Nuremberg Trial Proceedings Volume 15

Previous Day Volume 15 Menu Next Day
Nuremberg Trials Page

Monday, 3 June 1946

Morning Session

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius.

DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, the witness Jager is to appear in about half an hour. I shall read some other documents from my document book, if it please the Tribunal.

In the last session I had read all the documents from the first document book with the exception of Document Sauckel-16, which I left out by mistake. It is a leaflet for Eastern Workers. I need not read it, but I shall refer to it.

I have submitted as Exhibit Sauckel-1 the Handbuch fur die Dienststellen . . . (Manual for Labor Employment), and in this exhibit we find the following documents which I have read in part, and shall read some now: Documents Sauckel-12, 13, 15, 22, 28, 58(a), 67(a), 82, 83, 85, 86, and 88.

Then, I have submitted Exhibit Sauckel-2, Sonderveroffentlichung des Reichsarbeitsblattes (Special Publication of the Reichsarbeitsblatt) namely, Einsatzbedingungen der Ostarbeiter, sowie der sowjetrussischen Kriegsgafangenen (Conditions for the Employment of Eastern Workers and Soviet Russian Prisoners of War), which contains the following documents: Documents Sauckel-6, 32, 36, 39, 47, and 52.

Then, as Exhibit Sauckel-3, I have submitted the Manifest des Generalbevollmdchtigten fur den Arbeitseinsatz (Manifesto of the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor), Document Sauckel-84.

Then, as Exhibit Sauckel-4, Arbeitsgesetze: Textsammlung des Deutschen Arbeitsrechtes (Labor Laws: Collection of German Laws), which contains Documents Sauckel-16, 31, and 49.

As Exhibit Sauckel-5, I have submitted a book, Fritz Sauckels Kampfreden (Fritz Sauckel's Battle Speeches). That is Document Sauckel-95.

As Exhibit Sauckel-6, Nationalsozialistische Regierungstatigkeit in Thuringen, 1932-33 (National Socialist Goverrlmental Activity in Thuringia, 1932-33), has been submitted. It is contained in Document Sauckel-96.


3 June 46

Exhibit Sauckel-7, Nationalsozialistische Regierungstatigkeit in Thuringen, 1933-34 (National Socialist Governmental Activity in Thuringia, 1933-34), is contained in Document Sauckel-97.

I have once more submitted as Exhibit Sauckel-8 the publication entitled Europa arbeitet in Deutschland (Europe Works in Germany), which has already been submitted as Document RF-5.

Then I shall submit an affidavit of Sauckel's son, Dieter Sauckel, which is very short. It refers to the evacuation of-the Buchenwald Camp which Sauckel is said to have ordered. I shall read the eight lines of the affidavit:

"Between 4 and 7 April 1945, approximately, I was present when my father, Gauleiter Fritz Sauckel, had a conference in his study. On this occasion the question of the Buchenwald Camp was discussed, and the following was decided: A certain number of guards should remain in the camp until the arrival of the enemy in order to hand the camp prisoners over to them."-This is Sauckel Document Book 3, Document Sauckel-94, Page 247.

"I swear to the truth of the preceding statement for the purpose of having it submitted to the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg.

"I am ready to swear upon oath to the truth of my statement. Schonau, 22 March 1946. Dieter Sauckel."

I submit this as Exhibit Sauckel-9.

In Exhibit USA-206, Document 3044-PS, which has been submitted already, the following documents of Volume II are contained, which I shall read later: Sauckel-7, 10, 14, 18, 19, 27, and 41.

The documents which have not been read yet are in the official collections of laws. I have had the individual laws laid aside in the library. I do not know whether it is necessary to submit them individually, or whether it is sufficient for me to state here in what volume of the Reichsgesetzblatt they can be found.

THE PRESIDENT: Are they in your document book?

DR. SERVATIUS: Yes. They are short excerpts from the official legal gazettes. In each case the relevant passages have been extracted.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, I think it would be convenient if you gave their exhibit numbers, if they are in your book; but I do not quite understand how you are arranging these. You told us that Number 1 contained a great number of other numbers. Now is Number 1 the exhibit number?

DR. SERVATIUS: Number 1 is the exhibit number, and this exhibit contains these documents with the numbers they have in the document book.


3 June 46

THE PRESIDENT: In the books?


THE PRESIDENT: Well, I understand. So that you are only submitting up to the present you have only got as far as nine exhibits.


THE PRESIDENT: And then you are going to give these various laws which you have in your books additional exhibit numbers. They will be 10 to...

DR. SERVATIUS: I did not know whether it was necessary to submit these Reich legal gazettes as exhibits. As far as I know they have already been submitted because they are an official collection of laws from the Reichsgesetzblatt of 1942 and 1940. Of course, I can take out these individual issues and submit them here.

THE PRESIDENT: Would it not be best if you submitted them as, say, Exhibit 10, and then told us the numbers in your books which are contained in Number 10?

DR. SERVATIUS: Then it would be necessary to submit the original text of the collection of laws. I wanted to avoid that.

THE PRESIDENT: We can take judicial notice of them.

DR. SERVATIUS: Then I ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of them. I shall point out in what volumes these documents can be found. That will be Reichsgesetzblatt 1942 in which Documents Sauckel-8, 11, and 17 are contained; Reichsgesetzblatt 1940 which contains Document Sauckel-45; Reichsgesetzblatt 1943, which contains Document Sauckel-21...

THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute. Which was the first Reichsgesetzblatt? The one which contained 8, 11, and 17?



DR. SERVATIUS: The second was Reichsgesetzblatt 1940, with Document Sauckel-45. The third was Reichsgesetzblatt 1943, with Document Sauckel-21. The fourth is Reichsarbeitsblatt 1940, Document Sauckel-33...

THE PRESIDENT: What year, though?

DR. SERVATIUS: 1940. Reichsarbeitsblatt, Document Sauckel-33. The fifth is Reichsarbeitsblatt 1942, which contains Documents Sauckel-9, 35, 40, 46, 50, 51, 64(a). The sixth, Reichsarbeitsblatt 1943, contains Documents Sauckel-20, 23, 37, 42, 43, 44, 48, 54, 55, 57, 60, 60(a), 61, 62, 64, and 68.


3 June 46

And the last, Reichsarbeitsblatt 1944, has Documents Sauckel-26, 30, 38, 58, 59, 65, 67, and 89.

I shall now go briefly through the document book. I begin with Sauckel Document Book 2, Document Sauckel-32, "Orders and Decrees Concerning the Employment of Prisoners of War." That is the agreement of 27 July 1939. This is an excerpt concerning the work of prisoners of war, and in Article 31 prohibited labor is listed.

In the next document, Sauckel-33, there is a decree of the Reich Minister of Labor, "Use of Prisoners of War in Places of Work." There the types of work for which these prisoners of war are being used are listed in detail. Among the types of work not included is the manufacture of arms; but included is work in factories, agriculture, forestry, work on roads, canals, and dams of importance to the war, work in brickyards, and so forth, as can be read in detail.

In Document Sauckel-35 we can see how the employment of prisoners of war took place, namely by co-operation between the prisoner-of-war camp and the contractors, and how a contract regulated in detail the conditions under which the employment of prisoners of war took place. It can be seen from this that Sauckel's labor recruitment had nothing to do with that.

In Document Sauckel-36 we find a circular decree concerning the treatment of prisoners of war-a memorandum concerning the treatment of prisoners of war-which was drawn up jointly by the OKW and the Ministry for Public Enlightenment and Propaganda:

"Treatment of prisoners of war: Prisoners of war must be treated in such a way that their full production capacity may benefit industry and food economy. To insure this, sufficient nourishment is necessary."

This I wanted to underline.

Document Sauckel-37 deals with the question of an improved status, namely the conversion of prisoners of war into civilian workers for work of importance to the war in Germany. It shows that in this case they get special allowances, such as an allowance of money for maintaining a separate household-a so-called compassionate pay. It shows that these workers were treated like civilian workers.

The next document, Sauckel-38, is along the same lines and deals with the visits of relatives to French, Belgian, and Dutch prisoners of war and to Italian military internees in the Reich. It says there:

"Visits to French, Belgian, and Dutch prisoners of war as well as to Italian military internees are permitted only for wives, parents, children, and brothers and sisters, who work in Germany or have their homes in Alsace or Lorraine, and then only on Sundays and holidays."


3 June 46

This shows that actually the prisoner-of-war status had ceased. Document Sauckel-39 is a memorandum with respect to general conditions valid for the employment of prisoners of war. It deals with the working hours: "The daily working hours, including the time of marching to and from work, should not be excessive." And in another passage it says, "The prisoners of war have a right to a continuous rest period of 24 hours, to be granted on Sundays when possible . . ."

Under Paragraph 7 it is stated that neither the employer, nor his relatives, nor his employees are entitled to carry out any punitive measures against prisoners of war.

Then there follows an excerpt about housing and other accommodation in camps. It is Document Sauckel-40, which decrees-on the basis of Sauckel's Order Number 9-the inspection of housing, food, heating, and upkeep of the camps by workmen employed at the camps. It is dated 14 July 1942. It says:

"By 10 August 1942 an inspection of all industrial establishments employing foreign labor must be made by all labor offices in their respective districts to determine whether they have duly carried out regulations and decrees governing housing, feeding, and treatment of all foreign male and female workers and prisoners of war. It is my desire that the offices of the NSDAP and the DAF should participate in this inspection to a proportionate extent. Where shortcomings are discovered, the manager of the works is to be given a time limit within which such shortcomings are to be remedied."

Further on, under 2(a) it is stated that provision should be made for feeding in winter. And finally: "All factories are to make provision for camps and billets to be heated when cold weather sets in and to see that the necessary fuel is ordered in time." The decree states at the end that workmen, paid by the factories, are to be employed in the camps to see to the upkeep of the camps.

Then there is Document Sauckel-18, a memorandum for works managers and Eastern Workers, which contains camp rules. The introduction says:

"In response to a wish of the Plenipotentiary General for Allocation of Labor, Gauleiter Sauckel, I recommend that the officials satisfy themselves from time to time that the regulations issued with respect to the employment of Eastern Workers are being adhered to within the establishments."

That shows that control was emphasized here once again. The camp rules then go on to say:

"Eastern Workers, you are finding in Germany wages and bread, and by your work you are safeguarding the maintenance of your families...."


3 June 46

THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Could you not summarize these documents more shortly?

DR. SERVATIUS: Document Sauckel-41 shows that caring for the Eastern Workers was especially the task of the German Labor Front, which is explained here in detail.

Document Sauckel-42 deals with the same subject. It stresses above all the importance of trade inspection and says that all necessary measures for the welfare of foreign workers must be taken immediately and all shortcomings remedied at once. The inspection officials and the local authorities have to arrange matters together with the Labor Front. It is issued by Reich Minister of Labor Seldte, not by Sauckel, which makes it evident that Sauckel had not become the Reich Minister of Labor.

In Document Sauckel-43 there are explanations of the camp regulations to which I shall refer in detail later. But in Document Sauckel-43 I should like to stress again the position of the Trade Inspection Board. Here the question of responsibility for hygienic conditions and for the extermination of vermin is regulated; and it says at the end: "The supervisory authority in accordance with the new regulations is the Trade Inspection Board...."

Document Sauckel-44 contains specifications about sleeping

quarters: Their size, the number of beds, and the administration of medical care. This again is signed by the Reich Minister of Labor, Franz Seldte, and not by Sauckel

The next group of documents deals with food. Document Sauckel-45 is the meat inspection law which deals with the question of how far meat of inferior quality is fit for consumption. That law too has a certain importance with regard to the witness.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, about the inspection of meat, we do not require any further information about it.

DR. SERVATIUS: Document Sauckel-46 shows merely that the

foreign workers received their food ration cards when away from the camp.

Document Sauckel-47 is a decree by the Reich Minister for Food and Agriculture, and shows that he was responsible for determining the food quotas. The document also gives the rations. I mention only a few: For the ordinary workers, 2,600 grams of bread per week. That increases, and it may be read here, if questions of importance . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Page 128 shows that prisoners of war are employed in the armament industry, does it not? Page 128.

DR. SERVATIUS: It says there: "Food rations of Soviet prisoners of war working in the armament industry or in trade industries, if


3 June 46

Hey accommodated in camps..." and then follows a list of rations. I cannot see how far that shows...

THE PRESIDENT: 128 in English, Page 128, Lines 4 to 12: "Treatment of the sick. All prisoners of war and Eastern Workers, male and female, who are employed in the armament industry..."

DR. SERVATIUS: It says there, "All prisoners of war or Eastern Workers . . . who are employed in the armament industry . . ." Armament industry is not the manufacture of weapons.

Document Sauckel-48 only refers to a law-I see the translation department has left out a short paragraph, but I can do without that. The heading indicates the subject. It refers to taking food for the journey home. It thus concerns supplies for the return journey.

Document Sauckel-49 shows a regulation whereby additional food could also be given; and special diets in the hospitals were also provided.

In the next group, questions of wages are dealt with. The first decree is Document Sauckel-50.

THE PRESIDENT: How far you go-it seems to me sufficient if you give us a group, and then tell us what it deals with.

DR. SERVATIUS: Yes. That is from Documents Sauckel-50 to 59, omitting Document Sauckel-56. The questions of wages and scales of wages are included here. One will have to look at these more carefully if these questions become crucial. Therefore, I shall not make any further specific statements about that now.

Sauckel Document Book Number 3 is a group of documents containing legal orders. Documents Sauckel-60 to 68 refer to medical care. I believe here also I need not go through the individual documents, because they become of interest only when the subject is dealt with.

THE PRESIDENT: Give us a group and tell us what it is about, and then we can look at it.

DR. SERVATIUS: Yes. It deals with medical care; and as I said, the details become of interest only when the question becomes important. There is no point in speaking of them now.

The next group is speeches made by Sauckel on the subject of labor allocation, and they are contained in the manual. I should like to refer to one in particular-a speech of 6 January 1943 which was made after the conference between Sauckel and Rosenberg. It says there at the beginning: "The Plenipotentiary General for Allocation of Labor on 5 and 6 January..."

THE PRESIDENT: Which page?

DR. SERVATIUS: It is 204 in my book, and in the English text it should also be Page 204.


3 June 46

An; PRESIDENT: Probably that 8,000 should be 800.

DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, it should be 800. I have also mentioned that document already, and read the main parts.

Documents Sauckel-82 and 83 have also been mentioned already in their essential parts.

Document Sauckel-84 is a manifesto which has already been presented in detail.

Document Sauckel-85 shows the generally valid and binding principles followed by Sauckel, all of them well-known principles. The main fact is that after 1943 they showed the same tendency as they had before.

Document Sauckel-86 is a later speech-a speech of 24 August 1943-to the presidents of the Gau labor offices. Here again in his speech to the responsible Gau labor presidents Sauckel stresses his basic attitude, as he has often stated it here. He adheres to the same attitude on 17 January 1944-that is, Document Sauckel-88-when he again emphasizes to these presidents, that:

"The foreign workers must be treated better. The reception camps are not to be primitive; rather they must be a recommendation for us."

And at the end:

"The more I do for the foreign laborers working in Germany, the better I treat them, the more I influence them-the greater the extent of their available production capacity."

And that was shortly-2 months-before he succeeded in putting the other foreign workers on an equal footing with the German workers.

THE PRESIDENT: We have heard the Defendant Sauckel explain . . .

DR. SERVATIUS: I beg your pardon?

THE PRESIDENT: . . . that the work was carried on. And will you tell us where the group of speeches-how far does the group go?

DR. SERVATIUS: It is Document Sauckel-89.

Document Sauckel-94 I have read already. Documents Sauckel-95, 96, 97 I have already read to the extent necessary. And that brings me to the end of the presentation of documents.

Now, comes an affidavit of the witness Karl Goetz, which is included in the document book. I submit it as Exhibit Number 10, the affidavit by Karl Goetz. This is an interrogatory which was submitted very early and was therefore considered in a very abridged form, as the details had not become apparent at that time. Consequently, the witness answered very shortly and could say nothing


3 June 46

specific to a number of questions. Where he did answer the questions, he refers to an introduction which he wrote, and in answering the questions raised by the Prosecution he also refers to that introduction. Therefore, I believe that I might also read this introduction as far as is necessary.

The affidavit is of 20 March 1946. In this introduction, on the second page, I should like to call attention to a conference in Paris. This witness Goetz was a bank expert in Weimar. He had known Sauckel before and had worked on his staff of experts. He had been with him in Paris and had taken part in the negotiations with Laval. He says here:

"The negotiations led to an extensive talk, which was conducted in a proper and polite manner as far as I could judge. Laval took note of Sauckel's proposals and agreed to accede to his request. But he made counterproposals..."

I do not think I need go into detail, because what was then negotiated is of minor significance. He says on the third page:

"During a later conference in Paris the proceedings were similar. Laval assumed a stiffer attitude, and he pointed out the great difficulties which would impede the recruitment of additional workers. He emphasized in particular the necessity of not stripping the French labor market of its best forces." I think I can go on to Page 4. The witness says there under 5: "My last mission, at Sauckel's request, was to ascertain whether it was possible by means of using our banking connections to purchase an additional amount of grain in Romania and Hungary-about 50,000 to 100,000 tons was the figure given. This grain was to be used as additional food for foreign laborers in the form of a light afternoon, meal."

Then he says that that project failed due to circumstances. He gives a general impression of Sauckel, and says briefly:

"Sauckel approached that task with the energy and vigor peculiar to him. He pointed out repeatedly what conditions were necessary for the success of the task and repeatedly emphasized that it was the major duty of all authorities to see that correct treatment was given to workers at their places of employment."

Then he describes the details:

"Above all, he demanded that foreign workers should not be given the feeling of being imprisoned in their camps. He demanded the removal of all barbed wire fences."

He continues by saying:

". . . Sauckel said that the workers must return to their native countries as propaganda agents."


3 June 46

Then the witness gives an important statement concerning information as to atrocities and bad conditions. I should like to read something from Page 6 to show what kind of person this witness Goetz is. He says...

THE PRESIDENT: What page is your excerpt from?

DR. SERVATIUS: Page 6, or Page 266 of the document book, at the top of the page.



"I feel also that I should mention that following my arrest by the Gestapo, after the affair of 20 July 1944, Sauckel spoke on my behalf to the RSHA (Kaltenbrunner). I cannot say to what extent my release from the Ravensbruck Concentration Camp was brought about by this.

"I wish to state further that I did not receive from Sauckel any material remuneration, awards, or decorations.

"I found it expedient to conceal from him my own inner political convictions and my connections with Goerdeler and Popitz. In his blind obedience to Hitler-and in spite of our old friendship-he would otherwise no doubt have handed me over to that Gestapo from which he endeavored to free me in November 1944."

I have read this in advance and I return now to Page 265, because the witness, who was then working on Sauckel's staff, states his attitude to that question which is of great interest to all of us. He says:

"Now that the extent of atrocities in concentration camps has become known to me from publications, I ponder and rack my brains as to how the picture drawn above can be made to tally with the events now brought to light. Although I have thought it over for weeks, I can find no explanation for this."

THE PRESIDENT: What page is this? Page 265?

DR. SERVATIUS: Page 265. It is near the top of the page. Where it is in the English text, I cannot say; but it should be Page 265.


DR. SERVATIUS: "On one side I see the foreign workers, men and women who move freely about in great numbers and associate with the German population. Frenchmen and Belgians, with whom I spoke out of personal interest, were usually happy to hear their native tongue, conversed freely, hoped the war would soon end, and criticized their work, but rarely sharply. On the other side appears the totally unbearable sight of the recently revealed mass atrocities. One had


3 June 46

heard that foreign workers were tried and sentenced-they

were certainly subject to the same arbitrariness and the same methods of punishment as were the natives-but not that mass sentences were passed. But that really had nothing to do

with the Allocation of Labor. I find it impossible to reconcile what I heard and what I saw in those days with the present revelations. Either this was a development which took place in the last year and a half, when I was not able to observe

the situation because of my arrest and my retirement to the country, or else there existed, besides the regular Allocation of Labor, an employment of concentration camp inmates on a vast scale. It is also possible that Sauckel was not able to

supervise things and was not informed or that he deceived himself with his general orders and oral statements, which I could not comprehend."

I considered these statements of particular importance, because the witness stood on the side of the men of 20 July 1944 and certainly observed carefully, and great importance has to be attached to his judgment.

As to the questions themselves, Question Number 1 and its answer I consider irrelevant; also, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. All of these are answers which are of minor importance. To Question Number 10, Page 276:

"Who was responsible for the billeting, treatment, and feeding of foreign workers after they had arrived at the place of work?"

The answer is:

"The only thing I heard was that from the moment work was started responsibility for that rested with the factory managers, and in most cases with special employees under them." Question 11 is:

"What kind of orders did Sauckel issue for the treatment of workers in the factories?"

The witness in his answer refers to the introduction which I have read. The next questions-13, 14, 15, 16, and 17-are irrelevant.

Question 18 is:

"Did Sauckel receive reports about irregular conditions? What measures did he take? Do you know of any individual cases?" The answer is:

'I remember only one case. Sauckel was informed that the workers of a certain factory were still housed in a camp


3 June 46

surrounded by barbed wire. I cannot recollect the name of the place or the factory concerned. I heard that he ordered the immediate removal of the fence."

Then we come to the questions which are put by the Prosecution. I consider that Question Number 1 is not relevant because it deals with personal, unofficial relations with Sauckel, and how he became acquainted with him. He made his acquaintance when a prisoner of war.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, Mr. Diddle thinks that the Prosecution ought to be asked to read anything they wish to out of those interrogatories.

M. HERZOG: The Prosecution, Mr. President, does not wish to read any excerpts from this interrogatory.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, you know that the witness Jager is present, do you not?

DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, he is present.

THE PRESIDENT: You know he is present.

DR. SERVATIUS: Then, with the permission of the Tribunal, I will call the witness Jager.

[The witness Jager took the stand.]

THE PRESIDENT: Will you state your full name, please?

DR.WILHELM JAGER (Witness): Dr. Wilhelm Jager.

THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath after me: I swear by God-the Almighty and Omniscient-that I will speak the pure truth-and will withhold and add nothing.

[The witness repeated the oath.]

THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down.

DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, during the war you worked as a doctor with the firm of Krupp, in Essen, and were entrusted with the medical care of the camps of foreign workers? Is that true?


DR. SERVATIUS: Who put you in charge there?

JAGER: I was appointed by the firm of Krupp which employed me when a change in the care of foreign workers was brought about through the public health administration having to take it over.

DR. SERVATIUS: Were you not also appointed to this post by the German Labor Front?

JAGER: No. The contract which the firm of Krupp made with me was made through the German Labor Front.


3 June 46

DR. SERVATIUS: If I understand you correctly, you did not conclude the contract directly with the Labor Front; but you were under obligations to the German Labor Front, were you not?

JAGER: I have never felt that I had anything to do with the Labor Front in that respect.

DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, did you not continuously send reports to the German Labor Front about the conditions in the camps?

JAGER: That happened only in a few cases, as far as I can remember. I generally sent these reports to the public health authorities and to the firm of Krupp.

DR. SERVATIUS: Did you not also report to the Trade Inspection Board?

JAGER: Not always. I reported just a few cases to the health office of the city of Essen, but only in individual cases when it appeared important to me that the health office should be informed.

DR. SERVATIUS: Do you know the of lice for public health and medical care?


DR. SERVATIUS: With what office was that connected?

JAGER: That was in Essen.

DR. SERVATIUS: I do not mean the locality, but with what of lice was it connected? Was it not with the German Labor Front?

JAGER: I cannot say that precisely. I know only that it was a sub-department of the public health administration in Essen.

DR. SERVATIUS: Is it known to you that the foreign workers were under the care and control of the German Labor Front?


DR. SERVATIUS: Also with respect to their health?

JAGER: On only one occasion did I meet a commission from the Labor Front in my camp.

DR. SERVATIUS: Do you know the institution of Gau camp doctors?

JAGER: An institution of that kind was to have been created in Essen, but it did not happen. At that time, when we had just had a typhus epidemic, I suggested to the health officer-who was then Dr. Heinz Buhler of Muhlheim-that something of the sort should be instituted. Then also at a meeting I spoke about my idea, but I did not hear anything more about this Gau office for camp doctors.

DR. SERVATIUS: That will do. How many camps did you supervise?


3 June 46

JAGER: That varied. First, there may have been 5 or 6, then later maybe 17 or 18, and later again it fell to a lower figure. But I am not able at this moment to give you the exact figure.

DR. SERVATIUS: What was the nature of your task?

JAGER: Above all, I was supposed to assure the medical care of foreign workers.

DR. SERVATIUS: Did you have anything to do with the treatment of the sick?

JAGER: Only when they were brought to me and when I was in the camps. I always concerned myself personally with individual cases in the camps whenever I inspected them.

DR. SERVATIUS: You had not only a supervisory capacity, but you also gave treatment yourself?

JAGER: Whenever I was in a camp I would be consulted by the camp doctors and I would advise them.

DR. SERVATIUS: What was the job of the camp doctors?

JAGER: The camp doctors had their daily duty in the infirmary and the care of the patients in general.

DR. SERVATIUS: So your work was supervisory?

JAGER: Yes; supervisory.

DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, the Prosecution has repeatedly interrogated you outside this courtroom?


DR. SERVATIUS: You have been in Nuremberg before-in this building here?


DR. SERVATIUS: Did you make an affidavit about the conditions in the Krupp camps?


DR. SERVATIUS: I will put this affidavit to you. This is an affidavit of 15 October 1945. Did you give that affidavit as a witness for the Prosecution?

JAGER: As far as I can remember, yes.

DR. SERVATIUS: Now I ask you to state whether you still stand by the statements which you made at that time?


DR. SERVATIUS: I shall read the statements to you: "My name is Dr. Wilhelm Jager. I am a physician in Essen . . ."


3 June 46

'l' PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, we cannot have the whole document read to him. You can put to him anything you want to challenge him upon.

DR. SERVATIUS: Very well.

[Turning to the witness.] You say, at about the middle of the first page:

"I began my work with a thorough inspection of the camps. At that time, in October 1942, I found the following conditions..."-and you go on to say-"The Eastern Workers were housed in the following camps: Seumannstrasse, Grieperstrasse, Spendlerstrasse, Hoegstrasse, Germaniastrasse, Dechenschule..."

THE PRESIDENT: Are you challenging that?


THE PRESIDENT: Where were these camps?

DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, that is what I want to ask him.

[Turning to the witness.] Did these camps exist at the time, and were they occupied?

JAGER: As far as I can remember. One has to take into consideration that until I started my work I did not know at all what camps existed. At a meeting which had been called, where there were doctors of the various nationalities, I asked first of all what camps there were. They did not know; and then a list was procured in which the camps were given. Then...

DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, you have mentioned the camps here by name, and yet you are not certain that these camps existed at that time, in October 1942?

JAGER: I have given the camps which existed at the beginning of my activities, as far as I could remember. I had to go to each one of these camps personally, and I had to depend entirely upon myself.

DR. SERVATIUS: Further, concerning the food of the Eastern Workers-if you will look at the second page of the document-you state the following:

"The food for the Eastern Workers was completely inadequate. They received 1,000 calories less per day than the minimum for Germans...."

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, below the names of the camps he says: ". . . all surrounded by barbed wire and were closely guarded." I understand you are challenging that?

DR. SERVATIUS: Were the camps surrounded by barbed wire and closely guarded, as it says here?


3 June 46

JAGER: In the beginning, yes.

DR. SERVATIUS: But you do not know whether that was the same case in all camps, do you?

JAGER: The camps which I visited, where I was as yet unknown, for instance, Kramerplatz and Dechenschule, were closely guarded, and I had to show my credentials in order to get in.

DR. SERVATIUS: I repeat the question concerning the food. You said the Eastern Workers received 1,000 calories less per day than the minimum for Germans. Whereas German workers who did hard work received 5,000 calories per day, the Eastern Workers who performed the same kind of work received only 2,000 calories per day. Is that true?

JAGER: That was true at the beginning of my activities. The food for Eastern Workers-as could be seen from the posted lists- had been determined as to quantity, and there was a difference between that for Eastern Workers and that for German workers. The 5,000 calories mentioned here were given to specific categories of German workers who did the hardest type of work. That was not given to everybody.

DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, I shall put to you a chart of the calories.

I submit to the Tribunal a copy of this chart. That is an exact table of the calories to which the individual categories of workers were entitled. It begins with 9 February 1942 and shows the individual quotas for the various types of workers; and on the last page there is a summary of the average quotas of calories which were allotted.

It is shown there in the summary, Group 1. Eastern Workers and Soviet prisoners of war: Average workers, 2,156 calories; heavy workers, 2,615; very heavy workers, 2,909; for long hours and night workers, 2,244. Are you familiar with these figures?

JAGER: Approximately.

DR. SERVATIUS: Will you compare that with what the German workers received: The normal consumer, 2,846 calories; heavy workers, 3,159; very heavy workers, 3,839; for long hours and night workers, 2,846 calories. Is that in accordance with your statement, according to which you said that German workers doing the heaviest work received 5,000 calories, whereas the Eastern Workers received only 2,000 calories?

THE PRESIDENT: It is very hard to follow these figures unless you give us, the exact page. Are you on the last page?

DR. SERVATIUS: This is a summary.


3 June 46

THE PRESIDENT: Well, on which page are you?

DR. SERVATIUS: On the last page, the last sheet on the right side. First, there are the food groups 1, 2, 3 on different pages; and then on the last page, on the right side next to Group 3, which concerns the Poles, there is a summary of calories for Eastern Workers, for Germans, and for Poles. If you compare the amounts of calories here in the columns, that should tally with what the witness has stated. He singled out the very heavy workers and said that the Germans received 5,000 calories; the table shows that they received only 3,839. He also says the Eastern Workers received 2,000 calories; whereas, according to the table, they received 2,900-that is, instead of a proportion of 5,000 to 2,000, it is from 2,900 to 3,800-in round figures about 1,000 calories and not, as the witness has said here, 3,000 calories. Is that correct? Do you stand on your statement? A distinction has to be made...

THE PRESIDENT: I did not hear the witness' answer.

MR. DODD: I think it would be more helpful to the Tribunal, and certainly to the Prosecution, if it were established who made up this chart, and whether or not the figures given here cover the camps where this witness had jurisdiction. From Coking it over I cannot tell where it was made up, except on the front page it says:

"According to the food table by Dr. Hermann Schall, Medical Superintendent of the 'Westend' Sanatorium. Calculations of controlled foodstuffs for the camps of the firm of Krupp..."

And so on.

But these things can be made up by the bale and presented to witnesses. Unless there is some foundation laid, I think it is an improper way to cross-examine.

DR. SERVATIUS: I have an affidavit which can prove where that chart comes from.

THE PRESIDENT: Have you ever seen this chart before?

DR. SERVATIUS: It is the affidavit of the witness Hahn.

JAGER: Was a question put to me, please?

DR. SERVATIUS: The witness has the original. It is attached. May I ask the witness to return the document to me?

JAGER: I wanted to make a statement on this subject.

At the beginning of my activity the Eastern Workers' food definitely differed from that of the German people, and also from that of the so-called western workers-the French, the Belgians, and so on. It can be seen from the figures that, even though it may not be stated exactly, at least there is a difference of 700 to 800 calories. In the beginning until, I believe, February or March 1943, the Eastern Workers received no additional rations for long hours, heavy


3 June 46

work, or very heavy work. These additional quotas were given only after Sauckel had ordered it; and that was, if I remember correctly, at the beginning of 1943. At that time, as far as I remember, the Eastern Workers were put on an equal footing with the German workers as far as food was concerned; and they received additional rations for long hours, heavy work, and very heavy work, which they had not received at all before.

DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, if I understand you correctly, you want to say that this chart may be right but that in reality the workers did not receive what is listed on the chart. Did I understand you correctly?

JAGER: Even from this chart you can see the difference.

DR. SERVATIUS: It was a difference of 3,000 calories which you mentioned, whereas the table shows a difference of about 1,000 calories.

JAGER: I said before that there were individual categories of workers doing the heaviest type of work-such as stokers and miners-and that they received up to 5,200 calories. That, however, was not the rule. Only very special workers received up to 5,200 calories.

DR. SERVATIUS: Then what you say here is not correct, because you did not mention that. You say generally that, whereas the German worker who did the heaviest type of work received 5,000 calories, the Eastern Workers who did the same type of work received only 2,000 calories per day. That is, however, a general statement; and it does not show that you are referring to exceptional cases of individual groups of workers. Is that correct?

JAGER: That is the way I saw it, and I believe that you understand it as it appears here.

THE PRESIDENT: Now, where does this chart come from, and are you putting it in? Will you put it in?

DR. SERVATIUS: In the affidavit this assertion is made, and the witness said clearly at that time that the workers doing the heaviest type of work received 5,000 calories if they were German, and if they were Eastern Workers, they received only 2,000. That is a very clear statement in the affidavit, which is not in accordance with the chart.

THE PRESIDENT: Are you offering it in evidence?


THE PRESIDENT: What will it be? What number will it be?

DR. SERVATIUS: That will be Exhibit Sauckel-11.

THE PRESIDENT: Does the affidavit refer to the chart?


3 June 46

DR. SERVATIUS: I asked because I questioned the correctness of the affidavit.

THE PRESIDENT: No, I asked whether the affidavit refers to and identifies the chart, the chart which the witness has just had in his hand.


THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, you have put in an affidavit by Walter Hahn. Does that affidavit mention the chart and say where the chart comes from and by whom it was made up and to what it refers?

DR. SERVATIUS: The affidavit which is here as Document Number D-288 does not mention the chart, but only the affidavit which I have submitted. Now I understand it is the affidavit by the witness Hahn, and the chart is attached; and it is covered by the affidavit made by the witness. That document I submit in evidence.

THE PRESIDENT: I said the affidavit by Walter Hahn-does it identify and is it attached to the chart? What page? There are seven pages, you know. We cannot find it unless you tell us.

DR. SERVATIUS: In the German text on Page 4.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, do you mean where it says, "The amount of calories contained in this food can be seen from the calorie table made by me which covers the whole period of the war"? Is that what you mean? That is on Page 4 of our copy. It is under the heading "C": "Food Supply of French Prisoners of War and Italian Military Internees."

DR. SERVATIUS: It is there, as I have said before, on Page 4 of the German text, where it says that the rations were based on calories; and that the caloric content of the food can tee seen from the calculations made which cover the entire duration of the war. That is the document attached.

THE PRESIDENT: But it is all right to say that the document is attached, but it does not refer to it by any name.

DR. SERVATIUS: But the document is attached, so that it is obvious that it must belong to it.


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 is an appendix. Maybe it was made by the man Hahn, but we do not know it yet; and this witness has not testified to it, and counsel has not told us.

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Dodd, the position is this, is it not: The man named Walter Hahn made an affidavit annexed to this chart. That affidavit is dated, I imagine...


3 June 46

MR. DODD: Yes, 1946.

THE PRESIDENT: . . . after the affidavit had been made by this witness, and replies in detail to the evidence given by this witness.

MR. DODD: Yes. What I wanted to understand fully was that this schedule, concerning which this witness is being cross-examined, was apparently not made up at the time when he had responsibility for these camps; and so far it does not appear from the examination that that is so, and I think it would have great bearing on the weight of the evidence adduced through the cross-examination.

I would like to point out that it was the defense of Sauckel that he had nothing to do with the feeding and care of these workers after they came into Germany, but that it was the responsibility of the DAN. I think it might be more helpful if counsel cleared that up, so that we would know whether he does admit responsibility after they came in and whether that is the purpose of this crossexamination.


DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute. The Tribunal does not think that you need interrupt your cross-examination. You can go on.

DR. SERVATIUS: The Prosecution has just made that assertion as an accusation against Sauckel. If the Prosecution today is of the opinion that Sauckel was not responsible for the happenings in the factories but rather the works manager was responsible and that he was not responsible for prisoners of war but that the Armed Forces were responsible for them, then I do not need this witness

THE PRESIDENT: Go on with your cross-examination, please.

DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, you have made some statements concerning the clothing of Eastern Workers. You said that they slept in the same clothes in which they had come from the East and that almost all of them had no overcoats and were therefore forced to use their blankets-even in cold and rainy weather-to carry their blankets in the place of coats.

Was it always like that, or only for a time? Was that a general occurrence or only an individual case?

JAGER: In order to avoid another misunderstanding I have to state again: At the beginning of my activity I depended entirely on myself. There was no camp command. There was nobody else to work with me. The calorie tables as well as the clothing charts were not made until later.

The camp management which existed, according to Hahn-if I remember correctly-was only until February or April 1943. The phase which I intended to describe, and have described here, refers


3 June 46

strictly to the time when I started my work. At that time the conditions were actually as I have described them, and I had to go by that. That also included clothing, as I have confirmed. These people remained in the same condition as on arrival, as far as clothing was concerned, for quite a while; and as far as I know they did not receive anything at that time.

DR. SERVATIUS: What was done about that?

JAGER: I reported these conditions as soon as possible. I do not remember when. As far as I could see, the intention was to establish tailor shops, shoe repair shops, and other work shops in the camps; and some of them were actually established.

DR. SERVATIUS: One question. Did things generally get much better in the course of your activities, or did they become worse?

JAGER: They did not become worse after 1943. After the first heavy air raids, of course, the confusion was always very great. A great deal was destroyed by fire. I recall that during one night 19,000 persons became homeless; and, of course, clothes and underwear were destroyed also It naturally took quite some time to make up these losses.

DR. SERVATIUS: Were these conditions caused by the firm of Krupp, or by lack of supervision on the part of the Labor Front?

JAGER: As I have said, I saw members of the Labor Front only once in a camp. Then that commission did actually criticize conditions. It was in the camp at Kramerplatz, and the firm of Krupp was fined at that time, because of the conditions. But that was the only time that I got in touch at all with the Labor Front.

DR. SERVATIUS: Did the firm of Krupp object in any way to the improvements, so that the Labor Front had to intervene?

JAGER: That I cannot say. I had no influence in that respect and did not know anything about it, because I had to deal only with medical affairs, and did not participate in meetings of the firm of Krupp or the Labor Front. I could only make reports.

DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, you also made statements concerning the conditions of health; and you said that the supply of medical instruments, bandages, medicines, and other medical equipment was completely inadequate in these camps. Is that true, or were those exceptional cases; or was it a condition which existed all the time?

JAGER: That was how I found the camps in October 1942, and slowly I had to clear up these conditions. Later, of course, there was an improvement.

DR. SERVATIUS: You say here that the number of Eastern Workers who fell sick was twice as high as the number of German


3 June 46

workers; that tuberculosis was especially prevalent; and that the percentage was four times as high among the Eastern Workers as among the Germans. Is that correct?

JAGER: That was the case at the beginning when we received workers who had not had any medical examination at all. When I went through the camps, I heard from the camp doctors-and saw for myself on the occasion of inspections-that very many people were sick. The figure was considerably higher than among the Germans, as far as I could see at that time.

DR. SERVATIUS: And what was done about that by the Krupp firm?

JAGER: After we had found out that it was tuberculosis we had to deal with, we made examinations in large numbers, even X-ray examinations. Then those affected with tuberculosis were separated from the others and put into the Krupp hospital for medical treatment.

DR. SERVATIUS: Then you mentioned typhus, and said that that was also widespread among the workers.

JAGER: I busied myself with that in particular, as we had about 150 cases.

DR. SERVATIUS: At what time?

JAGER: During the entire period from 1942 to 1945.

DR. SERVATIUS: How many workers did you have during that time?

JAGER: Oh, that varied.

DR. SERVATIUS: Give us some approximate figure.

JAGER: Well, if I remember correctly, there may have been 23,000 or 24,000; there may have been more. Later, there were about 9,000. But these figures varied.

DR. SERVATIUS: Do you consider it correct, if 150 people out of such a large number are affected by typhus over such a long period of time, to say that it was very widespread among the workers?

JAGER: Yes, for we had no typhus at all among the German population. So that statement may be justified. If among a population of 400,000 or 500,000-such as there was in Essen at that time-there was no typhus at all, and if one then takes an average of 20,000, with 150 cases among the 20,000, then that statement can quite well be made.

DR. SERVATIUS: In other words, you maintain your statement, that it is a correct statement that typhus was widespread. You say,


3 June 46

furthermore, that carriers of these diseases were fleas, lice, bedbugs, and other vermin which tortured the inhabitants of those camps. Was that true of ad the camps?

JAGER: It was the case in almost all the camps when I began my work. Then a disinfection station was set up by the firm of Krupp, which was hit in an air attack immediately. It was then rebuilt, and then destroyed a second time.

DR. SERVATIUS: You say that in cases of illness the workers had to go to work until a camp doctor certified that they were unfit for work. In the camps at Seumannstrasse, Grieperstrasse, Germaniastrasse, and Kapitan-Lehmannstrasse there were no daily consultation hours, and that at these camps the camp doctors appeared only every second or third day. Consequently workers were forced to go to work despite illness, until a doctor appeared. Is that correct?

JAGER: Naturally a worker had to work unless a camp doctor certified he was unfit. It was the same with the German population. I am a panel doctor myself and I know that in many cases a man had to go to work if he did not report himself sick; there was no difference in that respect.

DR. SERVATIUS: And you say that that was the case in the camps mentioned; that there was no real consultation hour, which meant that a man could not possibly report sick?

JAGER: But he could go to a doctor. Because there were no doctors there, I purposely arranged that whenever possible people should come to me during my consultation-to me personally.

DR. SERVATIUS: But you have said here. . .

THE PRESIDENT: I think we had better adjourn now.

[A recess was taken.]

DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, you just said that the workers could report ill even when there was no doctor present, that there was some other provision for them. Here you say that these camps were visited only every second or third day by the competent camp doctors; that as a consequence the workers, despite illness, had to report for work until a doctor was actually there. Is that correct?

JAGER: That is wrongly expressed. If anyone reported ill he had to be taken to a doctor, or the doctor was notified.

DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, I should like to return once more to the subject of the spreading of typhus. How many deaths resulted?

JAGER: Only about three or four cases of death resulted, and they occurred only because the case was diagnosed too late. I always


3 June

took personal charge of the typhus cases and had them brought to the hospital immediately, for I was responsible for this.

DR. SERVATIUS: Then you say in another place, on Page 2:

"The plan of supplies prescribed a little meat each week. Only Freibankfleisch could be used for this purpose, which was horse meat, meat infected with tuberculosis, or meat condemned by the veterinary."

Does that mean that the foreign workers received bad meat?

JAGER: One must define the expression "Freibankfleisch." Thai was meat which was not released for general consumption by the veterinary but which, after being treated in a certain way, wet quite fit' for human food. Even in times of peace and afterwards, the German population bought this meat. During the war the German population received in return for their coupons a double quantity of Freibankfleisch.

DR. SERVATIUS: Then the veterinary allowed it for consumption?

JAGER: Meat which had been condemned at first was released for human consumption after it had been treated in a certain manner and was then not harmful.

DR. SERVATIUS: Then the expression "condemned by the veterinary" means that it was first condemned and then allowed?

JAGER: Yes, then allowed.

DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, regarding the French prisoner-of-war camp in Noggerathstrasse you said the following:

"This camp was destroyed in a bombing attack; and the inmates for almost half a year were housed in dog kennels, latrines, and old baking ovens."

Is that correct?

JAGER: That is how I found this camp.

DR. SERVATIUS: And you saw that yourself for a half year?

JAGER: I was there only on three occasions. It was described to me in that way, and I found the camp in that condition. As far as I could determine at the time, it had been in that condition for about 4 months; then it was rebuilt.

DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, I am interested in the dog kennels. How many dog kennels were there? Were they really dog kennels, or was that only a derogatory remark about some other kind of billets?

JAGER: It was an expression of mine, because the inmates built and hammered these huts together themselves.


3 June 46

DR. SERVATIUS: Is the same true of the latrines, or what does that mean?

JAGER: That was the place where the doctor had his consultations.

DR. SERVATIUS: Was that a former latrine, or was it a latrine that was being used as such?

JAGER: A former latrine.

DR. SERVATIUS: Then it was a former latrine which had been rebuilt?

JAGER: It had not been rebuilt; it was just as it had been.

DR. SERVATIUS: Was this latrine then still being used?

JAGER: It was not being used.

DR. SERVATIUS: Then you say that there were no tables, chairs, or cupboards in this camp.

JAGER: That was also not the case.

DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, did you swear to this testimony which you have seen?

JAGER: Yes, to the one I saw before.

DR. SERVATIUS: Are you sure it is that testimony which you have just had in your hands?

JAGER: In my home in Chemnitz I crossed out various things in the record of the interrogatory which was submitted to me, and initialed these corrections...

DR. SERVATIUS: This very sentence, did you not . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Please do not interrupt him.

DR. SERVATIUS: Please continue.

JAGER: I must assume that this is that corrected record.

DR. SERVATIUS: But you have it before you?

JAGER: Yes, I have a record before me.

DR. SERVATIUS: Can you not determine which passages you crossed out? Were there many passages like that, or was it just single words?

JAGER: No, sometimes entire sentences.

DR. SERVATIUS: And you swore to that?

JAGER: Yes. After I had made these changes, I swore to this record.

DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, I should like to call the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that this statement was in the Krupp files at the beginning of the proceedings, and that it was considerably


3 June 46

shorter, and that a number of sentences which the witness has sworn to here were lacking in that statement. I would suggest, therefore, that the Prosecution should submit the original, which the witness states he has altered, so that it can be seen just what he did write. As far as I know, he struck out at the time a few of those very statements which he has just repeated here.

As an example, I mention that he stated that in this camp there were no chairs, tables, or cupboards. That is a sentence which was struck out. The witness thus had doubts 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.

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 had been cut short.

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 contention is this: The document which we have before us does not show these crossings out. 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.

DR. SERVATIUS: How did you mark your alterations?

JAGER: I crossed the passages out with ink and put my name next to the alterations. It is difficult, of course, and today I am not able to say what I did strike out at that time, as I did not retain a copy.

DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, if this document which we have before us were reproduced correctly these crossed-out passages would have to be shown, especially as the witness says that he put his initials in the margin.

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?


3 June 46

JAGER: Yes. I must try to remember exactly.

The document was submitted to me. I made the 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 which I read before the court.

DR. SERVATIUS: Was that a fair copy without any alterations?

JAGER: That was a fair copy. I do not remember exactly; I really cannot.

DR. SERVATIUS: And why did you make these alterations?

JAGER: 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 think, compiled this record and asked me to sign it.

DR. SERVATIUS: And why did you make these alterations?

JAGER: Because I could not swear to those things-the things that I struck out I could not swear to.

DR. SERVATIUS: Was it incorrect, or did it go too far?

JAGER: In part it went too far, 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.

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

JAGER: 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...

THE PRESIDENT: Have you got that original, or is it with...

MR. DODD: There were a number of these made up, and they were all signed as originals. The first was the copy made with the typewriter, 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 14 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: As former counsel for Herr Krupp Von Bohlen, I wish to make a statement about this.

In the Krupp file 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 Honor.

THE PRESIDENT: We are now considering the Document Number D-288. You haven't anything to do with that document.

DR. BALLAS: Yes, this document does concern me. 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 am appearing for Dr. Siemers, counsel for 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 file there is a Document D-288 which is considerably shorter than this Document D-288 which has been submitted by the Prosecution in the case of Sauckel. At the time I called Dr. Servatius' attention to this difference, and we checked point by point just how far the deviations went. There are thus two documents-the one original Document D-288 and the one in the Krupp file which differs from the document 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.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes; thank you. Is there any other member of the Defense that wants to ask questions of this witness?

[there was 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


3 June 46

where the name Captain N. Webb appears, that I am informed that refers to a certificate which is attached to all British documents and that is a certificate which goes along for 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. It is better that 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 inquire.

[Turning to the witness.]

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


MR. DODD: 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.


MR. DODD: You read English as well as German, do you not? You have some knowledge of English.

JAGER: Some knowledge, yes.

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

JAGER: It is in German.

THE PRESIDENT: And it is signed by you, is it?


THE PRESIDENT: Is there any passage in it which you want to strike out of it?

JAGER: May I read the document first?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes; you may read it as quickly as you can.

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


3 June 46

JAGER: Yes, here there is an alteration which is written in pencil, on Page 2. I crossed that out, but that was not written by me.

DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, may I submit the document which I received from the counsel for Krupp at the beginning? I also have here an English document, Document Number 288 and the passages which allegedly were crossed out at the time have been marked by me in red. I should like to submit this document for the information of the Court; I believe it will help 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 he has anything in it which he thinks did not form part of the original document which he signed.

JAGER: On Page 1 it says, 'conditions in all these camps were extremely bad." I would have probably limited this statement, because I...

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.

JAGER: The record, as it is before me, I would not change in any way.

THE PRESIDENT: Just one or two questions I want to ask you. Were prisoners of war employed at Krupp's during the time you were supervising these camps?

JAGER: I did not supervise the prisoner-of-war camps. That is a wrong expression. I received the 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.

THE PRESIDENT: Were any of the people who were working at the camps, which you mentioned in this, prisoners of war?

JAGER: In Hoagstrasse.

THE PRESIDENT: Prisoners of war were working there, were they?



3 June 4'


JAGER: For the Krupp Works, yes.

THE PRESIDENT: What sort of work was it?

JAGER: These things were not under my jurisdiction. It depended on their trade-locksmiths probably worked in the locksmith shop But there were also many unskilled laborers. But I am natural!, not able to give you all the details; these matters were not uncle, my jurisdiction. I was concerned with these people only in my capacity as a physician.


[The witness left the stand.]

MR. DODD: Mr. President, I have found that certificate; and it it as I described it for the Tribunal. It is a certificate by Captain Weber of the British Army service that he received a copy of this document from the American team; and it is signed by him, Captain H. Weber, IMT Corps, British Army, European Sector.

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 still do not have the sworn affidavits, the interrogatories from Dr. Voss, Dr. Scharmann, a witness by the name of Marenbach 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 al 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 Honors, 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 Court.

I do not need to bore the Tribunal with lengthy readings. I have three document books which are numerically arranged, Jodl 1, Jodl 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 correspond. 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


3 June 46

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

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

[The Defendant Jodl took the stand.]

THE PRESIDENT: Will you state your full name?

ALFRED JODL (Defendant): Alfred Jodl.

THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath after me: I swear by God-the Almighty and Omniscient-that I will speak the pure truth-and will withhold and add nothing.

[The defendant repeated the oath.]

THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down.

DR. EXNER: Generaloberst Jodl, in the English-American trial brief it says that you are 60 years old. That is a mistake. You became 56 recently. You were born when?

JODL: I was born in 1890 on 10 May.

DR. EXNER: You were born in Bavaria, and both of your parents are descended from old Bavarian families. You chose the military profession; what was the chief reason for your choice?

JODL: A great-grandfather of mine was an officer; my father was an officer; an uncle was an officer; my brother became an officer; my father-in-law was an officer-I can well say that the military profession was in my blood.

DR. EXNER: And now I should like to hear something about your political attitude. To which of the political parties which existed in Germany before 1933 were you closest in spirit?

JODL: As an officer all party politics were entirely remote to me; and especially the offshoots of the post-war period. If I look at the background from which I come, the attitude of my parents, I must say that I would have been closest to the National Liberal Party and its ideas. In any event, my parents never voted anything but National Liberal.

DR. EXNER: Tell us in a few words what your attitude was to the Weimar Republic.

JODL: True to my oath I served the Weimar Republic honestly and without reserve. If I could not have done that, I would have resigned. Moreover, a democratic system and a democratic constitution was not at all a foreign idea to us southern Germans, for our monarchy was also democratic.

DR. EXNER: And what were your relations to Von Hindenburg?


3 June 46

JODL: I knew Hindenburg. I was assigned to him after his first election to the Reich Presidency when he spent his first vacation in Dietramszell. Then I spent a day with the Hindenburg family at their Neudeck estate together with Field Marshal Von Manstein. I can only say that I admired him; and when he was elected Reich President for the first time, I considered that the first symptom of the German people's return to self-respect.

DR. EXNER: What was your attitude toward the National Socialist Party?

JODL: The National Socialist Party I hardly knew and hardly noticed before the Munich Putsch. It was this Putsch which dragged the Reichswehr into this internal political development. At that time, with few exceptions, it met this test of obedience. But after this Putsch there was a certain cleavage in the views of the officers' corps. Opinions varied as to Hitler's worth or worthlessness. I was still extremely skeptical and unconvinced. I was not impressed until Hitler, during the Leipzig trial, gave the assurance that he was opposed to any undermining of the Reichswehr.

DR. EXNER: Did you attend meetings at which Hitler spoke?

JODL: No, never.

DR. EXNER: Tell us which leaders of the Party you knew before 1933.

JODL: I knew only those who had previously been officers: for example, Epp, Huhnlein, and Rohm. But I no longer had any connection or contact with them after they had left the Reichswehr.

DR. EXNER: Before the seizure of power had you read the book Mein Kampf?


DR. EXNER: Did you read it later?

JODL: I read parts of it later.

DR. EXNER; What was your opinion on the Jewish question?

JODL: I was not anti-Semitic. I am of the opinion that no party, no state, no people, and no race-not even cannibals-are good or bad in themselves, but only the single individual. Of course I knew that Jewry, after the war and in the moral disintegration that appeared after the first World War, came to the fore in Germany in a most provocative fashion. That was not anti-Semitic propaganda; those were facts, which were regretted very much by Jews themselves. Nevertheless, I was most sharply opposed to any outlawing by the state, any generalization, and any excesses.

DR. EXNER: The Prosecution asserts that all the defendants cried, "Germany awake; death to the Jew."


3 June 46

JODL: As far as I am concerned, that assertion is wrong. At every period of my life I associated with individual Jews. I have been a guest of Jews, and certain Jews have visited my home. But those were Jews who recognized their fatherland. They were Jeers whose human worth was undisputed.

DR. EXNER: Did you on occasion use your influence on behalf of Jews?

JODL: Yes, that too.

DR. EXNER: Did you know that the Reich Government in the year 1932 counted on the possibility of attempts to overthrow it and sought to save itself in this direction?

JODL: I certainly knew that, for when I came to Berlin at that time I did not find in the later operational division any preparations for war; but I found preparations for the use of the Reichswehr in the interior of the country, against the extreme leftists as well as the extreme rightists. There were plans for maneuvers of some sort in that connection in which I myself participated.

DR. EXNER: What was your attitude to the appointment of Hitler as Reich Chancellor in the year 1933?

JODL: The appointment of Hitler as Reich Chancellor was a complete surprise to me. That evening when I was returning home with a comrade, through the excited crowds, I said to him, "This is more than a change of government; it is a revolution. Just how far it will lead us we do not know." But the name of Hindenburg, who had legalized this revolution, and the names of such men as Von Papen, Von Neurath, Schwerin-Krosigk exerted a reassuring influence on me and gave me a certain guarantee that there would be no revolutionary excesses.

DR. EXNER: At this point I should like to read a part of General Vormann's interrogatory. This is Page 208 of the third volume of my document book. I should like to call the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that Page 208 in the upper left hand corner- I submit the original-refers to the period from 1933 on. Jodl was then at the group headquarters (Gruppenamt), and Vormann was in his group. I read under Figure 2:

"Jodl, who at that time was a major on the General Staff, was my group (Gruppe) leader in 1933. He shared completely the view of the Chief of the Army Command at that time, General Von Hammerstein, and was thoroughly opposed to Hitler and the Party."

I shall now skip a few lines; they are not so important. Then in the center of the page, I continue:


3 June 46

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, I have certainly got an English-I have read the English translation of it, My Lord' so I assume that it has been translated into the other languages.

The next, applications from the Defendants Hess and Frank to put an interrogatory to General Donovan. If I may put the objection quite shortly, that raises the same point as the application on 2 May 1946 for Mr. Patterson of the United States War Department. The objection of the Prosecution is the same as I made on that occasion, that when you are cross-examining a witness as to credibility you are bound by his answer, and should not, in the opinion of the Prosecution, be allowed to call evidence to contradict him. So it is on exactly the same point, the relationship between the witness Gisevius and the United States Office of Strategic Services.

The next application is on behalf of the Defendant Speer for the approval of certain documents which are in his possession. The Prosecution have no objection to the application. They reserve the right to make any individual objection when the documents are produced at the Trial.

My Lord, the next is a purely formal application on behalf of the Defendant Jodl, whose case is now before the Tribunal, to use an affidavit of Dr. Lehmann. There is no objection to that.

Next is the application on behalf of the Defendant Hess. ..

THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, that application we have already heard. We have heard the arguments for that in full and the Tribunal will consider that.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Your Lordship pleases.

Then I think that only leaves an application of the Defendant Keitel for the use of a decree of Hitler of 20 July 1944, and the Prosecution has no objection to that.

My Lord, I think I have dealt with every one except the first one, which my friend General Rudenko will deal with-the application of the Defendant Goering.

GENERAL R. A. RUDENKO (Chief Prosecutor for the U.S.S.R.): Members of the Tribunal, the Soviet Prosecution have several times expressed their view respecting the application of Defense Counsel to call witnesses with regard to the mass shooting of Polish officers by the Fascist criminals in Katyn Forest. Our position is that this episode of criminal activity on the part of the Hitlerites has been fully established by the evidence presented by the Soviet Prosecution, which was a communication of the special Extraordinary State Commission investigating the circumstances of the mass shooting of Polish officer prisoners of war by the German Fascist aggressors in Katyn Forest. This document was presented by the Soviet Prosecution under the Document Number USSR-54 on 14 February


3 June 46

1946, and was admitted by the Tribunal; and, as provided by Article 21 of the Charter, it is not subject to argument.

Now the Defense once again are putting in an application for the calling of three supplementary witnesses-a psychiatrist, Stockert; a former adjutant of the Engineer Corps, Bohmert; and a special expert of the staff of the Army Group Center, Eichborn.

We object to the calling of these three witnesses for the following reasons: r

The calling of the psychiatrist Stockert as a witness must be considered completely pointless as the Tribunal cannot be interested in the question of how the commission drew its conclusion-a conclusion which was published in a Hitlerite White Book. No matter how this conclusion was drawn, the fact of the mass shooting of Poles by Germans in Katyn Forest has been unequivocally established by the Soviet Extraordinary State Commission.

Stockert himself is not a doctor of forensic medicine but a psychiatrist-at that time a member of the Hitlerite commission, not on the basis of his competence in the field of forensic medicine, but as a representative of the German Fascist military command.

The former adjutant, Captain Bohmert, is himself a participant in the crimes of Katyn Forest, having been a member of the Engineer Corps which carried out the executions. As he is an interested party, he cannot give any useful testimony for clarifying the circumstances of this matter.

Third, the expert of the staff of the Army Group Center also cannot be admitted as a witness because he, in general, knew nothing at all about the camp of the Polish prisoners of war, and could not have known all that pertained to the matter. The same reasons apply to his potential testimony to the fact that the Germans never perpetrated any mass shooting of Poles in the district of Katyn. Moreover, Eichborn cannot be considered an unprejudiced witness.

Regardless of these objections which express the opinion of all the prosecutors, the Soviet Prosecution especially emphasize the fact that these bestial crimes of the Germans in Katyn were investigated by the special authoritative State Investigating Committee, which went with great precision into all the details. The result of this investigation has established the fact that the crimes in Katyn were perpetrated by Germans, and are but a link in the chain of many bestial crimes perpetrated by the Hitlerites, a great many proofs of which have previously been submitted to the Tribunal.

For these reasons the Soviet Prosecution categorically insists on the rejection of the application of the Defense Counsel.

I have finished my statement.


3 June 46

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for Kaltenbrunner, Sir David was right, was he not, in saying that you were only asking for crossinterrogatories, which the Prosecution do not object to?

DR. KURT KAUFFMANN (Counsel for Defendant Kaltenbrunner): Mr. President, I have no objection to questionnaires, but I would then ask that these witnesses be heard in my presence outside this courtroom; and then, on the basis of this interrogation, questionnaires can later be submitted to the Tribunal.

THE PRESIDENT: But are the witnesses here?

DR. KAUFFMANN: Mr. President, I do not know.

THE PRESIDENT: We granted interrogatories, and you now ask for cross-interrogatories; that is all you ask for, and that does not involve bringing the witnesses here at all. The cross-interrogatories will be sent to them; they will answer them. If, for any reason, on the cross-interrogatories being answered, you want to make further application, you can always do so.

DR. KAUFFMANN: The rule of the Court so far was, as I understood it, that I have the right to cross-examine in this courtroom if the Prosecution submits affidavits of these witnesses here. That has, so far, been the ruling of the Court.

THE PRESIDENT: I think it depends on what the substance of the affidavit is. If it is a matter of importance, no doubt we-we have never made any general rule, but we have generally allowed the witness to be brought here for cross-examination if the matter is of importance; but if the matter is of less importance, then we have very frequently directed that there should be cross-interrogatories.

DR. KAUFFMANN: May I add to this last sentence? I consider this testimony extremely important. The Court will probably know the contents.

THE PRESIDENT: Again in your application you say that three interrogatories were used by the Prosecution on the understanding that the deponents would be subject to cross-interrogation. That means, I suppose, cross-interrogatories. It does not say crossexamination; it says cross-interrogation. Do you want to have them brought here for cross-examination?

DR. KAUFFMANN: That is what I had intended, unless my first suggestion is accepted. My first suggestion is simpler, in my opinion, and it would save time. It proposes that I be allowed to be present at the questioning of the witnesses outside this courtroom.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, we understand your point of view, Dr. Kauffmann, and we will consider it.


3 June 46

DR. KAUFFMANN: Thank you.

DR. OTTO STAMMER (Counsel for Defendant Goering): May I make a brief statement with reference to General Rudenko's motion?

General Rudenko wishes to reject my application for evidence, referring to Article 21, I believe, of the Charter. I do not believe that this regulation opposes my application. It is true of course, that government reports are evidence...

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, I think the Tribunal has already ruled that that article does not prevent the calling of witnesses; but General Rudenko, in addition to an argument based upon Article 21, also gave particular reasons why he said that these particular witnesses were not witnesses who ought to be called. He said that one of them was a psychiatrist, and the other one could not give any evidence of any value. We should like to hear you upon that.

DR. STAHMER: In the report submitted by the Soviet Union, the charge is made that members of the engineer staff which was stationed near Katyn carried out the execution of these Polish officers. They are mentioned by name, and I am bringing counter-evidence-namely members of the same staff-to prove that during the whole time that this staff was stationed there no killings of Polish officers occurred. I consider this is a pertinent assertion and a presentation of relevant evidence. One cannot eliminate a witness by saying that he was involved in the act. With reference to these people, that is not yet settled, and it is not mentioned at all in the record. Neither are these people, whom I have now named, listed in the Russian record as having taken part in the deed. Apart from that, I consider it out of the question to eliminate a witness by saying that he committed the deed. That is what has to be proved by hearing him.

THE PRESIDENT: About the psychiatrist, was he a member of the German commission?


THE PRESIDENT: He was a member of it?

DR. STAMMER: Yes. He was present at the unloading, and he ascertained from the condition of the corpses that the executions must have been carried out at some time before the occupation by the German Army.

THE PRESIDENT: But he does not actually say in the application that he was a member. He said he was present during the visit of the military commission; he knows how the resolution of the commission was produced.

DR. STAMMER: I do not think he was an appointed member, but he took part in this inspection and in the duties connected with it.


3 June 46

As far as I know, he was a regimental doctor in some regiment near-he was a regimental doctor of a regimental staff in the vicinity.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well, we will consider your argument.

Then, is the counsel for Von Neurath agreeable that that matter should stand over? Is counsel for Von Neurath here? He is not here? Very well then, we will consider that.

Then, Counsel for the Defendant Schirach, do you wish to say anything in answer to what Sir David said?

DR. NELTE: My colleague Dr. Sauter asked me, if necessary, to represent the interests of the Defendant Von Schirach.

As to the statement of Sir David, I have only to say that, according to the opinion of the Defendant Von Schirach, the witness Von Vacano, who made and signed this affidavit, makes statements on a number of points on which Herr Von Schirach did not speak when he was examined as a witness. I therefore ask the Court to examine this affidavit to determine whether it does not contain individual points which would be important in connection with the charges against Von Schirach, and then to decide whether to admit it.

THE PRESIDENT: Then does counsel for the Defendants Hess and Frank want to say anything about the application for an interrogatory to General Donovan? Dr. Seidl, we have already heard the

argument about it.

DR. ALFRED SEIDL (Counsel for Defendants Hess and Frank): I have nothing to add to the arguments which I have already offered on the application to obtain official information from the War Department. I have also withdrawn my request for a decision on my first application, which was to obtain information from the War Department. It has not yet been decided, however, whether a questionnaire is to be submitted to Secretary of War Patterson.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well, the matter will be considered. There was no objection to the other three applications, so it is unnecessary to hear argument. Then the Tribunal will consider all these matters.

Now, Dr. Exner. Dr. Exner, if it is convenient to you personally, the Tribunal thinks that you might go a little bit faster in your speech through the earphones.

DR. EXNER: Before the recess, we heard what you told your officers when Adolf Hitler entered the government. Now I should like to hear what you felt about the appointment of Hitler as head of the State in 1934.

JODL: The union of the two of flees in one person gave me much concern. When we lost Hindenburg, we lost the Field Marshal loved


3 June 46

by the Wehrmacht and by the whole German people. What we should get with Hitler, we did not know. It is true, the result of the plebiscite was so overwhelming that one could say that a higher law than this popular will could not possibly exist. Thus we soldiers were quite justified in taking the oath to Adolf Hitler.

DR. EXNER: The Prosecution speak of your close relationship with Hitler. When did you learn to know Adolf Hitler personally?

JODL: I was presented to the Fuehrer by Field Marshal Keitel in the command train on 3 September 1939 when we were going to the Polish Eastern Front. At any rate that was the day I first exchanged words with him.

DR. EXNER: Two days after the outbreak of war?

JODL: Two days after the beginning of the war.

DR. EXNER: Did the Fuehrer have confidence in you?

JODL: That came about very gradually. The Fuehrer had a certain distrust of all General Staff officers, especially of the Army, as at that time he was still very skeptical toward the Wehrmacht as a whole.

I may, perhaps, quote a statement of his which was often heard: "I have a reactionary Army, a Christian"-sometimes he said too- "an imperial Navy, and a National Socialist Air Force."

The relations between us varied a great deal. At first, until about the end of the campaign in the West, there was considerable reserve. Then his confidence in me increased more and more until August 1942. Then the great crisis arose, and his attitude to me was severely caustic and unfriendly. That lasted until 30 January 1943. Then relations improved and were particularly good, sincere, after the Italian betrayal in 1943 had been warded off. The last year was characterized by numerous sharp altercations.

DR. EXNER: To what extent did the Fuehrer confide in you regarding his political intentions?

JODL: Only as far as we needed to know them for our military work. Of course, for the Chief of the Armed Forces Operations Staff political plans are somewhat more necessary than for a battalion commander, for politics is part of strategy.

DR. EXNER: Did he permit discussions of political questions between himself and you?

JODL: Discussion of political questions was generally not admissible for us soldiers. One example is especially characteristic. When I reported to the Fuehrer in September 1943 that Fascism was dead in Italy, for party emblems were scattered all over, this is what he


3 June 46

said: "Such nonsense could only be reported by an officer. Once again it is obvious that generals do not understand politics."

It can be easily understood that after such remarks the desire for any political discussions was slight.

DR. EXNER: Were political and military questions therefore kept strictly separate?

JODL: Yes, they were strictly separated.

DR. EXNER: Was it possible for you to consult him on military matters or not?

JODL: Consultation on military questions depended entirely on the circumstances of the moment. At a time when he himself was filled with doubts, he often discussed military problems for weeks or months, but if things were clear in his own mind, or if he had formed a spontaneous decision, all discussion came to an end.

DR. EXNER: The system of maintaining secrecy has often been discussed here. Were you also subject to this secrecy?

JODL: Yes, and to an extent which I really first realized during this Trial. The Fuehrer informed us of events and occurrences at the beginning of the war-that is, the efforts of other countries to prevent this war, and even to put an end to it after it had already begun-only to the extent that these events were published in the press. He spoke to the politicians and to the Party quite otherwise than to the Wehrmacht; and to the SS differently again.

The secrecy concerning the annihilation of the Jews, and the events in the concentration camps, was a masterpiece of secrecy. It was also a masterpiece of deception by Himmler, who showed us soldiers faked photographs about these things in particular, and told us stories about the gardens and plantations in Dachau, about the ghettos in Warsaw and Theresienstadt, which gave us the impression that they were highly humane establishments.

DR. EXNER: Did not news reach the Fuehrer's headquarters from the outside?

JODL: The Fuehrer's headquarters was a cross between a cloister and a concentration camp. There were numerous wire fences and much barbed wire surrounding it. There were outposts on the roads leading to it to safeguard it. In the middle was the so-called Security Ring Number 1.

Permanent passes to enter this security ring were not given even to my staff, only to General Warlimont. Every guard had to check on each officer whom he did not know. Apart from reports on the situation, only very little news from the outer world penetrated into this holy of holiest


3 June 46

DR. EXNER: But what about foreign papers and radio reports'

JODL: Among foreign papers we studied very carefully the illustrated American and English papers, for they gave us verb good information on new weapons The foreign news itself was received and censored by the headquarters civilian press section I was given only what was of military interest. Reports concerning internal politics, police, or the present situation were forbidden.

DR. EXNER: How did your collaboration with the Fuehrer take place?

JODL: It took place as follows: Every day I made at least two reports on the situation. Some time ago it was asserted, rather indignantly, that I took part in 119 conferences. I took part in far more than 5,000 conferences. This discussion of the situation and reporting on the military position was at the same time an issuing of orders On the basis of the reports on events, the Fuehrer decided immediately what orders were to be given for the next few days.

I worked in this way: When my report was finished, I went into an adjoining room. There I immediately drew up the teletype messages and orders for the next few days, and while the report. on the situation were still going on, I read these drafts to the Fuehrer for his approval. Warlimont then took them along to my staff where they were sent off.

DR. EXNER: Were you also present at political talks?

JODL: May I add-to complete the picture it should be said the I did not hear many things which were discussed during tines' reports on the situation. The same is true of Field Marshal Keitel who worked in a similar manner.

DR. EXNER: Were political matters also brought up at the discussions of the situation, and to what extent were you present a discussions of a political nature?

JODL: As I have already said at the beginning, political problem were discussed only to the extent that was necessary for our, military measures. Also on occasions when political and military leaders came together, when the Reich Foreign Minister was present problems were discussed which lay on the borderline between politics and He conduct of the war. I did not take part in the exclusively political talks with foreign politicians, neutral or allied or with the Reich Foreign Minister. I did not even take part in the discussions on the organization, armament, and administration o the occupied territories, for the purely military discussions of the situation in which I had to take part often lasted or required as much as 6 or 8 hours a day. I really needed the time I then hat left for my own work.


3 June 46

DR. EXNER: It has often been stated here that it was impossible to contradict the Fuehrer. Did you have any success with remonstrances?

JODL: One cannot say it was really impossible to contradict the Fuehrer. Very many times I contradicted him most emphatically, but there were moments when one actually could not answer a word. Also by my objections I induced the Fuehrer to desist from many things.

DR. EXNER: Can you give an example?

JODL: There were a great number of operational question which do not interest the Court; but in the sphere of interest to the Court, there was, for example, Hitler's intention to renounce the Geneva Convention. I prevented that because I objected.

DR. EXNER: Were there other possibilities of influencing Hitler?

JODL: If it was not possible by open contradiction to prevent something which according to my innermost convictions I should prevent, there was still the means I often employed of using delaying tactics, a kind of passive resistance. I delayed work on the matter and waited for a psychologically favorable moment to bring the question up again.

This procedure, too, was occasionally successful, for example, in the case of the intention to turn certain low-level fliers over to lynch justice. It had no success in the case of the Commando Order.

DR. EXNER: We will speak about that later. The Fuehrer therefore ordered that himself. ~

The witness Gisevius in answer to questions by the Prosecution, said that "Jodl had a key position with Hitler."

Did you know this witness by sight, or by hearing about him, or in any other way?

JODL: I did not have that honor. I heard the name of this witness for the first time here, and I saw him for the first time here in Court.

DR. EXNER: What, if anything, could you influence Hitler not to do?

JODL: Obviously, I could give the Fuehrer only an extract of events. In view of his inclination to make emotional decisions I naturally was particularly cautious in presenting unverified reports made by agents. If the witness meant this by his general term of "key position," he was not wrong. But if he intended it to mean that I kept from the Fuehrer atrocities committed by our own Wehrmacht, or atrocities committed by the SS, then that is absolutely untrue. Besides, how was that witness to know about it?


3 June 46

On the contrary, I immediately reported any news of that kind to the Fuehrer, and no one could have stopped me from doing so. I will give examples: An affidavit by Rittmeister Scheidt was read here. He testified that Obergruppenfuehrer Fegelein told the Chief of the General Staff, Colonel Guderian, and Generaloberst Jodl of atrocities committed by the SS Brigade Keminski in Warsaw. That is absolutely true. Ten minutes later I reported this fact to the Fuehrer and he immediately ordered the dissolution of this brigade. When I heard through the American radio, through my press chief, of the shooting of 120 American prisoners near Malmedy, I immediately, on my own initiative, had an investigation started through the Commander, West so as to report the result to the Fuehrer. When unimaginable horrors committed by an Ustashi company in Croatia came to my knowledge, I reported this to the Fuehrer immediately.

DR. EXNER: I should like to interrupt you a moment. In your diary Document Number 1807-PS, you write, on 12 June 1942- Page 119, second document book:

"The German field police disarmed and arrested a Ustashi company because of atrocities committed against the civilian population in Eastern Bosnia."

I should like to add here that this is noteworthy because this Ustashi company was something like an SS troop in Croatia and was fighting on the German side. Because of the atrocities, the German field police arrested this Ustashi company.

"The Fuehrer did not approve of this measure, which was carried out by order of the commander of the 708th Division, as it undermined the authority of the Ustashi on which the whole Croatian State rests. This is bound to have a more harmful effect on peace and order in Croatia than the unrest of the population caused by the atrocities."

Was this the incident of which you were thinking just now?

JODL: Yes.

DR. EXNER: Have you another example?

JODL: After the issuing of the Commando Order, I reported enemy violations of international law to the Fuehrer only when he would be certain to have heard of them through other channels. I reported cases of Commando undertakings and capture of Commandos only when I could be quite sure that he would hear of them through other channels. In this respect I did try to hold back any new spontaneous emotional decisions.

DR. EXNER: Was it possible to hold Hitler back?

JODL: Unfortunately not.


3 June 46

He did not greet me any more, or rarely. This situation lasted until 30 January 1943. He told me, through Field Marshal Keitel, that he could no longer work with me and that I would be replaced by General Paulus as soon as Pails had taken Stalingrad.

DR. EXNER: Did you yourself not try during this time to be released from the OKW?

JODL: During all this time, every other day I asked General Schmundt to see to it that I should be sent at last to a position at the front with the mountain troops in Finland. I wanted to go there. But nothing happened.

DR. EXNER: The Prosecution has asserted that you enjoyed the good graces of the Fuehrer and that the Fuehrer lavished his favor on you. How much of that is true?

JODL: I need not waste many words on that. What I said is the actual truth. I am afraid that what the Prosecution said is imagination.

DR. EXNER: It was also said that you were ambitious in your military career. How about that?

JODL: If the Prosecution mean that as a so-called political soldier I was promoted especially quickly, they are mistaken. I became a general in my fiftieth year. That is quite normal. In July 1940, when I was appointed general of Artillery it is true I skipped the grade of lieutenant general, but that was only an accident. A much

younger general in the Air Force, Jeschonnek, Chief of the General Staff of the Luftwaffe, was to be promoted to Air Chief Marshal. Then Schmundt said to the Fuehrer: "Jodl could perhaps do that too." Thereupon, shortly before the Reichstag session, the Fuehrer decided to promote me also-to general of Artillery. This Jeschonnek, who is much younger than I am, became Generaloberst much sooner than I. Zeitzler, who was formerly my subordinate, became Generaloberst at the same time as I did.

THE PRESIDENT: I think we will break off.

[A recess was taken.]

THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn this afternoon at 4:30.

DR. EXNER: We were discussing to what extent you enjoyed the favor of the Fuehrer, that is with regard to-

Did you not receive exceptional decorations from Hitler?

JODL: To my surprise, when the Vinnitza crisis was over, on 30 January 1943, I received from the Fuehrer the Golden Party Badge. That was the only decoration I received from the Fuehrer.


3 June 46

DR. EXNER: In the entire 5'/e years of war?

JODL: Yes.

DR. EXNER: Did you receive a gift or donation from Hitler, or from the Party?

JODL: Not a single cent. If I am to conceal nothing I must mention the fact that at headquarters we received a package of coffee from the Fuehrer each Christmas.

DR. EXNER: Did you acquire any property in the territories occupied by us, or receive any as a gift or as a token of remembrance?

JODL: Nothing at ail. When in The Indictment the sentence is found to the effect that the defendants enriched themselves from the occupied territories, as far as I am concerned I have only one word for that, and I must be frank-it is a libel against a decent German officer.

DR. EXNER: During the war you saved some of your pay as a Generaloberst. How did you invest this money?

JODL: My entire savings of this war are at the moment in Reich bonds . . .

THE PRESIDENT: He said that he could not save a penny. He has not yet been cross-examined about it.

DR. EXNER: During the entire period of the war you were with Hitler and therefore you must really know him best. So I should like to ask you in detail about the personality of the Fuehrer, but the Court is not very fond of repetition. Therefore tell us quite briefly what particularly influenced you in Hitler's behavior, what impressed you particularly? What were the things you disliked?

JODL: Hitler was a leader to an exceptional degree. His knowledge and his intellect, his rhetoric, and his will power triumphed in the end in every spiritual conflict over everyone. He combined to an unusual extent logic and clarity of thought, skepticism and excess of imagination, which very frequently foresaw what would happen, but also very often went astray. I really marveled at him when in the winter of 1941-42, by his faith and his energy, he established the wavering Eastern Front; for at that time, as in 1812, a catastrophe was imminent. His life in the Fuehrer headquarters was nothing but duty and work. The modesty in his mode of life was impressive. There was not one day during This war...

THE PRESIDENT: One moment. As you said, Dr. Exner, the Tribunal has had to listen to This sort of thing over and over again already. We are not interested in that.

DR. EXNER: Perhaps you can tell the Tribunal something which they have heard less frequently, namely what you disliked in the personality of Hitler.


3 June 46

THE PRESIDENT: I do not think that, put in that general way, it is of any interest to the Tribunal, what he disliked in Hitler. I mean, can he not get on with his own case?

DR. EXNER: Did you feel that you were close to the Fuehrer personally?

JODL: No; in no way at all.

DR. EXNER: All your relations were essentially official?

JODL: Yes, purely official. I did not belong to his private circle, and he did not know any more about me than that my name was Jodl, and that therefore, presumably, I came from Bavaria.

DR. EXNER: Who belonged to the private circle?

JODL: Chiefly all the old guard from the time when the Party was in its developing stage: Bormann first of all, the original women secretaries, his personal physician, and the political or SS adjutants.

DR. EXNER: Your Gauleiter speech was used by the Prosecution to prove that you were an unconditional follower of the Fuehrer and his enthusiastic adherent. Tell us, how did you come to make that speech?

JODL: Bormann proposed this speech to the Fuehrer, and the Fuehrer ordered it, though I undertook this speech very reluctantly, chiefly because of lack of time. But it was generally the wish in this period of crisis...

DR. EXNER: When was this speech?

JODL: In November 1943. The Italian defection had preceded it. It was the time of the heavy air attacks. At that moment it was naturally necessary to give the political leaders at home a completely unembroidered picture of the whole military situation, but at the same time to fill them with a certain amount of confidence in the supreme leadership. This speech, which had the title, "The strategic situation of Germany at the beginning of the fifth year of

the war," could obviously not be made by a Blockleiter, it could only be made by an officer of the Armed Forces Operations Staff, and so I came to deliver this speech.

DR. EXNER: What were the contents of this speech?

JODL: The contents, as I have already said, were an over-all picture of the strategic situation. Here, before the Tribunal naturally only the introduction was read. This introduction painted a

picture of what lay behind us, but not from the political point of view, rather from the strategic angle. I described the operational necessity for all the operations of the so-called wars of aggression. In no way did I identify myself with the National Socialist Party, but, as is only natural for a General Staff officer, with my Supreme


3 June 46

Commander; for at that time it was no longer a question of National Socialism or democracy. The question was the "to be or not to be" of the German people. And there were patriots in Germany too,

not only in the neighboring states; and I shall count myself among these patriots while I have breath. Moreover, it is not important to whom one speaks, but it is important what one says and what one speaks about. Besides, I may also state that I delivered that same speech to the military-district commanders and to the senior officers of the reserve army.

DR. EXNER: The beginning and the end of the speech contain a eulogy of the Party and the Fuehrer that is incontestable. Why did you include that in a purely objective military speech?

JODL: It was impossible for me to begin a speech of that kind with a critical controversy about the Party or about my Supreme Commander. It was necessary to create confidence between the officer and the Party leader; for this confidence was not only necessary in order that the speech would serve its purpose; this confidence was the prerequisite for victory. Moreover, I should like to make an important point; that which the Prosecution submitted as Document Number L-172...

DR. EXNER: Is that the Gauleiter speech?

JODL: That is not the Gauleiter speech at all; it is not the speech which I delivered. That is nothing else but the "wastepaper basket" version of this speech. It is the first rough draft which was completely revised and altered because it contained many things which were not important. The entire nucleus of the speech, namely the section about the situation at the time, the part dealing with the enemy and the means at his disposal and his intentions, all that is missing. The things contained in this document are many hundreds of notes for the speech which were' sent to me by my staff. I compiled my speech from these notes, and then I returned all this material to my staff.

DR. EXNER: Then it is not the manuscript of your speech?

JODL: It is in no way the manuscript; that looks entirely different.

DR. EXNER: Now we shall turn to a different point. Which leaders of the Party did you get to know from the time of the seizure of power until the outbreak of the war?

JODL: Not mentioning the soldiers, Reich Minister Frick alone. I was with him twice when the questions of Reich reform were to be discussed.

DR. EXNER: And which of the defendants here present did you know before 1939, or before the beginning of the war?


3 June 46

JODL: Of the defendants here, I knew only the Reich Marshal, Grossadmiral Raeder, Field Marshal Keitel, and Minister Frick; no one else.

DR. EXNER: In the meantime, had you concerned yourself at all with the literature of National Socialism?


DR. EXNER: Did you participate in Reich Party rallies?

JODL: In the year 1937, in my official capacity, I participated the last 3 days in Nuremberg, when the Labor Service, the SA, and the Wehrmacht were reviewed.

DR. EXNER: Did you participate in the commemorations at Munich, that is, every year on 9 November?

JODL: No. I really did not belong there.

DR. EXNER: Can you tell us what your position was with respect to the semi-military units of the Party?

JODL: These semi-military organizations sprang up like mushrooms after the seizure of power; but only the SA under Rohm tried to seize complete power. The witness Gisevius said here that there was no Rohm Putsch. That is correct, but it was just about to happen. At that time in the Reich War Ministry we were armed to the teeth, and Rohm was a real revolutionary, not a frock coat insurgent. When the Fuehrer intervened in June 1934, from that moment there were no more conflicts between the Wehrmacht and the SA. The Wehrmacht became all the more suspicious of the units of the SS, which from that moment multiplied in an extraordinary fashion. The Army, one can very well say, was never reconciled to this dualism of two armed organizations within the country.

DR. EXNER: Now I should like to quote various excerpts from your diary-Document Number 1780-PS, Page 2 of the first volume of the document book-in order to show that Jodl again and again concerned himself with this infiltration of the SS into the Army. On 19 April-that is the second paragraph-or before that, on 22 March, there is an entry to this effect. Then on the 19th of April: "H. visits chief of the Armed Forces Department; tells him his misgivings concerning development of the SS."

In the French translation this "H" is replaced by "Heydrich." That, of course, has no sense, for Heydrich certainly had no misgivings concerning the development of the SS; but the "H" quite obviously stands for "Harder," who was Quartermaster General. I do not know whether this correction was made in the French document book. I am sorry to say that I noted quite a few mistakes in translation in the English and French document books and have


3 June 46

applied to the General Secretary in this connection to have corrections made. I must certainly say that this large number of errors in translation makes a doubtful impression, especially if for an "H" the word "Heydrich" is substituted, and the chief of the Armed Forces is connected with one of the most unpleasant figures in the SS. I must say that I am filled with misgivings-I must emphasize this-because in the course of the last few months hundreds of documents have been submitted to the Tribunal, the translation of which we could not check. When we did make a check on one occasion we found quite a few defects, as did Dr. Siemers recently.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Exner, you are supposed to be asking the questions. You are making some long statements now.

DR. EXNER: I should like to refer to the next to the last point of 3 February, on the same page...

1~ PRESIDENT: Professor Exner, we cannot have counsel making long statements which are not in evidence. You cannot make statements of that sort. If there is any mistranslation you can draw our attention to it; but that is not the way to do it, making general statements about the translation of the documents.

DR. EXNER: Mr. President, I do not wish to give any more explanations now, but I should like to quote passages from my document book referring to 3 February...

THE PRESIDENT: You have corrected one apparent mistranslation or misinterpretation of the letter "H." Well, you can do so again, if necessary, in other places. You cannot make general statements about it.

DR. EXNER: I will only read what is permissible. I will read extracts from the document book without making any criticism. I have nothing further to say about that.


DR. EXNER: It says, on 3 February:

"General Thomas reports that the liaison officer to the Ministry of Economy . . . Lieutenant Colonel Drews, visited him by order of Schacht. He was of the opinion that the SS would employ all means to cast suspicion on the Wehrmacht and to force it to the wall in its present weak state."

Then it says under the date of 10 February:

"Himmler is said to be distressed that senior officers of the Wehrmacht had made unheard of accusations against him."

Then perhaps one other passage; from the next document, on Page 4 of the document book, again the same diary, Document Number 1809-PS, the entry of 25 May 1940:


3 June 46

"The plan for the unlimited expansion of the SS sounds generally suspicious."

Did you, even at that time, have misgivings about the dangers of this dualism that you just mentioned?

JODL: As a man very well versed in history, I had many misgivings about this. Not only did I have misgivings, but even during the war I quite openly expressed these misgivings to Himmler and Bormann.

DR. EXNER: How did it come about that Him Her acquired more and more influence in military spheres?

JODL: That can be explained by the fact that the Fuehrer had the feeling-which perhaps on the whole was right-that a large section of the officer corps opposed his ideas. He saw in this attitude not only an inner political danger but also saw in it a danger to victory, which he believed was to be attained only through ruthless methods.

DR. EXNER: And what practical results came about through this?

JODL: The practical results were these: The SS units were multiplied tremendously; the Police received authority which extended even into the operational sphere of the Army, and later, the Higher SS and Police Leaders were created; the intelligence service was transferred to the SS-where, by the way, it was organized by Kaltenbrunner far better than before-the reserve army was put under the jurisdiction of Himmler, and, in the end,

also the entire Prisoners of War Organization.

DR. EXNER: In your diary you express satisfaction at the appointment by the Fuehrer of General Von Brauchitsch as the Commander-in-Chief of the Army. At that time there was a choice between him and General Reichenau. Why were you glad that Brauchitsch was chosen?

JODL: General Von Reichenau was known as a truly political general, and I was afraid that he might perhaps have no scruples in sacrificing all the good old tradition of the Army to the new regime.

DR. EXNER: I should like to refer in this connection to Jodl's diary, Document Number 1780-PS, Page 6, first volume, with the entry of 2 February 1938, second paragraph, and again to the entry of 3 February 1938 to be found on Page 7, where he appears particularly happy:

"The chief of the Armed Forces Department informs me that the battle has been won. The Fuehrer has decided that General Von Brauchitsch should be appointed Commander-in-Chief of the Army."


3 June 46

THE PRESIDENT: I do not think you need read this. It simply says that he is in favor of Von Brauchitsch.

DR. EXNER: You thought about the particular consequences for the generals concerned in case Von Reichenau were appointed?

JODL: Yes. There was no doubt that the senior generals, such as Rundstedt, Bock, Adam, List, Halder, and so on, would never have subordinated themselves to Von Reichenau.

Did. EXNER: After this introduction, let us turn to the crimes against the laws of war and humanity which have been charged against you. There is very little time left. Therefore, I should like to clarify your participation in the Commissar Decree. A draft by the High Command of the Army on the treatment of Soviet commissars was submitted to you, and you put a notation in the margin of this draft on the grounds of which the Prosecution has accused you . . .

THE PRESIDENT: What is the number of the document?

DR. EXNER: The number of the document is 884-PS, Exhibit Number USSR-351, Page 152, second volume of my document book. The whole is a set of notes on a report.

[Turning to the defendants] Perhaps you can tell us this first of all: What connection did you have with this matter, that is, with the treatment of commissars?

JODL: I did not participate in preparing this draft. I was not concerned with prisoners of war nor with questions of martial law at that time. But the draft was submitted to me before it was transmitted to Field Marshal Keitel.

DR. EXNER: All right. Now you added: "We must count on retaliation against German fliers. It is best, therefore, to brand the entire action as retaliation."

What do you mean by this statement?

JODL: The intention of the Fuehrer which was set forth in this draft was rejected unanimously by all soldiers. Very heated discussions took place about this also with the Commander-in-Chief of the Army. This resistance ended with the characteristic sentence by the Fuehrer: "I cannot demand that my generals should understand my orders, but I do demand that they follow them." Now, in this case, by my notation I wanted to indicate to Field Marshal Keitel a new way by which one might possibly still circumvent this order which had been demanded.

DR. EXNER: The Prosecution, as you probably remember, have made this order the subject of such a serious charge against the German military authorities because it was drafted before the beginning of the war. These notes are dated 12 May 1941, and there


3 June 46

you say: "It is best to brand the entire action as retaliation." What did you mean by that?

JODL: It is correct that, because of his ideological opposition to Bolshevism, the Fuehrer counted on the possible authorization of the commissars (decree) as a certainty. He was confirmed in this belief, and gave his reasons by saying: "I have carried on the war against Communism for 20 years. I know Communism, but you do not know it." I must add that we as well were, of course, to a certain extent under the influence of what had been written in the literature of the entire world about Bolshevism since 1917. We also had had some experiences, for example, the Rate Republic in Munich. Despite that, I was of the opinion that first of all we should wait and see whether the commissary would actually act as the Fuehrer expected them to act; and if his suspicions were confirmed, we could then make use of reprisals. That was what I meant by my notation in the margin.

DR. EXNER: That is to say, you wanted to wait until the beginning of the war; then, you wanted to wait until you had had experiences in this war; and then you wanted to propose measures which, if necessary, could be considered as reprisals against the methods of fighting used by the enemy. Was that what you meant when you said: "It is best, therefore, to brand the entire action as retaliation"? What do you mean by "Man zieht auf"? These words were translated by the Prosecution as...

MR. G. D. ROBERTS (Leading Counsel for the United Kingdom): My Lord, in the examination of my learned friend, Dr. Exner, he has for several minutes now been asking the defendant very long leading questions as to what was the meaning of the passage in that letter. In my submission, that is not evidence at all by the witness; it is a speech by Dr. Exner, and I would ask him not to make another one now.

DR. EXNER: I still think that it is necessary in the presentation of evidence to determine what the defendant thought when he wrote those words.

THE PRESIDENT: You have heard me say on several occasions that when counsel ask leading questions, which put the answer into the mouth of the witness, it carries very little weight with the Tribunal. It is perfectly obvious that if you wanted to ask what the witness meant by his note he could have answered; and that is the proper way to put the question, and not to suggest the answer to him.

DR. EXNER: First of all I put the question, and then I believe I was summarizing the main points of what the witness said.


3 June 46

There is also a difficulty here with translation which I should like to overcome; that is, I am not sure about it. "Es wird aufgezogen" or "man zieht es am besten auf als Repressalie" is translated as, "It is best therefore to brand" in English, and in French as stigmatiser. It seems to me as though this were not quite correct, and as though one should say, "It is best to handle it as a reprisal," and in French to say trailer.

[Turning to the defendant.] Then what happened?

JODL: I believe one should further explain the expression "aufziehen." The German word "auiziehen" also has something doubtful about it. It has been said that that was a typical military expression used by the Defendant Jodl at that time. That does not mean, as is assumed by the Prosecution, "to camouflage." Rather, I would say literally: "I believe we must handle this operation quite differently," that is, tackle it in a different way. We would say that we would handle the demonstration to the Fuehrer of new weapons in a different way; that means, for instance, "in a different sequence; in a different manner." Among us soldiers "aufziehen," to handle, meant exactly the same as "to tackle" or "to arrange" something. But it did not mean "to deceive."

DR. EXNER: You mean that the word "aufaiehen" has no secondary meaning indicating deception?


THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now.

[The Tribunal adjourned until 4 June 1946 at 1000 hours.]


Previous Day Volume 15 Menu Next Day
Nuremberg Trials Page

127 Wall Street, New Haven, CT 06511.