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.
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?