Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-15/tgmwc-15-145.05
Last-Modified: 2000/03/29

MR. DODD: Mr. President, I do not want to be contentious
about this, but - maybe I do not understand - I think we
ought to know when this schedule was made, by whom. This
affidavit says it was an appendix. Maybe it was made by the
As an example, I mention that he stated that in this camp
there were no chairs, tables, or wardrobes. That is a
sentence which was struck out. The witness thus had
misgivings at the time and did not swear to these facts.

THE PRESIDENT: I do not know what you are talking about. We
have before us what is called a sworn statement, which was
put in evidence and which is signed by the witness. The
witness is now saying that that statement is correct,
subject to any alterations which you have extracted from him
in cross-examination.

                                                  [Page 272]

DR. SERVATIUS: He said it might be entire sentences; I
should like to ask the prosecution to produce the original
document with the passages crossed out, because I have seen
two statements, a brief one, in which these passages are
apparently left out, and a complete one, such as we have
before us, and which the witness says has been cut down.

THE PRESIDENT: All that the witness is saying, is it not, is
that it was originally submitted to him in a certain form?
He made certain alterations in it. Then, when those
alterations had been made - I do not know whether it was
fair - copied or not - he then signed it and swore to it,
and that is the document that we have.

DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, my assertion is this: The
document which we have before us has not these sentences
struck out; that is, the words which were struck out are
still contained in the document.

THE PRESIDENT: You may ask the witness any question you like
about it.

BY DR. SERVATIUS:

Q. How did you make your alterations known?

A. I crossed out the passages with ink and initialled them.
Of course, it is difficult, and today I am not able to say
just what I did strike out at that time since I did not
retain a copy of these statements.

DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, if this document which we have
before us were reproduced correctly, the struck-out passages
would have to be shown, especially since the witness said
that when he made these changes he put his initials next to
the struck-out passages.

THE PRESIDENT: Did you sign the document after it had been
fair-copied?

Witness, did you sign the document after it had been
fair-copied? You know what a fair-copy is, do you not?

THE WITNESS: Yes. I have to try to remember exactly.

The document was submitted to me, I made my alterations, and
then I signed three or four of these statements. Then these
records were taken away and on the same day or the following
day I was in Essen and swore to this record. Then I received
a record and I read that before the court.

BY DR. SERVATIUS:

Q. Was that a fair-copy without any changes?

A. That it was a fair-copy, I do not exactly remember. I
really cannot.

Q. And why did you make these alterations?

A. The record came about in this way: Captain Harris came to
me and interrogated me on these matters. Notes were taken
and then Captain Harris - I believe - compiled this record
and asked me to sign it.

Q. And why did you make these alterations?

A. Because I could not swear to these things; the things
that I struck out I could not swear to.

Q. Was it incorrect or did it go too far afield?

A. In part it went too far afield, I think I can put it that
way, and in part it was incorrect, unintentionally, of
course. But I had to make those changes, and I did make
them.

Q. Witness, if I show you a document in which I mark off in
red the passages that you struck out, would you recognize
those passages?

A. That is very difficult, for I cannot remember that.

DR. SERVATIUS: Then I have no further questions.

MR. DODD: I am not clear on this. I do not know whether
Counsel is claiming that we have another document, one which
we have not submitted. I do not know of any such. We
submitted the only one that came into our possession

                                                  [Page 273]

THE PRESIDENT: Have you that original or is it with -

MR. DODD: There was a number of these made up and they were
all signed as originals. The first was the actual
typewritten copy, the others carbon copies. It was a joint
British-American team that interrogated the witness, and
this one copy was turned over to us, and we submitted it.
That is the only one we have ever seen.

THE PRESIDENT: I see in the certificate of translation it
refers to a certificate dated 14th October, 1945, signed by
Captain N. Webb -

MR. DODD: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: You will find that at the end of the
document, I think.

DR. BALLAS (former Counsel for Krupp von Bohlen): As former
Counsel for the defendant Krupp von Bohlen, I wish to make a
statement about this.

In the Krupp portfolio which the Counsel for Krupp -

THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute. What have you got to do with
it? We are now considering the suggestion made by Dr.
Servatius that this document which we are now considering -

DR. BALLAS: I am sorry. I did not quite follow you, your
Honour.

THE PRESIDENT: We are now considering Document D-288. You
have not anything to do with that document.

DR. BALLAS: Yes, it does deal with this document. The Krupp
portfolio  -

THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute. What right have you to speak
about it? You are only a former counsel to Krupp.

DR. BALLAS: I want to help explain the matter. At present I
appear for Dr. Siemers, Counsel for Grand Admiral Raeder.

THE PRESIDENT: But how can you help us about the framing of
the affidavit of this witness by the prosecution? You cannot
do anything about that.

DR. BALLAS: I just wanted to refer to the different versions
of the document.

In the Krupp portfolio there is a Document D-288 which is
considerably shorter than this Document 288, which has been
submitted by the prosecution in the case of Sauckel. At the
time I called Dr. Servatius' attention to this divergence,
and we determined point by point just how far the deviations
went. There are thus two documents - the one original
Document No. 288 and that one in the Krupp file, which
differs from the document which has been presented in the
case of Sauckel.

THE PRESIDENT: But this document was signed by this witness.
There may have been some other document signed which was put
in the Krupp file, but this witness has said that he signed
this document. Therefore, it does not seem to me that it is
material.

DR. BALLAS: I just wanted to call your attention to the fact
that there are two different documents under the number 288.

THE PRESIDENT: Is there any other member of the defence
counsel who wants to ask questions of this witness?

(No response.)

Then, Mr. Dodd, do you want to re-examine him?

MR. DODD: No, sir - except that I would like to say with
respect to the Tribunal's question concerning this
certificate of translation where the name "Captain N. Webb "
appears: I am informed that refers to a certificate which is
attached to all British documents, and that is a certificate
which serves the purpose of the translators. Undoubtedly,
that is what it is. However, I will have a search made in
the Document Room and clear it up. That is the best

                                                  [Page 274]

way, but my British friends say that is so: they do send a
certificate, and the only possible explanation is that it is
the certificate, with a mistake in the date. But in any
event, I will look into it.

THE PRESIDENT: Has the witness had the original of that
affidavit put to him?

MR. DODD: I believe he has. I understood he had the one
which is before the Tribunal.

THE PRESIDENT: Has he acknowledged the signature?

MR. DODD: Well, I understood so. I can enquire.

Q. Witness, you saw the signature? Is it your signature?

A. Yes.

BY MR. DODD:

Q. As a matter of fact, I talked to you personally on this
matter and you told me that this was a statement you gave.
Do you remember that? Do you recall when you and I talked,
and you told me this was your statement; you looked it over
and read it?

A. Yes.

Q. You read English as well as German do you not? You have
some knowledge of English?

A. Some knowledge, yes.

BY THE PRESIDENT:

Q. Witness, the document is being handed to you. It is in
German, is it not?

A. It is in German.

Q. And it is signed by you, is it?

A. Yes.

Q. Is there any passage in it which you want to strike out
of it?

A. May I read the document first?

Q. Yes, you may read it as quickly as you can.

A. Yes (reading the document).

MR. DODD: While the witness is reading the document, I
should like to inform the Tribunal that we enquired at the
Document Room and have been told by the officer there that
there is only one D-288 and this is it; there is no
duplicate signed, as Counsel for Krupp stated.

A. (Continuing - answering question put to him). Yes; here
there is an alteration which is put down in pencil. That is
on Page 2. I struck that out. But that was not written down
by me.

DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, may I submit the document
which I received from the defence Counsel for Krupp at the
beginning? I also have here an English document, 288-and the
passages which allegedly were crossed out at the time or
should have been marked off by me in red. I should like to
submit this document for the information of the Tribunal; I
believe it will assist in clarifying this matter. There are
many passages struck out.

THE PRESIDENT: No, Dr. Servatius, that is a different
document, as I understand it.

DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: We do not need that. We have this document
before us, signed by the witness, and we have asked him
whether there is anything in it which he thinks did not form
part of the original document which he signed.

A. (Continuing further). On Page 1 it says, "Conditions in
all of these camps were extremely bad." I would probably
limit this statement, because I -

                                                  [Page 275]

THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute, witness, we do not want to
know whether you think you expressed yourself too strongly.
We only want to know whether the document represents the
document which you signed - accurately represents the
document which you signed. If there is anything which you
want to change now, you can say what it is.

A. The record as it is before me I would not change in any
way.

BY THE PRESIDENT:

Q. Just one or two questions I want to ask you. Were
prisoners of war employed at Krupps during the time you were
supervising these camps?

A. I did not supervise the prisoner-of-war camps. That is a
wrong expression. I received permission to visit the
prisoner-of-war camps which were under the sole jurisdiction
of the Wehrmacht and I was told that these prisoners of war
were all working for Krupp.

Q. Were any of the people who were working at the camps
which you mentioned prisoners of war?

A. In Hogstrasse.

Q. Prisoners of war were working there, were they?

A. Yes.

Q. Krupps?

A. For the Krupp Works, yes.

Q. What sort of work was it?

A. These things were not under my jurisdiction. It depended
on their trade. The locksmith probably worked in the
locksmith shop. But there were also many assistants. But I
am naturally not able to give you all the details; these
matters were not under my jurisdiction. I was concerned with
these people only in my capacity as a physician.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well.

MR. DODD: Mr. President, I have found that certificate and
it is as I described it for the Tribunal; it is a
certificate by Captain Webb of the British Army service
certifying that he received a copy of this document from the
American team.

THE PRESIDENT: Is that your case then, Dr. Servatius?

DR. SERVATIUS: Yes. There are two more witnesses, Biedermann
and Mitschke. I can dispense with both of these witnesses.

Then, we have not the sworn affidavits, the interrogatories
from Dr. Voss, Dr. Scharmann, a witness by the name of
Marrenbach, and the witness Letsch, who was an expert in
Sauckel's office. We have received interrogatories from the
witnesses Darre and Seldte but these have not been
translated as yet. I shall submit them as soon as they have
been translated.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well.

DR. SERVATIUS: Then I have concluded my case.

THE PRESIDENT: Now, Counsel for the defendant Jodl.

DR. EXNER: Your Honour, with your kind permission I shall
present my case in the following manner: first of all I
shall call the defendant Jodl to the stand and use all
documents, with a single exception, during his examination
and submit them to the Tribunal.

I do not need to bore the Tribunal with lengthy readings. I
have three document books which are numerically arranged: JO
1, JO 2 and so forth; and I shall in each case quote the
page which is found in the upper left-hand corner on every
page of the translation. The numbering is the same as in the
original, they agree. I am sorry to say that the documents
are not exactly in the order in which I shall read them, and
this is due partly to the fact that they were received too
late, and partly to other factors. I still do not have
several interrogatories, particularly one which is very
important to me. I hope that I shall be able to submit them

                                                  [Page 276]

later. I was granted five witnesses, but I can dispense with
one of these witnesses. The four remaining witnesses will
take up but little time.

Now, with the kind permission of the Tribunal, I should like
to call the defendant Jodl to the witness box.

ALFRED JODL, a witness, took the stand and testified as
follows:

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