Chapter M: HERZOG: The Prosecution, Mr. President, does not wish to read any (10)

JODL: I said yesterday, with reference to the two declarations of...

MR. ROBERTS: Please answer my question, it is such a simple one.

JODL: Yes, I believe, I recalled that at the time. I am quite sure.

MR. ROBERTS: Very good; and we know there was an assurance at the beginning of the war to reassure all these western neutrals, and there was another assurance on the 6th of October; and you say that in November Hitler decided to invade Denmark and Norway?

JODL: Yes. I testified as to that at length yesterday.

MR. ROBERTS: I know you did. Please don’t always say that. I have got to ask you to go over the same ground from the other angle, you see. “Norway,” as your speech said—and I am quoting from Page 291 of Book 7—perhaps you had better give it to him—Page 11 of your notes...

[_Turning to the Tribunal._] It is in the middle, My Lord, under Paragraph 8:

“In the meantime we were confronted by a new and urgent problem:
The occupation of Norway and Denmark....

“In the first place there was danger that England would seize
Scandinavia and thereby, besides effecting a strategic
encirclement from the north, would stop the import of iron and
nickel which was of such importance to us for war purposes.
Secondly, it was with the realization of our own maritime
necessities”—“Notwendigkeiten”—that is the word, isn’t
it—“Notwendigkeiten”...

My Lord, that ought to be “necessary” and not “imperative”—“erforderten.”

“...which made it necessary for us to secure free access to the
Atlantic by a number of air and naval bases.”

[_Turning to the defendant._] You wanted air bases and U-boat bases, didn’t you?

JODL: Militarily they were tremendously important to us, there is no doubt about that; but the prerequisites to taking them, those were the reports which we had, the threat to Norway.

MR. ROBERTS: What I suggest to you, you see, is this: In this, like the case of the other three Low Countries—in this case, you simply made an excuse. You thought England might do something, although she had not done it for months, and you breached Norway’s neutrality at your own chosen time. Is that right?

JODL: In order to answer that question “yes” or “no,” one would have to undertake a very thorough study of all the historical documents on both our own and the other side. Then one can say if it is correct or not. Before that has been decided, only a subjective opinion exists. I have mine, and you have another.

MR. ROBERTS: Yes. And I point out to you that it was Germany on every occasion who violated the neutrality. The other countries, the Allies, did not.

JODL: In the case of Norway, the English did that first in the case of the _Altmark_ by laying mines and by firing upon German ships in Norwegian territorial waters. That has been proved indisputably. There is no doubt about that.

MR. ROBERTS: The _Altmark_, as you very well know, Witness, was not an occupation at all; it was merely the act of the British Navy in taking British prisoners from a German prison ship, and I imagine your Navy would have done the same if they had had the chance. What is the good of talking about the _Altmark_? It was not an occupation at all.

JODL: But it was a violation of international law as far as Norwegian sovereignty was concerned. You could only request that Norway do that, but you yourselves could not carry out a combative action in Norwegian waters. I know the regulations in this connection exactly.

MR. ROBERTS: Why should you break your word to Norway and cause untold suffering and misery to the inhabitants of that country because the British went into the territorial waters and took out a few hundred prisoners? What is the logic of it? Why should the Norwegians suffer for it?

JODL: You are just quoting one small example from the tremendously real picture of England’s occupation, but there are hundreds of them.

MR. ROBERTS: It is the example you quoted, Witness, not I. I did not quote it.

JODL: I can only say that we were under the definite subjective impression that we carried through an enterprise, in the last second, for which British troops were already embarked. If you can prove to me that is not true, I shall be extremely grateful to you.

MR. ROBERTS: Well, now I am going to call your attention to the only outside evidence that you have produced about that, because it was read rather hurriedly—quite rightly, yesterday.

[_Turning to the Tribunal._] My Lord, it is in Jodl’s Document Book 2, and it is Page 174. Well, My Lord, it begins at Page 174. My Lord, that is on the left-hand top corner. Page 174 says that Albrecht Soltmann was an expert specialist, that he evaluated files from the British landing brigade, and that he examined diaries. That is on the second page, and the bottom of Page 175:

“The documents and statements by prisoners showed that a short
time before our landing in Norway the British invasion troops
had been embarked on destroyers. On the following day they were
again disembarked and remained in the vicinity of the port of
embarkation. They were then reembarked after the German invasion
of Norway for the second time and transported to Norway. What
intention the English pursued in the embarkation of their troops
before our landings could not be determined from the documents
and from the statements of prisoners. Whether they intended to
occupy Norway before our invasion could at that time only be
conjectured, because the prisoners did not make any exact
statements in this respect. The conjectures are based on the
special equipment of these British troops. Insofar as I could
evaluate the documents and statements furnished by prisoners
they did not contain proof of the English plans with regard to
Norway.”

And this is the next question:

“Have not the results of all documents and statements furnished
by prisoners been to the effect that in the invasion of Norway
we arrived only just ahead of the English?

“Answer: ‘Yes, the information in the documents and the
statements furnished by prisoners could be interpreted to mean
that in our invasion we were just ahead of the English. However,
whether this was considered unmistakable evidence I cannot
judge.’”

And then they deal with French documents captured in a railway train. The witness does not know anything about them.

[_Turning to the defendant._] That is pretty poor evidence, isn’t it, on which Norway was to be invaded, contrary to all the treaties and all the assurances?

JODL: I quite agree with you on that; you are quite correct. But that is only because Soltmann was unfortunately not the expert in this field. He was not even an officer of the General Staff. I had forgotten that. We had further and quite different evidence which lay before me on my desk; namely, all the commands carried by the English landing brigade. They confirmed our assumptions absolutely and definitely.

MR. ROBERTS: An invasion without any warning or any declaration of war?

JODL: That is a political question.

MR. ROBERTS: You have told the Court yesterday what a stickler you were about international law, how keen you were to see that international law was observed. You knew that was against international law, didn’t you?

JODL: These matters were not in our regulations, but only the provisions which applied to the Wehrmacht. The concept of an aggressive war was not found in any regulation. We went only by the Geneva Convention and the Hague Land Warfare Regulations.

MR. ROBERTS: I mean if an honorable German gives his word he keeps it, does he not? He does not break his word without saying that he is going to depart from it, does he, an honorable German?

JODL: That seems to be a practice which is generally observed all over the world when human beings work together, but not in the sphere of politics.

MR. ROBERTS: If that is your code of honor, why is it not grossly dishonorable for Germany to break her word over and over and ever again? Or would you rather not answer that question?

JODL: No, you would do better to put that question to the people who were responsible for German politics.

MR. ROBERTS: Very well, I will leave that. Now I want to come to the invasion of Holland, Belgium, and the Netherlands. I beg your pardon, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg.

You have no doubt at all, have you, on the documents that in the event of war in the West, it was always Hitler’s intention to violate the neutrality of those three small countries?

JODL: From the beginning, in his orders for the attacks in the West, he had the intention to go through Belgium; but he had reservations with regard to Holland for a long time, which were only rescinded later—I believe in the middle of November. Regarding Holland his intentions were not specific. Regarding Belgium his intentions in that direction were known comparatively early, that is, about the middle or the early part of October.

MR. ROBERTS: You could not, of course—I mean Germany naturally wanted to wage an offensive war and an offensive war in somebody else’s country. That is the ambition, naturally, isn’t it?

JODL: The German objective in this war was to win, at that time.

MR. ROBERTS: Yes. You couldn’t attack in the West unless you attacked through Belgium, could you?

JODL: In any event, any other attack was tremendously difficult and was highly doubtful. I have already said that.

MR. ROBERTS: Yes. That is why, of course, France built the Maginot Line, so that you couldn’t attack her frontally.

Well, now, if you secured the coast of Belgium and Holland, you secured air bases from which you could annihilate England or Great Britain. That is what you hoped, wasn’t it?

JODL: No doubt the strategic position of Germany in the battle against England improved through our having the coast; that is true.

MR. ROBERTS: Yes. May I just remind you of a few documents which the Tribunal know already. I do not intend to read them, but the first document in order of date is 375-PS, USA-84, dated 25 August 1938. It is during the Fall Grün time. That was the Air Force appreciation which, in the last paragraph of the document, Page 11, I think, it says:

“Belgium and the Netherlands in German hands would represent an
extraordinary advantage in the air war against Great
Britain....”

And the Army is asked to say how long it would take.

That was at the time of the Czechoslovakian crisis, wasn’t it?

JODL: Yes, but this document, I believe, has already been characterized as a ridiculous piece of paper, being the work of an insignificant captain.

MR. ROBERTS: He seems to have been a very good judge, at any rate, judging what happened afterwards.

Well now, the next document—I know you were in Austria, but no doubt you heard about it from Keitel—was the Chancellery meeting the 23d of May 1939. That is L-79, it is Book Number 7, Page 275. Do you remember there that the Führer said:

“The Dutch and Belgian air bases must be militarily occupied.
Declarations of neutrality must be ignored....

“In this matter, considerations of right and wrong or treaties
have no significance....

“The Army will have to take positions essential to the Navy and
the Air Force. If Belgium and the Netherlands are successfully
occupied and held, if France is also defeated, then fundamental
conditions for a successful war against England will have been
secured....

“Daily attacks by the German Air Force and Navy will cut her
life lines.”

There wasn’t any doubt as to the policy of the Führer in May 1939, was there?

JODL: It was in Court here that I first heard about this conference and about the things which were purportedly discussed at that time; and I am not able to judge whether it is correct, for I did not hear it, not even from Keitel, not even later.

MR. ROBERTS: Very good. Did you hear about the speech made by the Führer on the 22d of August 1939?

[_Turning to the Tribunal._] I do not know if the Court has got this. It is not in the Document Book; 798-PS, in Document Book Number 4. There are some loose copies, My Lord.

[_Turning to the defendant._]

“Those countries”—Holland, Belgium—“and Scandinavia will
defend their neutrality by all available means. England and
France will not violate their neutrality.”

You always thought Hitler was a good prophet, didn’t you? You thought Hitler was a good judge.

JODL: Very often, yes, very often.

MR. ROBERTS: And he was a good judge that England and France would keep their word, whereas Germany would break hers.

Now, then, that is August. Now then I want to...

JODL: But that I don’t know.

MR. ROBERTS: Very good. Now, I want to come to the document which you put in yesterday.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, wait a minute. Defendant, what do you mean by saying you don’t know that? Do you mean that you did not know the document? You said, “I don’t know that.”

JODL: I do not know what the Führer actually said in his conference on the 22d of August. I did not even know that a discussion had taken place, for I was in Vienna. I only know what is ostensibly in documents which have been submitted here.

MR. ROBERTS: Now I want to put the whole Document L-52. Dr. Exner, quite properly of course, read some extracts; but I want to read some more. Have you got copies for the Tribunal?

Now, L-52 was Hitler’s memorandum on the 9th of October 1939. May I point out that the 9th of October 1939 was 3 days after his renewed assurances to the western neutrals.

I want to refer—certain passages you have read; I want to refer to others.

[_Turning to the Tribunal._] My Lord, what I am now reading from, starting with the outside page, is the 5th page. It is Page 27 of the original, which appears in the bottom right-hand corner.

[_Turning to the defendant._] I read the paragraph on Page 25 of your original, Witness.

“Germany’s military means of waging a lengthy war are, as far as
our main enemy is concerned, the Air Force and the U-boat arm.

“The U-boat can even today, if ruthlessly employed, become an
extraordinary threat to England. The weaknesses of German U-boat
warfare lie in the great distance of approach to the scene of
their activity, in the extraordinary danger attached to these
approaches, and in the continual threat to their home bases.
That England has not, for the moment, laid the great mine fields
as in World War I, between Norway and the Shetland Islands, is
possibly connected—provided the will to wage war exists at
all—with a shortage of necessary blockade materials. But if the
War lasts long an increasing difficulty to our U-boats must be
reckoned with in the use of these only remaining inward and
outward routes. Every creation of U-boat bases outside these
constricted home bases would lead to an enormous increase in the
striking power of this arm.”

Is that a covert reference to the Norwegian bases, do you think, giving access to the Atlantic?

JODL: I do not believe so. I believe it is a general correct naval strategic consideration and can apply just as well to a base at Murmansk which, for instance, we already had at that time, or in Spain, or in some other state that was neutral at the time; but it is not a reference to Norway, for I have declared under oath that at the time, the Führer never gave a thought to Norway, not the slightest thought, before he received the report from Quisling.

MR. ROBERTS: I have your answer. Now, may I go on reading?

“The German Air Force: It can only succeed in effective
operations against the industrial center of England and her
south and southwest ports, which are gaining in importance
during the war, when it is no longer compelled to operate
offensively from our present small North Sea coast by
tremendously devious routes involving long flights. If the
Dutch-Belgian area were to fall into the hands of the English
and French, then the enemy air forces, in order to strike at the
industrial heart of Germany, would need to cover barely a sixth
of the distance required by the German bomber to reach really
important targets. If we were in possession of Holland, Belgium,
or even the Straits of Dover as jumping-off bases for German air
attacks, then, without a doubt, Great Britain could be struck a
mortal blow, even if the strongest reprisals were attempted.

“Such a shortening of the air approaches would be all the more
important to Germany because of our greater difficulties in fuel
supply. Every 1000 kilograms of fuel saved is not only an asset
to our national economy, but means that 1000 kilograms more of
explosive can be carried in the aircraft; that is, 1000
kilograms of fuel would become 1000 kilograms of bombs. This
also leads to economy in aircraft, in mechanical wear and tear,
and above all, in the precious blood of soldiers.”

Then I ask you to turn to your Page 41.

My Lord, it is two pages on, and Your Lordship will see “41” nearly at the top of the page, with an asterisk, and the heading, “The German Attack.” Has Your Lordship got it?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

MR. ROBERTS: “The German Attack. The German attack is to be
launched with the fundamental object of destroying the French
Army, but in any case it must create a favorable initial
situation which is a prerequisite for a successful continuation
of the war. Under these circumstances the only possible area of
attack is the sector between Luxembourg in the south and
Nijmegen in the north, excluding the fortress of Liège. The
object ... is to attempt to penetrate the area
Luxembourg-Belgium, and Holland in the shortest possible time
and to engage and defeat the opposing Belgian-French-English
forces.”

I suppose I can’t ask you to say what is your opinion of the honesty of giving those western neutrals a guarantee on the 6th of October and saying that is the only possible means of attack in that memorandum of the 9th. I suppose that is a question of politics, is it?

JODL: That is a political question, but the declarations were always made only on the condition of the strictest neutrality of these countries. But this neutrality was not kept, for British fliers flew over this area by day and by night.

MR. ROBERTS: Why should the wretched people of the Netherlands and Belgium be destroyed and mutilated because British airmen fly over their territory—destroyed and mutilated by the German Army? What is the logic of your remark at all?

[_Turning to the Tribunal._] My Lord, there was one more passage from that document I should like to read. If Your Lordship is thinking of adjourning, perhaps I might read it, and then I will have finished with the document. My Lord, it is the next page, and it is toward the end of the page. It is against the lettering—the number L-52. It is just above, “Time of Attack.”

[_Turning to the defendant._] It is on your Page 52, Witness, at the very beginning, or just at the end of Page 51:

“All the leaders must keep firmly fixed in their minds the fact
that the destruction of the Anglo-French Army is the main
objective, the attainment of which will make possible the
prerequisite conditions for later and successful employment of
the German Air Force against other objectives. The brutal
employment of the German Air Force against the heart of the
British will to resist can and will follow at the given moment.”

Did that mean terror attacks against the civilian population?

JODL: You are asking me continually about a document which from the first to the last word was written by the Führer, as I have already told you. You are producing a rather interesting picture of the Führer as a strategist and as a military leader, and it is of interest to the world; but I cannot see how this concerns me. These are the thoughts which the Führer put down as military commander and are of great interest for all soldiers in the world. But what does it have to do with me? That I do not understand.

MR. ROBERTS: But may I point out, Witness, that your own counsel produced it and you relied on certain parts of it. That is how it concerns you; you relied on it.

JODL: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now.

[_The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours._]

_Afternoon Session_

MR. ROBERTS: Witness, I only have two other questions on the alleged aggression against the Low Countries. Will you look at your diary, 1809-PS, for the 8th of May 1940. It is Page 141 in Document Book 7, and it is Page 115 in the German book. The actual quotation is Page 143 in the Document Book 7; at the top of the page: “8 May. Alarming news from Holland, canceling of furloughs, evacuations, road blocks, other mobilization measures.”

Were you afraid that the Dutch might actually take some steps to defend themselves against your invasion?

JODL: I was sure that the Dutch would defend themselves against Germany.

MR. ROBERTS: Was it alarming you because you thought the Dutch might have suspected you were going to break your treaties and assurances?

JODL: I did not understand the question.

MR. ROBERTS: I will go on:

“According to the intelligence reports the British are said to
have asked for permission to march in, but the Dutch refused.
According to reports, measures of the Dutch partly directed
against the coast and partly against us. Not possible to obtain
a clear picture whether the Dutch do not work hand in hand with
the English or whether they really want to defend their
neutrality against the first attacker.”

It is clear from that, is it not, that you had no information at all that Dutch neutrality was going to be broken?

JODL: That is not clear from the entry; it is only a brief argument on the basis of masses of reports which we received from Canaris on that day or on the previous day. If they were to be followed up accurately, the reports immediately preceding this entry would have to be at hand; the entry refers to the latest reports, and not to the many thousands which had come in before.

MR. ROBERTS: Now, on the 10th of May without any declaration of war these three countries, small countries, were invaded with all of the armed might of Germany, were they not?

JODL: The attack began on the 10th of May along the whole front.

MR. ROBERTS: What had those countries done at all to deserve the horrors of invasion and the misery of German occupation?

JODL: That, again, is a historical question. I have already said that according to my personal point of view England and France in fact forced them to give up their strictly neutral attitude. That was my impression.

MR. ROBERTS: Their only fault, was it not, was that they stood in the way of your air bases and U-boat bases?

JODL: They were not only in the way, but by tolerating actions incompatible with neutrality, they helped England in the war against us. That was my subjective impression.

MR. ROBERTS: Now, I have only got—with the permission of the Tribunal, there was one question I should have asked on Norway; only one; and if I might go back to that, I want to ask you about your diary entry, 1809-PS, Page 143 in Document Book 7. I have not got a reference to the German but it is about at that place. I will read it slowly: “13 March: Führer does not give order yet for ‘W’”—Weser—“He is still looking for an excuse”—or “justification”—to use your word. And the next day: “14 March: Führer has not yet decided what reason to give for Weser Exercise.”

If you had a good reason for breaking Norwegian neutrality, why should the Führer be unable to find one?

JODL: Because for this operation the Führer considered it absolutely necessary to have some documentary proof. So far, there had only been very strong indications which came near to a proof, but we had as yet no documentary evidence.

MR. ROBERTS: Very good. I leave that part of the case, and I now go to Yugoslavia, and I have only two or three questions on Yugoslavia.

I want you to look at Document 1746-PS, Page 127 in Document Book 7; German book, 112.

Before we deal with the document, Witness, Yugoslavia had also received assurances from Hitler. That is so, is it not, or do you not know?

JODL: Yes. Not only did Yugoslavia receive assurances from Hitler, but we also received them from the Yugoslav Government, which had concluded a treaty with us on the previous day.

MR. ROBERTS: Now, you will find the document I am going to refer to—it has got a piece of paper headed with the German word for “discussion,” “Besprechung.” Have you found it? It should be a piece of paper with the word “Besprechung.”

JODL: “Discussion on the Situation in Yugoslavia”; yes.

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, that is right.

JODL: Yes.

MR. ROBERTS: Dated 27 March 1941?

JODL: Yes.

MR. ROBERTS: Now if you turn to—I think it is Page 2:

“The Führer is determined, without waiting for declarations of
good faith from the new government, to make all preparations to
destroy Yugoslavia militarily and as a national unit. No
diplomatic inquiries will be made; no ultimatum presented.
Assurances of the Yugoslav Government, which cannot be trusted
for the future, will be taken note of. The attack will start as
soon as the means and the troops suitable are ready. It is
important that action be taken as fast as possible.”

Now I go to Page 3, Witness:

“Politically it is especially important that the blow against
Yugoslavia is carried out with unmerciful harshness and military
destruction is done in a lightning-like undertaking.”

Now I go to Page 5, Witness:

“The main task of the Air Force is to start as early as possible
with the destruction of the Yugoslav Air Force ground
installation, and to destroy its capital, Belgrade, in waves of
attacks.”

The Führer was not going to give the civilian population even half an hour’s warning, was he?

JODL: I do not know what preparations for warning the Yugoslav Government had been made, but at the moment of the Putsch it immediately made military preparations and deployed its forces along our border.

MR. ROBERTS: May I ask you this? Do you approve, as an honorable soldier, of attacking a city crowded with civilians without a declaration of war or even half an hour’s warning?

JODL: I do not hold that view. I have already said that I, personally, and half an hour or an hour later the Reich Foreign Minister, suggested an ultimatum.

MR. ROBERTS: When you lost air superiority and people were able to hit back, you Germans made a great deal of fuss then about terror attacks, did you not?

JODL: This city was at the same time the center of a Putsch government which had annulled a treaty concluded with Germany, and which from that moment on had made preparations along the whole front for war with Germany.

MR. ROBERTS: Well, I am going to leave the incident. Do you remember how you referred to it in the notes for your lecture? It appears on Page 127—no, My Lord, it does—I beg your pardon, it appears on 292 of Book 7 and at 304 of the German. You refer to it as “an interlude.” Do you remember? The German word is “Zwischenspiel,” “interlude.” Is that your idea of an interlude?

JODL: To be juridically exact, you mean the first draft of my lecture and not my lecture which you do not know. However, even in this first draft I cannot recall mentioning an interlude.

MR. ROBERTS: How many civilians, how many thousands, do you think were killed in the first movement of that “interlude”—in the bombing of Belgrade without warning?

JODL: I cannot say, but surely only a tenth of the number killed in Dresden, for example, when you had already won the war.

MR. ROBERTS: Now I come to the alleged aggression against the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Hitler decided to attack the Soviet Republic in July of 1940, did he not?

JODL: In July of 1940 he had not yet reached that decision.

MR. ROBERTS: But at any rate—I do not want to waste time—we know that on the 22d of June 1941 Germany invaded the Soviet Union contrary to her nonaggression pact. That is history, is it not?

JODL: Yes. The surprise attack on 22 June 1941 is a historical fact which took place because the politicians were of the opinion that the Soviet Union had not kept the pact.

MR. ROBERTS: Now, Witness, I am going to pass from this part of the case altogether. I want to put one last question: Do you not think that this record of broken pledges will dishonor the name of Germany for centuries to come?

JODL: It might, if historical research after exact investigation of Russian documents delivers clear proof that Russia had no intention of strangling us politically or of attacking us. In that case, yes; otherwise, no.

MR. ROBERTS: I now want to ask—to come to quite a different part of the case under Count Three and Count Four. The documents have been put to you so often. I do not want to put them again.

But, you remember the “Barbarossa” order. That is C-50, in Document Book 7, Page 187; and German book, 146. That was circulated by your office, was it not, Wehrmachtführungsstab, L?

JODL: It was dealt with in the Quartermaster Section of the Wehrmachtführungsstab.

MR. ROBERTS: Well now, would you agree that that was a shameful order to have to issue?

JODL: I agree. I have already said that there was no soldier who was not opposed to this order; they all did so.

MR. ROBERTS: Very good. Now we know that on the 17th of July—and this is Document C-51, which is in Document Book 7, at Page 190, German Page 150—we know that from the same office, the WFSt, L, there was issued an order that the previous order was to be destroyed, but its validity was not to be affected, destroyed below corps level. What was the object of the destruction of that order?

JODL: Unfortunately I cannot tell you; I do not recall this order. I do not believe I ever saw it, at least not before this Trial.

MR. ROBERTS: Perhaps you would look at it, Witness, C-51, Page 190, Book 7; 150, German book. Now, that comes from WFSt—that is, Wehrmachtführungsstab—Department “L”; and then “Q” for “Quartermaster,” in brackets. That is your office, is it not?

JODL: That is a part of the Wehrmachtführungsstab.

MR. ROBERTS: It is signed Keitel.

JODL: Yes. But I do not know this order; it was shown to me for the first time here in Nuremberg; I had never seen it before. I do not know what it is about or what order is being rescinded. I have already said that these questions of military legal jurisdiction were dealt with by Field Marshal Keitel, and that he used my Quartermaster Section as a working staff without my having any part in these matters. I do not know this order.

MR. ROBERTS: And you cannot suggest any reason why it had to be destroyed?

JODL: No; I cannot give you any information about it.

MR. ROBERTS: Now then, I want C-52, which has not yet been put in. Your Lordships will find it on Page 191 of Book 7. I offer it as GB-485, and it is in the German book on Page 153.

[_Turning to the defendant._] Now, this is another Keitel order. It comes from Wehrmachtführungsstab, L; then, in brackets, “I Op.” Is that your department?

JODL: That is the section which worked with me on all operational questions.

MR. ROBERTS: Do you remember that order?

JODL: Yes, I remember the order.

MR. ROBERTS: Now—I think you took part in drafting it; did you not?

JODL: Certainly, because it is an operational order which supplements a directive.

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, well, will you look at Paragraphs 6 and 7? Paragraph 6:

“In view of the vast size of the occupied areas in the East,
forces available for establishing security will be sufficient
only if all resistance is punished not by legal prosecution of
the guilty, but by the occupation forces spreading such terror
as is alone appropriate to eradicate every inclination to
resist.

“The respective commanders, together with the troops at their
disposal, are to be held responsible for maintaining peace in
their respective areas. The commanders must find the means of
keeping order within the regions where security is their
responsibility, not by demanding more forces, but by applying
suitable Draconian measures.”

That is a terrible order, is it not?

JODL: No, it is not at all terrible for it is established by international law that the inhabitants of an occupied territory must follow the orders and instructions of the occupying power, and any uprising, any resistance against the army occupying the country is forbidden; it is, in fact, partisan warfare, and international law does not lay down means of combating partisans. The principle of such warfare is an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, and this is not even a German principle.

MR. ROBERTS: Is it not the tooth and the eye of the innocent?

JODL: It is not a question of the innocent. It expressly states, “to eradicate every inclination to resist.” It is a question of those who resist, that is, by partisan warfare.

MR. ROBERTS: I will not argue about it, Witness. I gather you approve of the order.

JODL: I approve it as a justified measure conforming to international law and directed against a widespread resistance movement which employed unscrupulous methods. Of that we had evidence.

MR. ROBERTS: Very good. Now I want to come to something quite different. I want to come to the Commando Order, and I desire to put in two documents which have not yet been put in, to trace the history of the making of this order, because I suggest it was drawn up in your office under your jurisdiction.

Will you give the witness, please, 1266-PS, which I offer, My Lord, as GB-486.

Now, this is the first document, dated the 8th of October. That is a memorandum from the “Q” branch of the Wehrmachtführungsstab; that is right, is it not?

JODL: Yes.

MR. ROBERTS: And it was—that is the wireless order that you mentioned?

JODL: Yes.

MR. ROBERTS: First it deals with the “tying up,” My Lord, which is not important. Secondly, the wireless announcement of the 7th of October 1942, which reads as follows:

“All terror and sabotage detachments of the British and their
accomplices who do not behave like soldiers but like bandits
will in future be treated as such by German troops and will be
ruthlessly slain in battle wherever they make their appearance.”

[_Turning to the defendant._] Well, of course, that order does not mean very much, does it? It assumes that the enemy are not behaving like soldiers, but like bandits, and says they may be slain in battle.

But then the second paragraph:

“The Deputy Chief of the Operations Staff...”

That was Warlimont, was it not, Witness?

JODL: Yes, that was Warlimont.

MR. ROBERTS: Yes.

“...has given the following urgent task to ‘Q’:

“1) Drafting of the order.”

Look at Number 2:

“Like the Barbarossa order issued at the time this order must
also be drawn up—in conjunction with the Armed Forces Legal
Department and Counterintelligence—with great thought and care.
Distribution down to armies only, from there forward only
orally. To be destroyed after having been taken cognizance of.”

What was the nature of that order that was drawn up with so much care by your staff and the Legal Department and Counterintelligence?

JODL: I believe that was Document C-50, which you mentioned earlier. The Barbarossa order is not a clear term.

MR. ROBERTS: “The following must be borne in mind regarding the
contents of the order:

“In cases where captives are temporarily taken into custody for
our own purposes, the persons concerned are to be handed over to
the SD by Counterintelligence after a thorough examination in
which the SD is also to take part.

“Not to be lodged in prisoner-of-war camps under any
circumstances.

“This order is to take effect subsequently with regard to the
people from Norway.”

The people from Norway were some English Commandos who had blown up a power station in Norway; is not that so?

JODL: That is possible, but I do not know. I have never seen this.

MR. ROBERTS: I think I will be able to remind you later about it.

The next document I do not read. It is from somebody called “Dr. Hülle,” whom I do not know, and I do not think it adds anything to it.

Then the next document—the third in Your Lordship’s bundle—is dated 9 October and is signed “Warlimont.” Is it dated 9 October, Witness?

JODL: Yes.

MR. ROBERTS: Signed Warlimont?

JODL: Signed by Warlimont.

MR. ROBERTS: It sets out the first facts in the first two paragraphs that we know:

“The Führer wishes an order to be issued laying down the proper
behavior of the Armed Forces.

“At the instance of the Armed Forces Operations Staff, the Armed
Forces Legal Department has drawn up the draft attached hereto.

“You are requested to co-operate in a thorough examination, if
necessary, calling in the Reichsführer SS.

“We refer to the discussion between Chief of Counterintelligence
and the Deputy Chief of the Armed Forces Operations Staff.”

Then the next document is the draft order prepared by the Legal Department:

“Members of terror and sabotage detachments of the British Armed
Forces who demonstrably break the rules of an honorable way of
fighting will be treated as bandits: To be exterminated
mercilessly in battle or in flight. If in case of military
necessity they should be temporarily arrested, or if they fall
into German hands outside combat actions, they are to be brought
before an officer immediately for interrogation and are then to
be handed over to the SD.

“Holding them in a prisoner-of-war camp is forbidden.

“This order may be distributed only down to armies. From there
to the front it must be transmitted only verbally.”

And did you—do you remember having a conversation on the telephone with the head of the Legal Department about this order?

JODL: No, I do not remember.

MR. ROBERTS: Well, will you look at the next document; it is dated 14 October. It is in the same bundle, the next page of it—I beg your pardon, it is a memorandum. Now you notice the heading, the original heading was: “Reprisal Actions—Prisoners of War.” Somebody struck that out and put instead: “Combating of Enemy Sabotage Detachments.”

“Memorandum. (Telephone discussion with the Chief of the Armed
Forces Legal Department).

“The Chief of the Armed Forces Legal Department has spoken with
the Chief of the Armed Forces Operations Staff by telephone.”

That is you, is it not?

JODL: Yes.

MR. ROBERTS: “The latter”—that is you—“said that the Führer’s
aim in this action was to prevent this manner of waging war
(dropping small detachments who do great damage by demolitions
and then surrender).”

That was the object of the order, was it not?

JODL: Yes, but by using methods contrary to international law.

MR. ROBERTS: Well, that is a matter perhaps neither for you nor me to discuss. But if I might be allowed to ask you this question: Do you draw any distinction between a British airman who bombs a power station from the air and a British parachutist in uniform who is landed and blows it up with an explosive? Do you draw any distinction in international law?

JODL: No. As such, the destruction of an objective by a demolition troop I consider completely admissible under international law; but I do not consider it admissible during such an operation for civilian clothes to be worn under the uniform and armpit pistols to be carried which start firing as soon as the arms are raised in the act of surrender.

MR. ROBERTS: Well, there are two things there, you see, and one answer and I am not going to argue at all with you; but when you consider the case you will find many, many cases where these persons were executed and there is no suggestion they had anything but a uniform at all.

JODL: I believe that these cases were quite rare, that at least these people were mixed with those who wore civilian clothes.

MR. ROBERTS: Well, I am not going to argue with you because there are other documents and they will have to be, perhaps, summarized sometime. But would you agree that a parachutist in uniform, with no civilian clothes, acting like that, if he is killed, shot by the SD, would you agree that that would be murder? Or would you rather not answer that?

JODL: I have already said that if a soldier in full uniform only blows up or destroys an objective, I do not consider it an action contrary to international law; and for that reason I opposed the Commando Order in this form almost to the last moment...

MR. ROBERTS: I hear your answer and I will not pursue that matter. Then the document goes on—I do not want to read it all:

“The Chief of the Armed Forces Legal Department spoke to the
effect that under these circumstances one should consider
issuing an order fit for publication. Article 23c of the Hague
Land Warfare Regulations, which forbids the killing or wounding
of an enemy who lays down his arms or is unarmed, if he
surrenders unconditionally, had to be explained; when the Land
Warfare Regulations were concluded this manner of waging war was
not yet known and the regulation therefore could not apply to
this.”

Well now, that was the first bundle. Now I want to put you a...

JODL: I should like to make a brief comment on this document. I have not seen any of these papers before; I am now seeing them for the first time; but they prove, word for word, what I said here the day before yesterday under oath, that on their own initiative, the members of my staff, as they heard that the Führer had demanded an executive order, began preparatory work for the draft of such an order with the Legal Department and with the Foreign Department, but that I did not accept and did not submit any order to the Führer.

MR. ROBERTS: Well now, I want to put to you another document, 1265-PS.

My Lord, I offer it as GB-487.

Now the first document in the bundle is a teletype dated 13 October and it is signed by Canaris. Is that right, Witness?

JODL: Yes, a teletype message from Canaris.

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, and it is a teletype to the OPS Staff. The subject is “Treatment of Prisoners of War.”

“Regarding discussions and measures in pursuance of OKW’s
announcement of 17 October 1942 the following general attitude
is taken:”

Number 1 does not matter; it is about chaining. Number 2 is the important one:

“Treatment of Sabotage Units: Sabotage units in uniform are
soldiers and have the right to be treated as prisoners of war.
Sabotage units in civilian clothes or German uniform have no
claim to treatment as prisoners of war (_francs-tireurs_).”

You agree, of course, with the correctness of that, do you not? The rest of that document does not matter. You agree, do you not, with that opinion in Paragraph 2, as a man who knows international law?

JODL: Yes, I agree with Paragraph 2; it corresponds entirely with my opinion; it agrees completely with my point of view.

MR. ROBERTS: And now the next document.

If you go to the—if the Tribunal would kindly go to the last document of the three; and would you go to the document which is headed, “Telephone call; Reference: Letter Ausland Abwehr of 13. 10. 42.” My Lord, that is the one I have just read.

“Opinion of the Armed Forces Legal Department”—Paragraph 2,
that is referring to Canaris’ opinion—“Fundamentally in
agreement.

“It may, however, be possible to support the following train of
thought with regard to special cases:

“Fighting methods such as exist now and such as it is intended
to prevent came about long after the creation of the Hague
Regulations for Land Warfare, in particular as a result of war
in the air. Special attention is drawn to the mass use of
parachutists for purposes of sabotage. Anyone who commits acts
of sabotage as a soldier with the intention of surrendering
after the act of sabotage without fighting does not act like an
honest fighter. He misuses Article 23c of the Hague Regulations
for Land Warfare during the formulation of which no such methods
were contemplated. The misuse lies in the speculation on
surrender without fighting after successful completion of the
act of sabotage.

“This view regarding the inadmissibility of sabotage Commandos
can be backed up without reservation provided we also apply it
to ourselves.”

That document has your initial on the top, Witness? Is that right?

JODL: I have read this document. It contains a statement on international law by the Armed Forces Legal Department, which on this point agrees with the Führer’s opinion. It actually confirms the possibility that a misuse of international law may be committed by surrendering immediately after an action and thus securing for oneself complete absence of danger in the conduct of a war operation. That interpretation is disputable; I do not fully approve of it, but it was the view of the highest legal authority at that time.

MR. ROBERTS: Many, many brave soldiers, when they are outnumbered, surrender, do they not? Many Germans surrendered at Bizerte and Tunis, thousands of them. How did that put them outside the pale of international law or the protection of it?

JODL: But they were soldiers captured in the normal manner of war, which the Führer always recognized. This is a disputable case and very doubtful under international law, but, as I said, it is not an idea of mine and has nothing to do with me; I only took note of it.

MR. ROBERTS: Very good. My Lord, the intermediate document is a letter signed “Lehmann,” who was head of the Legal Department. It merely confirms the telephone conversation which I have read, and I do not think it is necessary to read it again. It is before the defendant.

[_Turning to the defendant._] Well now, the last of these documents before the order was finally drawn up and issued, the Court has already seen, because it was put in.

It is 1263-PS, RF-365, My Lord, it was in Jodl’s Document Book Number 2, Page 104.

Will you look at the original, please.

There is an unfortunate omission from Page 110 in Dr. Exner’s book, which I am perfectly certain is quite inadvertent. Will you look at the document dated 15 October 1942?

My Lord, I think that is the first in your bundle. It is Page 110. It is first in the single documents. It is Page 110 of Dr. Exner’s book, and I apologize to him because I have just seen the marginal writing. It was covered over before, and I had not seen it. I apologize.

My Lord, the...

It is a note, is it not, Witness, signed Warlimont, your deputy, 15 October. I think you will find it the second document in your file. I do not want to read it all again because it has been read, but you see: “The Proposal of the Amt Ausland Abwehr will be submitted as Appendix 1.”

The Tribunal will find Appendix 1, in which he says—in which it is suggested, under letter “A,” that sabotage troops who do not wear uniforms should be court-martialed. You have said “no.” You have given your reasons. I will not worry you about that any more. And then “B”; members of sabotage units, who are in uniform but are guilty of dishonorable activities are after capture to be put into special confinement. Do you say that that does not go either?

And then, if you will go back to 15 October, just the second paragraph down:

“The Chief of WR”—that is the Legal Department—“has made a
statement to the effect that the order was to be drawn up in
such a way that it will take into account our own interests...”

Is it “our own interests,” Witness? “Take into account our own interests”?

JODL: Yes, “our own interests.”

MR. ROBERTS: “...our own interests while considering the future
conduct of the war. In this way he wanted to avoid repercussions
which would run counter to our further intentions. Sabotage is
an essential part of conducting war in time of total warfare; we
ourselves have strongly developed this method of fighting.”

And you write against that, do you, “But the English make much more use of it”?

JODL: Yes, it is an undeniable fact that at that time of the war the English made much more use of it than we.

MR. ROBERTS: Is that a reason for making a law, an order of this kind, to try and discourage the English from using sabotage detachments?

JODL: No, that is certainly not a reason. It is only a denial of the statement that we had strongly developed this method of fighting; hence my remark, “Yes, but the English to a much greater extent than we.” That, of course, has nothing at all to do with the reason for the order.

MR. ROBERTS: Then I am not going to take more time on that particular document, except—have you got a document dated 14 October with 1, 2, 3, 4 at the end? I think it is on a separate page, the 1, 2, 3, 4.

JODL: Yes.

MR. ROBERTS: It says:

“With the view in mind—to prevent the enemy’s fighting the war
by using sabotage troops—following questions have to be
clarified before formulating an order:

“1) Have we ourselves the intention of dropping sabotage Units
in the zone of rear echelons of the enemy, or also far back in
the interior?

“2) Who will drop more sabotage troops, the enemy or we?

“3) Can we establish the principle: Sabotage troops do not
conduct legal war; they are to be exterminated in the fighting
without mercy?

“4) Do we attach importance to first arresting the single
members of this group for interrogation by Counterintelligence
and not killing them immediately?”

These were the considerations which were discussed in your office before the orders were drawn up.

JODL: These were questions—not points of view—questions which were raised in the Armed Forces Operations Staff as a result of the Armed Forces communiqué. Fortunately, the submission of all these documents proves the complete correctness of everything I said here 2 days ago. The staff, the Legal Department, and the Ausland department racked their brains and pondered how they could draw up the executive order implementing the Führer’s additions to the Wehrmacht communiqué. Neither they nor I came to any conclusion, and no proposal was made to the Führer; nothing was done. That is what I stated here the day before yesterday, and that is what, fortunately, you yourself have proved by submitting these documents.

MR. ROBERTS: You have said, I think, that part of the Führer’s order disgusted you?

JODL: Yes.

MR. ROBERTS: And you have said in your interrogation that circulating this order was one of the things which went against your inner conscience—one of the few things. “Your inner convictions”—to use your actual words.

JODL: In the preliminary interrogation I said that it was one of the few—or the only—order I received from the Führer which I, in my own mind, completely rejected.

MR. ROBERTS: You rejected it, but these young men went on being shot, did they not?

JODL: I have already described exactly how the commanding generals at the front, vigorously supported by me, interpreted this order in the mildest imaginable way in practice; actually, only very few such incidents occurred, and I believe that most—at any rate, nearly all that came to my knowledge—were highly justified, because the fighting methods of those people were not methods of honest soldiers.

MR. ROBERTS: You see, you talk about your “inner convictions.” I think Keitel spoke about his “inner conscience.” But should we have heard anything about these convictions and this conscience if Germany had not lost the war?

JODL: No, but then we might have heard of the strangled at Dieppe in a similar trial.