Talk:Alfred Jodl

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Germany Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

I edited the story last night and found it wiped clean again this morning! fast action! My problem with the article remains the same: Jodl is NOT rehabilitated. One of the sources (shoah.de) is clear about that. I think that should be included in the text. Whether or not he was NOT guilty is irrelevant. Like one of you wrote earlier: "This means that Jodl was rehabilitated in February 1953 but a few months later, in September, that verdict was revoked, allegedly under U.S. pressure."

Lennart Vogelaar 83.160.20.208 09:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Acquittal

Why was he acquitted? --HappyDog 01:45, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Because he wasn't guilty, at least not of anything that the allies didn't do themselves.

He wasn't guilty of anything that the allies didn't do themselves? He was a nazi, wasn't he?

Well I don't know he was an Army officer, 'Only following Orders' is the traditional excuse, in his case it was found t be the case.

Being a Nazi was/is not sufficient evidence to be convicted of war crimes, you actually have to do something directly 'wrong'.

In his case he was an Army Officer, not for the Nazi cause, but then again not couragous enough to do anything against it, just another one of the faceless accomplaces of Hitler, albeit one with a high rank.

Whatever. The problematic thing is that no source is cited. Such a final sentence—or, on the other hand, its omission—may easily give a completely wrong impression (either way). I googled <Jodl 1953> and what I mostly came up with was mirrors of Wikipedia, so that wasn't a great help.
However, I found a web site called http://www.shoa.de/ , where a Hubert Beckers (Netherlands) writes ( http://www.shoa.de/content/view/255/202/ ):
Das Urteil war - auch in alliierten Militärkreisen - von Anfang an umstritten. Seiner Witwe Luise Jodl blieb, ihre Bemühungen um die Rehabilitierung fortzusetzen. Im Jahre 1953 wurde Jodl am 28. Februar von der deutschen Hauptspruchkammer in München posthum rehabilitiert und der ihm zur Last gelegten Völkerrechtsbrüche nicht schuldig befunden, allerdings unter Ausklammerung des Anklagepunktes "Verbrechen gegen den Frieden". Sein Besitz, rechtsgültig 1946 eingezogen, wurde der Witwe zurückgegeben.
Später aber hob die bayerische Staatskanzlei unter amerikanischem Druck das Münchener Urteil auf und am 3. September 1953 widerrief der bayerische Minister für Politische Befreiung den Widerruf des Jodl-Urteils.
This means that Jodl was rehabilitated in February 1953 but a few months later, in September, that verdict was revoked, allegedly under U.S. pressure.
We should really ask someone very knowledgeable about this matter to write the final part of Jodl's biography. <KF> 22:17, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Try the german wiki page about jodl, they say, after his wife had made some kind of deal behind the cutain with the americans, who threatend to take the case themselves, wich would have ment also not in favour of Jodl, after those had an agreement, a mayor declared the revoked verdict for revoked (excuse my english, writing under time pressure). Should not be too hard to find the archive, where those records of the trials (nürnber and the civil trial) are mentioned. I am working in an archive, I'll try to get some confirmation on this. As of accusing someone as a nazi, not all millitary have the balls, to stand up, knowing that this would mean certain danger to themselves and their family, some just try to get along with times. And you should not ever forget one thing: Their education as officers in an army (whatever army in the past 150+ years) includes historic analysis of battles and that people die ther a lot, mostly because politians F*** things up. Their job is war. Some never learn to think beyond that.
  • I have yet again removed the acquittal claim from the article. Could someone who knows german and/or history well please add the complete story, including revoked acuittals and so on (compare Talk:Nuremberg Trials). We must have good sources for such an important claim. -- Woseph 11:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
A professional soldier's job is basically plan to kill,destroy the enemy. Talking about humanity is a poor attemp in this situation because Allies also killed,wounded many Axis soldiers and civilians. At least, they had to let him to be killed by the shooting squad. Hermann Göring's popular quote, "the victor will always be the judge, and the vanquished the accused". With respect, Deliogul 22:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] acquittal claim removed again

I removed it once more. As others have said: if details and sources can be provided for this claim, I have no problem with its inclusion; but it is such a statement needs more detail & verifiable sources before it can be mentioned in Wikipedia. --SJK 10:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cremation, Place of scattering the ashes

It is not true that Jodl (or one of the other Nuremberg executees, for that matter) was cremated at Dachau. They were cremated at the Munich Crematory, and their ashes scattered into a little stream named Kowentzbach, running into the river Isar. Don't have the sources at hand, but I think it is in Maser's book on the International Military Tribunal. --Traugott 13:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] most brilliant minds of German military history?

General Jodl was one of the most brilliant minds of German military history. (?)

This assertion is unsupported by any evidence. No German general in their post war memoirs ever refers to Jodl as “a brilliant military mind” To classify Jodl as one of the “most brilliant minds of German military history” would be funny if such a gross misstatement wasn’t found in an ‘encyclopedia’. Any student was a passing knowledge of the war understands Jodl and Keitel were Hitler’s office boys. Jodl did nothing to alter the course of the war. He simply translated Hitler’s orders through the military chain of command. Peacock words like “brilliant” for Jodl are sadly misplaced. Jodl was a military nobody; an empty uniform. I ask the author to provide evidence that Jodl or Keitel did anything other than serve as Hitler’s military secretaries. I corrected this absurdity once, but I have don’t have the patience to do it again.

[edit] acquittal claim

Why remove the acquittal claim? It's a FACT that he was acquitted in 1953 by a German commission of all charges. Whether it was or was not deserved doesn't matter. It's a fact and the fact should be added back to the article. http://www.nndb.com/people/919/000031826/ DTE 01:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

To include the "exoneration" information, one would need to cite a reliable source, and the nndb.com does not quite qualify. Further, in the interest of WP:NPOV, some discussion of why he was exonerated, and the inevitable criticism of that act, should be included. Until these two conditions are met, I will revert the addition of exoneration information. Xoloz 04:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bad History

This article is probably the most ill-informed history article I have seen on Wikipedia. Jodl was convicted based on his participation of the Commissar and Commando orders, his role in the appalling treatment of Soviet POW's, and his planning of aggressive war in Eastern Europe. None of these issues is disputed. However, there is no discussion here of his role in these acts--there is only advocacy that he should not have been convicted. Very slanted, to say the least. Zathraszathras 13:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

AKA Victor's Justice. If you feel so strongly about the acts you allege, feel free to write them. Don't waste time whining about the treatment of Soviet POWs. Should I go dispute netruality because it's not mentioned enough how many women the Soviets raped when they defeated Germany? Abacab 21:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Alleging that others did evil acts does not exonerate him. He was convicted of very specific offenses which anyone could see were violations of the Geneva conventions. This is not in dispute, and that is what the article should discuss. Your red herrings have nothing to do with that. Zathraszathras 17:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I was not excusing bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior. Rather, I was making the point that I could just as easily point to atrocities committed by the Soviets which are routinely "forgotten" by the far left on this planet. Regardless, I have no objection to mentioning what Jodl was "convicted" of despite my opinion (and many others) of what a mockery of a judicial proceeding the "Nuremburg Trials" were. Furthermore, Germany never ratified the "Geneva Conventions" according to the Wikipedia articles. I do not know if this is true but since this site likes to cite itself, I will go on that. If this article is going to be fair, it should include what he was convicted of, the circumstances of the Nuremburg Trials, the objects to those trials and his subsequent exoneration by a GERMAN court. Include all the information, not cherry picked things to condemn every member of the German military. Abacab 04:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Your "opinion" should not be placed as fact on this site. Perhaps that is why the neutrality tag is there. Also, Germany did ratify the Geneva and Hague Conventions and in fact Jodl and Hitler argued about whether it would be a good idea to renounce the Convention (Germany never did renounce them). I agree that it should include what he was convicted of, and this needs to be more detailed, certainly needing more detailed information than a German court's advisory opinion. Any criticism of the Nuremberg trials belongs on the page for the Nuremberg trials, if at all, since they seem POV. Zathraszathras 17:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
No wonder user "Abacab" was banned... This article is simply TRASH. Saint Jodl, amen! 201.19.82.27 20:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] homosexual attraction to his master?

"that Jodl in fact had a homosexual attraction to his master" This is a joke, I assume. What possible relevance does this baseless assertion have? Can we please stick to the historical facts? This is not the place for dubious motivational speculations. Jodl was a fag! Come on, sounds like something Lenny Bruce would say. Please get this silly comment out of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.46.199.232 (talk) 18:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


What a poor excuse for a history article. Even the history channel - which is about as slanted as you can get on WW2 - looks good/excellent compared to this. Browsing the article and comments it appears some of the participants have very expensive academic degrees - you must be able to do better than this ( maybe not). Homo - boy are you reaching on that - he had a mistress( no guarantee) but with Hitler? Hitler hated his guts - at least after he called Hitler an incompetent. I would love to see the citation ( some book I quess) to see if the citation reference is anything but hot air. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.80.141 (talk) 18:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

An afterthought - wiki seems to have a problem with hommosexuals when they are "the enemy". In other areas you can get yourself banned from wiki for any slight against homosexuals - what is the wiki policy. ( ie If Hitler was a homosexual what does wiki thinks this means?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.80.141 (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] That Acquittal Story

THE TEXT IN QUESTION
Jodl's Nuremberg verdict was controversial in U.S. military circles and in February 28, 1953, a West German court in Munich posthumously acquitted him of all charges. His property, confiscated in 1946, was returned to his widow. However, yielding to U.S. pressure the Bavarian government recanted the court's judgment: on September 3, 1953 the Bavarian state minister of "political liberation" overturned the earlier revocation of the Nuremberg judgment.[1][2]


Were the alleged acquittal/exoneration and the subsequent overturning of the verdict by the Bavarian government reported in the news media at the time? If not, the story should be dismissed as an urban myth. Norvo (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

There are further problems. The websites I've seen claim that Jodl was acquitted by a 'denazification court' (Spruchgericht), but these tribunals had been dissolved in 1951. There are things about the 'acquittal' that simply don't add up. Norvo (talk) 23:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The main source is a holocaust remembrance site shoah.de, and the article on Jodl seems very well researched. I doubt holocaust sites would dabble in urban myths. He was exhonerated by the: von der deutschen Hauptspruchkammer in München.
Have a look at Talk:Nuremberg_Trials#Alfred_Jodl, at the bottom you have a link to a Polish article, where the dates of the sources used is 1953, indicating that there was still denazification activity in Bavaria in 1953.--Stor stark7 Talk 00:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I can't read Polish. Neither holocaust nor Polish (nor any other sites) are immune from adopting myths in good faith. I think the key thing is to find out whether the 'acquittal' was reported in 1953. If not, there's a very big problem indeed. For the end of denazification, please see the last section of this article:

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entnazifizierung. Norvo (talk) 01:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I cant read Polish, but the reference to primary sources in the Bavarian landesarkiv indicates that the Polish paper was not influenced by any myths. How are we supposed to find out if the aquital was reported in the press? I think newspaper stories from the time are irrelevant in this case anyway, since West Germany was under military occupation until 1955. As a comparison, are the following events untrue unless we uncover newspaper reports from the time?[3], [4], [5], [6].

As to the German wikipedia article I'm very skeptical, It was fairly quick to find a German state where denazification was occurring in 1953[7], thus it did not end in 1951. Cheers--Stor stark7 Talk 20:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

copied from my talkpage

Hi Piotrus. Could you please check this Polish paper and confirm if the records in the landesarkiv confirm that Jodl was aquited in 1953? (It's at the end) Please respond here Talk:Alfred_Jodl. Thanks. --Stor stark7 Talk 20:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Luise Jodl, Jodl's widows, asked in 1952 for the 1946 to be overturned by the denazification court in Monachium. That was also related to whether the government could or couldn't confiscate Jodl's possessions. In a series of appeals and such a compromise was reached in 1953: Luise Jodl kept the inheritance and military rent after her husband, but the 1946 decree was not overturned. It appears that the German courts were leaning towards overturning but gave to American pressure against it. PS. That means that Jodl was finally not acquitted; the current version of the article is correct.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Piotrus. So no aquittal or exhoneration. The article needs amending. Stok Stark, sensenational events about well known people are newsworthy; widespread rape may or may not get reported. Incidentally, West Germany regained sovereignty in stages between 1949 and 1955. By 1953 the Allies very rarely intervened in internal German affairs and they didn't censor the press. Norvo (talk) 23:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Just so newcomers to this discussion don't get the wrong idea, I've copied the continued discussion from Piotrus and Norvos talk pages. --Stor stark7 Talk 00:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I wonder whether you made a slip at the end of your interesting contribution to the discussion page on Jodl. When you wrote: 'That means that Jodl was finally not acquitted; the current version of the article is correct' did you in fact mean incorrect? The link leads to the Wikipedia article on Jodl, which has the story about rehabiliation. Norvo (talk) 01:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the article is correct; perhaps some wording might merit change for neutrality but yes, he was first acquitted by a lower court than found guilty again by a higher instance.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The article in its present form states:
'Jodl's Nuremberg verdict was controversial in U.S. military circles and in February 28, 1953, a West German court in Munich posthumously acquitted him of all charges ...'
However, immediately below the translation Piotrus comments:
'It appears that the German courts were leaning towards overturning but gave to American pressure against it. PS. That means that Jodl was finally not acquitted ...' (Piotrus' emphasis)
In other words, this part of the article is erroneous. Norvo (talk) 13:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm confused by your latest comment. Have you not read Piotrus last comment on your talk page? he was first acquitted by a lower court than found guilty again by a higher instance. So, first he was convicted at Nuremberg. After that he was acquitted by a German court. After that he was convicted again by a higher German court. This what the article states, although the article, based on the shoah article names a minister for what Piotrus from the Polish article calls "higher court". What Piotrus means by That means that Jodl was finally not' acquitted ... is that finally, i.e. as the end result he was left convicted. This does not mean that the first German court did not acquit him. Your conclusion based on Piotrus text is therefore in error. I think that what we have here is the problem of a Pole and a German? trying to communicate over a language foreign to both, misunderstandings happen easily in such cases.
Please confirm with Piotrus what he actually meant before making any changes to the text.
So far we have a very well researched and extensive German holocaust site that confirms the events in question in great detail.
We also have a Polish University paper, that lists primary sources in the Bavarian landesarkiv for the same story. I don't know if the story is told slightly different there, but from what Piotrus has written the basic facts as written in the article now remain the same.
I believe we have shown that the German wikipedia article you pointed to regarding Denazification is not reliable. Anyway, other Wikipedia articles is not considered a reliable source according to wiki policy.
A number of English language sources such as this one state that he was acquitted in 1953. So far no evidence has been presented that would indikate this to be an urban legend, nor given any motive for why such a legend would have been created.--Stor stark7 Talk 16:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
The text from the shoah article. Das Urteil war - auch in alliierten Militärkreisen - von Anfang an umstritten. Seiner Witwe Luise Jodl blieb, ihre Bemühungen um die Rehabilitierung fortzusetzen. Im Jahre 1953 wurde Jodl am 28. Februar von der deutschen Hauptspruchkammer in München posthum rehabilbiert und der ihm zur Last gelegten Völkerrechtsbrüche nicht schuldig befunden, allerdings unter Ausklammerung des Anklagepunktes ´'Verbrechen gegen den Frieden'. Sein Besitz, rechtsgültig 1946 eingezogen, wurde der Witwe zurückgegeben. Später aber hob die bayerische Staatskanzlei unter amerikanischem Druck das Münchener Urteil auf und am 3. September 1953 widerrief der bayerische Minister für Politische Befreiung den Widerruf des Jodl-Urteils.
It seems that from this there might be one correction to the article needed, but I don't feel hot enough on german right now to judge. Did the German court include "crimes against the peace" in its consideration, or was it limited to deal with Jodls alleged "crimes against humanity" excluding the former from consideration? The German text is a bit confusing to me on this part.--Stor stark7 Talk 16:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for elucidating Piotrus' comment. I shall try to explore the issue further, but that will take a while. One of the problems is that, as has already been said, the various websites 'mirror' one another. Norvo (talk) 00:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)