Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-16/tgmwc-16-149.03
Last-Modified: 2000/05/10
                                                            
THE PRESIDENT: All the Tribunal wants to know is that there
is some really fresh point which 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 22nd March and 28th March, are, or
what you are asking to get out of them. If there is anything
that is really fresh or new, of course, you may put it; but
if it is not, then it is covered by what the Tribunal has
already said, that cross-examination ought not to go over
the same ground again.

COLONEL POKROVSKY: If you will permit me to say so, my Lord,
I understood Jodl to mean that for him -

THE PRESIDENT: I am asking you ....

                                                    [Page 9]

COLONEL POKROVSKY: I have understood Jodl's testimony in
reply to Mr. Roberts but it is still not quite clear who was
in charge of the operations against Yugoslavia and I only
want to have this point elucidated. Now, if the Tribunal
considers that this question has already been replied to, I
shall, of course, withdraw it.

HE PRESIDENT: Well, Colonel Pokrovsky, the Tribunal is not
able to see what there is fresh in this matter that you are
now raising, and unless you insist upon it yourself because
you think it is of great importance, I think you should pass
on to the next matter in your cross-examination.

COLONEL POKROVSKY: Very well. I shall continue; my Lord.

BY COLONEL POKROVSKY:

Your defence counsel has submitted Document 172-L,
containing the following sentence addressed by you, in your
speech to the Gauleiter of 7th November, 1943. I shall read
out this sentence: "This dilemma of the shortage of men has
brought us to the idea of utilising to the full the reserves
of the population in the occupied territories."

Do you remember this document?

A. I did not understand the question.

Q. I can repeat it. Your defence counsel submitted to the
Tribunal Document 172-L, which is a speech made by you.

THE PRESIDENT: What is the matter now? You cannot hear
without your earphones on.

(To Dr. Exner): Do you wish to say something?

DR. EXNER: If your Honour pleases, the translation is such
that we simply cannot understand anything. We receive half a
sentence which makes no sense at all, at least, that is our
opinion, and I believe the other gentlemen, including the
defendant, have the same difficulty.

THE PRESIDENT: The defendant has not shown any sign that he
was unable o understand the translation; he has never
protested and he has answered the questions.

DR. EXNER: Do you understand, defendant?

THE WITNESS: I would say that I can guess what most of the
questions mean; since I am fully acquainted with the problem
it is easy for me, but I am not sure.

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 fear, however, my
Lord, that the tempo of my speech may slow down the
interrogation, but I shall try to speak more slowly.

BY COLONEL POKROVSKY:

Q. In the speech which you addressed to the Gauleiter on 7th
November, 1943, you expressed, inter alia, the following
idea:

  "The dilemma of the shortage of men has brought us to the
  idea of utilising more fully-"

THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Pokrovsky, can you possibly indicate
to 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 172-L, my Lord.

THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Pokrovsky, this very passage that you
have just read, or part of which you just read, was put by
Mr. Roberts yesterday to the defendant. Surely that is
contrary to our rules; we cannot have the same subject gone
over twice. We already have it marked.

                                                   [Page 10]

COLONEL POKROVSKY: I am quoting this sentence, my Lord, not
as a question to the witness, but only as a component part
of my question. I am reminding him of this sentence in order
to receive an answer.

THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat what you said?

COLONEL POKROVSKY: My Lord, he will now receive the document
in order to save time, and I shall then ask him the
question. I want -

THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Pokrovsky, we want to know what the
question is, so that we may see if it is not a question
which has been gone into by Mr. Roberts. Colonel Pokrovsky,
the Tribunal has indicated to you that it does not want you
go over the same ground which was gone over yesterday. If
you have some new question, by all means put it.

COLONEL POKROVSKY: Not a single one of the questions which I
have asked the witness today has been a repetition of any
question previously asked. Therefore, with your permission,
I shall now ask my question. I should like you, witness, to
look at Document 130-L and Exhibit USSR 447.

THE PRESIDENT: Do you see the red light? Go on, now.

BY COLONEL POKROVSKY:

Q. It is stated in these documents that they were issued
with the consent of the OKW. They deal with the introduction
of conscription in the occupied territories of Carinthia and
Carriola. Have you found it? Have you found the passage that
I have just read, i.e., the decree dealing with the
introduction of conscription in the occupied territories of
Carinthia and Carriola?

A. Yes, that document begins with the following sentence -

Q. It begins with the following sentence: "In agreement with
the OKW".

Is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. As Chief of the Operations Department of the OKW, you
could not but know of such facts as the conscription for
service in the German Army of the Yugoslav population - the
population of the occupied territories. What do you have to
say about these documents, which are gross violations of
international law? Do you understand my question?

A. Yes. I can only say that I see it here for the first
time. This is the first I have heard of it. After all I am
not the OKW. I am Chief of the Wehrmacht Operations Staff. I
never read this document during the war.

Q. You will read it - and immediately. Do you not consider
it a gross violation of international law?

A. In order to give my opinion I would have to go into it
more fully from a legal point of view, and I am not in a
position to do that, and I believe it is not of interest to
the Tribunal.

Q. On 4th June you testified before the Tribunal that the
decisions of the Hague and Geneva Conventions were your
reference book. You will now be shown Document 738-PS,
submitted to the Tribunal on 20th March, as Exhibit USA-678.
                                                            The authenticity of
this document -

THE PRESIDENT: Well, 638 is the document which has been
handed up.

COLONEL POKROVSKY: It is Document 638-PS, my Lord.

THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Pokrovsky; is the Document that you
have just handed up to us "J-6". Are you offering that in
evidence? Are you offering that?

COLONEL POKROVSKY: No, it was submitted in the nature of
evidence. I am only submitting it for facilitating its
perusal. It is submitted as Document 638.

THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute. Are you referring to Document
638-PS, or are you referring to Document J-6?

COLONEL POKROVSKY: I am referring to Document 638-PS
accepted by the Tribunal as USA evidence.

                                                   [Page 11]


THE PRESIDENT: I was not. I was referring to the Document
J-6. The document which is here before me, which is 638, is
the Yugoslav document.

COLONEL POKROVSKY: The document to which you, my Lord,
refer, bears a double number: USSR-136 and J-6, and the
second document also bears a double number, USSR-447.

THE PRESIDENT: I don't want to know about the second
document. I only want to know whether you are offering the
first document in evidence, or has it already been offered
in evidence.

COLONEL POKROVSKY: It has already been submitted, my Lord,
by the Delegation of the Soviet Union.

BY COLONEL POKROVSKY:

Q. You, Jodl, have probably had sufficient time to read the
document. Is that right? Have you read it?

A. I know about this document from these proceedings.

Q. Quite correct. I only wish to remind you that Goering has
twice confirmed the authenticity of this document and merely
questioned the accuracy of certain entries in individual
sentences. I should now like to ask you how you reconcile
the highest concepts of international law with the formation
of bands under German command, dressed in German military
uniforms, bands recruited from the dregs of the criminal
classes, who were officially authorized to plunder, murder
burn and violate - all this during military operations? Have
you understood my question? (A pause follows). You, of
course, well remember that these bands were actually created
and entered the ranks of the armed forces of the German
Reich. You remember the testimony of the witness, von dem
Bach-Zelewski, of 7th January, 1946, concerning the special
brigades acting according to this official authorisation?

A. I do not know just how you know that the High Command
gave its approval and that this actually took place. That
escapes me. These are merely the notes of alleged statements
by the Reichsmarschall, but I do not know how they concern
me.

Q. I shall try and help you to understand this fact. Do you
remember that at the end of 1941 and the beginning of 1942 a
special brigade was formed to operate against the Partisans?
The first commanding officer of that unit was Dirlewanger,
and von dem Bach-Zelewski testified about him here, on 7th
January, 1946. Do you remember that?

A. No. I do not remember that.

Q. You cannot remember? Very well. Then we shall prove it
without your testimony. Do you remember the fact that units
of the Yugoslav army wore regulation uniforms, complete with
insignia, numbers of regiments and divisions? Do you
remember that? Do you understand my question? Or do you not?

A. I understood. Do you mean the Brandenburg Regiment? 1
have some idea of that.

No, I have something else in mind. I wish to remind you that
despite the fact that the accusations which you have
enumerated before the Tribunal, when speaking of bands, did
not apply to these units of the Yugoslav army, those units
were referred to in every official document of the German
command as bandits, in order to justify any atrocity
perpetrated against them, and only in the top secret
correspondence between German officers and staffs was the
correct, factual nomenclature of the various regiments and
brigades indicated. Perhaps this fact, in your opinion, also
testifies to the adherence of the German High Command to the
standards of international law? Have you understood me?

A. I understand you very well.

Q. Do you wish to say anything on the matter?

A. Yes. I can only say this assertion of yours is untrue. We
-

Q. I would only ask you to reply as briefly as possible.

                                                   [Page 12]

A. Yes, I was going to answer very briefly. We always called
those Yugoslav bandits 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 receiving such treatment as prisoners of
war. Otherwise, we would not have had so many prisoners.

Q. I am very obliged to you for having raised the question
of the prisoners of war. You have testified on oath before
the Tribunal that there was no decree which forbade taking
prisoners of war. You have not yet forgotten that testimony
of yours?

A. No, there are no regulations of international law which
apply to a rebellion. There is no such thing.

Q. No, I asked you to confirm if I have rendered your
testimony correctly to the Tribunal? You stated, before the
Tribunal, that there was no decree not to take prisoners of
war. Did you give such testimony before the Tribunal or did
you not?

A. What you have stated here is not my verbatim testimony.

Q. Just a minute, just a minute. We shall have a special
talk about the matter I have mentioned. First I want you to
tell me the following: You stated, before the Tribunal, on
oath, that there was no order to the German Army to the
effect that prisoners were not to be taken. Did you give
this testimony or not? Have you understood me?

A. I think I remember. I do not know of any such order that
no prisoners of war were to be taken.

Q. Good. One moment more. I now want you to help me to
elucidate another matter. A sentence of yours appears in the
typed script to the effect that you considered it improper
to question a prisoner of war if a decision had already been
made that the prisoner of war was to be shot. Is that so? Is
it correct?

A. Yes, I testified to the effect that I rejected that
sentence from the moral and humane points of view.

Q. Excellent. Now I want you to tell me the following. Do
you remember that there was a 4th Mountain Division in the
German Army? It seems that you, at one time, were directly
connected with it. Was there such a Division or not?

A. That there were four mountain divisions, that I do not
remember. There were many more.

Q. I am not talking about four divisions. You have been
given an inaccurate translation. I am asking you whether you
remember that there was a 4th Mountain Division?

A. I certainly know about that. I wanted to be the
Commandant of that division.

Q. Very well. In that case, you may also remember another
responsible officer of the German Army, whose name was
Kubler? He operated in Yugoslavia.

A. There were two men of the name of Kubler, an older man
and a younger man.

Q. Major General Kubler is the one who interests me.

THE PRESIDENT: Shall we adjourn now for a few minutes?

(A recess was taken.)

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor