I saw people with a cow, and similar things, but those were individual cases. Practically, these villages and little towns were evacuated.
Q. And during your service in Finnmark, after the order had been given for the evacuation of Finnmark, you saw no burned villages?
A. No, I saw no burned villages, of course with the exception of Kirkenes, and of course there were villages that had been destroyed during battle.
Q. Did you actually see burning villages, not burned but still burning?
A. I only saw Kirkenes burning on several occasions, in fact, First burned actually by the Russians, and later on through battles, and also through Russian bomber attacks again, and then I saw the barracks which we had built in the vicinity of Kirkenes when we went through.
Q. Witness, did you ever see dead cattle? I mean large amounts, as from a dozen upward.
A. I never saw a dead horse or a dead cow lying about.
Q. Now, witness, let me put it in another way. You said that you called -- that you telephoned General Hoelter, and you gave him three reasons against the evacuation - I mean to say that you objected. Do you want to say by that, witness, that after the matter had been issued in the form of an order that you were not of the same opinion any longer, that you changed your attitude?
A. The destruction and evacuation also - this is what I say today and I said it before - was for me a highly unpleasant and awkward matter, but on the basis of this order, and because I could not guarantee for certain that the Russians would not follow us, I carried out this order.
Q. But you said, witness, that actually the Russians did not follow?
A. Yes, that is what I said.
Q. Witness, as commander or commanding general of the 19th Mountaineer Group, did you ever receive daily reports or other reports from the Army which dealt with the development of the whole tactical situation in Finnmark and in Norway generally?
A. Do you mean with regard to the situation of the enemy or do you mean with regard to the degree of destruction?
Q. No, I mean the actual degree of destruction, witness. After all, the mountain corps which you were in command of then -- did they not have to rely on certain tactical information of the Army?
A. Yes.
Q. The destruction of a country and its evacuation -- are these not tactical matters?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever receive any information on that in connection with a tactical matter?
A. I don't think so, because only at the beginning I and my army corps had to deal with the destruction and evacuation. Later on I took over the leadership of the bulk of the troops. I was in charge of the bulk of the troops of the 20th Mountain Army, which I had to lead back to the new positions, and at a comparatively early date I, with my staff, proceeded into this position.
Q. Witness, I understand that from your former statement. The only thing I wanted to ask you was whether you, as the leader of the bulk of the Army, which after all consisted of a number of troops, whether therefore it was not necessary for you to be tactically informed about other matters which happened in this country?
A. I can only say I was not informed about the destruction tasks, because these orders were sent to the chief of the rear forces and at that time that was the commanding general of the XXXVI Corps.
Q. I did not ask you about destruction tasks. I asked you about destruction that had actually been carried out. Witness, was the comulsory evacuation and destruction of Finnmark a military necessity?
A. Yes, it was, if you expected the Russians to proceed to the west. Apart from that I do not see even today how supplies for the population which was left "behind in north Finnmark could have been procured after all military objects, bridges, roads, and so forth which had to be counted as such would have been destroyed.
In this case about 30,000 people would have been living in a kind of "no man's land", of which perhaps a part, that is those who dealt-
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: The Tribunal wishes to inquire whether there is any likelihood of completing the testimony of this witness before half-past four?
MR. RAPP: Yes, there is, Your Honor.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Will there be cross examination of the witness?
MR. RAPP: I have only one or two other questions, Your Honor.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Will there be some extensive cross examination?
DR. FRITSCH: I do not think that I could finish with the cross examination today, Your Honor.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: The Tribunal has no desire to hurry you in your cross examination, so with that information at hand it is the feeling of the Tribunal that we will now adjourn to Courtroom No. 1 for the continuation of such phases of the operations as indicated by Mr. Denney.
The Tribunal will adjourn to Tribunal No. 1, to the room, Tribunal No. 1
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will be seated.
Military Tribunal 5 is again in session.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: You may proceed.
MR. DENNEY: May it please Your Honors, the first film which is being shown will last approximately twenty minutes, and it is a film having to do with the picture in Greece, and is part of the reports of the Office of War Crimes of Greece. It is offered as Prosecution's Exhibit No. 509.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: You may proceed.
MR. DENNEY: May it please Your Honors, the captions are in Greek, so they will be translated into both English and German.
(A film entitled "From the Tragedy of our Country" was shown.)
"From the Tragedy of our Country.
"In order that we may have a picture of the tragedy of our country during the period of the occupation, I decided in spite of the difficulties and the risks involved to take a film, which though historically accurate is artistically inferior due to the conditions under which it was made.
"It may be noted that taking even a simple picture of military units is punishable by death.
"Athens, April 27, 1941, Angelos Papanastasiou, Municipal Councillor of Athens.
"On 6 April 1941 Germany, for the sake of saving the defeated Italian Army on the Albanian front, attacked us from behind. Our heroic army, faced with the overwhelming numerical superiority of the Germans, was forced to withdraw and on 27 April 1941 the German troops entered Athens.
"On 27 April 1941 the German swastika is hoisted on the sacred Rock of the Acropolis and on 6 May 1941 the Italian flag.
"Central buildings of the city are seized by the German and Italian military authorities. Many enterprises are forced to close. Whole blocks of flats, including all furniture, are requisitioned in one day in order to billet the army.
"Very few street cars are operating on the lines of Patissia, Ambelokipi, and Callithea - they operate until 7:30 p.m.
"General requisitioning of motor cars, motorcycles, bicycles, etc. disturbs the entire communication system.
"For hours they await the daily distribution of three ounces of bread.
"Continuous undernourishment results in exhaustion of human organisms and leads to skeletonization.
"In Athens alone more than 500 persons die daily from starvation during the winter 1941. They are buried in mass graves which are dug on the previous day. Each cross represents more than 500 victims; the corpses are laid in graves in layers.
"Greek patriots are shot ever day. A firing squad on bicycles.
"Growing indignation of the people compels the occupying forces to take security measures.
"On 25 June 1943 the Greek people protest against the executions by staging a general strike and demonstrations in the streets.
"A huge demonstration with placards bearing the inscription 'Liberty or Death' advances in the streets. The streets are littered with pamphlets. The demonstrators advance despite German and Italian shooting.
"Some of the victims.
"Shops are locked with dozens of heavy padlocks, because thieving Italian soldiers, taking advantage of the strict enforcement curfew at 10 p.m., are ransacking them.
"German brutality is turned against innocent and irresponsible victims, whom they hang by the dozens.
"Victims of German bestiality are brought to the morgue of Athens daily.
"Executions continue. On 3 September 1944, 73 of the detainees are executed by the Germans and are buried in the 3rd Cemetery.
"The Germans, although they had decided to evacuate Athens, staged the morbid farce of executing 73 to whom they had issued prison release notices on the preceding day.
"They were the last victims of German ferocity in Athens.
"Athens, 16 October 1944, Angelos Papanastasiou."
MR. RAPP: Your Honors, the next picture is offered as Prosecution's Exhibit No. 510. It is a film published under the supervision of the Attorney General's Office, and it was sent to us from the Commission for the Restoration of Devastated Areas in Finnmark.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: We trust that it will be presented with a little more continuity than the one which has just been completed.
MR. RAPP: I hope so too, Your Honor.
(A film entitled "Finnmark", a Norwegian film with English captions, was shown.)
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: Is there any further matter to come before the Tribunal at this time?
MR. DENNEY: If Your Honors please, we would appreciate it if we could, after the films have been shown and rewound, withdraw them end return them to the delegation from which they came.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: There is no objection.
MR. DENNEY: Thank you, Your Honor.
PRESIDING JUDGE BURKE: If there is nothing further to present at this time, the Tribunal will adjourn until Monday morning, August 25th.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will be in recess until 0930, Monday morning, August 25th, 1947.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 0930 hours, 35 August 1947.)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Wilhelm List, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on August 25, 1947, 0950-1630, Justice Wennerstrum presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the Courtroom will please find their seats.
Military Tribunal V is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the court.
PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, you will ascertain whether all defendants are present in the courtroom.
MARSHAL: May it please your Honors, all defendants are present in the Courtroom.
PRESIDENT WENNERSTRUM: You may proceed with the further examination of this witness.
FERDINAND JODL - Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION (continued)
MR. RAPP: Your Honors, I believe on Friday last prior to going to the moving picture, I submitted a document for identification only, being the script of the Norwegian picture, and I believe we identified it as 509A. I had distributed that document already to defense counsel and your Honors, and meanwhile the 24-hour rule has elapsed, so we would like to now submit this particular document in evidence, and it is called Norway Document No. 13-B. That is stencilled on the document - Norway 13-B, is to be submitted as Exhibit 509.
In the examination of this particular witness, I believe we stopped when the witness was testifying as to whether or not the evacuation of Finnmark amounted at that time to a military necessity or not, and with your Honors' permission, I would like to take up from there.
Witness, before we left to recess Friday, I asked you, in connection with the evacuation of Norway, whether this evacuation was a military necessity. Do you remember that question? Would you please repeat once more for the benefit of all of us here, what you said at that time?
A: On Friday I explained that the evacuation and destruction of the territories of North Finnmark would have been considered a military necessity for those who had to expect the possibility of a Russian invasion of the territory beyond the Tarna. Only if the Russians had concentrated larger formations in those territories, -- only if a concentration of Russian forces in that territory in Finnmark would have been possible in the winter time, then would it have been possible for the German forces to create a defense position at the Lyngenfjord.
I also stated, with regard to this question of evacuation, that then as well as today, I did not understand how the population of the North Finnmark could have been fed, if all bridges and other military installations had been destroyed, but if we had left the population in this no man's land, I stated that a part of the population, -- and that is that part of the population which carries on agriculture would have been able to live through the winter on their products, but the great bulk of the population was depending on imports of food, and these imports could not have been secured.
Q: Witness, in connection with this statement, I would like to ask you two or three short questions. First of all when did you first become aware, -- because of the 1c report, and because of other things upon which you could draw, -that the Russian forces would not go beyond the river Riva? (Tana?)
A: If one can state a date at all, I think it would have been right to say that I first understood this rightly in November. It was then becoming clear that the Russian forces would probably not follow us.
Q: Do you mean then that with everyday, every month, every week which went by, it became more clear to you that this was the case?
A: Yes, that is correct.
Q: The next question is what did you tell the Norwegian population as the reason for the fact that this forcible evacuation was undertaken in this respect, I do not mean from a military viewpoint, but with regard to all other announcements and notices which you saw; what was the Norwegian population told?
A: I think the most essential part was the contents of the well known announcement, -- public announcement, which was signed by the Reich Commissar at Terboven, and the then General Rendulic. I think in that note probably everything was contained which the population was told.
Q: Witness, do you remember whether in this leaflet, the only thing which was said was with regard to the danger of the Bolshevik movement to the Norwegian population?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you remember, witness, whether this leaflet said anything about the fact that the Norwegian population was eminently in danger of starvation because of the destruction of the military installations which had made it impossible to bring in further food?
A: Well, that I cannot say. I do no remember any details.
Q You yourself are of the opinion that this was one of the essential reasons?
A Yes, I personally think that was the essential reason.
Q But do you not remember whether this was expressed in the public notice?
A No, I don't think so, but I cannot remember.
Q Witness, do you remember then, whether in this public notice, anything was mentioned that there was no reason to have pity for the population?
A Well, I don't think anything like that would have been said in the public notice.
Q Do you remember whether it said anything to that respect in the order which was issued from the 20th Army to the 19th Corps?
A I have already been asked whether this was contained in that order. When I saw the OKW order for the first time, in its original wording - which I had not seen until that point - I said then, and that is about 18 months ago, that I cannot remember that this wording -- that these things were mentioned in the order. Even today I cannot say with certainty because in my mind now the memory of the order from the OKW, is confused - that is, this order which I saw 18 months ago - I confuse with the memory of the order by the OKW which I carried out so many years ago.
Q Witness, you mentioned military destructions which had to be carried out if there was any certainty that the Russians would follow. Do you mean by this "military destruction" - do you also mean the destruction of isolated houses, little fishing shacks, and do you also mean churches?
A No, I did not mean churches in that respect, but everything else would be considered accomodation.
The enemy air force would not mind whether a unit would be accomodated in a house of say three floors or four or five isolated or detached small houses. Some of these in the country, from the military point of view, in the isolated and detached houses, are of more advantage.
Q When you say "detached and isolated houses", do you then mean that the accomodations which were to be tactically and military easy to supervise, but you do not mean when one unit is for instance 10 or 12 kilometers distant from another unit -- you know the neighborhood around there don't you? Isn't it a fact that very often houses are at a great distance, one from the other? Isn't it true that there are isolated houses?
A Yes, that's true. There are houses which are isolated, but usually they are houses which belong to a little settlement.
Q Witness, if I understand you correctly, you fought against the Russians in Finland?
A Yes.
Q At that time, in this fight against your Army, that is against the German army, did the Russian forces have to depend on such accomodations and food and other commodities which the Finnish population gave to the Russians, or such as they confiscated from the population?
A Yes, in part.
Q Putting it in other words, although you said there were almost five Russian Corps, do you mean to say these five Russian Corps were partly dependant upon using such things as they confiscated there - that is as far as food and accomodations and any other things is concerned?
A Yes, that is quite correct for one Corps - that is the Russian Corps which came through the Tundra, and continued on the icy straits because that corps carried food only for five days, and as we know from the statements of prisoners of war, they had been told that they would have to find all of the other food from the Germans.
Q That, from the Germans, but not from the Finns?
A I think in this case that was almost the same.
Q Witness how could it be the same, if the Finnish population was -- the native population -- lived in houses and had their own reserves, whereas the German army was so to speak opposed? I do not understand that.
A I only meant to say by that, that at that time, the Finnish population had already been evacuated, and in that territory there were available Finnish accomodations, and such accomodations as had been erected by the German army.
Q But witness you mean then that four of the Corps were either to fight without essential support of these accomodations or get food from the Finnish?
A Yes.
Q How did these four Corps live? In Bivouacs?
A Well for the major part they were accomodated in old positions which they had before, and later in Bivouacs. That is, field camps. Partly, they also lived in such accomodations as we had been unable to destroy.
A Witness, is it a fact that the Russians, although there was such destruction, were able to progress in Finnmark?
Q No, the Russians did not progress.
Q Was that because of the destruction that the Russians did not follow?
A That is very difficult to say with absolute certainty today. It is quite possible, although not probable, that the fact that so much had been destroyed had an influence on the Russian operations.
Q You have already said, I think you said on Friday -- that the main fighting formation of the Russians, which was the one which would have been provided for the pursuit of the retreating armies, had gone to East Prussia; is that correct?
A Yes.
Q Witness although you told us on Friday that you yourself except very occasionally, had never seen destroyed villages or houses or slaughtered cattle, did you know, witness, that such destructions not only had taken place, but also had been continued for weeks and months - that is December and January and later?
A Yes, I knew about that, because after all, I had the order by the AOK, and I knew that this order was being carried out. Further, when the retreat started, I and the troops which were under my command, carried out such destruction and ordered it, in the territory of Karlov.
Q That was quite in the beginning?
A Yes, that's right.
Q But even at a later point you knew that destruction went on?
A I knew that the destruction continued.
Q Witness, did you ever receive an order from the Army at any time - I think that would have been right up to the time when you were taken prisoner in April, 1945 -- that this order for the "scorched-earth policy" had been withdrawn?
A No, I don't.
Q Even by telephone, verbally or by any letter?
A No, as up to February, 1945, until April, 1946, I was not in Norway.
Q Would you have been informed of it during your absence, if such an order had been received?
A Yes, I would have.
Q Witness, was it ever mentioned that territories to the west and later to the south should be destroyed, and later also to the south of Finnmark, right up to Norvak and further?
A No, it was never said. I myself, when I was present in Germany, had discussed these questions with my brother. I can almost repeat the exact wording which I used when I told him, and that was in the course of a discussion of the general military position.
A ... "For God's sake don't send me such an order for scorched earth again, because a second time I could not take part in anything like that. If it should be decided to withdraw from the North of Norway and to withdraw into this space south of Narvik, I would not be prepared to lay waste once more flourishing villages and houses and to destroy everything." My brother's reply to that: "I didn't think you would; I didn't expect you to say anything else, and it's quite out of the question." So, it's only in this very personal connection that we considered the possibility of a further laying waste of the territory to Narvik.
Q After this discussion or on the basis of this discussion with your brother, do I understand you correctly if I draw the conclusion that you discussed the whole point with your brother because you were of the opinion that this destruction was unnecessary or for what other reasons?
A I think I'd rather say for humane considerations. This destruction of the North of Finnmark was one of the hardest tasks I had ever been given throughout the war.
Q Did you have any military considerations in that respect or were you only moved by the humane idea?
A I have already, at the beginning of my statements, expressed that I personally, right from the beginning, did not believe that the Russians would progress beyond the River Tarna.
Q Witness, when did you discuss these points with your brother?
A That was at the end of March, 1945.
Q So that was at a time when there was no invasion from the Russians. Is that correct?
A Yes.
Q So if the scorched-earth policy had been ordered for Narvik, you not only instinctively but also from a military point of view would have protested against it. Is that right?
A It's very difficult to answer this question because one doesn't know how the conditions had developed; but what I said to my brother and expressed to him was that for absolutely humane principles I would be quite incapable of carrying out against a country in which I had lived, whose people I had come to value and to respect.
And that had no bearing on the fact whether it was military necessity or not. Furthermore, this question of military necessity has always been a much-discussed one. If in this Courtroom I may point this out, even the commander of the enemy forces had to consider the problem whether it would be justified to lay waste and, for instance, to bomb French villages and towns and then invade France. I have read that this question has been debated very intensely. For military reasons it was then decided to further such a policy in order to save human lives, but that one took the risk that through this bombing thousands of French women and children would die. I am quite convinced that there were people in England, as well as in America, but did not agree and did not consider such a policy necessary.
Q Witness, if I understand you correct, do you want to draw a parallel with this explanation or a justification?
A No, I only wanted to state and show that the question of military necessity is always a doubtful consideration. Some people always think any measure is necessary from a military point of view; other people do not agree. I personally have, for instance, when the North Finnmark was destroyed, held that the disadvantages of such an action were greater than the advantages. That is also in case the Russians had pursued us with part forces only.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY DR. FRITSCH:
DR. FRITSCH: Your Honor, this is Defense Counsel Fritsch for the Defendant Rendulic.
Q General, your opinion with regard to the pursuit of the Russian Army has been discussed here in detail. May I ask you to answer one question? If it had been considered possible, up till the end of November, that the Russian Army would follow, -- would it not have been necessary to carry out and decide the evacuation even before that point?
A Yes, that's correct.
Q Was just in the North--was there not another point of great importance? I mean the weather.
A Yes, that's right. Before the withdrawal of the forces they were always faced, I'd say, by a horror that the winter would break out. The position was such that we had extraordinary luck with the weather, if the usual big storms had broken out at this time of the year, not only the army but also the population might have had catastrophic experiences through the weather.
Q General, we talked about the pursuit by the Russians. May I ask you, first of all, what forces and at what strength did the Russian forces have when you faced them at the end of October?
AAt the end of October we had more or less lost contact with the Russian forces. The last battles which only took place on the level of Battalions took place on the Neyden-elf. It is very difficult to say, therefore, what forces we faced at the end of October. I can only say that certain formations or formations beyond the strength of regiments did not cross the Neyden-elf, and the greater part of the enemy forces remained in the Kirkenes.
Q Now, this territory around the Kirkenes was under your jurisdiction wasn't it?
A Yes.
Q You have repeatedly said that the contact with the Russians had been lost. Now then when did the German Army lose Kirkenes?
A I think that must have been toward the middle of October. I do not remember the date exactly.
Q Well, if I put it to you, Herr General, that according to my documents it was on the 5th of November, is that possible?
A That sounds a bit late to me, but may I just work it out in my mind? As far as I remember, it must have been around the 20th of October, but I cannot say this with certainty.
Q Well, anyway the fights took place towards the end of October. Is that correct?
A Yes.
Q When you evacuated was only the pursuit of the Russians of importance as far as military points were concerned?
A No. One also had to be prepared for Norwegian units which were in England at the time--would come to this territory...
Q Do you mean they would land there?
A Yes.
Q Do you think other enemies in the country itself did not play any part?
A Well, of course one might consider the danger of Partisans and espionage; but I don't think there would have been any other forces which we had to fear.
Q General, I do not consider the point only from the East, that is yourself, but I also think of the line in the South. I would remind you, therefore, of your relationship with the Finns which had changed. Now, this question: Did they have any bearing on your evacuation for military reasons?
A I must really say that I never considered this problem in any way because these problems did not concern my territory and were not so actual for me as they were for the Army of the 18th Corps or for the 36th Corps. It is quite possible that the Finns forced by the Russians might have been ordered to pursue beyond the South frontiers of Finnland. That is quite possible. After all, in the East, also the Bulgarians were forced by the Russians to pursue right into the West.
Q In this connection, Witness, do you know that the Norwegian Government in exile had permitted the Finns to follow the Germans into the Norwegian territories?
A Yes, I know about that.
Q Well, if you considered this fact, would you not say that the question I put to you before gained more importance? Did you yourself never hear anything that the Finns actually penetrated?
A Oh, yes, because they even attacked in position of my forces and the Lyngen fjord but that only up to the point where we had occupied one little corner of Finland. When we left this little corner at the border the Finns ceased to attack. I cannot remember to have any reports to the effect that the Finns had crossed the Norwegian border.
Q Do you mean then that the Finns did not take part in the actual fighting?
A Yes, they did fight, particularly with the 18th Corps and the 36th Corps.
Q How, at that time then could you know whether apart from the Russians, the Finns also pursued your Army?
A I cannot answer that question because this possibility was not so acute in my district. I was not concerned with such a possibility.
Q Do you know the strength of the Finnish Army?
A Well, at that time I think there was only one division, as far as I remember. At least there was one division confronted by us. I think perhaps the whole of the Finnish Army had a strength of about six divisions.
Q Witness, I do not mean the territory in which the Finnish Army faced you but I mean the total of the Finnish Army.
A She Finnish Army was much larger, of course. After all, they had the total front line right from the Varanger botton down to the Baltic Sea; so they had at least thirty divisions, but I don't remember the actual figure.