The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-16/tgmwc-16-149.04

Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-16/tgmwc-16-149.04
Last-Modified: 2000/05/10

Q. Now you and I, defendant Jodl, will attend to these two
documents. Please take Exhibit USSR 132. It is a directive
to the 118th Light Infantry Division.

A. 118th Light Infantry Division.

Q. It says: "Instructions for conduct of troops during
attack". Paragraph 2, Prisoners: Any man who has openly
fought against the Armed Forces of Germany and has been
captured is to be shot after questioning." Is that correct?
It says so precisely in those words? (Silence). Do you hear

                                                   [Page 13]

A. That is approximately what it says in that one sentence,
but I should like to have the whole document. Nothing can be
gathered from one sentence. What is decisive is what comes
before it, and that is not stated in the document.

Q. It is written above: "Instructions for the Conduct of
Troops during Attack."

Now for the second document. It bears the stamp of the 4th
Mountain Regiment. It was issued on 6th October, 1943, and
contains Keitel's instructions, written in his own hand, on
how to deal with prisoners of war. I will ask you to look at
sub-paragraph 3. It says, in the second part of this
sub-paragraph: "Commanders having at least the rank of
divisional commanders, are authorized to issue orders to
take no prisoners, i.e., prisoners and the civilian
population in the combat area may be shot."

THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute. Apparently the translation was
not coming through correctly. Perhaps you are going too
fast. It was coming through correctly to me, but it
apparently was not coming through correctly to the
defendant. Would you put your question again?


Q. In sub-paragraph 3 of the document issued to the 4th
Mountain Regiment it says:

THE PRESIDENT: Did you give us the number of it?

COLONEL POKROVSKY: Yes, my Lord. It is Exhibit USSR 470, and
it bears a double number - JU-127.

(Turning to the defendant Jodl)

Q. Have you found sub-paragraph 3, defendant Jodl?

A. Yes, but this cannot possibly be described as a document.
This is not a document.

Q. This document says how prisoners of war are to be

I do not know what you feel about it, but it is quite clear
to me.

A. But it is not an original. It is a fantastic translation.
Any soldier would have thrown it straight into the
wastepaper basket. It is a falsification. But I admit that
it may be due to the foolish translation. In my opinion, all
it contains is nonsense. The heading says 4th Mountain
Regiment, and it is a Roman four. It should be an Arabic
number. It was never called a Mountain Regiment. It then
goes on to say, the Commanders of the 4th Mountain Division,
Section Ic. All that is nonsense. Pure, unadulterated
nonsense. This is not a document. It is a scrap of paper.

Q. I cannot guarantee the quality of the translation.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to see the original
of these documents. They were put in, apparently, as USSR
132 and USSR 470. Is USSR 470 a new document?

COLONEL POKROVSKY: No, my Lord, this document has already
been submitted, and the original is in the records of the
Tribunal. Now I am only showing a copy of this document
which is at our disposal. Both documents were previously
submitted in the original. If it is necessary, we can obtain
these original documents and submit them a second time.

THE PRESIDENT: One of the secretaries to the Tribunal says
that it was not submitted before, not offered in evidence
before, USSR 470. Are you sure?

COLONEL POKROVSKY: There may have been some technical
discrepancy. I was informed that it had already been
submitted. We shall now go into this matter thoroughly. I
believe, my Lord, that the original of the second document
is in your possession.

THE WITNESS: I can say something to clarify this.

                                                   [Page 14]

THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Pokrovsky, the Tribunal is uncertain
about the admission of this Document 470. Could you tell us
exactly what the document is, and in what circumstances it
is now being offered in evidence?

What the document is, and where it came from?

COLONEL POKROVSKY: I can give quite a definite answer to the
last question, my Lord, but perhaps I shall have to answer
the first part of your question a few minutes later. The
matter is being investigated.

On the second page of Exhibit USSR 470, to the right, at the
bottom of the page, there is an affidavit:

  "This is to certify that this is a correct and certified
  copy of an original document which was captured during
  military operations in June, 1944, at Pancrazza, by the
  Yugoslav National Army of Liberation. The original
  document is kept in the archives of the State Commission
  for the Investigation of Atrocities perpetrated by the
  Occupants and their collaborators in Belgrade, dated 4th
  January, 1946, Belgrade," signed by the President of the
  State Commission, University Professor Dr. D.
I am just having investigations made as to whether this
document has been submitted, by what member of the Soviet
Delegation it was submitted and on what date. If the
document has not been submitted, then we can demand the
original from the Belgrade archives, the German, the
captured copy, or else certified photostat, whichever is
most acceptable to the Tribunal, and have it presented in

My Lord, I have just been informed that this document was
not presented. Therefore it will be submitted for the first
time and we shall ask for the original as additional

THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Pokrovsky, with reference, for the
moment, to Document USSR 132, which I understand has already
been put in evidence ... offered in evidence, the Tribunal
would like to see the original of that document because
there are only two paragraphs put out in the copy that we
have before us, and that was the point that was taken by the
defendant Jodl, that he wanted to see the whole document.

Colonel Pokrovsky, first of all, with reference to
Document-132 which the Tribunal understands has already been
offered in evidence, the Tribunal thinks that that document
in full should be put before the defendant for him to make
any comments. With reference to Document-470, which you are
now offering in evidence, the Tribunal is of the opinion
that you should go on cross-examining with reference to that
document, subject to the production, as soon as possible, of
the original or a photostatic copy of the original, and
subject to the right of .the defendant's counsel to apply to
have that cross-examination struck out if there is any
substantial difference between the translation in the
Yugoslav language, which is now being put to the defendant
or used for the purpose of cross-examination of the
defendant, and the original document.

Is that clear to you and to Dr. Exner? .

COLONEL POKROVSKY: It shall be done, my Lord.

DR. EXNER: Mr. President, I think that a discussion of this
document ought not to be permitted at the moment. There are
too many discrepancies in it. As it stands it cannot be
correct. Roman numeral IV, for instance, The "IVth Mountain
Regiment", is referred to. That Roman numeral IV is quite
wrong. Then it says "the commanders delivered", which is not
German. Then, on line four there is mention ....

THE PRESIDENT (Interposing): Dr. Exner, the Tribunal wants
to know what you are talking about. Are you talking about

DR. EXNER: Yes. I am merely trying to show that this cannot
be a genuine document because it is not proper German.

For instance, in the fourth line it says, "Armed Forces
Operations Staff, OBH". The Operations Staff is attached to
the OKW, not the OBH.

                                                   [Page 15]

Then, there is no signature. It is signed "Keitel" on the
first page, but he signs as a Colonel General, whereas I am
told he was already a Field Marshal at that time.

Furthermore, this signature is part of the quotation and it
says, "The OKW supplies the following information". Then
there is the quotation, and Keitel's signature is a part of
that, whereas the document itself is supposed to originate
from the 4th Mountain Regiment and there is no signature of
the 4th Mountain Regiment.

I really do not think there would be any sense in talking
about the document until the original has been supplied.

For instance, on Page 2 of the document there is the
statement that this goes to the commanders of 6, 7, etc.
They are not commanders, these company commanders. No German
military person could have written this document.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Exner, the Tribunal adheres to its
decision that this document may be used now. All the points
which you are now raising, and any other points which you
may wish to raise upon the document will be open to you, if
you wish to move to have the cross-examination struck out at
a later stage when the original has been produced.

DR. EXNER: I understand.

THE PRESIDENT: For the purposes of not wasting time, it is,
the Tribunal thinks, more convenient to have the
cross-examination now upon this document. We will leave it
to you to move hereafter to strike the whole
cross-examination out.


THE PRESIDENT: Now, Colonel Pokrovsky, here is the original
Document-132 which the defendant ought to have for the
purpose of making any comments that he wishes to make.

COLONEL POKROVSKY: The instructions of the Tribunal will be
carried out,  my Lord. We shall submit the original


Q. Have you acquainted yourself with the contents of the

A. It is an order of the 118th Light Infantry Division.

Q. You have no doubts at all about the authenticity of the

A. No, there is no doubt that it is an order of the 118th
Light Infantry Division, but the connection between the
118th Light Infantry Division and myself is puzzling. But
the order is genuine.

Q. Perhaps you would like to admit now that this is not a
question of stupidity but of villainy. Perhaps you would
like to amplify your testimony in this sense?

A. I did not understand you.

THE PRESIDENT: Defendant, when you were asked about
Paragraph 2 of Exhibit USSR 132, you said that the whole
document was not before you. Now you have the whole

THE WITNESS: I have it, yes. I have the entire document. The
entire order from Kuebler is perfectly in order in my
opinion. Apparently the doubts which the Prosecutor has,
refer to Point 2, where it says:

  " ... any man who has fought openly against the German
  Armed Forces and is captured is to be shot after
 That of course, does not refer to normal troops. That
refers to the population. At least, that is how I see it.

Paragraph 8 says:-

  "Attitude towards the Population".

That is also in order from the point of view of
international law. It draws a distinction between the
attitude towards a hostile population and the attitude
towards a peaceful population.

                                                   [Page 16]


Q. Is that all you wish to say?

A. Yes, but as I said, I do not understand the connection
between Major General Kubler's order and myself. I do not
understand it.

Q. You confirm that the question of the treatment of the
civilian population has been isolated to form an independent
paragraph, No. 8? Is that correct? You have just referred to

A. Yes, Paragraph 8 mentions the treatment to be meted out
to the civilian population.

Q. I am satisfied with your answer. Let us pass on to
another group of questions.

THE PRESIDENT: Walt a minute.

THE WITNESS: But I wished, with the permission of the
Tribunal, to object -

THE PRESIDENT: One moment. Defendant, are you suggesting
that there is anything in the order itself which indicated
that the prisoners dealt with in Paragraph 2 are not, as you
have put it, normal troops?

THE WITNESS: In that respect, the paragraph is not very
clear, but the next document which the Prosecutor has
submitted might give the proof regarding what other orders
have been issued. However, I consider that it is out of the
question that Kubler gave an order saying that Yugoslav
troops captured in battle should be shot. That is impossible
and had he done so, then he would have done so against the
orders of the High Command of the German Armed Forces. But
how can I give my views on an order from Major General
Kubler? It would be best to ask him, he is alive.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, your answer to my question, then, is in
the negative, that there is nothing in the order itself
which shows or indicates that the prisoners referred to in
Paragraph 2 are not normal troops.

THE WITNESS: That cannot be concluded from the wording of
that order.

THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps I ought to draw your attention to the
words under "General directives for the conduct of troops in

At any rate, that is your answer upon the whole document.

THE WITNESS: May I please have permission to look at the
original again? I have only a copy here before me.

(A document was submitted to the witness.)

THE PRESIDENT: You now have the original document before
you. Do you want to add anything to what you have said?

THE WITNESS: I just wanted to add, if you are dealing with
this order of Major General Kubler that it is not certain
whether this order refers to any particular action in a
given territory, for example, the mopping up of guerrillas
who were not regarded as regular troops at that particular
moment, but were regarded as a revolt of the population.
That is feasible.

At any rate, I cannot answer these questions because I am
not Major General Kubler.

THE PRESIDENT: Now you can pass on to 470.

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

© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012

This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and to combat hatred. Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.

As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.