DR. JAHRREISS: Mr. President, so as to clarify matters, may I ask at this time whether the objection raised by Mr. Roberts means that in this case the rule applies that something which has not been touched upon in cross-examination can be considered proved? I am not sure whether I have made myself understood. The objection from the prosecutor apparently is based on the supposition that something has been heard...
THE PRESIDENT: I don’t think you need lay down any hard and fast rules, but General Jodl gave general evidence about the nature of these “situation conferences,” and he was not cross-examined on it. It doesn’t seem at all necessary to go into the general nature of these conferences with any other witness.
DR. JAHRREISS: Thank you.
[Turning to the witness.] Witness, it is possible in military life for an officer to receive an order with which he does not agree, is it not?
WINTER: Yes.
DR. JAHRREISS: In that case, is it possible for him to put his divergent opinion on record?
WINTER: In the German Army, if I remember rightly, such a possibility existed from the time of Moltke. An order from Hitler which came out in 1938—I think, in winter 1938-39—removed such a possibility once and for all. An order was issued at the time prohibiting even chiefs of general staffs and command authorities from putting their divergent opinions on record.
DR. JAHRREISS: In order to avoid creating difficulties for the interpretation, will you please explain the word “Aktenkundig”?
WINTER: According to that it was not possible to include in the official files or in the war diaries of events kept by command staffs any comments to the effect that the chief was not in agreement with the decision or order of his superior.
DR. JAHRREISS: It was canceled?