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.
I join in that objection and refer to the statement which he has made.
BY THE TRIBUNAL (Justice Biddle ): yesterday, about the number of SS divisions at the end of the war. Do you remember that ?
Q I think you said there were 35 at the end of the war: Is that right, 35 about ?
Q Right. Now, what I want to be clear about is this. You were referring only to Waffen SS divisions, were you not ? Only the Waffen SS ? the command of the army ? army commanders, but not as far as discipline was concerned. Their superior was, and remained, Himmler, even when they were fighting. He was also considered as such by their supreme commander in practice. As far as the strenghth of the divisions, the equipment, and the losses, that was something which was his very own; in fact, it was exclusively reported to the Fuehrer by Himmler himself.
Q When had they been coordinated into the army ? When ? What year ? the war, at the moment when the Polish campaign began. if I understood your point of view clearly. You feared an invasion of Germany by Russia; is that right ? blackmail on the strength of this troop concentration or an attack.
Q Just a minute. I asked you if you did not fear an attack by Russia.
You did at one time, did you not ?
Q All right. When was that ? When ?
Q ( Interposing) when did you first hear of that attack ? 1940, because of the first conference I had with the Fuehrer at the Berghof on the 29 th of July. it was necessary for you to attack first, was it not ?
AAfter the political clarifying-work . Up to then, it had been a guess, nothing but a guess. work if you were afraid of an immediate attack ? to begin with, until the spring of 1941. Until then, only defensive measures were instituted. Only in February of 1941 did we begin with the troop concentration for an attack.
Q Now, then, just one other question. I am not at all clear on this. During that attack, did you then advise that Germany attac first, or did you advise that Germany should not attack ? What was your advise ? You saw this danger; what did you do about it ? of a written statement of mine made to the Fuehrer in which I drew his attention ti the tremendous consequences of such a decision, of which one knew, of course, how the campaign was begun, but of which no human being could imagine how it would end.
Q We have heard all that. I did not want to go into that. What I wanted to get at is this : You were afraid that Russia was going to attack. If that was true, why didn't you advise Germany to attack at once ? You were afraid Russia would attack, and jet you say you advised against moving into Russia. I do not understand.
A That is not the case. I did not advise not to march into Russia; I merely said that if no other possibility exists, and if really there is not political way of doing away with that danger, then I, too, can only see the preventive attach as a possibility.
THE TRIBUNAL ( Justice Biddle ) : That is all. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT : The defendant can return to the dock.
THE PRESIDENT : Dr. Exner.
DR. EXNER : I have four witnesses whom I wish to bring before this Tribunal. But I went to start by making a request. With reference to lame leg which I am suffering from, may I leave it to my lolleague Jahrreiss to question the witnesses, please ?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly, Dr. Exner.
Dr. Exner, the Tribunal wishes me to say that we allow another counsel to examine the witnesses as an exception to our general rule that only one counsel may appear in the court, and at the presentation of the case on behalf of the defendant. We will make this exception in your favor.
DR. JAHRREISS : In that case, with the permission of the Tribunal, I shall call the first witness, General Horst Freiherr von Buttlar Brandenfels.
stand and testified as follows: BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q Will you state your name, please?
Q Will you repeat the oath after me: truth, and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down. BY DR. HERMAN JAHRREISS (Counsel for defendant Jodl).
Q Mr. Witness, were you in the Army Command Staff during the war?
Q During what period?
A From the 1 January 1942 until 15 November 1944. I was a member of the Armed Forces Command Staff.
Q What was your position there in the Staff? capacity as department chief of the operational department of the Army.
Q I am going to have document shown to you No. PS-823, Exhibit RF 3! it is in your document book, second volume, page 158. Please, will you be good enough to have a look at it.
A Do you want me to read the whole document?
Q I want you to have a general picture of it. Who is the author o* the document? ministry Group.
Q How far does that document connect with the defendant Jodl? first page, there is an initial or line that reads as a "J"?
A That might be a mistake. If you will just refer to the initial appears at the end of that document, that is the initial of the Chief of Quartermaster Department, Oberst Polleck.
the bottom?
A The first is carried out by the official of the document. I can recognize for certain it is Administrative Counsel Niehmenst's signature.
Q Do you mean the initial. I mean the top one?
A The-top one? The bottom initial is the signature of Oberst Polle After the document was submitted to the Chief of the OKW it was returned to me. Then I initialed it again at the top, and then my mark was sent to the quartermasters Department, that is the "Q" underlined at the top, and then it was again issued by the quartermaster chief, and then there is the date of 9th September, and he in turn marked it "Administrative Group." The actual author then signed or initialed the document again. I want to draw your attention to the fact this pertains to the war matter, and that this document in the corner shows Jodl was not really concerned with it. He had advised only the organization and the quartermaster department so far as that was concerned. There were several commitments that had to be made.
Q Just a minute, Mr. Witness, just a minute. I do not mind if you to lecture, but I want to also go ahead. There are marks in the margin of document, do you see them:
Q Is any one of them written by Jodl?
A No, they are both initialed with a "K" for Field marshal von Keit lates to prisoner of war affairs, and if I understand you correctly, you want to say that the letter "J" is not possible? It is not probable, for the reason that the jurisdiction of Jodl could have had nothing to do with this matter at all.
Q But is it correct, Mr. Witness, that the Quartermaster Department under Jodl's command?
the Organization Department, had certain parts which the Attorney General had not dealt with, and which were dealt with by the head of the Department "Q", and dealt with by the department chief, but was working; along with the OKW. said applies to that Department "Q". The Department "Q" had in its main department that part whore it supplies, and it also supervises the supplies, but to all appearances it came directly under OKW. The second department naturally appears as administrative -- military administration, and, the third department dealt with general questions, that is, such as quartermaster affairs and the laws, and questions of fact.
Q Then I have one more question on this organization. Did that depart meat, the Armed Forces Command Staff, have anything to do with the Fuehrer's "HQ"? the Fuehrer's HQ, but in that neighborhood in Berlin. Department "Q" was conducted by Jodl, partly, with the Chief of OKW?
Q But this question was partly so, is that correct?
Q Mr. Witness, what position did you have at the beginning of the war? the Central Department of the General Staff of the Army.
THE INTERPRETER: Would you speak a little more slowly. BY DR. JAHRREISS:
Q And what department did you have? in the higher command, and the higher command level.
Q Did that apply to the general staff officer of the OKW?
staff 1 October 1939,and who had been nominated then to be the chief of the Armed Forces Command Staff after that date? Sodenstern which had been proposed. October -- on the 5th or 6th, that Jodl would not have been chief of the Army Staff at all? said to be given, but that was dealing with the State.
MR. ROBERTS: I submit this testimony is not relevant to any issues in this case at all, and it may be somewhat interesting to know the answers that are submitted has any relevancy at all.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't quite understand what the relevancy of the evidence is at the moment.
DR. JAHRREISS: Mr. President, if the prosecution is right when they say that the defendant Jodl belongs to a group of conspirators for accomplishing the war, and if that group of conspirators had used the State as a means for their aims, I think the prosecution believes there must be some other peculiar order of the State when conspirators will exchange uncertainty with arranged date, and that is why it is important for the Tribunal to be presented with this.
THE PRESIDENT: Has he been given who date of this exchange, without going in on cross examination. He went to Vienna on a certain date, and came back at another date, and there has been no challenge of that.
DR. JAHRREISS: Mr. President, that is a different question. The defendant Jodl has said that this mobilization had appeared before 1st October as from the chief of the Armed Forces Command Staff. Now the witness says that this allegedly only applies up to the day of mobilization here.
THE PRESIDENT: Surely that is extraordinarily remote, Dr. You say as a matter of surmise that would have happened. That does not help us very much.
DR. JAHRREISS: Mr. President, the testimony of the witness is on the assumption that he is stating merely the person in this important posi tion was disposed of in accordance with the routine so far as the State work was concerned, if that had been a pro-arranged schedule.
May I present something further, please.
THE PRESIDENT: No, in the interest of time and an expeditious trial, the Tribunal rules you may not go into that. BY DR. JAHRREISS:
Q Mr. Witness, if I now ask you about a certain field activity which you just mentioned, I believe it was because I assumed that you had particular expert knowledge of it, is that true, in that you just had official contact with combating the bandits? and practically, thinkable, and additional information were taken from my department from that dale.
Q Are you familiar with the pamphlet on bandit fighting, of May 1942?
Q Was it the third ruling of that department that winter? combatting the guerrillas or bandits. At that time we had comparatively little experience, and since the guerrilla fighting had not been expected during peace time, it was natural that the new experience would have to be given some effect. the southeast? definite conception on their part. Is it quite often true that one can speak about a bandit war as it is fought with bandit equipment? fighting, it must be limited to its own location. That is a correct question. conception of guerrilla warfare, which it might have had?
A So far as the State is concerned, yes. The method, no.
Q What do you mean by extent, or degree?
by banditry fighting. from a human point of view, as well? point of view concerning it was most unusual.
A. What I mean by extent is the territorial extent of the zones affected by bandit fighting.
Q. Was it something unusual, territorially speaking, or do you mean from the human point of view as well?
A. Guerrilla fighting, both in its territorial extent as well as the question referring to the human beings concerned with it, was most unusual.
Q. Do you know, Mr. Witness, whether these bandits or guerrilla groups in the East and Southeast contained many Jews?
A. I can't remember that, amongst the hundreds of reports which I have had about guerrilla fighting, there was the mention of Jews at all. If there were Jews in these units, then it can only have been the case to a very limited extent.
Q. Well the, the testimony related in this court room that this guerrill fight had been conducted for the extermination of Jews, isthat true?
A. I have never heard anything about that.
Q. Or perhaps the extermination of Slava?
A. Here again, I have never heard as much as a hint of such a situation. That interpretation would have been quite contrary to the intentions of the military leaders.
Q. Why?
A. The Military Command had a very definite interest in seeing a peaceful country behind every front and a productive population; and every aim and every measure which had that target was always appreciated by the Military Command. Every soldier whom we had to use in bandit fighting was urgently needed by us at the front.
Q. Was the policy in the East carried out in the manner in which the Armed Forces leaders wanted it for their purposes?
A. No doubt that was not the case, because the Armed Forces particularly in the interest of their volunteer units, would have liked ot see a different policy in the East. We ourselves tried to carry on a bloodless pacification even amongst the guerrillas by using our own system and methods. There considerable propaganda campaigns were put into practice which were meant to cause the guerrillas to stop fighting.