One Hundred and Forty-Eighth Day:
Thursday, 6th June, 1946
[Page 414] [Page 415]
Q. Now, I want you to look at a part of that document which,
quite properly, of course, was not read.
MR. ROBERTS: It is Appendix 5 which will be part, my Lord, I
assume, of
AJ 14, the number which this document was given when it was
put in, in the examination-in-chief. But I am handing the
Tribunal copies of Appendix 5 because it does not appear in
the Jodl Document Book.
BY MR. ROBERTS:
Q. Well, now, Appendix 5 I can describe as the sting in the
tail of this document:
"(1) If the civilian population offers resistance, or if
attacks must be feared, the arrest of hostages should, on
principle, be resorted to. Hostages should only be
arrested on orders of the commander of a regiment or a
commander of equivalent rank ...."
"When accommodating and feeding hostages it should be
borne in mind that they are not imprisoned because of
crimes. Hostages and population are to be informed that
the hostages will be shot at any sign of hostile action.
Previous sanction of the shooting by the Divisional
Commander must be obtained .... "
Then: "Armed resistance by the civilian population is to
be crushed by force of arms."
The last sentence on that page: "The death penalty will
be imposed for violence of any kind against the German
Armed Forces.
Immediate trials will take place by Field Courts Martial.
The Regimental Commander can appoint the Summary Court
which will be composed of one Captain, one Sergeant, one
Corporal, hear witnesses and draw up the sentence in
writing. The verdict will be the death penalty if guilty,
otherwise acquittal. The sentence will be executed
immediately after confirmation by the Regimental
Commander.
The following are to be considered as acts of violence:
sabotage, destruction of our lines of communication,
cutting of telephone wires, demolition, etc."
A. These instructions are, word for word, in complete accord
with our directives which, in times of peace, were laid down
by the group of experts on International Law in co-operation
with the Foreign Office and with German professors of
International Law. It would have been well, if only these,
our military precepts, our military court procedure laid
down before we went to war; had been followed consistently
everywhere. Our official directives with regard to the
question of hostages were in accordance with International
Law, and there is no doubt that under International Law, as
applicable in the year 1939, the taking of hostages was
admissible.
Q. I suggest to you, as you raise that point, that nowhere
in International Law will you find the shooting of hostages
legalised at all.
A. But it is not expressly prohibited anywhere in
International Law. I believe it is an open question. In our
directives, even in the handbook on tactics, the concept of
taking hostages had been laid down for years.
Q. That may be so, and I do not want to argue with you about
it. I suggest to you that The Hague Regulations protect the
lives of civilians in occupied countries, unless they commit
crimes, of course, and also prohibit collective punishments
of the innocent.
[Page 416]
A. I can only summarize and say that every word here is in
accord with the directives applicable in the German Army,
and these directives were not illegal. But one would have to
argue this problem with experts on International Law.
Q. Very good. Now, will you look at one other document
dealing with Norway? It is 582-D.
MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, it is a new document, and I offer it
as Exhibit GB 491.
BY MR. ROBERTS:
Q. Is that a document which comes from your office?
A. Yes. It originated with the Wehrmacht Operational Staff,
Quartermaster Section.
Q. Do you know of it or not?
A. I cannot recall it exactly, but there are some notes of
mine on it, and so I undoubtedly saw the document.
Q. Oh, yes. Where are the notes, witness?
A. They are on the back page of the last teleprint message.
Q. Oh, I see what you mean, yes. Well, will you take first
of all ... I had forgotten that you were getting more than
one document. Will you take first of all the document dated
2nd February, 1945? I think it is the top one.
A. There are no remarks of mine on that document, so I
cannot say with certainty whether I have seen it.
Q. Just have a look at it and tell me whether you have seen
it.
A. I do not think I have seen this. I do not ... I have no
recollection of having ever read it.
Q. Well, then, I do not think it would be right to
cross-examine you on that document.
MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, in that case, I would ask to withdraw
it, and I will not put it in as an exhibit.
THE PRESIDENT: I think the defendant said that it was from
his office.
MR. ROBERTS: Very well, then. I will ... He did that.
Q. You see what the document says, defendant. It is dated
2nd April, 1945 it deals with -
A. The 2nd of February.
Q. It is the 2nd of February. It deals with Reich Commissar
Terboven's report to the Fuehrer. It says:
The bourgeois-national majority was opposed to the
Communist minority as to the conception of sabotage and
murder, and in particular with regard to their extent and
nature. This resistance has become progressively weaker
during the course of the past year.
Official departments of the exile government, as for
instance the Crown Prince Olaf, as so-called
Commander-in-Chief of the Norwegian Armed Forces, and
various other leaders, have called upon the population,
in speeches and orders, to carry out sabotage. As a
result, there are particularly good grounds for charging
every supporter of the exile government with being an
instigator or accomplice.
The aim of the coming measures must therefore be, to
strengthen the power and will, to turn once more against
sabotage by threatening the very [Page 417]
2. Less important men to be sent to Germany to work on
fortifications.
3. In cases where the circumstances warrant it,
proceedings to be taken before the SS and police court,
and the execution of the sentences of death to be given
wide publicity."
And then the last paragraph but one:
A. No, it is not mine.
Q. You see, it is a remarkable document, witness, because
that is one instance where your department is suggesting a
course of what I submit is brutal action, which for once the
Fuehrer rejects.
A. I believe, Mr. Roberts, you are somewhat mistaken. No
suggestion at all is being made here, but the
Wehrmachtfuehrungsstab is advising the military commander in
Norway of what Reich Commissar Terboven had told the
Fuehrer. He reported to the Fuehrer first about the general
situation, and then he made the suggestions mentioned here;
and the Wehrmachtfuehrungsstab, the Operational Staff, which
obviously had a representative at this meeting - I, however,
was not there - immediately advised the military commander
of the magnificent suggestions of his "friend" Terboven.
That is what happened and these suggestions went beyond ...
they were too much even for the Fuehrer. But they were not
our suggestions.
Q. Very good, witness, I hear your answer, and the Tribunal
will consider it. It may be accepted. The document speaks
for itself.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you read the first ... the subject
description? Orientation about Reich Commissar Terboven's
report to the Fuehrer.
MR. ROBERTS: Yes.
Q. That is the first, that is the subject, is it not, the
beginning, witness? Orientation about Reich Commissar
Terboven's Report? Whose orientation? Your department's?
A. Orientation of the 20th Mountain Army, that is, of
General Boehm. General Boehm as Commander-in-Chief of the
Mountain Army, High Command 20, is advised of the report
made to the Fuehrer by Reich Commissar Terboven, so that he
would know what his friend Terboven had suggested. It is no
more than information on what Terboven said to the Fuehrer.
I cannot tell you who was present, I was not there. The
entire thing did not originate with me, I have never seen
it.
Q. Well, now, the second document, this is from Terboven to
Bormann on 28th October, 1944. That is with regard to the
evacuation east of Lyngen. I do not think I need read that.
Then, the next document, maybe the second document, it is a
teleprint of 6th April, 1945, from Oberfuehrer Fehlis, SS
Oberfuehrer to the Operational Staff, and it says:
[Page 418]
A. Yes.
Q. And you stick to that, do you? I mean you ... that is
your opinion today?
A. Yes, indeed. I am of the opinion, from the point of view
of International Law, that members of a resistance movement
against their own Norwegian government are certainly not to
be considered as normal troops, but as rebels. But if
Norwegian troops come to Norway from England, then they are
regular soldiers. And that, today, is still my opinion on
the basis of International Law.
Q. What do you call their own Norwegian government, the
puppet government which was set up by the Germans?
A. There was the government of Quisling at the time; and, in
any event, speaking now from the point of view of
International Law we were occupying the country, and
therefore, according to International Law, were justified in
issuing laws and enforcing them. That is accepted under
International Law, and resistance against it is considered
all over the world as rebellion. The same applies to us in
Germany today.
Q. Now, I want to deal quite shortly with three other
matters and then I have finished. I want to deal first of
all with what you have said with regard to Hitler's
suggestion to revoke the Geneva Convention. You say you were
instrumental in preventing him from renouncing that
Convention?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you look at a document which has already been put
in, 158-C, which is Exhibit GB 209. I think you have loose
copies of it; it is not in a document book. This was put in
with regard to the case against Donitz. It is headed:
"Extracts from Minutes of the Hitler Conference on 19th
February, 1945": The Commander-in-Chief Navy was present on
19-2-45."
[Page 419]
A. Grand Admiral Donitz.
[
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 11 of 12)
[MR. ROBERTS continues his cross examination of ALFRED JODL] "Guiding Principles for the attitude of troops in
occupied areas. Only - " I do not read the first few
paragraphs - "only in the event of the civil population
resisting or behaving rebelliously can the following
decisions be carried out:
Rather drastic, that, was it not? Only the death penalty?
"Those responsible for attempts to murder and to carry
out sabotage are the resistance elements within Norway
with a bourgeois-national majority and a Communist
minority, as well as individual groups which have come
direct from England or Sweden.
influential class of leaders in the bourgeois camp;
thereby to exacerbate more and more antagonism between
the bourgeois and Communists."
And then "Suggestions." These are suggestions from your
office, apparently.
"1. Outstandingly influential representatives of the
definitely anti-German and anti-Nazi class of
industrialists to be shot without trial on the accusation
that they are instigators or accomplices and to be
reported that they were convicted as a result of police
investigations.
There are other suggestions which I need not read.
"The Fuehrer has only agreed to these suggestions in
part. Especially in connection with efforts at protection
against acts of sabotage, he has rejected taking
hostages. He has rejected the shooting of influential
Norwegian representatives without trial," which is
underlined in blue pencil.
Is that your blue pencil?
"In accordance with the instructions of the
OKW-Operational Staff, dated 29-3-45, members of the
Norwegian Resistance Movement who appear in organized
units and who are easily recognizable as combatants owing
to armlets or other insignia are to be treated as POW's."
And then
the SS Oberfuehrer says: "I consider this instruction
completely intolerable. I explained this clearly to
Lt.-Col. Hass and Major Benzo from the Operational Staff
who stayed here. There have been isolated appearances of
uniformed groups in Norway, but there has been no
fighting. According to an order of the Norwegian
Resistance Military Organization which was found,
inquiries were made from the Defence High Command in
London as to whether armed resistance should be offered
in case of German or Norwegian police action. So far
there has been no partisan or other fighting in Norway.
On one occasion, captured members of the Resistance
Military Organization in uniform claimed the right to be
treated as POW's. If this demand were met at the present
moment, the result would be that active fighting on the
part of the Military Organization would be set going.
Please obtain cancellation of the order of the
Operational Staff."
And you, you voted for the exemption being removed, did you
not?
"The objection is justified. Norway has a government in
its own country. Whoever fights against it in the country
is a rebel. It is another question in the case of
Norwegian troops who were taken to England and from there
brought into the struggle under England's order."
That is your note?
"The Fuehrer is considering whether or not Germany should
renounce the Geneva Convention. As not only the Russians
but also the Western Powers are violating International
Law by their actions against the defenceless population
and the residential districts, it appears expedient to
adopt the same course in order to show the enemy that we
are determined to fight with every means for our
existence, and also to urge our people to resist to the
utmost. The Fuehrer orders the C-in-C of the Navy to
consider the pros and cons arid to state his own
opinion."
Then, further down, my Lord, C-in-C Navy on the Hitler
conference of 20th February:
"The C-in-C Navy informed General Jodl, and the
representative of the Minister for Foreign Affairs,
Ambassador Hewel, of his views with regard to Germany's
possible renunciation of the Geneva Convention. From
a military standpoint there are no grounds for this step
as far as the conduct of the war at sea is concerned. On
the contrary, the disadvantages outweigh the advantages;
even from a general standpoint it appears to the C-in-C
Navy that this measure would bring no advantages. It
would be better to carry out the measures considered
necessary without warning, and at all costs to save face
with the world. The Chief of Armed Forces Ops Staff and
Ambassador. Hewel are in full agreement."
You were saying there, were you not; that you agreed with
Raeder when he said: "Break the Geneva Convention, but do
not tell the world that we are doing so"?