(eBook PDF) Workforce Readiness and

the Future of Work

Go to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-workforce-readiness-and-the-future-of-wo
rk/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

(Original PDF) The Economics of Women, Men, and Work

8th

http://ebooksecure.com/product/original-pdf-the-economics-of-
women-men-and-work-8th/

(eBook PDF) The Psychology of Work and Organizations

3rd Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-the-psychology-of-work-
and-organizations-3rd-edition-2/

(eBook PDF) The Future of Business 4th dition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-the-future-of-
business-4th-dition/

Posthumanism: The Future of Homo Sapiens - eBook PDF

https://ebooksecure.com/download/posthumanism-the-future-of-homo-
sapiens-ebook-pdf/
(Original PDF) The Economics of Women, Men and Work 7th
Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/original-pdf-the-economics-of-
women-men-and-work-7th-edition/

(Original PDF) The Future of Business 5th Canadian

Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/original-pdf-the-future-of-
business-5th-canadian-edition/

Infinity Fish: Economics and the Future of Fish and

Fisheries 1st Edition - eBook PDF

https://ebooksecure.com/download/infinity-fish-economics-and-the-
future-of-fish-and-fisheries-ebook-pdf/

(eBook PDF) Leadership and the Advanced Practice Nurse:

The Future of a Changing Healthcare Environment

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-leadership-and-the-
advanced-practice-nurse-the-future-of-a-changing-healthcare-
environment/

Lift Your Impact: Transform Your Mindset, Influence,

and Future to Elevate Your Work, Team, and Life 1st
edition - eBook PDF

https://ebooksecure.com/download/lift-your-impact-transform-your-
mindset-influence-and-future-to-elevate-your-work-team-and-life-
ebook-pdf/
Contents

Foreword x
Preface xi
Frederick L. Oswald, Tara S. Behrend, and Lori L. Foster
List of Contributors xvii

1 The Psychology of Working and Workforce Readiness:

How to Pursue Decent Work 1
Richard P. Douglass, Ryan D. Duffy, Jessica W. England, and
Nicholas P. Gensmer

Part I
Education 17

2 Supporting the Development of Interest in the Workplace 19

K. Ann and Suzanne E. Hidi

3 Preparing Students for the Future of Work: A Formative

Assessment Approach 35
Alex Casillas, Patrick C. Kyllonen, and Jason D. Way

4 Advancing Workforce Readiness Among Low-Income

and Minority High School Students 53
Barbara Schneider and Lindsey Young
viii Contents

Part II
Employment 71

5 Workforce Readiness in Times of Change: Employer

Perspectives 73
Richard A. Guzzo

6 The Military as a Source for Civilian Workforce

Development 92
Nathan D. Ainspan, Karin A. Orvis, and Lynne M. Kelley

7 O*NET and the Nature of Work 110

Erich Dierdorff and Kemp Ellington

Part III
Technology 131

8 Technology and Workforce Readiness: Implications

for Skills Training and the Economy 133
Harry J. Holzer

9 Data and Technology for Impact Hiring: Two Early

Experiments 151
Darko Lovric, Shanti Nayak, Abigail Carlton,
and Mark McCoy

10 Identifying and Managing Talent in the Age of Artificial

Intelligence 169
Reece Akhtar, Dave Winsborough, Darko Lovric, and
Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic

Part IV
Policy 187

11 Education for Workforce Readiness: Findings from

Reports of the National Academies of Sciences,
Engineering, and Medicine 189
Margaret Hilton
 Contents ix

12 Apprenticeships 207
John S. Gaal

13 Credentialing in the 21st Century: Looking Beyond the

Event Horizon 232
James Keevy, Volker Rein, Borhene Chakroun, and Lori L. Foster

Prospects and Pitfalls in Building the Future Workforce

251
Ruth Kanfer and Jamai Blivin

Index 261
Foreword

At the time of this writing, thoughtful people from many professions are wres-
tling with how we as a society can better prepare our citizens for the world of
work of the future. The issues involved are daunting. At its core, the challenge
is to first be able envision the direction and strength of those forces that shape
the nature of work itself, including emerging technology, government policy,
and business competitive practices. One must then go on to reflect on and bet-
ter understand aspects of society that can, will, and should be used to shape the
way we go about preparing both current and the next generation of workers to
be successful. As such, this volume by Oswald, Behrend, and Foster provides
a very useful framework both for understanding the likely future demand for
human talent and for teasing out some of the answers on how best to link such
demand to the talent pipeline. In doing this, the volume makes clear that any
set of solutions offered should be able to achieve and promote what the vol-
ume calls “decent work.” They make it clear that industrial and organizational
psychologists are in a good position to contribute to productive discussions on
the part of key stakeholders –company leaders, educators, policymakers, and
those involved in providing services to government and commerce. We already
know a lot about the nature of work, the forces shaping it, and even much more
on how to effectively develop and nurture work-relevant capabilities. Toward
this end, the editors have done a great job organizing their volume around the
big themes of education, employment, technology, and policy. Moreover, the
chapters will also be of special value to those who want to take on research
initiatives related to any of the critical issues covered. To put it simply, this
volume should be very useful to those who want to increase their capacity to
shape creative solutions that serve to align the supply of human talent with
future workplace demands.
Preface
Frederick L. Oswald, Tara S. Behrend,
and Lori L. Foster

Whether you are deciding which movie to watch on a Friday night, or deciding
on a consequential medical treatment with your doctor, life is (among other
wonderful things) a series of small and large investment decisions on the basis
of inherently uncertain assessments about risk and reward. In the stock market,
such uncertainty is hedged by diversified portfolios, such as through index
funds, which consistently tend to outperform even the savviest financial ana-
lysts. How might such an investment analogy apply to the world of work? What
is the equivalent of a diversified portfolio for (a) the investments that have been
made by employers (recruiting, selection, and management decisions made by
large-scale organizations, nonprofits, locally owned independents) and (b) the
investments made by jobseekers (e.g., the prior decisions to attend college and
choose a college major; older students who have been lifelong learners and seek
to change careers)? Hopefully, these investments are more or less coordinated
in the supply and demand arena of the employment setting, where employers
often hope to find the best talent, to the benefit of the organization and, cu-
mulatively, to the national economy; and job applicants often seek work that
satisfies multiple criteria, such as decent pay, meaningful work, opportunities
for skill and career advancement, and on-the-job autonomy. Ultimately, in or-
der to find reasonable if not excellent matches between work supply and work
demand, employers and applicants alike must navigate the increasingly choppy
and ever-changing waters of education, training, the labor market, and tech-
nology, as well as state, national, and international regulations. As you might
know firsthand, this proves to be a very challenging and complex problem and
process for all parties concerned.
In some cases, policies and programs are being created to encourage work-
force entrants to build up a diverse portfolio of experiences, skills, and networks
xii Preface

of people, so that over time, they can better search, identify, and take advan-
tage of opportunities that arise in an ever-changing employment context. As
described in Chapter 2 of this volume (Renninger & Hidi), researchers are also
examining how best to support students’ development of their work-related
interests and engagement, so that they ultimately seek out jobs and workplaces
that will deliver higher levels of productivity, satisfaction, meaning for them.
In addition to students, employers are another key piece of the network to
policies and programs, given that employers need to be engaged in civic and
educational communities in order to most effectively contribute, learn from,
and adapt to them. It is important to remember that employers are jockeying
to reconfigure, innovate, and compete with one another in terms of available
workforce talent (Chapter 5, Guzzo), just as much as the members of the talent
pool themselves are competing with one another. But there are a wide range of
strategies and tactics to consider when doing so.
The types of student/employee and employer engagement described above
are important forms of workforce readiness. Workforce readiness is a complex
notion that spans multiple levels, ranging from national, state, and local econ-
omies; to employment and educational policy; to neighborhoods, families, and
individuals. To describe workforce readiness and the four major areas of our
book, we offer Figure 0.1 to suggest that there is a dynamic relationship be-
tween the (a) education and (b) employment domains, such that each domain
informs and influences the other. Further, these domains and their relationships
are shaped and, in some cases, governed by (c) policies enacted from the top
down and (d) technologies that are used “in the trenches” as they are imple-
mented (sometimes disruptively so) from the bottom up.
Although Figure 0.1 is quite simple, it implies that workforce readiness is
clearly a broad, dynamic, and challenging problem for employers, employ-
ees, jobseekers, and students alike. Understanding and ultimately improving
workforce readiness clearly requires multiple areas of expertise, such as those

Figure 0.1 A Model of Workforce Readiness.

 Preface xiii

reflected by the authors and chapters of this book: for example, education,
economics, federal policy, organizational psychology, veteran-to-civilian tran-
sitions, vocational psychology, and various forms of technological innovations
that are relevant to all of the aforementioned domains. Indeed, this book was
inspired by a multidisciplinary conference that we organized in June 2017, en-
titled “The Changing Workforce: Implications of Cyber Technologies,” spon-
sored by the Stanford Cyber Initiative while one of the editors (Behrend) was
on fellowship there. Many authors of this book participated in this conference,
and they (like us) are excited about the opportunity to bring our complemen-
tary sets of expertise together. We are so grateful to the Cyber Initiative and
to the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences (CASBS) for
supporting this project.
As coeditors, we made deliberate attempts to ensure that the multidisci-
plinary volume on the topic that you currently hold in your hands would pro-
vide unique value to you. We explored and researched a wide range of relevant
resources, for example, before developing the current book. For example, in
terms of conferences, we identified Rice University’s Humans, Machines, and
the Future of Work Conference, held in December 2016, where you can still en-
joy videos of the conference speakers at http://delange.rice.edu/conference_X/
videos.html. In terms of websites, one can readily appreciate all the current and
frequent data-driven reports being produced the Center on Education and the
Workforce (CEW) at Georgetown University (see http://cew.georgetown.edu),
as well as the Work Science Center at the Georgia Institute of Technology (see
http://worksciencecenter.gatech.edu/). And in terms of books, one recent vol-
ume of relevance comes from a career and vocational counseling perspective:
The Handbook of Career and Workforce Development (Solberg & Ali, 2017).
And in the media, hardly a day passes without a story on the nature and future
of the workforce, in light of numerous ongoing economic and technological
changes in the areas of employment and education. A case in point is found in
the continuously expressed need for improving the quality, quantity, and equal-
ity in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) education and
the workforce (Chapter 4, Schneider & Young). As another example, the U.S.
media have covered White House commitments, on the scale of tens of mil-
lions of dollars, to support factory jobs and industry-based apprenticeships that
often struggle to find trained and qualified applicants (see https://www.dol.gov/­
apprenticeship/). Chapter 12 (Gaal) covers this important topic in further detail.
And as a final more specific example, the Harvard Business Review highlighted
the massive and critical need for AT&T’s workforce of approximately 280,000
to self-manage their careers and constantly retrain themselves in light of constant
changes in the technical demands of their jobs (Donovan & Benko, 2016). Many
chapters of this book attempt to address the nature and impact of technologies
as they affect education (Keevy et al., Chapter 13), the workforce (Lovric et al.,
Chapter 9; Akhtar et al., Chapter 10), and the economy (Holzer, Chapter 8).
xiv Preface

Turning to the national and international setting, in 2015, the U.S. ­National
Academy of Sciences commissioned a report on how child development, from
birth to age eight, is a critical period for learning, health, and ultimately creating
a vibrant workforce (see Institutes of Medicine & National Research Council,
2015, https://goo.gl/64msd9). Internationally, the World Bank has surveyed
lower income working-age adults over four time periods of measurement,
since 2011, to gauge the supply and demand of work-based skills: cognitive,
socioemotional, and job-specific skills. These skills are in constant need for
training and retaining over the adult lifespan, as one progresses through school
(Chapter 3, Casillas et al.) and into the workforce (Chapter 11, Hilton). Un-
derstanding the nature—and changing nature—of occupations is a critical yet
underresearched organizing perspective (Chapter 7, Dierdorff ) for approaching
both education and work in terms of the short- and long-term investments
made by students and educators, and by employees and organizations.
As Douglass et al. point out in Chapter 1, the benefits of decent work ex-
tend far beyond the securement of a paycheck needed for survival. Psychological
and societal benefits are also tied to work and workforce readiness. Throughout
the development of this book, one of the editors (Foster) has been traveling
extensively in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, and Africa, seeing firsthand
the promise and potential of workforce readiness as well as the economic and
social perils of talent shortages and underemployment. Throughout the world,
large groups of people—including youth who are not in education, training,
or ­employment—are getting left behind in today’s changing world of work.
Governments, nongovernmental organizations, international organizations, and
corporations are stepping up their efforts to address this problem. For example,
the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) is working in partnership with
the Government of Jordan, the International Labour Organization (ILO), civil
society, and the private sector to connect disadvantaged youth to life skills train-
ing, volunteer opportunities, vocational training, and job mentoring. The idea is
to equip young adults with the knowledge, skills, and experience needed to be-
come more employable (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIeMTXhbEs8).
The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in Jordan has also put
programs into place to support the employability and employment of margin-
alized youth and women in low-income communities—for example, by sup-
porting those interested in starting a small business through skills and business
development programs. Such programs are viewed as key to supporting sustain-
able livelihoods and also to countering terrorism and radicalization in a region
threatened by violent extremism (http://www.jo.undp.org/content/jordan/en/
home/­projects/­s upport-to-counter-terrorism--stabilization--and-counter--
radica.html). A system-wide investment in skills development, identification,
and translation efforts can result in large-scale individual and organizational
benefits, whether it is internationally as described here, or in terms of U.S.
­m ilitary-to-civilian transitions as explained in Chapter 6 (Ainspan et al.).
 Preface xv

In closing, we want to emphasize several points. First, investing in work-

force readiness is essential for our future, in many key respects. The pursuit
and engagement in meaningful and impactful work is critical to the prosperity
and well-being of people, families, communities, and nations. When people
lack the opportunity to engage in forms of education that ultimately develop
themselves and the workforce, they may invest their time in other forms of be-
haviors that are ultimately harmful to oneself and to society, out of desperation
for other sources of psychological and financial support. Second, workforce
readiness is a complex system of interdependencies and issues that are valuable
to appreciate and address holistically. The current book benefits from the con-
tributing authors’ expertise in education, employment, technology, and policy.
Third, in addressing these complexities, we strongly advocate that investments
in the workforce and workplace can be very usefully informed by solid research
designs, data based on those designs, and intelligent analyses that summarize
those data and inform decision-making. This might be considered a scientific
approach, requiring the expertise of academics from many disciplines, such
as those represented in this book, collaborating with organizational, educa-
tional, and government partners. Fourth, keeping all of all the previous points
in mind, we recognize that we need optimists in the world in order to change
it: Witness the many startup companies that develop workplace technologies,
where with high risk and high optimism can come high reward—but hardly
with guarantees. We also need pessimists in the world so that opportunity costs
are minimized: To a pessimist, an investment in the new-and-improved future
is too disruptive, too time-intensive, too risky, and too expensive. To a pes-
simist, the immense investments of time and money startup companies might
be better invested in incremental improvements to what is good-enough here-
and-now. Optimists and pessimists are both wrong, and both right, in terms
of how to invest in workforce readiness. We need them both in employment
and educational circles, to create the sort of diversified portfolio of workforce
readiness that we mentioned when opening up this chapter. Whether or not
one decides to be an optimist or a pessimist in any given moment, we also urge
all stakeholders not to shy away from being realists. Even knowing that there is
no perfect approach to addressing or solving the complex problem of workforce
readiness, anyone concerned about workforce readiness should nonetheless per-
sist in the demand for good data that inform solid decision-making—assuming
there is a real commitment to evaluating the workforce readiness goals that
were pursued and promoted in the first place!
This book is a proud product of the diligent efforts of a collaborative team.
We would like to thank all of the contributing authors, who were not only
willing to share their expertise in their respective chapters; they spent time in
sharing their chapters with one another prior to publication, to lend greater
conceptual consistency to the book. We asked them to do something a lot
different than the usual academic book chapter, in that they were tasked with
xvi Preface

speaking to a broad educated audience coming from many disciplinary back-

grounds. Thanks to Christina Chronister at Taylor & Francis for her stalwart
and expert support to move this book along from start to finish, with thanks
to her colleagues as well, including Alex Howard and Kathryn Smale. Finally,
big thanks to Rich Klimoski, Editor of the SIOP Organizational Frontiers Book
Series, and his editorial board. Rich did not merely support our interest in de-
veloping the book; he then encouraged us to approach this project with greater
creativity and possibility. We truly hope you enjoy the book and find it useful
in your own thinking and work.

References
Donovan, J., & Benko, C. (2016, October). AT&T's talent overhaul: Can the firm really
retrain hundreds of thousands of employees? Harvard Business Review, 94, 64–65.
Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. (2015). Transforming the workforce
for children birth through age 8: A unifying foundation. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press.
Solberg, V. S. H., & Ali, S. R. (Eds.) (2017). The handbook of career and workforce develop-
ment: Research, practice, and policy. New York, NY: Routledge.
Contributors

Nathan D. Ainspan, PhD, is a senior research psychologist in the Transition to

Veterans Program Office at the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). Through-
out his 20-year research career, he has written, taught, and spoken about the
psychological issues impacting transitioning service members, wounded service
members, and the psychosocial benefits that employment can have on veterans
and people with disabilities. He has edited four books in this arena. Nathan
is an APA Fellow of Divisions 18 (Psychologists in the Public Service) and 19
(­M ilitary Psychology).

Reece Akhtar, PhD, is an organizational psychologist and analytics & innova-

tion lead at RHR International, specializing in applied personality assessment
and psychometrics. He uses novel sources of data and emerging technologies to
create innovative executive assessment and development tools, and his main ar-
eas of research and consulting include talent analytics, digital signals of behav-
ior, and organizational network analysis. He is a lecturer at University College
London and New York University, and he has published scientific articles on
personality and machine learning, talent management, and leadership.

Jamai Blivin is founder and CEO of Innovate+Educate, a nonprofit agency with

an industry-led board, focused on education and workforce strategies to address
the significant gaps between supply and demand in both education and work-
force. Her work and expertise focus on the development and implementation of
skills assessments that open up further employment pathways. Jamai serves on
multiple national boards, including The Future at Work Coalition and the ­Urban
Research Park Community Development Entity. She also sits on the City of
Albuquerque Learning Council, City of Santa Fe Children’s’ Cabinet, and ACT
State Leadership Board (New Mexico).
xviii Contributors

Abigail Carlton is a director of Social Impact at Indeed.com, where she leads

Indeed's global efforts to help struggling job seekers overcome barriers and find
quality jobs, harnessing our technology, data, expertise, and networks. She has
worked to expand economic opportunity for low-income workers, families,
and communities through 15+ years of professional and volunteer experience
spanning the private and nonprofit sectors, government, and academia.

Alex Casillas, PhD, is a principal research psychologist in the Research Division

of ACT, Inc., using design science and evidence-centered approaches to de-
velop several behavioral assessments for predicting performance and persistence
in both educational and workforce settings. One recent example is in leading
a multidisciplinary research team in developing the ACT ­Holistic Framework,
which articulates what effective behavior looks like from grades 3 through ca-
reer. He has published dozens of articles and chapters in peer-reviewed outlets
and has made presentations at national and international conferences.

Borhene Chakroun is the head of the section in charge of skills development

at UNESCO-HQ. Borhene conducted a range of policy reviews and skills
systems diagnosis in different contexts, and he has authored and coauthored
various articles and books in the field of skills development. Much of his most
recent work focuses on global trends in reforming skills and qualifications
systems and global agenda for skills development in the context of the 2030
­Sustainable Development Agenda.

Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, PhD, is the Chief Talent Scientist at Manpower-

Group, a Professor of Business Psychology at University College London and at
Columbia University, and an associate at Harvard’s Entrepreneurial Finance Lab.

Erich Dierdorff, PhD, is a professor of Management in the Driehaus College

of Business at DePaul University. His work spans the broad areas of workforce
strategy and human capital management, with research interests that include
enhancing individual-level and team-level learning, as well as determining the
most effective practices for work analysis, work design, work performance, and
leadership effectiveness. In addition, he has contributed to numerous research
efforts to examine, expand, and populate the U.S. Department of ­Labor’s
O*NET occupational database.

Richard P. Douglass, MS, is a 5th year counseling psychology doctoral student

at the University of Florida. Currently, he is completing his doctoral internship
at the University of Florida’s Counseling and Wellness Center. His research
examines how experiences of discrimination among marginalized groups are
associated with vocational and well-being outcomes.
 Contributors xix

Ryan D. Duffy, PhD, is a professor of Counseling Psychology at the University

of Florida. He is the author of over 100 journal articles and coauthored a book
in 2012 entitled Make Your Job a Calling. He is currently an editorial board
member on the Journal of Counseling Psychology, Journal of Vocational Behavior, and
is editor of the Journal of Career Assessment.

Kemp Ellington, PhD, is an associate professor in the Department of Manage-

ment of the Walker College of Business at Appalachian State University. His
research interests include training and development and performance manage-
ment, with particular interest in team training and multilevel influences on
learning and behavior in the workplace.

Jessica W. England, MS, is a 4th year counseling psychology doctoral student

at the University of Florida. Her research interests include exploring the impact
of context and identity on career development and vocational outcomes.

John S. Gaal, EdD, is the Director of Training and Workforce Development

for the St. Louis-Kansas City Carpenters Regional Council and Adjunct Pro-
fessor at Webster University. As a labor representative, he currently serves on
the St. Louis County Workforce Development Board, Missouri Workforce
­Development Board, International Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans’
Board of Directors, and International Vocational Education and Training As-
sociation’s Board of Directors (president-elect). Within the past decade, he
completed terms of service on the U.S. DOL’s Federal Advisory Committee
on Apprenticeship, Association of Skilled and Technical Sciences’ Board of
Directors (president), and Association for Career and Technical Education’s
Board of Directors.

Nicholas P. Gensmer, BS, is a 2nd year counseling psychology doctoral at the

University of Florida. His research interests focus on access to decent work for
people of marginalized populations. He is also involved in research examining
outcomes among a diverse array of minority populations in the realms of work,
education, and calling.

Richard A. Guzzo, PhD, is a partner at Mercer, Inc. and co-leader of its

­ orkforce Sciences Institute. His role includes practice and research. As a con-
W
sultant, he provides data-based advice to for-profit and not-for-profit enter-
prises on a wide variety of issues, including strategic workforce planning. His
current research interests include productivity and performance, workplace di-
versity, and social influences at work. He has published four books and dozens
of articles and chapters. Prior to joining Mercer, he was Professor of Psychology
at the University of Maryland (1989–97).
xx Contributors

Suzanne E. Hidi, PhD, is an adjunct professor at the Ontario Institute for Studies
in Education of the University of Toronto. Her early work focused on academic
writing; this was followed by investigations of motivation in general and interest
development in specific. Although her work has primarily focused on educational
practice, she also considers the applications of these findings in the work place.
Her current work addresses the integration of neuroscientific and psychological
research in the area of human motivation, performance, and information search.

Margaret Hilton formerly served as a senior program officer of the National

Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. There, she worked with
an expert committee to identify competencies needed for life and work in the
21st century along with educational approaches to develop those competencies.
She facilitated another expert committee that identified competencies support-
ing success in higher education and examined how to assess those competen-
cies. She received a Master of Regional Planning degree from the University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a Master of Education and Human Devel-
opment from the George Washington University.

Harry J. Holzer, PhD, is the John McCourt SJ Professor of Public Policy at

Georgetown, an institute fellow at the American Institutes for Research, and
a senior fellow at Brookings. He is also a former chief economist at the U.S.
Department of Labor and a professor of economics at Michigan State Univer-
sity. He received his Ph.D. in economics from Harvard University in 1983. His
work focuses primarily on the low-wage labor market in the US, including
topics such as labor market mismatch, employment difficulties of young and/
or less-educated men, welfare reform, affirmative action, community college
programs for disadvantaged workers. and workforce development.

Ruth Kanfer, PhD, is Professor in the School of Psychology and Director of

the Work Science Center (www.worksciencecenter.gatech.edu) at the G ­ eorgia
Institute of Technology. She studies work motivation, engagement, and self-­
regulation in the context of skill learning, teams, job search, work transitions,
and retirement. She has served on the National Academy of Sciences Science
and Practice of Learning Committee that produced How People Learn II. Her
current projects concern the effects of technology on work identity and en-
gagement, future time perspective, and informal learning at work.

James Keevy is the Chief Executive Officer at JET Education Services, an in-
dependent public benefit organization located in Johannesburg, South Africa,
founded in 1992. His responsibilities include working with government, the pri-
vate sector, international development agencies, and educational institutions to
improve the quality of education, as well as the relationship between education,
skills development and the world of work. His diverse array of research regarding
 Contributors xxi

qualifications frameworks, the recognition of learning, and the professionaliza-

tion, and migration of teachers has been published and presented internationally.

Lynne M. Kelley, PhD, is a personnel psychologist at the U.S. Navy 21st

­ entury Sailor Office, where she is the leading research analyst, working
C
to enhance research quality and provide insight for primary prevention ini-
tiatives and policy. As the former Chief of Evaluation and Assessment in the
Transition to ­Veterans Program Office at the U.S. Department of Defense
(DoD), she led two interagency working groups related to strategic planning
and the assessment of military post-transition outcomes to enhance program
evaluation and refinement for the DoD Transition Assistance Program.

Patrick C. Kyllonen, PhD, is a distinguished presidential appointee at Educa-

tional Testing Service (ETS). Patrick conducts innovative research involving
college admissions and testing systems, workforce readiness assessment, interna-
tional large-scale testing, and 21st century skills assessment (e.g., collaborative
problem solving, situational judgment). He has been a frequent contributor of
reports from the National Academy of Sciences, including the reports, Education
for Life and Work: Developing Transferable Knowledge and Skills in the 21st Century
(2012) and Assessment of Intrapersonal and Interpersonal Competencies (2017).

Darko Lovric is a principal with the consulting firm Incandescent, where he

combines business and psychology to build bespoke execution strategies. He
is particularly passionate about designing large-scale transformation efforts
that lead to rapid and focused behavior change. Led by his belief that people
­problems are at the heart of many management challenges, Darko advises and
partners with people analytics, psychology, and neuroscience ventures that can
help shed light on how people think, act, and behave.

Mark McCoy is currently based in London where he is exploring the interac-

tions between complex adaptive systems and human enterprise through applied
research. Drawing on a blend of qualitative and quantitative approaches—from
complexity science to adult developmental psychology—he supports leaders,
startups, and institutions in the for-profit and nonprofit sectors in meaningfully
engaging with complexity. Previously, Mark worked as a principal with the
consulting firm Incandescent, with a primary focus on strategy development
and execution for clients in the nonprofit sector.

Shanti Nayak is a principal with the consulting firm Incandescent. Her work
is primarily focused on building strategies for systems change—ranging from
the youth employment and workforce system, to the space of national service,
to strengthening the capacity of the federal government. Her clients include
philanthropic and nonprofit actors working as catalysts to effect change.
xxii Contributors

Karin A. Orvis, PhD, is the director of the Transition to Veterans Program

Office at the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). She has been instrumental in
redesigning the DoD Transition Assistance Program, which ensures that ser-
vice members are “career ready” and prepared to transition from military-to-­
civilian life upon separation from active duty. Her nearly 20 years of practitioner
and scientific research experience spans the federal government, academia, and
the private sector, with a focus on developing, implementing, and evaluating
programs related to employee training, leader development, staffing, and orga-
nizational effectiveness.

Volker Rein, PhD, is working as senior research associate at the Federal Institute
for Vocational Education and Training in Bonn, Germany. For a long time, he
has been working on education and training systems in terms of policy, qual-
ification transparency, and skills requirements in Germany, in Europe, and in
the United States. In this field, his special focus in R&D is on the compatibility
between occupational and academic education in terms of competence and
proficiency. In this respect, he has carried out international in the United States
and in Germany. He has published numerous articles on this topic, and he is
member of several international education expert groups in the United States,
in the EU and at UNESCO.

K. Ann, PhD, is the Dorwin P. Cartwright Professor of Social Theory and

Social Action at Swarthmore College. She teaches in the Department of Ed-
ucational Studies. Her research focuses on the development of interest, where
interest is conceptualized and measured as both a psychological state and a mo-
tivational variable. Her research addresses the conditions that support interest
to develop. Although her work has primarily focused on educational practice,
she also addresses the applications of these findings in the work place.

Barbara Schneider, PhD, is the John A. Hannah Chair and University Dis-
tinguished Professor in the College of Education and Department of Sociol-
ogy at Michigan State University. Her research focuses on understanding how
the social contexts of schools and families influence the academic and social
well-being of adolescents as they move into adulthood. She is a past president of
the American Educational Research Association, and a fellow of the ­A merican
Association for the Advancement of Science, National Academy of Education,
American Educational Research Association, and the Finnish Academy of
­Science and Letters, one of its few international members.

Jason D. Way, PhD, is a senior research psychologist in the Center for Social,
Emotional, and Academic Learning at ACT, Inc. in Iowa City, Iowa. He is the
content owner of the ACT Behavioral Skills framework and the research lead
for the ACT Engage family of assessments and the ACT Tessera Workforce
 Contributors xxiii

assessment. His research interests are in the areas of personality and motiva-
tion and their relationships with academic and work criteria. He has published
in outlets such as European Journal of Personality, Personality and Individual
Differences, and Journal of College Student Retention, and has presented over
50 times at academic and professional conferences.

Dave Winsborough is the founder of Winsborough Limited and former Vice

President of Innovation at Hogan Assessment Systems. Dave has particular ex-
pertise in modern methods of psychological measurement and profiles, talent
management, leadership development, and high-performance teamwork. He
conducts and publishes research in these areas, in addition to having published
a recent book Fusion: The psychology of teams (2017).

Lindsey Young with multiple degrees in biology and education, is now work-
ing at Sparrow Hospital in Lansing, Michigan, as she prepares to apply to med-
ical school. A recipient of multiple fellowships from Michigan State University
and a contributor to Michigan Department of Education’s M-STEP Science,
her commitment to equity in health care and education remains a high priority.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 particularly whenever you referred to one of the maps that
you placed before the audience, in order to follow the
campaigns which you discussed. Isn’t that correct?”
Now listen to this:
“What I have written down I have actually spoken and I
followed this text written down by myself. But in regard to
the momentary situation on the various fronts”—and that is
Part 3 and 4, where you will find a note “delivered
extemporaneously”—“I had that so clearly in mind that I did
not need to base my speech on any written statements.
Also, I referred to the maps freely.”
Then the last question on this point:
“Is it not true, however, that the document before you
represents, in general, the speech that you gave at Munich
in November 1943 to this meeting?”
The answer is:
“Yes; much, without doubt, is the same. All the appendices
with regard to these various theaters of war and other
appendices I had not used during my speech. I had
returned them.”
Do you agree with your answer to that interrogation?
JODL: On the whole, you have confirmed just what I said.
However, I do not know why we have to talk so long about it. The
case is completely clear. It is...
MR. ROBERTS: Well, please do not worry yourself. I know I am
stopping you; but I apprehend that I am stopping you from saying
something quite irrelevant, and in the interest of time I regard it as
my duty to stop you. Please do not worry about why I should do
something.
I want to know whether that document roughly represents what
you said in the speech. It is quite a different thing to being in a
wastepaper basket.
 JODL: The introduction and the conclusion, as contained here in
the first draft were, of course, basically retained in the speech in this
form. However, the whole speech was only finally worked out on the
basis of this first draft; it was shortened, changed, parts were
crossed out, and mistakes were eliminated. And only then came the
main part of the speech for which only the material is here. There is
no proof, and I am not in a position to say whether I actually spoke
even one sentence of those which are here in the form in which it is
found in the first draft.
MR. ROBERTS: Very good; I will accept that.
JODL: If you give me a copy of my actual speech I will
recognize it.
MR. ROBERTS: That is all we can give you, Witness, because
that is all we found.
THE PRESIDENT: I think we might as well adjourn now.
MR. ROBERTS: If Your Lordship please.
[A recess was taken.]

DR. EXNER: Mr. President, I should like to call attention to the

following: When my client was interrogated here, he was heard
through an interpreter, since he does not understand the English
language. On the basis of this testimony the minutes were, as I have
just heard, set down in the English language. These minutes he
never saw and he did not sign them. And now these minutes, which
were compiled in English, are submitted to him in a German
translation. In my opinion it is quite impossible under such
circumstances to tie the defendant down to specific words which are
contained in the minutes. He abides by what he said, but he cannot
recognize everything that is in those minutes when...
THE PRESIDENT: That is true. We will keep these facts in mind.
The Tribunal will keep these facts in mind, if you will draw them to
their attention.
MR. ROBERTS: If it please the Tribunal, I am passing from that
point. The witness, I think, said the document was the basis of his
speech; and I accept that answer and I pass to another point.
 Would you please give the witness his diary, 1780-PS, German
C-113. And it is Page 133 in the large document book, Page 133.
Witness, I think you have seen this entry. My Lord, it is the 5th of
November 1937 I am dealing with:
“Führer develops his ideas about intentions for future
course and conduct of policy....”
Page 133 of the large book.
THE PRESIDENT: When you say, large book, you mean
Number 7?
MR. ROBERTS: Yes, Number 7; I am sorry. I should have given
it a number.
[Turning to the defendant.] 5th of November 1937:
“Führer develops his ideas about intentions for future
course and conduct of policy to the Commanders-in-Chief
of the Armed Forces...”—et cetera.
There is a divergence in the recording of his ideas as made by
the chief of Armed Forces and by the Commander-in-Chief of the Air
Force.
“...the intention of L...”—does that mean your department,
Landesverteidigung—its intention to have these thoughts put on
paper?
[There was no response.]
MR. ROBERTS: Please answer my question, Witness.
JODL: “Intention of L,” that means the intention of the
Department of National Defense (Landesverteidigung) to have these
thoughts put down on paper and transmitted to the branches of the
Wehrmacht.
MR. ROBERTS: Very good. Now, the meeting that you were
talking about was what we have called the Hossbach Conference,
was it not, which is 386-PS? The Tribunal is very familiar with it. You
remember the conference, do you not? You have read it many times
here?
JODL: Yes, but I was not present at this conference. I do recall
the things that were read here.
 MR. ROBERTS: I know you were not present. But presumably
you, as head of the Home Defense Department, were told of what
was said at the conference?
JODL: I have already stated with regard to that that the report
which I received was in no way sensational. The directives for the
preparations after this time are available to the Court in writing; what
we prepared and worked out at the time is proved thereby. We have
the orders of 20 May and of 14 June; they are available.
THE PRESIDENT: Defendant, you were only asked whether you
were told what happened at the conference. It was not necessary to
make a long statement about that.
MR. ROBERTS: You see, I try to put simple questions, and I am
asking for simple answers. The last thing I want is to interrupt you.
Were you told that at that conference Hitler said that Germany’s
problem was a question of space?
JODL: No, not one word.
MR. ROBERTS: Were you told that Hitler said that the German
question could only be solved by force?
JODL: No.
MR. ROBERTS: And were you told that Hitler said that German
rearmament was practically complete?
JODL: No.
MR. ROBERTS: And the last question I will ask you: Were you
told that Hitler said that the first aim in the event of war would be
Austria and Czechoslovakia?
JODL: The report about the more active preparations for the
march against Czechoslovakia was, I believe, contained in these
statements. But I can only say that the details which I received from
Field Marshal Keitel are not in my recollection at present. I recall only
one thing, that it was no surprise or sensation for me, and only small
corrections of the directives which had been given out up to that
point were necessary.
MR. ROBERTS: Very good. Thank you. Now then, you were not
present at Obersalzberg when Keitel was there with Schuschnigg the
following February, were you?
 JODL: No, I was not present.
MR. ROBERTS: But Keitel later told you what had happened?
JODL: He made a few brief remarks about that in narrative form,
for after all, I had no further concern in this matter.
MR. ROBERTS: Did you make that entry in your diary; that is,
the next entry to the one I was referring to, Page 133, Book 7, the
same page, under 11th of February 1938:
“Evening 12 February General Keitel, with General
Reichenau, and Sperrle at Obersalzberg. Schuschnigg and
Schmidt were again put under severest political and military
pressure.”
Did Keitel tell you that?
JODL: Yes. You have only inserted the word “again.” That is not
in my diary. This entry I made personally, because Keitel told me that
during lunch Reichenau and Sperrle had carried on warlike
conversations, that they had talked about the new rearmament of
Germany.
MR. ROBERTS: Very good. Now, in March—I think this is
common ground—you signed or initialed one or two orders for the
“Operation Otto.”
JODL: Yes; but at that time it was not called Otto but “For the
March into Austria.”
MR. ROBERTS: Hitler, when he heard that Schuschnigg was
going to obtain the opinion of the people by plebiscite, decided to
invade at once, did he not?
JODL: Yes, I was told, when he heard that there was to be a
grotesque violation of public opinion through the trick of a plebiscite,
he said that he would certainly not tolerate this under any
circumstances. This is what I was told.
MR. ROBERTS: He would not tolerate public opinion being
ascertained?
JODL: No; he would not tolerate public opinion being abused
through this trick. That is how it was told to me.
 MR. ROBERTS: So the Armed Forces of Germany then
marched into Austria? That is right?
JODL: That is right; the Wehrmacht marched in.
MR. ROBERTS: And Austria, from that day, received all the
benefits of National Socialism, is that right?
JODL: That is a political question. At any rate it could perhaps
have become the happiest country on earth.
MR. ROBERTS: I wasn’t asking what it could have become, but
what it received. It received the SS, the Gestapo, the concentration
camps, the suppression of opponents, and the persecution of Jews,
didn’t it?
JODL: Those are questions with which I did not concern myself.
Those questions you have to put to the competent authorities. In
addition it received me as artillery commander; and they loved me; I
only want to confirm that.
MR. ROBERTS: Very good. You say the people appeared
pleased to see you?
JODL: The people who were under my jurisdiction were very
happy about this officer; I can say that.
MR. ROBERTS: They had to appear to be, whether they were
or not, didn’t they?
JODL: No, they did not have to be. At any rate, after I had been
away for a long time, they certainly did not have to write enthusiastic
letters to me, letters which I received throughout the war from these
Austrians to whom my heart belonged.
MR. ROBERTS: There was one man who was not pleased to
see you, wasn’t there?
JODL: I know no such person.
MR. ROBERTS: Don’t you?
JODL: No.
MR. ROBERTS: What about Schuschnigg?
JODL: I never saw Schuschnigg. He doesn’t know me and I do
not know him. I don’t know...
 MR. ROBERTS: He wasn’t pleased to see you come in, was
he?
JODL: I cannot say that.
MR. ROBERTS: What happened to him?
THE PRESIDENT: We know that, Mr. Roberts.
MR. ROBERTS: I quite realize that. I can’t imagine my question
is not admissible, but if you don’t want me to put it—it is one of a
series of questions—I won’t.
Schuschnigg was put in a concentration camp, wasn’t he?
JODL: I was told that the Führer had decided: “I do not want a
martyr, under any circumstances, but I cannot liberate him; I must
put him in honorary custody.” That was the impression I had during
the entire war.
MR. ROBERTS: Honorary custody?
JODL: It was called honorary custody.
MR. ROBERTS: What? Was he an honorary member of
Dachau?
JODL: That I do not know. Those are not questions that you can
put to me, for I was a soldier and not the commandant of a
concentration camp.
MR. ROBERTS: That is an honor that one would be glad to
dispense with, isn’t it?
JODL: I would gladly dispense with much that took place during
these years.
DR. EXNER: Please, I must protest against questions like that,
purely political and based purely on legal questions and on matters
which the defendant cannot at all answer through his own
knowledge. It is not a fact whether Schuschnigg was happy.
MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, in my respectful submission, these
questions are perfectly proper; they are questions the like of which
have been put by every counsel who has cross-examined both for
the Prosecution and the Defense.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Roberts, the Tribunal thinks that the
cross-examination is proper.
 MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, I am passing from that point. I am
grateful to you.
[Turning to the defendant.] The only question I ask in conclusion
is that Schuschnigg was kept in prison or kept in confinement for
several years without any charge and any trial. That is right, isn’t it?
JODL: It may be, I do not know.
MR. ROBERTS: You knew, did you not, when you signed those
orders for the march into Austria, that Germany had given an
assurance in May 1935 to respect the territorial integrity of the state
of Austria and that on the 11th of July 1936 there had been entered
into by your Government and the Austrian Government an
agreement by Germany to recognize the full sovereignty of the
Federal State of Austria? Did you know of these things?
JODL: At that moment I did not know that; in my position as a
colonel in the General Staff that did not concern me in the least.
What would that have led to?
MR. ROBERTS: I am passing from Austria with this one last
question: Is there an entry in your diary—it is a passage in L-172, the
basis for the draft of your speech—that after the Anschluss
Czechoslovakia was enclosed by pincers and was bound to fall a
victim? My Lord, that is Page 290 of Book 7. Do you remember that
passage?
JODL: In the first draft which I made for my Gauleiter speech it
was put down exactly what strategic improvements had taken place
through the various actions of the Führer, in retrospect, but only
these strategic results....
MR. ROBERTS: Well, but—again I do not want to stop you, but
did you say that—something to this effect—and I will give you the
document if you like—that Czechoslovakia was enclosed by pincers
and was bound to fall a victim?
JODL: In the first draft I set down that through the taking over—
through the Anschluss of Austria—the strategic situation of
Czechoslovakia had become so hopeless that at any time it must fall
a victim to a pincers attack; a strategic retrospect about facts,
indisputable facts.
 MR. ROBERTS: I accept that, Witness. Now I go very shortly to
the case of Czechoslovakia. I only want to deal really with a couple
of documents. I want to deal with item 17, which the Tribunal will find
on Page 29 of Book 7. And it is marked—if you’ll hand it up—and I
have flagged that for you, Witness, item 17.
JODL: Yes.
MR. ROBERTS: You are familiar with that?
JODL: Yes, I know that.
MR. ROBERTS: And I do not propose to read it again, because
it was read very recently; but you agree, do you not, you said
yesterday, the problem was this: First of all, you must have a
surprise attack; if you were going to attack at all, you must have a
surprise attack.
JODL: On the basis of the stipulations made by the Führer; yes.
MR. ROBERTS: You must have a surprise attack first, and your
troops would take 4 days to get into their battle position.
JODL: Yes.
MR. ROBERTS: And therefore you must know the time, the
incident which is going to be the cause of the attack; you must know
the time when the incident is going to take place.
JODL: Yes, I said that one would either have to predetermine
the time or one must know it in advance; otherwise the demands
could not be carried out.
MR. ROBERTS: And, therefore, you must create the incident
yourself.
JODL: I testified to that at length yesterday. Either one of the
many had to be exploited or perhaps one would have to help the
situation along a bit; but, as I said, those are General Staff
considerations which, when we capture them from the French, you
consider entirely irrelevant.
MR. ROBERTS: It is set down at the end of the document on
Page 30 that either the Wehrmacht or the counterintelligence section
would be charged with the manufacture of the incident in the last
paragraph.
 JODL: Yes, I therefore wrote: “In case the counterintelligence
service is not charged with the organization of an incident aside from
that”—“in case.” These are all theoretical deliberations of the
General Staff in a situation, which I depicted quite accurately
yesterday, where such incidents already occurred every day.
MR. ROBERTS: I know. Then, if this had taken place, the world
would have been told that because of that incident Germany had
been compelled to go to war?
JODL: I do not believe that this would have been reported to the
world. Rather, I believe the true reason would have been told the
world, which, furthermore, was made known constantly through the
press, that 3½ million Germans cannot be used as slaves by another
people permanently. That was the issue.
MR. ROBERTS: If the world is going to be told the truth, what is
the earthly good of manufacturing an incident?
JODL: I testified as to that yesterday—I can only repeat what I
said yesterday at length: I knew the history of war too well not to
know that in every war things like that happen—the question as to
who fired the first shot. And Czechoslovakia at that time had already
fired thousands of shots which had fallen on this territory.
MR. ROBERTS: Now, I say, Witness, subject to correction, that
you are not answering the question at all. The question was a very
short one and you make a long speech about something quite
different. The question is, if the truth was sufficient to justify your
going to war, why should you want to manufacture an incident? If
you can’t answer it, say so.
JODL: Well, it isn’t at all confirmed that I wanted to bring about
an incident. I wrote, “in case ... not.” We never prepared one and that
is surely the essential thing.
MR. ROBERTS: I won’t argue any further with you. I have put
my point and will leave it. But now I want, on quite another point, to
refer to the last paragraph on Page 29, the same document:
“Even a warning of the diplomatic representatives in Prague
is impossible before the first air attack, although the
 consequence could be very grave in the event of their
becoming victims of such an attack.”
Perhaps you would read this paragraph, known already to the
Tribunal.
“...death of representatives of friendly or confirmed neutral
powers.”
That means an air raid before there has been any declaration of
war or any warning to the civilian population, doesn’t it?
JODL: That meant that I called the attention of the Führer,
through this document, to the fact that on the basis of his decree that
result could or would come about.
MR. ROBERTS: Would you call that a terror attack? A terror
attack?
JODL: It cannot be said under what conditions such an action
would be launched. These are all theoretical tasks for our General
Staff. How and if that was translated into practice, that no one can
say, whether with justice or injustice; that depended on the political
decision.
MR. ROBERTS: I will show you later how those thoughts were
carried into practice in the case of other countries. So we will leave
that document altogether now and I will leave the case of
Czechoslovakia. Now you were recalled to the OKW on the 23d of
August 1939, from your artillery employment. We know that, don’t
we?
JODL: Yes.
MR. ROBERTS: That was a great compliment to the opinion
that the Führer had of you, wasn’t it?
JODL: The Führer was not responsible for my being called back.
I do not know whether he knew about it at all. I do not believe so.
MR. ROBERTS: Very good. On a very small point, Witness, you
told the Court yesterday or the day before that you never had a
conference with the Führer, I think, until September 1939; but your
diary, on the 10th of August 1938—it is Page 136 of Book 7—your
diary said you attended a conference at the Berghof with the Army
chiefs and the Air Force groups. Didn’t you meet the Führer then?
JODL: That which you asserted in your first sentence, I did not
say. What I said was, word for word:
“On 3 September I was introduced to the Führer by Field
Marshal Keitel, and on this occasion, at any rate, I spoke
with him for the first time.”
That is what I testified to, word for word, yesterday. I had seen
the Führer a dozen times before then and I had heard him when he
delivered his big speeches, after he was Reich Chancellor and
Supreme Commander.
MR. ROBERTS: Yes, I accept that. It is quite likely that I was
wrong. Now, with regard to the Polish campaign, did I hear you right
when you said that Warsaw was only bombed after leaflets had been
dropped?
JODL: That applies to the period of the siege of Warsaw. The
terror attack, I might say, which was to hit the entire city through
artillery bombardment, that took place after two previous warnings.
MR. ROBERTS: It is a matter of history, is it not, that Warsaw
was bombed, with many other Polish towns, in the early hours of the
1st of September 1939 before any declaration of war? Isn’t that a
matter of history?
JODL: As far as this historical fact is concerned, Field Marshal
Kesselring, who is very well informed about this, testified to that here
in detail. He said—and also Reich Marshal Göring—that on this date
the militarily important objectives throughout Poland were attacked
but not the population of Warsaw.
MR. ROBERTS: Very good. You are quite right, now Kesselring
—If the Tribunal wants the reference, he gave evidence as to the
bombing of Warsaw, the English transcript, Page 5731 (Volume IX,
Page 175).
[Turning to the defendant.] Now, I suppose the result of the
Polish campaign was naturally a source of satisfaction to all of you?
JODL: The military development of the Polish campaign, from
the military point of view, was extremely satisfactory to us. Of course
things happen in life that would give more satisfaction than a military
action.
MR. ROBERTS: Well, now, I want you to look at a letter. This is
—My Lord, this is a new exhibit, D-885, and it is GB-484.
That letter is in your writing, is it not? Is it in your writing?
JODL: Yes.
MR. ROBERTS: Very good. Now, it is written to Police President
Dr. Karl Schwabe, Brünn, Moravia, Police Presidency, dated October
28, 1939:
“My dear Police President: For your enthusiastic letter of 22
September, I thank you heartily. I was quite particularly
pleased about it. This wonderful campaign in Poland was a
grand opening for this hard and decisive struggle and has
brought about for us an unusually favorable point of
departure politically as well as militarily. The difficult part for
the people as well as the Armed Forces is still ahead.”—I
propose to read it without comments and comment
afterward.
“But the Führer and his associates are full of the greatest
confidence; for the sanctimonious British will not succeed in
throttling our economy, and militarily we are without worry.
Decisive is the will of the people to stick it out, and this the
many strong-willed and devoted men who are today at the
head of the districts and in other responsible posts will take
care of. This time we will show that we have better nerves
and greater unity. That you, Police President, will contribute
your weighty share to keeping the Czechs at it and not let
them perk up, of this I am convinced.”
Then he is very pleased about the high recognition granted to
the troops:
“Thanking you heartily once more for your words of
appreciation which exceed my modest contribution in the
shadow of the powerful personality of our Führer. I am with
a Heil Hitler.”
 Why did you call the British sanctimonious? Because they keep
treaties and don’t have concentration camps and don’t persecute
Jews? Is that why you thought we were sanctimonious, because we
don’t break treaties?
JODL: No, that was not the reason. The reason was that the
political situation generally was represented that way, and that I was
actually of that opinion at the time.
MR. ROBERTS: Very good. Now you deal with:
“Decisive is the will of the people to stick it out, and this the
many strong-willed and devoted men who are at the head
of the districts and in other responsible posts will take care
of.”
Who were these strong-willed and devoted men? Is that the SS
and the Gestapo?
JODL: No, these are the Gauleiter.
MR. ROBERTS: The Gauleiter?
JODL: Yes.
MR. ROBERTS: Well, but I mean we have one or two Gauleiter
here, Gauleiter Sauckel, for instance; in a large area like Thuringia,
he couldn’t do much by himself, could he? He would have to have
some SS or Gestapo, wouldn’t he?
JODL: We are not at all concerned with that here. The fact is
that these Gauleiter actually directed the organization of the State
and the administration in this war in a noteworthy way. Despite the
catastrophe the people were much better taken care of than in the
years 1914-18. That is uncontested and it is to the credit of these
people.
MR. ROBERTS: They were better taken care of?
JODL: Even in the most terrible conditions at the end every man
in Berlin received his normal rations. It was a model of organization, I
can only say that.
MR. ROBERTS: And a model of organization because no
opposition to the government or the Party was allowed, was it?
 JODL: Certainly, it made it easier on one hand, and on the other
hand, led to terrible catastrophes about which, of course, I only
heard here for the first time.
MR. ROBERTS: Very good. Well, the letter speaks for itself, and
I will go along. May I just ask you about this last sentence:
“That you, Police President, will contribute your weighty
share to keeping the Czechs at it and to not let them perk
up...”
What did you mean by that?
JODL: Since he was Police President in Brünn, it was his task to
see that quiet and order were maintained in Brünn and not to tolerate
a Czech uprising at our backs while we were at war. That is a matter
of course. I did not say that he was to murder or germanize the
Czechs at all, but he had to keep them in order.
MR. ROBERTS: Very good. I pass from that now and I want to
go to the various campaigns in the West. Now, with regard to
Norway, of course you knew that your country had given its solemn
word repeatedly to respect the integrity of Norway and Denmark, did
you not?
JODL: I said yesterday, with reference to the two declarations
of...
MR. ROBERTS: Please answer my question, it is such a simple
one.
JODL: Yes, I believe, I recalled that at the time. I am quite sure.
MR. ROBERTS: Very good; and we know there was an
assurance at the beginning of the war to reassure all these western
neutrals, and there was another assurance on the 6th of October;
and you say that in November Hitler decided to invade Denmark and
Norway?
JODL: Yes. I testified as to that at length yesterday.
MR. ROBERTS: I know you did. Please don’t always say that. I
have got to ask you to go over the same ground from the other
angle, you see. “Norway,” as your speech said—and I am quoting
from Page 291 of Book 7—perhaps you had better give it to him—
Page 11 of your notes...
 [Turning to the Tribunal.] It is in the middle, My Lord, under
Paragraph 8:
“In the meantime we were confronted by a new and urgent
problem: The occupation of Norway and Denmark....
“In the first place there was danger that England would
seize Scandinavia and thereby, besides effecting a strategic
encirclement from the north, would stop the import of iron
and nickel which was of such importance to us for war
purposes. Secondly, it was with the realization of our own
maritime necessities”—“Notwendigkeiten”—that is the word,
isn’t it—“Notwendigkeiten”...
My Lord, that ought to be “necessary” and not
“imperative”—“erforderten.”
“...which made it necessary for us to secure free access to
the Atlantic by a number of air and naval bases.”
[Turning to the defendant.] You wanted air bases and U-boat
bases, didn’t you?
JODL: Militarily they were tremendously important to us, there is
no doubt about that; but the prerequisites to taking them, those were
the reports which we had, the threat to Norway.
MR. ROBERTS: What I suggest to you, you see, is this: In this,
like the case of the other three Low Countries—in this case, you
simply made an excuse. You thought England might do something,
although she had not done it for months, and you breached
Norway’s neutrality at your own chosen time. Is that right?
JODL: In order to answer that question “yes” or “no,” one would
have to undertake a very thorough study of all the historical
documents on both our own and the other side. Then one can say if
it is correct or not. Before that has been decided, only a subjective
opinion exists. I have mine, and you have another.
MR. ROBERTS: Yes. And I point out to you that it was Germany
on every occasion who violated the neutrality. The other countries,
the Allies, did not.
 JODL: In the case of Norway, the English did that first in the
case of the Altmark by laying mines and by firing upon German ships
in Norwegian territorial waters. That has been proved indisputably.
There is no doubt about that.
MR. ROBERTS: The Altmark, as you very well know, Witness,
was not an occupation at all; it was merely the act of the British Navy
in taking British prisoners from a German prison ship, and I imagine
your Navy would have done the same if they had had the chance.
What is the good of talking about the Altmark? It was not an
occupation at all.
JODL: But it was a violation of international law as far as
Norwegian sovereignty was concerned. You could only request that
Norway do that, but you yourselves could not carry out a combative
action in Norwegian waters. I know the regulations in this connection
exactly.
MR. ROBERTS: Why should you break your word to Norway
and cause untold suffering and misery to the inhabitants of that
country because the British went into the territorial waters and took
out a few hundred prisoners? What is the logic of it? Why should the
Norwegians suffer for it?
JODL: You are just quoting one small example from the
tremendously real picture of England’s occupation, but there are
hundreds of them.
MR. ROBERTS: It is the example you quoted, Witness, not I. I
did not quote it.
JODL: I can only say that we were under the definite subjective
impression that we carried through an enterprise, in the last second,
for which British troops were already embarked. If you can prove to
me that is not true, I shall be extremely grateful to you.
MR. ROBERTS: Well, now I am going to call your attention to
the only outside evidence that you have produced about that,
because it was read rather hurriedly—quite rightly, yesterday.
[Turning to the Tribunal.] My Lord, it is in Jodl’s Document Book
2, and it is Page 174. Well, My Lord, it begins at Page 174. My Lord,
that is on the left-hand top corner. Page 174 says that Albrecht
Soltmann was an expert specialist, that he evaluated files from the
British landing brigade, and that he examined diaries. That is on the
second page, and the bottom of Page 175:
“The documents and statements by prisoners showed that
a short time before our landing in Norway the British
invasion troops had been embarked on destroyers. On the
following day they were again disembarked and remained
in the vicinity of the port of embarkation. They were then
reembarked after the German invasion of Norway for the
second time and transported to Norway. What intention the
English pursued in the embarkation of their troops before
our landings could not be determined from the documents
and from the statements of prisoners. Whether they
intended to occupy Norway before our invasion could at
that time only be conjectured, because the prisoners did not
make any exact statements in this respect. The conjectures
are based on the special equipment of these British troops.
Insofar as I could evaluate the documents and statements
furnished by prisoners they did not contain proof of the
English plans with regard to Norway.”
And this is the next question:
“Have not the results of all documents and statements
furnished by prisoners been to the effect that in the invasion
of Norway we arrived only just ahead of the English?
“Answer: ‘Yes, the information in the documents and the
statements furnished by prisoners could be interpreted to
mean that in our invasion we were just ahead of the
English. However, whether this was considered
unmistakable evidence I cannot judge.’ ”
And then they deal with French documents captured in a railway
train. The witness does not know anything about them.
[Turning to the defendant.] That is pretty poor evidence, isn’t it,
on which Norway was to be invaded, contrary to all the treaties and
all the assurances?
JODL: I quite agree with you on that; you are quite correct. But
that is only because Soltmann was unfortunately not the expert in
this field. He was not even an officer of the General Staff. I had
forgotten that. We had further and quite different evidence which lay
before me on my desk; namely, all the commands carried by the
English landing brigade. They confirmed our assumptions absolutely
and definitely.
MR. ROBERTS: An invasion without any warning or any
declaration of war?
JODL: That is a political question.
MR. ROBERTS: You have told the Court yesterday what a
stickler you were about international law, how keen you were to see
that international law was observed. You knew that was against
international law, didn’t you?
JODL: These matters were not in our regulations, but only the
provisions which applied to the Wehrmacht. The concept of an
aggressive war was not found in any regulation. We went only by the
Geneva Convention and the Hague Land Warfare Regulations.
MR. ROBERTS: I mean if an honorable German gives his word
he keeps it, does he not? He does not break his word without saying
that he is going to depart from it, does he, an honorable German?
JODL: That seems to be a practice which is generally observed
all over the world when human beings work together, but not in the
sphere of politics.
MR. ROBERTS: If that is your code of honor, why is it not
grossly dishonorable for Germany to break her word over and over
and ever again? Or would you rather not answer that question?
JODL: No, you would do better to put that question to the people
who were responsible for German politics.
MR. ROBERTS: Very well, I will leave that. Now I want to come
to the invasion of Holland, Belgium, and the Netherlands. I beg your
pardon, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg.
You have no doubt at all, have you, on the documents that in the
event of war in the West, it was always Hitler’s intention to violate the
neutrality of those three small countries?
JODL: From the beginning, in his orders for the attacks in the
West, he had the intention to go through Belgium; but he had
reservations with regard to Holland for a long time, which were only
rescinded later—I believe in the middle of November. Regarding
Holland his intentions were not specific. Regarding Belgium his
intentions in that direction were known comparatively early, that is,
about the middle or the early part of October.
MR. ROBERTS: You could not, of course—I mean Germany
naturally wanted to wage an offensive war and an offensive war in
somebody else’s country. That is the ambition, naturally, isn’t it?
JODL: The German objective in this war was to win, at that time.
MR. ROBERTS: Yes. You couldn’t attack in the West unless you
attacked through Belgium, could you?
JODL: In any event, any other attack was tremendously difficult
and was highly doubtful. I have already said that.
MR. ROBERTS: Yes. That is why, of course, France built the
Maginot Line, so that you couldn’t attack her frontally.
Well, now, if you secured the coast of Belgium and Holland, you
secured air bases from which you could annihilate England or Great
Britain. That is what you hoped, wasn’t it?
JODL: No doubt the strategic position of Germany in the battle
against England improved through our having the coast; that is true.
MR. ROBERTS: Yes. May I just remind you of a few documents
which the Tribunal know already. I do not intend to read them, but
the first document in order of date is 375-PS, USA-84, dated 25
August 1938. It is during the Fall Grün time. That was the Air Force
appreciation which, in the last paragraph of the document, Page 11, I
think, it says:
“Belgium and the Netherlands in German hands would
represent an extraordinary advantage in the air war against
Great Britain....”
And the Army is asked to say how long it would take.
That was at the time of the Czechoslovakian crisis, wasn’t it?
JODL: Yes, but this document, I believe, has already been
characterized as a ridiculous piece of paper, being the work of an
insignificant captain.