It is a note, is it not, Witness, signed Warlimont, your deputy, 15 October. I think you will find it the second document in your file. I do not want to read it all again because it has been read, but you see: “The Proposal of the Amt Ausland Abwehr will be submitted as Appendix 1.”
The Tribunal will find Appendix 1, in which he says—in which it is suggested, under letter “A,” that sabotage troops who do not wear uniforms should be court-martialed. You have said “no.” You have given your reasons. I will not worry you about that any more. And then “B”; members of sabotage units, who are in uniform but are guilty of dishonorable activities are after capture to be put into special confinement. Do you say that that does not go either?
And then, if you will go back to 15 October, just the second paragraph down:
“The Chief of WR”—that is the Legal Department—“has made a statement to the effect that the order was to be drawn up in such a way that it will take into account our own interests...”
Is it “our own interests,” Witness? “Take into account our own interests”?
JODL: Yes, “our own interests.”
MR. ROBERTS: “...our own interests while considering the future conduct of the war. In this way he wanted to avoid repercussions which would run counter to our further intentions. Sabotage is an essential part of conducting war in time of total warfare; we ourselves have strongly developed this method of fighting.”
And you write against that, do you, “But the English make much more use of it”?
JODL: Yes, it is an undeniable fact that at that time of the war the English made much more use of it than we.
MR. ROBERTS: Is that a reason for making a law, an order of this kind, to try and discourage the English from using sabotage detachments?