Hadoop The Definitive Guide Tom White

Visit to download the full and correct content document:

https://ebookmeta.com/product/hadoop-the-definitive-guide-tom-white/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Hadoop The Definitive Guide Storage and Analysis at

Internet Scale Tom White

https://ebookmeta.com/product/hadoop-the-definitive-guide-
storage-and-analysis-at-internet-scale-tom-white/

Photography The Definitive Visual History 2nd Edition

Tom Ang

https://ebookmeta.com/product/photography-the-definitive-visual-
history-2nd-edition-tom-ang/

Design The Definitive Visual Guide Dk

https://ebookmeta.com/product/design-the-definitive-visual-guide-
dk/

JavaScript The Definitive Guide Activate Your Web Pages

Definitive Guides David Flanagan

https://ebookmeta.com/product/javascript-the-definitive-guide-
activate-your-web-pages-definitive-guides-david-flanagan/
Data Governance: The Definitive Guide Evren Eryurek

https://ebookmeta.com/product/data-governance-the-definitive-
guide-evren-eryurek/

Gatsby: The Definitive Guide 1st Edition Preston So

https://ebookmeta.com/product/gatsby-the-definitive-guide-1st-
edition-preston-so/

Snowflake: the Definitive Guide 1st Edition Joyce Avila

https://ebookmeta.com/product/snowflake-the-definitive-guide-1st-
edition-joyce-avila/

JavaScript The Definitive Guide 7th Edition David

Flanagan

https://ebookmeta.com/product/javascript-the-definitive-
guide-7th-edition-david-flanagan-4/

WebAssembly: The Definitive Guide 1st Edition Brian

Sletten

https://ebookmeta.com/product/webassembly-the-definitive-
guide-1st-edition-brian-sletten/
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
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...
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 DAF.
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 cross-examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Go on.
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?
JÄGER: 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 were 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
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?
JÄGER: 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?
JÄGER: 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?
JÄGER: 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 Krämerplatz, 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?
JÄGER: 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?
JÄGER: 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
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?
JÄGER: 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?
 JÄGER: 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.
JÄGER: I busied myself with that in particular, as we had about
150 cases.
DR. SERVATIUS: At what time?
JÄGER: During the entire period from 1942 to 1945.
DR. SERVATIUS: How many workers did you have during that
time?
JÄGER: Oh, that varied.
DR. SERVATIUS: Give us some approximate figure.
JÄGER: 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?
JÄGER: 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,
furthermore, that carriers of these diseases were fleas, lice,
bedbugs, and other vermin which tortured the inhabitants of those
camps. Was that true of all the camps?
JÄGER: 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 Kapitän-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?
JÄGER: 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?
JÄGER: 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?
JÄGER: 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?
JÄGER: Only about three or four cases of death resulted, and
they occurred only because the case was diagnosed too late. I
always 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?
JÄGER: One must define the expression “Freibankfleisch.” That
was meat which was not released for general consumption by the
veterinary but which, after being treated in a certain way, was 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?
JÄGER: 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?
JÄGER: Yes, then allowed.
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, regarding the French prisoner-of-war
camp in Nöggerathstrasse 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?
JÄGER: That is how I found this camp.
DR. SERVATIUS: And you saw that yourself for a half year?
JÄGER: 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?
JÄGER: It was an expression of mine, because the inmates built
and hammered these huts together themselves.
DR. SERVATIUS: Is the same true of the latrines, or what does
that mean?
JÄGER: 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?
JÄGER: A former latrine.
DR. SERVATIUS: Then it was a former latrine which had been
rebuilt?
JÄGER: It had not been rebuilt; it was just as it had been.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was this latrine then still being used?
JÄGER: It was not being used.
DR. SERVATIUS: Then you say that there were no tables,
chairs, or cupboards in this camp.
JÄGER: That was also not the case.
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, did you swear to this testimony
which you have seen?
JÄGER: Yes, to the one I saw before.
DR. SERVATIUS: Are you sure it is that testimony which you
have just had in your hands?
JÄGER: 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.
 JÄGER: I must assume that this is that corrected record.
DR. SERVATIUS: But you have it before you?
JÄGER: 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?
JÄGER: No, sometimes entire sentences.
DR. SERVATIUS: And you swore to that?
JÄGER: 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
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?
JÄGER: 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?
JÄGER: 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?
JÄGER: That was a fair copy. I do not remember exactly; I really
cannot.
DR. SERVATIUS: And why did you make these alterations?
JÄGER: 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?
JÄGER: 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?
JÄGER: 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?
JÄGER: 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 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?
JÄGER: Yes.
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.
JÄGER: Yes.
MR. DODD: You read English as well as German, do you not?
You have some knowledge of English.
JÄGER: Some knowledge, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, the document is being handed to
you. It is in German, is it not?
JÄGER: It is in German.
THE PRESIDENT: And it is signed by you, is it?
JÄGER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any passage in it which you want to
strike out of it?
 JÄGER: 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.
JÄGER: 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.
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.
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.
JÄGER: 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.
JÄGER: 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?
JÄGER: 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?
JÄGER: In Hoegstrasse.
THE PRESIDENT: Prisoners of war were working there, were
they?
JÄGER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Krupp’s?
JÄGER: For the Krupp Works, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: What sort of work was it?
JÄGER: 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 naturally not able to give you all the details; these matters were
not under my jurisdiction. I was concerned with these people only in
my capacity as a physician.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
[The witness left the stand.]
MR. DODD: Mr. President, I have found that certificate; and it is
as I described it for the Tribunal. It is a certificate by Captain 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 Darré and Seldte,
but these have not been translated as yet. I shall submit them as
soon as they have been translated.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
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 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?
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, Hühnlein, and Röhm. 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?
JODL: No.
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.”
 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 Jews 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:
“When on 30 January 1933 Hitler was appointed Reich
Chancellor, Jodl was dismayed and astonished. I clearly
recall that on 30 or 31 of January, at his request, I had to
call together the officers of his group for a conference. At
this conference he explained that Hitler had been called to
be the head of the Reich according to the existing
constitution and the laws in force. It was not for us to
criticize this, particularly the behavior of Reich President
and Field Marshal Von Hindenburg. We must obey and do
our duty as soldiers. The kind of criticisms made hitherto, of
the new measures initiated by the new chancellor, were not
to be made in future for they were inconsistent with his and
our own position.
“His entire speech showed great worry and apprehension
with regard to the coming development of the situation...”
and so forth.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Exner, this would be a convenient time to
break off.
[The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours.]
 Afternoon Session
THE PRESIDENT: Now, Sir David, you were going to show
these applications.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, My Lord.
I wonder if I might leave, for the moment, Number 1, which my
friend General Rudenko will deal with, because he will deal with
another one; and if I might deal with the ones which I have?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The second one is on behalf of
Defendant Kaltenbrunner and is an application to cross-examine
three witnesses whose affidavits were used by the Prosecution. The
first is Tiefenbacher, and he dealt with conditions at Mauthausen; the
second, Kandruth, who dealt with the same subject; the third, Stroop,
dealt with the reception of orders from the Defendant Kaltenbrunner
by Stroop as SS and Polizeiführer in Warsaw. The Prosecution
submits that in these cases cross-examination by way of
interrogatories would be sufficient. Next, I do not know if...
THE PRESIDENT: Interrogatories are all they asked for,
certainly in the case of—in all three.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: We will have no objection to
cross-interrogatories as long as they are not brought here as
witnesses.
My Lord, the next application is on behalf of the Defendant Von
Neurath to use M. François-Poncet as witness. The Prosecution will
be grateful if the Tribunal would allow that to stand over for a day or
two, as my French colleagues are awaiting instructions from Paris at
the moment and they have not got a reply yet. I do not think it will
prejudice the Defendant Von Neurath’s case. It will be time for a
reply before there is any difficulty as to time.
Then, My Lord, the next is an application on behalf of the
Defendant Von Schirach. I think that all that is now wanted is to use
an affidavit from Dr. Otto Wilhelm von Vacano. The affidavit is 12
pages long and is a highly academic statement on the educational