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-Eighth Day: Thursday, 6th June, 1946
(Part 3 of 12)

[MR. ROBERTS continues his cross examination of ALFRED JODL]

[Page 383]

THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal will be able to judge as to what you said by the shorthand notes. You say, do you, that you did not say that "Schulung" meant the preparation for the occupation of the Rhineland? Is that right?

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.


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:

"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?

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]

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal thinks that you ought not to make comments, but you ought to confine yourself as far as possible to cross-examination about the facts.

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.


O. Then I shall read on:

"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.

Weapons, equipment, insignia, field-grey uniforms and other items stored for mobilization purposes must be kept from sight."

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?

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:

"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?

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]

equipment and arming of formations for the event of war. There was no thought of war, no one mentioned it with even one word.

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:

"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?

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?

"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.

"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]

"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."

"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."

Do you want to alter that sworn answer now? Do you?

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:

"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.


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:

"This document is identified for the record as L-172. I show you the photostatic reproduction in order to refresh your recollection concerning it.

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. . . "

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?"

[Page 387]

Now listen to this
"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?

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.