Talk:Alfred Jodl/Archive 1

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)

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)

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)

wiping
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earlier: "This means that Jodl was rehabilitated in February 1953 but a few months later, in September, that verdict was revoked, allegedly under U.S. pressure."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)

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.

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, 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?,, ,.

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, 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 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 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)


 * Even if Keitel wasn't ultimately acquitted, if the authorities were "leaning towards" or considering acquittal but didn't do so for whatever reason, isn't that in itself worth mentioning in the article, if only to at least address the popular "acquittal" story? --71.10.168.145 (talk) 23:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Media portrayal
The "Portrayal in the media" section seems to be a waste. What is its value?Lestrade (talk) 21:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Lestrade

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)


 * It wouldn't be a Wikipedia article without this kind of unsupported, adolescent, arrested–development allegation.Lestrade (talk) 21:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Lestrade

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.

In this case I strongly would the following generals and field-mashalls before Jodl.


 * 1) Heinz Guderian, the man who first understood that "thanx" and other panservehicles should be used as stand alone units,
 * 2) Erich von Manstein, the man that actually made up the great western front attack of may 10:th 1940 (although he didn't pleased the german "Fuhrer" at that precice time
 * 3) Helmuth Moltke, the older. The great general of french-preussian war 1870-71.
 * 4) Otto  Liman von Sanders, the german advicer at the turkish Dardarnelles in WW1, 1915  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.33.85 (talk) 06:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

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)
 * Abacab was never even blocked let alone banned Nil Einne (talk) 10:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Jodl's alleged acquittal
I've found a possible source. I've been reading the book "Nuremberg-Evil on Trial" written by James Owen. A lot of the trial details and transcripts are in this book. The ISBN is 978-0-7553-1545-1. Near the end it mentions that Jodl was later pothsumously exonerated by a denazification court. No further details are given however. Douglasnicol (talk) 18:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

removed-NOT A FORUM, SOAPBOXING


 * Source for the 'millions' figure, and if you're going to go that route what about the 'terror bombing' of Guernica, Warsaw and other cities. It's easy in these days of precision munitions to judge Harris and others like him, but bombing was in its infamy.  Or are your also forgetting the Blitz on London, Liverpool, Coventry, Clydebank? Douglasnicol (talk) 19:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

No German court or minister had or has the power to overturn the verdict of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg. Only another session of the IMT could do that. That verdict stands and is recognised under international law. The German courts have never recognised the IMT or its verdicts, and Jodl and the other executed defendants were never charged with anything by a German court. It is therefore false to say that a German court reversed the IMT verdict or acquitted him. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 23:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

If the Bavarian court has any validity for a such "verdict", one might suggest Bavaria never has been a part of Germany.--83.108.28.91 (talk) 01:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

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&mdash;or, on the other hand, its omission&mdash;may easily give a completely wrong impression (either way). I googled  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.  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)
 * But he was accused of crimes unrelated to a professional soldier's job. He wasn't accused of killing enemy soldiers, like you imply, because that was never considered a war crime. He was accused of, for example, being an accomplice of the sending of Jews to concentration camps, which IS a war crime by all accounts. Please, stop making ridiculous apologies for war criminals 201.231.81.53 (talk) 05:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

His Photo after been executed
Guys I think this photo should be removed for respectign of the died. He is now between the hand of al Mighty and he face all his actions good or bad. I will get basck in a weel or two if found no comment I will remove it --78.89.1.3 (talk) 15:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC) Adam All


 * Why? All those who were hanged at Nuremberg have their pictures displayed after their execution, bar Seyss-Inquart and Keitel.  Even Goering who escaped the noose has his picture displayed.  We might as well keep this consistent. Douglasnicol (talk) 17:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Come on, this picture is just gruesome, his head is like that of the monster of Frankenstein, looks like some veins/arteries exploded there and made his head look all black and blue. It's just graphic and scary, horrifying to look at. And it carries almost no important information as there are a bunch of other photographs depicting him already in the article. 86.101.124.53 (talk) 01:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It should be kept. These photo's are part of history and thus belong in the section regarding Nurnberg. -- fdewaele, 1 March 2010, 13:30 CET
 * WWII and Nazism are far more horrifying than the mere picture of a hanged corpse, should we remove their articles from Wikipedia as well? 201.231.81.53 (talk) 05:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a fair compromise is keep the photos, and the explanation for why the bodies were photograped, namely so that people knew that they were indeed dead, and had not been spirited away elsewhere. That was the reason for the pictures being taken. Douglasnicol (talk) 17:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Dead body photo
I am wondering... what is exactly the purpose of showing us a photo of his dead body. What am I supposed to learn from seeing this? I think it is probably going to be upsetting and disturbing to some sensitive readers. Why not have every page on wikipedia, that is a bio, show a picture of the person a few minutes after they die, if it is really so important?
 * It is important because, unlike other people, the manner in which he died is important: he was a war criminal sentenced to death. The picture is there and it's interesting, so why not use it? (People who get easily upset should probably not be looking at wiki pages for German war criminals!) 201.231.81.53 (talk) 05:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

This is of utter importance due to the fact of his urging of political aggression in over the German Wehrmact. War is fought because of politics, but politics should not influence war. Even though it shows the picture of a dead man, it is there to console the (over)six-million Jews and people of Jewish descent that there is some form of justice. I have been studying the National Socialist Party and trying to dissect the brains of the major Nazis for over ten years, and I have read just about every non-fiction book of the crimes committed, including many memoirs of the leading defendants. Even though there WAS an acquittal accusation, it was mainly to console his family. His family fought very hard, knowing that it would never bring Jodl back, but it is some kind of reconciliation. After that, there was a bit of the matter of U.S. pressure. Well, put yourself in the shoes of the American Justice System around that time. Gearing up for the Korean war, and this being a matter of the past of almost 7 years, they did not want to reopen the case, so it was thrown out, and Jodl once again indicted (postmortem). Myself being American, I will be the first to say that among other defendants in Nuremberg and at the later German trials, Jodl did receive a rather harsh sentence. In the end though, his wife was returned all of his belongings in allied custody, and if any gave her a little reconciliation toward her husbands death, even though she was also an avid Nazi supporter, and quite possibly influenced some of is decision that led to his ultimate demise, and the reason I am writing this. Hope this helps! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.106.148.18 (talk) 23:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Jodl was not acquitted
I have removed the reference to Jodl being "acquitted" by a German court. Jodl was never tried by a German court, so he cannot have been acquitted by one. No German court or minister had or has the power to overturn the verdict of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg. Only another session of the IMT could do that. That verdict stands and is recognised under international law. The German courts have never recognised the IMT or its verdicts, and Jodl and the other executed defendants were never charged with anything by a German court. It is therefore false to say that a German court reversed the IMT verdict or acquitted him. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 19:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Even so, I'm rather confused about why you removed mention of the sourced claim that the declaration was revoked. I added it back . In future, when clarifying wording, please don't remove important sourced details. I would also note that you addition while it may be true, was unsourced so I added a request for a citation  Nil Einne (talk) 10:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The text cureently reads: On 28 February 1953, the München Hauptspruchkammer (Main denazification court) declared Jodl not guilty of the main charges brought against him at Nuremberg, citing the French co-President of the Tribunal, Henri Donnedieu de Vabres, who had in 1945 called the verdict against Jodl a mistake. How could that French judge already know this in 1945? The trial lasted in to 1946 and the verdicts were only given in the autumn of 1946... -- fdewaele, 1 March 2010, 13:30 CET

In response to Nil Einne: it is of course logically impossible to prove a negative statement. It is up to those who want to argue that the German courts did have the power to overturn the verdicts of the IMT (which is what the earlier version of this paragraph said) to produce a source to that effect. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 02:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Henri Donnedieu de Vabres was quite opposed to hanging. He was easily contradicted by two other staff of prosecution. How can one pronounce that commandos are partisans, act on it, and then be in the clear?--83.108.28.91 (talk) 01:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Note - this stale discussion has, seemingly, been used to delete content of long-standing about this 1953 acquital. There is no doubt that this did occur in February 1953 and can be sourced to many reliable sources   . Whether a Bavarian court has any right or power to overturn the verdict of an international court is a quite separate issue. The legal consequences of the ruling are not something that can be determined by talk page discussion, nor are they necessarily relevant. None of the sources I have found make any statements about that. I should add that DD2K's assertion that the justified reversion of his unexplained deletion of sourced content was "vandalism"  is wholly contrary to Wikipedia policy. Note that the above discussion is not about removing this content. It relates to rewording an earlier version of the text, a task completed four years ago. Paul B (talk) 17:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Siege of Leningrad and Jodl
Our Siege of Leningrad article mentions Jodl but his role in that decision leading to massive civilian casualties is not mentioned here.

142.162.21.1 (talk) 23:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

WWII section
This seems misplaced in the WWII section; should it be moved to the post-war section?


 * At the Nuremberg Trials, when confronted with mass shootings of Soviet POWs in 1941, Jodl explained that only prisoners shot were "... not those that could not, but those that did not want to walk."

Also, 'claimed' (rather than 'explained') would be more applicable in this contexts.

Thoughs? --K.e.coffman (talk) 08:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Botched hanging
A paragraph has appeared in a number of the articles of leading Nazi Party members who were executed referring to the fact that the hangings were botched. This citation given for this is a New York Post article that provides no further evidence for its accusations and means these claims are unsubstantiated. Does anyone have a better source for such claims? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.246.120.148 (talk) 10:45, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Are you referring to this passage?


 * Donald E. Wilkes, Jr., a professor of law at the University of Georgia Law School, noted that many of the executed Nazis fell from the gallows with insufficient force to snap their necks, resulting in a death by strangulation, that in some cases lasted several minutes.
 * The citation links to the NYT blog, not Post. Still it's a blog, so I think a more academic source is preferred. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I removed the below paragraph completely, since although it contain a reference to botched hangings, does not reference Jodl as being one who was subject to a 'botched' hanging. It seems to be an interesting, but irrelevant, fact concerning Jodl. Perhaps should be used in the general article about Nurembert Trials.

Donald E. Wilkes, Jr., a professor of law at the University of Georgia Law School, noted that many of the executed Nazis fell from the gallows with insufficient force to snap their necks, resulting in a death by strangulation, that in some cases lasted several minutes.

It can certainly be reinstated if a valid reference specific to Jodl's hanging can be located. Jsniessen (talk) 16:15, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Romania?
Is there a valid reason for having here template? Carlotm (talk) 02:34, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

{[reflist-talk}}

Portrayal in the media section
This seems to be largely trivia, cited to Imdb. Would there be any objections to removing this section? K.e.coffman (talk) 20:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

RE: "Postume aquittence"
This title and section is unclear and needs editing. It is not clear that the author expressed correctly in English the statement of "Posthumous Acquittal," nor is there a clear and documented statement regarding a Court-sanctioned action which acquit this otherwise convicted party at Nuremberg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.7.1.151 (talk) 04:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alfred Jodl. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090520053508/http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremberg/meetthedefendants.html to http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremberg/meetthedefendants.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:11, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Why was he convicted?
It does not seem Jodl did anything the Soviets had not done as well. Was he only convicted because Germany lost the war? (5.81.223.178 (talk) 08:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC))
 * The USSR was not on trial, Nazi Germany's (surviving) leadership was. Also, the Talk Pages are not a forum. 50.111.55.122 (talk) 23:40, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

War Criminal
Seems to me like this IDing him as a war criminal is a bit excessive. In the opening statements, it is mentioned in both paragraphs.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The project is not concerned with how you feel, but what the Reliable Sources state.50.111.55.122 (talk) 23:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about how I feel. I am talking about WP:BALASP.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:50, 12 June 2018 (UTC)