The Cheerful Granny ~ Chidren Story

Book 2nd Edition I Made Rico Surya

Wirawan
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-cheerful-granny-chidren-story-book-2nd-edition-i-
made-rico-surya-wirawan/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Great Story Book Of Rico Surya {The Challenge Of A

Haughty Princess, The Cheerful Granny, The Fisherman &
His Wife, and Sweet Porridge} 5th Edition I Made Rico
Surya Wirawan
https://ebookmass.com/product/great-story-book-of-rico-surya-the-
challenge-of-a-haughty-princess-the-cheerful-granny-the-
fisherman-his-wife-and-sweet-porridge-5th-edition-i-made-rico-
surya-wirawan/

Sweet Porridge ~ Children Story Book 4th Edition I Made

Rico Surya Wirawan

https://ebookmass.com/product/sweet-porridge-children-story-
book-4th-edition-i-made-rico-surya-wirawan/

The Fisherman & His Wife ~ Children Story Book 3rd

Edition I Made Rico Surya Wirawan

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-fisherman-his-wife-children-
story-book-3rd-edition-i-made-rico-surya-wirawan/

The Ultimate Granny Square Sourcebook Joke Vermeiren

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-ultimate-granny-square-
sourcebook-joke-vermeiren/
Huawei Goes Global: Volume I: Made in China for the
World 1st Edition Wenxian Zhang

https://ebookmass.com/product/huawei-goes-global-volume-i-made-
in-china-for-the-world-1st-edition-wenxian-zhang/

eTextbook 978-1111841331 Making Europe: The Story of

the West, Volume I to 1790

https://ebookmass.com/product/etextbook-978-1111841331-making-
europe-the-story-of-the-west-volume-i-to-1790/

The Day I Die: The Untold Story of Assisted Dying in

America Anita Hannig

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-day-i-die-the-untold-story-of-
assisted-dying-in-america-anita-hannig/

The Day I Die: The Untold Story of Assisted Dying in

America Anita Hannig

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-day-i-die-the-untold-story-of-
assisted-dying-in-america-anita-hannig-2/

ECGs Made Easy E Book 6th Edition, (Ebook PDF)

https://ebookmass.com/product/ecgs-made-easy-e-book-6th-edition-
ebook-pdf/
What a great story from
an old woman who lived
in the countryside…

Which never go sad of

her situation, she always
merry in every sad &
unexpected event of her
life.
 Welcome Kids
Let’s read a great story
 Foreword

By the grace of Ida Sang Hyang Widhi Wasa, this book “The Cheerful Granny” has been completed for young
learners to learn and share their creativity on this book that I created.

Age 9-10 years old can be said it’s the teenager’s age, or children’s age becomes adult but not an adult yet,
besides that their curiosity is in the highest state now. For that matter, practicing their ability to think critically
is crucial. That is why I intend to explore and analyze students at this age by creating a book.

This book intends to analyze young learners’ receptive and productive skills as the use of media YouTube gives a
lot of beneficial and useful material. Therefore, I incentive to use the teaching aid of YouTube and give one of the
media to spark the young learners’ ability to start thinking critically.

Finally, I hope that what has been presented in this book will be worthwhile and beneficial to developing young
learners’ age, especially in their creativity.

Perfection only belongs to God. This book is far from being perfect. Criticism and suggestion for the
improvement of this book will be greatly appreciated...

Denpasar, 2 July 2022

I Made Rico Surya Wirawan

… Once upon a time there’s an old woman who is really happy all
the time,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
She always helps her neighbors & running errands from them till
eventually get money in return.
One day, in a windy day the old woman tried to find some wood
to make her warm.
So, she off walking to the forest by sings a calm tune…

Lalalala…
All of sudden, she looked there’s a hole in the way…
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Inside the hole there’s a big brown pot…
She took it and opens it & surprisingly inside the pot there are
many of golds
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The old woman is very happy for what she had found & intend to
bring it home with her
Since it was way too hard she make a plan to build a go-cart by
using wood & put the pot, and then dragged it to her home

I have an idea to
bring the pot back
to my house…

1.

2.

3.
As in the way of back home she imagine what she going to do
with all the golds
I will put each of
the gold on the
neighbors’ door…
Then she feels tired & wanted to open the pot once again &
surprisingly the gold has changed into silver
With that, she feels grateful too since she still have chair & drink
cup of tea

Well, silver is farr less-trouble &

easier to keep and doesn’t attract
much attention…
So, she continued walked back home…
Then she feels tired & wanted to open the pot once again &
surprisingly the silver has changed into iron…
With that, she feels grateful too since she can sell it and get
money in return. By that, she can buy a chair…

This is luck too, because I

don’t need to hide
anything & surely, I will
not be able to buy a new
house…
So, she continued walked back home…
Then she feels tired & wanted to see the pot once again &
surprisingly the iron has changed into a big stone…

!!!
With that, she feels grateful too since with the stone she can stick
the door of her house off.

This is just perfect!...

I have been wanting a stone to
stick open my gate...
This solves everything
So, she continued walked back home…
When she turn back the stone has become bigger!?!?
Unexpectedly, the old woman not sad instead she is very happy
since she can sit on it have her chair in peace…

Oh… This is so perfect I

can sit on this... I don’t
need a chair
When the old woman tried to touch the stone, it changed to
something scary… that is the Cotton Beast!
The old woman looks to the beast and she thinks the beast is
adorable…
Hearing that the beast shocked since he has changed the gold to
silver then to iron even stone and yet the old woman look very
grateful eventually he can’t stand this any longer so he changes
into butterfly and flew away.
1 3 5

2 4

6
So, the old woman back to her house & unexpectedly there are
the things that had gone before… the big stone, lump of iron,
silver, and golds.
She is very happy and by using that she able to buy house & chair
to sit and have her tea as well she share her gold to neighbors. So
they will be happy too.
 “The Cheerful Granny”
… Once upon a time there’s an old woman who is really happy all the time,

She always helps her neighbors & running errands from them till eventually
get money in return.

One day, in a windy day the old woman tried to find some wood to make her
warm.
So, she off walking to the forest by sings a calm tune…

All of sudden, she looked there’s a hole in the way…

Inside the hole there’s a big brown pot…

She took it and opens it & surprisingly inside the pot there are many of golds

The old woman is very happy for what she had found & intend to bring it
home with her
Since it was way too hard she make a plan to build a go-cart by using wood
& put the pot, and then dragged it to her home

As in the way of back home she imagine what she going to do with all the
golds

Then she feels tired & wanted to open the pot once again & surprisingly the
gold has changed into silver

With that, she feels grateful too since she still have chair & drink cup of tea
So, she continued walked back home…

Then she feels tired & wanted to open the pot once again & surprisingly the
silver has changed into iron…

With that, she feels grateful too since she can sell it and get money in return.
By that, she can buy a chair…

So, she continued walked back home…

Then she feels tired & wanted to open the pot once again & surprisingly the
iron has changed into a big stone…

With that, she feels grateful too since with the stone she can stick the door
of her house off.

So, she continued walked back home…

When she turn back the stone has become bigger!?!?

Unexpectedly, the old woman not sad instead she is very happy since she can
sit on it have her tea peacefully…

When the old woman tried to touch the stone, it changed to something
scary… that is the Cotton Beast!

The old woman looks to the beast and she thinks the beast is adorable…

Hearing that the beast shocked since he has changed the gold to silver then
to iron even stone and yet the old woman look very grateful eventually he
can’t stand this any longer so he changes into butterfly and flew away.
So, the old woman back to her house & unexpectedly there are the things
that had gone before… the big stone, lump of iron, silver, and golds.

She is very happy and by using that she able to buy house & chair to sit and
have her tea as well she share her gold to neighbors. So they will be happy
too.
 The Cheerful Granny
... Once upon a time, there’s an old woman who is really happy all the
time.
... Dahulu kala, ada seorang wanita tua yang benar-benar bahagia
sepanjang waktu.

She always helps her neighbors & running errands for them till
eventually gets money in return.
Dia selalu membantu tetangganya & menjalankan tugas untuk mereka
sampai akhirnya mendapat uang sebagai imbalannya.
One day, on a windy day the old woman tried to find some wood to
make her warm.
Suatu hari, pada hari yang berangin, wanita tua itu mencoba mencari
kayu untuk membuat dirinya hangat.

So, she off walking to the forest by singing calm tune…

Jadi, dia pergi berjalan ke hutan dengan menyanyikan lagu yang
menenangkan...

All of sudden, she looked like there was a hole in the way…
Tiba-tiba, dia melihat seperti ada lubang di jalan …
Inside the hole, there’s a big brown pot…
Di dalam lubang, ada pot cokelat besar...

She took it and opens it & surprisingly inside the pot there are many
of gold...
Dia mengambil dan membukanya & mengejutkan di dalam pot ada
banyak emas...
The old woman is very happy with what she had found & intends to
bring it home with her...
Wanita tua itu sangat senang dengan apa yang dia temukan & berniat
untuk membawanya pulang bersamanya...

Since it was very hard she make a plan to build a go-cart by using
wood & put the pot, and then dragged it to her home...
Karena sangat sulit dia membuat rencana untuk membuat go-cart
dengan menggunakan kayu & meletakkan pot, dan kemudian membawa
ke rumahnya...
On the way back home she imagines what she going to do with all the
gold...
Dalam perjalanan pulang dia membayangkan apa yang akan dia lakukan
dengan semua emas...

Then she feels tired & wanted to open the pot once again &
surprisingly the gold has changed into silver...
Kemudian dia merasa lelah & ingin membuka pot sekali lagi &
mengejutkan sekali emas telah berubah menjadi perak...
With that, she feels grateful too since she still has a chair & drinks a
cup of tea...
Dengan itu, dia juga merasa bersyukur karena dia masih memiliki kursi
& minum secangkir teh...

So, she continued to walk back home…

Jadi, dia terus berjalan pulang…
Then she feels tired & wanted to open the pot once again &
surprisingly the silver has changed into iron…
Kemudian dia merasa lelah & ingin membuka panci sekali lagi &
mengejutkan sekali perak telah berubah menjadi besi…

With that, she feels grateful too since she can tell it and get money in
return. By that, she can buy a chair…
Dengan itu, dia merasa bersyukur juga karena dia bisa menceritakannya
dan mendapatkan uang sebagai imbalannya. Dengan itu, dia bisa
membeli kursi…
So, she continued to walk back home…
Jadi, dia terus berjalan pulang…

Then she feels tired & wanted to see the pot once again & surprisingly
the iron has changed into a big stone…
Kemudian dia merasa lelah & ingin melihat pot sekali lagi &
mengejutkan besi telah berubah menjadi batu besar…
With that, she feels grateful too since with the stone she can stick the
door of her house off.
Dengan itu, dia juga merasa bersyukur karena dengan batu itu dia bisa
menutup pintu rumahnya.

So, she continued to walk back home…

Jadi, dia terus berjalan pulang…

When she turned back the stone had become bigger!?!?

Ketika dia berbalik, batu itu menjadi lebih besar!?!?
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
categorically that he would raze Leningrad to the ground. That is
important for me.
JODL: You are referring to the naval document, I assume, the
document of the SKL, the Naval Operations Staff.
COL. POKROVSKY: You will now be handed Document L-221
and will be shown the passage where it is written that, on 16 July
1941, during a conference in the Führer’s headquarters, the
following statement was made:
“The Finns are claiming the district of Leningrad. The
Führer wants to raze Leningrad to the ground and then
hand it over to the Finns.”
Have you found the passage?
JODL: Yes, I have found the place.
COL. POKROVSKY: This took place on 16 July 1941, did it not?
JODL: The document was written on 16 July 1941, yes.
COL. POKROVSKY: That was considerably earlier than the date
you received the report from the Leningrad front?
JODL: Yes, it was 3 months before then.
COL. POKROVSKY: It was also long before the day when
explosions and fires first occurred in Kiev. Is that correct?
JODL: Quite correct.
COL. POKROVSKY: It was clearly not by accident that in the
directive you drew up yourself and in the statements you made
before the Tribunal, you declared that the Führer had again decided
to raze Leningrad to the ground. It was not the first time he had
made this decision.
JODL: No, this decision, if it actually was a decision—and the
statements made at this conference—I learned for the first time here
in Court. I personally did not take part in the discussion, nor do I
know whether the words were said in that way. My remark that the
Führer had again taken a decision refers to the verbal order he had
given to the Commander-in-Chief of the Army shortly before,
perhaps 1 or 2 days earlier. It is quite clear that there was already
talk of this and that in the order I am referring to—a letter of the High
Command of the Army of 18 September—and in that way the word
“again” is to be explained. I was quite unaware of the fact, and I
heard of it for the first time here in Court. It was only here in Court
that I heard of the conference taking place at all.
COL. POKROVSKY: Very well. The Tribunal will probably be
able to judge precisely when Hitler made this statement for the first
time.
You have declared that you knew nothing about reprisals
against the Jews?
JODL: No.
COL. POKROVSKY: And yet you have just referred to
Document Number 053-PS.
[The document was submitted to the defendant.]
It is a report from Koch, personally signed by him. Maybe you
will confirm that it states quite clearly that Koch held the civilian
population of the city responsible for the Kiev fires and exterminated
the entire Jewish population of Kiev, numbering some 35,000 souls,
over half of whom were women. That is what the report says. Is it
correct?
JODL: I know that very well indeed, but I only found this
document here in the document room; and I used it as a good piece
of evidence for the incidents in Kiev. The existence of the document
was unknown to me until I came to Nuremberg and it never went to
the OKW either. At all events, it never came into my hands. I do not
know whether it was ever sent.
COL. POKROVSKY: You also did not know whether the Jews
were exterminated or not? Is that true?
JODL: I certainly believe it today. There can be no more doubt
about that; it has been proved.
COL. POKROVSKY: Very well. In the document submitted by
your defense counsel as Exhibit Number Jodl-3, Document Number
1780-PS, Page 6 of your document book, in the last entry made on
that page, you will read the following: “A large proportion of senior
generals will leave the Army.”
 This refers to the entry in your diary of 3 February 1938. Do you
remember?
JODL: Yes, that is from my diary.
COL. POKROVSKY: Are we to understand that resignations
from the Army could take place at any time, in other words, that any
general could retire or resign from the Army whenever he wanted to?
That is what you say here.
JODL: At that time, I believe it was quite possible. In the year
1938 I knew of no decree which prohibited it.
COL. POKROVSKY: Very well. In Document Number Jodl-64,
Exhibit Number AJ-11, which was submitted by your defense
counsel, we find a passage which, for some reason or other, was not
read into the record; and I would like to quote it now. It is the
testimony of General Von Vormann, who states under oath that you,
together with General Von Hammerstein, often used such
expressions as “criminal” and “charlatan,” when referring to Hitler?
Do you confirm the accuracy of that testimony, or has Vormann
expressed himself incorrectly?
JODL: To the best of my knowledge, and in all good conscience,
I believe that he is confusing two things. In talking about the Führer, I
very often said that I looked on him as a charlatan; but I had no
cause or reason to consider him a criminal. I often used the
expression “criminal”; but not in connection with Hitler, whom I did
not even know at the time. I applied it to Röhm. I repeatedly spoke of
him as a criminal, in my opinion; and I believe that Vormann is
confusing these statements just a little. I often used the expression
“charlatan”; that was my opinion at the time.
COL. POKROVSKY: That is to say, you considered Röhm a
criminal and the Führer a charlatan? Is that correct?
JODL: Yes, that is right, because at that time it was my opinion. I
knew Röhm, but I did not know Adolf Hitler.
COL. POKROVSKY: Then how are we to explain that you
accepted leading posts in the military machine of the German Reich,
after the man whom you yourself described as a charlatan had come
to power?
 JODL: Because in the course of the years I became convinced
—at least during the years from 1933 to 1938—that he was not a
charlatan but a man of gigantic personality who, however, in the end
assumed infernal power. But at that time he definitely was an
outstanding personality.
COL. POKROVSKY: Did you receive the Golden Party Badge of
the Hitler Party?
JODL: Yes, I have already testified to that and confirmed it.
COL. POKROVSKY: In what year did you receive the badge?
JODL: On 30 January 1943.
COL. POKROVSKY: Was it after that when you came to the
conclusion that Hitler was not a “charlatan”? Did you hear my
question?
JODL: Yes. It became clear to me then that he was, as I said
before, a gigantic personality, even if with certain reservations.
COL. POKROVSKY: And after you had reached that conclusion
you promptly received the Golden Party Badge? I thank you.
I have no more questions, Your Honor.
DR. NELTE: I should like to call the attention of the Tribunal to
the Document Number USSR-151, which was submitted by Colonel
Pokrovsky. I should like to ask for this document to be admitted only
if General Österreich can be produced as a witness for cross-
examination. My reasons for this are the following:
1. The document as submitted contains the heading “Aussagen”
or “statements,” but we cannot make out before whom these
statements were made.
2. The document contains no mention of the place where it was
drawn up.
3. The document is not an affidavit, although according to the
last paragraph General Österreich set it down in his own
handwriting; and, therefore, it could have been certified as a
statement under oath.
Because of the severity of the accusation which this document
brings forward against the administration of the prisoner-of-war
system, it is necessary in my opinion to order this general to appear
here in person.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes; go on.
DR. NELTE: Those are the reasons for my request. In
conclusion I should just like to point out that General Von Graevenitz
is no longer alive. At all events, he cannot be located. I tried to find
him as a witness on behalf of Defendant Keitel.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it a fact that this document was offered in
evidence as long ago as February or March?
DR. NELTE: I do not remember that, nor—and I know this for
certain—was it issued to us through the Document Division. I am
seeing this document for the first time now. But perhaps Colonel
Pokrovsky can give some information about it.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider your request.
DR. NELTE: May I also call the attention of the Tribunal to the
fact that the document is dated 28 December 1945, and it is to be
assumed that General Österreich can also be produced by the
people who took his testimony at that time.
COL. POKROVSKY: Mr. President, I believe that I can give
some information about this document. It was submitted by the
Soviet Delegation on 12 February 1946, when it was accepted as
evidence by the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Pokrovsky, just a moment. Was it
translated into German then or was it read in Court?
COL. POKROVSKY: I have just received a memorandum from
our document room. The document was submitted on 13 February,
at the time when I was presenting documentary evidence with regard
to the subject of prisoners of war. It is all I have on the matter.
I personally assume that the document was translated into
German as a matter of course at that time. I have almost no doubt
about it. However, we can easily make sure.
THE PRESIDENT: Do any other defendants’ counsel wish to re-
examine the defendant?
DR. EXNER: First of all, I should like to put one question which
came up again during the interrogation by the Defense Counsel. It
was a point which seems to me in need of clarification.
One of the Defense Counsel reminded you of the photographs
which were shown us here depicting atrocities in the occupied
countries, and you said that the pictures were genuine.
What do you mean by that?
JODL: I meant to say that it was not trick photography, at which
the Russian propagandists were past masters, according to my
experience. I meant that they were pictures of actual events. But I
also meant to say that the pictures offered no proof of whether it was
a matter of atrocities at all, nor did they show who committed them.
The fact that they were found in the possession of Germans would
even lead us to assume that they were pictures of things which had
been perpetrated by the enemy, by the forces of Tito or perhaps the
Ustashi. Generally one does not take a picture of one’s own acts of
cruelty if any were ever committed.
DR. EXNER: Very well. The English Prosecutor has submitted a
new document, 754-PS, dealing with the destructions during the
retreat in Norway. Why in this purely military Führer Decree did you
write: “The Führer had agreed to the proposals of the Reich
Commissioner for the occupied Norwegian territories, and has given
his orders accordingly....” and so on? Why did you deliberately put in
“to the proposals,” and so forth?
JODL: In issuing orders I had a kind of secret code for the
commanders-in-chief. If an order was the result of an agreement
between the OKW and the Führer, then I started with the words “The
Führer has decreed....”
If a decree originated from the Führer himself, I started the
decree with a preamble which gave the Führer’s reasons and the
arguments in favor. Then, after the preamble, I wrote “The Führer,
therefore, has decreed....”
If the Führer was prompted by the proposal of a nonmilitary
agency to issue a decree, then, as a matter of basic principle, I
added, “The Führer, on the proposal of this or that civil authority, has
decided....” In this way the commanders-in-chief knew what it was all
about.
 DR. EXNER: Did you draft this decree—Document Number 754-
PS—without objection or resistance?
JODL: This decree originated in much the same manner as the
Commando Order. One of the Führer’s civilian adjutants advised me
that Terboven wished to speak to the Führer. He had had trouble
with the Wehrmacht in Norway because of the evacuation of the
civilian population from northern Norway. The civilian adjutant said
he wanted to advise me first before he established connections with
Terboven by telephone. Thereupon I at once had inquiries made
through my staff of the commander in Norway-Finland. I was told
that the Wehrmacht—the commander of the Wehrmacht in Norway
had rejected Terboven’s proposals and did not consider them
possible on such a large scale. In the meantime Terboven had
spoken with the Führer. I then remonstrated with the Führer and told
him that, in the first place, the decree and Terboven’s intention were
not practicable on such a scale, and secondly, that there was no
necessity for it on such a large scale. I said that it would be better to
leave it to the discretion of Generaloberst Rendulic to decide what he
wanted or had to destroy for military reasons. The Führer however,
incited by Terboven, insisted on the decree’s being issued on the
grounds of these arguments which I had to set down. But it was
certainly not carried out to this extent. This is also shown by the
report of the Norwegian Government, and it can also be seen from
personal discussions between me and my brother.
DR. EXNER: Now let us turn to something else. When there
were drafts and proposals to be submitted to the Führer, you often
voiced objections and presented arguments. It seems remarkable
that when matters contrary to international law were contemplated
you raised no objections on the grounds of international law or on
moral grounds, but you mostly voiced objections of a practical nature
or from considerations of opportunity. Can you tell us briefly why you
acted in this manner?
JODL: I already told you that when I gave my reasons for the
formulation of the proposal not to renounce the Geneva Convention.
DR. EXNER: Namely?
 JODL: This form had to be chosen to meet with any success
with the Führer.
DR. EXNER: Yes, that is sufficient. Now, you said yesterday...
MR. ROBERTS: Your Lordship, I object to this merely in the
interest of time, because it is exactly the same evidence which was
given yesterday; and, in my submission, it is pure repetition.
DR. EXNER: This discussion at Reichenhall was mentioned
today. Please tell us briefly how it came about that you made such
statements in Reichenhall or how such directives as you described
today were decided upon in Reichenhall?
JODL: I have already testified about the conversation with the
Führer.
DR. EXNER: Yes, it was only a question of provisions...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Exner, the defendant has just told us that
he has given evidence about this already.
DR. EXNER: Yes, about the conversation which preceded it, but
you did not testify about the actual conversation at Reichenhall.
JODL: No, I have not yet spoken of the actual conversation at
Reichenhall.
DR. EXNER: Please be brief.
JODL: In regard to this conversation at Reichenhall—that is, the
orientation of the three officers of my staff—Warlimont’s description
is somewhat different from mine. He is confusing here the earlier
events with the later ones, which is not surprising, because from 20
July until the time he was arrested, he was ill at home with severe
concussion of the brain and complete loss of memory. Up to the time
he was captured he was no longer fit for service. That my description
is the right one may be readily seen from the notes in the War Diary
of the Naval Operations Staff. It is stated there that these divisions
would be transferred to the East only to prevent Russia from taking
the Romanian oil fields.
DR. EXNER: I should like to correct one point which, it seems to
me, was presented erroneously by the Russian prosecutor. He said
that Göring and Keitel did not consider the war against Russia to be
a preventive war. On Page 5956 of the record (Volume IX, Page 344)
it states that Göring, too, considered the war to be a preventive one
and that he only differed in opinion from the Führer insofar as he
would have chosen a different period of time for this preventive war.
Keitel was, in general, of the same opinion.
Furthermore, the Russian prosecutor submitted a document,
Number 683-PS. I do not know what exhibit number he gave. I
cannot quite see how this document is to be connected with Jodl;
and I have the idea that may be a matter of signature, for the
document is signed “Joel,” who is not at all identical with the
Defendant Jodl. I just wanted to draw attention to this point. Perhaps
there is simply a mistake in the names.
Further, the Prosecution said that the defendant made a remark
about partisans being hanged upside down, and so on.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Exner, you have simply made a
statement, which you are not entitled to do, about this document. If
you want to prove it by evidence you should ask the witness about it.
You have told us that this document has nothing to do with Jodl, and
that the signature on it is somebody else’s. Why didn’t you ask the
witness?
I am told just now that it has already been proved that it isn’t
Jodl’s document.
DR. EXNER: The translations this morning were bad; I do not
remember having heard that. I do not know whether it is permissible
for me now in this connection to read something from a
questionnaire? It is only one question and an answer in connection
with this remark about the hanging of prisoners, and so on. Is that
permissible?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, if it arises out of the cross-examination.
DR. EXNER: Yes; the Russian prosecutor brought up the
question of whether the defendant made this remark during the
discussions about the prisoners, in connection with the guerrilla
directive—that members of guerrilla bands could also be quartered
during combat.
There it says:
“Question: Is it true or not...?”
 Oh yes, I must say that is my Document Number Jodl-60,
Exhibit Number AJ-7. Page 189 of Volume III of my document book.
It is an interrogatory of General Buhle, which was made in America.
Then it says:
“Question: ‘According to a stenographic transcript, you also
took part in a report on the military situation on the evening
of 1 December 1942, which resulted in a lengthy discussion
between the Führer and Jodl as to combating partisans in
the East. Is that correct?’
“Answer: ‘I took part in this discussion, but I no longer
remember the exact date.’ ”
THE PRESIDENT: What page did you say, Dr. Exner?
MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, it is the third page of the third book—
or the third document in the third book.
DR. EXNER: It is Page 189. I have just read Question 4. Now I
come to Question 5:
“Question: ‘Is it or is it not correct that on this occasion Jodl
asked the Führer to return the directive which had been
drawn up in his office relative to the combating of
partisans?’
“Answer: ‘That is correct.’
“Question 6: ‘Is it or is it not correct that in this draft the
burning of villages was expressly prohibited?’
“Question 7: ‘Is it or is it not correct that the Führer wanted
to have this prohibition rescinded?’
“Answer: ‘Since I never had the draft of the directive in my
hands, I do not know for certain if the burning of villages
was expressly prohibited. However this is to be assumed,
because I remember that the Führer protested against
individual provisions of the directive and demanded the
burning down of villages.’
“Question 8: ‘Is it or is it not correct that the Führer also had
misgivings about the draft because he did not want any
 restrictions to be placed on soldiers who were directly
engaged in combating the partisans?’ ”
According to the minutes Jodl stated in reply:
“This is out of the question here. During the fighting they
can do whatever they like, they can hang them, hang them
upside down or quarter them; it says nothing about that.
The only limitation applies to reprisals after the fighting in
those areas in which the partisans were active....
“Answer: ‘It is correct that the Führer had fundamental
misgivings about these restrictions. Jodl’s remark is correct
as far as its contents are concerned. I can no longer recall
his exact words.’
“Question 9: ‘Is it or is it not correct that following this
remark all those present’—Führer, Keitel, Kranke, and you
yourself—‘including the Führer, laughed and the Führer
abandoned his standpoint?’
“Answer: ‘It is probable that all of us laughed on account of
Jodl’s remark. Whether after this the Führer really
abandoned his standpoint I do not know for certain.
However, it seems probable to me.’
“Question 10: ‘Then how were the expressions “hang, hang
upside down, quartered,” interpreted?’
“Answer: ‘The expressions, “hang,” “hang upside down,”
“quartered,” could in this connection only be interpreted as
an ironical remark and be understood to mean that in
accordance with the directive no further restrictions were to
be placed on the soldiers in combat.’
“Question 11: ‘Could you perhaps say something about
Jodl’s fundamental attitude towards the obligation of the
Wehrmacht to observe the provisions of international law in
wartime?’
“Answer: ‘I do not know Jodl’s fundamental attitude. I only
know that Keitel, who was Jodl’s and my own immediate
 superior, always endeavored to observe the provisions of
international law...’
“Question 12: ‘Did you ever have the experience yourself
that Jodl influenced the Führer to issue an order which
violated international law?’
“Answer: ‘No.’ ”
THE PRESIDENT: None of that last part arises out of the cross-
examination.
DR. EXNER: Did you have anything to do with prisoners of war?
JODL: I had nothing at all to do with prisoners of war. It was the
general Armed Forces Department which dealt with them.
DR. EXNER: Now, one last question.
It is alleged by the Prosecution, and during yesterday’s
examination it was reaffirmed, that there was or had been a
conspiracy between political and military leaders for the waging of
aggressive wars and that you were a member of that conspiracy.
Can you say anything else about that before we finish?
JODL: There was no conspiracy...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Exner, the Tribunal does not think that
that really arises out of the cross-examination. Anyhow, he said it
already; he said that he was not a member of a conspiracy. There is
no use repeating his evidence.
DR. EXNER: It was again said yesterday that there was a very
close connection with the Party and the members of the Party and,
of course, that is connected with the conspiracy. That is why I should
have thought the question permissible.
THE PRESIDENT: He said already that he was not a member of
the conspiracy.
DR. EXNER: In that case, I have no further questions.
DR. LATERNSER: Mr. President, I merely wish to join in the
objection which Dr. Nelte has raised to the written statement of
Lieutenant General Von Österreich. I refer to the reasons which he
has given. That is all.
 THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Defendant Jodl, you spoke—I
think it was the day before yesterday—about the number of SS
divisions at the end of the war. Do you remember that?
JODL: Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I think you said there were 35 at
the end of the war. Is that right, 35 about?
JODL: If I remember rightly, I said between 35 and 38.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Right. Now, what I want to be
clear about is this. You were referring only to Waffen-SS divisions,
were you not? Only the Waffen-SS?
JODL: Yes, only the Waffen-SS. It is true they were...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Were they completely co-
ordinated into the Army and under the command of the Army?
JODL: For tactical operations they came under the Wehrmacht
commanders, but not for disciplinary matters. As regards the latter
their superior was, and remained, Himmler, even when they were
fighting.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Was discipline the only thing that
brought them under Himmler’s jurisdiction?
JODL: He was also looked upon as their commander for all
practical purposes. That is seen from the fact that the condition of
the divisions, their equipment, and their losses were frequently or
almost exclusively reported to the Führer by Himmler himself.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): When had they been co-ordinated
into the Army? When? What year?
JODL: They were co-ordinated into the Wehrmacht at the
beginning of the war, at the moment when the Polish campaign
began.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Now, only one other question,
about Russia; I want to see if I understood your point of view clearly.
You feared an invasion of Germany by Russia; is that right?
JODL: I expected, at a certain moment, either political blackmail
on the strength of the large troop concentration or an attack.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Now, please, Defendant, I asked
you if you did not fear an attack by Russia. You did at one time, did
you not?
JODL: Yes, I was afraid of that.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): All right. When was that? When?
JODL: It began through...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): When did you fear it? When did
you first fear that attack?
JODL: I had that fear for the first time during the summer of
1940; it arose from the first talks with the Führer at the Berghof on 29
July.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Then from the military point of
view, from that moment on, it was necessary for you to attack first,
was it not?
JODL: After the political clarification, only then; up to then it had
only been a conjecture.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): How could you afford to wait for
the political clarifying work if you were afraid of an immediate attack?
JODL: For that reason we increased our defensive measures to
begin with, until the spring of 1941. Up to then we only took
measures for defense. It was not until February 1941 we began
concentrating troops for an attack.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Now, then, just one other
question. I am not at all clear on this. During that attack did you then
advise that Germany attack first, or did you advise that Germany
should not attack? What was your advice? You saw this danger;
what did you do about it?
JODL: That problem, too, like most of the others, was the
subject of a written statement I made to the Führer in which I drew
his attention to the tremendous military effects of such a decision.
One knew of course how the campaign would begin, but no human
being could imagine how it would end...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): We have heard all that. I did not
want to go into that. What I wanted to get at is this: You were afraid
that Russia was going to attack. If that was true, why didn’t you
advise Germany to attack at once? You were afraid Russia would
attack, and yet you say you advised against moving into Russia. I do
not understand.
JODL: That is not the case. I did not advise against marching
into Russia; I merely said that if there were no other possibility and if
there was really no political way of avoiding the danger, then I, too,
could only see the possibility of a preventive attack.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): That is all. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant can return to the dock.
[The defendant left the stand.]
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Exner?
DR. EXNER: I have four witnesses to bring before the Tribunal,
but I should like to begin by making a request. In consideration of my
lame leg may I leave it to my colleague Jahrreis to question these
four witnesses?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly, Dr. Exner.
Dr. Exner, the Tribunal wishes me to say that we allow another
counsel to examine the witnesses as an exception to our general
rule that only one counsel may appear in court and in the
presentation of the case on behalf of the defendant. We will make
this exception in your favor.
PROFESSOR DR. HERMANN JAHRREISS (Counsel for
Defendant Jodl): In that case, with the permission of the Tribunal, I
will call the first witness, General Horst Freiherr von Buttlar-
Brandenfels.
[The witness Von Buttlar-Brandenfels took the stand.]
THE PRESIDENT: Will you state your name, please?
GENERAL HORST FREIHERR VON BUTTLAR-
BRANDENFELS (Witness): Horst Freiherr von Buttlar-Brandenfels.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat the 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. JAHRREISS: Witness, were you in the Wehrmacht
Operations Staff during the war?
VON BUTTLAR-BRANDENFELS: Yes.
DR. JAHRREISS: During what period?
VON BUTTLAR-BRANDENFELS: I was a member of the
Wehrmacht Operations Staff from 1 January 1942 until 15 November
1944.
DR. JAHRREISS: What was your position on the staff?
VON BUTTLAR-BRANDENFELS: I was first General Staff
officer of the Army, and in my capacity as department chief I was in
charge of the Operations Department of the Army.
DR. JAHRREISS: I am going to have a document shown you,
Document Number 823-PS, Exhibit Number RF-359. It is in
document book Jodl, second volume, Page 158. Will you please be
good enough to have a look at it.
VON BUTTLAR-BRANDENFELS: Do you want me to read the
whole document?
DR. JAHRREISS: I want you to glance through it. Who is the
author of the document?
VON BUTTLAR-BRANDENFELS: It is written by the Wehrmacht
Operations Staff, Department QU, Administration Group.
DR. JAHRREISS: By whom is it signed?
VON BUTTLAR-BRANDENFELS: It is signed by me.
DR. JAHRREISS: By you. To what extent is that document
connected with the Defendant Jodl?
VON BUTTLAR-BRANDENFELS: The document has nothing at
all to do with the Defendant Jodl.
DR. JAHRREISS: Then please will you look at the signatures at
the upper right-hand corner on the first page; there is an initial which
can be read as a “J.”
VON BUTTLAR-BRANDENFELS: That must be a mistake. The
initial is exactly the same as the one which appears below in the
signature to the written note, and this initial is that of the Chief of the
Quartermaster Department, Colonel Polleck.
 DR. JAHRREISS: Colonel Polleck?
VON BUTTLAR-BRANDENFELS: If you will look at Page 2, you
will see two signatures at the bottom. The first must be that of the
expert. I cannot recognize it for certain. I take it for the signature of
the Senior Administrative Counsellor Niehments.
DR. JAHRREISS: You mean the initial behind which there are
the Numbers 4 or 9 for the date?
VON BUTTLAR-BRANDENFELS: I mean the top one.
DR. JAHRREISS: The top one?
VON BUTTLAR-BRANDENFELS: The top one. The bottom
initial is the signature, the initials of Colonel Polleck. When the
document had been submitted to the Chief of the OKW it was
returned to me. Then I initialed it again at the top, and marked it for
the Quartermaster Department, that is the “QU” underlined at the
top. Then it was again initialed by the “QU” chief, and after that it is
marked “Administrative Group” and initialed again by the man who
dealt with it. In addition I should like to point out that all this relates to
prisoners of war, and that was a field of work with which Jodl actually
had nothing to do. In the quartermaster and organizational branches
of the Armed Forces Operations Staff we had several fields of work
which, although they came from his staff...
DR. JAHRREISS: Just a minute, Witness. I do not mind your
giving us a lecture, but I should like to get to the point. There are
remarks in the margin of this document, do you see them?
VON BUTTLAR-BRANDENFELS: Yes.
DR. JAHRREISS: Is any one of them written by Jodl?
VON BUTTLAR-BRANDENFELS: No, they are initialed with a
“K” for Field Marshal Keitel.
DR. JAHRREISS: But the French Prosecution assert that these
are comments made by Jodl on the prisoner-of-war question; and if I
understood you correctly, you mean to say that this was not possible
at all for reasons of competency?
VON BUTTLAR-BRANDENFELS: Apart from the fact that there
is not a mark on the document made by Jodl, it is unlikely that Jodl
had any knowledge of the affair at all, because of the way in which it
had to be dealt with.
DR. JAHRREISS: But is it not correct, Witness, that Department
“QU” came under Jodl?
VON BUTTLAR-BRANDENFELS: Actually, it is correct, but in
“QU” Department, just as in “Org.” Department there were several
fields of work which the Generaloberst had given up and which were
dealt with either directly by the head of the department, or through
the deputy chief, with the Chief of the OKW.
DR. JAHRREISS: You say prisoner-of-war questions were
among those, is that true?
VON BUTTLAR-BRANDENFELS: Among other things also the
question of prisoners of war.
DR. JAHRREISS: What other work did this Department “QU”
have?
VON BUTTLAR-BRANDENFELS: As its main task or in its first
department, “QU-1,” Department “QU” looked after nothing but
supplies and also supervised the provisioning of the various theaters
of war, which came directly under the OKW. The second department
was occupied mainly with military administration, and the third
department dealt with general questions, such as the prisoner-of-war
system—for example, questions concerning international law and so
on.
DR. JAHRREISS: Then I have just one more question about
these organizational matters. Were all the departments of the Armed
Forces Operations Staff in the Führer’s headquarters?
VON BUTTLAR-BRANDENFELS: No; for example we had the
“Org.” Department, an organizational department, which was not
located at headquarters but in the neighborhood of Berlin.
DR. JAHRREISS: If I have understood you correctly, the affairs
of Department “QU” by-passed Jodl, so to speak, and were handled
with the Chief of OKW?
VON BUTTLAR-BRANDENFELS: Not in every case, but in a
certain number of cases.
DR. JAHRREISS: At all events the question of prisoners of war?
 VON BUTTLAR-BRANDENFELS: Certainly, the question of
prisoners of war.
DR. JAHRREISS: Thank you. Witness, what position did you
have at the beginning of the war?
VON BUTTLAR-BRANDENFELS: At the beginning of the war I
was the second General Staff officer in the Central Department of
the General Staff of the Army.
DR. JAHRREISS: Would you speak a little more slowly. And
what were your duties there?
VON BUTTLAR-BRANDENFELS: My department dealt with the
filling of positions in the higher command offices for mobilization.
DR. JAHRREISS: Those of the General Staff officers of the
OKW too?
VON BUTTLAR-BRANDENFELS: Yes, those, too.
DR. JAHRREISS: General, do you know who was meant to be
Chief of the Armed Forces Operations Staff in the event of
mobilization from 1 October 1939 on?
VON BUTTLAR-BRANDENFELS: Yes, General Von Sodenstern
was meant to hold this position for the next mobilization year.
DR. JAHRREISS: Am I to understand that if the war had broken
out after 1 October—let us say on 5 or 6—then Jodl would not have
been Chief of the Armed Forces Operations Staff at all?
VON BUTTLAR-BRANDENFELS: I am not sure of the date on
which the new mobilization year of 1939 to 1940 began. From that
time on...
MR. ROBERTS: I submit this testimony is not relevant to any
issue in this case at all, and it may be somewhat interesting to know
the answers that are submitted have no relevancy at all.
THE PRESIDENT: I don’t quite understand what the relevancy
of the evidence at the moment is.
DR. JAHRREISS: Mr. President, if the Prosecution are right that
the Defendant Jodl belonged to a group of conspirators aiming at
world conquest and if, as the Prosecution say, that group of
conspirators obtained use of the German state machine to achieve
their aims, then it must be a somewhat peculiar state system when
conspirators are changed periodically. To that extent I believe the
case must be presented to the Tribunal for consideration.
THE PRESIDENT: Has he been given the dates of his
exchanges, without any cross-examination? He went to Vienna at a
certain date, he came back at another date, and we have no
challenge of that.
DR. JAHRREISS: Mr. President, that is a different question. The
Defendant Jodl has said that if mobilization was decreed before 1
October he was Chief of the Armed Forces Operations Staff and had
to leave Vienna for Berlin. Now the witness says that this was only
up to the new mobilization year and that then the other would have
come along if the war had broken out 14 days later. I think...
THE PRESIDENT: Surely that is extraordinarily remote, Dr.
Jahrreiss. You show us a matter of surmise about what would have
happened if something else would have happened. That does not
help us very much.
DR. JAHRREISS: Mr. President, the testimony of the witness is
not a mere conjecture. He only said that the person who held this
important position was disposed of in a routine manner according to
date. That was the only thing to be shown.
May I continue, Mr. President?
THE PRESIDENT: No, in the interest of time and an expeditious
trial, the Tribunal rules you may not go into that.
DR. JAHRREISS: Witness, if I now ask you about a certain field
of activity which you just mentioned, it is because I assume that you
have particularly expert knowledge of it. Is it true that you were
officially connected with the suppression of partisans?
VON BUTTLAR-BRANDENFELS: Yes. The chief authority for
combating guerrillas was turned over to my department toward the
end of the summer of 1942, and the tactical basis for combating
guerrillas was dealt with by my department from that date on.
DR. JAHRREISS: Are you familiar with the pamphlet on the
suppression of partisans, issued in May 1944?
VON BUTTLAR-BRANDENFELS: Yes, the leaflet was drawn up
in my department.