The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)
Nuremberg, war crimes, crimes against humanity

The Trial of German Major War Criminals

Sitting at Nuremberg, Germany
27th May to 6th June, 1946

One Hundred and Forty-Fifth Day: Monday, 3rd June, 1946
(Part 5 of 9)

[Page 271]

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.


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.


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?

[Dr. Wilhelm Jager] A. Yes.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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:

[ 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.