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 hence are to be burnt to the ground.
"The Supreme Commander, Northern Finland, is responsible that the Fuehrer' order is carried out without consideration. Only by this method can it because prevented that the Russians with strong forces, aided by these homes and the people familiar with the terrain, follow our withdrawal operations during the winter and shortly appear 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?
A No, on the Northern Coast. It is situated where Finland is closest to the Polar Region. It is a very small piece of land. which the Tribunal will find as the last document in the small book, 7-A. It is at page 26 of the Norwegian report, at the bottom of the page.
"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 kronor."
For photographs, will the Tribunal turn to pages 62 and 63. At page 62 is a copy of the Germany order, and 63 is a photograph of the ruins of a fishing village.
That was a cruel order, was it not, witness?
A No, not quite. I should like to make a few explanatory remarks here This order is typical, as I have already stated, of what was not wanted by the soldiers, but what was contrary to the will of the solders. This decree was forced through by the Fuehrer against the wishes of the soldiers. be no city of Kirkenness, no city of Hammerfest, no city of Altar, as well as other cities.
All of these cities are to the East of the Lyngen Fjord. in agreement with me, and in conversations which 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 the submission and production of this document -- this decree was watered down in such a way that only the military necessities were carried * and everything was according to Article 23 of the Hague Land Warfare Regulation. Otherwise there would not be any city or house left in Northern Norway. If you were to travel to that part of the country, you would see that that is not the case. On the contrary, these cities are there in good order, undisturbed. Terboven. I made these statements to the Fuehrer in the strongest language, but even so he demanded these words in the form of a decree. were necessary for military reasons. Those are the facts. complained of this order, did he not?
A That as well; he was enraged about this decree. of the Norwegian civilian population. page 98. These are regulations on the conduct during the occupation of Denmark and Norway. They 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? of the country and the safety of its inhabitants. That appears on page 99. declaration of war, is it not?
Q From your point of view?
A No, from the point of view of the Norwegians as well. That was the most extraordinary thing about it.
Q Well, you know, we can see, in the Norwegian Government's report, photograph and photograph of these towns and villages bombed to ruins. Is that your idea of an orderly occupation? less insignificant and not to be mentioned. These were just a few coastal batteries and a few fortifications, but not cities. Villages were only destroyed in the fight with the English brigade at the Mass and at the Delihammer; then villages were destroyed. However, during the occupation nothing was destroyed. There the Norwegians were very much interested; they had their hands in their pockets and they looked on with interest.
and occupied the country with opposition, so much the better for you? That is obvious, is it not?
A Yes, indubitably; and it would have been better if Terboven had not come. I believe even after the occupation, things would have been very good for them. properly, of course, was not read. It is Appendix 5.
MR. ROBERTS: It is a pant, My Lord, I assume, of AJ 14, the number which this document was given when it has put in, in the examination in chief. I am handing the Tribunal copies of Appendix 5, because it does not appear in the Jodl Docment Book. BY MR. ROBERTS:
Q Appendix 5 we candescribe as the sting in the tail of this document:
"Guiding Principles for the attitude of troops in the occupied areas". I will not read the first few paragraphs.
"Only in the event of the civil population putting up a resistance or behaving rebelliously can the following decisions be carried out:
"1). If the civilian population offers resistance or if attacks by the population on our troops or their lines of communications must be feared, the arrest of hostages should, on principle, be resorted to. Hostages should only be arrested on orders of a brigade commander, independent battalion commander or commander of equivalent rank . . .
"When accommodatingand 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 any hostile action. Previous sanction of the shooting by the Divisional Commander, must, however, be obtained . . .
"Armed resistance by the civilian population is to be crushed by force of arms."
The last sentence on that page is: "The death penalty will be imposed for violence of any kind against the German Armed Forces or their members in the occupied territory.
"Major trials will take place by Field Court Martial (Summary Court or ordinary Court Martial). The Regimental Commander can appoint the Summary Court which will be composed of 1 Captain, 1 Sergeant, 1 Corporal, hear witnesses and 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.
"The following are to be considered as acts of violence: sabotage, destruction of our lines of communication, the cutting of telephone wires, demolitions, etc."
A little drastic, that, wasn't it? Only the death penalty? regulations, which in times of peace were laid down by the experts on international law and laid down in cooperation/with the Foreign Office. It would be well if everywhere actions were carried out, courts martial would be employed in the same measures with which we entered into war and which we carried out into the war. and there is no doubt that according to the international law which applied in the year 1939, the taking ofhostages was very much admissible. law will you find the shooting of hostages legalized at all. I believe it is an open question. In our regulations, and under the regulations about troops, the concept of hostages and the taking of hostages was laid down, and had been laid down for years.
Q That may be so. But 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, you are not obliged to. I do not want to stop you if you do. that applied in the German law, and these regulations were not illegal. But one would have to argue with experts on international law about this problem.
Q Very good. Now, will you look at one other document dealing with Norway? It is D 582.
MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, it is a now document, and I offer it as GB 491. BY MR. ROBERTS:
Q That is a document which comes from your office?
A Yes. It originated from the Wehrmacht Operational and Quartermaster section.
Q Do you know of it or not?
A I cannot recall exactly, but there is some note made by me. Therefore, it is a document which I had seen.
Q Oh, yes. Where are the notes, witness? message.
Q I see what you mean , yes. I had forgotten that you were getting more than one document. Will you take first of all the document dated the 2nd of February, 1945? I think it is the top one. certainty whether I have seen it or not.
A I do not believe that I have seen this. I have no recollection of over having read it.
MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, in that, 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. He did that. BY MR. ROBERTS:
Q You see what the document says, defendant. It is dated the 2nd of February, 1945.
Q It is the 2nd of February. It deals with the Reich Commissar Terboven's report to the Fuehrer. It says:
"Those responsible for attempts to murder and carry out sabotages are the illegal entities within Norway with a bourgeois-national majority and a Communist minority, as well as individual groups which came direct from England or Sweden, return to Sweden after carrying out their tasks without having got into touch with the population, and from there are transported back to England by air.
"The bourgeois-national majority was opposed to the Communist minority in its conception of sabotage and murder, and in particular with regard to their extent and nature. This resistance has become progressively worker during the course of the past year, among other things essentially owing to the lack of effective measures on our part.
"3. Official departments of the exile government, as for instance the Grown Prince Olaf, as so-called Commander in Chief of the Norwegian Armed Forces and various others, have called upon the population at home, in speeches and other orders, to carry out sabotage. As a result, there is a particularly good possibility here of stamping every supporter of the exile government as an intellectual instigator or accomplice.
"The aim of the coming measures must therefore be, to strengthen the power and will to turn once more against sabotage, by threatening the very influential class of leaders in the bourgeois camp; thereby to exacerbate more and more the antagonisms between the bourgeois and Communists, who form a unified front."
Then we have "Suggestions", these are suggestions from your office, apparently.
"1. Particularly influential representatives of the explicitly antiGerman and anti-Nazi class of industrialists to be shot without trial on the accusation that they are intellectual instigators or accomplices and stating that they were convicted within the framework of police investigations.
"2. Similar men to be sent from the same circle to Germany to work on fortifications behind the Eastern Front.
"3. In cases where the circumstances are particularly suitable, proceedings to be taken before the Se and Police court, with the execution of the Sentence of death and suitable publicity."
"The Fuehrer has only agreed to these proposals in part. Especially in correction with of forts at protection against acts of sabotage, he has rejected the means consisting of taking hostages. Furthermore, he has rejected the shooting of influential Norwegian representatives without trial as a means of combatting sabotage", which is underlined in blue pencil.
Is that your blue pencil? instance where your department is suggesting a course of what submit is brutal action, which for once the Fuehrer rejects.
A I believe, Mr. Roberts, it is your mistake. No proposal is made here. The Wehrmacht Fuehrungs Stab said it is advising the military commanders in chief of Norway about that, which the Reich Commissar Terboven had reported to the Fuehrer. And to that effect first he told him about the position and then the proposals which are mentioned here were suggested to the Fuehrer; and the Wehrmacht Fuehrungs Stab, the Operational Staff, which obviously had a representative at this meeting -- I, however, was not present -- immediately advised the military commanders in chief as to what proposals Terboven was making.
And what happened? These proposals, of course, were too much even for the Fuehrer. But it is not one of our proposals.
it. It may be accented. The document speaks for itself.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you read the subject description? Orientation about Reichs Commissar Terboven's report to the Fuehrer?
MR. ROBERTS: Yes.
Q That is the subject, isn't it, the beginning? Orientation about Reichs Commissar Terboven's Report?
Q That is your department, is it not?
A Orientation about the 20th Mountain Army; that is General Boehm-General Boehm was the Commander in Chief of the 20th Army Group,--is advised about the reports which Reichs Commissar Terboven made to the Fuehrer, so that he would know what his man, Terboven, was suggesting. It is no more than an orientation about the words which Terboven said to the Fuehrer, and I can not tell you who was present there. This entire thing does not originate with me. I had never even seen it. 28th of October, 1944. That is with regard to evacuation east of Lyngen. I do not think I need read that. Now the next document is a teleprint of the 6th of April, 1945, from SS Oberfuehrer Fehlis to the Operational Staff, and it say: "In accordance with the instruction of the Supreme Command of the Armed forces(operational staff of the Armed forces), dated 29-3-45, members of the Norwegian Resistance Movement who appear in organized units and who are easily recognizable as combatants owing to armlots or other insignia are to be treated as prisoners of war." And then the SS Oberfuehrer says: "I consider this instruction completely intolerable. Iexplained this clearly to Lt. Col. Hass and Major Benzo from the Operational Staff of the Armed Forces who stayed her. Up to the Present, there have been isolated appearances of uniformed groups in Norway, but so far there has been no fighting. According to an order of the Military Organization which was found, inquiries were made from the Defence High Command, in London as to whether armed resistance should be offered in case of Germany as Norwegian police action. So far there has been no partisan or other fighting in Norway. On one occasion, captured members of the Military Organization in uniform claimed the right to be treated as prisonersof war.
If this demand were met at the present moment, the result would be that active fighting on the part of the Military Organization would be set going. Therefore, please obtain cancellation of the order of the Operational Staff of the Armed Forces." And you voted for the exemption being removed, did you not? "Norway has a government in its own country. Whoever fights, against it in the country is a rebel. It is another question in the case of Norwegian troops who were taken to England and from there are again brought into the struggle under England's orders." That is your notes?
Q And you stick to that, do you? I mean that is your opinion today?
A Yes. I am of the opinion, on the basis of International Law, that members of a resistance movement against their own Norwegian government are not to be considered as normal troops but as a rebellion instead. But if Norwegian troops were taken to England and returned to Norway, then they were soldiers. And that today is my opinion on the basis of International Law. which was set up by the Germans?
A In any event, it was a government by Quisling at that time; and in any event, we spoke according to International law. We occupied the country, and, according to International Law we were justified in giving out laws and in forcing through their execution. That is applicable and admissible under International Law, and resistance all over the world is considered rebellion and the some applies to us in Germany here today. then I have finished. I want to deal first of all with what you have said with regard to Hitler's suggestion to revoke the Geneva Convention. You say you were instrumental in preventing him from renouncing that Convention? which is GB 209. It is not in a document book. This was put in with regard to the case against Doenitz. It is headed Extracts from Minutes of the Hitler Conference on the 19th of February, 1945: "The C-in-C Navy was not present at the Hitler conference on 18-2-45. The Fuehrer is considering whether or not Germany should renounce the Geneva Convention.
As not only the Russians but also the Western powers are violating International Law by their actions against the defenceless population and the residential districts of the towns, it appears expedient to adopt the same course in order to show the enemy that we are determined to fight with every means for our existence, and also through this measure to urge our People to resist to the utmost. The Fuehrer orders the C-in-C of the Navy to consider the pros and cons of their step and to state his opinion as soon as possible. Then, further down: "The C-in-C of the Navy informed the Chief of the Armed Forces Ops Staff, General Jodl, and the representative for the Minister for foreign affairs at the Fuehrer's H.Q. Ambassador Hewel, of his views with regard to Germany's possible renunciation of the Geneva convention. From a military standpoint there are no grounds for this step as far as the conduct of the war at sea is concerned. On the contrary, the disadvantages outweigh the advantages; even from a general standpoint it appears to the C-in-C of the Navy that this measure would bring no advantages. It would be better to carry out the measures considered necessary without warning, and at all costs to save face with the cuter world. The Chief of armed Forces Ops Staff and Ambassador Hewel are in full agreement." You were saying there, were you not, that you agreed with Reader when he said, break the Geneva convention but don't tell the world that we are doing so.
Q That is what you were saying, isn't it?
A No. The entire thing, as I have said, is a notice by Admiral Wagner regarding a conference from which one could gather only that Grand Admiral Doenitz rejected this and that he allegedly is supposed to have made this remark, the remark at the end which I can hardly explain today to my own satisfaction, for at that time we had been told by the Fuehrer as the reason only that it should be prevented that this tremendous number of soldiers in the Rest would desert for lack of good treatment. As I have said, I can not explain this remark, and in my written work which I submitted to the Fuehrer and which also shows the attitude of the Navy, that sentence was not contained. In this draft we counterbalanced advantages and disadvantages. The disadvantages were overwhelming. The whole thing is not to be carried through; and this actually took place, it was not carried out.
I can not say anymore, and witnesses can confirm my statement.
MR. ROBERTS: Document D 606 has not yet been exhibited. I offer it as 492 GB.
Q Now that is signed by you, is it not? The subject is the breach of the Geneva convention. Is that signed by you?
A Yes; at the end you will find my signature. your headed notepaper: "Telegraphic report submitted to the fuehrer on the 23-2 through the Chief of the Ops Staff of the Wehrmacht. The following questions were to be examined --" I am not going to real it all. I f the witness would follow me, I will read anything he wants. But it is a discussion as to the various advantages and disadvantages of repudiating the various international agreements, and I think I am not doing the witness an injustice if I say from a utalitarian rather than a moral point of view.
and for that this document was compiled.
MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, it is the last page but one of lour Lordship's document, "C, Proposal of the OKW":
"At the present moment the disadvantages of repudiating the bands which were kept to up to now will in any case outweigh the advantages by far.
"Just as it was wrong in 1914 that we ourselves solemnly declared war on allthe states which for a long time had wanted to wage war against us, and through this took the whole guilt of the war on our shoulders before the outside world, and just as it was wrong to admit that the necessary --" Note the word "necessary" -- "passage through Belgium in 1914 was our own fault, so it would be wrong now to repudiate openly the obligations of International law which we accepted and thereby to stand again as the guilty party before the outside world.
"Adherence to the accepted obligations does not demand in any that we should have to impose on ourselves any limitations which will interfere with the conduct of the war. For instance, if the British sink a hospital ship, this must be used for propaganda purposes as has been done to date. That, of course, in no way prevents us sinking an English hospital ship at once as a reprisal and then expressing our regret that it was a mistake, in the same manner as the British do."
That isn't very honorable, is it? alone,brought about success with the Fuehrer, and this success was realized only in that way. If I had used moral or purely legal, arguments, then he would have said "Please leave me alone with that empty talk", and he would havecarried through the renunciation of the Convention, but these things gave him food for thought, and that is the reason why he did not carry through the renunciation of the Treaty.
how to achieve something good and to avoid something bad, and that I knewhow to use my method. I was after results, and I did achieve success with him. truth in 1914. In 1914 you said that you only regarded treaties as a scrap of paper. You are saying new, "What a pity we told the world the truth in 1914. We ought to have told them something untrue, and then we should have, possibly, a better world reputation."
A That was an argument which the Fuehrer used frequently. If you repeated his argument in that sane form, he was inclined to accept it, and we had to prevent his decreeing the renunciation in a fit of rage, and that is the approach one had to follow. If one cannot do good openly, it is better to do it in a roundabout way than not to do it at all.
Q I am now coming to quite another point. Were you an admirer of the principles of the Nazi Party? Nazi Party and the Wehrmacht which brought about the rejuvenation, the resurrection of Germany, after 1933?
A It could have been. I hoped that for a long time, andin general, the relationship in the course of the years,and especially during the war, improved. In the beginning it was poor, very poor.
Q I am reading now from your speech, L-172. It is page 290 of the document book 7, and it is page six of your lecture notes. Page 290 of the document book, 203 of the German:
"The fact that the National Socialist movement in its struggle for internal power, was preparatory to the outer liberation of the dictate of Versailles is a one I need enlarge upon in this circle. I should like, however, to mention how all thoughtful regular soldiers realize what an important part has been played by the Nazi movement in re-awakening the will to fight, in nurturing fighting strength, and in rearming the German people. Despite all the virtues inherent in it, a numerically small Reichswehr could never have been able to cope with this task, if only because of its restricted radius of action. Indeed, what the Fuehrer aimed at and has been so happily successful in bringing about was a fusion of these two forces."
Did that represent your honest opinion or not?
A Yes. That is an historical truth, an indisputable truth. The Nazi Party did bring that about. That is certain.
Q Very good. Then, I now want to put to you the last document that I put in.
MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, it has not been exhibited. It is 1808-PS. I offer it as GB 493. BY MR. ROBERTS:
Q You made a speech, did you not, after the attempt on Hitler's life to your staff? These are the notes of your speech on 24 July?
A I have never seen this document before. I am seeing it for the first time now. It is unknown to me. It has remained unknown to me that any notes were made about the speech at all.
Q Let's go by stares. Did you make a speech to your staff shortly after the attempt on Hitler's life on 24 July 1944? document which comes from your files? Look at the cover, if necessary.
A I assume so. Most likely these are notes by Major Schramm.
Q Let me begin at the beginning of those notes. Just see if you can remember what you said. Did you begin, by saying "The 24th July was the blackest day which German history has seen as yet, and will probably remain so for all time?" a man whom you now admit was a murderer? opponents of the regime, was attacked in such a cowardly manner? That to me was the worst thing that ever happened to me in all my life. If aman with a pistol in his hand had shot the Fuehrer and then had given himself up, that would have been something entirely different. This method was, for me, the most repulsive thing that could have happened to any officer, and I said these things under the impression of these events, and I am still standing on that today.
dastardly than shooting those 50 American soldiers who landed in the north of Italy to destroy a military target, shooting them like dogs?
A That was murder as well. There is no doubt about that, but it is not the task or the mission of a soldier to play the judge against his commander in chief. That is a mission reserved for history or for the Almighty on High.
Q Very good. I have only about three mere questions to ask you.
MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, I am going to read from page two of that document, about ten lines from the top. It begins, "The Fuehrer--" BY MR. ROBERTS:
"The Fuehrer ignored this and ether things, and now the attempted assassins wished to eliminate him as a 'despot.'" Do you remember saying that or something like that? "The Fuehrer ignored this and other things,and now the attempted assassins wished to eliminate him as a 'despot'." Do you remember that? "Yes, they themselves experienced how the Fuehrer did not come to power by force, but borne up by the love of the German people." Do you remember saying that?
A Yes, that is true. Through the love of the German people, he was borne up to power, and everything that I experienced is tremendous. We were almost smothered through this love of the people and of the soldiers for the Fuehrer.
Q I beg your pardon. Have you finished? I didn't mean to interrupt you.
Q Borne up by the love of the German people. You have forgotten the SS, the Gestapo, and the concentration camps for political opponents, haven't you? things, almost nothing. Of course, this has a different aspect now, knowing these facts now.
MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, this is a new document, 1776-PS, I offer it as GB-494, BY MR. ROBERTS:
Q Just have a look; see if it is signed by you, will you. attacks. Just see what this document says. Note the date first, the 30th of June 1940. That is just after the temporary fall of France:
"Chief of the Wehrmacht: General Staff.
"The continuation of the war against England.
"If political means will be without results, England's will to resist will have to be broken by force:
"a) by making war against the English mother country, "b) by extending the war to the periphery.
"Regarding point a, there are three possibilities:
"1) Siege "2) Terror attacks against English centers of population.
"3) A landing of troops."
And now I read this as an example of historical prophesy:
"Germany's final victory also over England is only a question of time."
Then I go down several paragraphs:
"Together with propaganda and temporary terror attacks -said to be reprisal actions -- this increasing weakening of English food supply will paralyze the will of her people to resist and finally break and thus force its government to capitulate."
It is signed "Jodl".
"Terror attacks against English centers of population" -would you like to say anything to justify that sentence?
A Yes, just a few words. This proposal -- and after all, it was just a proposal -- proves three things: any intention and did not know about the intention and the possibility of entering into a war with Russia, as is seen by the statement that the final victory of Germany is only a question of time. carried through by the Angle-American Air Force to a wonderful completion. the civilian population was started by the English Air Force, even though constant warnings had gone out. Fuehrer tried again and againm to the utmost, to avoid this war and this form of war against the population. But it was clear at that time that he would not be able to do so.
Q Now, I have finished, Witness. You will notice that all the documents I have put, except for that one American report, were German documents, originating at the time of these events about which I have been cross examining. an honorable soldier and a truthful man? stating that the submission of these documents is proof enough that this is actually so.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 7 June 1946 at 1000 hours) States of America, the French Republic; the THE PRESIDENT:
The Tribunal will adjourn this afternoo at 4:00 o' clock to sit in closed session. The Tribunal will sit tomorrow in opnen session from 10:00 to 1:00. BY COLONEL POKROVSKY: Operational Headquarters of the OKW. That was the central headquarters of the OKW, was it not? question. the OKW, of which you were in charge, was the central operational headquarters, the direction body. certainly say that the operational staff was one of the most important parts of the OKW.
Q Is that the reason why you took Keitel's place in his absence, because it was so important?
A I was the deputy only in operational matters. As to war ministerial questions, as a rule Admiral Canaris took that part of in.
Q Do you deny that you took Keitel's place when he was away, or do you admit it? of course, whenever the Fuehrer had anything to say to the OKW he talked with me because I was the senior officer next to Keitel. about the fact that either you or Keitel usually represented OKW at all important staff meetings at which Admiral Wagner was usually present?
Do you remember that testimony? translating difficulties.
Q I shall repeat the question. On the 13th of May, here in this room, the witness Wagner -- do you remember him?
A Yes, I remember the witness Wagner. He testified that Field Marshal Keitel and I were present at every situation report, and that is undeniably true. I do not dispute it. General Jodl were present. Is that correct? Do you catch the difference in way this question is phrased? arrangement, would it be correct to come to the conclusion that it was you, specifically you, Jodl, who was Keitel's functional deputy That is, in the eyes of the whole military machine of the Reich it was you who were held responsible when Keitel was away; you were looked up to as the second most responsible person? Is that correct? and in unimportant things, yes, but when it came to important thing I could always reach him by telephone at any time, and that is what I did in actual practice. He was never ill; he was never away on leave; he was, perhaps, away at Berlin at headquarters. cident which you affirmed yourself here in this room on the 6th of June, while testifying to the Tribunal about the motives which made you sign Document RF-1438. You stated then that this document had no relation whatsoever to your work directly as it concerned the deportation of Jews from Denmark, it did not actually have any direct relationship to your function but you signed it because Keitel was away at the time.
You did say that; do you remember? Is that correct?