One Hundred and Forty-Eighth Day:
Thursday, 6th June, 1946
[Page 383]
THE WITNESS: I mean, that as General Staff officer of the
Operation section at that time I had to know what military
preparations were made.
THE PRESIDENT: But, that is not what I asked you. What I
want to know is what you said just now when you were asked
if you remembered what "Operation Schulung" meant. What did
you say? It is suggested that it may have come through
wrongly to us in the translation. What did you say?
THE WITNESS: I said, I believe I recall, but I am not
certain whether this recollection did not result from
studying the documents here, or earlier, that the word
"Schulung" meant the preparations for the evacuation of the
Western Rhenish territory and occupation of the Rhine
boundary in case of French sanctions, for that was the only
thing with which we were concerned at that time. All the
evacuation measures which I later mentioned anyway in
Document EC-405 were part of that.
BY MR. ROBERTS:
Q. Well, you remember the date of that last document, 2nd of
May, 1935. Now I refer to EC-405 which is in the big
Document Book 7, Page 261, and it is on Page 277 of the
German Book. Now, this, witness, is a meeting - I want you
to look, please, at Pages 43 and 44 of the original which
you have. Have you got 43 and 44?
A. 43 and 44, yes.
Q. Very good. Well, now, you see there - it is a meeting of
the working committee of the Reich Defence Council. It is
dated the 26th of June, 1935, and at letter "F," Colonel
Jodl talks about participation in mobilization preparations,
and the first three paragraphs deal with general
mobilization, and I do not want to read them, but the fourth
paragraph reads:
A. No, it wasn't dishonest, for if it is true at all that
the term "Schulung" -
THE PRESIDENT: That is a matter of comment, if you please.
MR. ROBERTS: I shall, of course, my Lord, have to make
certain comments on the witness as I proceed. No doubt your
Lordship will realize that I am not endeavouring to depart
from this particular ruling which is only for this
particular question, presumably.
[Page 384]
MR. ROBERTS: Well, my Lord, I - about your Lordship's
ruling, I have had, of course, a very extensive experience
in cross-examination in many courts, and I bow entirely to
your Lordship's ruling, but it is very difficult for a
cross-examiner to confine himself entirely to the facts. But
I shall do the very best I can.
BY MR. ROBERTS:
O. Then I shall read on:
Weapons, equipment, insignia, field-grey uniforms and
other items stored for mobilization purposes must be kept
from sight."
A. They were weapons and items of equipment of the State
police (Landespolizei), the security police and the
gendarmerie. There were no troops there. Consequently, there
were no weapons there for them.
Q. Did the police wear field-grey uniforms?
A. To my knowledge the police wore a grey-green uniform or a
green uniform.
Q. Then what was the need of this great secrecy if this was
only police equipment?
A. It was the additional equipment for the reinforced
frontier guards - the customs inspectors - about which I
have already said that it was intended -
Q. My question, witness, was, what was the need for secrecy?
What was the need for secrecy if you were not breaking the
Treaty of Versailles? Can you not answer that?
A. I have already testified to the reasons for keeping all
these measures secret in detail during my direct
examination, and I confirm that in all these preparations it
was a question, in case of an occupation of the western
Rhenish territory by France, of setting up a blockade along
the line with the aid of the police, the gendarmerie and the
reinforced guards. That was the intention at that time, only
for this eventuality. I have already testified under oath
that I learned about the occupation of the Rhineland only
six or eight days beforehand.
Q. I know you have, you see, and I am suggesting to you that
your evidence was quite untrue on that point, and I am going
to suggest it is quite untrue on many points. Now then, will
you please go back to the first paragraph that I read. You
say:
A. I only repeat the answer that was given to the French
Charge d'affaires. I believe that that was essentially true.
No mobilization tasks, such as disposition,
[Page 385]
Q. I will not repeat the point, I submitted ... May I just
remind you - and I think there are copies for the Tribunal
too - of Article 43 of the Versailles Treaty.
Article 42 defines the area, the left bank of the Rhine and
the right bank to the west of a line drawn 50 kilometers to
the east. Article 43:
A. No, I do not agree to that. They were precautionary
defence measures as we feared the enemy might not abide by
the Treaty and might attack us again.
Q. Very good. Now I propose to refer to you Document 172-L,
which, from time to time, has been described as your speech
- hand it to him, will you - and I want to make it quite
clear first as to what you say the document is, because you
would not say one thing one day and the opposite the next,
would you, witness? That document has your writing in
places, has it not? I can refer you to the pages if you
like. If you look at Page -
A. That is unnecessary. It contains many hand-written
crossings-out and notes by me. But I have -
Q. Thank you, witness, for saving me that trouble then. And
is that a speech, the notes of a speech, which you delivered
at Munich to the Gauleiter in 1943?
A. I have already clearly said that this was the rough
draft, not the speech that I made, but one ... parts of the
first draft, and the majority of the matter in it consists
of notes by my staff, which they sent me for the preparation
of this speech. I crossed out whole pages and sent the whole
rough draft back again and only then did I make my speech.
Well now, I want to examine that, because you said quite
differently, did
you not, when you were interrogated by one American officer
on two separate occasions? You said quite differently, did
you not?
(No response.)
Q. Were you interrogated on this matter on the 8th of
October last year by Colonel Thomas Hinkel? Do you remember
that? Perhaps you would not remember the date.
A. No. Oh, we spoke about this matter a few times.
Q. Yes, and you were 'sworn' when you gave your answers to
the interrogators?
A. Yes.
Q. Well now, may I read, to refresh your memory, a copy from
the shorthand notes of the interrogation?
"Question: You interpolated the remarks that do not
appear in the
written part; is that correct?
"Answer: Yes, many particulars I set forth just with the
map at hand.
"Question: Is that your handwriting appearing on the
cover page?
"Answer: No, it is not mine.
"Question: But the remaining sheets you identify as the
written version
of a lecture at Munich? [Page 386]
"Question: Do you identify" - Just follow this, will you,
witness? - "Do you identify the first twenty-nine pages
as constituting the lecture that you delivered?
"Answer (after examining the document): Yes, that is my
lecture."
A. I have not read the transcript of the notes which were
taken there. I do not know the translation. I made several
other statements in that regard. I observed in the second
interrogation that that was not actually my speech, and that
-
Q. I will read the second one, witness. I have that for you.
This was on the 16th -
THE PRESIDENT: Defendant, had you finished what you wanted
to say?
THE WITNESS: No, I had not finished. I was interrupted.
THE PRESIDENT: Then finish what you want to say.
THE WITNESS: I wanted to say that before I had looked over
the whole document, at the first moment, of course, I had
the impression that that was the copy from which I delivered
my speech. However, when I looked at it more carefully in
the course of the interrogations, I noticed that it was only
the material collected for this speech, and I said clearly
and distinctly:
BY MR. ROBERTS:
Yes. Let me read now what I was going to read, the second
interrogation. This is the 16th of November, 1945, four days
before the trial:
As I remember your previous testimony, it was to the
effect that the first part of the document is the speech
that you wrote for delivery to that meeting. The second
part consists of various thoughts on the basis of which
this speech was prepared; is that right?
Answer: One moment, please. This is not my real lecture.
This is a conglomerate of the pieces of writings which
are partly drafts of my own, that is, the introduction,
but all the appendices are the basis of my lecture,
furnished me by my staff.
The photostats appended to the original lecture-it was a
photographed
copy-and also, a number of maps which were drawn up were
included.
This is not my lecture as such, and the annotations made
here are not mine.
I do not know the origin of this copy. Most likely it was
furnished me by the OKW for the purpose of my giving this
lecture. It is altogether a conglomeration of various
pieces of writing, and it is usable only with
limitations. However. . . " [Page 387]
A. On the whole, you have confirmed just what I said.
However, I do not know why we have to talk so long about it.
The case is completely clear. It is -
[
Previous |
Index |
Next ]
Home ·
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
Search
Nizkor
© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012
This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and
to combat hatred.
Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.
As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may
include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and
provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist
and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.
(Part 3 of 12)
[MR. ROBERTS continues his cross examination of ALFRED JODL] "Demilitarised zone requires special treatment. In his
speech of 21st of May, 1935, and in other utterances, the
Fuehrer has stated that the stipulations of the Treaty of
Versailles and the Locarno Pact regarding the
demilitarised zone are being observed. To the
'Aide-memoire' of the French Charge d'affaires of 17
June, 1935, on 'Recruiting Offices' in the Demilitarised
Zone, the German Reich Government has replied that
neither civilian recruiting authorities nor other offices
in the demilitarised zone have been entrusted with
mobilization tasks such as the raising, equipping, and
arming of any kind of formations for the event of war or
in preparation thereof."
Now, if von Blomberg's hand-written letter of the 2nd of
May, 1935, did refer to preparations for reoccupying the
Rhineland by surprise, it was highly dishonest of the
Fuehrer nineteen days later on the 21st of May, to say that
the Locarno and Versailles treaties were being observed, was
it not?
"Since political entanglements abroad must be avoided at
present. Only those preparatory measures that are
urgently necessary may be carried out in the
demilitarised zone. The existence of such preparations or
the intention of making them must be kept strictly secret
in the zone itself as well as in the rest of the Reich.
And now I want to refer to the last paragraph:
"Commitment to writing of directives for mobilization
purposes is permissible only in so far as it is
absolutely necessary to the smooth execution of the
measures provided for the demilitarised zone. Without
exception such material must be kept in safes."
You were collecting weapons and uniforms in the
demilitarised zone, were you?
"To the 'aide-memoire' of the French Charge d'affaires
... the German Reich Government has replied that neither
civilian recruiting authorities nor other offices ...
have been entrusted with mobilization tasks such as the
raising, equipping and arming of any kind of formations
for the event of war..."
Does not that subsequent paragraph about the weapons,
equipment, insignia, and field-grey uniforms show that the
truth was not told to the French Charge d'affaires?
"In the area defined above the maintenance and the
assembly of armed forces, either permanently or
temporarily, and military manoeuvres of any kind, as well
as the upkeep of all permanent works for mobilization,
are likewise forbidden."
I suggest to you the steps you were taking - mentioned at
that meeting - were a clear breach of the Versailles Treaty.
Do you agree, or do not?
"I show you a photostatic reproduction of a number of
pages of a lecture, which was purported to have been
given by you on the 7th of November, 1943, and ask you if
those pages represent the lecture that was delivered. For
the record, that is identified as L-172."
Then you answer:
"Yes. A number of things are not contained therein, which
I explained
with the map.
"Answer: I cannot say whether it was actually my lecture
as it was, because I see the signature of Putlag. It is
not the lecture itself. That is the materials of the
brochures which had been furnished to me."
Do you want to alter that sworn answer now? Do you?
"It contains the first draft, the outline and the
conclusion by me. The whole middle part is only material
furnished by my staff, and the whole thing is not at all
the speech which I gave."
That is word for word what I told Colonel Hinkel.
"This document is identified for the record as L-172. I
show you the photostatic reproduction in order to refresh
your recollection concerning it.
And just listen to this, will you?
" ... as to the broad lines of it, this is what I have
used as a lecture."
Then the next question was
"I believe you stated before that the written speech that
you had was not delivered as set forth in the text,
because you interpolated various remarks in the course of
the speech, particularly whenever you referred to one of
the maps that you placed before the audience to
facilitate the following of the campaigns which you
discussed. Is not that correct?"
"What I have written down I have actually spoken and I
stick to this text, written down by myself. But in regard
to the momentary situation on the various fronts" - and
that is Part 3 and 4, where you will find a note
"delivered extemporaneously" - "I had that so clearly in
mind that I did not need to depend on any written
statements. Also, I referred to the maps freely."
Then the last question on this point:
"Is it not true, however, that the document before you
represents, in general, the speech that you gave at
Munich in November 1943, to this meeting?"
The answer is:
"Yes; much, without doubt, is the same. I did not use
during my speech all the appendices with regard to these
various theatres of war and other appendices. I had
returned them."
Do you agree with your answers to that interrogation?