I am quoting from this telegram.
A. Yes, I testified to the effect that I rejected that sentence from the moral and from the humane point of view.
Q. Very well. now I would like you to answer whether You remember that there were four mountain divisions in the German Army and that there was such a division called the Fourth Alpine Division?
remember.
Q I am not talking about four different divisons. I'm afraid you have an incorrect translation. I am asking you whether you remember that there was a division called Fourth Mountain or Fourth Alpine Division? Well, it doesn't matter. I thought perhaps you night remember that one.
Q Very well. In that case, you may also remember that there was a responsible officer of the German Army by the name of Kuebler. He operated in Jugoslavia.
A Yes. There were two men by the name of Kuebler, an older man and a younger man.
Q General Kuebler is the man I am interested in. I am not asking you who was Keitel. I know that. However, now we will proceed to the two documents.
THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now for a few minutes.
(A recess was taken.) BY COLONEL POKROVSKY:
Q How we will deal with these two documents, Defendant Jodl. I will ask you to take up USSR Exhibit 132. This is a directive to a division of destroyers. attack. Paragraph 2, Prisoners: "He who has openly participated in the struggle against the Armed Forces of Germany and has been takenprisoner must be shot after questioning." Is that worded in those terms? Do you hear me? without the whole document, nothing can be gathered from that one sentence. What is decisive is what comes before it, and that isn't stated in the document.
Q Above you read: Directive for the Conduct of Troops During Attack. How another document. It bears the markings of the Fourth Alpine Regiment and is dated October, 1943. It contains the personal directive of Keitel regarding the treatment of prisoners. I will ask you to consider Point 3. It says, in the second part of this paragraph: "The Command who are above the rank of divisional commanders can issue permits to take pr isoners." That is tosay, the prisoners and the civilian population in this combat area can be shot.
THE PRESIDENT: Apparently the translation is not coming through correctly. Perhaps you are going too fast. It is coning through correctly to me, but it apparently was not coming through correctly to the defendants. Would you put your question again? BY COLONEL POKROVSKY: Alpine -
THE PRESIDENT: Did you give us the number of it?
COLONEL POKROVSKY: Yes, My Lord. It is USSR Exhibit 470, and it has the second number 127. BY COLONEL POKROVSKY:
Q Have you found subparagraph 3, defendant Jodl? is not a document.
A But it is not an original. It is a fantastic example of translation. This would have gone straight into the wastepaper basket, but I admit that it may be due to the foolish translation that it looks like this. In my opinion, all it contains is nonsense. The heading says Fourth Alpine Regiment, and it is a Roman four. It should be an Arabic number. There has never been such a word. It says the commando troops of the Alpine Division, IV. All that is nonsense. Pure, unadulterated nonsense. This is not a document. It is a scrap of paper.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to see the original of these documents. They were put in, apparently, as USSR 132 and USSR 470. Is USSR 470 a new document?
COLONEL POKROVSKY: No, My Lord, this document was previously submitted, and the original document is in the record. I am onlynow showing a copy of the translation, but both documents were previously submitted. If you consider it necessary, we can submit the original documents a second time.
THE PRESIDENT: One of the Secretaries to the Tribunal says that it was not submitted before, not offered in evidence before, USSR 470. Are you sure?
COLONEL POKROVSKY: There may be a technical error, but I was told that it had already been submitted. I will definitely look into this matter.
My Lord, the second document is the original; your second document is in the original, I believe.
THE WITNESS: I can contribute something to clarify this.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Pokrovsky, the Tribunal is uncertain about the admission of this document. Could you tell us exactly what the document is, and in which circumstances it is now being offered in evidence? What the document is, and where it came from?
COLONEL POKROVSKY: I can give a quite definite answer to the last question, My Lord, but perhaps I will have to answer the first part of your question somewhat later, as we are investigating the question.
Below the document there is an affidavit which states that:
"This certifies that this is a correct copy of an original document which was captured during military operations in June 1944 at Pokrazzi by the Jugoslav People's Army of Liberation. The original document is being kept in the archives of the State Commission for the Investigation of the Crimes of the Occupiers in Belgrade, and it is dated 4 January 1946, Belgrade," and it is signed by the President of the State Commission, Professor Nedelkowitsch. this document and what date it was submitted, and if the document has not yet been submitted, then we will request an original copy or photostatic copy of the original document, and we will then submit it in evidence. I believe that that would be acceptable to the Tribunal. therefore it is being submitted for the first time, and the original document will be sent for immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Pokrovsky, with reference, for the moment, to Document USSR-132, which I understand has already been offered in evidence, the Tribunal would like to see the original of that document because there are only two paragraphs put out in the copy that we have before us, and that was the point that was taken by the defendant Jodl, that he wanted to see the whole document. the Tribunal understands has already been offered in evidence, the Tribunal thinks that that document in full should be put before the defendant for him to make any comments. With reference to Document 470, which you are now offering in evidence, the Tribunal is of the opinion that you should go on cross examining with reference to that document, subject to the production, a soon as possible, of the original or photostatic copy of the original, and subject to the right of the defendant's counsel to apply to have that cross examination struck out if there is any substantial difference between the translation in the Yugoslav language, which is now being used for the purpose of cross examination of the defendant, and the original document.
Is that clear to you and to Dr. Exner?
COLONEL POKROVSKY: I have understand, my Lord. It will be done.
DR. EXNER: Mr. President, I think that a discussion of this document ought not to be permitted at the moment. There are too many deficiencies in it. It couldn't be right in this fashion.
Roman numeral IV, for instance, the "IVth Alpine Regiment", is referred to. That Roman numeral IV is quite wrong.
Then there is "the commanders", which isn't German, "The commanders delivered", it says, or "informed". Then, on line 4 there is mention -
THE PRESIDENT (Interposing): Dr. Exner, the Tribunal wants 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 geniune document because it isn't proper German. For instance, in the fourth line it says, "Department Army Command Staff, OBH" and the command staff is attached to the OKW, not the OKH.
Then, there is the lack of a signature. It does have the signature "Keitel" on the first page, but he is signed as a Colonel General, incidentally, and he was General Field Marshal at that time. "The OKW is supplying the following information". Then there is the quotation, and Keitel's signature is a part of that, whereas the document itself is supposed to originate from the Fourth Alpine Regiment and there is no signature originally from them.
I really don't think that it would be sensible to talk 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 such and such companies. They aren't commanders, these company commanders. That is the wrong word. No German military person could have written this document.
COLONEL POKROVSKY: But I would like to record -
THE PRESIDENT (Interposing): Dr. Exner, the Tribunal adheres to its 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 opened to you if you wish to move to have the cross examination struck out at a later stage when the original has been produced.
DR. EXNER: I understand.
THE PRESIDENT: For the purposes of not wasting time, it is, the Tribunal thinks, more convenient to have the cross examination upon this document now. 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 132 which the defendant ought to have for the purpose of making any comments that he wishes to make.
COLONEL POKROVSKY: The directives of the Tribunal will be followed, my Lord. We will submit the original. BY COLONEL POKROVSKY:
Q Have you acquainted yourself with the contents of the document?
Q You do not doubt at all the authenticity of the document?
A No, that is quite genuine. There is no doubt as to the 118th Fusilier Division, but what is a puzzle to me is the connection between the 118th Fusilier Division and myself. That is the part I don't understand.
Q Very well. Well, maybe you will see that the question is not a foolish one, but is relevant. Do you want to add anything to your comments?
A I haven't understood you.
THE PRESIDENT: Defendant, when you were asked about Paragraph 2 of Document USSR 132, you said that the whole document wasn't contained before-you you. Now you have the whole document.
THE WITNESS: I have it, yes. The entire order from Kuebler is perfectly in order in my opinion. Apparently the doubts which the prosecute: has refer to Point 2, where it says, "...who has obviously participated in the fight against the German armed forces is to be shot after interrogation." That, of course, doesn't refer to normal troops. That is with reference to the population. At least, that is how I see it.
Paragraph 8 says, "The attitude towards the population..." and so on. That seems to be in order from the point of view of international law. It draws the dividing line between enemy or hostile populations and the attitude towards peaceful populations. BY COLONEL POKROVSKY:
Q Is that all you have to say?
A Yes, but as I said, what I don't understand is the connection between Kuebler's order and myself. been separated and dealt with in Paragraph 8, in a separate paragraph? Is that right? You have just referred to that.
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute.
THE WETNESS: With the permission of the Tribunal -
THE PRESIDENT: One moment. Defendant, are you suggesting that there is anything in the order itself which indicates that the prisoners dealt with in Paragraph 2 are not, as you have put it, normal troops?
THE WITNESS: In that respect, the paragraph isn't very clear, but the next document which the prosecutor has submitted might give the proof regarding what other orders have been published. have given an order saying that captured Yugoslav troops should be shot. Had he done so, then he would have done so by the command of the Supreme Command of the German Army. But how can I give my views on an order from Major General Kuebler?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, your answer to my question, then, is in the negative, that there is nothing in the order itself which indicates that the prisoners referred to in paragraph 2 are not normal troops.
THE WITNESS: That cannot be derived from the wording of that order.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps I ought to draw your attention under the words "General Directives," to the words "for the conduct of troops in action."
THE WITNESS: May I please have permission to look at the original again? Because I have only a copy here before me.
(A document was submitted to the witness).
THE PRESIDENT: You now have the original document before you. Do you want to add anything to what you have said?
THE WITNESS: I just wanted to add that if you do concern yourselves with this order of Major General Kuebler, it isn't by any means certain whether this order refers to any particular action favoring the cleaning out, in any particular territory, of guerillas who weren't regarded as regular troops at that particular moment, but were regarded as part of the population. That is feasible. At any rate, I cannot answer any of those questions because I am not Major General Kuebler.
THE PRESIDENT: Y ou may now pass on to 470.
THE WITNESS: May I ask the Tribunal for permission to rectify my correction to this document?
THE PRESIDENT: Which document are you speaking of?
THE WITNESS: USSR470.
THE PRESIDENT: What do you want to say about it?
THE WITNESS: I had 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 Croatiam order, because it is addressed to three Croatian battalions. That Croatian order contains a statement by the commander of that regiment in which he related to his troops something which he had received in the way of orders from the 4th German Alpine 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 have been handed in by the defense counsel for Field Marshal Keitel because it is a wonderful statement of the international law attitude toward such guerillas; that is, if it is correct.
However, it is not a German order; it is apparently a draft or a translation of a Croatian 4th Alpine Regiment order. The 4th Alpine Regiment could not have had anything to do with the defendant Jodl either. That, again, I do not understand.
THE PRESIDENT: Go on, Colonel Pokrovsky. BY COLONEL POKROVSKY: of Keitel's stating that the divisional commanders or other senior commanders were entitled to order that nobody should be taken prisoner. Do you have knowledge of such a directive?
A No; it isn't known to me, and it isn't certain that the order was published in that way. However, in certain cases it is permissible under international law.
Q Very well. I have no further questions to put regarding these documents.
Perhaps the defense counsel will put some questions when the original document is brought before the Tribunal. I will pass on to another group of questions. notes for "Plan Gruen," where we read of the organization for the creation of an incident before the invasion of Czechoslovakia.
It isstated quite clearly that the creation of this incident was to be entrusted to the Abwehr.
Do I rightfully interpret your notes?
A No. The way I got it from the interpreters it is quite distorted. But there has been task about that too in detail. simplify the question. with this incident and the organization of this incident. This is the document of the defense, Jodl 14.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't think that can have come through property.
THE WITNESS: It didn't make any sense to me at all. BY COLONEL POKROVSKY: of the document Jodl 14? certainly a genuine document which I wrote myself. tion of an incident had two objects in view; First, to give a pretext for an attack against Czechoslovakia; and secondly, -- if we use your own terminology, which we heard here on the 4th of June, then the second object was to put the guilt of the war on someone else's shoulders. Were these the two objects which you had in view?
Do you understand my question?
Q And can you give me an answer?
Q You confirm the answer you gave yesterday?
A My testimony of yesterday? Yes, of course. I still maintain today something which I said yesterday.
Q Very well. I would like you to tell the Tribunal everything that you know about the supplying of weapons for the Sudeten German Henlein Corps, which you mentioned briefly here. You stated that this Corps had a certain number of officers.
testimony of Karl Kermann Frank. In this testimony he states that the Henlein Corps received a certain amount of weapons. Do you know anything about this? at the moment when it was being formed on German territory. When arms had been previously sent into Czechoslovakia for that Sudeten German group, whether they were smuggled in, or how they were brought in, is something which I know nothing about because the Armed Forces were never in any way concerned with that, just as later on they werenever concerned with the Henlein Free Corps.
Q Do you knew what sort of weapons were sent? Were they of German origin? I know absolutely nothing about. I was not an armament smuggler; I was a General Staff officer.
Q That is why I am asking you about this. You said thatyou had information concerning the arming of the Henlein Free Corps when it arrived on German territory, and that is why I asked you, as an officer of the General Staff, whether these weapons were of German origin or not. You ought to know that.
A Henlein's Free Corps, which was composed, near Hof, on the 13th of September, had, in my opinion, Austrian or former Austrian, or even German arms; I think they were Austrian weapons, but I cannot tell you that for certain.
Q Very well. Let us omit it. We need only quite defini answers. you will look at the paragraph which is marked, which reads as follows:
"For the success of that operation, the penetration of Sudeten Germans by paratroopers will be of value. questioned regarding this part of the document, said that this information could be given by you.
Now, what can you tell the Tribunal about this document? preparation for a possible war was definite, and that there was a paragraph saying that fortifications would have to be penetrated quickly, or it was going to have to be opened up from the rear, as also that for the success of these two operations, air-borne troops night have to rely on the cooperation of the Sudeten German popula tion, since it was natural, considering the facts, that of the approximately 100,000 Germans who had been hold up, not one would have turned his weapon on himself, but would have deserted on the spot.
They have written that to me in their personal letters. The Germans would have at once become deserters. That, of course, we reckoned with, and the military calculations tool it into account. wish to understand the question which I put to you. I am interest simply in knowing, Defendant Jodl, whether before the attack on Czechoslovakia you planned diversionary acts on Czechoslovakia. I am interested in that. Will you answer no yes or no? at all; that is an historical untruth. Secondly, this was General Staff work, which was prepared for the possibility of a 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 on Czechoslovakia. Did you plan that? Can you answer that?
THE WITNESS: No, I did not. I did not. You will have to ask Admiral Canaris about that. Such matters were not in my jurisdiction. BY COLONEL POKROVSKY: us to question Canaris. Very well. I have another question to put to you. Do you know anything about the unification of all profascist forces and armed bands struggling against the states of the democratic block that was carried out in Yugoslavia? Or do you know nothing about that? That is known to me, yes.
Q 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 Michailovitch and others, with the aid of German money and German aid under the leadership of the German High Command Do you know anything about that, or do you not? in this respect. They were under Italian command. There was quite a row between us and Italy about that. But the other pro-fascist organizations are known to me.
Q Very well. You will then see Document U.S.S.R. Exhibit 288. The Tribunal has already seen this document. It is the testimony of Neditsch. Two or three sentences from this document have a direct connection with questions that I shall now put to you. aid of those who financed his band. He named the representatives of the German High Command and of the Gestapo who helped him in creating the armed forces.
Have you found that?
A That is right. Neditch formed a few armed troops. He had a foreign unit, too. Perhaps it amounted to 5,000 or 6,000 men. They were Italians.
Q Did you finance this undertaking?
A No. I had no money.
Q No; I am not speaking of your personal means, but the means of the German Reich.
A That I cannot tell you. I never bothered about that. of these bands, did it not?
A I did not organize it, no. That was discussed between the supreme commander and Neditsch. It was a private authority with Neditsch, whether he issued the call to people to fight or not
Q I do not know whether it was his private business. But it is very important to me that you should confirm that those bands, existed, and as to how they were created.
A Yes; I think I can confirm that. There were about 5,000 or 6,000 people.
Q Very well. You will be shown another document referred to the same group. It is an official report of the Polish government to the Nurnberg Tribunal. I will ask you to look at that document under "B". It says, "Selected and recruited among you, and this time to cooperate with the German population, there existed a group of leaders and officers, consisting of officers who came to Poland with passports, long before the beginning of hostile rela tions."
You, as direct leader of "Abwehr", for this "Abwehr's" support made to you -- did you know anything about the organization of this fifth column in Poland? Pokrovsky. First of all, counter-intelligence was not responsible to me, rather to the Chief of the OKW; and secondly, I stated at length yesterday that as far as the entire preparations for the Polish campaign were concerned, I was not a participant in any way operationally speaking or otherwise.
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.
Q. Very well. Then we will pass on to the next group of questions. You were examined on the 8th of November by the Soviet prosecution, and a question was put to you: "Did Germany pursue its fascist views while attacking the Soviet Union?"
A. I remember very well, yes.
Q. You will be handed a copy of your answer: "I have to admit that the question of the expansion of Germany and the utilization of Russian economy serving the needs of Germany plays some pa rt. But it was not the reason for the attack on the Soviet Union".
Do you remember having given such an answer?
A. It is possible. I did not sign it. At any rate, it was not the chief cause.
A. You also said, "We do not intend constantly to enlarge our Lebensraum and thereby acquire enemies". Do you remember that?
A. Yes, I do.
A. Very well. Maybe you will now recall that the witness Ohlendorf here in this Court Doom testified that before the beginning of the agression against the Soviet Union, Himmler in his speech drafted a pogrom of extermination in the East of 10,000,000 slavs and Jews.
A. I recollect having heard that testimony in this Court Room, yes.
Q. As a result of that testimony of Ohlendorf, would you not like to give us your position, or to add something to your answer, whether Germany had as its goal the extermination of Jews in the Soviet Union, or to exterminate the Russian nation, or to free the territory and turn it into a " Garden of Eden", as Hitler said? Dod you think that was so?
A. That night be something that the Fuehrer might have intended for later on, but I do not know.
The military circle s had other reasons which he mentioned before us, and which were clearly proved, as I explained yesterday in great detail. The main reason was the remoning of a tremendous pressure on Germany from Russia.
Q. Very well. You will be handed now a document, S.57, which has already been submitted to the Tribunal. One the evening of the 5th of April 1946, this document was shown to defendant Keitel as USSR exhibit 336. I will request you to turn to sub-paragraph 4 of this document and Point 7 of the document, for Keitel stated that more detailed explanations concerning the circumstances could be given by you. We board of the active participation of Spain in the seizure of Gibraltar as early as 1941. What was the active participation of Spain in the seizure of Gibraltar to be, exactly? Have you found this part of the document?
A. I already know the document. I have it here. But nobody has signed it. with this document and say what it is, so that it is not mistaken for an order.
Q. But I do not think I said that it was an order.
A. That is all right, because it is not an order. I cannot say what the people who proposed this document might have thought, but I made a draft with General Staff officers, presumably, from my department, together with the operational expert of the Navy attached to my office. They supported it, and it then come into the Navy Command Staff for their perusal. The principle feeling there was that the German Staff officers must plan ahead, which was the reason why they had such private thoughts of their own which they had to put down on paper.
THE PRESIDENT: What was your question, Dr. Pokrovsky? It was whether the draft did not -
COLONEL PORKROVSKY: No, I did not get an answer to the question.
I asked him what he can say about the actual part which Spain was to play in the seizure of Gibralter in 1941.
THE WITNESS: I cannot make a statement on what people thought. I can only talk about something in connection with Spain which took place in 1940. That I can talk about, but as far as this paper is concerned, I can say nothing about it .
I passed it off long ago as impossible. Only in Nurnberg diddI see this document, and not before.
BY COLONEL POKROVSKY:
Q. But whether that plan was not to be fulfilled is another question. Defendant Keitel said that you could give an explanation; you say that you cannot give an explanation.
A. As I have jus t said, I saw this document in this room for the first time. At that time, nobody shaved it to me, because it came about later that the situation was changing.
Q. You also did not know anything about the proposed Sending of an expeditionary force to Egypt, Iran, and Iraq, if the Soviet Union had fallen; you did not know anything about that either, did you?
A Such a serious though never arose. In fact, I had the biggest laugh of my life with the Fuehrer when someone mentioned the attack against the Caucasus and Baku. But the General Staff officers played up the initial optimism of our large victories. I rust confess that that was their information. They can have ideas if they want. But something which is decided on is later carried out by older and were tired staff officers.
Q. Do you confirm that the success of the Rod Army upset those far-reaching plans of Hitler and Germany toward Iraq, Syria, and Egypt? Is that right?
A. If the Soviet Union had collapsed, then one might have sickened at the idea of the continuation of the war. But he never discussed the question of an attack on Turkey, because they would have come over on our side anyway.
Q. And how do you know that?
A. How do I know it? That is contained in documents and entries of the diaries of the Command Staff which put the problem very clearly. It says that Turkey would come over to our side, anyway. It was therefore ordered that it should have friendly treatment, for supplies, armored vehicles, ammunitkon and so forth. There were suggestions on their part, and they received excellent thanks for what they did. And the Fuehrer would never have done that if he had expected Turkey to join our opponents.
Q. Wel will pass on to another group of questions. On the eve of the campaign against Russia, a conference was held between the representatives of the OKW, the OKH, and the socalled RSHA, and the participation of the SIPO was taken into consideration and discussed.
Do you know anything about this? This was testified to by Witness Ohlendorf, on Page 1,972.
A. I know nothing about that. I was working on quite difference matters, and I have never had any conferences or connections with the RSHA at all.