State of Austria?