Q Are you acquainted with Wilhelm Scheidt?
Q Who was working with General Scherf? General Scherf. in court, and which is on page 2307 of the English telegraphic record, in which is mentioned the criminal activity of the punitive expedition against the Soviet population was known to the officers of the operational division of the general staff. Do you remember that?
A I do not know from the words that he used. I cannot remember that. There were no criminal matters of that nature before the command staff or myself. We were fighting against them, and I made that abundantly clear here. criminal punitive expedition against the civilian population. Do you mean to say you knew nothing about it? was quite clear, as I got instructions from the Army command. Zelewski testified that the aim of this struggle against the Partisans was the extermination of the Slavs and the Jews, and that the methods of this struggle were known to the High Command. Do you wish to deny this, too?
A That has nothing to do with me. My instructions contained something different. I have already described the intention: of my operational staff, which were quite clear. In comparison with the size between the German and Soviet Armies, the number of guerrillas was negligible. It was in a minute percentage. you personally attended a conference held by Hitler, wherein to stated the German troops were entitled to deal with the Partisans as they wish, and to give them that sort of death in killing by hanging them head downward until death.
Do you remember this? for quite sometime. at length, and more precisely. Will you state whether you said something of that sort, and under what circumstances did you say it?
A I would say continuously. On the 1 December 1942, as t Tribunal will remember, there was an induction, dated 11 November, which came from the Army command, in which I participated in 1944, and that is described as out of date. That at that induction on 11 November, I had written a sentence concerning the burning down of villages as a reprisal would be forbidden, that at once that would end. The grounds for that order remained before the staff for weeks. Continuously we objected to the fact that this induction would limit recruits, in their ruthless combat in fighting against the guerrillas; since at that time even I had already published that instruction, and, since oh the other hand, he had not given his permission yet, I became rather rude, and once more he made his lengthy explanation of his experience in fighting against the commander of that unit. I said "This problem should be dealt with, my Fuehrer; some people were in battle which does not at all compare with this explanation sofar as you are concerned." I said, "You can quarter them or you can hang them up by their ears." If I had known that the Russian gentlemen have so little sense of cynicism, them I would have added to that, "Fry them on the fire." That is what I said. But in this instance we are concerned with reprisals after the battle, and they had been prohibited. Then there were rears of laughter on the part of all the officers present, and the Fuehrer, and he gave me permission to issue that order, and I can say that the testimony of a witness of mine will confirm that to you. Since that essentially Germany was not quartering anybody any more, and they were not hanging people by all their ears, it might possibly be generally known that is why the reporting of that remark to me should be regarded as nothing but finical.
COLONEL POKROVSKY: I shall ask the Tribunal to permit me to ask one more question, and probably not more than one, and to take not more than one minute.
THE PRESIDENT: What did you say?
COLONEL POKROVSKY: I ask permission to put another question, and not to take more than one minute. The last question refers to a group of questions. BY COLONEL POKROVSKY: probably understood the order better than we, that of quartering and hanging with the head downward, and of burning Soviet partisans Did you know of that?
A Not only I did not know it, but I don't even believe it COLONEL POKROVSKY:
With the permission of the Tribunal I shall go to the last group of questions which I shall have to put to the defendant after the recess.
THE PRESIDENT: How much longer will that take Colonel Pokrovsky?
COLONEL POMRIVSKY: I have only a very few questions to put, and I believe it will not take very long.
(A recess was taken until 1400 hours) (The hearing reconvened at 1400 hours 7 June 1946). BY COLONEL POKROVSKI:
Q. You have given rather important testimony some time ago. You have admitted tha t in 1941 the warriors of the Red Army were resisting fanatically the Fascist invaders and that many of them were captured alive only because they frequently lost consciousness from exhaustion, and that it was their exhaustion which explains the reason why the mortality among prisoners of war was very great.
A. That is true and applied to the prisoners in the circle of Vjasta.
Q. Do you remember any other reason known to you for such great mortality among Soviet prisoners of war?
A. Other reasons are not known to me and were not made known to me.
Q. To refresh your memory, I draw to your attention a short excerpt from our document, USSR 353. It is the Rosenberg letter to the Commander of the Armed Forces. It Is dated 28 February 1942. I would like to draw your attention to a few short excerpts. On page 1 there are marked the following sentences: "The fate of the Soviet prisoners of war in Germany is a tragedy on a very large scale. The great majority of then died from hunger or from exposure to bad weather. Thousands died of typhus". Omitting several other sentences, I move over to the next page, citing: "Several sensible commanding officers of various camps--". Then it goes on to state that the population agreed to supply the prisoners of war with food. "However, unfortunately, the civilian population in most cases did not allow any food to be brought to the prisoners of war by the civilian population". Also, in many cases, the prisoners of war who could not march were shot in full view of the civilian pop-ulation and the corpses were left on highways". Further, quoting:
"One could often hear such remarks as these: The more prisoners of war who die, the better it is for us". Citing further, Page 3: "It would be naive to think that the camp conditions could be concealed from the Soviet Government. It is quite clear from notes the the Soviets were fully aware of the conditions described above". Have you found those places, Defendant?
A. Yes, I found them.
Q. If there were reasons such as those, I would like to know whether you were informed about them?
A. No. I heard about this laterrhere in the Court for the first time, but -
Q. I am not asking you about the letter, Defendant Jodl. I am asking you about the reasons for this mass mortality, reasons given in the letter.
THE PRESIDENT: Is the document signed?
COLONEL POKROVSKI: This document, My Lord, has no signature. It was prepared in Rosenburg's bureau. It was originally numbered 081 PS and belongs to the prosecution of the United States of America, who transmitted the document to us. BY COLONEL POKROVSKI:
Q. I have not heard your reply, Defendant?
A. I did not know about the reasons of this mass mortality and they seen to be completely wrong. That I do know. I knew the number of the Soviet prisoners of war and I could refer to those figures from my memory.
Q. Very well. We shall now pass on this question from a different viewpoint. Are you acquainted with the name von Graevenitz?
A. Yes, the name is familiar to me.
Q. Did he work in the OKW?
A. If I am not mistaken, he was in the general Wehrmach office and a subordinate of General Reinecke.
Q. This time you are quite right. Do you know General Oestreich?
A. No, I do not know this general.
Q. You have never heard the name?
A. I do not recall it, no.
Q. The General was Chief over the section in charge of the prisoners of war in one of your military districts. You night remember, perhaps, the testimony of this General with regard to the directive which you received from von Graevenitz about the Soviet prisoners of war. You will now be shown Exhibit USSR 151. Page 5 of the German text has the place, Defendant, to which I would like to draw your attention: "At the end of 1941 or at the beginning of 1942 I was called to Berlin to be present at the staff meeting of section chiefs in charge of prisoners of war-affairs-in the military districts. The staff meeting was presided over by the new Bureau Chief, Major General von Graevenitz. The following question was discussed: What should be done with regard to those Soviet prisoners of war who, as the result of wounds, exhaustion or sickness, were not fit to be used as laborers. After prompting by General von Graevenitz, many officers present, among them medical officers, took the position on this problem that those prisoners of war should be concentrated in camps or hospitals and poisoned there. After this discussion, General von Graevenitz issued the following directive: 'Those Soviet prisoners of war who are not fit to be used as a labor force must be put to death. The medical officers of camps should be used to put them to death'". Do you know anything about that?
It had nothing to do with me whatsoever. I do not know whether it is true, but General von Graevenitz certainly must know about this. I had no connection whatsoever with prisoners of war. That was another office, and General Reinecke concerned himself with this matter.
Q Graevenitz holds himself responsible for his testimony. He was not only a practical man in charge of these actions; he both directed them and put them into effect, but you tell me you know nothing about them?
A Not at all. General von Graevenitz was not a subordinate of mine. I had no conferences of any sort with him. I saw him, perhaps, three times in my entire life. I was not responsible for prisoners of war, and I was not competent in that direction.
Q Very well. In that case, we will pass on to my last group of questions. They are very few. the interrogations preceding the trial-- I think this particular item I am going to quote comes from a preliminary interrogation--in any event he stated that more detailed testimony about directives to annihilate both Moscow and Le Leningrad would be given to you. You, here in Court, stated that the directive was issued for two reasons; first, General von Leeb reported about the infiltration of the Leningrad population into the front lines, and the second reason was the measures taken in Kiev. to us in Kiev, and the third reason was the announcement by the Soviet Russian radio that this matter actually was to take place, the same time that had happened in Kiev.
Q Very well. The Important thing for me to establish is the fact that you connected the issuance of this decree with the report from the Leningrad front and with the Kiev affair; you have connected those things. decision of the Fuehrer in this direction. These were the causes and reasons which he personally gave.
Q Very well. Perhaps you will remember this: When did the Supreme Command receive this directive--in what month?
Was it not towards the end of September 1941?
AAs far as I recall, Kiev was occupied at the end of August. I believe it was on 25th of August--at any rate, around this period.
Q Not on 22 September? 22 September, defendant?
A That is entirely out of the question. We have a report available here about the incidents in Kiev, and the date of this document is one that I cannot quote from memory, but it is document PS-053, and the date should be confirmed from this document.
Q In that document is the late 22 September. However, let us suppose that it did happen in August. Would you not remember then the date when the Cammanding Officer first stated that he planned to-
A I beg your pardon. I made a mistake as to the date. This document, C-323, is the Fuehrer decree, dated 7 October. Therefore, your statement can be correct. I made a mistake of one month, and the taking of Kiev actually took place in September. The reports which we received came in the first few days of October. I made a mistake; I am very sorry.
Q If you please, it is not particularly important. I would just like you to remember the date of Hitler's statement, a very categorical statement that Leningrad would be erased from the face of the earth. That is the statement I would like you to date and the statement I would like you to remember.
A You are referring to the document of the navy. I assume, the document of the SKL, the Navy Command Staff? how on 16 July 1941 at the staff meeting at Hitler's headquarters, Hitler stated this thing about vengeance against the Leningrad regions themselves. The Fuehrer would like to erase Leningrad from the face of the earth. Have you found the place?
Q This took place on 16 July 1941, did it not? from the Leningrad front?
fires took place in Leningrad? the testimony which you gave during interrogation and here in Court. that the Fuehrer decided--that means decided once more--to erase Leningrad from the face of the earth. That evidently means that it was not the first time. conference--that I learned about for the first time here in this Court. I personally did not take part in that discussion, and I do not know whether the words were said in that order. My remark that the Fuehrer had again decided in this way, that refers to his oral words, -which he gave previously, perhaps one or two days prior, to the commander in chief of the army, and there was a conversation about this. It can be shown that in the order I refer to a statement of the High Command of the Army of the 18th, and in that way the word "again" is to be explained. I heard for the first time here in Court that that discussion took place at all.
Q Very well. I am quite sure that the Tribunal will be able to judge just precisely when this statement was made. You have asserted that you have known nothing about reprisal measures taken against the Jews?
Q Yet just this minute you referred to document PS-053. It consists of Koch's reports, signed by him personally. Perhaps you can confirm the fact that it states quite clearly there that for the fires in Kiev, for which Koch accuses the civilian population, in return for those fires, 35,000 people--more than half of them women--were killed. the document room, and I considered it to be a good proof for the incident in Kiev, and the fact is that this document was unknown to me until my appearance in Nurnberg, It never went to the OKW. In any event, I never had this document in my hands.
Q And in general, you know nothing about the fact that Jews were killed? it has been proved.
Q Very well. In the exhibit submitted by your own defense counsel as Jodl-3, page 6 of your document book, in the last entry made on that page there is the following statement:
"The great majority of all the generals will leave the Army."
This refers to your diary entry of February 3, 1939. Do you remember?
QQuite right. Should I understand you then to mean that at that time resignations from the Army could take place any time, that any general could retire or resign from the Army any time? That is what the entry implies.
AAs to the time then, I believe it was quite possible, yes. That is, in the year 1938 I knew of no decree which would prohibit anyone from doing that.
Q Very well. In Exhibit Jodl-64, which was submitted by your defense counsel, there was one place which for some reason was not read into the record, and I would like to read it now. It consists of the testimony of General von Vormann, who states under oath that you, together with General von Hammerstein, often used the following epithets with regard to Hitler, "charlatan" and "criminal." of the general incorrect? he was confusing two things. In talking about the Fuehrer, I very frequently mentioned that I considered him a charlatan, but I had no reason to consider him a criminal. I used the expression "criminal" frequently, but not as applicable to the person of Hitler whom I did not know at the time. I applied it to Roehm. I repeatedly labeled him as a criminal, and I believe that Vormann is confusing these statements of mine just a little bit.
I used the expression "charlaten" frequently, and that was my opinion at that time.
Q In that case, you applied the epithet "charlatan" to Hitler and "criminal" to Roehm, is that right?
opinion. I knew Roehm, but I did not know Hitler. in the German military machine subsequent to the coming to power of the man to whom you referred as a charlatan? 1933 to 1938 -- that he was not a charlatan but a gigantic personality, and in the final analysis, of course, he had assumed a terrific greatness, but at that time he was a great person without doubt.
Q Very well. Did you receive the golden insignia of Hitler's Party?
Q In what year did you receive it? Hitler was not a charlatan?
Did you hear my question?
A Yes. At that time, it had become clear to me, as I said just a minute ago, that he was a gigantic personality who had many favorable and unfavorable aspects to his personality. insignia.
COLONEL POKROVSKI: I have no more questions, your Honor.
DR. NELTE (Counsel for the defendant Keitel): I should like to call the attention of the Tribunal to USSR-151, which was submitted by Colonel Pokrovsky. I should like to ask that this document be admitted only if General Oesterreich can be produced as a witness available for cross examination. My reasons for this are the following:
First, the document as submitted contains the heading "Aussagen" or "Testimony", but we cannot determine when these statements were made. was deposed. paragraph General Oesterreich set it down in his own handwriting. I think a certification should have been affixed as is the practice.
in this document against the administration of the prisoner of war system, in my opinionit is necessary to order that this general be heard here in person.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes; go on.
DR. NELTE: These are the reasons for my request for this witness, and in conclusion I should like to remark only that General von Graevenitz is not alive any longer. At any event, he cannot be located. I tried to find not alive as a witness on behalf of Keitel.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it a fact that this document was offered in evidence as long ago as February or March?
DR. NELTE : I do not remember that, nor -- and I know this for certain -was it issued to us through the Document Division. It was not put at our disposal. I see this document for the first time now.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider your request.
DR. NELTE: May I please also call the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that the document is dated the 28th of December 1945, and I believe the witness can be presented by the same people who took his testimony at that time.
COLONEL POKROVSKY: I think I can state that the document was submitted by the Soviet Prosecution on the 12th of February 1946, at which time it was admitted in evidence by the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Pokrovsky, just one moment. Was it translated into German t en orwas it read in court?
COLONEL POKROVSKY: I have a memorandum from our documentary section that the document was submitted on the 12th of February, at the time when General Zorya was presenting his material. This is the only note that I have. My Personal supposition is that the document was, of course, also submitted in German at that time. We can clarify thematter further, though, without any trouble and very quickly.
THE PRESIDENT: Do defendant's counsel want to re-examine?
BY DR. EXNER (Counsel for the defendant Jodl): the questioning on the part of the defense counsel, and a question which seems to need clarification. atrocities in occupied countries, and on the occasion of that showing, you said, "These pictures are genuine." What did you mean by that? at which the Russian propagandists were masters, but rather that these were pictures of actual incidents. However, I also wanted to say that the pictures were in no way any proof of who committed the atrocities. The fact that they were found among Germans would almost lead us to the assumption that they were pictures of things which had been perpetrated by the enemy. In general, one does not take a picture of an atrocity if one has committed the atrocity in the first place.
Q Very well. The English prosecutor submitted a new document, PS754, dealing with the destruction at the withdrawal of the German Army out of Norway. Why, in this purely military Fuehrer decree, did you set down: "The Fuehrer has decreed, according to the proposal of the Reich Ministry for the Occupied Norwegian Areas", and so forth and so on? Why did you state "according to the proposal", and so forth? commanders in chief. If and when an order or a decree had arisen from an agreement between the OKW and the Fuehrer, then Istarted with these words "The Fuehrer has decreed". If a decree originated from the Fuehrer himself, I started the decree with a preamble, which preamble gave the reasons or the arguments presented by the Fuehrer. Then, after the preamble, I said "The Fuehrer, therefore, has decreed". agency and was supported by the Fuehrer, so to speak, then, as a matter of basic principle, I added, "The Fuehrer, on the proposal of this or that civilian authority, has decided", and so on. out resistance on your part? the commando order. wished to speak with the Fuehrer, that he had had a conflict with the Wehrmacht, or with the armed forces, in Norway because of the evacuation of Norwegians from Northern Norway--that, of civilian populations. The civilian adjutant wanted to advise me first, before he brought about a telephonic connection with Terboven. Thereupon at once, through my staff, I had inquiries made with the Commander in Chief in Finland. I was told that as far as the Commanding Chief of the Wehrmacht in Norway was concerned, he had rejected the proposals of Terboven and did not consider them necessary on such a large scale. In the meantime, Terboven had spoken with the fuehrer. extent the intention of Terboven could not be carried through, that it would not be practicable; and secondly, that it would not be necessary at all on this large scale.
I said that, rather, one should leave it to the discretion of Raendolitsch as to what he wanted to destroy, or had to destroy, for military reasons. which I had to set down--the fuehrer forced through the issuance of that order, but it certainly was not carried through to this extent and in this scope. That is shown by the report of the Norwegian Government, and it can also be seen from personal discussions between myself and my brother.
Q Now let us turn to something else; let us turn to the drafts and proposals which were to be submitted to the Fuehrer. Did you voice objections and did you present arguments? It seems remarkable that you did not present moral or international law objections when matters contrary to international law were contemplated. However, you voiced mostly opportunistic and suitable objections. Can you tell us why you quoted those objections in preference to the first-mentioned ones? ing the Geneva Convention.
Q Namely? the Fuehrer.
MR. ROBERTS: Your Lordship, I object to this Merely in the interests of time, because it is exactly the sane evidence which was given yesterday, and, in my submission, it is pure repetition.
BY DR. EXNER:
Q A conversation at Rechenhall was mentioned. Please tell us how all this came about. the Fuehrer. This conversation only concerned itself with-
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant has just told us that he has given evidence about this already.
DR. EXNER: Yes, about this conversation which preceded it. BY DR. EXNER:
Q. I do not believe you testified about the actual conversation at Reichenhall. enhall.
Q. Please be brief. orientation of the three offices of my staff--Warlimont reproduced that slightly differently than the way I testified. Ho is confusing here the earlier events with the laters ones. I am not surprised at that, because, after the 20th of July until he was arrested, he had a severe concussion of the brain and had a complete loss of memory. He was ill at home after the 20th of July until he was arrected, and up until the time that he was captured he was not fit for service. seen from the notes and documents in the War Diary of the Navy, or of the SKL, and it can be seen unequivocally and without doubt. It is stated there that this division would be transferred to the East only, so that Russia would be prevented from taking the Roumanian oil fields; it was to meet that threat on the part of Russia.
DR. EXNER: I should like to correct one point, which it seems to me was presented erroneously by the Russian prosecutor. He said that Goering and Keitel did not consider the war against Russia to be a preventive war.
On page 5954 of the record it states that Goering, as well, considered the war to be a preventive one, and that he was of a different opinion than the Fuehrer only insofar as he wanted a different period of time for this preventive war, and he would have chosen a different period of time. Keitel, on the other hand, was of the same opinion. ment, number 683 PS--I do not know the exhibit number as quoted by him. I cannot quite see how this document is to be connected with Jodl, and I have the thought that perhaps it may be a matter of signature, because this document is signed "Joel". However, thi "Joel" is someone completely different from Jodl the defendant. I would like to call the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that perhaps it is just a mistake or a confusion in the names "Joel" and "Jodl". made a remark about the hanging by the ears or the hanging upside down of partisans, and so forth.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Exner, you have simply made a statement, which you are not entitled to do, about this document. If you want to prove it by evidence you should ask the witness about it. You have told us that this document has nothing to do with Jodl, and that the signature on it is somebody else's. Why didn't you ask the witness? proved that it isn't Jodl's document.
DR. EXNER: The translations this morning were bad, and I really can't remember the details now. thing from an interrogatory? It is only one question and one answer, which is connected with the remark about the hanging of prisoners, and all that sort of thing. Is that permissible?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, if it arises out of the crossexamination.
DR. EXNER: Yes; the Russian prosecutor brought up the question of whether the defendant had made that remark during the conference:"You realize, rather-something in connection with this Guerilla Order - that members of such Guerill bands could be quartered during the fight."
This is my document, AJ 7, Page 189 of Volume 2 of my document book. It is an interrogatory of General Buhle, which was taken in America. There it says:
"According to a stenographic transcript, you also participated in a situation report on the evening of 1 December 1942, in which a long discussion between the Fuehrer and Jodl took place pertaining to combatting Partisans in the East. Is that correct?"
The answer is, "I participated in this discussion; I cannot remember the exact date anymore".
THE PRESIDENT: What page did you say, Dr. Exner:
MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, it is the third page of the third book, or the third document in the third book.
DR. EXNER: It is Page 189. I have just read Question 4. Now I came to Question 5:
"Is it or is it not correct that Jodl on this occasion demanded from the Fuehrer the return of the directive drafted with him pertaining to the combatting of Partisans?
"Answer: That is correct.
"Question:6: Is it or is it not correct that in this draft the razing of villages was expressively prohibited?
"Question 7: Is it or is it not correct that the Fuehrer wanted to have th* prohibition rescinded?
"Answer: Since I never possessed the draft of the directive, I do not know for certain if the razing of villages had been expressively prohibited. However, it may be assumed, because I remember that the Fuehrer protested against individual decress of the directive and demanded the razing of villages.
"Question 8: Is it or is it not correct that the Fuehrer also had misgivings against the draft because he did not want any restrictions to be placed on soldiers who were directly engaged in combatting the Partisans. According to the minutes Jodl stated in reply: "This is completely out of question. They can do whatever they feel like during combat, they can hang them, hang them upsidedown or quarter them, that is not mentioned in it.
The only limitation applies to reprisals after the fighting in those areas in which the Partisans were active..."
"Answer: It is correct that the Fuehrer had fundamental misgivings because of these restrictions. Jodl's remark is correct as for as contents are concerned. I cannot recall his exact words anymore.
"Question 9: Is it or it it not correct that following this remark all these present (Fuehrer, Keitel, Kranke, and you yourself) laughed and the Fuehrer abandoned his standpoint?
"Answer: It is probable that all of us laughed on account of Jodl's remark. If following this the Fuehrer really abandoned his standpoint I do not know for certain. However, it appears probable to me.
"Question 10: Then how were the expressions hang, hang upside-down, quartered interpreted?
"Answer: The expressions "Hang, hang upside-down, quartered" could in this connection be interrupted only as an ironical remark and be understood to mean chat in accordance with the directive no further restrictions were to be place on the soldiers in combat.
"Question 11: Could you perhaps state anything about Jodl's fundamental attitude towards the obligation of the Wehrmacht to keep within the provisions of International law in wartime?
"Answer: I do not know Jodl's fundamental attitude. I onoy know of Keitel, the immediate superior or Jodl and myself that no always attempted to comply with the previsions of International law.
"Question 13: Have you ever witnessed when Jodl influenced the Fuehrer to issue an order which violated International Law?"
THE PRESIDENT: None of that last part arises out of the cross examination. BY DR. EXNER:
Q Have you had any contact with prisoner of-war affairs?
A I had nothing at all to do with prisoner-of-war matters. That was a matter for the OKW Department which was handling it.
Q Now, one last question. It has been alleged by the prosecution during yesterday's examination that there had been a conspiracy between political and military leaders for the conduct of agressive wars, and that you had been a member of that conspiracy.
Can you finally say anything to that?
THE PRESIDENT: ( Interposing): Dr. Exner, the Tribunal really does not think that that arises out of the cross examination. Anyhow, he said it already; he said that he was not a member of a conspiracy. There is no use repeating his evidence.
DR. EXNER: Yes. It was again said yesterday that a very close connection existed between the defendant and the members of the Party, and, of course, that is connected with the conspiracy. That is why I thought the question would be permissible. I do not know whether the President differs.
THE PRESIDENT: He said already that he was not a member of the conspiracy.
DR. EXNER: In that case, I have no further questions.
DR. LATERNSER: (Counsel for the General Staff and the OKW): Mr. President, I was only going to refer to the objection which Dr. Nelte has raised against the written statement of Lieutenant General Oesterreich.