A That is absolutely correct. It was an urgent matter which was of pressing importance and had to be signed immediately. type, but I do not find it necessary to spend any more time on making the point clearer. that you were well aware of the work and the operations of the OKW, that you usually knew what bothered or what worried the OKW, and what important questions it was working out at the time?
A That applies only to a limited field. As to a number of matters, everything that was handled in the many, many offices in Berlin, it was impossible for me to have a picture of those things, and many of them did not concern no. I have testified already that my time was more than taken up, that I had much more to do than I had time for. I considered finished. Will you please look now at our new exhibi USSR 476.
The document consists of excerpts of Keitel's testimony giv 9 November 1945, Keitel's interrogation. It is stated there -- an I am quoting now:
"Question: Was it possible for a situation to have develop where General Jodl, without any knowledge on your part, conducted a meeting?
"Answer: Yes, it was quite possible for Jodl to conduct or important staff meeting, as I was frequently away and Colonel Gene Jodl had full authority to call a meeting."
Have you found the place? Are you reading it now? Do you see it? things, it is very hard to have everyone follow them. These were my general staff officers with whom I worked and who were under me That was my office and my duty, and that was my mission.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't think it is necessary for you to raise your voice in that way.
questions. First, have you read the document now, the one that has just been given you? Please answer this first question. Have you read the particular place which I have just cited on page 1?
A Yes. In this case, Field Marshal Keitel says, "Since I was away on official journeys..."
Q Don't read it out loud yourself. I have read it already. I merely want to know: Have you finished reading that paragraph?
A Yes, I read that, and it says here, "To consult the Colonel General about this." at the present. We will get to the place which you just cited a little later. Look above, at the phrase which states that Keitel was often away, and when he was away you acted in his place.
Do you remember? Keitel's answer is right there.
A (No response.) so, he was at the front, and that frequently for perhaps a few day he was at Berlin, but he was at those offices which were subordinate to him. Those were the offices that he called on. I was alone with my operational staff, and I could do whatever I please with my staff. As far as conferences of other offices were concerned, I never attended them or never called them, and as a deputy of Keitel I didn't know a thing about these matters. a clear answer to my very short question, namely: Do you affirm the correctness of Keitel(s statement given in that testimony? Yes or no; it is easier to answer yes or no.
ridiculous.
Q We will evaluate it later. I merely want to establish a fact.
COLONEL POKROVSKY: I am submitting USSR 263, Exhibit USSR 264. BY COLONEL POKROVSKY:
Q You 111 now have the pleasure of reading it yourself, Mr. Defendant. It is a document consisting of excerpts of the statements of one other officer who worked with you, General Warlimont. Please acquaint yourself with that paragraph which is parked on the exhibit before you, while I read it out loud. That will be quicker.
The question is posed to Warlimont: to prepare the plan of attack on the Soviet Union?"
Have you found the place? the testimony or a statement by Warlimont as to the organization of the offices of the OKW. On the next page something follows about the preparation for the attack on the Soviet Union.
Q Have you found it now ? Very well. prepare the plan for the attack on the Soviet Union?"
Answer of Warlimont: "Personally I first heard about the plan on 29 July. On that date Colonel General Jodl arrived in a special train at Bad Reichenall where Section B of the headquarters was situated at the time."
COLONEL POKROVSKY: My Lords, I do not think that it is necessary for me to read too much of the testimony of Warlimont because the facts are well known to the Tribunal; that is, the facts of the conference during which Jodl gave his operational colleagues a command or an order to prepare the plans for that attack. This has come out in Court previously. BY COLONEL POKROVSKY:
Q Warlimont states: "Warlimont surprised us exceedingly by his announcement of the coming attack." Have you found the place? Please look at the document. Jodl, will you please take the document in your hand and see whether it is correct?
THE PRESIDENT: Isn't it coming through?
DR.EXNER (Counsel for defendant Jodl): I just wanted to call the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that the translation or the transmission to us is coming through so very poorly that I understood almost nothing at all only half a question at a time, and I am surprised that the defendant could answer at all.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it coming through better now? Is the translation coming through better now?
DR. EXNER: I am of the opinion that the translation itself is poor, not the technical transmission of the interpretation. It is often very difficult to understand the question. It makes no sense at all, and my colleague, Dr. Stahmer, confirms me in this. It is very, very hard for us.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we had better go on and see, perhaps, if it will improve. BY COLONEL POKROVSKY:
Q I would like you to read one other sentence. It is the sentence in which Warlimont states to whom the responsibility for carrying out the plans was given. The sentence goes on to say -- still on page one in the middle of the page, witness. Have you found the place?
A I could not find the sentence which you have just read: "Jodl surprise us." That sentence I cannot find.
Q In that case, I shall begin with the preceding sentence. Perhaps you can find it more easily:
"Besides me he ordered to appear at the staff meeting three other senior officers, Colonel Norberg, Colonel von Falkenstein,and Captain Junge."
Do you see those three names in the middle of the page?
Q "Then Jodl surprised us by the announcement for which we were not prepared."
Then a little further down you see, witness:
"Jodl stated that the Fuehrer had decided to prepare a plan for the attack on the Soviet Union. The Fuehrer based his decision on the fact that war with Russia must come about sooner or later and for that reason it would be better to carry on that war in connection and at the time of the present war."
Now, I would like you to read one more paragraph. It is from USSR 476, which you have already looked at, from page one of the exhibit, the first exhibit that you looked at today, and I told you then that we would come back to it. It is the place where Keitel is asked whether he know anything about that meeting, and he answered -- and I quote:
"I know nothing whatever about a staff meeting with regard to the plan of attacking the Soviet Union. I heard about that meeting for the first time when I was already here in imprisonment."
Have you found the place?
A No, I haven't found it. but I do recall it. I read just a little bit ago.
Q I would like you to have this exhibit before you; we don't want anything which isn't entirely clear here between you and me. sequent to that staff meeting you had not even reported to him what took place at that staff meeting or at subsequent staff meetings.
Do you agree with those facts? Would you say that Keitel testified correctly? framework; you can speak about it in a civilian or a parliamentary system, but not in a military framework, I talked to my general staff officers as I often as I pleased.
Q Excuse me, but I would like to interrupt you here. You may add all that you wish to say a little later, but at the present moment I merely want a direct answer.
Is Keitel's testimony correct, to the effect that you had not reported to him on the staff meetings? but that doesn't play any role at all. However, so far as what the Fuehrer told me was concerned, I am certain that I reported to him on that because that was an important matter. Then, later, because of this matter, he wrote a memorandum. That is why I believe I told him about it, but that is only a supposion, a more or less certain supposition, which I am voicing on this point. just one more question, namely: Would you agree with the fact that only the most responsible person, such as Keitel's representative, could, quite independently and without the knowledge of Keitel himself, without any directive from Keitel himself, and without reporting to Keitel subsequently -would you agree that only such a responsible man could conduct meetings and make decisions with regard to plans for attacking another foreign power?
Have you understood my question? is concerned. because you asserted that I did not report about the preparation for an attack on a neutral country. That is an assertion on your part which, on my oath, I refuted yesterday. We were not concerned with an attack on the Soviet Union at this conference. We were concerned with the turning back of a Soviet attack on the Roumanian oil fields. That is established through Document C-170, the War Diary of the Navy. That is established therein.
Q Very well. I do not plan to enter a discussion, I merely want to say that we have two types of evidence relating to this: First, your testimony in which you deny the fact that the plan for attacking the Soviet Union took place; and second, the testimony of Warlimont, who was also present at the meeting and who states directly that the meeting was concerned specifically with the plan of attacking the Soviet Union and that the plan was announced by you.
One more question. Would it be correct to state that you were either the first or one of the first, staff directors in Hilter Germany who were engaged in preparing the plan for attacking the Soviet Union in the summer of 1940? I would like to know your opinion here.
Have you understood the question? who know of the concern of the Fuehrer with reference to the political attitude on the part of Russia. However, I was not the first one who made preparations for an attack on the Soviet Union. to my surprise, through the witness Paulus, I found out that long before we, in the General Staff of the Army, even concerned ourselves in a direct way, these plans of attack were already worked on. I cannot tell you with absolute assurety where that information came from. Perhaps Halder can tell us about that. I can only express that as a supposition on my part.
Q Suppositions interest us less that facts. You stated, the day before yesterday, the 5th of June, that the attack on the Soviet Union, whereby Germany broke its neutrality pact with the Soviet Union, had the character of primitive war. That is what you stated then, is it not?
Q Very well. Do you remember that in the testimony of Milch, Raeder, and Goering, as well as in the testimony of Paulus and Keitel, it was stated that they were all against the attack on the Soviet union? I shall cite one sentence from Keitel's testimony here in Court to remind you. While General Rudenko was cross-examining Keitel, Keitel was asked this question:
"You stated that you went to Hitler yourself with the request that he, Hitler change his plans with regard to the Soviet Union."
Keitel's answer:
"Yes, I asked him not only to change his plans, but to do away with these plans altogether; that is, not to attack the Soviet Union."
Do you remember that testimony of Keitel's?
Q Very well. Do you not find it somewhat strange, in that case, that a man next to Keitel in authority tries to discern the facts and that he, at the same time, tries to state that he was not responsible for certain things, and that he denies the accuracy of the testimony of Goering, Keitel and others with regard to this question?
Q I will be more specific: I mean, that a man like Keitel did not seem to find any necessity for what you call "primitive war", and that all those person whose testimony I have just referred to here also saw no reason for carrying on this so-called primitive war. They did not believe that the Soviet Union's intention was to attack Germany, whereas you disagreed with all of them.
A Now.I understand you.
Q Would you like to answer the question?
A Yes, I can give an explanation. First of all, it is not certain what position Field Marshal Keitel took in the spring of 1941 with regard to this question.
Secondly, the Commander in Chief of the Navy and the Commander in Chief of the Air Forces--with the respect to both of these gentlemen--saw the total picture and problem only from the point of view of naval or air strategy. And they saw no danger whatsoever on the part of the Russian Navy or the Russia Air Force. Whatever was taking place on land, of course, was of minor interest to them. In that way it can be explained why that position was taken by the Luftwaffe and by the Navy,The Army, in this case, was more inclined to see and evaluate the tremendous danger with which it was confronted. expressly and urgently about this experiment, which should have been undertaken only if there was no other way out. I do not wish to overestimate and say that there might not, perhaps, have been a political possibility which was not exhaus ed; I cannot judge. that you characterize the breaking of the treaty and the attack on the Soviet Union with the word "experiment". That satisfies me particularly.
THE PRESIDENT: I think you should, not make comments of that sort. You must ask questions and not make comments.
COLONEL POKROVSKY: My remark, My Lord, is in connection with my next question. BY COLONEL POKROVSKY:
Q Witness, please look at Exhibit PS 865. Do you have the exhibit before you?
Q Very well. In reply to the questions of your defense counsel, you stated that Reichminister Lammers, by pure accident, told you that Rosenberg collaborated. In your hands, there is a very brief document which I shall now read from orally, a document signed by Keitel. It consists of a secret letter of the 22nd of April, 1941, addressed to Rosenberg. It is written by hand and states as follows:
"The Chief of the Bureau sent me a copy of the Fuehrer's decree which appoints you as his plenipotentiary on the questions of Eastern European problems. The supreme Command of the armed forces designates you to inform the chief of the questions that develop under you, and in his absence, or whenever he is away, to General Warlimont. Kindly confer only with these two persons."
What will you say in response to this exhibit? I will ask you now whether you remember that Rosenberg, you and Warlimont as your chief deputy were appointed by the OKW as early as in April, 1941 to work on the practical plan connected with Hitler's expansion in the East? Did you understand that whole question?
A Yes, I understood it. I already told the Court yesterday everything that can be said in connection with this matter, formally. Reich Minister Lammers sent the same circular to all Reich ministries. He asked every minister to designate a plenipotentiary and a deputy; and thereupon Field Marshal Keitel naturallydesignated those two officers who were at headquarters. I never worked together with Rosenberg. It was not necessary at all. I had one single conference with him. I mentioned this conference yesterday as well. My propaganda section conferred with the Eastern Ministry about leaflets, and these are, of course, matters which any soldier can understand.
were concerned only with military questions of operational nature, and not with political questions. Have I understood you correctly?
A I made that explanation yesterday as well. The policy may be a completely military matter, but to a certain political questions were involved. There was a fusion to a certain degree, for without politics there could be no strategy. It is an essential part of a strategy. But since I was not a strategist, but only ageneral staff officer, for that matter, I was not concerned with this matter directly.
Q You were not concerned with these questions? Very well. Now, please look at Exhibit U.S.S.R. 477. I would like you to tell the Tribunal whether you find your own signature on the last page of that exhibit.
A Yes, indeed; I see my signature. Plan Barbarossa? question is posed very directly as to the annihilation of the U.S.S.R. as a sovereign power? Did you consider that as purely a military question? You officers of the General Staff were not concerned with political questions? directive. Perhaps the words in German are somewhat different, but the sum is exactly the one I stated. Will you look particularly at Point "d" of the directive ?
Q I want to read a sentence:
"At the present time, it is still too early to wage propaganda dealing with the dismemberment of the Soviet Union as a sovereign power." graph, it says:
"Nevertheless, we should avoid such terms as 'Russia', 'Russians', 'Russian Armed Forces', and 'people of the Soviet Union', 'Red Army', etc."
Have you found the place?
the question at all?
A Why certainly I wish to answer the question. As may be seen from the heading in this directive we are concerned with the handling of propaganda; and we are orphans in propaganda compared to the British and the Soviet Union. But that propaganda is something quite justifiable and is not limited by any regulations of international law. You are perhaps quite familiar with that. At one time, in Gene va, there was a debate about this, and it was rejected that any limitation of propaganda was to be considered compulsory under international law. ganda is concerned, I can add or omit whatever I wish, for, as far as the code of law is concerned, there is nothing that applies to it. But perhaps you do not know that. the superior, and thi s was taking place in that case. I am very well acquainted with propaganda, for I studied it for five years. And I studied your propaganda as well, and as far as you are concerned, they are entirely different propaganda directives.
Q You preferred not to answer my question directly. That satisfies me, too, because I have understood your position on the subject. What connection did the Ministry of foreign Affairs have with relation to the issuance of this directive? Did anyone collaborate with you in preparing it, or were you and your Fuehrer solely responsible?
A I quite understood you. My propaganda division worked in Berlin. In detail, it worked with Minister Rosenberg, as well as with the Propaganda Ministry, and the facts as they applied in each I cannot tell you. But General von Wedel, the chief of this division, can give you the details. I know only that this arose in agreement with the ministry of Rosenberg. But we did not follow our own way, but rather worked in line with the competent civilian authorities. But it is only propaganda is a spiritual weapon. present time, and whether you are responsible for determining the nature of the propaganda as well as its activity.
But I merely want to knew this; Do you, then, presume that this directive was issued after it had been harmonized, more or less, with the work of other bureaus and other government agencies, particularly that of Rosenberg?
Q Very well. Now, let us go on to the second group of questions, namely, Would you argue the fact that the document concerned withthe conference in Hitler's headquarters on the 22nd of March, 1941, regarding Yugoslavia -- do you remember that? which describes the leadership and the responsibility of invading Yugoslavia -there are two documents, the second dated the 28th of March -- would you then argue or deny the fact that these documents were issued by the general headquarters of the OKW?
Please look at Exhibit 1746 PS. It might help you to remember the events of those two days, the 22nd and the 28th of March 1941, regarding Yugoslavia and plans for Yugoslavia.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Pokrovsky, you are not losign sight of the fact that this subject was fully gone into by Mr. Roberts in his cross examination of the defendant?
COLONEL POKROVSKY: If you think, My Lord, that the question has already been completely clarified, I will not ask this question. But it seems to me that I am interested in an entirely different phase of the same question. But if you do not think so, I will not ask it.
THE PRESIDENT: I do not know yet. I was only pointing out to you that it had been fullygone into by Mr. Roberts. I do not know what this document you are suggesting is.
COLONEL POKROVSKY: I offered for the attention of the defendant two documents dealing with plans for Yugoslavia, documents dated the 22nd of March and the 28th of March. If you think that this was fully covered already, I will not ask the questions. But I do have something that I want to be clarified further.
THE PRESIDENT: All the Tribunal wants to know is whether some really fresh point is being brought out. You must have heard Mr. Roberts' cross examination of the defendant upon the Yugoslavian attack, and I do not know what these documents of the 22nd of March and the 28th of March are, or what you are seeking to get out of them. If this is anything that is really fresh or new, then, of course, you may put it; but if it is not, then it is covered by what the Tribunal has already said, that cross examinations ought not to go over the same ground.
COLONEL POKROVSKY: If you will permit me to say, my Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: I am asking you to.
COLONEL POKROVSKY: I have not heard Jodl's testimony in reply to Mr. Roberts, only as follows: In other words, I have not really understood by that testimony just who exactly was in charge of the directing of plans against Yugoslavia. Now if the Tribunal still thinks that question is not pertinent I shall not ask it, but it has not been clear to me from Jodl's testimony when in a reply to Mr. Roberts.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Colonel Pokrovsky, the Tribunal is not able to see what there is fresh in this method of questioning that you are now raising, and unless you insist upon it, or you think it is of great importance, we believe you should pass into the next matter in your cross examination.
COLONEL POKROVSKY: Very well. I shall continue, My Lord. BY COLONEL POKROVSKY:
Q The defense counsel submitted to the Tribunal Exhibit L-172. There occurred there the following sentence, which was prounounced by you in your speech to the Gauleiters on 7 November 1943. I shall read this sentence out loud, quoting: "The problem of insufficient personnel has brought us to the plans of utilizing fully the population reserve of the occupied territory."
Q I can repeat. The defense counsel submitted to the Tribunal Exhibit L-172. It says in the speech which you gave before the Gauleiters -
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like your attention.
DR. EXNER : I have not heard the finished quotation, My Lord, that is, Mr. President, the translation is such that we simply cannot understand it. When we receive a sentence it makes no sense at all, that is so far as our opinion is concerned, and I believe the defendant has the same trouble as well.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant decidedly has been able to understand the translation, as he never protested, and he answered the questions.
DR. EXNER: The defendant cannot understand.
THE WITNESS: I should like to say that even though I have to answer the question, I cannot answer with assurance. I have to guess in most cases.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Pokrovsky, will you go a little bit slower.
You heard, did you not, what Dr. Exner said?
COLONEL POKROVSKY: Yes, I heard him. I am afraid, however, my Lord, that the tempo of my questions were hardly as such in this interrogation. However, I shall try to go slower. BY COLONEL POKROVSKY: there was cited amongst other thoughts also the following,quoting: "That problem of insufficient personnel has brought us to the plan --"
THE PRESIDENT: Will you simply indicate for us what page this is on. In our book we have not had any single document in English, as yet. This document we have not had in English.
COLONEL POKROVSKY: It is L-172, my Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Pokrovsky, this very passage you just read, or part of which you just read, was submitted by Mr. Roberts yesterday to the defendant. Surely that is contrary to our rules here that we cannot have the same subject gone over twice. We already got it marked.
COLONEL POKROVSKY: I am reading this sentence, my Lord, not as a question but merely as an introductory remark to the question which is to follow the sentence which is in several parts, and the question which is to follow is merely reminding him of the sentence; that sentence in itself is not a question,
THE PRESIDENT: What is the question?
COLONEL POKROVSKY: As soon as the defendant has the exhibit, I shall ask the question.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Pokrovsky, we want to know what is the question, so we may see if it was a question which had been gone into by Mr. Roberts. Colonel Pokrovsky, the Tribunal has indicated to you that they do not want to go over the same grounds which was gone into yesterday. If you have some new question, by all means present it.
COLONEL POKROVSKY: I have no intentions, my Lord, of any questions which I have to ask today of repeating a previous question of Mr. Roberts' and I am now questioning with what I shall now proceed, and shall request the defendant to look at Exhibit USR 130. All right, my Lord?
THE PRESIDENT: Go on.
BY COLONEL POKROVSKY: the consent of the OKW from a document dealing with the introduction of compulsory military service in the occupied territory. Have you found the place? Please show the defendant the exact thought. Have you found the sentence that I have just read, a decree dealing with the introduction of compulsory military service in the occupied region?
Q It begins with the following sentence: "With the consent of the OKW." Do you see that, defendant? know such facts as the conscription of the Yugoslav population of the occupied territory into the German Army. What do you have to say about that decree? Is it a crude violation of the International Law? Do you understand my question?
A Yes. I can say only that I see it there for the first time. I am just seeing it for the first time. After all I am not an OKW. I am just a member of the Operational Staff. In other words, I never read this document during the war. violation of the International Law? and I am not in a position to do that, and I believe it is without interest to the High Tribunal. Agreement -- or it was at the Geneva Convention, and that you never had the document in your possession, but now you look at one other document which was submitted to the Tribunal on 20 March, which is submitted here as USA 676-678, in March, is the number submitted.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, "38" is the way it ends up here.
COLONEL POKROVSKY: Yes, I am sorry, my Lord, it is 638 PS.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Pokrovsky, the document that you just handed up to us is "J-6". Are you offering that in evidence. Are you offering that?
COLONEL POKROVSKY: No, I am not offering any new document. This document had already been submitted.
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute. Are you referring to Document No.638-PS, or are you referring to Document No. J-6?
COLONEL POKROVSKY: I am referring to No. 638-PS.
THE PRESIDENT: It was not referring to document J-6. The document which is before 638 here, it is the Yugoslav document.
COLONEL POKROVSKY: There are two documents which you are referring to, My Lord, it has two numbers, USR 130, and at the same time is J-6. The second document to which I am referring also has two numbers.
THE PRESIDENT: I only want to know if you are offering the first document in evidence, or has it already been offered in evidence.
COLONEL POKROVSKY: It is already submitted, my Lord. BY COLONELPOKROVSKY: to read the document. Have you read it?
Q Very well. I want to remind you that twice Goering assorted, or rather confirmed the fact that the document was original, and I am merely questioning the exactness of one or two sentences. Now I would like to ask you, how do you explain the fact that the German High Command equipped and clothed in German military uniform persons who were looting, who raped, plundered, and conducted operations in a way that characterized criminals. How do you explain such commission to do such things? How did you coordinate the means to do such things by the OKW with your understanding of International Law? Do you remember the testimony given here previously about special brigades which were organized for such purposes?
A. I do not know just wherefrom you know that the High command gave its approval and that this actually took places.
Tha t is something beyond my knowledge. This is only the notes of alloyed statements by the Reichsmarshal, but I do not know how it should concern me.
Q. I will try to help you to remember and establish this fact in your memory. Do you remember that there was a special brigade, at the end of 1941 and the beginning of 1942, which operated against the Partisans or guerillas? The first commanding officer of that unit was Bach-Zeleweski. But you testified about him on the 7th of January 1946. Do you remember?
A. No, I don't remember that.
Q. Very well. In that case, I will have to show you the testimony or deal with it without any help from you. Do you remember that fact that various units of the Jugoslav Army were special uniforms, that their divisions had regimental numbers? Do you remember that there were such units? Do you understand the question?
A. I approximately understood the question. You perhaps mean the Regiment Frankfort. That is a concept and means something to me.
Q. No, I mean something else. I am sorry. I simply want to remind you that in spite of the fact that units of the Jugoslav Army did not fulfill the qualifications of that to which you refer as special bands, nevertheless, these various units of the Jugoslav Army, although they were uniforms and had regimental numbers, nevertheless, they were called bandits and special bands were organized to deal with them. We have correspondence between various members of the German High Command which mentions the exact regimental and divisional numbers of these various Jugoslav units; that they know that these were parts of the regular army and yet they applied special bands and special measures to deal with them, which violated all ideas of International Law.
Have you under-
stood me now?
A. I understand you very well.
Q. Would you like to reply anything to that?
A. Yes. I can only say this assertion of yours is untrue, and -
Q. I would like you to reply briefly, please.
A. Yes, I shall be very brief. These Jugoslav bandits, we characterized them as partisans for propaganda reasons, but in practice uniformed fighters always were treated as prisoners of war; and there is no order which would have prevented them from such treatment as prisoners of war. Otherwise, we wouldn't have had so many prisoners.
Q. I am grateful for you having touched upon the question of prisoners of war. You have testified on oath here that there was no such decree as not to take prisoners of war. Do you remember that testimony of your own?
A. No, there are no International Law regulations which apply to a rebellion. There is no such thing.
Q. No, I am merely asking you to confirm the accuracy of your testimony the other day when you stated that there was no such decree as not to take prisoners of war. Did you give such testimony bore in Court a few days age?
A. That was not my verbatim testimony -
Q. Just a minute. We will talk about this in detail a little later. First I merely want to ask you whether you remember your testimony, given here on oath a few days ago, that there was no such decree issued by the German Army as not to take prisoners of war? I want to know, do you remember having given such testimony here? Have you understood me?
A. I do believe that I remember. I do not know of any directive or any such order that there were not to be taken any prisoners of war; I do not remember that.
Q. V ery well. One other thing I would like you to clarify. This document has the following sentence of yours, that you con sidered it improper to question prisoners of war once the decision was made that the prisoner of war be shot; after that decision was made, you do not think he should be questioned, is that correct?