were concerned only with military questions of operational nature, and not with political questions. Have I understood you correctly?
A I made that explanation yesterday as well. The policy may be a completely military matter, but to a certain political questions were involved. There was a fusion to a certain degree, for without politics there could be no strategy. It is an essential part of a strategy. But since I was not a strategist, but only ageneral staff officer, for that matter, I was not concerned with this matter directly.
Q You were not concerned with these questions? Very well. Now, please look at Exhibit U.S.S.R. 477. I would like you to tell the Tribunal whether you find your own signature on the last page of that exhibit.
A Yes, indeed; I see my signature. Plan Barbarossa? question is posed very directly as to the annihilation of the U.S.S.R. as a sovereign power? Did you consider that as purely a military question? You officers of the General Staff were not concerned with political questions? directive. Perhaps the words in German are somewhat different, but the sum is exactly the one I stated. Will you look particularly at Point "d" of the directive ?
Q I want to read a sentence:
"At the present time, it is still too early to wage propaganda dealing with the dismemberment of the Soviet Union as a sovereign power." graph, it says:
"Nevertheless, we should avoid such terms as 'Russia', 'Russians', 'Russian Armed Forces', and 'people of the Soviet Union', 'Red Army', etc."
Have you found the place?
the question at all?
A Why certainly I wish to answer the question. As may be seen from the heading in this directive we are concerned with the handling of propaganda; and we are orphans in propaganda compared to the British and the Soviet Union. But that propaganda is something quite justifiable and is not limited by any regulations of international law. You are perhaps quite familiar with that. At one time, in Gene va, there was a debate about this, and it was rejected that any limitation of propaganda was to be considered compulsory under international law. ganda is concerned, I can add or omit whatever I wish, for, as far as the code of law is concerned, there is nothing that applies to it. But perhaps you do not know that. the superior, and thi s was taking place in that case. I am very well acquainted with propaganda, for I studied it for five years. And I studied your propaganda as well, and as far as you are concerned, they are entirely different propaganda directives.
Q You preferred not to answer my question directly. That satisfies me, too, because I have understood your position on the subject. What connection did the Ministry of foreign Affairs have with relation to the issuance of this directive? Did anyone collaborate with you in preparing it, or were you and your Fuehrer solely responsible?
A I quite understood you. My propaganda division worked in Berlin. In detail, it worked with Minister Rosenberg, as well as with the Propaganda Ministry, and the facts as they applied in each I cannot tell you. But General von Wedel, the chief of this division, can give you the details. I know only that this arose in agreement with the ministry of Rosenberg. But we did not follow our own way, but rather worked in line with the competent civilian authorities. But it is only propaganda is a spiritual weapon. present time, and whether you are responsible for determining the nature of the propaganda as well as its activity.
But I merely want to knew this; Do you, then, presume that this directive was issued after it had been harmonized, more or less, with the work of other bureaus and other government agencies, particularly that of Rosenberg?
Q Very well. Now, let us go on to the second group of questions, namely, Would you argue the fact that the document concerned withthe conference in Hitler's headquarters on the 22nd of March, 1941, regarding Yugoslavia -- do you remember that? which describes the leadership and the responsibility of invading Yugoslavia -there are two documents, the second dated the 28th of March -- would you then argue or deny the fact that these documents were issued by the general headquarters of the OKW?
Please look at Exhibit 1746 PS. It might help you to remember the events of those two days, the 22nd and the 28th of March 1941, regarding Yugoslavia and plans for Yugoslavia.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Pokrovsky, you are not losign sight of the fact that this subject was fully gone into by Mr. Roberts in his cross examination of the defendant?
COLONEL POKROVSKY: If you think, My Lord, that the question has already been completely clarified, I will not ask this question. But it seems to me that I am interested in an entirely different phase of the same question. But if you do not think so, I will not ask it.
THE PRESIDENT: I do not know yet. I was only pointing out to you that it had been fullygone into by Mr. Roberts. I do not know what this document you are suggesting is.
COLONEL POKROVSKY: I offered for the attention of the defendant two documents dealing with plans for Yugoslavia, documents dated the 22nd of March and the 28th of March. If you think that this was fully covered already, I will not ask the questions. But I do have something that I want to be clarified further.
THE PRESIDENT: All the Tribunal wants to know is whether some really fresh point is being brought out. You must have heard Mr. Roberts' cross examination of the defendant upon the Yugoslavian attack, and I do not know what these documents of the 22nd of March and the 28th of March are, or what you are seeking to get out of them. If this is anything that is really fresh or new, then, of course, you may put it; but if it is not, then it is covered by what the Tribunal has already said, that cross examinations ought not to go over the same ground.
COLONEL POKROVSKY: If you will permit me to say, my Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: I am asking you to.
COLONEL POKROVSKY: I have not heard Jodl's testimony in reply to Mr. Roberts, only as follows: In other words, I have not really understood by that testimony just who exactly was in charge of the directing of plans against Yugoslavia. Now if the Tribunal still thinks that question is not pertinent I shall not ask it, but it has not been clear to me from Jodl's testimony when in a reply to Mr. Roberts.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Colonel Pokrovsky, the Tribunal is not able to see what there is fresh in this method of questioning that you are now raising, and unless you insist upon it, or you think it is of great importance, we believe you should pass into the next matter in your cross examination.
COLONEL POKROVSKY: Very well. I shall continue, My Lord. BY COLONEL POKROVSKY:
Q The defense counsel submitted to the Tribunal Exhibit L-172. There occurred there the following sentence, which was prounounced by you in your speech to the Gauleiters on 7 November 1943. I shall read this sentence out loud, quoting: "The problem of insufficient personnel has brought us to the plans of utilizing fully the population reserve of the occupied territory."
Q I can repeat. The defense counsel submitted to the Tribunal Exhibit L-172. It says in the speech which you gave before the Gauleiters -
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like your attention.
DR. EXNER : I have not heard the finished quotation, My Lord, that is, Mr. President, the translation is such that we simply cannot understand it. When we receive a sentence it makes no sense at all, that is so far as our opinion is concerned, and I believe the defendant has the same trouble as well.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant decidedly has been able to understand the translation, as he never protested, and he answered the questions.
DR. EXNER: The defendant cannot understand.
THE WITNESS: I should like to say that even though I have to answer the question, I cannot answer with assurance. I have to guess in most cases.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Pokrovsky, will you go a little bit slower.
You heard, did you not, what Dr. Exner said?
COLONEL POKROVSKY: Yes, I heard him. I am afraid, however, my Lord, that the tempo of my questions were hardly as such in this interrogation. However, I shall try to go slower. BY COLONEL POKROVSKY: there was cited amongst other thoughts also the following,quoting: "That problem of insufficient personnel has brought us to the plan --"
THE PRESIDENT: Will you simply indicate for us what page this is on. In our book we have not had any single document in English, as yet. This document we have not had in English.
COLONEL POKROVSKY: It is L-172, my Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Pokrovsky, this very passage you just read, or part of which you just read, was submitted by Mr. Roberts yesterday to the defendant. Surely that is contrary to our rules here that we cannot have the same subject gone over twice. We already got it marked.
COLONEL POKROVSKY: I am reading this sentence, my Lord, not as a question but merely as an introductory remark to the question which is to follow the sentence which is in several parts, and the question which is to follow is merely reminding him of the sentence; that sentence in itself is not a question,
THE PRESIDENT: What is the question?
COLONEL POKROVSKY: As soon as the defendant has the exhibit, I shall ask the question.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Pokrovsky, we want to know what is the question, so we may see if it was a question which had been gone into by Mr. Roberts. Colonel Pokrovsky, the Tribunal has indicated to you that they do not want to go over the same grounds which was gone into yesterday. If you have some new question, by all means present it.
COLONEL POKROVSKY: I have no intentions, my Lord, of any questions which I have to ask today of repeating a previous question of Mr. Roberts' and I am now questioning with what I shall now proceed, and shall request the defendant to look at Exhibit USR 130. All right, my Lord?
THE PRESIDENT: Go on.
BY COLONEL POKROVSKY: the consent of the OKW from a document dealing with the introduction of compulsory military service in the occupied territory. Have you found the place? Please show the defendant the exact thought. Have you found the sentence that I have just read, a decree dealing with the introduction of compulsory military service in the occupied region?
Q It begins with the following sentence: "With the consent of the OKW." Do you see that, defendant? know such facts as the conscription of the Yugoslav population of the occupied territory into the German Army. What do you have to say about that decree? Is it a crude violation of the International Law? Do you understand my question?
A Yes. I can say only that I see it there for the first time. I am just seeing it for the first time. After all I am not an OKW. I am just a member of the Operational Staff. In other words, I never read this document during the war. violation of the International Law? and I am not in a position to do that, and I believe it is without interest to the High Tribunal. Agreement -- or it was at the Geneva Convention, and that you never had the document in your possession, but now you look at one other document which was submitted to the Tribunal on 20 March, which is submitted here as USA 676-678, in March, is the number submitted.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, "38" is the way it ends up here.
COLONEL POKROVSKY: Yes, I am sorry, my Lord, it is 638 PS.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Pokrovsky, the document that you just handed up to us is "J-6". Are you offering that in evidence. Are you offering that?
COLONEL POKROVSKY: No, I am not offering any new document. This document had already been submitted.
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute. Are you referring to Document No.638-PS, or are you referring to Document No. J-6?
COLONEL POKROVSKY: I am referring to No. 638-PS.
THE PRESIDENT: It was not referring to document J-6. The document which is before 638 here, it is the Yugoslav document.
COLONEL POKROVSKY: There are two documents which you are referring to, My Lord, it has two numbers, USR 130, and at the same time is J-6. The second document to which I am referring also has two numbers.
THE PRESIDENT: I only want to know if you are offering the first document in evidence, or has it already been offered in evidence.
COLONEL POKROVSKY: It is already submitted, my Lord. BY COLONELPOKROVSKY: to read the document. Have you read it?
Q Very well. I want to remind you that twice Goering assorted, or rather confirmed the fact that the document was original, and I am merely questioning the exactness of one or two sentences. Now I would like to ask you, how do you explain the fact that the German High Command equipped and clothed in German military uniform persons who were looting, who raped, plundered, and conducted operations in a way that characterized criminals. How do you explain such commission to do such things? How did you coordinate the means to do such things by the OKW with your understanding of International Law? Do you remember the testimony given here previously about special brigades which were organized for such purposes?
A. I do not know just wherefrom you know that the High command gave its approval and that this actually took places.
Tha t is something beyond my knowledge. This is only the notes of alloyed statements by the Reichsmarshal, but I do not know how it should concern me.
Q. I will try to help you to remember and establish this fact in your memory. Do you remember that there was a special brigade, at the end of 1941 and the beginning of 1942, which operated against the Partisans or guerillas? The first commanding officer of that unit was Bach-Zeleweski. But you testified about him on the 7th of January 1946. Do you remember?
A. No, I don't remember that.
Q. Very well. In that case, I will have to show you the testimony or deal with it without any help from you. Do you remember that fact that various units of the Jugoslav Army were special uniforms, that their divisions had regimental numbers? Do you remember that there were such units? Do you understand the question?
A. I approximately understood the question. You perhaps mean the Regiment Frankfort. That is a concept and means something to me.
Q. No, I mean something else. I am sorry. I simply want to remind you that in spite of the fact that units of the Jugoslav Army did not fulfill the qualifications of that to which you refer as special bands, nevertheless, these various units of the Jugoslav Army, although they were uniforms and had regimental numbers, nevertheless, they were called bandits and special bands were organized to deal with them. We have correspondence between various members of the German High Command which mentions the exact regimental and divisional numbers of these various Jugoslav units; that they know that these were parts of the regular army and yet they applied special bands and special measures to deal with them, which violated all ideas of International Law.
Have you under-
stood me now?
A. I understand you very well.
Q. Would you like to reply anything to that?
A. Yes. I can only say this assertion of yours is untrue, and -
Q. I would like you to reply briefly, please.
A. Yes, I shall be very brief. These Jugoslav bandits, we characterized them as partisans for propaganda reasons, but in practice uniformed fighters always were treated as prisoners of war; and there is no order which would have prevented them from such treatment as prisoners of war. Otherwise, we wouldn't have had so many prisoners.
Q. I am grateful for you having touched upon the question of prisoners of war. You have testified on oath here that there was no such decree as not to take prisoners of war. Do you remember that testimony of your own?
A. No, there are no International Law regulations which apply to a rebellion. There is no such thing.
Q. No, I am merely asking you to confirm the accuracy of your testimony the other day when you stated that there was no such decree as not to take prisoners of war. Did you give such testimony bore in Court a few days age?
A. That was not my verbatim testimony -
Q. Just a minute. We will talk about this in detail a little later. First I merely want to ask you whether you remember your testimony, given here on oath a few days ago, that there was no such decree issued by the German Army as not to take prisoners of war? I want to know, do you remember having given such testimony here? Have you understood me?
A. I do believe that I remember. I do not know of any directive or any such order that there were not to be taken any prisoners of war; I do not remember that.
Q. V ery well. One other thing I would like you to clarify. This document has the following sentence of yours, that you con sidered it improper to question prisoners of war once the decision was made that the prisoner of war be shot; after that decision was made, you do not think he should be questioned, is that correct?
I am quoting from this telegram.
A. Yes, I testified to the effect that I rejected that sentence from the moral and from the humane point of view.
Q. Very well. now I would like you to answer whether You remember that there were four mountain divisions in the German Army and that there was such a division called the Fourth Alpine Division?
remember.
Q I am not talking about four different divisons. I'm afraid you have an incorrect translation. I am asking you whether you remember that there was a division called Fourth Mountain or Fourth Alpine Division? Well, it doesn't matter. I thought perhaps you night remember that one.
Q Very well. In that case, you may also remember that there was a responsible officer of the German Army by the name of Kuebler. He operated in Jugoslavia.
A Yes. There were two men by the name of Kuebler, an older man and a younger man.
Q General Kuebler is the man I am interested in. I am not asking you who was Keitel. I know that. However, now we will proceed to the two documents.
THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now for a few minutes.
(A recess was taken.) BY COLONEL POKROVSKY:
Q How we will deal with these two documents, Defendant Jodl. I will ask you to take up USSR Exhibit 132. This is a directive to a division of destroyers. attack. Paragraph 2, Prisoners: "He who has openly participated in the struggle against the Armed Forces of Germany and has been takenprisoner must be shot after questioning." Is that worded in those terms? Do you hear me? without the whole document, nothing can be gathered from that one sentence. What is decisive is what comes before it, and that isn't stated in the document.
Q Above you read: Directive for the Conduct of Troops During Attack. How another document. It bears the markings of the Fourth Alpine Regiment and is dated October, 1943. It contains the personal directive of Keitel regarding the treatment of prisoners. I will ask you to consider Point 3. It says, in the second part of this paragraph: "The Command who are above the rank of divisional commanders can issue permits to take pr isoners." That is tosay, the prisoners and the civilian population in this combat area can be shot.
THE PRESIDENT: Apparently the translation is not coming through correctly. Perhaps you are going too fast. It is coning through correctly to me, but it apparently was not coming through correctly to the defendants. Would you put your question again? BY COLONEL POKROVSKY: Alpine -
THE PRESIDENT: Did you give us the number of it?
COLONEL POKROVSKY: Yes, My Lord. It is USSR Exhibit 470, and it has the second number 127. BY COLONEL POKROVSKY:
Q Have you found subparagraph 3, defendant Jodl? is not a document.
A But it is not an original. It is a fantastic example of translation. This would have gone straight into the wastepaper basket, but I admit that it may be due to the foolish translation that it looks like this. In my opinion, all it contains is nonsense. The heading says Fourth Alpine Regiment, and it is a Roman four. It should be an Arabic number. There has never been such a word. It says the commando troops of the Alpine Division, IV. All that is nonsense. Pure, unadulterated nonsense. This is not a document. It is a scrap of paper.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to see the original of these documents. They were put in, apparently, as USSR 132 and USSR 470. Is USSR 470 a new document?
COLONEL POKROVSKY: No, My Lord, this document was previously submitted, and the original document is in the record. I am onlynow showing a copy of the translation, but both documents were previously submitted. If you consider it necessary, we can submit the original documents a second time.
THE PRESIDENT: One of the Secretaries to the Tribunal says that it was not submitted before, not offered in evidence before, USSR 470. Are you sure?
COLONEL POKROVSKY: There may be a technical error, but I was told that it had already been submitted. I will definitely look into this matter.
My Lord, the second document is the original; your second document is in the original, I believe.
THE WITNESS: I can contribute something to clarify this.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Pokrovsky, the Tribunal is uncertain about the admission of this document. Could you tell us exactly what the document is, and in which circumstances it is now being offered in evidence? What the document is, and where it came from?
COLONEL POKROVSKY: I can give a quite definite answer to the last question, My Lord, but perhaps I will have to answer the first part of your question somewhat later, as we are investigating the question.
Below the document there is an affidavit which states that:
"This certifies that this is a correct copy of an original document which was captured during military operations in June 1944 at Pokrazzi by the Jugoslav People's Army of Liberation. The original document is being kept in the archives of the State Commission for the Investigation of the Crimes of the Occupiers in Belgrade, and it is dated 4 January 1946, Belgrade," and it is signed by the President of the State Commission, Professor Nedelkowitsch. this document and what date it was submitted, and if the document has not yet been submitted, then we will request an original copy or photostatic copy of the original document, and we will then submit it in evidence. I believe that that would be acceptable to the Tribunal. therefore it is being submitted for the first time, and the original document will be sent for immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Pokrovsky, with reference, for the moment, to Document USSR-132, which I understand has already been offered in evidence, the Tribunal would like to see the original of that document because there are only two paragraphs put out in the copy that we have before us, and that was the point that was taken by the defendant Jodl, that he wanted to see the whole document. the Tribunal understands has already been offered in evidence, the Tribunal thinks that that document in full should be put before the defendant for him to make any comments. With reference to Document 470, which you are now offering in evidence, the Tribunal is of the opinion that you should go on cross examining with reference to that document, subject to the production, a soon as possible, of the original or photostatic copy of the original, and subject to the right of the defendant's counsel to apply to have that cross examination struck out if there is any substantial difference between the translation in the Yugoslav language, which is now being used for the purpose of cross examination of the defendant, and the original document.
Is that clear to you and to Dr. Exner?
COLONEL POKROVSKY: I have understand, my Lord. It will be done.
DR. EXNER: Mr. President, I think that a discussion of this document ought not to be permitted at the moment. There are too many deficiencies in it. It couldn't be right in this fashion.
Roman numeral IV, for instance, the "IVth Alpine Regiment", is referred to. That Roman numeral IV is quite wrong.
Then there is "the commanders", which isn't German, "The commanders delivered", it says, or "informed". Then, on line 4 there is mention -
THE PRESIDENT (Interposing): Dr. Exner, the Tribunal wants to know what you are talking about. Are you talking about 470?
DR. EXNER: Yes. I am merely trying to show that this cannot be a geniune document because it isn't proper German. For instance, in the fourth line it says, "Department Army Command Staff, OBH" and the command staff is attached to the OKW, not the OKH.
Then, there is the lack of a signature. It does have the signature "Keitel" on the first page, but he is signed as a Colonel General, incidentally, and he was General Field Marshal at that time. "The OKW is supplying the following information". Then there is the quotation, and Keitel's signature is a part of that, whereas the document itself is supposed to originate from the Fourth Alpine Regiment and there is no signature originally from them.
I really don't think that it would be sensible to talk about the document until the original has been supplied. For instance, on page 2 of the document there is the statement that this goes to the commanders of such and such companies. They aren't commanders, these company commanders. That is the wrong word. No German military person could have written this document.
COLONEL POKROVSKY: But I would like to record -
THE PRESIDENT (Interposing): Dr. Exner, the Tribunal adheres to its decision that this document may be used now. All the points which you are now raising and any other points which you may wish to raise upon the document will be opened to you if you wish to move to have the cross examination struck out at a later stage when the original has been produced.
DR. EXNER: I understand.
THE PRESIDENT: For the purposes of not wasting time, it is, the Tribunal thinks, more convenient to have the cross examination upon this document now. We will leave it to you to move hereafter to strike the whole cross examination out.
DR. EXNER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, Colonel Pokrovsky, here is the original document 132 which the defendant ought to have for the purpose of making any comments that he wishes to make.
COLONEL POKROVSKY: The directives of the Tribunal will be followed, my Lord. We will submit the original. BY COLONEL POKROVSKY:
Q Have you acquainted yourself with the contents of the document?
Q You do not doubt at all the authenticity of the document?
A No, that is quite genuine. There is no doubt as to the 118th Fusilier Division, but what is a puzzle to me is the connection between the 118th Fusilier Division and myself. That is the part I don't understand.
Q Very well. Well, maybe you will see that the question is not a foolish one, but is relevant. Do you want to add anything to your comments?
A I haven't understood you.
THE PRESIDENT: Defendant, when you were asked about Paragraph 2 of Document USSR 132, you said that the whole document wasn't contained before-you you. Now you have the whole document.
THE WITNESS: I have it, yes. The entire order from Kuebler is perfectly in order in my opinion. Apparently the doubts which the prosecute: has refer to Point 2, where it says, "...who has obviously participated in the fight against the German armed forces is to be shot after interrogation." That, of course, doesn't refer to normal troops. That is with reference to the population. At least, that is how I see it.
Paragraph 8 says, "The attitude towards the population..." and so on. That seems to be in order from the point of view of international law. It draws the dividing line between enemy or hostile populations and the attitude towards peaceful populations. BY COLONEL POKROVSKY:
Q Is that all you have to say?
A Yes, but as I said, what I don't understand is the connection between Kuebler's order and myself. been separated and dealt with in Paragraph 8, in a separate paragraph? Is that right? You have just referred to that.
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute.
THE WETNESS: With the permission of the Tribunal -
THE PRESIDENT: One moment. Defendant, are you suggesting that there is anything in the order itself which indicates that the prisoners dealt with in Paragraph 2 are not, as you have put it, normal troops?
THE WITNESS: In that respect, the paragraph isn't very clear, but the next document which the prosecutor has submitted might give the proof regarding what other orders have been published. have given an order saying that captured Yugoslav troops should be shot. Had he done so, then he would have done so by the command of the Supreme Command of the German Army. But how can I give my views on an order from Major General Kuebler?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, your answer to my question, then, is in the negative, that there is nothing in the order itself which indicates that the prisoners referred to in paragraph 2 are not normal troops.
THE WITNESS: That cannot be derived from the wording of that order.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps I ought to draw your attention under the words "General Directives," to the words "for the conduct of troops in action."
THE WITNESS: May I please have permission to look at the original again? Because I have only a copy here before me.
(A document was submitted to the witness).
THE PRESIDENT: You now have the original document before you. Do you want to add anything to what you have said?
THE WITNESS: I just wanted to add that if you do concern yourselves with this order of Major General Kuebler, it isn't by any means certain whether this order refers to any particular action favoring the cleaning out, in any particular territory, of guerillas who weren't regarded as regular troops at that particular moment, but were regarded as part of the population. That is feasible. At any rate, I cannot answer any of those questions because I am not Major General Kuebler.
THE PRESIDENT: Y ou may now pass on to 470.
THE WITNESS: May I ask the Tribunal for permission to rectify my correction to this document?
THE PRESIDENT: Which document are you speaking of?
THE WITNESS: USSR470.
THE PRESIDENT: What do you want to say about it?
THE WITNESS: I had previously described that document as nonsensical because, at the first moment, I regarded it as a German order. In the meantime I have ascertained that it is obviously a Croatiam order, because it is addressed to three Croatian battalions. That Croatian order contains a statement by the commander of that regiment in which he related to his troops something which he had received in the way of orders from the 4th German Alpine Division, regarding the treatment of prisoners. He, in turn, traces it back to an order from Keitel, which, however, is misrepresented, and which, if it were correct, would have been handed in by the defense counsel for Field Marshal Keitel because it is a wonderful statement of the international law attitude toward such guerillas; that is, if it is correct.