Trials of war criminals before the Nuernberg military tribunals under control council law no. 10, volume II (part 5 of 6)
A. Yes, he was a member of the Jaegerstab, and I have already said that he was also the leader of labor allocation in the Todt Organization. He was in charge. At first he was entirely within the Todt Organization, and then later he was what you might call the leader for the allocation of labor in Speer’s Ministry, and was in charge later of the allocation of labor in the Todt Organization. At the same time, he performed the same function in the Jaegerstab, so that automatically there was a connection between the Todt Organization and the Jaegerstab.
MR. KING: I have no further questions, your Honor.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
DR. BERGOLD: Witness, I have one more question. When did these Hungarian Jews arrive at Muehldorf?
A. I do not know about Muehldorf, but I can recall that at Kaufering the first ones came—and here I must guess—at the end or the beginning of June 1944.
DR. BERGOLD: Thank you, I have no further questions.
MR. KING: I have one further question, if your Honor pleases.
DR. BERGOLD: I have just heard that the interpreter was inaccurate. The witness spoke of the end and the middle of June, and the interpreter said “the beginning of June”.
THE INTERPRETER: “The middle or the end of June” is what the witness said, but he is not sure about it.
RE-CROSS-EXAMINATION
MR. KING: Now, Witness, with respect to this construction at Kaufering, can you tell me when that was initiated?
A. In May of 1944 it must have begun, the beginning of May.
Q. And that was also true of the other fighter factories that you were to construct under the Hitler order?
A. Perhaps two weeks later the construction in Muehldorf began; the construction in Vaihingen that I mentioned before was already under way, and I took it over. The construction in the Rhineland started considerably later, it could have been perhaps at the end of June; Prague came along much later.
Q. Now, you say that you were at Kaufering on two separate occasions. Did you have any opportunity to—
A. (Interposing) I was in Kaufering three times. Do you want to know when? In May 1944; at the beginning of January 1945; and then once more just before the capitulation, perhaps two or three weeks before the capitulation.
Q. Do you recall anything about the conditions at Kaufering; that is, the conditions of labor?
A. I only saw the construction site. When I was in Munich, Niebermann, who was responsible for construction, told me that the Hungarian Jews were poorly clothed and poorly fed in part. I then told the competent SS man, whose name I no longer recall—but he was there in Munich, in Niebermann’s office—and I pointed out to him that this was the responsibility of the SS and he should see to it that these men were decently clothed.
Q. Witness, do you recall any reports of deaths of Hungarian Jews on the project?
A. Roughly, in October, our physicians told us that the fatalities in Kaufering were higher than normal. I then commissioned that physician to take up negotiations with the SS to improve conditions.
I should like to say explicitly that the Todt Organization was forbidden to enter the camps. The physician tried to send medicines to the camp, and was successful. I can remember a date, namely, one on which I was operated on—that is why I remember it—in November, at which time the physician told me that he had succeeded in bringing these bad hygienic conditions to an end after considerable effort. I remember the date because it coincided with a sickness of my own.
-----
[109] A group of experts, drawn from various phases of German industry and supplemented by representatives of the various ministries.
[110] Tr. pp. 300-1.
[111] Survey is published as part of document in Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression, vol. IV, pp. 120-126, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, 1946.
[112] Defendant in case of U.S. vs. Oswald Pohl, et al. See Vol. V.
[113] Portions of this document were introduced by the defense as Defense Exhibit 12. See pp. 561-62.
[114] Other portions of this document were introduced by the defense as Defense Exhibit 13. See pp. 562-63.
[115] Portions of this document were introduced by the defense as Defend Exhibit 16. See pp. 564-65.
[116] Another portion of this document was introduced by the defense as Defense Exhibit 21. See pp. 565-66.
[117] Other portions of this document were introduced by the defense as Defense Exhibit 23. See pp. 566-67.
[118] Kammler was one of the leading officials of the Economic Administrative Main Office of the SS [Wirtschafts-Verwaltungshauptamt—WVHA]. See case of United States vs. Oswald Pohl, et al., (Vol. V), concerning the WVHA which administered the utilization of concentration camp labor.
[119] Document was Speer Exhibit 34 in Trial before International Military Tribunal. See Trial of the Major War Criminals, vol. XVI, p. 589, Nuremberg, 1947.
[120] Defense Counsel, Dr. Bergold, explained (Tr. p. 580): “This proves that the Fuehrer himself ordered these large construction works, the execution of which is charged to the defendant.
Although I mentioned before that the Jaegerstab was of the opinion that it could only build one factory, the order was given by Hitler to build six. That was an impossible number. He delegated this duty to Mr. Dorsch. That man had his orders from the Fuehrer and not from the Jaegerstab, which, of course, was no longer responsible for his activities.”
[121] Portions of this document were introduced by the prosecution as Prosecution Exhibit 75. See pp. 544-45.
[122] DR. BERGOLD stated (Tr. p. 567): “I introduce this in order to show that the Jaegerstab meetings not always prove who was there at a certain given time and those meetings changed so that as far as the defendant Milch is mentioned, this does not prove he was there all of the time.”
[123] DR. BERGOLD explained (Tr. p. 568): “There was introduced by the prosecution and also presented an exhibit from this Jaegerstab conference where the term ‘construction company’ was mentioned in such a way. Those were companies of concentration camp inmates. This explains the term ‘construction company’ clearly.”
[124] Other portions of this document were introduced by the prosecution as Prosecution Exhibit 75. See pp. 545-46.
[125] Chief of the Construction Department in the Speer Ministry.
[126] Ibid.
[127] DR. BERGOLD stated (Tr. p. 751): “The prosecution has alleged that these great plants were made by slave labor, and I want to show that this plant in which, according to the allegations of the prosecution, Hungarian Jews were used, was not built by the Jaegerstab and that therefore the prosecution has not proved altogether that the Jaegerstab used Hungarian Jews.
The passage will show in a very short time that concentration camp inmates were not used. * * *”
[128] Portions of this document were introduced by the prosecution as Prosecution Exhibit 75. See pp. 550-52.
[129] Another portion of this document was introduced by the prosecution as Prosecution Exhibit 75. See pp. 554-55.
[130] DR. BERGOLD stated (Tr. p. 584): “Your Honors, in all civilized countries, also in Germany, penal prisoners have to work. If concentration camp inmates were put to work in Germany, this was done within the frame of the law which existed in Germany for the employment of criminal prisoners. This was nothing special. This work of concentration camp inmates cannot be considered slave work.”
[131] Other portions of this document were introduced by the prosecution as Prosecution Exhibit 75. See pp. 555-57.
[132] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 6, 7 Feb. 47, pp. 717-759.
[133] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 24 Feb. 47, pp. 1361-1379.
4. GENERALLUFTZEUGMEISTER[134]
Evidence
Prosecution Documents
Doc. No. Pros. Ex. No. Description of Document Page NOKW-311 62 Extract from interrogation of 597 Hermann Goering on 6 September 1946, regarding Milch’s position as Generalluftzeugmeister (GL).
NOKW-418 136 Extracts from stenographic 598 minutes of GL-Conference, 5 May 1942.
NOKW-407 137 Extracts from stenographic 599 minutes of GL-Conference, 27 May 1942.
NOKW-406 138 Extracts from stenographic 599 minutes of the GL-Conference, 7 July 1942.
NOKW-408 139 Extracts from stenographic 600 minutes of GL-Conference, 28 July 1942.
NOKW-409 140 Extracts from stenographic 601 minutes of GL-Conference, 4 August 1942.
NOKW-412 141 Extracts from stenographic 602 minutes of GL-Conference, 18 August 1942.
NOKW-416 142 Extracts from stenographic 602 minutes of GL-Conference, 26 August 1942.
NOKW-286 144 Extracts from stenographic 605 minutes of GL-Conference, 1 September 1942.
NOKW-245 157 Extracts from stenographic 606 minutes of conference with Goering, 22 February 1943, regarding plans for airplane construction.
NOKW-449 148 Extracts from stenographic 607 minutes of GL-Conference, 2 March 1943.
NOKW-195 143 Extracts from stenographic 608 minutes of conference with Goering, 28 October 1943.
NOKW-180 155 Extracts from stenographic 613 notes on the conference at the Reich Marshal’s on Thursday, 4 November 1943, 11 o’clock at the Junkers Plant in Dessau.
Testimony
Extracts from testimony of defense witness Max Koenig 615
PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NOKW-311 PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 62
EXTRACT FROM INTERROGATION OF HERMANN GOERING ON 6 SEPTEMBER 1946, REGARDING MILCH’S POSITION AS GENERALLUFTZEUGMEISTER (GL)
* * * * *
INTERROGATOR: Now to the Milch case: Who was commissioned after 1941 with the labor allocation in the Ministry for Air?
GOERING: What am I to understand by “labor allocation”?
Q. Labor allocation consisted of the drawing in of foreign workers or German workers, especially of concentration camp inmates, in order to free them for air force production.
A. This matter went through Udet, the Chief of Supply for the Air Force, until Udet’s death, and then it went through Milch.
Q. In what manner did the Reich Air Ministry submit its requests to Sauckel and the approximate figure for its requirements, the number of workers, etc.? And if Sauckel received such a request from the Reich Air Ministry, how did he undertake the distribution?
A. The requests were made by Milch, it was he who said how many workers the air force needed, and these were forwarded to Speer. Speer then asked Sauckel for the workers for the entire armaments branch, almost for the entire industrial branch, and he then made the distribution. It was he in the end who made the final decision as to how many workers went to the air force for instance, how many to the army, etc. As far as I know, Sauckel had actually nothing to do with the distribution of labor. The contingent was put at the disposal of the authorities. Terrific pressure was continually brought to bear on Sauckel. If the requested number was not brought, he was given hell. I personally presided over a meeting where there were differences between Sauckel and Speer. He wanted to have more, etc. There was a mix-up and that’s how I know it; but the needs of the air force were put forward by Milch, that is the Chief of Supply for the Air Force. When difficulties arose and they did not get the people, and the program threatened to break down, then they came to me and I supported their demands.
* * * * *
PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NOKW-418 PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 136
EXTRACTS FROM STENOGRAPHIC MINUTES OF GL-CONFERENCE, 5 MAY 1942
[Two handwritten marginal notes at top of document:] Mi. 10. Secret
SHORTHAND TRANSCRIPT ON THE GL-CONFERENCE PRESIDED OVER BY THE STATE SECRETARY, FIELD MARSHAL MILCH, ON TUESDAY, 5 MAY 1942, 10 A.M. IN THE REICH AIR MINISTRY
* * * * *
ALPERS: The reason given is shortage of labor. And in fact there are 2,000 men lacking at Heinkel-Oranienburg.
MILCH: As far as the French are concerned, 60,000 of the ones that we had been promised are still missing.
(Comment: 40,000 are missing.)
If we get those men I would assign 2,000 to Heinkel-Oranienburg.
FRYDAG: The French become worse and worse; I threw out 80 of them who will be sent to concentration camps in Russia. They refused to work. The French say at 4 o’clock: “I won’t work another hour,” and you cannot make them work another hour. This happened four weeks ago all of a sudden, when the first bombing attack on Paris took place, while before that the French were the best people.
MILCH: We were told in Oranienburg that they were good as long as they didn’t get spoiled by our German people.
FRYDAG: It happened here after we got the French from Messerschmitt; according to the French they got a warm meal twice a day there and had their laundry done. We cannot do either. We don’t have a warm meal twice a day either. At Messerschmitt the living conditions were better.
MILCH: Gablenz, I want you to get in touch with Reinecke concerning these French. I demand that if the people refuse to work they immediately be placed against the wall and shot before all the other workers. I ask you to get in touch with the Reich Leader SS and to ask him to discuss the matter with the Fuehrer. Now is the right time; unless we do something effective now, the others will become bothersome. I ask that their being sent to concentration camps be taken into consideration too. I’ll tell you afterwards how you should act in such a matter.
So I do not agree. You should make another proposal. At the beginning you cannot expect more.
* * * * *
PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NOKW-407 PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 137
EXTRACTS FROM STENOGRAPHIC MINUTES OF GL-CONFERENCE, 27 MAY 1942
[Three handwritten marginal notes at top of document:] To my
files Mi. 14
Vossen/Dr. Reynitz/Ca.
Secret
SHORTHAND TRANSCRIPT OF THE GL-CONFERENCE PRESIDED OVER BY THE STATE SECRETARY, FIELD MARSHAL MILCH ON WEDNESDAY, 27 MAY 1942, 9 A.M. IN THE REICH AIR MINISTRY
* * * * *
VON GABLENZ: Yesterday, the first[135] has exploded in France, at the Arade plant, an explosive, a float, but no damage has been done.
FIELD MARSHAL MILCH: What measures have been taken in consequence?—I want to have a report on what has been done. How many people have been shot and how many hanged? If that guy cannot be found today, fifty men should be selected and if I were you I would hang three or four of them whether they are guilty or not. It is the only way!
(Mahnke hands another letter to the Field Marshal.)
What do you think of that man?
* * * * *
TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NOKW-406 PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 138
EXTRACTS FROM STENOGRAPHIC MINUTES OF THE GL-CONFERENCE, 7 JULY 1942
[Two handwritten marginal notes at top of document:] St/R 21
Secret
SHORTHAND TRANSCRIPT OF THE GL-CONFERENCE PRESIDED OVER BY FIELD MARSHAL MILCH ON 7 JULY 1942, 10 A.M. IN THE REICH AIR MINISTRY
* * * * *
FIELD MARSHAL MILCH: I do not like the engine. I have inspected it and for the time being anyhow, I shall not take the 177 plane as a traveling plane.
With regard to the output of Prague I want to say this: Of course, one must recognize good output, even of a foreigner. On the other hand, as far as the French are concerned, something must be done now. Gablenz, ring up Toennes and tell him that this is a crazy situation [tolle Schweinerei]. However, we would still try first to arrange it in a friendly way through Toennes. If that does not succeed, then I intend to fill the new Heinkel plant in the east entirely with Frenchmen brought down there by force. If they don’t work in France, they may work as prisoners in Poland. After all we have to remember that it is we, and not the French, who have won the war.
* * * * *
TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NOKW-408 PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 139
EXTRACTS FROM STENOGRAPHIC MINUTES OF GL-CONFERENCE, 28 JULY 1942
[Two handwritten marginal notes at top of document:] St/R 24
Vossen/Dr. Jonuschat/C
Secret
SHORTHAND TRANSCRIPT ON THE GL-CONFERENCE PRESIDED OVER BY STATE SECRETARY FIELD MARSHAL MILCH ON TUESDAY, 28 JULY 1942, 10 A.M. IN THE REICH AIR MINISTRY
* * * * *
ALPERS: We have discussed whether a stronger pressure should not be put upon French firms by both our liaison office and by us here. I have talked with the French works managers myself. Actually they are all of the same mind; they are willing to exert pressure, but then the workers will leave them. In France there is no law that binds a worker to his place of employment.
MILCH: As far as we are concerned, that is very difficult. But at the very moment when the deadline is passed for me, I shall say: Now there is no more French production. The workers are sent on leave or taken away immediately for other work. The French always want the proportion 1:5, but they only reach 1:2.3. In reality they have very much more, as we have received only old French junk. If we consider the actual output that we have received, then the proportion is not even 1:0.2, but exactly the contrary: 5:1 in favor of the French! At the present time we receive 8 to 9 planes from the French. I could well imagine that they get out 45 for themselves. I shall shut the shop with a single stroke and have the workers and the machines come to Germany. If it does not work on a voluntary basis, then we do it by compulsory contracts. Perhaps I shall first give them a week to think it over.
(ALPERS: Amio himself is behind. For him the surfaces and tail unit factories are situated just right.)
—It is a fact that, on the whole, these people work in silent opposition. One cannot blame them for it either, it is true, but they should not have started the war.
* * * * *
TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NOKW-409 PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 140
EXTRACTS FROM STENOGRAPHIC MINUTES OF GL-CONFERENCE, 4 AUGUST 1942
[Handwritten marginal notes] To my files, personally St/R 25
Secret
SHORTHAND TRANSCRIPT ON THE GL-CONFERENCE PRESIDED OVER BY FIELD MARSHAL MILCH TUESDAY, 4 AUGUST 1942, 10 A.M. IN THE REICH AIR MINISTRY
* * * * *
GEYER: In the west there is a danger of the French going on strike in the event of a British attack. In that case, the whole of the engine supply would be severely handicapped.
MILCH: In such a case I would ask to be appointed military commander myself. I would band the workers together and have 50 percent of them shot; I would then publish this fact and compel the other 50 percent to work, by beatings if necessary. If they don’t work, then they too will be shot. I would get the necessary replacement somehow. But I hope the military commander will do his duty. I’m not worried about it. The word “strike” must never be used. For us there is only “living or dying”, but not “striking”. That goes for the educated man as well as for the worker, for the German [Inlaender] as well as for the foreigner. The word “strike” means death for the man who uses it.
* * * * *
GABLENZ: Sauckel also made an effort but he does not have a completely free hand. Lt. Col. Nickolai and Stending are still standing in between.
MILCH: In spite of all, he has brought in quite a tidy number. Sauckel has brought over 1.6 million people to Germany, 1.3 million from the east and the rest from other countries.
GABLENZ: We should not be sorry if Sauckel not only took care of getting the workers, but also of distributing them. That way we would fare better.
* * * * *
TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NOKW-412 PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 141
EXTRACTS FROM STENOGRAPHIC MINUTES OF GL-CONFERENCE, 18 AUGUST 1942
[page 1874 of original]
[Handwritten marginal notes on attendance list] St/R 27
* * * * *
[page 1932 of original]
FIELD MARSHAL MILCH: As soon as the figures for August are ready I request an exact account for my report to the Reich Marshal and also for the conferences which I want to hold with Sauckel and Speer beforehand. This account is to show how the labor question has developed, how great the fluctuation is and which nationalities it involves, what real requests we now have to make in the different sectors in order to cover the needs for specialists and for skilled and unskilled labor, how many of them can be foreigners, etc.? What happens to those who leave the industry? Are they being compelled to work elsewhere? Are they, as I proposed, under control in the camps supervised by the SS and considered as being in mild concentration camps, or are these gentlemen allowed to remain outside and do as they please?
TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NOKW-416 PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 142
EXTRACTS FROM STENOGRAPHIC MINUTES OF GL-CONFERENCE, 26 AUGUST 1942
[Handwritten marginal notes] St/R 29 Secret
SHORTHAND TRANSCRIPT OF THE CONFERENCE OF THE DIRECTOR OF SUPPLIES PRESIDED OVER BY FIELD MARSHAL MILCH ON WEDNESDAY, 26 AUGUST 1942, 11 A.M. IN THE REICH AIR MINISTRY
* * * * *
MILCH: Is Quartermaster General 6 here?
(Comment: Yes!)
Do you know anything about it?
(Comment: No!)
Ask about it and inform Colonel Brueckner!
FRYDAG: Another important consideration is the letter, which you yourself have signed, Field Marshal, dealing with the expiration of the labor contracts of the foreign workers. * * *
MILCH: The Reich Marshal [Goering] wanted to bind these people by law at one time, that was one idea. The Fuehrer’s plan would be more favorable. He wishes that the workers be gradually all replaced by Russians for whom there is no longer such a thing as expiration of contracts.
(Comment: But there is a certain transition period!)
BRUECKNER: You, Field Marshal, have yourself put your signature to this matter. The contracts are to be extended till 1 October 1943. I hope that it will be done.
* * * * *
MILCH: On the other hand, a number of these people have been drafted into the armed forces. But if I consider the others, I arrive all the same at a monthly total of about 30,000 who loaf around and fluctuate from job to job. According to the suggestions of the Reich Marshal, these people are to come under the care of Himmler and are to be handled severely there. What has been done, so far, in this regard? Brueckner, you know about this matter, don’t you?
(BRUECKNER: Yes!)
You do not seem to be informed quite correctly. Sometime ago we were quite irritated about the fact that so many workers move about from one factory to another, most of them antisocial elements who do not like to work and whom the firms are possibly glad to get rid of because they do nothing but complain and grumble, do no proper work, are constantly late, shirk work where they can, pretend to be sick, etc. These people were supposed to be handled more severely, and about a year ago the Reich Marshal issued an order and gave the Ministry of Labor the job of dealing with this matter firmly. Then the Ministry of Labor issued an explanatory order which was nothing but a sabotage of the order and the desire expressed by the Reich Marshal. I reported to the Reich Marshal—in the very words which I have just used—that in this case his will was clearly being sabotaged by some lawyers or other poor fellows and that I asked him to take measures against it. He told me that he would talk the matter over with Himmler. That is, I had suggested to him that this matter could only be settled with the help of Himmler’s organization. The armed forces are not in a position to do it. The suggestion had been made that the armed forces should take care of these people in camps but these workers are not ready for that. They have not been condemned and in no way violate the existing laws, but act only against their country which certainly does not yet come within the sphere of the old legal nonsense. That is why Himmler should get these people into his clutches because he can treat them outside the law. My suggestion was that the people should be put into camps or, in part, just get numbers. The person involved would have a passport in which it is entered that he is a German of this or that category, and that his number is so and so. Then there are subsequent entries: At this or that time he did not work, at this or that time he was late, etc. If he “loses” this passport—because he doesn’t want to have it anymore—off he goes to the concentration camp immediately; the same thing happens if he does not show it when ordered to do so. Once every month the pass is checked by the local SD. If it shows that the man has been ill, or late thirty times in one month, then the SD takes him along and gives him a job in which he has to work 14 hours a day and where he is treated in the way he deserves if he is not willing. The Reich Marshal has approved this suggestion. Nevertheless I have not yet seen anything of the kind being carried out.
BRUECKNER: I know that such labor camps have been established.
MILCH: In that case I want you to tell me exactly during the next conference, where these camps have been established, who is in charge of them, and how do we get these honorable gentlemen who do not want to work into them? * * * It is a simple matter to have these people taken care of somehow by the SD. It has only got to be taken in hand. I want to have a report on it as soon as possible. Otherwise I will talk to Himmler about it myself and see that this matter is taken very firmly in hand. I see in these people the greatest danger for the home front.
* * * * *
TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NOKW-286 PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 144
EXTRACTS FROM STENOGRAPHIC MINUTES OF GL-CONFERENCE, 1 SEPTEMBER 1942
[Handwritten marginal notes] St/R 31 To my files Secret
SHORTHAND TRANSCRIPT OF THE GL-CONFERENCE PRESIDED OVER BY STATE SECRETARY FIELD MARSHAL MILCH ON WEDNESDAY, 9 SEPTEMBER 1942, 10 A.M. IN THE REICH AIR MINISTRY
* * * * *
DEUTSCHMANN: Reports have come in from front repair workshops that up to 40 percent of the people simply do not come to work. Because of the difficulties in the food supply they simply go out into the country in order to have something to eat. At the plant Mechanical Workshops [Mechanische Werkstaetten] I have found out that the Poles have not come because Russian pilots had dropped propaganda material. In one case, I have seen that about 50 percent of the workers failed to come.
MILCH: What do you do against that?
(DEUTSCHMANN: For the time being, I did not do anything.)
And where was that?—In Warsaw? In such a case, orders have to be given that these workers get a good beating. And Russian prisoners of war are used to give it to them.
DEUTSCHMANN: Just at the time when the Russians attacked I was planning to have 200 Poles transported to western Germany in order to fill a gap in the hoop production there. The conditions of procurement in Warsaw were such that I could afford it; therefore, I had no special reason to take measures.
MILCH: If those workers stay away from work just as they please then they need a good beating and this punishment is to be administered by Russians. Contact the SD; tell them that these workers had failed to come to work and that I demand that they be punished and not by having their food taken away from them but by the slightly milder punishment of 50 strokes each on their behind.
DEUTSCHMANN: Various unfortunate occurrences have happened together.
MILCH: I don’t care, these occurrences are none of my business. The unfortunate occurrence for the person involved is when he gets his good beating. And he should not fail to get it.
(DEUTSCHMANN: We have already drawn the attention of the Reich Leader SS to it; something is going to be done about it.)
Such occurrences must not remain unpunished, they must not happen. If those people mutiny and do not work, then I demand that some shooting is done at those occasions. We do the same in Poland as the British do in India, with the only difference that the British deal with their own subjects, whereas we deal with the enemy. I want none of our people ever to show lack of action. I make every section chief responsible to take measures to that effect immediately. He is not to administer the beatings himself but to go to the SD and demand that this or that is done. What kind of measures they take we will leave to the SD, but I want to have a report on what has been done in such cases! What do you think would happen to a worker in Germany if he went on strike?
* * * * *
TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NOKW-245 PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 157
EXTRACTS FROM STENOGRAPHIC MINUTES OF CONFERENCE WITH GOERING, 22 FEBRUARY 1943, REGARDING PLANS FOR AIRPLANE CONSTRUCTION
* * * * *
MILCH: * * * Just now things are not going well. Sauckel has agreed with Speer and myself that von der Heyde is to go to Paris to ascertain on the very spot what may be taken away. If we want to maintain the program we require an additional 80,000 workmen over there. Sauckel said he recognized that and promised to deliver them. If the promise is kept all will be all right.
REICH MARSHAL: What sense does it make to leave the workers there?
MILCH: There is no good will in France, and you can really not expect it from these fellows. But we will force them to work by not feeding them.
REICH MARSHAL: I can do this here much better.
MILCH: That’ll get us nowhere. We shall then have to shut down the plants in France.
REICH MARSHAL: The fault is this: Sauckel should have said: Milch, there are too many skilled workers in that plant; take so-and-so many out for your German plants; I am going to replace those skilled workers from our French workers pool. Otherwise there is no sense in his taking them away.
MILCH: Until six months ago we piloted the whole French industry by way of the government, but since then we changed and took sponsor-firms. * * *
REICH MARSHAL: I’ll tell Sauckel not to touch our industry at all. But we must do it ourselves.
MILCH: I told Sauckel that we will cooperate on all matters on the very spot, that we will get the thing done but not smash up anything that is producing for us or is going to produce. He admitted that his men had acted wrongly. * * * Speer and myself are of the opinion that he must be incorporated somehow in the Central Planning in order to secure manpower for us as well as the material. Now we got the first workers in November; prior to that date none at all. Of course, by taking into account the many fluctuations he arrives at fantastic figures. We try to diminish the fluctuations with the aid of Himmler and Ley. The military physicians are put in to examine the men. I have proposed that a man who leaves his working place more than three times a year, should be put into a detention camp and be released only when he stays on the very spot. * * *
* * * * *
TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NOKW-449 PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 148
EXTRACTS FROM STENOGRAPHIC MINUTES OF GL-CONFERENCE, 2 MARCH 1943
[Handwritten marginal notes] To my files Mi
Secret
SHORTHAND TRANSCRIPT OF THE GL-CONFERENCE PRESIDED OVER BY THE STATE SECRETARY FIELD MARSHAL MILCH ON TUESDAY, 2 MARCH 1943, 10 A.M. IN THE REICH AIR MINISTRY
* * * * *
MILCH: Another question! All the reports from France show that the French have got their heads full of political thoughts and ideas. On the basis of the news they tell themselves: They are retreating on the eastern front and the English and Americans are gradually getting afraid that the Russians alone will be victorious. The French go on to say: If the promises made to us by the Americans are really kept, our fortunes are made. That has already led to our foreign workers slowly becoming hostile. On principle I have to be informed of every case of swinishness. I do not understand at all why Germany should put up with it when Poles and Frenchmen explain to the people: Today indeed you are still sitting in this work, but later we shall be the owners and if you treat us properly we shall see to it then that you are shot dead immediately and not tortured first. In all these matters energetic interference must be made. I am of the opinion that there should be only two types of punishment in such cases: firstly, a concentration camp for foreigners, and secondly, capital punishment. If a certain number of such hostile elements are removed and the others are informed, they will then work better. Their love for us certainly won’t become any greater, but neither will their hate, for it is already strong enough. In this respect, too, energetic interference must be made and in no case must the workers put up with it. The best method is to give the person concerned one with a sledge-hammer and I shall treat with distinction every man who does something like that whenever he hears such stupid nonsense. We are living in a total war and the workers must be told that they don’t have to put up with anything. Now the question is whether or not the gentlemen believe on the whole that we achieve something worth mentioning with our production in France. For then we must consider that the establishments there will be besieged. Then the French would have to be forced to come to Germany. There I must reflect on whether the available means of compulsion are sufficient. That does not depend on me. But, in the abstract, I see no difficulties in the way of getting 100,000 or 200,000 French workers to Germany, nor do I see any difficulties in the way of keeping them in order. If a case of sabotage occurs in one area, every tenth man in that area will be shot. Then such acts of sabotage would cease of themselves. The western peoples are very much afraid of death, while it is a quite different matter with the Russians.
* * * * *
PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NOKW-195 PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 143
EXTRACTS FROM STENOGRAPHIC MINUTES OF CONFERENCE WITH GOERING, 28 OCTOBER 1943
[Handwritten] Notes for Discussion No 116/43/KD st. 4th copy [Signature] MILCH
STENOGRAPHIC TRANSCRIPT OF THE DISCUSSION WITH THE REICH MARSHAL ON 28 OCTOBER 1943, 12 O’CLOCK AT KARINHALL
Subject: Allocation of Labor. Effects of the Drafting of Laborers.
Participants: Reich Marshal Reich Minister Speer Field Marshal Milch Gauleiter Sauckel General von der Heyde Staatsrat Gritzbach Ministerialrat Dr. Groennert Ministerialdirektor Hildebrand Landrat Berg Lt. Colonel Biesing, GSC Lt. Colonel von Brauchitsch, GSC Director Frydag Dr. Janicke/Dr. Eggeling/Bs
25 October 1943
* * * * *
MILCH: Interesting are the figures on the decrease of prisoners of war where one had believed they would remain stable. Between January and August the figure went down for the Russians from 22,000 to 19,000; for the others, from 48,000 to 28,000. In the summer the prisoners of war decreased from 70,000 to 48,000.
* * * * *
REICH MARSHAL: But here you report to me and to the Fuehrer: From 1 January to 30 September a total of 2,200,000 in manpower could be made available for armament production,
(Comment by SAUCKEL: But not for the first time.)
among whom there are 770,000 prisoners of war. Through allocation 300,000 of these who had been drafted for armament and the armed services, and those who left for other reasons, were replaced, and labor for the most important armament industries was increased by 650,000, from 5.3 million to 5.9 million.
(Reading continued.)
FRYDAG: Those are the total allocations.
(REICH MARSHAL: I took that to be net allocation.)
No, gross.
MILCH: The Luftwaffe has increased by 150,000 men; the army by 240,000; the navy by 50,000; military administration has remained stable. For the Wehrmacht armament alone, there has been an increase of 400,000 men. Then other industries, including state railway [Reichsbahn], postal service, experts basic materials industry, make a total increase of 5.29 million, i.e., an actual addition of 500,000 men in this whole area within half a year.
* * * * *
REICH MARSHAL: Then there is one more question which again belongs here and which in all seriousness must be discussed. Suppose that, in the central sector of Holland, between Arnhem, Utrecht, and Dortrecht, I place at your disposal for three days 15,000 young German soldiers—recruits who have been there eight days, together with their respective officers’ corps for handling the executive—to catch the young Dutchmen (this would have to be carefully prepared, of course)—would you expect good results? It goes without saying that everything must be well organized in advance, transport to move them out, camps to receive them here, far away from the Dutch frontier.
SAUCKEL: Considering the Dutch population figure that amounts to something. However, the same should be done in Poland and France.
REICH MARSHAL: Naturally, after that has been done once, one has to modify the system for the second blow. Then the Dutch people will no longer be out in the streets on Sundays for pleasure promenades.
SPEER: Care should be taken though, not to affect the protected industries which we have established there. Their workers are also out for walks on Sundays.
REICH MARSHAL: First, all of the people must be brought together in a pen [Pferch]; then they will be asked individually who works where, and then the men will be selected accordingly.
SAUCKEL: We should like to set an example. However, I do not like to rely on this alone for the next year; but I should like to ask that one have the confidence in us that, reasonably speaking we are doing things in the right way. The factories which Speer barred to us * * *.
REICH MARSHAL: Really I am not imposing. But when I constantly hear: I could do very much if I only had the executive power, then I am ready to assist you, not permanently, but then, for five days or one week, by putting my men at your disposal. In France also we have training regiments, and the army, too, could arrange to make certain units available so as to make a big push.
SAUCKEL: If I may be permitted to speak quite frankly, the conditions are as follows: All of our Military Commanders, and also our Commissioners General—with the exception of Koch—also the general governors, take the stand that in all of their regions the supreme law is tranquility and order. Also during the present era of war these German people still feel—after all that is typically German—the inherent obligation of maintaining order in their country and of somehow protecting the local population.
(REICH MARSHAL: They do not see Germany, but Seyss-Inquart sees Holland only.)
That is the greatest difficulty which we face, and in spite of the obduracy which is there I am of the opinion that we really have more friends in these countries than we imagine. I shall place my reports at your disposal, among them a detailed report of a Flemish man, an economist who lives with his wife in Weimar, works there, and who at the same time looks after the Flemish people in my district. The matter is as follows: Our highest political authorities in these countries cultivate to some extent social contacts with the local high society; thus in Belgium, bluntly stated, with elite circles, the high financial circles, and leaders of industry. They show to the German commanders in chief a certain demeanor of courteousness and of conventionality and thereby satisfy our gentlemen to a great extent. Under this mask, however, they permit their nearest subordinate organizations to persecute and harass everybody who is in any way friendly to Germany. Unwillingly and without being suspected by our gentlemen [Herren] we have in this manner placed the Germans who were there under pressure. They all have become fearful, and they bar their minds against Germany, and those who really did something for Germany resign.
* * * * *
REICH MARSHAL: * * * Our method of procedure in the expansion of the large air fields, Sauckel, would then be that, we try, first of all, to get a hold of the available labor in the vicinity of the harbors in France, Belgium, and Holland which so far has not been recruited in any manner by Speer or by the Luftwaffe, or by you—just as the Russians do, and as the British now also are doing in Southern Italy and Sicily. There is a scarcity of water there and he who loafs is not permitted to come near the water tap. They are very strict on this point. Now, in the fifth year of the war, we too must be just as strict. And over and above this I still need workers who will be fetched from regions farther away if those from the immediate vicinity are not sufficient. And then come specialists, whom Speer makes available from his organization, the engine operators and so forth. If I am to rearm the Luftwaffe with everything that is conceivable now, I do need a considerable reserve stock of laborers. Technical workers must be included. This is in addition to the number necessary for fulfilling needs arising from actual fluctuation and departure of workers. Now that would have to be considered in detail.
SAUCKEL: May I call attention to the following: That which makes things very difficult for me at the moment is the question of our currency. It is a fact that prices in France, and in the entire west, are very much out of proportion. If we bring the workers to Germany and, according to German standards, we pay them just as well as the German workers, that does not help them at all because their families living in the occupied territories cannot buy anything with the money that the people transfer. I should like to ask you, Herr Reich Marshal, to talk with Reich Minister Funk and the other competent officials so that under all circumstances and with all possible means the German mark will preserve its purchasing power against the French franc, just as it was done on the other side, during the World War.
REICH MARSHAL: All we need to do is to fix the rate of exchange, just as was done at that time with the dollar, i.e., today the German mark equals 20 francs, tomorrow 23, then 27, then 40, etc., etc., up to one million, or one billion. We have had all that. The same holds true for the guilder. One cigarette now costs in Holland 1.50 guilders; formerly it cost 10 cents. I merely have to say: 1.50 guilders equal to 10 pfennigs, or one mark equals 15 guilders.
SAUCKEL: That would solve a big problem in the wage question.
REICH MARSHAL: The same is done in Belgium. I shall schedule a discussion on that with Mr. Funk. With friendly nations it is more difficult; nevertheless, there, too, we have to do it.
SAUCKEL: There is still something I should like to say. If this large-scale recruiting is carried into effect, even with coercion, it is nothing but compliance with laws which were promulgated there by their own governments, except that the governments declare they lack the executive power.
REICH MARSHAL: That is always the excuse; I simply shall give them the executive power.
Well, let me summarize it once more. We undoubtedly are agreed on the fact that what Sauckel brings to us here, and that which to us appears as stocking up, has been subject to a natural compromise and actually a greater number of people was necessary, to make up for the losses. If it had been impossible to obtain more labor there would, of necessity, have been a decrease, merely by reason of the draft, the increased rate of disease during the war, deaths, etc. The decrease in prisoners of war should really be insignificant unless there are modifications; on the contrary, I should like to see that the prisoners of war who had been released, Norwegians, and so forth, be taken again. Insofar as officers are concerned this has been done to a certain extent. It was the greatest nonsense ever committed by us and for which nobody thanks us. We have made prisoners of entire armies and we let them go again. We do not get anything from Norway?
SAUCKEL: No. Even Russians are being taken there, also French specialists.
(REICH MARSHAL: Why?)
The tasks there are much bigger than the population could cope with.
* * * * *
TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NOKW-180 PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 155
EXTRACTS FROM STENOGRAPHIC NOTES ON THE CONFERENCE AT THE REICH MARSHAL’S ON THURSDAY, 4 NOVEMBER 1943, 11 O’CLOCK AT THE JUNKERS PLANT IN DESSAU
* * * * *
THE REICH MARSHAL: Give the prisoner-of-war camp [Stalag] commander my greetings and tell him I said the Stalag is the biggest racket in Germany and merely a camp where get-aways are being organized wholesale. The men do not even have to bother to dig a tunnel, since they can walk out freely in broad daylight. The Italians get beaten up when they do not work. * * * It is absolutely useless to take the Italians as soldiers, for they report for duty, it is true, but then they bolt again. We need them here, however, as workers for the 100,000 men operation. In the second place, why do we not get the machines? If I want to have them, I just have to occupy a factory by surprise.
MILCH: There are no transportation facilities to make this possible. We have to let certain plants go on working in Italy, such as ball bearings, steel castings, and others, and we cannot take the people from there. The same applies to the technical sphere. The people there are working for us. All depends on our policy toward the Italians. I have ordered that they can be beaten up if they do not work. I have also given permission that Italians caught sabotaging be sentenced to death. If this measure is not desired by the higher authorities, which seems to be the case, we are powerless; then the Italians in the Reich will not be of any use to us, and they will not do anything down there either. Now the Italian has found the way out, he goes into the militia and, once he is over there, he bolts. There is one other way to make him work; if we do not provide the Italian with food and tell him: only those who fight and work for us will get food.
(THE REICH MARSHAL: That is what the Americans do!)
Why do we not do it? In my opinion we should try to get the machines by force. We can manufacture 1,000 pursuit planes in Italy and the engines for them. The engines will go only through Junkers, the other parts only through Messerschmitt. I should like to have the 109 and the 605 in Italy while they are still working, so that we can modernize our factories. We have the further advantage that the enemy drops his bombs not only on Germany, but also on Italy. We can disperse industry there in small valleys and we need not use the big Milan plants. The situation there is rather favorable.
THE REICH MARSHAL: Above all, this question must be discussed at once with the Fuehrer.
(End of the conference at 11:45 p.m.)
* * * * *
St 149-43 III gK [Stamp]
Top Secret
The Reich Marshal of the Greater German Reich Adjutant’s office Adj. 2019-43 top secret
[Pencil note] For my files
Berlin W 8 Leipziger Str. #3 Telephone: 120044 Headquarters, 12 Nov. 1943
2 copies, 1st copy
[initialed] Mi 15 Nov.
To the State Secretary for Aviation and Inspector General of the Air Force, Field Marshal Milch.
Reich Air Ministry
Forwarded herewith for your attention and further handling are the uncorrected stenographic notes on the conference at the Reich Marshal’s [Office] on 28 October 1943.
Inclosure:
Notes on conference No. 116-13
Top Secret—4th copy.
[signature] BRAUCHITSCH Lieutenant Colonel, GSC and Chief Adjutant
EXTRACTS FROM TESTIMONY OF DEFENSE WITNESS MAX KOENIG[136]
DIRECT EXAMINATION
DR. BERGOLD: Will you please give the Court your first name and second name?
WITNESS KOENIG: Max Koenig.
Q. When were you born?
A. 19 August 1897.
Q. What was your last position in the war with the Wehrmacht?
A. Lieutenant colonel in the reserve.
Q. And where were you?
A. With the commander of the Luftwaffe in Rechlin in charge of the testing station.
Q. Is it known to you, Witness, whether and what sort of orders, if at all, Milch gave with reference to the treatment of so-called terror pilots?
A. My department was subordinate to the GL, and therefore received orders from that office concerning the treatment of pilots who had made emergency landings, and such orders were to the effect to inform the Buergermeister [mayors] and the councillors that the prisoners who had made emergency landings should be sent to Oberursel at once.
Q. Then were these orders given or were they repeated in certain cases?
A. I myself went there in 1942 to that office and I remember very well that the first orders in this respect were given in 1943 and then in 1944.
Q. Have these orders provided for the taking of prisoners of all pilots by the Luftwaffe and taking them to Oberursel?
A. The GL ordered, followed by the threatening of heavy punishment if the orders were not followed, that all pilots who bailed out or made emergency landings should be taken at once in the quickest way possible to Oberursel.
Q. Did you transmit these orders to the mayors and councillors of your district?
A. These orders were passed on by the commander of the testing station to the ground organization of the base, passed on to all Buergermeister and the city councillors.
Q. Can you confirm that these orders came from Milch?
A. They came from the GL. It was even ordered how we should proceed. As far as I can recall we were ordered, among other things, that the contents of their pockets should be taken away from the pilots and sent to Oberursel with an accompanying letter.
Q. Did you know at that time that the Party wanted the pilots to be treated in a different manner?
A. I did not know that for we in Rechlin had hardly any contact with the Party.
Q. Therefore, you never corrected orders from the Party? Or would you have done this?
A. No. We were subordinate to the GL, and, therefore, we could only take orders from that superior office.
Q. Witness, what do you know within your office as to how concentration camp inmates were treated?
A. I should say this: When labor was requested for the building of a pillbox, we were given a detachment from Oranienburg. These prisoners were housed by the evacuating of our testing station, that means our German soldiers, in Laerz, and prisoners from the concentration camp at Oranienburg were moved into the billets of the German soldiers. There were about a thousand of these.
Q. Were the barracks in good condition?
A. They were not barracks in the bad sense of the word. They were the best billets which we had at our disposal in Laerz. They were new buildings and contained, apart from the living rooms, a theater room, and a big kitchen with, I believe, four stoves. I know the camp because I visited it repeatedly.
Q. Witness, what orders did you receive for treating of those people by the GL?
A. I remember two orders that were to the effect that all those who actually worked, whether foreigners or concentration camp inmates, should be treated well in order to save their good health and in order to increase their production.
Q. What has been done for that purpose?
A. As far as their health was concerned, under this order, I repeatedly saw to it that I obtained medical supplies from the hospital [Revier] of Rechlin.
Q. What you call the Revier is the hospital ward?
A. “Revier” is the sickroom which, considering the bigness of the agency, is approximately the equivalent to a hospital * * *.
Q. Let us go back to concentration camp inmates. What has been done in health matters?
A. Near Rechlin, there was an estate called Boek. This estate consisted of several thousand acres and apart from potatoes and turnips also produced wheat. On orders from the GL we received from that estate for the commando in Laerz and for the concentration camp and for the foreign workers large quantities of goods produced there.
Q. These concentration camp inmates; were they exploited unfairly?
A. I can say this—I myself was in the hall east from there up to the building of the commander, which was about a kilometer and a half. The foreign workers and concentration camp inmates lived in smaller and bigger groups and worked in such groups, but I could always observe them when I walked along the lanes. It seemed that when the civilian and other employees there were still working, the concentration camp groups had already stopped working because they had to be in their camp at a certain time. The time they needed to march to and fro was part of their working hours.
Q. Were they told to work particularly fast, or particularly heavy?
A. I can say this that I could really judge them because after all I saw them almost daily. Their work was not particularly slow, it wasn’t particularly fast. And one couldn’t say they were driven on.
Q. Were these people happy or did you hear complaints?
A. Should complaints have occurred I would have been the first to hear about them for it would have been my job to hear them, because I headed the particular office for food and treatment which was the liaison office between ourselves and the Stalags. I even listened at times to outbursts of joy. And from the liaison office we bought everything, beginning from cigarettes and other small gifts, foodstuffs, etc. This was used both in the camps and foreign workers, and the foreign workers were always running about freely there.
Q. Did your office ask for concentration camp inmates or were they sent to you by labor exchange on the basis of assignment of labor?
A. We had to use two ways, we had to use two channels here—one through labor exchanges and the other through the GL who ordered labor for us and on the basis of our application with the labor exchanges and the GL, this special commando and attachment came, whether on the basis of our application I really don’t know.
Q. Did you request concentration camp inmates or simply workers?
A. I may say quite frankly here I asked for German workers and I expected they would turn up but as we were under orders to maintain secrecy, neither did I think of foreign workers nor concentration camp inmates.
* * * * *
CROSS-EXAMINATION
MR. DENNEY: Just what was your job in Rechlin?
A. I was I B or I Bertha—that means an organization, and my job was looking after the army.
* * * * *
Q. Well, in your position having to do with figures you possibly were concerned with labor in Rechlin?
A. From Rechlin we were ordered to build a shelter in Laerz, and to carry this out we had to ask for labor.
Q. Didn’t they consolidate requests for labor and give them to you and you would send them up?
A. Requests were sent on to the labor offices on the one hand, and on the other hand to the GL.
Q. And they were sent by you?
A. They were sent by the commanding officer of the testing station, that is, to say, my superior officer.
Q. But you got them up and gave them to him to send them on?
A. I worked on them and passed them on to my commanding officer.
Q. You said that you had concentration camp workers—you also had foreign workers didn’t you?
A. There were about 1,000 concentration inmates and a certain number of foreign workers—Russians, French, and Italians.
Q. Did you have any prisoners of war?
A. Yes. We had some prisoners of war.
Q. How many people were employed there altogether?
A. In Rechlin, prisoners of war and foreign workers, Germans, altogether there were 4 to 5 thousand.
Q. Well, now we have got 1,000 concentration camp workers. So that leaves 3 to 4 thousand. How were those broken down among prisoners of war, foreign workers, and Germans?
A. Prisoners of war, roughly 500. There were about 300 foreigners, and the rest were German civilians and German military personnel.
Q. Now, these concentration camp workers, were they guarded?
A. They were guarded in their own camps and in some cases on trucks were taken to their places of work on the east Boek airstrip.
Q. And the foreigners, were they guarded?
A. I think they were at first a little guarded or, let us say, not at all.
Q. How about the prisoners of war?
A. The prisoners of war were under a similar condition as there were not very many guards at our disposal—guards were very few.
Q. You talked about the concentration camp people marching back and forth. Were they marching under guard?
A. Yes. They marched under guard.
Q. In the stockade?
A. They were in large camps or huts under stockade and under guard.
Q. Was there barbed wire around it?
A. Yes. There was barbed wire.
Q. And guards walking around?
A. And guards, yes.
A. Armed guards?
A. Yes. They were armed.
Q. Now, you told about passing on these orders about the terror fliers to the Buergermeister [mayor]. The order that you spoke of that you got from the defendant?
A. From the GL.
Q. The GL was Field Marshal Milch?
A. That was Herr Milch.
Q. And you gave those orders on to the Buergermeister about the so-called “terror fliers”?
A. The Buergermeister and county councillors.
Q. And then one day you heard about four fliers who had parachuted or made a forced landing—anyway they came down—and you sent your soldiers over there and you were told that they were not available?
A. No. The officer came back and said that the police had arrested the four pilots who had made a forced landing, contrary to our order and contrary to the regulations where the telephone number of our airfield had to be passed on to the Buergermeister. The report to the Buergermeister had the purpose to inform the airfield as quickly as possible so that from there a truck could pick up the pilots.
Q. Which police had taken these four fliers?
A. Unfortunately, I do not know. The officer of the airfield came back and reported that the police had fetched them. He didn’t see the police. He merely was informed by the Buergermeister of this.
Q. And then what did you do? Did you call the Buergermeister up?
A. No. We passed this on to the airfield and the airfield reported this to the Luftgau. The Luftgau is the next superior office above the airfield.
Q. Did they ever get these four fliers back?
A. No.
Q. They never got them back?
A. I do not know where they were taken to.
Q. You were the second man at Rechlin. You know that these orders were passed on to the Buergermeister that you received through your immediate superior from the Generalluftzeugmeister?
A. I was not the second man. I was E commander—commander of that office. I was purely an expert in I B. I was concerned in this because Colonel Petersen of the SD commando ordered the airfield should make investigations because of the Milch order to the effect that every pilot should be at once taken to Oberursel.
Q. At any rate, you didn’t do anything about this after you heard it?
A. Oh, yes. The report was immediately sent to the Luftgau that the pilots had been taken away.
Q. Did you send the report?
A. No. The report had to be sent by the competent office of the ground organization—namely, the airfield.
Q. You never made any effort to find out what happened to these four Allied fliers?
A. Oh, yes, that was passed on at once and the airfield having received it sent it on to the Luftgau and continued to work on this matter. What happened at the end I could not possibly find out because the Luftgau, the next highest office, had to report on it through those channels of command.
Q. You never tried to find out, did you? Did you ever call up anybody over at the Luftgau and ask them what happened to these four fliers?
A. No. I could hardly do that because I belonged to the testing station and there was a certain amount of dualism. It was rather like air activity on the one hand and the ground organization on the other.
Q. You knew what the Hitler order was about terror fliers, didn’t you?
A. Yes. I learned about this much, much later after this emergency landing in 1944. I heard about this in 1945 when I was interrogated in Munich by the Reich Marshal Special Court.
Q. What nationality were these pilots?
A. I could not say that. I assumed they were Americans, but I could not say that with certainty because we never saw the insignia of the aircraft nor even the pilots themselves as we did not take them prisoners.
Q. Were there any SD units around where you were?
A. In Rechlin itself, no, but my chief, Petersen, and I myself learned later on that we were supervised by the SD service.
Q. You say that in your position you would have heard complaints from any of the workers, of whom you had four to five thousand of whom approximately two-thousand were made up of concentration camp workers, prisoners of war, and foreign workers. You never got a single complaint from any of those people, is that right?
A. No. I can only confirm that repeatedly the foreign workers gave expressions of their gratitude for having this liaison office, which consisted of a sergeant, and for the additional supplies which they thus got from the Stalag. Strictly speaking, we would have been forbidden to enter the concentration camp compound because it was part of Oranienburg, and Oranienburg was an SS agency.
Q. So you never were inside, were you, in the concentration camp?
A. I went repeatedly there. I myself attended the hospital hours. That is to say, I looked at the ill people before they saw the doctor and I asked the doctor afterwards if he needed anything, and thereupon I got the medical supplies from the airfield and for that purpose I was able to do this because I was supported by the order of the GL.
Q. The Generalluftzeugmeister was able to arrange it so you could go into the camp and look around?
A. On the basis of the order where it was my duty to look after the people that they should be well-treated and well-looked after and, therefore, I was admitted into their compound.
Q. And the compound was under the jurisdiction of the SS who had jurisdiction over * * *.
A. (Interrupting) Yes. That was under the jurisdiction of the SS.
Q. And they had jurisdiction over all of the concentration camps?
A. I didn’t know that but all I know is that they came from Oranienburg and that the regulations concerning that compound came from Oranienburg.
Q. You knew that Himmler was head of the SS?
A. I heard about that in 1945.
Q. In 1945 you found out that Himmler was the Reich Leader SS?
A. Yes.
Q. I have no more questions.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Witness, you mean you did not know, before 1945, of the power Himmler had in the SS?
A. No, your Honor. Particularly in the testing station we did not discuss that nor did we receive many reports there. The attitude of my chief—I may perhaps say here, of the GL himself—it was known what their attitude was towards the Party. We ourselves were under the Gauleiter of Mecklenburg who supervised us. Therefore, we went to no trouble to look into other matters.
PRESIDING JUDGE TOMS: This testing station was in Germany, wasn’t it?
A. Yes. Rechlin is roughly 120 kilometers northeast of Berlin on the Muelef Lake [northwest of Berlin on Lake Mueritz].
Q. And an officer of the German army, 120 kilometers from Berlin, didn’t know who Himmler was until 1945?
A. Of course, I knew that Himmler was a Party member but that Himmler had all the concentration camps under him I really didn’t know until very much later.
Q. But you knew he was head of the SS?
A. I knew that he was an SS commander. I did not know until then that he was the head of the SS.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: How many concentration camp victims did you hear were killed up to 1945, starved to death and killed?
A. I did not know that and I only learned it from press notices which came out in connection with the Nuernberg trials.
Q. How many concentration camp workers were killed in your camp?
A. Nobody was tortured or killed in our camp; not even one man.
Q. Did any of them die a natural death while you were there?
A. Nobody died; I can confirm to the Court that both the health and the individuals’ happiness was such that there was neither case of death nor complaint.
PRESIDING JUDGE TOMS: The name of this concentration camp I must know. What was it?
A. The camp was near Rechlin and was an agency attached to Oranienburg.
Q. That was Oranienburg you were talking about?
A. It must have been a branch of Oranienburg. Up to my resignation on 31 January 1945, neither a torture nor a fatality occurred there. I said that before, your Honor, and I should like to repeat it.
Q. Don’t repeat it.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: How many inmates were there in this camp; what was the population of this camp?
A. The camp was roughly about 1,000 people strong.
Q. And how long were you there?
A. From October 1942 until 31 January 1945.
Q. And you say that in approximately three years’ time there was not one death in this camp?
A. Your Honor, the camp was not founded in 1942; as far as I can remember, it only came at the end of 1943 or early in 1944. I cannot give you the exact figure of the arrivals. I think it must have been at the end of 1943 or the beginning of 1944.
Q. And in all that time there was not one single death in the entire camp?
A. Your Honor, I had not heard of one single case of death. Should one case of death have occurred, it is possible that the SS in Oranienburg would have been told. We ourselves had not heard of one case of death in that camp, but during the day we assigned SS men in various groups.
Q. Do you mean this camp was functioning as a health resort?
A. On that, I can say, your Honor, that after the end of the war, I heard that before the end of the war when people left, they left very reluctantly, because there they were given food just as much as was corresponding to their performance and, in turn, they were actually able to work there.
-----
[134] Generalluftzeugmeister was translated as: Aircraft Master General, Air Ordnance Master General, Chief of Supply for the Air Forces, Chief of Air Forces Special Supply and Procurement Service, Director of Supplies, and Director General of Air Force Equipment.
[135] Word is missing in German original document.
[136] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 17 Feb. 47, pp. 1189-1204.
B. Medical Experiments
a. Introduction
The defendant Milch was charged with participation in criminal medical experiments. On this charge he was acquitted. Both the judgment and the concurring opinions deal extensively with this topic; also Volume I of this series, and the first part of the present volume, contains considerable documentation from Case I (the Medical Case) on the same medical experiments for participation in which the defendant Milch was indicted. Hence, only a small portion of the evidence on medical experiments offered in the Milch Case has been included in the present volume. Some of the prosecution documents which were directly related to the defendant Milch have been included here as well as the testimony of the defense witness SS General Wolff. Documents NO-285, NO-289, NO-224, 343-A-PS, and 343-B-PS, published as part of the Medical Case, were also introduced in the Milch Case. Further defense testimony on this topic may be found by consulting the official record.
The following defendants in Case I (the Medical Case) testified as witnesses for the defendant Milch: Hans Wolfgang Romberg, Wolfram Sievers, Hermann Becker-Freyseng, Georg August Weltz, and Rudolf Brandt. In addition, six other defense witnesses testified regarding the medical experiments: Erich Hippke, Walter Neff, Dr. Leo Alexander, Siegfried Ruff, Karl Wolff, and Gerhard Engel. See list of witnesses for dates and transcript page references on pages 889-90.
b. Evidence
PROSECUTION DOCUMENTS
Doc. No. Pros. Ex. No. Description of Document Page NOKW-041 113 Sworn statement by Hermann 626 Goering, 27 September 1946, concerning Milch’s position as Inspector General of the Luftwaffe.
NO-219 83 Letter from Dr. Rudolf Brandt 626 to Dr. Rascher, 27 April 1942, concerning medical experiment report for Himmler and Milch.
NO-261 89 Letter from Milch to Dr. 626 Hippke, 4 June 1942, concerning availability of low-pressure air chamber for experiments.
1607-B-PS 115 Letter from Dr. Rascher to Dr. 627 Brandt, 20 July 1942, concerning report on high-altitude experiments.
1607-A-PS 115 Letter from Himmler to Milch, 628 25 August 1942, concerning Dr. Rascher’s report on high-altitude experiments.
1617-PS 111 Letter from Himmler to Milch, 629 13 November 1942, concerning Rascher’s transfer to the Waffen SS.
NO-262 119 Letter from Dr. Hippke to SS 631 Obergruppenfuehrer Wolff, 6 March 1943, concerning Rascher’s transfer to the Waffen SS.
TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NOKW-041 PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 113
SWORN STATEMENT BY HERMANN GOERING, 27 SEPTEMBER 1946, CONCERNING MILCH’S POSITION AS INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE LUFTWAFFE
I, Hermann Goering, swear, depose, and state:
That I am the former Reich Marshal of the German Reich and the former Commander in Chief of the Luftwaffe, that I have personal knowledge of all the facts stated here, and that I know these facts because of the position and responsibility which I had in the German Reich.
That in approximately 1939 the former Field Marshal Erhard Milch was appointed Inspector General [Generalinspekteur] of the Luftwaffe and that as such he was directly responsible to me for the performance of his duties.
That the Inspector General of the Luftwaffe was in charge of all tasks and responsibilities, with the exception of those which were concerned with tactical operations (the latter were handled by my Chief of Staff). The supervision of the inspections, as well as the affairs of the health and medical inspections, was included in the tasks of the Office of the Inspector General. Special questions, however, such as the number of hospitals to be put at the disposal of the individual air fleets, fell within the province of my Chief of Staff.
That Generaloberstabsarzt [Lt. Gen., Medical Service] Dr. Erich Hippke was Chief of the Medical Service [Sanitaetswesen] of the Luftwaffe during the years 1941 till 1944 inclusive; that the Office of the Chief of the Medical Service was directly responsible for the execution of all medical research and experiments; that the Office of the Chief of the Medical Service, i.e., Hippke’s office, was directly subordinated to the Inspector General, the former Field Marshal Milch.
I have read the foregoing deposition consisting of two pages, in the German language, and declare that it is the full truth to the best of my knowledge and belief. I have had the opportunity to make changes and corrections in the above statement. I made this declaration voluntarily without any promise of reward, and I was not subjected to any duress or threat whatsoever. Nuernberg, 27 September 1946.
[Signed] HERMANN GOERING
TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-219 PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 83
LETTER FROM DR. RUDOLF BRANDT TO DR. RASCHER, 27 APRIL 1942, CONCERNING MEDICAL EXPERIMENT REPORT FOR HIMMLER AND MILCH
Top Secret
XI a-59
Fuehrer Headquarters, 27 April 1942
1198/42 Bra-N
To SS Untersturmfuehrer Dr. Sigmund Rascher
Munich
56 Troger Street
Dear Comrade Dr. Rascher:
The Reich Leader [Himmler] has seen your letter of 16 April 1942. He has shown the same interest in this report as in the one you sent recently. He would like you to make up for him an over-all report on the experiments carried out to date, which he would like to present personally to Field Marshal Milch.
Kind regards to your wife and yourself,
Heil Hitler! Yours
[initialed] R. Br. SS Obersturmbannfuehrer
TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-261 PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 89
LETTER FROM MILCH TO DR. HIPPKE, 4 JUNE 1942, CONCERNING AVAILABILITY OF LOW-PRESSURE AIR CHAMBER FOR EXPERIMENTS
The State Secretary for Aviation and Inspector General of the Luftwaffe
Berlin W 8, Leipziger Street 7, 4 June 1942 Telephone 12 00 47 Dear Herr Hippke!
According to the agreement with the Reich Leader SS the low-pressure air chamber for experiments in the neighborhood of Munich is still to be available for two further months.
Moreover, Stabsarzt Dr. Rascher is, in addition to his tests in the Luftwaffe, to be on duty for the present for the purposes of the Reich Leader SS.
Heil Hitler! Yours
Generaloberstabsarzt Professor Dr. Hippke
Berlin-Tempelhof.
Copy
SS Obergruppenfuehrer and General of the Waffen SS Wolff
Berlin SW 11.
Heil Hitler! and kind regards, Yours, [signature] MILCH
PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 1607-B-PS PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 115
LETTER FROM DR. RASCHER TO DR. BRANDT, 20 JULY 1942, CONCERNING REPORT ON HIGH-ALTITUDE EXPERIMENTS
Stabsarzt Dr. Rascher
Ahnenerbe RF-SS
Munich, 20 July 1942 Top Secret
SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. R. Brandt
Berlin, RF-SS.
Very esteemed Dr. Brandt,
Enclosed please find a copy of the work of myself and Romberg, “Experiments for Rescue from High Altitudes”.
On 14 July 1942, I was ordered by the Reich Leader SS to send you the above-mentioned report. The Reich Leader wants that report to be forwarded to Field Marshal Milch, accompanied by a letter from him, asking Milch to receive Romberg and me for a lecture. I believe to have understood correctly that the Reich Leader thought you would submit to him a letter to that effect for his signature.
I was very glad to hear that the Reich Leader was satisfied with the result of the work at Dachau and with the film, and that he ordered an intensive continuation of the work in that field.
I recommended Romberg for the War Merit Cross 2d Class [“Kriegsverdienstkreuz II. Klasse”] on the request of SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Sievers. SS Standartenfuehrer Dr. Wuest ordered me to notify you hereof.
The Reich Leader furthermore decided on 14 July 1942 that the prisoner Sobota and the two prisoners who work in the dissection room in Dachau should be released and transferred to the group “Dirlewanger.” The exact names are in possession of SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Sievers. The Reich Leader has also issued an order to that effect to Major Suchaneck.
I thank you cordially for everything and remain
Heil Hitler! [handwritten] Very faithfully yours, [Signed] DR. S. RASCHER
TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 1607-A-PS PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 115[137]
LETTER FROM HIMMLER TO MILCH, 25 AUGUST 1942, CONCERNING DR. RASCHER’S REPORT ON HIGH-ALTITUDE EXPERIMENTS
Field Headquarters, 25 August 1942
Field Marshal Milch
Secret Dear Milch:
Enclosed please find a report about experiments for rescue from high altitudes, which have been carried out by Stabsarzt Dr. S. Rascher and Dr. med. H. W. Romberg. I saw a film[138] produced by Dr. Rascher.
I consider the results of those experiments as so important for the air force, that I beg you to receive Dr. Rascher and Dr. Romberg
I consider the results of those experiments as so important for the air force, that I beg you to receive Dr. Rascher and Dr. Romberg that, after having seen the film, you will also refer the matter to the Reich Marshal because of its importance.
I would be obliged if you could let me know your opinion in time.
Friendly greetings and Heil Hitler! H. H. [initials of Himmler] 27 August 1942 [initial illegible]
1 Enclosure
TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 1617-PS PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 111
LETTER FROM HIMMLER TO MILCH, 13 NOVEMBER 1942, CONCERNING RASCHER’S TRANSFER TO THE WAFFEN SS
The Reich Leader SS
Berlin, SW 11, 8 Prinz Albrecht Street
Field Command Post
13 November 1942 Secret
Dear Comrade Milch:
You will recall that through General Wolff I particularly recommended for your consideration the work of a certain SS Fuehrer Dr. Rascher, who is a medical officer of the air force reserve [Arzt des Beurlaubtenstandes der Luftwaffe].
These researches which deal with the behavior of the human organism at great heights, as well as with manifestations caused by prolonged cooling of the human body in cold water and similar problems which are of vital importance to the air force in particular, can be performed by us with particular efficiency because I personally assumed the responsibility for supplying asocial individuals and criminals, who deserve only to die [todeswuerdig], from concentration camps for these experiments.
Unfortunately, you had no time recently when Dr. Rascher wanted to report on the experiments at the Ministry of Aviation. I had put great hopes in that report, because I believed that in this way the difficulties, based mainly on religious objections to Dr. Rascher’s experiments—for which I assumed responsibility—could be eliminated.
The difficulties are still the same now as before. In these Christian medical circles the standpoint is being taken that it goes without saying that a young German aviator should be allowed to risk his life but that the life of a criminal—who is not drafted into military service—is too sacred for this purpose and one should not stain oneself with this guilt; at the same time it is interesting to note that credit is taken for the results of the experiments while excluding the scientist who performed them.
I personally have inspected the experiments, and have—I can say this without exaggeration—participated in every phase of this scientific work in a helpful and inspiring manner.
We two should not get angry about these difficulties. It will take at least another ten years until we can get such narrow-mindedness out of our people. But this should not affect the research work which is necessary for our young, splendid soldiers and aviators.
I beg you to release Dr. Rascher, Stabsarzt of the reserve, from the air force and to transfer him to the Waffen SS. I would then assume the sole responsibility for having these experiments made in this field and would put the results, of which we in the SS need only a part for the frost injuries in the East, entirely at the disposal of the air force. However, in this connection I suggest that with the liaison between you and Wolff, a “non-Christian” doctor should be entrusted who ought to be not only a fully qualified scientist but also a man not prone to intellectual theft and who could be informed of the results. This doctor should also have good contacts with the administrative authorities so that the results would really obtain a hearing.
I believe that this solution—to transfer Dr. Rascher to the SS, so that he could carry out the experiments under my responsibility and on my orders—is the best way. The experiments should not be stopped; we owe that to our men. If Dr. Rascher remained with the air force, there would certainly be much annoyance; because then I would have to submit to you a number of unpleasant details caused by the arrogance and presumptousness which Professor Dr. Holzloehner displayed in the Dachau military post—which is under my command—during conversations with SS Standartenfuehrer Sievers about my person. In order to save both of us this trouble, I suggest again that Dr. Rascher should be transferred to the Waffen SS as quickly as possible.
I would be grateful if you ordered the low-pressure chamber being put at our disposal again, together with the differential pumps [Stufenaggregatpumpen], as the experiments should be extended to even greater altitudes.
Cordial greetings and Heil Hitler!
TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-262 PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 119
LETTER FROM DR. HIPPKE TO SS OBERGRUPPENFUEHRER WOLFF, 6 MARCH 1943, CONCERNING RASCHER’S TRANSFER TO THE WAFFEN SS
The Inspector of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe
Berlin W 8, Leipziger Street 7, 6 March 1943
File No. 2299-43 secret Inspectorate
Dear Obergruppenfuehrer Wolff!
State Secretary Milch has given me your letter of 21 November last year—Diary No. 1426/42 top secret—regarding the release of Stabsarzt of the Luftwaffe Dr. Rascher to the Waffen SS.
I am prepared to release Stabsarzt Dr. Rascher from the Luftwaffe, even after the Reich Physician of the SS, SS Gruppenfuehrer Dr. Grawitz explained to me that he was unable to give me a replacement; I shall put him at the disposal of the Waffen SS if Rascher himself desires this release. I shall ask him about that.
Your conception that I, as the responsible director of all medical-scientific research work, would have been opposed to the chilling experiments on human beings and so retarded their development is erroneous. I immediately agreed to the experiments, because our own previous experiments on large animals were concluded and supplementary work was necessary. It is also highly improbable that I, who is responsible for the development of all possibilities for rescuing our airmen, would not do everything possible to further such work. When Rascher explained his wishes to me, I agreed with him immediately. The difficulties, Mr. Wolff, lie in an entirely different sphere: it is a question of vanity on the part of individual scientists, every one of whom personally wants to bring out new research results, and very often it is only with great effort that they can be led to work unselfishly for the common good. None of them is without guilt in this respect; Rascher is not either.
If Rascher wants to build up his own research institute within the framework of the Waffen SS, I have no objection. All research work within the field of aviation medicine—that is, altitude—moreover, is under my scientific supervision in my capacity as director of German aviation medicine. This institute would then be under the supervision of the Reich Physician of the SS, SS Gruppenfuehrer Dr. Grawitz.
Momentarily, however, this work cannot be carried on because its continuation would require a low-pressure chamber in which not only the altitude of the stratosphere, but also the stratospheric temperature can be established. But there is no such chamber available in Germany as yet; a large chamber is being built in the new Berlin Research Institute for Aviation Medicine, and I hope I shall be able to have it completed in the course of this year.
If Rascher, on the other hand, wishes to conduct other experiments not concerned with altitude and chilling problems, these would not be under my supervision (aviation medicine) but under the supervision of the Medical Inspector of the Army (military medicine), whom he would have to contact.
I am going to talk over all these problems with Rascher in old comradeship, and I shall again notify you.
With respectful compliments and Heil Hitler! [Signed] HIPPKE
-----
[137] When this document was introduced, Dr. Bergold made the following statement (Tr. p. 457): “Please let me have the photostatic copy of the original, so that I can make a statement.
“I merely wanted to find out on the copy, whether there was any ‘receiving’ mark. Later on, in the course of the introduction of evidence, I shall prove that all letters which are not signed with a red pencil and do not carry the initials ‘Mi’ were never seen by the defendant Milch but were forwarded directly. This letter does not show the initials ‘Mi’.
(Stepping forward and showing the Tribunal the document) “May it please the Tribunal: Milch, whenever he received the letter, added his initials ‘Mi’; at all times, when Milch received a document, he indicated the receipt with a date; he initialed with a date. These letters, which do not show the initials, were received by his office but were not shown to him. At a later date, I can prove this. I just wanted, at this time, to call the Court’s attention to it.”
[138] When this document was read, Presiding Judge Toms asked (Tr. p. 458): “Mr. McMahon, do you know whether the film referred to in this letter is available?”
MR. MCMAHON: As far as we know, your Honor, it is not available. In regard to the one [letter] just referred to, I would like your Honor to understand that the copies which we have come from the secret files of Mr. Himmler, therefore, cannot show the initials of Milch, and so, in fact, would not show that Milch had seen that. This letter was received from the files of Himmler and would not have the initials of Milch, saying that he had received this particular letter.
C. Curriculum Vitae and Excerpts from the Testimony of the Defendant Milch
TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NOKW-269 PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 59
_A SHORT CURRICULUM VITAE OF FIELD MARSHAL ERHARD MILCH_
Date Position Activity 30.3.92 Date of birth. 24.2.10 Officer candidate First Foot Artillery Regt. 18.8.11 Lieutenant Recruit training. 1.8.14 Lieutenant Adjutant, 2d Bn., Reserve, First Foot Artillery Regt. 2.7.15 Lieutenant Air Force, Reconnaissance Observer. 18.8.15 First Lieutenant Air Force, Reconnaissance Observer. Winter 16-17 First Lieutenant Air Force, Adjutant of a unit. 1917 First Lieutenant Chief of the Fifth Air Squadron. 1918 First Lieutenant Detached service, commander of an Inf. Company; Detached service, commander of a Field Artillery Battery. 18.8.18 Captain Air Force, commander of 204th Air Squadron, commander of Sixth Fighter Group. 1919 Captain Commander of 412th Border Guard Squadron. 1920 Captain Detached service, commander of Police Air Squadron. End of 1920 Captain Resigned from military service. 1921 Lloyd-Ostflug, later Civilian air transport Danziger Luftpost company, Operation chief; Civilian air transport company, Manager. 1922 Junkers-Luftverkehr & Head of Traffic Danziger Luftpost Department—Organizer of air lines with Switzerland, Austria, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland. 1923 Junkers-Luftverkehr & Id. Danziger Luftpost 1924 Junkers-Luftverkehr & Head of air expedition to Danziger Luftpost South America. Business travel to the U.S.A. 1925 Junkers-Luftverkehr Head of General Administration. Nov. 1925 Deutsche Lufthansa Member of Technical Board. Summer 1928 Deutsche Lufthansa Id. and Business Director. 30.1.33 Id. and Deputy Reich Id. concurrently with Commissioner for direction of aviation under Aviation supervision of Goering. March 33 Deutsche Lufthansa and Id. in the Reich Ministry of State Secretary Aviation. May 1933 Join NSDAP Party member without assignment of tasks for Party. Sept. 1933 Activated as Colonel Party membership suspended. 1934 Brigadier General Reich Air Ministry and Deutsche Lufthansa. 1935 Major General Reich Air Ministry and Deutsche Lufthansa. 1936 Lieutenant General Reich Air Ministry and (Air Force) Deutsche Lufthansa. Inspector General of the Air Force 1938 General 1.9.39 General To operational Air Force. 11.4.-5.5.40 General Commander of Fifth Air Fleet. Since 10.5.40 General Inspector General. 19.7.40 Field Marshal Inspector General. Nov. 41 Field Marshal Id. and Chief of Air Force Material (Development, testing, procurement of Air Force material). April 42 Field Marshal Central Planning Board; Allocation of raw materials. March 44 Field Marshal Establishment of “Jaegerstab”. Raising output of fighter craft. 20.6.44 Field Marshal Resign posts of State Secretary and Chief of Air Force Material. Jan. 45 Resign post of Inspector General. March 45 Field Marshal Hitler declines my reinstatement. 4.5.45 Field Marshal Taken into British custody in Holstein.
1 November 1946. [Signed] ERHARD MILCH
EXCERPTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT MILCH[139]
[March 11]
Erhard Milch, the defendant, took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE MUSMANNO: The defendant will raise his right hand and repeat after me: I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The defendant repeated the oath.)
JUDGE MUSMANNO: You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
DR. BERGOLD: Witness, I do not have to tell you the same thing I tell all the other witnesses; namely, that you should speak slowly and all that. You have heard that several times.
Give your full name.
DEFENDANT MILCH: Erhard Milch.
Q. When and where were you born?
A. On 30 March 1892, in Wilhelmshaven.
Q. Who were your parents?
A. My father was a clerk with the Kriegsmarine [navy], and my mother was born Vetter.
Q. What education did you have?
A. I attended the Gymnasium in Wilhelmshaven, and then from 1905 on I went to the Joachimsthalsche Gymnasium in Berlin.
Q. When did you matriculate?
A. In February 1910.
Q. What did you study then?
A. I didn’t study, but four days later I went to the First Foot Artillery Regiment in Koenigsberg in East Prussia, and I joined that regiment as a cadet.
* * * * *
Q. Witness, what was your position in the Third Reich in 1933?
A. I was State Secretary at that time; at first, it was not called a ministry. It was called the Reich Commissar’s Office, because formal measures for the formation of a ministry had to be considered both with the Reich President as well as the Reichstag. At first, Goering was Reich Commissar and I was Deputy Reich Commissar for Aviation. I think it was in March that the Reich Ministry was formed; and at that moment I became State Secretary.
* * * * *
[March 12]
Q. * * * Witness, is it correct to say that in your capacity as Inspector General you had to make trips abroad too, that is, you had to take care of the comradely relationship with the air forces of other countries?
A. * * * Perhaps I can look up some notes to check the dates of my trips. The visits which I made were only, some of them, in my capacity as Inspector General. Some of them were made for purely personal reasons, relations with people. For instance, the first visit which I made at the request of Van Zeeland, the Belgian Prime Minister, that must have been about 1936. I visited Belgium. The Belgian Ambassador in Berlin, Count Kerkhove [Kerchove de Deuterghem], was a personal friend of mine. One day he asked me to go to Belgium with him; the Prime Minister Van Zeeland would like to see me. I was very astonished at this idea and I asked him what the matter was. I then told him that I had to have the permission of my superior officers. I received it. This was an entirely private journey. The purpose of the trip, as I realized in Belgium, was that Van Zeeland wished to come to terms with Germany, not only formally but full-heartedly. Belgium, since the First World War, had a treaty with France and was under an obligation to come to France’s aid militarily by agreement with France. Van Zeeland wished to renounce that treaty, and he wished to have similar terms with France as with Germany. Belgium was also prepared in economic matters, which was a very urgent point for Germany at the time, to make concessions, far-reaching concessions. The visit started with a brief call on the King, who did not refer to the purpose of the visit. This was purely a courtesy call, but this call gave support to my trip. I saw that the Prime Minister acted in accordance with his King. The plan as such—although as I emphasized several times I am not a politician and it was not my intention to interfere in foreign office matters, but here von Neurath entirely agreed with my visit. He had not the bureaucratic mind—the plan impressed me. Rather, I saw the possibility to create friendly relations between Germany and Belgium, and via Belgium to France, and later on via France to England itself.
I was convinced that the over-privileged policy of balance of power no longer applied since the First World War. The powers in Europe had been dislodged too much and joint friendship between France and Britain was definitely a British interest in that sense.
When I returned I reported orally to von Neurath who entirely agreed with that point of view. I also reported to Field Marshal von Blomberg, who, apart from Goering, was my military superior. He took the same line. I reported to Hitler and Goering. Both received my report but did not express their own opinion. To my question whether and what I could tell the Belgian Ambassador, I was told that would have to be done through other channels, not through me. My orders had come to an end by giving this report. This was my first visit and it was entirely unofficial.
Then I went to Belgium in May 1987. At that time, as a Luftwaffe man, I was officially received by the Commander in Chief of the Belgian Air Force, General Duvivier; also by the Minister of War and other officials. That was a very friendly visit which also led to very good personal relations between ourselves and their pilots.
I was particularly interested in Belgium because in the First World War Germany had marched through Belgium, had violated Belgian neutrality, and had to make up for this now. I believed that the views as expressed by Belgium on both occasions were aimed at finally burying the hatchet. I assumed that there was a direct connection between my Belgian visit and a visit by the French Ambassador Poncet who came to call on me in my office and extended an invitation by the French Government on the occasion of the International Exhibition. That visit took place from 4 to 9 October 1937 in Paris with the full approval of Goering and Hitler. The visit was most impressive since I believe it was the first time since 1867 that a German officer was able to pay an official friendly visit to France. The French told me with the greatest satisfaction that that was the first time the French Company of Honor had presented its arms since the Prussian Crown Prince had visited Paris in 1867.
The French made great efforts to make the visit a success and I must say they succeeded all along the line. The main point was joint military inspections. Very cordial words were exchanged with the generals of the French Air Force. I was accompanied by Udet and Count Kerkhove [Kerchove de Deuterghem] who also had very good relations with France from other times. The central point perhaps of the visit and its real purpose occurred after a lunch given by Pierre Cot, the Minister of Aviation. On my other side the Foreign Minister was sitting, and also the Minister of the Navy was there. After lunch the three French Ministers, Wilmer, the Commander in Chief of the French Air Force, Udet, and myself remained in a special room and the French Foreign Minister asked me to take home with me some propositions made by his office.
I should add that our German Ambassador in France was also there, also in the smaller circle. When I said that I didn’t want to interfere in his business, he himself did not take any notice of it. He said that the most important thing was to report to Hitler on my impressions. He himself could not approach Hitler. The Ambassador was then Count Welczeck. I was extremely surprised; I had no idea. I couldn’t imagine that the Head of State should not see his own Ambassador. On that basis I said I would only act as a postman, and as such would transmit what I would be told. I would give my very best own will.
The contents of the conversation were to have a far-reaching agreement between the two countries, the main purpose being to establish a really permanent and lasting peace between the two countries. I was able to take over this assignment with the best conscience in the world. After all, I said yesterday what I thought of military events in Europe in the last thousand years. My impression was that the Foreign Minister was very serious in this business, nor did I have any suspicions that this might be a political trap and the Air Minister Cot who was always described as communist in Germany, gave me a very good impression indeed, and our conversations were very intimate and very frank.
The French Foreign Minister at that time was called Delbos. The farewell on the Le Bourget Airfield led to fraternization between all of us, and between ourselves and five or six of the highest French generals. I must not forget that one of the oldest French generals, General Keller, expressed with tears in his eyes that he was convinced that the thousand years war between France and Germany was now a matter of the past. We also were deeply moved.
On 9 October I flew from Paris to Berchtesgaden and reported to Hitler at once. He ordered me to report to him as soon as I had returned. I may perhaps say quite generally I could only see Hitler if Goering gave me permission or ordered me to do so, or, of course, if Hitler himself ordered me to come and see him. I myself could not go and see him as I was merely a subordinate.
In the presence of Udet I gave a report to Hitler lasting over two hours on the evening of the 9th of October, when my impression was still very fresh. Hitler listened very attentively, asked a number of detailed questions. I could tell him all about the various details which we saw and heard, not so much the military ones, but the political details. I could never talk enough about these things. After all, it was a fairly long conversation with the Head of State. I recommended all these things very warmly and I asked him to take this extended hand and he would represent the greatest glory if he would succeed in coming to a lasting agreement with France based on the very far-reaching economic community between the two countries.
I compared this with the time of the German Customs League prior to 1870 when the German states were linked together only through this Customs League. I recalled to his memory that both countries, France and Germany, had been a unit and a community for centuries at one time, and what was greatness at that time today merely meant a normal state. I want to express in particular that nobody pleaded that the two countries should be politically linked together but that political collaboration was a necessity.
On 11 October, two days later, the Italian Ambassador called on me—
Q. Just a minute. I have to ask another question. Is it correct that during this conversation you also offered to go as a special envoy to France and to complete this task?
A. Oh yes, I told him that Count Welczeck should be called to Hitler in order to give a report. Hitler said no, that is not necessary. I then said that he must have somebody, if he wished to pursue this matter, who enjoyed his confidence and also the confidence of the government to which he was sent. I told him that I was prepared at all times to serve under Welczeck as a special envoy only for that one task. I explained to him that I regarded Welczeck as a man who enjoyed the confidence of the French Government, and that it would be a pity if Hitler would not see that man more frequently.
Q. Witness, did Hitler take a position on this question or did he keep silent again as he did before?
A. Apart from putting questions to me he didn’t say anything decisive at all. After all, I was not a Foreign Office official, and I could hardly expect him to do so. Perhaps later on I can describe what I did as far as Neurath is concerned.
Q. But before that I would ask you one more question. In Belgium and in France were you told why you of all persons were approached by these foreign countries and had the confidence of these countries?
A. The Belgians were explicit on that point. When I told Count Welczeck that, after all, the Foreign Office was concerned here; that it would not serve any useful purpose, he replied, “That will not be read higher up. If you are the soldier coming to Hitler, he will listen to you, for, after all, soldiers are your trump cards at the moment. Also we have confidence in you, confidence that you will at least be able to see Hitler; and he also has the confidence that you personally will do your best in this respect.”
Q. Witness, at that time did others also approach you, other diplomatic representatives, and lend you their confidence?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you have the confidence of Mr. Messersmith?
A. Oh, yes, Mr. Messersmith; but that was before all this. I think that really took place in 1933, ’34 or perhaps in ’35. He visited me three times. When he was the Consul General of the United States, he had some difficulties with some American subsidiary companies in Germany. One was Standard Oil, as far as I recall. I asked him why he wanted to see me since that was not my business. Then he said that he had full confidence that I would look after his interests. He had been told by other diplomatic representatives that I was able to help him.
Q. All right. Now, Witness, we come to the steps you took after your report to Hitler, the steps you took later on. I ask you to tell about that briefly.
A. Perhaps I’ll do that. It was after my visit to England.
Q. Very well, go ahead.
A. On 11 October 1937, the Italian Ambassador came to see me. That was Professor Attolico. He told me that the Italians had got very excited at my Paris visit. It was believed that I had gone to make arrangements there which were in contradiction to German-Italian agreements. I calmed him down at once without giving him too many details; but he asked me to pay a brief visit to Italy before going to England. We had been asked to go to England on the 17th of October. An air force exhibition in Milan was the occasion; and I was asked to open that exhibition on the 12th of May. That, of course, was headlined by the Italian papers. Attolico came and saw me after this and expressed his gratitude. He said that Delbos had put a trap in front of me.
PRESIDING JUDGE TOMS: The witness gives the date as the 12th of May. Is that what he meant for the exhibition in Milan?
A. 12 October.
PRESIDING JUDGE TOMS: What year?
A. In October 1937. I went to Italy and then to England. The visit had been arranged by the Royal Air Force as a reply to the visit paid to us by the Royal Air Force in January 1937. At that time figures were exchanged between us on planned armaments, that is to say the figures concerning bombers, fighters, and so forth, by agreement with Goering and Hitler. Here again the intention existed to know exactly what the other was doing. The other point was the intention to come to terms on all these questions.
The visit to England lasted until 25 October. England had quite a lot to show. The air force was very well organized and had first-rate personnel. The visits were very cordial. Political conversations of an official nature were not held; but unofficially we spent an evening in a club, in a very small circle of ten people, perhaps less than ten. Lord Swinton, who was then Minister of Aviation, took part, as well as the leader of the opposition, Mr. Churchill, and Lord [Rt. Hon.] Amery, Secretary of State for India, and from the British Air Force, Lord Trenchard.
We had brought General Stumpff and of course General Udet. This was more in the nature of a personal contact and political questions were not touched upon. The other hosts had told me before, “Today you meet your first and second best enemy. Don’t be confused by this; but if there is an attack, hit back.” That is what happened; but it was a very jolly evening.
Before we took off again, that is to say on 24 October, Mr. Eden, the Foreign Secretary, rang me up. He said that he had been busy all the time before, but could I see him now. I said that I should be delighted but that a program had been arranged for us by the RAF to visit an airfield tomorrow. I asked that if the program could be changed, would he please contact the RAF. He told me that perhaps that would be a bit too complicated and asked if perhaps I could see him later on. I could be with him in two hours and thirty minutes since that was how long my aircraft took from Berlin to London at that time. Unfortunately I never saw Mr. Eden.
I reported about that trip to England on 2 November. The report took over two hours. Hitler was much more accessible than when I talked to him about France. I reported particularly my talk with Mr. Churchill and drew his attention to the seriousness which was expressed. Hitler immediately interrupted me. He said, “Please do not worry at all; never in my life will I do anything against Britain. The basis of my whole policy is collaboration with Britain.” These words calmed me considerably. I immediately explained to him once more that the way to come to terms with England would be by Brussels and Paris, and I explained why.
I saw von Neurath on 11 October on the trip to France; and on 28 October I reported to him on my trip to England in great detail. All I could tell him at the time was what Hitler had said or had failed to say about France. Neurath again was very impressed with me for having worked for him in this sense. I was in agreement with him that without any further invitations by him or Hitler I must not take any further steps.
Then on 1 November 1937 I went and saw Field Marshal von Blomberg who at that time was Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, that is to say, Goering’s military superior. I reported to him. Blomberg in all things entirely agreed with me, as had Neurath. Goering at that time did not have enough time to see me. I asked on several occasions to be allowed to report to him on these very important matters; but this did not happen because he simply declined.
Q. Witness, I think we can leave this field now. Will you only explain briefly to the Tribunal whether you received foreign delegations, and of which nations, and what happened at those occasions?
A. I said before that the British had visited us in January 1937. After that I had perhaps five or six visits from Englishmen. The French paid a return visit in 1938. On that occasion again we returned the very cordial welcome which the French had given to us. We showed the French our troops and factories. Yesterday, reference was made by the witness Vorwald[140] to this, who said that we only showed what the troops had at their disposal at the time and what expressly had been permitted to be shown by Goering, after a request had been made by the competent department of the General Staff. I know that somebody has alleged that Hitler at the end of the war said I had shown secret methods to foreign visitors and damaged Germany thereby. That is a slanderous statement. It was alleged that I had shown radar instruments, and at that time we didn’t have any radar at all.
* * * * *
Q. Witness, were you ever Goering’s deputy in this capacity, and how long?
A. Until 1937 I was his deputy, and all offices in the Luftwaffe which were subordinate to him were also subordinate to me. This applied to the execution of orders. From 1937 onwards I was his deputy only in my own sector, and this automatically as Chief of the General Staff in his field, which applies also to the Generalluftzeugmeister. In any case it was within my capacity to deputize for Goering in all matters as I was the second senior officer of the Luftwaffe, and this was done only by way of rank. But Goering reserved the right to appoint a deputy in general, that is, especially always only for the Luftwaffe. This authority he did not confer upon me. Even when he was on leave he kept this right, he retained his command. I agreed with this arrangement personally.
* * * * *
Q. Witness, what was the position at the beginning when you took over the duties of GL? What measures did you take, and what was your aim?
A. I can be brief in this connection, at least in regard to the first point. General Vorwald yesterday spoke at length about it. No useful developments for the immediate future were available. No bomber aircraft of a new type was in existence, and as to mass production we stood very poorly, as I previously described to you. Painstakingly we had reorganized on 1 September, and it was only because of the extreme devotion of industry and because of the faithful service rendered by our German workers and those who helped them that it was possible to, shall we say, bring about a miracle.
The production figure in bombers was reached once more in the shortest of time, in the spring of 1942. There was not a single individual instance where our program as we had set it for ourselves was not reached. This was something extraordinary. In the case of fighters, there was a good type of fighter aircraft, or even two; namely, the Focke-Wulf and the Messerschmitt, but there were no engines for those fighters. We had to use incomplete engines to equip these aircraft, and on the strength of my experience collected in my capacity as director of the Lufthansa, I had to have tests carried out. My testing department in Rechlin was excellently staffed, the commander being an excellent pilot and technician, and it was due to their devotion that in a few months we managed to get even these new engines ready although, according to human estimate, we could not expect it. It was more through luck than intelligence that we got that.
Now that was the situation as I found it. The new organization, of course, had not been started up, and I had to collect a few new, extremely good experts. The men who were working there independently were rather downhearted for a long time. As experts they had lost any doubt in the outcome of the war, and they did not believe that it would be possible once again to start up our armament program.
The total number of aircraft in production was something in the neighborhood of 800. That included trainer aircraft, transports, liaison aircraft, such as the Storch; it even included towing aircraft which were to be used for parachutists. As far as fighters were concerned, production of those, when it was removed from under my care, had increased by only about ten percent, although ’37, ’38, ’39, ’40, ’41—four years—five years—had elapsed. The saddest fact was that among those 800 there were only 200 fighter aircraft, although both on the British front and in the East, fighter planes were necessary. The Russians had at their disposal a very large number of bombers, and even if they were an elderly type, after all, we did have to have fighters to keep them in check, and since the transport extended from the North to the South over 2,000 kilometers, a large number of fighter units had to be used in that campaign. This arm could not be supported with 200 fighters. We needed more.
The demand which I found from the General Staff, which of course made all demands and had them confirmed by Goering, amounted to a total of 360 fighters which were to be obtained in 1942. It was said yesterday that immediately I ordered a considerable increase. Several figures have been mentioned by various witnesses. Actually, these increases were not decided upon in one day. To begin with, it was to be doubled and a few days later I said, “Let’s make it 1,000; that’s a round number,” and later, in fact, there were 3,000 and later even we planned 5,000. We knew at about that time just what we had to expect from our enemies. We knew the types they had.
America, in the initial period, still published their production figures correctly subdivided according to types, and we also had an excellent intelligence, and from analyzing aircraft that had been shot down and from the numbers which were coded, and which could be deciphered by an expert right away, we could discover right to the very last number what they had produced. That was production that had been actually carried out, and the figures found in the United States were not fictitious. Industry, although with a certain amount of reticence and difficulty, but certainly afterwards quite clearly fulfilled these figures. I still know exactly that the plan ran to about 8,000 aircraft, and was achieved, and that figure included four-engine bombers. Production under Britain’s rearmament, too, was learned in detail, and I remember at the time Great Britain was either already producing 800 four-engine bombers a month or was just about to produce that number.
You could calculate from that the number, the quantity of bombs which could be brought to Germany, and regarding the function and size of the bombs, of course we knew about that too. This was, of course, the reason that previously as Inspector General I demanded that the entire force should be built to defend our home country, this being the fundamental principle of warfare, since without armaments and life at home, battles at the front were unthinkable. I shall later have to come to this question in more detail because I am probably the man who remembers this most accurately, and as long as I am still about I would like to state this clearly once again, because this is one of the most important questions which probably existed in every war. This was the biggest struggle that went on, and as I look back on it today I am surprised that I did not despair over that struggle myself.
Q. Witness, those measures which you planned, were they dictated by the thought that with the campaign against Russia the situation of Germany would become desperate?
A. As I said earlier, the war on two fronts was the stab in the back of this war as far as I was concerned, that I thought excluded victory once and for all, and the only remaining question now was just how badly fleeced we might escape from this whole affair. It was no longer possible in my opinion to end this war by force of arms. It was only possible by means of arms to attain a somewhat satisfactory final position on the strength of which political and diplomatic steps would have to take place. In order to achieve such a final position it was necessary in the first place that Germany should be protected against destruction, because once the war potential was destroyed it was immaterial whether the fronts collapsed a little earlier or a little later. They could not be held any longer. This thought, unfortunately, was not understood by our leaders, or rather they did not agree with it and turned it down and just did not come to it. The end did not come until there was hardly one stone left intact.
Q. Witness, in this connection I should like to ask you to show the correctness of your present report and to prove that from the very start you had these thoughts, and to submit to the Tribunal the remark you had made in your diary when the Russian campaign started.
A. I wrote in it, “The attack against Russia: the first day 1,800 aircraft destroyed, mostly on the ground. The Russians left them there. They didn’t expect that we would attack. They overestimated our intelligence.”
Q. What did you want to say by these words, “They overestimated our intelligence?”
A. Well, the Russians might have thought that no opponent would be so foolish and so stupid to attack them now and create a war on two fronts.
* * * * *
[March 13]
Q. Witness, do you know at what point the Central Planning Board was ordered and how did the creation of this institute come about?
A. Its creation must have taken place during the last days of March 1942. It originated from a discussion which Speer had with Hitler in the latter’s headquarters. At the time when Speer had taken over armament there was no higher authority which was acting according to clear-cut points of view when distributing raw material. Until then we had been receiving raw material through a certain department of the OKW. This department in turn had been getting it from the Four Year Plan. The OKW was distributing to the army, navy and air force but this department had no expert knowledge. Consequently the continuity of armament suffered under this. Speer quickly recognized the state of affairs and without my having previous knowledge of it he tackled this question when talking to Hitler. As a result Hitler appointed Speer as the central planner for this subject. Subsequently Speer made the request that I should take on this task together with him, since Speer had been in the armament business rather briefly and since he said I would be able to help him—at least this was the way Speer discussed the matter with me shortly afterwards; I, myself, hadn’t been at that conference. Following this, on 2 April 1942, Speer and I together went to see Goering since Speer considered that this task, which, after all, was connected with the Four Year Plan, should be discussed with Goering. Goering expressed agreement but he demanded that a representative of State Secretary Koerner, who was in official contact with the Four Year Plan should enter the Central Planning Board. I know that Speer said at this point: “It seems to me three are rather too many for this job”, and I said “Well, I am only too willing to drop out. I have enough work as it is,” and Speer interfered and said that was out of the question. Goering said: “No, it is my view that there can be three.” That is how the composition of the Central Planning Board was realized. I can anticipate at this point that very much later Minister Funk joined the Central Planning Board as a force which was done at the instance when the so-called “War Production”—and in this case we are not talking about the armament business but civilian requirements and the like—was transferred from Funk’s Ministry to Speer’s Ministry.
Q. Witness, did you, within the framework of the Central Planning Board become the armed forces’ or air forces’ representative?
A. No, right at the very beginning that had been decided upon by Hitler that, namely, that in no way was I to look after my own interest there, that is to say, the interest of the air force, that I should be above the Party. Later on there were demands from the navy, which had not known about this arrangement. They, too, wanted to have a representative in the Central Planning Board. * * *
Q. Witness, what were the actual tasks of this Central Planning Board?
A. The tasks had been communicated to me by Speer and had been confirmed through Goering. There was only distribution of raw materials to all holders of priority permits.
Q. Witness, what is what you call the “holder of a priority”?
A. Well, the armed forces are such priority holders, and within the armed forces the navy, army, and air force are holders of these priorities. The coal industry holds these priorities; the steel industry; the textile industry; the German cities and municipalities, for their municipal requirements; the power supplying industry.
Q. What about agriculture?
A. Most certainly agriculture, for agricultural machinery requires steel, requires coal, requires all sorts of things. Altogether, the forms according to which we used to distribute, and which contained the word “armament” on the left, contained on the right all the civilian purchasers, all the buyers. There were approximately 40 to 45 civilian holders of these priorities.
Q. But then what did the Central Planning Board have to do with the Four Year Plan, to which there seemed to be some sort of formal connection through Speer?
A. The Central Planning Board as such had nothing to do with the Four Year Plan; only Speer, in his capacity as Armament Minister.
Q. Did you ever report to Goering about the Central Planning Board?
A. No, with the exception of that first meeting on 2 April 1942, when the matter was reported to him. Apart from that meeting, I have never talked to him or with him about the Central Planning Board. * * *
* * * * *
Q. From whom did the Central Planning Board have instructions?
A. Directly from Hitler.
Q. Through which channels were they given?
A. Speer was with Hitler practically every week, for the reason of army supplies, or other questions, sometimes staying with Hitler for several days. On such occasions Hitler would mention his most important problems. For instance, he would mention the sequence of priorities of the various armament branches, which I explained to you yesterday. Quite automatically, through this, the approximate priority ratings were laid down. However, within the individual spheres, because of the events of the war, there were current changes: At one moment one type of tank, and then at another moment, another type of tank; or first one type of gun, and then another type of gun, would be more important. That, of course, necessitated considerable rapid changes in the allotment of raw materials. That was the case, and to an even stronger degree, in the case of munitions, so that currently, probably during every such conference which took place in his office, Hitler used to express special wishes, which of course meant orders for us.
I personally took part in such conferences on nine occasions. Occasionally Speer would take me along to have me appear on the stage there, as he would put it. However, that ceased almost completely during the last years. Anyway, I know for certain, according to my documents, that I was there nine times.
Let me add at this point that State Secretary Koerner[141] was never there. Speer did not think that it was necessary for him to be taken along, and Koerner would not impose his presence either.
Q. So that during such a meeting for the receiving of orders of the Central Planning Board, Koerner was never there?
A. No, he was not there, and he did not know about it either. He didn’t know, therefore, how strongly Hitler interfered in this sphere by giving orders.
Q. But didn’t you always report to him, either you or Speer, in the case of the meetings of Central Planning Board?
A. It might have come as an aside during the meetings; one of us might have said, usually Speer, “Hitler has given this or that order,” but that wasn’t anything very noticeable to Koerner.
Q. Was it only because of the Central Planning Board that Speer went to see Hitler?
A. No, that was one very small portion of all the other discussions, because Hitler was interested, to an extraordinary degree, in army armament, and even right down to the most minute detail. He himself decided, on his own initiative, the thickness of armor on armored fighting vehicles; he decided upon the caliber and type of gun which should be fitted to tanks; he decided the thickness and the caliber of antitank defensive armor; he himself laid down, personally, the supply rate of ammunition for every type of gun. I had an awful lot of difficulty with him over antiaircraft ammunition in that connection, since Hitler would never depart during that time, from anything which he had once laid down. He had changed a great deal from his prewar days.
* * * * *
Q. Witness, it is your opinion that even this first record of the Central Planning Board meeting is inexact and does not correspond with the true discussions which took place?
A. May I state quite basically in connection with this that I hardly ever had my deputy with me when I went to the meetings; he had a lot of other assignments and their meetings went on for several hours. Koerner’s deputy, the representative whom he brought along, always kept the minutes in the sense of observing Koerner’s meaning. Sometimes I did read through these brief minutes, and I might say that I pointed out to Koerner and Speer that facts always seemed altered considerably, but all three of us used to laugh about it, and with a flick of the wrist we used to consider it quite unimportant to have these minutes altered afterwards because all of these minutes appeared of no importance whatsoever. What was important were decisions of the Central Planning Board, and they were taken down most exactly, and they contained to my knowledge only contingencies of raw materials such as we had distributed. * * *
Q. Witness, on this occasion we might touch upon the value or lack of value of the so-called verbatim minutes, now that we have come to this subject, don’t you think? These verbatim minutes, which are very comprehensive, very voluminous, even with reference to one meeting, there was a whole volume it seems. Were they examined?
A. No. That wasn’t possible. I might have examined one or the other minutes at the beginning, and I did on one occasion try to make improvements, but I found that it contained so many mistakes that the time of reading and improving them would have amounted to fifty percent more time than the actual meeting. These meetings often went on for four or more hours or so, and I really did not have the time to sit down for something like six hours afterwards in order to put the minutes right. I know that there wasn’t any one who read through them, and I didn’t really know why these records, these verbatim records, were prepared. I thought perhaps it was a question of supervision for us, and I had no cause to state that I would not allow myself to be supervised. If you went to the pains of having one stenographer who would do nothing but write, but who was stumped by the fact that we sometimes spoke too quickly or not too clearly; a stenographer who often sat far away from the man who was speaking, or who didn’t know the name of the man who was speaking, there was bound to be a lot of muddle in that respect. He didn’t know whether the man who was sitting on the left was talking or his neighbor on the right, and one mistake after another occurred. I gave it up pretty quickly after looking through these minutes. I once asked the others whether they read through the minutes and they just laughed at me, and said that they had more and better jobs on hand, and I said so had I.
Q. Witness, you have just said that these stenographers who sat on the side could quite often not even distinguish between the speaker, whether it was he or his neighbor. What was the custom; did you remain seated while you were speaking, or did one always rise?
A. No, no, we all stayed seated; we all remained seated and the stenographer couldn’t always see who was speaking because on certain occasions a lot of people were there. If you invited one man to a meeting in Germany, then possibly he always brought his entire staff along so that he could answer all the questions; and if you invited one, sometimes fifteen or twenty showed up. I sometimes asked whether these men didn’t have anything else to do because we were not really concerned with details, only with the basic, larger points, and they used to say, well, everybody is invited.
Q. Witness, did it happen that specific orders were given to stenographers to alter certain points or omit them? So that apart from accidental mistakes, deliberate mistakes were being made?
A. I have recollections of many occasions that Speer, who used to sit next to me, would shout to the stenographer across the room and say, “Leave that out, what the Field Marshal just said.” Unfortunately, notorious before this Tribunal are the expressions and words I used, which were not always too carefully chosen. I have always said during my entire life what came to my mind at the moment, and I, as a soldier, was never taught to hide my opinion. But sometimes, in order to refreshen sometimes boring meetings, I used rather forceful language to shake up the others a bit so that they would at last come out with their true opinions, because many of the people were only there as experts on individual points. Quite often ministers were there; even in Germany a minister and a field marshal have a fairly high-ranking position; and the German is rather more inclined to speak too much than too little. Now, if they found that I too would use strong expressions on one occasion, or another, then they would loosen up a bit and they would start talking, since they felt that I had let go too. I was keen to have clarity, and that the cat wouldn’t always run around the hot porridge, because, after all, we had to know the truth and the real background.
Since Speer was much more cautious and much more courteous, never having been a soldier, I could allow myself the exhibition of freedom, and unfortunately I did.
Q. Yes, unfortunately. So that statements of that kind of yours were either stricken or they were altered?
A. That warning of Speer’s only came into force if I stated my criticism of the higher leaders too severely. If, for instance, somewhere Hitler had given assignments or orders which, to my view, were wrong, or even as to orders coming from Goering or other people, the Minister of the Interior or the Minister of the Police or some other person, then I even here would state my frank criticism amongst these people. Usually I didn’t have any other possibility to state my deviating opinion, and I had the inner urge to say it out aloud. Speer, in my interest, would have it struck out, and he told me a few times afterward, “For heaven’s sake, do be careful. They will hang you one day.” But of course he meant by the German side. Sometimes when I myself became aware of the fact that in my criticism of these high-ranking gentlemen I had gone too far, I would say to the stenographer, “Leave that out.” And on one or two or three occasions I said, “Change it. Put someone else in there as having been referred to,” because I myself discovered—mind you, I wasn’t always aware that I criticized too severely, but since Speer told me so a few times, I controlled myself a little more—that I had said too much and that it was a mistake, and so I intervened myself.
* * * * *
Q. Witness, after our discussion concerning labor questions, in connection with the decree concerning the Central Planning Board, I want you to answer my question now, whether and what powers the Central Planning Board had with reference to the Plenipotentiary General for Labor, Sauckel?
A. The Central Planning Board had no power to issue orders to Sauckel.
Q. Who was it that gave Sauckel’s orders?
A. Sauckel’s office had been formed by Hitler’s Decree. However, after that it was taken into the Four Year Plan, so that formally Sauckel was under Goering immediately. However, he received his orders from Hitler himself.
Q. As you said, the Central Planning Board had no powers toward Sauckel?
A. None whatsoever.
Q. However, don’t you know that Speer tried to win influence over Sauckel? Did that occur in his capacity as a member of the Central Planning Board, or did that occur in his capacity as Armament Minister?
A. It only occurred in his capacity as Armament Minister.
* * * * *
Q. Witness, on this occasion I would like to ask you, what then do you know about these concentration camps during the war?
A. I only knew of two concentration camps, namely, Dachau and Oranienburg. I visited Dachau personally in 1935; in other words, before the war. That was the only time that I visited a concentration camp, except for now as a prisoner of war. What there was inside the concentration camps I do not know. In 1935 there were only Germans in there; and I was very much surprised to learn after the collapse of Germany that there were also foreigners in the concentration camps. I did not know that. I am quite convinced that none of my collaborators knew about these things in the concentration camps. We had been told at the time that in these concentration camps criminals of various categories were being detained. What I saw in 1935 were habitual criminals. I thought it a very good idea that these people be not allowed to walk around freely. When we were there these people had to tell us their sentences; and there were several barriers full of people, and there the average criminal record was twenty to thirty times rape of small children. Therefore, I, being a father, believed that it was best for these people to be locked up.
However, I know that there were political people there; and I saw them, too. There my opinion differed. But I was told that those people were there on a temporary basis and would only be kept in there for a longer period of time if they actually committed active sabotage against the state. At Dachau most of the political people who were being detained there as prisoners in 1935 were members of the SA, on account of the Roehm Putsch in 1934, and that was the basis and reason for their being there.
I should like to add that I asked to be allowed to visit that concentration camp at the time, together with other officers of my branch, in other words, of the Luftwaffe, because during my meetings and conversations with foreigners, I repeatedly heard the statement, particularly from the British, “We understand your Hitler’s system very well. There was no other way for you to go. However, we do not understand your concentration camps.” That is why I decided to get some sort of a picture for myself by seeing the camp. It took a little while, but finally I got the permission to visit the concentration camp. That at the time was my only contact with the question.
Q. What was your impression of the camp? Was it clean?
A. In 1935, well, yes, at that time it looked very well. There were good barracks, absolutely waterproof, with two cots, one above the other. Our barracks always had the same system anyway; and I was the only one to get that principle in the Luftwaffe, so that there was quite a revolution among the soldiers in the army. I witnessed one of their meals. There was a good portion of food, meat, vegetables, potatoes, quite a lot of soup. The people were thus well-fed. Of course, they had to work. The work they did was not an easy task. Cleanness was noticeable. The beds had sheets with a special design on them. The entertainment of the people was taken care of. There was recreation. They had a special room where they could hold speeches. They had facilities for writing and reading. There was an excellent library there which even according to its size and contents was very interesting. I looked through the index one time. The man in charge of the library was a Gruppenfuehrer of the SA and also a concentration camp inmate. I saw the bakery, saw the butcher shop.
At that time I am sure that there were no cruelties and no inhumane equipment of any kind. Of course, I could not speak to these same individuals and ask them how they like it in there. We were allowed to talk to these people; but each of them was allowed only to say what his sentence was.
Q. Did you see what kind of work these inmates had to do?
A. That was very hard. They worked on their own equipment, I believe, not only for the camp but for all sorts of purposes and for the SS. In other words, they made furniture for themselves and for the Waffen SS for instance, cupboards, chairs, stools, tables. They also had a locksmith shop there. As far as I know they did work outside the camp as well.
I believe there were special commands for cutting down trees; there were special commands for splitting stones. However, I cannot go into detail because I inserted this visit into one day—it was in the afternoon after I had an inspection of the troops in Munich, which inspection I finished about 9:30 in the morning, and at four o’clock in the afternoon I had another inspection to carry out of the Luftwaffe, and in between I saw the camp. I myself ate or tasted the food which the German inmates had, and I thought it was very tasty, good, and sufficient.
Q. Witness, at a time following that, did you ever hear, even if only rumors, that inhumane acts were being committed in the concentration camps?
A. I cannot remember that anything had been mentioned in that connection—anything that had anything to do with the truth or that seemed like the truth. I can confirm the fact that there were quite a few rumors during the war. However, all our efforts to find where these rumors originated were not successful. We were not able to find out anything at all. I had very few connections with the SS itself.
Q. I shall come back to the SS later on. Now, Witness, as witnesses have said, you yourself saw to it that persons in concentration camps were freed, or were not committed to the concentration camps. Can one not draw the conclusion from that that you were of the opinion that it was not very good in the concentration camps; that bad things were happening there, because in general one who has committed a criminal offense is not protected from imprisonment?
A. At the beginning I was quite convinced that these concentration camps were just a temporary measure. I knew from the press that they had done the same thing in Italy under the Mussolini regime, and that then, after a few years, these institutions had been dissolved—at least that’s what I heard at the time—and, since many things were being imitated here in Germany which Mussolini’s Italy had done, I saw at that concentration camp nothing but such an imitation. That certain abuses would occur there, I could understand, because, after all, the National Socialist movement itself, in its early beginnings, was a revolutionary group. Even if it weren’t so, at least that’s what people said. I thought that these things were only the childish diseases of the new regime. However, if I ever heard anything, if anything was brought to my own personal attention, then I thought it my human duty to help. That the parents of anybody who is sent to a concentration camp or something are always convinced of his innocence, can be understood and every one of us today knows how unpleasant that is. However, certain other reasons prevailed at the time, when a family wrote: that is probably the case with one of the cases which was submitted here in an affidavit. The main reason was not that the man was a Social Democrat leader. No. He was blamed for other things, and they had to be cleared up. That is why my help took a little bit longer here, and I believe that the man was vindicated. The reproaches which they made to him, and which came from those greatest pests whom we had at the time, the informers, had to be refuted by bringing counter-evidence.
Q. That’s enough, Witness. Now such people were taken out of the camp by you. Then I’m sure that they came to see you and thanked you for it?
A. No. They didn’t do that and I did not pay too much attention to that. I told their parents and their relatives to restrain them from doing that. Maybe they wrote a letter though, sometime, but I did not do it in order to get their thanks and appreciation.
Q. Witness, didn’t you ever speak to anybody who had been released from a concentration camp and who then would have given you more details about the concentration camp?
A. I never spoke with anybody who had been released from a concentration camp—at least, not that I know of. I never spoke with anybody about his experience in a concentration camp. However, during my captivity, I heard through other people that no one else ever heard about such things either, because these people were not only prohibited from speaking, but they were also so scared that they followed that order to the very letter.
* * * * *
Q. Witness, you also visited factories, didn’t you, and you saw eastern male or female workers there, didn’t you?
A. Yes.
Q. What was your opinion about these people. Didn’t they complain to you or anything?
A. I regarded it as absolutely natural that whenever I visited a factory it was natural for me to talk to these workers, even if, in my official capacity, I had nothing to do with that question. However, as a soldier I was accustomed to act in that way. On each occasion I asked them how they were, how the food was; I looked at the people and I saw how they were clad and what kind of an impression they gave, generally speaking, whether they looked healthy, whether they looked satisfied or not. I saw Russians, and also Russian prisoners of war. Then I saw Russian female civilian workers, namely, Ukrainians. I saw Frenchmen, namely French civilian workers. There could have been prisoners of war among them, but they were wearing protective overalls over their clothes. There could have been workers from Slovakia, who considered themselves our allies, but they were very, very few. Then there were quite a few Italian workers there, those who had come on a voluntary basis at the time; those so-called “Imis” (Italians who revolted against Mussolini and were sent as prisoners of war to work in Germany) I did not see.
Q. Did eastern workers, male or female, ever complain to you concerning their work?
A. No, they did not. On the contrary, the general impression of these female Ukrainians who worked on the Junker 52’s was a very pleasing one. The girls were singing; they were well fed; they were well dressed; and they answered my questions in a nice, cheerful way. I spent about 20 minutes with these girls. There were quite a few pretty ones among them, and towards the end they flirted with me, and the girls were laughing all the time.
* * * * *
Q. Witness, I will now enter into the question of what the Central Planning Board has to do with labor questions at all?
A. The Central Planning Board had considerable difficulties connected with the question of getting raw materials. The acquisition of raw materials was originally the tasks of the Ministry of Economics and then of Speer in the Armament Ministry. On such raw materials depended the armament program.
The pacemaker among all these raw materials for the armament program was steel, but the pacemaker in turn for steel was coal or coke production. That was the biggest bottleneck, since, unfortunately, during the first years of the war the youngest and strongest age groups of miners had been called up for military service. Hitler had given us the order to develop a steel production program amounting to 3.2 million tons per month. This was to be done by Speer, and Speer had succeeded in reaching the figure of 2.6 million tons, but that was the maximum. Hitler’s armament program, however, had been based on the figure of 3.2 millions. Hitler had demanded these armament programs and the experts had calculated the amount of steel they needed for those programs.
We in the Central Planning Board discussed the possibilities of getting up to 3.2 million tons of steel, and Speer being the man for that part of the production, ordered the men from the steel manufacturers’ union to come and see him in a conference in which all steel problems, through the self-administration of the industry, were dealt with. Speer was in agreement with me, this is an aside which I must add, to the effect it was a mistake to direct industry through the state, but that industry ought to govern itself through committees of their own, coming from their own ranks, and in this sense of course, these main committees and rings which we have talked about must be understood.
These gentlemen from the Reich Association Iron stated that the possibilities existed that 3.2 million tons of steel could be manufactured, subject to certain conditions. In that connection the main prerequisite was a very much larger allocation of coke. Apart from that they wanted certain additional matters for their own production, some labor too. I remember the question of smelters which was submitted at the time. I am not an expert, but at that time I did gather that we were concerned with specialists with very considerable ability and knowledge, since otherwise a few handful of men wouldn’t have been brought into our conversation. At any rate, the main problem was coal.
Speer, anyhow, during one of our conferences, sent for the men representing the coal industry. Such a Reich Association Coal had existed for some considerable time. These people stated that there was enough coal in the mines but that human manpower was lacking to bring it up. Speer in his capacity as Armament Minister now asked them to tell him in writing what was needed. Now, these men apparently reported the figures regarding workers they had, and during those conferences with the coal representatives, always, of course with reference to the question of steel, it was stated that all efforts on the part of the Armament Ministry would have to fall down because of the labor shortage.
Speer, as he told me, mentioned this to Hitler dozens of times. It was here for the first time that various controversies arose between Speer and Sauckel.
* * * * *
The first difficulties between Speer as Armament Minister and Sauckel came to Hitler for decision. Speer said, “I’m short of workers”. Sauckel said, “I have fulfilled all your demands”, and as proof he submitted his figures. Between the figures which Speer had and those which Sauckel had, no comparison was ever possible. They were based on different suppositions. Speer was unable to obtain the basis for the figures which were at Sauckel’s disposal. In their conflict Hitler took the side of Sauckel. He wished thereby to exercise pressure on Speer to increase armament. Speer was unable to do so because he did not have the workers who had to produce coal.
This struggle went on through the years. At first Speer still hoped that Sauckel would still bring the workers into his factories until in the summer of 1943 he gave up this hope. In the Central Planning Board this, of course, was discussed, and it was also discussed how much steel we could obtain for the next three months and how we could distribute it. Always there was this contrast between the figures—Hitler wishes to have 3.2 million tons of steel; we can only distribute 2.6 millions because Speer is quite unable to produce more. The consequence was again that Hitler reproached Speer for not producing more steel although Sauckel had supplied the workers. The Central Planning Board was not responsible for the quantity of raw materials at his disposal. Speer asked me to give him my support in this question. I did so quite frequently in the meetings and also when I reported to Goering because we wished to convince Goering that we did not have the workers so that Goering would intervene with Hitler in that sense.
But I was unable to obtain Goering’s support. Goering took Hitler’s side, and he said, “The workers are there”. All that was left now was for Speer in the first line and we ourselves who wished to help him in the second line to attack Sauckel. Sauckel escaped all meetings for a long time. Sometimes he sent a representative, and in some cases he himself appeared, but he and his representative pursued the same policy by giving us a lot of figures and alleging they had fulfilled everything. Our doubts in these figures increased. Hitler became more and more impatient and the reproaches for Speer towards the end of 1943 became insufferable. Whereas Hitler supported Speer until roughly the middle of 1943 and regarded him as one of the first collaborators, the relations became much more cool later on, and I explain that mainly through this conflict. I myself had the same annoyance both with Goering and with Hitler, who maintained in opposition to me that I had been given all of the workers.
Our mood wasn’t very nice about this, obviously because although we had no personal ambition we did not wish to be blamed for something that we were not responsible for, bad armament, and to have stated that because of bad armament the war had been lost. That reproach, of course, we could foresee, and it was obvious that we fought against it with every means within our disposal. We felt ourselves to be quite innocent in this field, but in order to prove our innocence, we were missing one link in the chain, and that was to show beyond doubt that Sauckel’s figures were untrue. They were not wrong by accident; they were deliberately forged, in our opinion, because Sauckel wished to impress Hitler with his own efficiency in his ability to fulfill all the demands of Hitler in the sphere of labor.
Sauckel pursued that policy up to 4 January 1944. Only when there was a conference with Hitler on 4 January 1944, of which I was a participant, did he there say for the first time to Hitler, “Up to now I always fulfilled all your demands, my Fuehrer. Whether that will still be possible with the new demands of four million workers, I can no longer guarantee.”
Q. Witness, we will come later to this conference. Now, I ask you to go back to answer one question. Did the Central Planning Board have authority to request labor and to distribute it?
A. A clear “no” to both parts of the question. The question of labor was discussed in the Central Planning Board only in the interest of Speer because Speer needed help and knew I would always give him my support. * * *
* * * I may claim, for example, that throughout my activities, anyway shortly after the beginning of the war, that is to say, on 9 November, there were about sixty production managers of factories—no, not managers but so-called men of trust [Vertrauensmaenner], elected by workers—these men came to me and I found out they wanted to ask me to get their rations increased. At that time the whole nutrition was based upon lower rations; these people in our high industries were not entitled to the supplementary rations for heavy workers, and these people explained to me that now that there was a war, and they were forced to work in different factories from peacetime, their housing was much further away from their places of work, and in the morning and at night they had to travel longer; and, therefore, their food was insufficient. That gave me the idea to apply for a new supplementary ration and as we became very set in this question, it became possible to achieve that supplementary ration which was now for the benefit of all workers. And I have now gotten hold of documentary evidence that supplementary rations were also given to foreign workers; that was a supplementary ration for foreign workers working long hours. As this documentary evidence shows it is an affidavit actually the food of German and foreign workers was the same. But I also wanted to say that it is quite possible that there are cases where this principle was not observed, but that was against the will of the German Government if it happened.
Q. Witness, that means that neither the labor office nor the Armament Inspectorate were under your supervision, as the GL.
A. Yes that is quite correct.
Q. But Speer has testified that until the very end you did not renounce the command of the air industry. What could you say to this effect?
A. If Speer should mean that my personnel official, in the way I described before, talked with his, Speer’s armament office, once a month, then it is quite correct; but my officials might have used these occasions, and how far he worked with my name on these occasions I do not know. I hope he did so in order to get his point through. I was never present. I never heard how these negotiations went on. Should Speer mean, however, that my work in that field was the same as his in his field, then he makes a mistake, for I did not have that organization nor did I have the task. My field was only a very specialized one compared to Speer’s field. * * * I might add perhaps, that Speer did not know my organization; of course we never discussed it. He knew, of course, that I had a technical office; he knew that I had a planning office, and he also knew that I had an economic department for the contracts of industry. After all, he fought a battle to take the whole economic department into his sphere, and when I said he couldn’t possibly do it, he waited until the whole armament industry came under his charge. We two always settled everything in a friendly manner after that up to the last moment. Even if there were a certain amount of conflicting interests, which sometimes were quite considerable, particularly between our subordinate officers—there were quite severe battles between those subordinate officers at times—but we always poured oil on the troubled waters, Mr. Speer and I.
Q. Witness, but couldn’t it be, that in the sphere of the Central Planning Board in presenting the labor demands of your industry, you spoke for your own interests?
A. I cannot recall, and I have read some of the records, but in not one of them, there is not one word said that I had any special demands for the Luftwaffe. Apart from the fact that once or twice I remarked that I was equally badly off, that I didn’t get anything, but that doesn’t mean that I was looking after my interests in the GL. If I talked about workers at the Central Planning Board, I did so at Speer’s request, to give him in the armament industry all the support. Speer was particularly pleased when I played the wild man and became a little strong. He once told me, “you are much better at this than I am; I am only a civilian; I can’t do it as well as you can”. And sometimes he pepped me up and said “Speak a little more fiercely, please”, which I was only too delighted to do for him. That was meant to achieve something which you may wish to ask me about a little later on: How we could get Sauckel to speak clearly. How we could get rid of the suspicion that we through our inefficiency cannot bring German industry up to the high level, to the right level.
* * * * *
Q. Witness, during these conferences of the Central Planning Board did it happen that the bulk of the workers was discussed, or was it rather a question of bringing new workers into Germany?
A. No, it was only the labor question as such, only inasmuch as it was important for the increase of raw materials in accordance with Hitler’s order, and indeed always as an attack on Sauckel in order to get him to give us the people or to say he cannot do it. As we knew he could not supply them, our main demand which we wished to achieve was an open statement by Sauckel, “I haven’t got the workers whom you need”.
Q. Witness, but if your air force industry, for instance, either the labor offices or the Armament Inspectorates had made requests to Speer, and when your planning office had checked these demands in order to find out what was really necessary and what was unnecessary, was it a matter of proposing what kind of workers you wanted to have and what kind of workers should be distributed into these different production programs? Was it a question of deciding whether you needed German workers or rather more foreigners?
A. We did that in one sense, that for certain factories we simply had to have skilled workers, which we asked for, but never did we ask, “Give us foreigners; give us prisoners of war”, and so forth. Our wishes were to the effect to have Germans, but it was quite clear to us that there weren’t enough German workers to fulfill the demands. Had they been available, one needn’t have used prisoners of war or recruited foreign workers or sent the prisoners of war to work unless they volunteered for it.
* * * * *
[March 14]
JUDGE PHILLIPS: The Tribunal understands you to say that Polish prisoners of war were changed into civilian workers and that you no longer considered them to be prisoners of war. How were they changed into civilian workers from prisoners of war?
A. Personally I cannot give you many details about this because that happened as early as 1939, and at that time I was not connected with the armament question. How it was worked I do not know. All I can imagine is that there was no longer a Polish Government and that the Governor General gave the order; whether any Polish office was asked, I don’t know; it is only in the files here that I found something about some Polish regional authority. I cannot give you any more clear details.
DR. BERGOLD: May it please the Tribunal, perhaps I can clarify the matter.
PRESIDING JUDGE TOMS: Let’s let the witness clarify it. Witness, you are an old soldier. You have been a soldier for many years. How do you transfer a prisoner of war into a civilian, by discharging him?
A. Yes, he must be released from being a prisoner of war, and then there are various possibilities. One possibility would be—and this was resorted to by Germany—to make him a free worker and tell him that “You are being released, but you must do some work. That is the conditions which we put to you. You are being paid properly, and otherwise you live as a free man.”
There is also another possibility, which was the way chosen by the Americans, by which a prisoner of war is released and then regarded as an internee. I think that that procedure is not quite so favorable for the man concerned.
Q. You just transposed them from prisoners of war to civilian prisoners, then?
A. No, they were no longer prisoners. They were properly released, but they signed a document which obliged them to do some work for Germany.
Q. You imprisoned them by a document instead of in a stockade?
A. They were no longer locked up, Sir. The Polish workers—I saw them in the country, for instance—live quite freely.
Q. Could they go where they liked?
A. They could not change their places of work without permission. For instance, if they were allocated to a farmer, they had to stay with that farmer. Only if there were special reasons could they change their place of work. Then they were transferred.
Q. That is what you call freeing them?
A. It was not complete freedom, but it was a better status than previously when they were prisoners of war.
Q. What would happen to one of these free workers if he walked away from his place of employment?
A. Sir, that is what I do not know myself. But may I say something else? A German worker was not allowed to change his place of work either. Freedom for a German was not any bigger than freedom for a Pole, as long as the war lasted.
Q. The German went home to his family every night, did he not?
A. These Polish soldiers—I cannot speak comprehensively because I am not particularly well informed here—but those I saw were young people, and they lived with the farmer’s family.
Q. Witness, you don’t mean to tell this Tribunal seriously that the Polish worker, the former prisoner of war, had the same freedom of movement that the German civilian had?
A. I cannot speak on all fields of life because I do not know. All I do know was that he was under the obligation to remain with his employer, but, as I said before, the German worker had to remain with his employer.
Q. Oh, well, we had that in the United States, for that matter. I still don’t remember your answering my question: What would happen to a Polish worker who chose to walk away from his place of employment?
A. I am unable to answer that. I know of no such cases, nor was I told about one.
DR. BERGOLD: May it please the Tribunal, the defendant cannot know, because he was a soldier, what the Polish worker had to do. Like the German worker, the Polish worker would have been punished and brought before a tribunal because he broke his contract, and he would have received a small punishment. Thousands of German workers have been punished for the same reason, and I have defended many a German worker for the same charge. That would have happened—nothing else.
PRESIDING JUDGE TOMS: Let me ask you, Dr. Bergold. Did you ever defend a Polish worker for walking away from his employment?
DR. BERGOLD: Yes, I did.
PRESIDING JUDGE TOMS: I have no inclination to dispute you.
DR. BERGOLD: I defended quite a few foreign workers in wartime, not only Poles, but Frenchmen, Belgians, and Dutchmen.
PRESIDING JUDGE TOMS: Oh, maybe Belgians, Dutchmen, but Poles—?
DR. BERGOLD: Yes, definitely. I am prepared to make that statement on oath, Sir.
DEFENDANT MILCH: May I supply an observation of my own on the Polish question? Shortly before I was taken prisoner, I was in the country in Schleswig-Holstein. In that region the only foreigners there were Poles. Those Poles on the estate where I was, perhaps 30 or 40 of them, said that they did not wish to return home, that they would ask to be allowed to remain on the estate just as did their colleagues in the neighborhood. These people were dressed very neatly on Sundays. They looked very clean and healthy. They could not be told from any German in the neighborhood there except for certain racial distinctions. All of them had bicycles. On that bicycle they went on Sundays to the nearest pub and met their girl friends and danced, and they told me themselves that never before had they been so happy as they were in Germany. That was at a time when the British were 50 kilometers away from their village.
PRESIDING JUDGE TOMS: Perhaps that is why they were so happy.
A. No. They said that they did not want to leave there now. They wished to remain.
Q. I think you misunderstood my point. Perhaps their happiness arose from the fact that the British were only 50 kilometers away.
A. No. I understood what you were trying to say, Sir, but I also talked to the German employers there. I was there in a totally private capacity, and I knew these people quite well. They were friends of mine, and they told me that they were quite satisfied with their Poles, and they also said that the Poles had done very good work and that the Poles had asked to be allowed to remain after the collapse, because in those days they did not wish to return to Poland and they were quite well looked after here.
May I ask the Court to believe me that we in Germany were not all of us hangmen and people who delighted in other people’s misery. I may say here that I think that the majority of the German people are good-hearted and that they treat other people well and that these people did not know that in some isolated places there were isolated criminals who polluted our good name for a long time to come. The people are suffering from that now, and they will suffer in the future. That is what depresses all of us the most. Otherwise, one has to take the point of view that all Germans are criminals and then it might be justified to hang the lot. Then, please start on me.
* * * * *
DR. BERGOLD: Witness, after this question was discussed, you received information that this employment of foreign workers was admissible. Could you tell me now what you knew before, prior to that moment, concerning this question?
A. I know that after the First War, the question of deportation of Belgium workers had been examined by a committee of the German Reichstag. I know that this parliamentary committee examined people like Hindenburg, Ludendorff, I think also Mackensen and others; and that many questions were discussed, including that of Belgian civilian workers. As far as I can recall, that committee was presided over by a man who had been given the Nobel Prize, Professor Schuecking; I think that was his name. However, I was very interested in it, and closely followed it because Hindenburg whom I worshipped, was put before a court; and as far as I can recall, no sentence was passed upon that score; and nobody was reproached that international law had been violated. At that time the Hague Convention existed and the first Geneva Conference had taken place. I am not very well informed, but I think that was so.
* * * * *
Q. Witness, I shall now come to the 54th meeting, concerning two points there. Witness, during that meeting[142] Sauckel mentioned that only a very small percentage of those sent to Germany came on a voluntary basis. This statement has been mentioned repeatedly in this trial and I want you to say something about that.
A. I might say that I do not remember having heard these words from Sauckel. It is possible that I was not there at the moment when he said that. However, it is possible that I overheard that remark, because during those long meetings, we had discussions among each other. We were also interested in other questions. During those long meetings there was at least one meeting, probably more, during which our concentration was not quite what it should have been. Had I heard it, I would have believed Sauckel just as little as I believed all the figures he gave us, because Sauckel had stated the contrary not long before. I know exactly it was not so long before that he had declared how well his system functioned and how he brought all these laborers on a voluntary basis.
* * * * *
Q. Witness, I shall now leave the meetings of the Central Planning Board and come to single questions in that connection. What do you know about the use of British and American prisoners of war?
A. According to my opinion and as far as I know, they went into the respective camps and they were not used for labor. I never saw such a prisoner of war any place.
Q. * * * What orders did you have toward the middle of January 1943? What orders did you receive from Hitler?
A. On 15 January 1943, in the evening I was called up and summoned to go to Hitler’s Headquarters the next day for a special mission. As far as I know, I believe that it was General Bodenschatz who called me to the Fuehrer’s Headquarters. The following morning I reported to Goering, who happened to be in Berlin at that time. Goering knew that the question of food for Stalingrad was involved. Stalingrad had been encircled for months, and the whole Sixth German Army was in it. On the 16th, in the morning, I flew to Hitler’s Headquarters in East Prussia; and then Hitler either in the afternoon or in the evening gave me the information that I should proceed to Czechoslovakia immediately by air in order to supervise Stalingrad’s food supplies from there.
Q. Witness, make it a little more brief, please.
A. Yes. I tried to carry out this mission. When I received the mission, the last airfield had been lost. The Russians had taken them. We looked for smaller places which were rather difficult to find there in those mountainous areas; and within the next few days we succeeded in carrying out a considerable air lift of supplies. However, it was too late. The resisting force of the defenders had broken down; the people were starving; they had hardly any vehicles or horses. They could not get the food from the landing places for the planes because they were too weak to do so. They could not carry the containers so that the air lift of supplies in the case of Stalingrad could not be kept up after the end of January or the beginning of February.
Q. Did you have a serious accident then?
A. Yes. At that moment when I wanted to fly into Stalingrad, before I hit the airfield, I was hit by a railroad engine, and I was seriously injured.
Q. Then you went back to Hitler?
A. I carried out the mission first. Then when Stalingrad had fallen, I withdrew and went to see Hitler and told him that I could not complete my mission. He told me, however, that it was not I who had not carried out the mission but that it was his fault. He said he gave me the orders too late; he had wanted to give the orders to me much earlier but had been talked out of it.
Q. Witness, during that occasion, did you tell Hitler your opinion about the war and the general situation of the war?
A. It was on 4 February when I reported back to Hitler. Hitler on that particular day was very crushed due to the loss of Stalingrad. It was not possible to have a quiet talk with him. He did not receive me at first, or my chief of staff, namely, General of the Tank Corps Model, who had a corps within that fortress. We both were under the impression that day that we would not be able to speak to him. However, he told me in a few words, “Now, go right ahead to your GL task, manufacturing. Now we will have transport planes in the first line, transport planes, and more transport planes.” He was talking about Stalingrad. He thought that had he had more transport planes he would have been able to keep Stalingrad.
With respect to Stalingrad, I had a long discussion with him on 5 March. That was the last time I saw him. That was about a month later. I was ordered to see him because he wanted to give me the mission to build high-altitude and fast bombers and put them in the first line of production. Those now were more important than transport planes. I availed myself of that opportunity on that day and had prepared myself in order to tell him my opinion about the general situation. That discussion took place in the evening. I had dinner with him alone. That was shortly before 9:00 o’clock; and it lasted until 3:15 a.m. Then in contrast to all other discussions I had with him, I was the one who was speaking all the time.
* * * * *
I told him first of all the truth about Stalingrad; and I told him that the question of leaving an army was a military mistake, when according to military and strategical points of view it should have withdrawn, something which had been suggested both by myself and by the army. It was a mistake; and it did end with the loss of 350,000 men on the German side. However, a withdrawal in time would have saved the greatest part of these soldiers. I told him that, after all, the Russians were not as anxious to attack as that; that in the winter they themselves were in a difficult position for attacking a German army and they would not have dared. I told him then that that point was the last turning point in the fate of the war. I told him that I had tried to reach him before the Russian campaign. However, I had been unable to do so because it had been forbidden. I said that the time was now five minutes past twelve. We use that expression in Germany when something is completed; when it is finished. I told him that by that I meant that the war was lost. I apologized for not considering his nervous condition. There was no time for that any more. I thought it my duty to tell him my sincere opinion; as a field marshal I thought myself entitled to do so.
I knew that he did not want to hear this. However, I wished that he would hear me in spite of that. He could do with me whatever he wanted to afterwards. I remembered, however, that he himself before the war had used strong words against the bad advisers of Wilhelm II, who out of cowardice, had not told him the truth. In no case did I wish to stand before my own conscience with such a reproach on myself. He told me then, “Yes, you can say today whatever you wish to say.”
I told him then that he was no more in a position to attack in the East. That those attacks which had already been developed, he should stop. That he could only defend himself, and I was of the direct opinion that instead of building great fortification works in France and Norway, that during the whole of the spring, summer, and autumn, he should concentrate on fortifying the Dnieper position, which lay about 800 kilometers behind the Russian front, with all the means at his disposal, with fortifications of concrete, etc., in a great width, between two-hundred and three-hundred kilometers depth, and in that way there would be strong fortifications and good shelter for soldiers, with good equipment and food and ammunition, and that then he should take the troops back to that position for the winter, and that he should give up the whole territory in front of that fortification, out of which he would not get anything at all, neither oil, coal, nor ore. By doing that he would shorten the length of the Russian front, and in such a way that the maintenance of those soldiers on the line would be much easier. Apart from that he should take more care of the eastern forces, and I am quite sure that on the whole eastern front of two-thousand kilometers, of about ten million German soldiers, not one million of them were fighting and he should take measures to change that. That was the only point he carried out later on, and unfortunately only towards the end of November of that year and the result was that the fighting infantry units on the whole eastern front amounts to 265,000 men of the army. It was impossible to hold that front with such a small number.
I furthermore suggested to him that a great personnel change should be made, namely, he himself should give up command over the army, that he should place a simple general in that position. As it was, he held before the German people a responsibility, which he could not bear. He was no soldier in that sense, since he was not trained for that. I suggested to him to dissolve my own branch as an independent Wehrmacht unit and to put the Luftwaffe entirely under the Wehrmacht, since there was no strategic air force any longer.
Now what I had to say was special for the army, and this was certainly of a personal nature, namely, to remove Reich Marshal Goering from the Luftwaffe, and give him a different task. I said also that it was now the opportune moment for the Reich Foreign Minister also to be removed from his position.
Q. Would you give the name?
A. Von Ribbentrop. I suggested to him that the Field Marshal be put in charge of the units at the front, and I gave as a reason that Keitel was too lenient in reference to Hitler, and did not know how to get his ideas across to Hitler; that he should have somebody who would force him to observe correct military measures. I told him then that the most important task in my opinion was the home defense of Germany; the air home defense of Germany, and to consider as having the highest priority; and also the fighter production should be placed in the first place, and armaments. I showed him the figures of the English, the American and the Russian armaments explicitly, and I showed him how these armaments would have their effect over Germany, and also at what point, or at what time this would happen. I reported to him that many false reports were made to him, and I gave him an exact instance. I told him that he overestimated himself, and his allies, and that he also underestimated the Russians, and the attitude of Stalin personally, and that that had led to the Stalingrad collapse, and he should be quite clear as to the facts if the attack was continued in the East; that he could hold the Dnieper position, and that if he held that position, the air defense would be able to prepare a military preparation for peace if the enemy would see that this crushing of Germany from the air was no longer possible and if the Russians would see that they would not be able to cross the Dnieper without being crushed; that I am sure with that preparedness which should be started at once, we ought to be coming to a peace. It might be possible to get away with bearable peace terms if they would act immediately.
Then I also discussed the peace question, and I told him he might make a real peace with France without taking territory, and I was sure that France would still consider that. The same applied to Belgium, and also Holland, as well as Norway. A peace with these countries would then induce the greater powers of the Western countries to be able to conclude peace with Germany which would be endurable.
Those were the main points of my opinion. I do not wish to recite details. He listened to and interrupted me only once, and that was on the question whether he could or could not attack in 1943, and I remember exactly that I said to him more than twenty times, “You cannot attack” and first he said in a quiet way, then got more excited and more excited until he was very cross, and knocked on the table, “I must attack.” I told him at the end, “I know I am very impolite, I don’t want to discuss this question of attacking anymore. But be convinced I shall not change my opinion.”
Then he waited for a short while, and I began to speak of something else, and then suddenly he said, “What would you say, Milch, if I would only make a short attack in order to be able to push through the Russian preparations before they can start developing.” I answered, “Wait a minute, it is a defensive measure, because a soldier carries out his defense by attacking in turn,” and he said, “Then we agree on that point.” I said, “No, I don’t think we do. If you are successful you will continue. I would say all the troops should go back after forty-eight hours that no matter what. Think of Verdun in 1916 when the same mistake was made; when they did not succeed in getting through on a surprise attempt, they went doggedly on.”
* * * * *
Q. Witness, what was the development after Stalingrad of your relationship to Hitler and Goering?
PRESIDING JUDGE TOMS: Before you go on, will you ask for the date of this conference of Hitler’s again?
A. It was on 5 March 1943.
* * * * *
On the question of how my relationship to Hitler and Goering developed later on I have to say the following: It became worse and worse from time to time. It was due to a struggle which I had about the German air defense which contradicted Hitler’s idea of waging war, for this was the specific field of the Luftwaffe and I as Inspector General of the Luftwaffe was forced to make suggestions. I did not let this matter drop, and I repeatedly brought it to the front, in contrast with political proposals or proposals in the field of the army and navy, which were outside of my field of tasks and which I could not bring to anyone’s attention unless Hitler gave me his permission or if he wished me to.
Q. With respect to this conference, did you inform him of the fact that you wanted to have Goering gone?
A. Yes. I did. I told Goering about that. I did not want to stab him in the back.
Q. Then, what happened to your relationship with Goering?
A. I do not believe that this single incident had any influence on our relationship, which was bad anyway. Goering was not the kind of a man who would hold it against me. He had a certain understanding of the circumstances. There were other things that he did not like about me.
* * * * *
[March 17]
Q. Witness, the last time you were giving us a description of the suggestions you made with Hitler with regard to achieving a change. What was the impression you had afterwards as to whether he was going to follow your suggestions or not?
A. At that time I first of all hoped that he would somehow react to my suggestion, because in the case of the Stalingrad assignment which had been given to me although too late, I saw indications that at that time he still had confidence in me, and also in my military ability. During the following weeks and months I waited for something to happen, but nothing did. In the spring of 1943, after my conference, new attacks were ordered by him on the eastern front. He was not making an attack for the purposes of defense, he was going to try to reestablish the front along the Volga River. He was also going to try again to advance towards the Caucasus. It was only in November 1943 that he followed one of my suggestions, namely, to ascertain how many men were fighting in the East, as I said last Friday, and I need not repeat it. The attack was catastrophic, but in spite of that, no basic changes were made after that. All the other suggestions, political, military, and those regarding the personnel, were not followed. Through that I lost my last hope, namely, that a final basis favorable to Germany could be established to bring an end to this war through political means, in other words, peace negotiations, which might have had certain prospects of success.
Q. Witness, now I shall have to put to you this question. Why, after you recognized that fact did you continue your activity at all. What were the reasons which made you place your service at their disposal at all?
A. The main reason was that I was responsible to my people, and even if all the plans failed to materialize, I, nevertheless, still had one last hope at least, that a proper air defense could be arranged for Germany in order to protect our home country and the people from the worst, and the destruction of their homes and places of culture. That was my main reason.
Q. What then are the steps that you took in order to achieve your last final aim for the German people?
A. After 1941 I had a constant struggle, I would like to say, with Goering and with Hitler in order to achieve an air defense which I considered necessary. My last effort then was the foundation of the Jaegerstab.
* * * * *
Q. Witness, you have just testified that you had founded the Jaegerstab in order gradually to leave your post. Did that further have any other purpose, for instance, the removal of existing difficulties outside your own department?
A. Yes. Air armament within the entire armament program had very small, very negligible powers. As Hitler especially demanded army and naval rearmament, Speer’s Ministry for years had encroached on a large scale in all matters which were important for my industry. As a result experts and other workers had been simply taken away from us. The armament inspectors and district military administrative authorities, both of whom were under Speer, were able to carry this through. It was merely by accident that I learned of this in individual cases, when, for instance, one of the industrialists happened to come to see me. We raised objections but we could not alter the situation, I mentioned this the other day. I wanted to use the Jaegerstab in order to transfer part of this responsibility for air armament to Speer and his ministry so that such encroachment, which was particularly noticeable where materials were concerned, should no longer happen.
The man who had approximately the same task as my own in Speer’s Ministry was Mr. Saur. Saur was a very clever man, very able, very energetic, and since he was always sent to report to Hitler personally, he knew Hitler and his intentions very well, and he knew therefore that Hitler was not so keen on air armament, and from that he drew the conclusion which led to these encroachments into our sphere. I was very anxious to have him join the Jaegerstab so that there too he would share in the responsibility. There was a struggle about this with Speer until it finally came about that Saur joined the Jaegerstab. I did not want to found the Jaegerstab without him, and it turned out that Saur now tackled this new task very energetically and he did in fact succeed to some extent in bringing Hitler at least to a standstill. But Hitler’s views and Hitler’s orders he could not change. Apart from that it was necessary, if I wanted to transfer armament work to Speer, for the final armament would have to go through Saur’s hands eventually, so it was essential that Saur should be included right from the start.
Q. Thank you. Did you give him responsibility to a small or a large extent within the Jaegerstab?
A. Let me answer that like this: I gave him as much freedom of action as possible, since he was going to take it over later, and it was his nature that when any matter was placed in his hands he took it up very energetically, and I was happy to see that he was going ahead so vigorously.
Q. Witness, you have made notes about everything you did during the war. Can you tell this high Tribunal whether you gradually withdrew from the Jaegerstab and how many meetings you participated in each month?
A. In March, I participated in 15 meetings—they took place daily—and two trips. In April, I participated in eight meetings, and one journey. In May, I attended five meetings and took part in two journeys. In June I attended two meetings only, and had also two journeys. In July, I didn’t attend any meetings at all, neither did I participate in any journey. I took more active interest in the journeys, totaling seven, in order to go into the provinces and show that the handing over of my task to Saur was taking place with my agreement. These are the figures: March 15, then eight, then five, then two.
Q. You mean the meetings?
A. Yes; that applies to meetings. In other words, I participated in a total of 30 meetings.
Q. But there was one more on 1 August 1944, wasn’t there?
A. That was after my retirement. It was a meeting when Speer was in the chair, in which the Jaegerstab was now finally discontinuing its work, as the tasks of the Jaegerstab were now being incorporated with ordinary armament under Speer in the armament staff. It was a purely formal meeting of handing over, and I deliberately took part, so as not to create the impression that I was leaving reluctantly or that I was angry about anything, for, of course, the exact opposite was the case.
* * * * *
Q. Witness, did the Jaegerstab have anything to do with workers?
A. Do you mean building workers?
Q. I mean generally speaking, for the moment.
A. I see. Well, you have to draw a clear dividing line. There were two completely different conceptions for us, armament workers and building workers. Armament workers came through the existing channels; in other words, requests were made to Sauckel by the industries, and Sauckel fulfilled, or did not fulfill such requests. Information about this first of all went to Speer’s Ministry through the Armament Inspectorates, and secondly, there were statistical reports monthly from industry to air force. Building workers, on the other hand, did not concern any of us at all, not even statistically speaking; that is, insofar as the GL was concerned and his representatives on the Jaegerstab. This was entirely a problem for Todt’s Organization. We knew absolutely nothing about this problem as far as we were concerned.
Q. Witness, did the Jaegerstab include a representative of the GBA, the Plenipotentiary General for Labor, Sauckel, on its board?
A. I cannot at this moment recollect that accurately, but I believe not. As far as I know, for these questions there was only a representative from Speer’s Ministry. That was Mr. Schmelter, who has been a witness in this trial, and who on his part used to hear our requests and take our requests to his ministry to help as far as he could.
Q. In order to help in labor problems did Schmelter have to go to Sauckel on his part?
A. Yes, quite decidedly. He, on his own initiative, could not distribute workers because he did not have any workers reserves of any kind.
* * * * *
Q. Witness, the construction work which Hitler stated had to be constructed either by Kammler or Dorsch, was that all for the purpose of the Jaegerstab or also for other armament purposes?
A. I know that these constructions were meant for many other purposes because if these questions were discussed in the Jaegerstab I repeatedly heard Saur or some of his representatives saying, “We wish to change this; we want to use this for making tanks; or here, for instance, we will have V-2 rockets.” That is how it fluctuated. In any case, I know that the subterranean constructions or tunnels were meant for other armament purposes.
Q. Witness, did you ever hear about the fact that for the construction of the surface concrete factories concentration camp inmates were to be used?
A. I heard about that in the Jaegerstab, I believe; and that is how we can explain Kammler’s task.
Q. Witness, in your capacities as GL, as member of the Central Planning Board, or member of the Jaegerstab, what did you have to do with the concentration camp inmates? Did you apply for those?
A. No, we had nothing whatsoever to do with it. But they were requisitioned for industry through channels which I did not know at the time. At that time I knew from a conference that in Oranienburg, at Heinkel’s, people were being used from the concentration camps which were near there. I heard one of my men say that the work that was being done over there was good work, I myself did not see these inmates working. However, at that time I was convinced of the fact, through my visit to the concentration camp of Dachau in 1935, that these were, in the main, only German criminals.
* * * * *
Q. Witness, did you hear in connection with labor for concrete construction work, that Hitler gave orders for the use of one hundred thousand Jews, or did the Jaegerstab request this?
A. I am sure that the Jaegerstab did not do that. I cannot say for sure if before the collapse I knew anything at all about this matter. I know from the record that Hitler is said to have had a conference on 4 January 1944 about this question. However, I know that that conference lasted for quite a few days, I believe, from 1 to 4 January. I participated for a very short time in that conference on 4 January. I do not know, or I cannot recall, if during the time I was there they discussed that point.
Q. Did you later on find out that Jewish concentration camp inmates were used in this construction?
A. I never found out for sure.
Q. However, in the sessions of the Jaegerstab they had discussed that point?
A. I cannot remember anything about it. Many things were discussed there every day, so that it is not quite possible to remember every detail that they discussed.
Q. During those conferences or meetings, the number of which you had mentioned, did you always participate in these conferences?
A. No. I was called out very often. I left on my own initiative sometimes in order to make certain arrangements in connection with my other fields of work; otherwise, I should not have been able to do any work whatsoever in my other spheres. At that time I had the whole set-up of General Foerster under my orders, and also the entire training of the Luftwaffe; on top of that were the questions of the Inspectorate General and his problems.
Q. Witness, I shall come now to your speech of 25 March 1944, which has been repeatedly mentioned here, Document NOKW-017, Prosecution Exhibit 54. It is your speech to the chief engineers of the Luftwaffe and the chief quartermasters. It says here at one point that for construction a few hundred thousand laborers were being used who had been withdrawn from other places. By that don’t you mean those 100,000 Jews we just mentioned?
A. No. Under no circumstances. At that time workers had been transferred for these purposes from many other constructions which were already under way.
Q. Witness—
A. May I add to that, this: I could not possibly imagine why Jews should be used as construction workers. Therefore, I am sure that it would have struck me if I had heard that, for Jews are not used as carpenters and bricklayers. They are mostly people who work in offices, and one could hardly expect construction work from them. I don’t believe that I myself, as a man who has never done that kind of work, would be of any use for it.
Q. Witness, explain to us now the purpose of this speech of yours, which uses rather strong language.
A. During the severe air raids we had lost many stocks of material, mainly of parts. The new output of these parts could not possibly keep pace with the destruction. There was only one way left, namely, to take these parts from troops’ stocks. The troops had large stocks over which the GL himself had no power of disposal whatsoever. He just gave the orders for the manufacture of them. The requests of the troops, in my opinion, were always too high—4.2 billion marks’ worth of parts were being ordered at that time, that is proof of it. If we wanted to have these planes, which were half ready, in time, it was possible only if the troops would give us some of their parts. Prior to this conference many attempts to that effect had been made, but the Quartermaster General, because of the veto of his chief quartermasters and chief engineers, had refused my wishes. I was very annoyed about that. Saur came to see me and stressed once more that the completion of the planes was impossible. He thought that in the army that would have been taken care of long ago, but in the Luftwaffe there did not seem to be any definite power to give orders, and he would take this matter up with the higher authorities. That, for the second time, made me very cross, and when this conference took place immediately after these things, I spoke in very strong terms in order that the Quartermaster General with his staff should give me the parts that were needed. That was the purpose and the aim of the whole thing, and contrary to what had happened before, when they had refused me those parts, the harsh military speech I made was crowned with success.
Q. Witness, in this speech there are certain passages which in themselves have nothing to do with those aims you just mentioned. I would like to show you these passages. At one spot you come to the question concerning labor, and you say that the portion assigned to the Luftwaffe in the allocation of labor had been constantly diminished, that the foreigners were running away and not keeping their contracts, and that if a foreman reprimanded or beat one of these young laborers who was engaged in sabotage, he, the foreman, got into trouble; and that the international law could not be applied here and that you would see to it yourself that the prisoners, with the exception of the Americans and British, were removed from the power of the military organization—then, if a man committed sabotage, he should be hanged in his own factory or workshop. What does that have to do with this speech and these aims that you mentioned?
A. As far as prisoners of war were working with the Luftwaffe itself, the Quartermaster General and the Chief Quartermaster had something to do with it. This was to be a threat to that department, namely, that certain rights would be withdrawn from them. Of course, I could not do that. I don’t believe that Goering would have followed such a suggestion of mine either.
I have no excuse whatsoever for these words which I used. I have now had the time to read this passage in peace, and I cannot understand it myself. I can only repeat that I myself was in an impossible position. I could see what was coming, and I could no longer help my people. At that time—I do not wish to say this as an excuse, but just in order to explain—I was still suffering very badly from my accident, and I could not quite get over the concussion, because at that time I could not possibly be absent for one minute. I knew that because my doctor was worried about me and he tried to help me with all sorts of drugs and medicines.
Q. Witness, a number of witnesses who were here have stated that very often you had outbursts of rage. At the time when you made that statement did you have the sincere wish to carry through these measures?
A. No. I can say that with a good conscience. Never, never in my life did I do such a thing, and I believe that he who really knows me knows exactly that, on the contrary, I was different. However, at that time I simply had to give vent to my feelings, and I could not use strong words to the people I really wanted to use them on. That was not consistent with the discipline you have in an army. I also have to say that immediately after such a discussion I myself no longer knew what I had said during one of those outbursts of rage. Even today I could not say for sure that I said that. However, I cannot deny it.
Q. Witness, did you at that time use such wild expressions with reference to these Luftwaffe gentlemen, and did you threaten them as well?
A. Yes. I did. I read now that I did so. I am very sorry even today that I used such strong words against my comrades.
Q. Later on in another place you said that people who acted as if they were sick ought to be whipped to work and that the whip should be used as a medicine. That is a similar statement?
A. That was just silly talk, so to speak, and I also used strong words about myself and called myself an idiot once in a while.
Q. Did you ever issue orders to drive people to work with the whip?
A. Never, and I am sure that I myself would have intervened in such a case.
Q. Did you ever have anybody hanged because of sabotage at any time.
A. No. First, I did not do it. Second, I could not do it. I never had anybody punished for sabotage in any way because that was not within my competency, not even in the few instances where sabotage had actually taken place.
Q. Witness, weren’t you afraid, however, that if you spoke like that before this circle of men, that those people would actually act according to your words?
A. In this circle there was nobody who could possibly have the power to carry out such things, and second, I believe that everybody knew me, because my friends even at that time had told me that I had lost my control over myself. It was a very good thing that nobody took me seriously at such a time. I also always promised myself that I would not burst into rage again. However, at that time I did not have full control over myself because the situation was becoming more serious every day. Moreover, I knew that all this could have been avoided, that it had never been necessary to go to war, but if so, that the war could have been terminated long ago, and apart from all this, if nothing else, the destruction of Germany could have been avoided. That thought did not leave me alone day or night, and that actually contributed to these explosions. When everything was over, from that day I became more quiet.
Q. Witness, those people you spoke to were soldiers, were they not?
A. Yes.
Q. Could those soldiers, according to your knowledge, have possibly been led to carry out these orders which were against international law?
A. No, never. They quite rightly thought, as people often told me, that I was crazy during such outbursts. I myself was in no position to judge that, however.
Q. Witness, however, a certain number of measures in contradiction to international law were carried out in Germany. Did you know anything about that, could you have thought then that maybe you were also causing such measures against international law?
A. No. I did not know about that, with the very few exceptions that were discussed here. However, I never connected them with myself. There never was any connection at any time.
* * * * *
[March 18]
Q. Witness, after you received the Knight’s Cross in 1940, did you receive any distinctions from Hitler, any decorations?
A. Yes, I did, in 1940 I received the promotion to a field marshal, and that was also in 1940. After 1940 I did not receive anything which I considered a distinction as a soldier, because the bonus I received in 1942—yes, I will refer to that later—I couldn’t see any distinction in that as a soldier.
Q. Will you now talk of this bonus which you received? Give us some details about it.
A. Hitler sent his adjutant on my 50th birthday, with a picture of Hitler, that is, a photograph, with a dedication, and a letter in which he congratulated me, and there was a check inside to the amount of 250,000 marks. Hitler wrote in his letter that he knew I was leading a very modest life and he would like to give me in this way the possibility of making it a little pleasanter.
I thanked Hitler, and I told him that I gladly accepted the money, because after all I could not refuse it, as a compensation for the fact that I had earned a little less by this amount than I would have earned if I had remained with the Lufthansa, because my salary in the Lufthansa was twice as high, and even later on, three times as high as the money I received from the State. Consequently, I did not consider that as a gift exceeding my merits.
Q. Witness, did the Air Ministry not offer you a bonus, also?
A. That was not a bonus but the President of the Air Ministry told me that the industry wanted to give me a present to the value of 50,000 marks. I told him that I rejected this present; it looked to me like bribery. He immediately withdrew the offer, especially as he knew that never in my life had I accepted a present from industry while I was in government service.
* * * * *
Q. Was it possible for you to remove directors of industry, or to appoint them?
A. No. Either there were limited companies [G.m.b.H.], or shareholder companies, and they had their own organizations, their own administrations. The shareholders appointed the board of directors and the board of directors decided who was to be the general manager, and we never interfered with that.
* * * * *
Q. Witness, will you explain to the Tribunal how overburdened you were with work during all these years?
A. May I refer to my field of tasks which is shown in one exhibit?
DR. BERGOLD: May I ask this Tribunal now to see the charts which are in the document book—the first document?
* * * * *
A. Until the end of 1941 my main task was that of Inspector General of the Luftwaffe. From that point onward, the work as GL took the first place, while in my capacity as Inspector General I was continuously travelling by plane. But as Inspector General I was tied more closely to the Berlin ministry. Oh, I beg your pardon, I mean to say as GL. There we had meetings every day; and in my capacity as GL I took over a technical staff in the Ministry of over four thousand. I reduced this staff to about half; but in spite of that the number of conferences and meetings could not be reduced. Therefore, I had to go through the incredible amount of papers which were to be read and also the papers which had to be signed; and I had to take them home in the evening. I think that always amounted to two large suitcases and sometimes even three of them. On the average I would work at home until 2:00 o’clock, a.m. The reading was the main task because in all technical matters I had to be up to the mark myself; and that was not very easy for me because, after all, I had not studied technique but rather was a self-taught man as a soldier who had been a pilot. In the morning I would start my duties at 9:00 o’clock or at 9:15. Generally I would eat my lunch at my desk, and often I even ate my dinner at my desk, so that I had the impression that I was overburdened with work. Even apart from these two functions, as GL and Inspector General of the Luftwaffe, the direction of the different other offices in the Ministry made quite a lot of work for me, though in my last position the excellent General Foerster took most of the work off me.
Q. Witness, are the offices correct as they are shown on this chart which I have submitted to the Tribunal, and can you confirm them as such?
A. Yes.
DR. BERGOLD: May it please the Tribunal, this concludes my interrogation; and I make room now for the prosecution.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
MR. DENNEY: You testified as a witness before the International Military Tribunal on behalf of the defendant Goering, did you not?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And in the course of your testimony before the Tribunal you stated that you were the second highest officer in the air force?
A. Yes, that was my rank.
Q. So that the only one who ranked higher than you was Goering?
A. Yes.
Q. And that continued up until the time when you told us this morning that you completely withdrew, which, I believe was some time in January of 1945?
A. Yes. May I remark here that from 1937 several officers were in the second place. That is to say, the chief of the general staff, the chief of the personnel office, and also the GL. We were all of the same rank, as it were, but I was the most senior officer among them.
Q. And under Goering there were really four echelons; that is, the chief of staff, the inspector general, the GL, and the director of the personnel office?
A. Yes. They were all equal to each other.
Q. Goering was on top, and then came these four in a parallel line below him; is that right?
A. Yes, under Goering.
Q. And you, from 1941, November, following Udet’s death until sometime in the middle of 1944, held both the office of GL and inspector general?
A. That is correct.
* * * * *
MR. DENNEY: If your Honor pleases, I ask that this be marked Prosecution Exhibit 133 for identification. This is a letter, dated 1 April 1943. The writer of the letter is Sauckel, and the letter is addressed to the defendant.
“Most honored Field Marshal,
“I take the liberty of enclosing in confidence three copies of the speech I gave in Poznan on 5 and 6 February 1943, on the occasion of the Reich and Gauleiters meeting and beg you kindly to peruse it. The figures contained in this speech refer to the end of the year 1942. Of course, the figures given concerning utilization of labor have again increased in the meantime. I would ask for your continued sympathetic understanding of the interests of manpower utilization, and your understanding and assistance in my task as far as possible. On my side, I can assure you that I always have asked the offices of the labor allocation administration subordinate to me for close and successful cooperation with all departments, and that I will do so for the future too.
“Heil Hitler, “Yours respectfully, [Signed] “Sauckel”
And, on the 7th, the last page, the defendant acknowledges receipt of this letter:
“Most esteemed Gauleiter,
“I thank you most cordially for kindly transmitting to me the speech you made in Poznan on 5 and 6 February 1943 on the occasion of the Reich and Gauleiters meeting.
“Heil Hitler! Yours.”
* * * * *
Q. Do you recall receiving it from Sauckel on 1 April 1943?
A. No. At the beginning of April I wasn’t there the first few days. I see a remark, by somebody else, on this document. It probably says—I can’t read it very well—“for the files of the Central Planning Board”. Perhaps this letter may have been submitted to me later on—I do not know whether I replied myself. I certainly did not read the report because otherwise I would be able to recall the figures.
Q. But you did initial the letter, didn’t you?
A. I do not know. I do not recall it at all.
* * * * *
MR. DENNEY: On the copy that your Honors have, I believe it’s apparent in the upper left-hand corner of the first page, the defendant’s initials appear there, as well as on the original letter.
* * * * *
Q. Now, do you ever recall saying that you would put the German workers into concentration camps, the ones who did not work well?
A. When I talked about slackers, I referred to education by Himmler, but not to sending them into concentration camps. Himmler had other training places for workers where such people who were disinclined to work were being trained by making their supplementary rations dependent on their production.
Q. Don’t you recall that you asked that certain camps be set up especially to take care of these German workers who weren’t doing well?
A. I did not say that we should make a special camp, but that they should go to the training camps which already existed and we could get them back from there. I do wish to emphasize here these were people, Germans, who did not do their duty towards their Fatherland. I thought it justified that such people should be trained.
* * * * *
MR. DENNEY: Witness, I believe you said you kept a diary?
A. A diary? You could not call it exactly a diary, I only took some short notes concerning my stay, and I jotted down a few key words which conveyed generally the most important matters.
Q. That was lost, was it, or destroyed, when you were captured?
A. It has not been lost. I still have it here.
Q. That is what you are referring to?
A. If I look up where I was at a particular day or what personalities I met, I refer only to the most important questions, not to everything, I can see whom I was with. Sometimes there is a table of contents, too, which is more detailed, according to the interest I had in those questions. For instance, for 28 October, which you referred to a while ago, I only have the following: My dispute with Goering he had reported to Hitler; he had not obtained anything, and now he started to vent his bad humor on me. Then comes a short note again that there was a conference afterwards with Goering. That was in Karinhall. It went on for the whole day. It was one hour from Berlin by car. I noted down that Speer was there, that Sauckel was there, Grawitz, von der Heyde, and some others. There is no mention what subjects were discussed, but the attendance of Sauckel clarifies the matter for me. That is an example of how I would enter these notes in this book.
Q. Insofar as you recall, you were at that meeting on 28 October?
A. Yes, indeed. I have found it here in my book.
* * * * *
PRESIDING JUDGE TOMS: Mr. Denney, let’s get an unequivocal answer to this. Did you put the initials on the letter from Sauckel?
MILCH: The “Mi”, yes, indeed.
Q. You wrote that?
A. Yes, I did. I wrote it. Somebody else wrote “to the files—”
Q. Never mind what somebody else wrote. Now, on the first page of the pamphlet, the printed speech, there are some initials. Did you write those?
A. On the cover, yes; I did, “Mi, 6/4”, that is what I wrote.
Q. All right.
MR. DENNEY: Do you recall saying that Americans were never assigned to work in any of the airplane factories?
MILCH: Yes, I said that.
Q. This is Document NOKW-364, which is a partial translation of the minutes of the Jaegerstab, held on 19 June 1944. The cover page, which is photostated here in the German, which will be given to the Secretary General, bears the initials of the defendant.
PRESIDING JUDGE TOMS: Is this a new exhibit?
MR. DENNEY: Yes, your Honor. This will bear Prosecution Exhibit Number 135 for identification, if your Honor pleases. Document NOKW-364, a partial translation of the minutes of the Jaegerstab of a meeting held 19 June 1944. On the covering page there appear the initials of the defendant. Perhaps the Secretary General would be good enough to let Mr. Blakeslee have the original so the cover page can be shown to the defendant. Just show it to him, Mr. Blakeslee.
(The document was handed to the defendant.)
* * * * *
MR. DENNEY: Do your records show that you attended a conference of the GL on 4 August 1942?
A. Yes, indeed. These discussions were twice a week. (NOKW-409, Pros. Ex. 140.)
* * * * *
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Curiosity consumes me as to what would happen if an officer inferior in rank to yourself took you at your word and actually executed a number of these workers or prisoners of war. Would that officer then be punished?
A. No one was there who would have been in a position to do that. Apart from that, all those who were under my orders knew me and my way of handling things. They knew that I didn’t mean it, and apart from that they always laughed about my remarks when I let myself go, as they said.
Q. In other words the comment of the Field Marshal in a matter of this seriousness was really of no value?
A. Because the people knew that I got excited very easily about certain things, and these incidents here have been selected and produced. From every one of these meetings which took place twice a month, there was a long report and owing to one or other of these reports, maybe once or twice, there would be a certain outburst or explosion, and then, as we soldiers were accustomed to do, we would just get mad, that is all. However, I didn’t intend to do anything about it and I spoke to those under my orders when the opportunity offered. They pointed the matter out to me. They knew exactly from my words that this was not meant seriously. They knew exactly that no such order had been given and that I myself would never cause anybody to be punished, not even then when it might have been justified, for the very simple reason that I did not have the power to administer punishments.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Mr. Denney read this paragraph to you, Document NOKW-409, Prosecution Exhibit 140. I understood you to say this, that the paragraph did not contain your attitude there, that you never gave such an order, that when you were worried you sometimes used strong language as a soldier would. Didn’t you say that?
A. Yes.
Q. Well, now whether you meant it or not, you would say these things, and by so doing you counseled and advised others under you at a meeting over which you presided to do such things. Whether you meant it or not you did that, didn’t you?
A. No, I never gave an order by using these words, because my people spoke with me, and they knew afterwards from my words that I never meant it earnestly.
Q. Didn’t you say, “I would band the workers together and have fifty percent of them shot. I would then publish this fact and compel the other fifty percent to work by beating if necessary.” Did you say that or not?
A. I do not remember having said that. However, three days ago I believe I said that, when I had such a rush of blood to my head, due to that injury I had, and I couldn’t remember what I had said at that particular moment. I just burst out with rage.
Q. Well, if you did say that, you were advising and counseling others to do that, were you not?
A. No, that was not a counsel or an advice to anybody else. On the contrary, it was known that if someone had done such a thing I would have intervened myself.
* * * * *
[March 20]
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Since we are on the subject of Jews, I would like to refer to something which occurred at the first trial. Now you are not compelled to discuss this matter if for any reason you prefer not to, but you will recall that you were cross-examined by Justice Jackson on the subject of your being Aryanized. Do you recall that?
A. Yes, I recall it.
Q. Now you gave an explanation at the trial which, however, was not definite, it seems to have left something in mid-air, and since you have given us quite a long autobiographical sketch of yourself, if you would care to enlighten us on this point, you are free to do so.
A. My point of view is as I stated at the time.
Q. Yes.
A. That point of view I still adhere to.
Q. Let us see. You were asked certain questions and gave certain answers as follows:
“Question: At that time” (Goering had referred to 1933) “Goering had you—we will have no misunderstanding about this—Goering made you what you call a full Aryan; was that right?
“Answer: I do not think he made me one; I was one.
“Question: Well, he had it established, let us say.
“Answer: He had helped me in clearing up this question, which was not clear.
“Question: That is, your mother’s husband was a Jew; is that correct?
“Answer: It was not said so.
“Question: You had to demonstrate that none of your ancestry was Jewish; is that correct?
“Answer: Yes, everybody had to do that.
“Question: And in your case that involved your father, your alleged father, is that correct?
“Answer: Yes.” [There the inquiry rested.]
A. Yes.
Q. Just what had to be done to demonstrate that you were a full Aryan, and why did the question arise?
A. The first time that question arose was in 1933, and the occasion was the following: The president of the German Aero Club was reported as being adverse to the Hitler regime, and I protected that man. Following that, a man who was a member of the SA sent a letter to Goering, and I may add that this was a man who was trying to become a state secretary in the Air Ministry, and he had been deeply hurt when he, an old Party member, had to take second place to me. In this letter he said that State Secretary Milch was not a full Aryan. This happened in the summer of 1933. Goering forwarded this letter to me, and I went to Goering. Following that I was asked to submit my family tree. That is how this matter arose.
Q. In other words, you had to establish that no Jewish blood flowed in your veins, is that correct?
A. Yes, that is what I was supposed to do.
Q. And you established that to their satisfaction?
A. That was established.
* * * * *
Q. * * * Now, I understand you to say that the first time you learned of the proposed war against Poland was on 21 August, and even then it was not very clearly indicated that a war could actually be unleashed, and that further it was not until the very end of the day, that is to say, at five o’clock in the afternoon of 31 August that you were directed to put the Luftwaffe, or all your forces, in readiness for the attack. Is that correct? Is that what you said?
A. On 31 August, not to get ready, but I received the order: “The attack starts tomorrow,” that was the order for an attack, whereas, over-all preparations had been made previously at the meeting which took place with Hitler on 22 August, only then there was still the possibility of negotiations which were still going on. These negotiations came to an end on 31 August at 1700 hours.
Q. Did you not tell this Tribunal that after the meeting of 23 May 1939 you were convinced that war was not intended?
A. 23d of May?
Q. Yes, 23 May 1939?
A. Yes.
Q. That you had no intimation that Hitler intended an aggressive war on Poland?
A. Yes, because at that time, according to my recollection, Hitler stated again and again that he was certainly going to settle the Polish problem, but that he would not allow war to break out.
Q. And that you had called to his attention the necessity of manufacturing bombs, because you believed that hostilities might break out?
A. That was before that date, before the 23d, and also after the 23d, because I myself did not share Hitler’s optimism. Although he may not have intended to wage war, his policy might nevertheless have led to war, for he alone was not the deciding factor, the others would have something to say as well.
Q. And that assumption lulled you into the conviction that there would be no war, since he refused you authority to manufacture bombs?
A. Today I must assume that, at that time I was not aware of it.
* * * * *
Q. When did you first learn that an attack on Russia was intended?
A. At the beginning of January 1941—I beg your pardon—yes, that is right, 1941, on 13 January actually. It was then that Goering, during a conference with a large circle of commanding officers, informed us that one’s attention should be turned to the East, as Hitler was fearing an attack by the Russians.
Q. Yes, and you finally came to the conclusion that the declaration of war, or rather, the undeclared war against Russia was a crime against Germany.
A. Yes.
Q. Did you think it was a crime against Russia?
A. Yes, against Russia also.
Q. Also?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, you endeavored to see Hitler to persuade him not to enter this war.
A. Yes.
Q. And your immediate circle, your military friends, realized that it was foolhardy to provoke a war with Russia and thereby establish two fronts?
A. Exactly the way I saw it, yes. My immediate circle were of the same opinion as I was.
Q. And all the generals were of the same impression—that it was hopeless for Germany, and that further it was tragic and suicidal to Germany to allow Hitler to take over the control of the armed forces? You were practically unanimous in that belief, were you not?
A. This was never discussed in any larger circles.
Q. But you have testified—it is in the record—that you were all of that belief.
A. It transpired at a later stage, when it was discussed, that they were all of the same opinion.
Q. When was that?
A. Later on in the course of the war.
Q. When did you realize that it was a mistake to have Hitler as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces?
A. I, personally?
Q. When was it thoroughly recognized, even though not expressed at a public meeting among the generals, that it was suicidal, a great mistake, to have Hitler as Commander in Chief?
A. That was the general point of view after Stalingrad. That is when it became general.
Q. And when was that?
A. That was the end of January 1943.
Q. Yes. You still had two and a half years of war ahead of you?
A. Yes.
Q. Why didn’t you do something about having Hitler removed?
A. It was my duty toward my people to keep allegiance to him. I had sworn an oath of allegiance to Hitler. I am only a human being who can see this world subjectively and I cannot presume to be an impartial judge on such questions. Moreover, I believe that in the whole of Germany’s history there is not one instance of soldiers rising against their military commander. I certainly do not know of one.
Q. Even though you realized that Hitler was leading Germany into stark annihilation and unspeakable hardship, and even though all the generals were of that same belief, yet you upheld this fetish of an allegiance which was destined, and very clearly so, to bring unparalleled misery to the people that you professed to be faithful to?
A. Your Honor, I personally did not presume to say that my judgment was right, and that Hitler’s judgment, and the judgment of all those around him, was wrong.
Q. Then, you modify your statement that Hitler was wrong? You say that he might have been right?
A. No, no, I am not saying that. What I am trying to say is that it was my point of view that the question whether the head of the state was to be overthrown or not was a matter for the constitution, and that for this eventuality the constitution and the state must surely have powers, means through which in such cases there could be intervention; but then it could not be the task of any individual general to take steps in such questions, which were, after all, unlawful.
* * * * *
-----
[139] The defendant Milch testified in his own behalf on eight full trial days (March 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, and 20, 1947). His testimony is recorded in 581 mimeographed pages (Tr. pp. 1696-2276).
[140] Wolfgang Vorwald, former Commander of Luftgau (Air Force Administrative Command) VII, Munich.
[141] Defendant in case of United States vs. Ernst von Weizsaecker, et al. See Vols. XII, XIII, XIV.
[142] Doc. R-124, Pros. Ex. 48-A, Conference of 1 March 1944, pp. 484-498.
V. CLOSING STATEMENTS
A. Closing Statement of the Prosecution[143]
MR. CLARK DENNY: We close today the trial of a major war criminal—a leader in a slaving operation, the enormity of which is without historical parallel; a principal in a crime of murder in the ironic masquerade of scientific progress which has shocked alike the world of medicine and the world of laymen. The evidence set forth before the Tribunal has shown that Erhard Milch was primarily implicated as a leader in a program to bring laborers into Germany by force, of allocating them to the various segments of the German war economy, and of munitions.
We deal here with a top military and economic planner who at all times was fully informed as to the aims and objectives of the Nazi plan. Unlike his colleagues Speer and Sauckel, Milch entered the conspiracy early. The defendant was one of a small group of men who constituted the leadership of the Reich.
Before dealing directly with the responsibility of the defendant for the crimes charged in the indictment, as shown by the evidence, we should like to review, briefly, the law applicable to these crimes.
THE LAW
The indictment charges and the evidence has connected the defendant with a wide variety of crimes incident to the enforced labor program of the Nazi regime. In themselves, these crimes are not new except in their enormity. In domestic law they have, from ancient times, borne such familiar titles as assault, battery, murder, kidnapping and pillage. In international law the principles which protect the individual from undue interference with his person and his personal freedom have given rise to a series of kindred precepts governing the conduct of a nation which has gained factual control over the citizens of another state. We shall consider briefly some salient precepts and prohibitions of international law up to, and including the provisions of Control Council Law No. 10.
Much of the labor which supplied Germany with the tools of total war was exacted from people who had been uprooted from their homes in occupied territories and imported to Germany. Displacement of groups of persons from one country to another is the proper concern of international law insofar as it affects the community of nations.
The law has recognized that some conditions may justify the transfer of people from one country to another. Correspondingly, and with much more relevance to the present case, international law has enunciated certain conditions under which the fact of deportation becomes a crime.
If the transfer is carried out without a legal title, as is the case where people are deported from a country occupied by an invader while the occupied enemy still has an army in the field, the deportation is contrary to international law. The rationale of this rule lies in the supposition that the occupying power has prevented temporarily the rightful sovereign from exercising power over its citizens.
Articles 43, 46, 49, 52, 55, and 56 of the Hague Regulations, which limit the rights of the belligerent occupant, do not expressly specify as a crime the deportation of civilians from an occupied territory. However, Article 52 states the following conditions under which services may be demanded from the inhabitants of occupied countries:
1. They must be for the needs of the army of occupation; 2. They must be in proportion to the resources of the country; and 3. They must be of such a nature as not to involve the inhabitants in the obligation to take part in military operations against their own country.
Insofar as this section limits the conscription of labor to that required for the needs of the army of occupation, it is clear that the use of labor from occupied territories outside of the area of occupation is forbidden by the Hague Regulations.
The illegality of the deportation of civilians in territories under belligerent occupation was demonstrated in the First World War when the Germans attempted a deportation program of Belgian workers into Germany. This measure met with world-wide protest and was abandoned after about four months.
Among the voices raised in protest against the deportation of Belgians by Germany in 1916-1917 was that of Lansing, Secretary of State. He wrote:
“The Government of the United States has learned with the greatest concern and regret of the policy of the German Government to deport from Belgium a portion of the civilian population for the purposes of forcing them to labor in Germany, and is constrained to protest in a friendly spirit but most solemnly against this policy which is in contravention of all precedent and all principles of international practice which have long been accepted and followed by civilized nations in their treatment of noncombatants in conquered territory.”
Other protests were lodged with the German Government by Spain, Switzerland, Netherlands, and Brazil, all neutral countries. International lawyers all over the world condemned Germany’s action in the strongest terms.
The opposition in the German Reichstag accused the government of violating the Hague Convention and refused to vote for the war budget.
It is worthy of note, in passing, that the defendant has testified at this trial that he knew of this effort at deportation of labor on the part of Germany in the First War and that he was much interested in the investigation conducted by a Reichstag Committee concerning this matter. He could not have followed this investigation, as he admits he did, without learning that the deportation in question was a violation of international law.
The second condition under which deportation becomes a crime occurs when the purpose of the displacement is illegal. A conspicuous example of illegality of purpose is found when the deportation is for the purpose of compelling the deportees to manufacture weapons for use against their homeland or to be assimilated in the working economy of the occupying country.
An attempt has been made by the defense in this trial to show that persons were deported from France into Germany legally and for a legal purpose, by pointing out that such deportations were authorized by agreements between Nazi and Vichy French authorities. This defense is both technically and substantially deficient. Many of the Vichy Government’s highest officials, who held office by reason of and under the protection of Nazi power, have been punished for treason by the present legitimate government. And, too, the agreements themselves were illegal—because they were exacted under duress, and because they were void ab initio because of their immoral content. It is common knowledge that even the puppets of Vichy did not of their own accord agree to the Nazi deportation measures. It is equally clear that these agreements were contra bonos mores. Then, too, it was illegal for any French Government to conclude agreements which provided for the compulsory mass deportation of French workers to aid the enemy’s war effort. At the time of the agreement between Germany and Vichy there was merely a state of suspension of hostilities. French resistance had not ceased, and the outcome of the war continued to be uncertain. Lastly, the deportation agreements were invalid because their manifest purpose was to aid Germany in the commission of the crime of aggressive war. That an agreement in furtherance of an act which is illegal in international law is invalid has been stated by various authorities. For example, Professor Charles Cheney Hyde, of Columbia University, defines as internationally illegal “agreements which are concluded for the purpose of, and with a view to, causing the performance of acts which it (international law) proscribes.”
Professor Hall, page 382 of the 8th Edition of International Law (1924), declares:
“The requirement that contracts shall be in conformity with law invalidates, or at least renders voidable, all agreements which are at variance with the fundamental principles of international law and their undisputed applications * * *.”
Lauterpacht on International Law by L. Oppenheim, in volume I, page 706, states:
“It is a unanimously recognized customary rule of international law that obligations which are at variance with universally recognized principles of international law cannot be the object of a treaty.”
The final condition under which deportation becomes illegal occurs whenever generally recognized standards of decency and humanity are disregarded. This flows from the established principle of law that an otherwise permissible act becomes a crime when carried out in a criminal manner.
A study of the pertinent parts of Control Council Law No. 10 strengthens the conclusions of the foregoing statements, that deportation of the population is criminal whenever there is no title in the deporting authority or whenever the purpose of the displacement is illegal, or whenever the deportation is characterized by inhumane or illegal methods.
Article II (1) (b) lists under war crimes “ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose, of civilian population from occupied territory.” It is clear that Law No. 10 establishes the following separate and distinct crimes: ill-treatment of civilians from occupied territories; deportation to slave labor of such civilians; and deportation for any other purposes of such civilians.
The prohibition of deportation of civilians from occupied territories irrespective of the purpose, as stated in Control Council Law No. 10, is a recognition of the principle of international law that a power in belligerent occupation has no right or authority (title) to deport the citizens of the occupied territories. The separate specification as a war crime in Law No. 10 of ill-treatment of civilians from occupied territories is a recognition of the rule of international law, as heretofore discussed, that even an otherwise lawful deportation (by an authority having title and for a legitimate purpose) is rendered illegal where the deportees are ill-treated.
Without entering into a detailed discussion of the evidence, it should be pointed out at this point, that all these conditions for criminal deportation were abundantly present in the enforced labor program of Germany during the 2d World War, and that the knowing connection of the defendant with all phases of illegal deportation has been established.
Article II (1) (c) of Control Council Law No. 10 specifies certain crimes against humanity. Among these is listed the “deportation * * * (of) any civilian population * * *”. The general language of this sub-section, as applied to deportation, indicates that Control Council Law No. 10 has indeed unconditionally condemned, as a crime against humanity, every instance of the deportation of civilians. Under this sub-section, there would seem to be no room for argument as to the legality of any agreement on the part of any government, legitimate or illegitimate, which allows deportation of its subjects in time of war.
We come now to a consideration of the crime of enslavement. Whereas Article II (b) names deportation to slave labor as a war crime, Article II (1) (c) states that the “enslavement * * * (of) any civilian population” is a crime against humanity. Thus, Law No. 10 treats as separate crimes, and different types of crime, “deportation to slave labor” and “enslavement.”
Article II (b) does not specify as a crime the detention (as distinguished from the deportation) of civilians for use as slave labor or for any other purpose. However, the section does stipulate that any atrocities or offenses against persons which constitute violations of the laws or customs of war, including but not limited to deportation to slave labor, are war crimes. Use or detention of persons from occupied territories for slave labor or for any other purpose, in and of themselves, do constitute violations of the laws and customs of war. Ergo, such use or detention is a war crime within II (1) (b) of Law No. 10.
The crime against humanity which is termed “enslavement” in Article II (1) (c) of Law No. 10 is susceptible of two meanings. It can be understood to embrace the initial act of deprivation of the freedom of another, and an act whereby such deprivation is continued, or either of them, or it may be interpreted as referring only to the initial measures whereby a person is deprived of his freedom.
It is the contention of the prosecution in this case that all phases of the slave labor program, the taking, the transportation, the detention, the use and the inhuman treatment of foreign workers as practiced by the Nazi state and participated in by the defendant, constitute enslavement within the meaning of Article II (1) (c). No sufficient reason appears for the limitation of the crime to the mere initial act. In every true and complete sense a person is enslaved from the moment when his liberty is taken from him until the time when it is restored to him. It is more than probable that if Law No. 10 is intended to limit the crime of enslavement to the initial measures under which a person was deprived of his liberty, there would have been some definite indication, either in the language or in the context of the statute.
Even if we were to concede the narrowest possible meaning for the term “enslavement” in Article II (1) (c), so as to understand by it only the first acts of deprivation of liberty, all acts under which such people were kept in an enslaved status would be crimes against humanity, because the same section defines as such any atrocities and offenses committed against the civilian population. By express proviso “enslavement” and “deportation” are only illustratively mentioned, and “other inhuman acts committed against any civilian population” constitute crimes against humanity.
The result is that whether we adopt the broad interpretation of the term “enslavement” or the narrower one, the deportation, the transportation, the retention, the use and the inhuman treatment of civilian populations are crimes against humanity. The prosecution charges that the defendant was criminally connected with all the phases of the slave labor program, whether these divisions be comprehended within the technical term “enslavement” or be divided between the crime of “enslavement” and that of “other inhuman acts.”
We shall now make brief comment on the subject of the treatment and use of prisoners of war. The Hague and Geneva Conventions merely codify the precepts of the laws and usages of all civilized nations. Article 31 of the Geneva Convention provides that “labor furnished by prisoners of war shall have no direct relation to war operations.” Thus the Convention forbids:
1. The use of prisoners of war in manufacture or transportation of arms or munitions of any kind, and
2. The use of prisoners of war for transporting material intended for combat units.
The Hague Regulations contain comparable provisions.
The essence of the crime of the misuse of prisoners of war derives from the kind of work to which they are assigned—in other words, to work directly connected with the war effort. The prosecution would like to recall to the court the evidence which connects the defendant with both the illegal employment of prisoners of war and with their abusive treatment. The Tribunal will recall that the defendant ordered the murder of prisoners of war who attempted to escape. We will discuss this crime more fully later. It will be remembered that there never has been a substantial denial of the fact that prisoners of war were used to man German antiaircraft batteries. Nor is it subject to doubt that prisoners were used in air armament industries over which the defendant exercised supervisory control.
We now come to the consideration of the basic charges and the law governing the defendant’s complicity in, and responsibility for, the Medical Experiments Program. The fundamental crime with which the defendant is charged in this connection is murder. Also involved are various atrocities, tortures, offenses against the person, and other inhuman acts.
The applicable provisions of Control Council Law No. 10, Article II, are (b) war crimes, (c) crimes against humanity. In connection with the criminal Medical Experiments Program, the prosecution submits that the defendant is guilty of—
(a) War crimes, namely violations of the laws and customs of war, as the medical experiments performed upon involuntary persons, some of them nationals of countries at war with the German Reich, involved the commission of murders, tortures, and other inhuman acts.
(b) Crimes against humanity, namely medical experiments performed upon involuntary German nationals and nationals of other countries, in the course of which, brutalities, murders, and other inhuman acts were committed.
Before we pass from the law involved in this case to a consideration of the evidence, we wish to mention the legal basis for the prosecution’s contention that the defendant must share the guilt which attaches to the slave labor program and the conduct of medical experiments upon unconsenting human beings. Control Council Law No. 10 defines for us the theory upon which this trial proceeds in Article II, paragraph 2, when it says:
“Any person without regard to nationality or the capacity in which he acted, is deemed to have committed a crime as defined in paragraph 1 of this Article, if he was (a) a principal or (b) an accessory to the commission of any such crime, or ordered or abetted the same or (c) took a consenting part therein or (d) was connected with plans or enterprises involving its commission or (e) was a member of any organization or group connected with the commission of any such crime. * * *” [Emphasis added.]
Without wishing to limit the scope of the testimony in this case, the Tribunal’s attention is directed to the evidence which has established that the defendant, as a member of the Central Planning Board, and the Jaegerstab, and as Generalluftzeugmeister, and in every one of his capacities, was connected with “plans and enterprises” for the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity, and was a “member of organizations and groups”, within the meaning of subdivisions (d) and (e) of paragraph 2, “connected with the commission of such crimes”.
Count One, paragraph 6, of the indictment charges the defendant Milch with guilt in the murder of prisoners of war who had attempted to escape from enforced labor in German war industry. The gist of this crime is murder, which is, and always has been, prohibited by every country which laid any claim to civilization. It was specified as a war crime under the Hague and Geneva Conventions and under the provisions of Article II of Control Council Law No. 10. The evidence which connects the defendant with this crime will be discussed in another part of this summation.
Law Number 10, Article II, paragraph 3 provides that the death penalty or lesser sentences may be prescribed for the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity as defined in the statute.
We turn now from the law to the evidence. In the presentation of its case in chief, the prosecution first offered evidence to describe the slave labor program in Germany in all its stark terror. It then turned to a presentation of the proof which connected the defendant with the slave labor program in two of his principal capacities, as member of the Central Planning Board and as member of the Jaegerstab. Next there was put in evidence the documents which established the defendant’s connection with the medical experiments, and finally, after the defense had put in its case, the defendant was confronted with the evidence of additional documents which connected him with the detention and mistreatment of slave labor in his capacity as Generalluftzeugmeister. In summing up the evidence the prosecution wants to keep roughly the same order. It will deal in turn with the evidence of the defendant’s activities as member of the Central Planning Board and as member of the Jaegerstab. The documents relating to the defendant as Generalluftzeugmeister will then be dealt with and, in conclusion, the defendant’s implication in the criminal medical experiments will be discussed.
When, in the course of presenting the evidence, we first turned our attention from the general documents which established the body of the crime of slave labor to the documents which were to prove the defendant’s connection with that crime, we asked the Court’s attention to certain key words which we said would run like small threads through our proof. These words were cited to be “procurement, allocation and use”. It was stated that we would often use them. We offered many documents to prove Milch’s connection with each of the functions described by these key words. Once again, we ask the Tribunal to keep these words in mind.
The Central Planning Board, which was established in April 1942, served as a means of consolidating in a single agency all controls over German war production. The minutes of the Central Planning Board which have been submitted to the Tribunal reflect the dominant role played by the defendant at meetings of the Board.
The best evidence of the scope and authority of the Central Planning Board is contained in the Board’s own minutes. The first conference of the Central Planning Board was held on 27 April 1942. The duties and responsibilities of the Board were announced in these words:
“The Central Planning in the Four Year Plan (decree of the Reich Marshal of Greater Germany [Goering] of 22 April 1942) is a task for leaders. It encompasses only principles and executive matters. It makes unequivocal decisions and supervises the execution of its directives. The Central Planning does not rely on anonymous institutions difficult to control but always on individuals and fully responsible persons who are free in the selection of their working methods and their collaborations, as far as there are no directives issued by the Central Planning.”
Then, six months later, on 20 October 1942, the statutes of the Central Planning Board were published and distributed. A portion of these states:
“The Central Planning Board created by the Fuehrer and Reich Marshal in order to unify armament and war economy deals only with the decision of basic questions. Professional questions remain the task of the competent departments which in their field remain responsible within the framework of the decisions made by the Central Planning Board.”
It is addressed to: “The highest Reich authorities, the Reich Protector, the Governor General and the executive authorities in the occupied countries.” The letter of transmittal stated in part:
“Enclosed I send you for your information the statutes of the Central Planning Board with the request to support the office of the Central Planning Board in every possible way in its work, and to direct, more particularly, your section chiefs and reporters to forward all information requested orally, or by writing, in the shortest possible time. By this collaboration by your section chiefs and reporters, the building up of larger machinery in the framework of the Central Planning Board is to be avoided.”
The International Military Tribunal found that the Central Planning Board “had supreme authority for the scheduling of German production and the allocation and development of raw material”.
It needs no emphasis that the effective performance of these functions necessarily involved the Board in the requisitioning and distribution of labor, and the records of the Board, which have been submitted, leave no doubt that the Board exercised the authority conferred upon it in the field of labor. The International Military Tribunal in its opinion found that the Board requisitioned labor from Sauckel with full knowledge that the demands could be supplied only by foreign forced labor, and that the Board determined the basic allocation of this labor within the German war economy.
In assessing the guilt of the defendant Funk, the Court said:[144]
“In the fall of 1943, Funk was a member of the Central Planning Board which determined the total number of laborers needed for German industry, and required Sauckel to produce them, usually by deportation from occupied territories. Funk did not appear to be particularly interested in this aspect of the forced labor program, and usually sent a deputy to attend the meetings, often SS General Ohlendorf, the former Chief of the SD inside of Germany and the former Commander of Einsatzgruppe D. But Funk was aware that the Board of which he was a member was demanding the importation of slave laborers, and allocating them to the various industries under its control.”
Bearing in mind the fact that Funk was a minor member of the Board, how much greater is the responsibility of the defendant who was a dominant figure on the Board throughout its existence.
There is no need to review in historical detail the defendant’s personal participation in the criminal activities of the Board. A few references to the pattern for 1944 will suffice. The Tribunal will recall that Albert Speer, the other dominant member of the Board, was ill during most of this period.
On 4 January 1944, demands were made at a Hitler conference that Sauckel produce four million new workers from the occupied countries. The defendant was present at the conference, and at this meeting, Sauckel, in pledging himself to perform his recruitment tasks, indicated that the demands could be met only by Himmler, and the promise of assistance was forthcoming from the Reich Leader SS.
The allocation of this labor to the various sectors of the German economy was determined by the Board at its 53d meeting. The defendant was the presiding officer at this meeting. The chart compiled by Milch and found in his files shows his personal knowledge of the sources of the labor being allocated.
Sauckel was, however, unable to satisfy completely these demands. He reported this inability at its 54th meeting. This meeting of the Board was presided over by the defendant, and the minutes which we have submitted show the subordinate position occupied by Sauckel with respect to the Board. The Tribunal will recall Sauckel’s opening statement:
“Field Marshal, gentlemen, it goes without saying that we shall satisfy as far as possible the demands agreed upon by the Central Planning Board.”
And then later on in the meeting:
“If I am to fulfill the demands which you present to me * * *.”
We shall not review in detail the minutes of this meeting, but the Tribunal’s attention is again directed to the fact that Sauckel was questioned closely by the defendant who suggested that the Wehrmacht be assigned to the task of assisting in the recruitment drive. The defendant suggested that French workers be coerced by a system of premeditated starvation. In dealing with the problem of Italian laborers, the defendant suggested that only those who went to Germany or worked in protected factories be given food.
As a further means of meeting the manpower shortage, consideration was given to possible measures for increasing the productive power of prisoners of war. Accordingly, on 5 March 1944, a conference was held at the Fuehrer Headquarters. It is evident from the minutes which have been submitted to the Tribunal that the defendant was in attendance. The Tribunal will recall that the decision was made to give the direction of the Stalags to the SS, in order to increase the production power of the prisoners. This was not to apply to the Americans or the English. The Tribunal will take judicial notice of the methods of the SS.
On 7 July 1944, Sauckel issued a report showing new manpower placed at the disposal of German war industry during the first half of 1944. We shall not review in detail this report, but merely state that it is proof of the Board’s directive to Sauckel.
This report, however, showed a deficit, and on 11 July 1944 a further conference was held to solve the question of how greater compulsion could be exerted on persons to work in Germany. The defendant has testified that he was in virtual retirement from production matters since late June 1944. Yet the record of this conference shows that he was present. The result of this conference was the greater utilization of the Wehrmacht in the recruitment of forced labor. The directive of Field Marshal von Kluge, which has been submitted in evidence, makes specific reference to the results of this conference.
Here, in brief, we have the picture. The defendant and the Board, of which he was a dominant member, requisitioning forced labor from Sauckel, allocating this labor to the various sectors of the German war economy, and later improvising new and more brutal techniques of force and terror for the recruitment of new labor.
The defense, besides denying the power and authority of the Central Planning Board, has challenged the authenticity and accuracy of its transcripts. The prosecution has been compelled to rely upon these minutes for much of its proof.
In this connection, it might be said that these same transcripts constituted the basis for findings of fact by the International Military Tribunal. They are quoted in the decision of that Court.
The statutes of the Central Planning Board, mentioned a few minutes ago, show the extreme care taken to insure the accuracy of reporting these meetings, as well as action taken or ordered to be taken. The statutes of the Board provide in part:
“In order to have the conferences properly prepared and to have the execution of the decisions supervised, the Central Planning Board appoints an office. This office consists of the deputies appointed by each of three members of the Central Planning Board; one of these three deputies shall be appointed chief of the office.”
Then follows a handwritten marginal note which I shall omit.
“In accordance with the attached distribution of work the office appoints reporters. These reporters are at the disposal of all members of the Central Planning Board. The office appoints one reporter to keep the record.”
And then, tasks of the office:
“The office prepares the meetings of the Central Planning Board in such a manner that the members of the Central Planning Board have the agenda and the material of discussion 24 hours in advance. For this purpose the office conducts preliminary talks with the competent departments, etc.
“On the strength of the record made by the reporter, the office sees to the execution of the decisions of the Central Planning Board by the competent agencies, and sees to it that the deadlines fixed are complied with.
“The members of the office keep the members of the Central Planning Board informed between the sessions.”
The minutes of these meetings which have been submitted to this Tribunal show that these proceedings were recorded and transcribed with characteristic German detail and accuracy. We need only refer to the charts and tables, and the remarks quoted in the transcripts. Of the 59 meetings fully covered by these official reports, 41 were prepared and signed by Ministerialrat Steffler, who was personally responsible for the accuracy and completeness of these reports.
Without the Central Planning Board the slave labor program could not have functioned.
THE JAEGERSTAB.
Here we have the defendant in immediate contact with the slave labor program at its peak. By the testimony of the defendant, it was he who conceived and instigated the formation of the Jaegerstab. Speer and the defendant constituted its leadership. Speer’s participation was nominal and it was the defendant who directed its activities and acted as its chairman. Speer was ill during part of the Jaegerstab’s existence and has stated to the Court that he did not preside at a meeting.
The Jaegerstab assumed control over fighter production when the exploitation of foreign forced labor in air armament had already reached unparalleled heights. On 16 February 1944, the defendant had told his colleagues in the Central Planning Board that “our best new engine is made 88 percent by Russian prisoners of war.” On 25 March, he told his engineers that soon the percentage of foreign personnel in the aircraft industry would reach 90 percent. Reich Leader SS Himmler, reporting to Goering on 9 March 1944 on the employment of concentration camp personnel in the aircraft industry, stated that nearly 36,000 prisoners were employed and that an increase to 90,000 was expected. The formation of the Jaegerstab is partly explainable in terms of the battle to increase the manpower resources available for fighter production.
The Jaegerstab was assigned top priority. Projects for the recruitment and commitment of manpower were discussed by the Jaegerstab. The evidence presented before the Tribunal has shown that questions of manpower were time and time again referred to the defendant. We have seen him agreeing to use his prestige and influence upon Sauckel in efforts to obtain new workers for aircraft production. When manpower in sufficient numbers was not forthcoming through normal channels, the Jaegerstab did not shrink from other methods of obtaining its labor. When necessary the Jaegerstab recruited its own labor, either directly or by engineering “snatching” expeditions for the seizure of manpower arriving on transports from the East.
The defendant’s frank admission to his subordinates that “international law cannot be observed here” characterizes best his own participation in the activities of the Jaegerstab. Where, as was the case with France, transfers of production facilities were concerned, the defendant advocated the stripping of the country and the deportation of its people as prisoners of war. When the discussion turned to PW’s, the defendant was quick to suggest their transfer to places under air attack. When the transportation of Italian civilian conscripts directly recruited by the Jaegerstab for service in Germany was in question, it was the defendant who advocated the shooting of those who attempted to escape.
The Jaegerstab was no mere discussion group. As an agency with absolute authority over fighter production, the Jaegerstab acted by orders and directives. The Jaegerstab fixed hours of labor and conditions of work. It was the Jaegerstab, for example, which established the 72-hour work week in the aircraft industry.
In addition to its jurisdiction over fighter production, the Jaegerstab was charged with the program for the decentralization of the German aircraft industry, both to above ground bombproof installations and to subterranean locations. Much of the labor employed in both phases of the project was concentration camp labor. The defendant must have known this fact.
One phase, the transfer to new installations underground, was under the immediate supervision of SS Gruppenfuehrer Heinz Kammler. Kammler was a member of the Jaegerstab. Where, as was the case in some instances, labor was not forthcoming in sufficient quantity, Kammler informed the Jaegerstab of his intention to take large numbers of persons into protective custody for use on his projects. Members of the Jaegerstab knew that manpower shortages on the construction projects were at least in part due to the high death rate. The conditions of employment on the projects have not been substantially disputed. The Jaegerstab was well informed of these conditions. While on trips with the Jaegerstab, Kammler visited these projects and his fellow members of the Jaegerstab were well advised as to the manner in which workers employed on them were treated. Where it was necessary to hang thirty people merely as an example to others, Kammler reported this fact to the Jaegerstab.
A second phase of the program, the transfer of fighter production to bombproof factories above ground, was carried out for the Jaegerstab by Stobbe-Dethleffsen and later Xaver Dorsch. While Stobbe-Dethleffsen and Dorsch were immediately in charge, it was the Jaegerstab which received the funds and raw materials necessary for the carrying out of this project. When sufficient progress had not been made under Stobbe-Dethleffsen, the Jaegerstab demanded that Dorsch carry out this program. The defendant was a leader in the planning which preceded Dorsch’s appointment.
By the testimony of Dorsch, Milch was one of a small group which worked out with Goering the details of the project, including the question of manpower. Dorsch was represented on the Jaegerstab by Schlempp, and later Knipping, deputies designated for this particular purpose. Schlempp informed the Jaegerstab on the progress of the work, both orally and in writing. Dorsch received manpower from the Jaegerstab. This was the immediate concern of Schmelter.
Early in April 1944 the defendant represented the Jaegerstab at conferences with Hitler where the decision was first taken to carry out deportations. Shortly thereafter, the defendant received written confirmation of the results of this conference, as did Himmler, who was to procure the workers. Progress reports were made and delivery dates agreed upon. Then came the disappointing news that the first transports arriving at Auschwitz consisted primarily of old men, women, and children. Later on there were reports as to the successful allocation of this personnel. The testimony of Dorsch shows that these Jews were used on the construction projects, that the conditions under which they lived were intolerable, and that the death rate on the project was excessive.
In closing this phase of the case, it is submitted that the defendant never resigned from the Jaegerstab. While it is true that the defendant at Goering’s behest was removed from certain offices in the Air Ministry in the summer of 1944, he retained his membership in the Jaegerstab until its dissolution, the prosecution contends.
As Generalluftzeugmeister the defendant had complete control over aircraft production. In this field his authority was unlimited. In particular it has been shown that the defendant requisitioned labor for the aircraft industry with knowledge of the brutal and inhumane techniques employed in recruiting these laborers, and that he gave directives for the criminal treatment of these laborers at the centers of production.
There is evidence that the defendant presented the labor demands of the aircraft industry to Sauckel. The Tribunal will recall that in his affidavit Sauckel stated that it was the defendant who produced the manpower figures for aviation. In view of the position occupied by Sauckel in the slave labor program, this statement is of special importance.
The statement of Sauckel is in agreement with the statements of Hermann Goering, the defendant’s superior in the Luftwaffe. In his interrogation the former Reich Marshal stated that the defendant was in charge of the division for labor employment in the Air Ministry and that the industry demands for labor in air armament were made by the defendant.
Even the defendant’s collaborator Albert Speer testified to the same effect when he stated:
“The requests of the air armament industry for laborers were presented by Milch and he did not permit anyone to take this right away from him until March 1944.”
The defendant as Generalluftzeugmeister was acquainted with the methods employed in recruiting this manpower. In fact, many of the practices indulged in by Sauckel were formulated at conferences at which the defendant was in attendance. The Tribunal will recall that the defendant was present at a conference in which Goering announced his plan to use the Luftwaffe in the recruitment drive to capture laborers in Holland. The Tribunal’s attention is also drawn to the Generalluftzeugmeister meeting of 25 January 1944 in which methods for the more expeditious deportation of young Czechs for work in the Luftwaffe were discussed.
The defendant also knew that prisoners of war and concentration camp personnel were included in the manpower he was requisitioning and distributing to the aircraft industry. We have seen him trying to increase their numbers in the industry under his control, and we have seen him ordering and abetting the inhumane treatment of this labor.
As chief of aircraft production, the defendant regulated the treatment of foreign forced labor in the German aircraft industry. The defendant fixed hours of labor and conditions of work and by directives to his subordinates set basic policies for the handling of this labor within the industry.
Where foreign workers refused to work, the defendant ordered that they be shot. When these wretched slaves attempted to revolt, the defendant directed that some of their numbers be killed, regardless of personal guilt or innocence. In the case of prisoners of war who attempted to escape, the defendant ordered that they be shot.
When the “contracts” of workers under his control expired, the defendant ordered their compulsory extension, and when workers attempted to change jobs, he advocated that they be put in concentration camps.
In the case of Italians who refused to work, the defendant ordered that they be beaten and so informed his chief, Goering. And where Frenchmen refused to work in French factories under his control, the defendant stated that he would deport them by force and bring them to Germany or to the East. Similar policies were applied by the defendant in the case of Polish workers.
No more need be said about the Generalluftzeugmeister. The Tribunal has seen the documents containing the minutes of the meetings. The documents dealing with this phase of the case are particularly revealing in showing the fanaticism of the defendant and the enthusiasm with which he recommended ruthless treatment of the hapless victims of German occupation policies.
We will now restate the pattern originally presented in terms of the proof brought forward at the trial in order to ascertain to what extent the defendant’s culpability has been established with reference to the medical phase.
First, the body of the crime. The prosecution contends that in violation of the laws of war and all the laws of humanity criminal high-altitude and freezing experiments were carried on by Luftwaffe physicians.
The testimony of Dr. Erich Hippke, the Medical Inspector of the Luftwaffe, is of interest on this subject. Hippke stated that Dr. Rascher, a Luftwaffe physician at the time, came to Hippke with a proposal to use prisoners as high-altitude experimental subjects in May 1941.
Hippke was in a receptive frame of mind, for it was essential that the scope of these experiments be widened and new human subjects were needed. The researchers working on the tests had developed a certain immunity so that results of self-experimentation did not give a true picture of the reactions.
With the aid of Himmler and the SS, the Luftwaffe was able to proceed with the experiments which were allegedly necessary in the interests of German military aviation medical knowledge. But lest one be inclined to believe that these pressure experiments were considered as minor nuisances to the subjects concerned, with no real dangers, note the words of Dr. Hippke:
“I asked him,” speaking of Rascher, “how he would be able to obtain such persons for experimentation, and he justified himself by saying that he had connections with the SS who had charge of such penal prisoners. There were such penal prisoners in Dachau and he would be in a position to obtain them for these purposes. I myself, because of my inner personal feelings on the matter, was very much against these experiments and could not make up my mind whether I should approve such experimentation.”
From the very beginning of the plan to conduct these experiments, Dr. Hippke had strong mental reservations concerning the moral principles involved in the task which the Luftwaffe doctors were about to undertake. During the coming year Hippke weighed the problem, and it was with some misgiving that he finally allowed his doctors to begin the experiments, saying to them: “Please, children, go carefully.”
But, tragically enough, his “children” did not go carefully. Instead, they ran amuck with their scientific apparatus and tests. The pressure experiments which were supposed to have been helpful to fliers of the Luftwaffe degenerated into so-called “X-experiments”, which meant “execution” experiments.
Seventy to eighty persons were murdered during the spring and summer of 1942 when the pressure experiments were carried on at Dachau.
During the subsequent freezing experiments a comparable number of concentration camp inmates forfeited their lives to the sadistic Dr. Rascher and his Luftwaffe associates.
Dr. Romberg himself admits having seen three persons die in the low-pressure chamber and concedes that at least nine other deaths may well have occurred when he was absent from his post at Dachau.
Wolfram Sievers,[145] the manager of the Ahnenerbe, the SS Research Institute, witnessed the death of an experimental subject in the freezing tank.
There is adequate evidence that the low-pressure and freezing experiments were carried out by Luftwaffe physicians for the benefit of the Luftwaffe. There has been no valid denial of the fact that the defendant was the Luftwaffe official responsible for the deaths and cruelties suffered in these twin torture chambers, the pressure chamber and the freezing tank.
Now, let us examine in more detail the second basic charge of the prosecution, namely, that the defendant was officially connected with these experiments which violated the laws of war and humanity.
We have the “Wolffy” letter of 20 May 1942 in which the defendant tells Obergruppenfuehrer Wolff of the SS that “the altitude experiments carried out by the SS and the Luftwaffe at Dachau have been finished.” In this same letter Milch announces that experiments in connection with perils on the high seas would be important; that the necessary arrangements have been made and, since the low-pressure chamber is no longer needed, it must be moved from Dachau. Thus the defendant has entered the picture and established his official connection with the high-altitude experiments and the low-temperature experiments, which proved to be considerably more than mere harmless chilling tests.
If, as the defendant contends, he was not officially responsible for these Luftwaffe medical experiments, then it should follow that other persons connected with them would not take cognizance of the defendant in this matter. The contention is ridiculous.
The witness Wolff had the following to say regarding a meeting he had with Milch in August or September 1942:
“Thereafter, we had discussed our official questions. I inquired about how he was, and if everything between the Luftwaffe and the SS was all right. During that occasion we also spoke about these experiments very shortly, if at all, and we spoke of the invaluable help which the SS was giving us by providing these voluntary inmates, which was helping us with our medical material which could be used at the front.”
It is to be noted that they talked about the experiments and Wolff asked how the Luftwaffe SS relations were. It is submitted that this demonstrates that Wolff regarded the defendant as the top man in the Luftwaffe Medical Experiments Program, as indeed he was.
Then there are the two letters addressed to Milch by Himmler and Wolff, substantially alike in content; Himmler’s, dated November 1942, in which he cites the opposition that exists among “Christian medical circles” to conducting experiments on helpless, involuntary concentration camp inmates. He refers to the narrow-mindedness of such medical men, which “will take at least another ten years” to remove. But this narrow-mindedness did not trouble the consciences of Himmler or the defendant Milch. Decidedly not. In the words of the Reich Leader SS: “We two should not get angry about these difficulties.”
The prosecution submits that Himmler would not have written a letter in this tenor unless he was certain that his good friend Milch would be in complete agreement with his views.
And how did Himmler regard Milch in connection with the experiments? As a casual onlooker, with a purely academic interest in the results obtained? No, Himmler knew that Milch possessed the over-all command, the ultimate authority in the Luftwaffe; that the Inspector General of the Luftwaffe was the man to refer to whenever a question arose as to the disposition of the pressure chamber or the status of Dr. Rascher. Witness Himmler’s request in his letter:
“I beg you to release Dr. Rascher, Stabsarzt in the reserve, from the air force and to transfer him to me to the Waffen SS. I would then assume the sole responsibility for having these experiments made in this field and would put the results, which we in the SS need only for the frost injuries in the East, entirely at the disposal of the air force.”
The logical corollary to this statement is inescapable. If Rascher was not transferred to the SS and remained with the air force, the responsibility would not be Himmler’s alone. And we must remember that Rascher did not leave his Luftwaffe post until the year 1943 after the experimental atrocities had been largely completed. Then where did this responsibility rest? Himmler had no doubts; it was on the shoulders of the defendant.
Nor did Karl Wolff, Himmler’s right-hand man, have any doubts as to the responsible person in the Luftwaffe, with reference to the medical experiments. He, too, wrote to Milch requesting that Rascher be released from the Luftwaffe and transferred to the SS. Here was a man, who, by his own testimony, “had a good comradely relationship” with the defendant. On the direct examination, Wolff testified regarding his connection with Milch:
“Q. In your position during the war did you have any official dealings with Milch?
“A. Yes.
“Q. In what connection?
“A. During peacetime—that is, from 1933 on, until 1939—there was a personal cooperation between Milch and me. All difficulties between the Luftwaffe and the SS were handled at personal conferences in a very comradely way. This usage also took place during the war.”
It is because of the situation above described, that the prosecution has called Wolff the liaison man between Himmler and the SS on the one hand, and the defendant and the Luftwaffe, on the other.
The testimony and affidavit of Walter Neff, the Dachau prisoner who later became a block leader in Dachau, is of interest. This man saw Rascher often. Was Milch’s name mentioned by Rascher in connection with the medical experiments? It was. In his affidavit, which he did not repudiate when testifying before this Court, Neff said:
“The name of Field Marshal Milch was frequently mentioned in Dachau. Every time I asked Dr. Romberg how long the cars and the low-pressure chambers would remain in Dachau, he assured me that Milch would attend to everything. Dr. Rascher said to me that he had communicated with Milch personally and that the cars would remain in Dachau as long as he specified.”
Dr. Siegfried Ruff,[146] an important figure in the medical experiments program, head of the research section of the DVL, recognized the defendant Milch as the supreme authority in the experimental program. In his affidavit Ruff said:
“The entire medical research for aviation was under General Dr. Erich Hippke, in his capacity as Chief of the Medical Service, until 1944, and subsequently under Professor Dr. Schroeder. As Chief of the Medical Service, General Hippke was immediately subordinate to Field Marshal Milch * * *. The chain of command for these experiments was Milch—Hippke—Ruff—Romberg.”
Again there is the chart drawn up by Dr. Oskar Schroeder,[147] outlining the official Luftwaffe channels through which orders flowed from Milch to Hippke, and from Hippke to the various doctors engaged in the actual process of experimentation. Schroeder thus knew definitely that Milch was the Luftwaffe Chief in the medical experiments program. He later succeeded Hippke as Medical Inspector. Consequently, his chart is entitled to material weight in the proof offered by the prosecution.
Rudolf Brandt,[148] adjutant to Himmler, often had occasion to deal with correspondence between the Luftwaffe and the SS, regarding the experiments. In referring to Himmler’s request that Milch order Dr. Rascher to be transferred to the SS, Brandt wrote a letter to Wolfram Sievers, of the Ahnenerbe Society, stating—
“I assume that the Field Marshal will of himself give the necessary orders, and then confine himself to sending a brief answer to the Reich Leader SS.”
And Sievers writing to Brandt about the use of the low-pressure chamber says—
“The putting at our disposal of the low-pressure chamber, however, will be possible then only if the Reich Leader SS writes in person to Field Marshal Milch concerning this.”
These two men, Sievers and Brandt, were not uninformed of the course of the medical experiments nor of the competent personnel in the Luftwaffe and SS in this matter. On the contrary, Sievers admitted witnessing the death of an experimental subject in the freezing tank, and the subsequent autopsy, while Rudolf Brandt stated in his affidavit—
“Field Marshal E. Milch and Professor Hippke, Inspector of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe, were fully informed about the low-pressure experiments. Actually these experiments could not have been conducted without the knowledge and approval of these men, as they were conducted for the benefit of the Luftwaffe and the experimenting persons were mostly Luftwaffe physicians.”
In the eyes of other persons, the defendant was the dominant force behind the Luftwaffe participation in the Medical Experiments Program. The defense has brought forward no adequate proof to show that they were mistaken. It is the conviction of the prosecution that no such proof exists.
The Commander in Chief of the Luftwaffe, Reich Marshal Hermann Goering, was thoroughly familiar with the organization which was his brain child, the Luftwaffe, and the way it functioned. What importance did Milch’s position have in Goering’s mind?
His affidavit reads—
“Included among the responsibilities of the Office of the Inspector General was the conduct of all research and experiments and of all matters pertaining to health and sanitation inspection * * *.
* * * * *
“That Generaloberstabsarzt Erich Hippke was the Sanitation Inspector of the Luftwaffe during the period from 1941 through 1944; that the Office of the Sanitation Inspector was directly responsible for the conduct of all research and medical experiments; that the Office of the Sanitation Inspector, of which Generaloberstabsarzt Erich Hippke was the head, was directly subordinate to the Inspector General, former Field Marshal Milch, and that former Field Marshal Milch was responsible for all action taken by Generaloberstabsarzt Hippke, or by the Office of the Sanitation Inspector or its subordinates.”
It has been established that criminal experiments, high-altitude and freezing, were carried on at Dachau by Luftwaffe physicians, working under the orders and supervision of competent Luftwaffe authorities.
We have shown that all Luftwaffe personnel connected with, or knowing about these experiments, from those closest to the place where the experiments were conducted—Dr. Rascher, and Walter Neff—to those high up in the positions of command—Goering and Schroeder—looked to Milch as the ultimate authority in the Medical Experiments Program. An investigation of the attitudes and convictions of the SS officials concerned in this program discloses the same picture.
Could all these men have been mistaken? Were they writing to and referring to the wrong man when they contacted the defendant? To put forward such a proposition is to deny the facts. There was no error, the facts are indisputable.
The defendant was and is officially responsible for the Medical Experiments Program of the Luftwaffe.
Lastly, we come to the question of the defendant’s knowledge of the experiments which were being carried out at Dachau for the Luftwaffe.
Throughout direct examination by his defense counsel, the defendant has consistently denied receiving reports authored by Rascher or in any other way being informed of the criminal nature of those experiments, until the time of this trial.
However, he was very much interested in altitude experiments as such. The following excerpt is from his testimony under questioning by Dr. Bergold:
“Q. Witness, how far were you interested in these high-altitude experiments in question as GL?
“A. We were interested in the real altitude tests as I know it exactly, because I want to state this figure as 13,500 meters, and we added 500 meters in order to get a square figure. However, we knew that this last 500 meters, which I have mentioned, we were not too interested in that. We were only interested in the first place in cabin planes, too, after a certain test had been carried out on 388-cabin suits, whether it did not succeed or fail, because a person could not move properly the way those suits were, due to low pressure up there in the air is felt much more than here on the ground.”
The Tribunal’s attention is directed to this figure of 14,000 meters, which is approximately ten miles. Milch wanted that altitude simulated in the pressure chamber and the human reactions studied.
It was on 20 May 1942 that Milch wrote his letter to Wolff. Here he said that Hippke had reported to him that the altitude experiments carried out by the SS and Luftwaffe at Dachau were finished. Mention was made of Rascher’s availability for the forthcoming experiments dealing with sea perils. And Milch stated that the low-pressure chamber could no longer remain at Dachau. In this one letter, the defendant demonstrates his knowledge that the SS and the Luftwaffe were conducting, and had completed, altitude experiments at Dachau and that Dr. Rascher was involved.
There is the letter of 4 June 1942 to Hippke, wherein the defendant exhibits his authority in regard to the low-pressure chamber and the tasks of Dr. Rascher.
On 25 August 1942, Himmler wrote to the defendant enclosing the report on the high-altitude experiments. Moreover, he asked Milch to receive Drs. Rascher and Romberg for a lecture and presentation of the film on the experiments. Himmler suggested that Milch refer the matter to the Reich Marshal “because of its importance”.
This last statement should dispel any possible doubts as to the attention accorded these experiments by official German military circles. In fact, the defendant himself admitted discussing the experiments with Goering on 13 September 1942. The defendant spoke of Himmler’s interest in the program, and the apprehension felt by the Medical Inspector Hippke, although “he did tell me that everything was all right.” The disposal of the pressure chamber was settled in this talk with Goering.
The defendant has said that the experiments, reports, and other aspects of the matter were not known to him, partly because he had no time for this, and partly because he had no technical knowledge of the subject. He would have this Court believe that the experimental program was a minor matter—one that the Inspector General of the Luftwaffe would not pay close attention to. Yet we have seen that it was important enough so that Himmler was frequently corresponding with the defendant or others on the subject. It was important enough for the defendant to bring the matter to Goering’s attention, even to the details of the disposition of the low-pressure chamber.
On 31 August 1942, the defendant wrote to Himmler, acknowledging receipt of the report on altitude experiments, and telling Himmler that he was “informed about the current experiments”.
While on the stand the defendant attempted to explain this letter by referring to the usage of German Ministries, where the form “I” means the Ministry as such. But he admitted that he had written the closing sentences of this letter “I remain yours, as ever, etc.” Here he did not deny that “I” was used in its ordinary sense. It is neither logical nor capable of belief that in the same letter to Himmler, defendant would use the word “I” in two different senses.
It was also on 31 August 1942 that Hippke discussed the experiments with the defendant, expressing doubts and misgivings. In reply to Milch’s question, Hippke told him that these doubts had not been substantiated.
Thus it can be seen, from Milch’s testimony itself, that a cloud of suspicion and evil hovered over the entire Medical Experiments Program.
It is useless, indeed futile, to punish the perpetrators of criminal acts on the one hand, and to ignore those in high positions who have made possible the commission of the crimes. The defendant has belabored the term “duty” in the course of his testimony. He has spoken of his solemn oath to Hitler and to the German people. It would seem that it was incumbent upon the defendant to acquaint himself with the activities of his subordinates, at least to the extent that he should have known that people were being murdered in experiments, which from the evidence, were useless as far as the advancement of the knowledge of aviation medicine is concerned.
The present case is not without judicial precedent. A close analogy can be drawn between it and a recent case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, in re Yamashita [U. S. Reports, Vol. 327, October term 1945, Nos. 61 and 672]. The procedural and jurisdictional questions therein decided are of no moment to us now, but the facts of the Yamashita case are similar to those of the Milch case, and the opinion rendered by the Court is particularly in point in the matter of responsibility for senior officers.
General Yamashita was the Commanding General of the 14th Army Group of the Imperial Japanese Army in the Philippines.
Upon surrendering to United States Forces, he was indicted and tried as a war criminal before a Military Tribunal on the following charge—“while commander of armed forces of Japan at war with the United States of America and its Allies, unlawfully disregarded and failed to discharge his duty as commander to control the operations of the members of his command, permitting them to commit brutal atrocities and other high crimes against people of the United States and of its Allies and dependencies, particularly the Philippines, and he * * * thereby violated the laws of war.”
The Court summed up the issue as follows:
“The question then is whether the law of war imposes on an army commander a duty to take such appropriate measures as are within his power to control the troops under his command for the prevention of the specified acts which are violations of the law of war and which are likely to attend the occupation of hostile territory by an uncontrolled soldiery, and whether he may be charged with personal responsibility for his failure to take such measures when violations result.”
The Court cited Articles 1 and 43 of the Fourth Hague Convention of 1907, Article 19 of the Tenth Hague Convention, and Article 26 of the Geneva Red Cross Convention of 1929. It then stated—
“These provisions plainly imposed on petitioner, who at the time specified was Military Governor of the Philippines, as well as commander of the Japanese forces, an affirmative duty to take such measures as were within his power, and appropriate in the circumstances, to protect prisoners of war and the civilian population. This duty of a commanding officer has heretofore been recognized and its breach penalized by our own military tribunals.”
The Court thereupon denied the petition for certiorari and leave to file petitions, for writs of habeas corpus, and prohibition.
In the case of the medical experiments, we have a much less complex situation. There is no question of a senior officer in an occupied country, rather we are faced with a simple direct chain of command problem: Milch—Foerster—Hippke. Had Milch given the order, the experiments would have been terminated, but no order of termination was given—people were murdered and Rascher remained in the Luftwaffe until he was transferred to the SS in March 1943. The defendant had an affirmative duty to know what was going on, and an affirmative duty to act so as to stop the experiments. That he was ignorant of the true state of affairs is unbelievable in view of the letters and the testimony of those who were below him. Field marshals are not made as are noncommissioned officers. The road is a long one in any army from the position of private to the lofty peak of a field marshal. The defendant would have you believe that his powers were similar to those of a private first class. Yet we have seen him, high in the councils, a confidant of Hitler, one who could disagree with Goering, whose deputy he was on occasion, a man who was so thoroughly skilled a soldier that he seriously requested an assignment as a division commander, although his service had been in the air force for a decade prior to the request. If the defendant was not the responsible officer in connection with the medical experiments, then the scourge of the Wehrmacht has not touched the continent of Europe. There is no one who knows better than the defendant the principle of responsibility in any army. By holding the office which he held, he had the duty to control the activities of those who were his subordinates, to insure that they conducted themselves as soldiers and not as murderers. He has failed woefully in the task.
We have concluded now our remarks regarding the criminal activities of the defendant in his various capacities with respect to the slave labor program and the medical experiments. It remains only for us to deal briefly with the defendant’s participation in the murder of two Russian escapees, to discuss his defense of irresponsibility because of a bad temper, to discuss the use of PW’s, and to touch upon the testimony of some of the witnesses who appeared in his behalf, and the record of the meeting of 23 May 1939.
The defendant has maintained that he knew nothing about the shooting of the two Russian officers who attempted to escape in February 1944. We have his own statement, made at a time when the general situation, from the Wehrmacht’s point of view, was acute but not forlorn. The International Military Tribunal has stated in its judgment concerning Fritz Sauckel,[149] speaking of a statement made by Sauckel at a Central Planning Board meeting, “Although he now claims that the statement is not true, the circumstances under which it was made, as well as the evidence presented before the Tribunal, leave no doubt that it was substantially accurate.” The word “circumstances” as there used refers to a meeting of the Central Planning Board on 1 March 1944. Milch made his statement at the prior meeting held on 16 February 1944 (53d). The letters submitted by the defense in connection with this episode are interesting. The first and second from Schmidtke on 10 January, and from Gangolf on 13 January, refer to a similar incident other than that with which we are here concerned. The third letter from Winterstein on 12 January says nothing about the deaths. The affidavit of Prell, other than stating that the deaths occurred on a Saturday, is of no value. The witness Barthelmess, who made an affidavit though a resident of Nuernberg, was not called. The affidavits of Klein and Popp were offered; each is in a prison camp in the American Zone, yet neither was called. The letter of Janko recites the facts in a context suggestive of the words used by the defendant when he described the incident in the 53d meeting of the Central Planning Board on 16 February 1944. Here, too, it is submitted that the circumstances under which the statement was made leave no doubt that it was substantially accurate. The defendant boasted of his prowess as a commander who ordered executions when he would impress those who curried his favor at the Central Planning Board meetings, but now he says he had no authority to give orders and if he had given them, they would not have been obeyed.
The defendant has offered, as a plausible reason for the employment of Russian, French, and Italian prisoners of war, the fact that various historical events made it unnecessary to abide by the terms of the convention concerning prisoners of war. The witness von Neurath testified that Russia had renounced the conventions in question, and hence Germany could renounce them as to Russia. As for France, it is contended that the alleged government headed by Pierre Laval had concluded an arrangement with the Reich which made it legal to employ prisoners of war in tasks forbidden by the Conventions. A similar reason is advanced for the use of Italian prisoners, the concluding of an arrangement between the Reich and Mussolini. The International Military Tribunal made a finding with respect to this matter.[150]
“The argument in defense of the charge with regard to the murder and ill-treatment of Soviet prisoners of war, that the U.S.S.R. was not a party to the Geneva Convention, is quite without foundation. On 15 September 1941 Admiral Canaris protested against the regulations for the treatment of Soviet prisoners of war, signed by General Reinecke on 8 September 1941.”
I might add that Admiral Canaris was a member of the German Navy. Resuming the quotation—
“He”—Canaris—“then stated, ‘The Geneva Convention for the treatment of prisoners of war is not binding in the relationship between Germany and the U.S.S.R. Therefore only the principles of general international law on the treatment of prisoners of war apply. Since the 18th century these have gradually been established along the lines that war captivity is neither revenge nor punishment, but solely protective custody, the only purpose of which is to prevent the prisoners of war from further participation in the war. This principle was developed in accordance with the view held by all armies that it is contrary to military tradition to kill or injure helpless people * * *. The decrees for the treatment of Soviet prisoners of war enclosed are based on a fundamentally different viewpoint.’
“This protest, which correctly stated the legal position, was ignored”.
The defendant was a soldier of some experience, he knew it was improper, even criminal, to have the Russian prisoners work in the Luftwaffe factories, but he paid no attention to the breach of this duty of the soldier. The manner in which the Reich bludgeoned a treaty from the French is too well known to warrant discussion. It cannot be contended with any seriousness that the French prisoners of war, who were negotiated into slavery by a puppet government, were voluntary employees of the Germans. Indeed the witness Le Friec has testified that when he was taken to work in the airplane factory, he was told that he would “work on baby carriages”. The position of the defendant with reference to Italian prisoners of war and their illegal employment is still more absurd, if that is possible. The Wehrmacht had moved into Italy early in the war, and in 1943, when the Badoglio government concluded an armistice with the Allies, the Wehrmacht continued to occupy the northern part of Italy as an occupying power. They allegedly made a treaty with the by then tottering shadow of the former sawdust Cæsar and proceeded to bring the Italian prisoners of war to the Reich to work. Here again the soldiery had been sold into bondage by their former chief. The record shows that the Russian, French, and Italian prisoners of war were used to work in airplane factories. Whether they made the fighter plane, Me 109, or the jet fighter, Me 262, or the transport plane, Ju 52, is of little moment. In the total warfare in which the Reich was engaged, there is one certainty, that nothing was being constructed which was not part of the war armament program.
The International Military Tribunal stated in this connection—[151]
“Many of the prisoners of war were assigned to work directly related to military operations, in violation of Article 31 of the Geneva Convention. They were put to work in munitions factories and even made to load bombers, to carry ammunition and to dig trenches, often under the most hazardous conditions. This condition applied particularly to Soviet prisoners of war. On 16 February 1943, at a meeting of the Central Planning Board, * * * Milch said: ‘We have made a request for an order that a certain percentage of men in the Ack-Ack artillery must be Russians; 50,000 will be taken altogether. Thirty thousand are already employed as gunners. This is an amusing thing, that the Russians must work the guns’”.
That every aircraft factory in the Reich had antiaircraft batteries to protect it goes without saying. Who would know better than the defendant that such use was made of the Soviet prisoners of war? Further, this type of artillery was a part of the Luftwaffe and not a separate branch in the ground forces, as it is in the U.S. Army. The witness Foerster has testified that Soviet prisoners of war worked at the gun positions. If the number two man in the German air force could not have done anything toward arranging that the prisoners of war did not work in the factories, or work the guns, then no one in the Wehrmacht could have done anything about the situation.
We have heard much of the defendant’s violent temper and the resulting statements which, witnesses assert, were never taken seriously by those who heard them. The explanations offered by the defense are as frivolous as the alleged outbursts were frequent. It would have been difficult, if not impossible, for one who occupied the positions held by the defendant, to accomplish anything if his subordinates had to sift all of the strong statements he made, in an effort to determine which of them were seriously said. Further, his strong statements about the procurement and treatment of laborers are closely aligned with the grim reality as we have seen it. We submit that this man of violent temper believed in, and consciously advocated, the ruthless measures he recommended, and that his subordinates, to the best of their ability, complied with his recommendations. It is not reasonable to assume that one with his power could have made statements, of the kind of which we have heard here, and that he would then rely on the good offices of those who were around him to insure that nothing was done as a result of these statements. The Reich was not a country of innocent victims of one tyrant, but rather it was composed of a series of tyrants, each like the master tyrant, each with his own group of subordinates, who carried out the wishes and whims of their respective chiefs. If all men who held positions of authority in the Reich are to be believed when they say that they were personally opposed to criminal excesses, then we have the fantastic conclusion that these crimes were committed in the face of influential and unanimous opposition.
The witnesses produced by the defense left a little to be desired. Without indulging in exhaustive detail, a few statements made by some are worth comment.
The witness Koenig said that he didn’t know Himmler was head of the SS until 1945.
The witness von Brauchitsch did not know families were broken up and sent to concentration camps. It was this man, the aid to Goering, who passed on the Terboven letter of May 1942 to the defendant. The Court will recall that the letter told of the attempted escape and the resulting concentration camp detention of the Norwegians. It was the defendant who said that an attempt to escape by a prisoner of war is an honorable thing. Would not a similar effort on the part of some Norwegians merit something less than a concentration camp? Brauchitsch had said a little earlier that he did not know that foreigners were in concentration camps.
The witness Felmy has stated that some Yugoslav partisans were sent to Germany as laborers.
The witness Schniewind, who was present at the conference of 23 May 1939, did not under any circumstances gain the impression that aggression was announced.
The witness Vorwald, a subordinate of the defendant and hence his concern for these proceedings, may be assumed as being something short of disinterested, was thoroughly glib and exceptionally agreeable. He even agreed with the statement, on cross-examination, that the forces of the Reich were no longer in Africa in 1943. It is a matter of historical record that the invasion of that Continent began in November 1942 and that the campaign was concluded in the spring of the following year.
The witness Koerner, still laboring under the spell of the former leaders, stated that he believed Goering to be the last great man of the Renaissance.
The last witness of whom we shall speak is Karl Wolff. In his affidavit he spoke of meetings between Himmler and Milch over coffee and cigars. He spoke of the great cultural works of the SS. Was he speaking of Dachau and Mauthausen? With some vehemence, he insisted that he had deported only 1,050 Jews from all of Italy. He knew nothing of Dachau that led him to believe that anything unusual was happening there; although he did say that, in his visit there in 1942, the place was so clean that one could have eaten from the floor.
These represent a fair cross section of the witnesses, all of whom had roles of varying importance in the tragedy with which we are here concerned. Even as the defendant contends that he knew nothing of what went on, so do they echo the same refrain.
Much time has been spent in attempting to discredit the Schmundt record of the 23 May 1939 meeting. The Court is familiar with the findings which have been made by the International Military Tribunal on this subject. There has been no additional light thrown on the matter by the evidence here presented to indicate that the Schmundt record is anything other than a correct record of the events which transpired at the meeting.
We wish to discuss now in conclusion one document offered by the prosecution. This we have saved until the last because we believe that of all the evidence presented by the prosecution it is most typical of the defendant as a man and as a Nazi. We refer to the minutes of the conference of air force engineers and others which was presided over and was addressed by the defendant on 25 March 1944. This document, like so many others in this case, was initialed by the defendant.
The defendant stated that, as of the date of the conference, “We have in our employ today approximately 60 percent foreigners * * *.”
He continued, “The ratio is gradually approaching 90 percent foreigners, with 10 percent German managers.”
These are statements by a man who said he did not know about the extent to which foreign labor was used in his own industry, let alone in Germany. He stated that—
“The Fuehrer order provides clearly that the fighter plane program, which the Jaegerstab is starting, has priority over all other fields of armament * * *.”
He showed knowledge of the production of tanks and infantry munitions. He spoke of having the air force production “to an extent safely underground” in four months’ time. It is here that he stated that he was head of the Jaegerstab and that Saur was his deputy and Chief of Staff. Touching on his conferences with the various plant officials, he stated—
“On the spot the individual gentlemen are then told—supported by the combined authority of the State, the Wehrmacht, and the Party, that is Saur and me, Speer is unfortunately still on sick leave, otherwise he would also be present—what it is all about.”
He commented on labor—
“Thus, all pertinent questions are dealt with in the conferences about the commitment of labor and all competent men, who have anything to do with the commitment of labor, meet, especially the president of the competent provincial labor office. Thus it is determined on the spot, in the individual spheres, what the factory lacks.”
This is the man who has constantly maintained that he had nothing to do with labor. One can readily imagine a session between the Luftwaffe field marshal and a labor office chief.
We have heard the defendant deny and re-deny any knowledge of the slave labor program as such, let alone the extent to which it went. It is our contention that anybody who walked the streets of Germany could not have failed to have become aware of the activities which were being carried on by Sauckel and his henchmen.
He makes an interesting reference to bureaucracy:
“It is an error to believe that civilian offices are more bureaucratic than military offices. On the basis of my continuous and extensive experience, I can assure you exactly the opposite is true.”
This from one who would have the Tribunal believe that his staff and officers were one big happy family who ran things in a rather casual catch-as-catch-can fashion.
Speaking of the arrival of laborers, he said—
“In brief, the people arrive there and are put to work there. If any doubts exist as to whether a request is justified—for the people are not requested by numbers, but as electricians, blacksmiths, fitters, turners, as unskilled laborers, as foreigners—then this is settled. If the result shows that the request for people is not justified, then the matter is referred to a commission and this commission examines the facts within 48 hours. If it becomes apparent that dirty dealings are going on, my special court martial is called into play, and it hands down a quick decision.”
This from a man who has stated that he had no power to give orders. He stated further, “the normal work week in our industry is 72 hours.” The witness Krysiak testified that they worked 84 hours at the factory where the Mauthausen inmates were employed.
Speaking of the difficulties that resulted from the hoarding of spare parts by the various foremen, he said—
“Now it is your task to teach these people some sense and to put the entire system of hoarding on a sensible basis. I therefore ask you, as the senior authorities in the field: teach that to these people by force. There is no sense in writing letters. Such letters are not read. They would not understand them anyhow.”
The wish of a field marshal is as an order, and he advocated the use of force on his own people. The extent to which he urged that they go was expressed a few lines further on when he stated—
“Whoever hoards supplies must be punished immediately. By punishment I also mean shooting. For if these people are told what is at issue here, and they still try to hide parts of their supplies or to cover them up, that is dirty dealing and a crime against Germany. I want to say that very clearly and I want to say it in very sincere words, so that you yourselves will realize that we are dealing here with a question which is of decisive importance for Germany’s well-being, that we are not dealing with an ordinary point of discussion but with a question which decides about the life and death of Germany.”
He advocated killing Germans, not slackers but hoarders. He consciously used strong language, yet he would have it believed that he never spoke harshly except in a rage and that nothing ever came from his outbursts. He indicated knowledge of the overall figures on the breakdown of working hours.
“In considering the figures one has to know that 52 percent of the total man-hours are spent in equipping a plane and only 48 percent in building the aircraft frame and engine.”
He has said that he was powerless to do anything about requests from industry, yet he stated—
“If I want something from industry, then industry comes and says, ‘Yes, I have those and those requests.’ Only then can I do what you want.”
He again speaks of the death penalty when he says—
“Gentlemen, in this connection I may call your attention to another important point. If I visit an office and find out that something is being hidden there, then I ask for the death penalty for such a crime today. That is fraud. That is sabotage of the German armament industry.”
Can it be seriously contended that these words were regarded by the listeners as mere outbursts?
Next we have another illuminating passage on his attitude toward prisoners of war.
“Then there is still the human factor. We often had considerable difficulty with the human factor. The fluctuation there is very considerable. The quota of the Luftwaffe in the distribution of manpower was considerably lowered. The foreigners run away. They do not keep any contract. There are difficulties with Frenchmen, Italians, Dutch. The prisoners of war are partly unruly and fresh. The people are also supposed to be carrying on sabotage. These elements cannot be made more efficient by small means. They are just not handled strictly enough. If a decent foreman would sock one of those unruly guys because the fellow won’t work, the situation would soon change. International law cannot be observed here. I have asserted myself very strongly and, with the help of Saur, I have represented the point of view very strongly that the prisoners, with the exception of the English and the Americans, should be taken away from the military authorities. The soldiers are not in a position, as experience has shown, to cope with these fellows who know all the answers. I shall take very strict measures here and shall put such a prisoner of war before my court martial. If he has committed sabotage or refused to work, I will have him hanged right in his own factory. I am convinced that that will not be without effect.”
These words are strangely reminiscent of his speech at the 53d meeting of the Central Planning Board. He knew he had advocated and participated in flagrant violations of international law and here he went on record on this subject.
We see the defendant making a “big request” of the Quartermaster General and calling for “energetic action” by the chief of supply. This was a meeting of considerable moment and these statements did not go unheeded.
He spoke of the laborers.
“* * * We in the Luftwaffe armament industry have Russians, French prisoners of war, Dutch, and members of 32 other nations. The obtaining of interpreters alone presents a big difficulty there.”
Then he adds—
“We, the Quartermaster General and Generalluftzeugmeister, have already agreed that we are to balance the personnel also. Above all it is necessary that the member of the troops be treated in exactly the same way as the industrial worker.”
We have a strong statement concerning the feelings of the German worker. He said—
“By unjust treatment the German worker means that the treatment is not the same for all. That is what makes the German worker indignant. He wants everyone to be treated the same way. He wants justice and does not want to be ill-treated in words or any other way. He cannot stand it and he is right in not being able to stand it.”
The defendant advocated that the German worker be carefully handled. The Tribunal has heard from the witnesses Ferrier, Le Friec, and Krysiak how the foreign workers were handled.
He outlined the working program for the Easter week end—
“Finally I ask that the troops receive the fundamental order to work on Good Friday, the Saturday before Easter, and on Easter Monday in the same way as the people in the factories. The soldiers just do not have to go on furlough either. They must be told why.”
Are these the words of a man who is without authority to issue orders concerning the troops?
He acknowledged his employment of Russian prisoners of war and advocated that shirkers among the factory laborers be whipped back to their jobs. He said—
“I further ask for support by the Luftwaffe physicians. With all the rabble that we have among the foreign workers there is of course a lot of shirking. At the moment the Russians—that is, the Russian prisoners of war—are feigning a lot of fatigue and illness. The incidence of sickness of one and a half to two percent which we have had up to now has at least doubled, and in some factories it has been increased to eight, nine, and ten percent. That is, of course, done by previous agreement. There the official physicians must undertake an examination and if the physicians, who have to be very strict, find out that it is not true, then we return the fellows to work by means of the whip. Then the whip serves as cure.”
He again spoke of orders that have been given.
“If the factory knows: Now we are going to be attacked, and it has a few trench shelters but does not have a bombproof shelter or the like, then the people simply ran away from the factory automatically at each raid after the first one, and they could usually not be caught the next day either. That applies particularly to the foreigners. We have therefore now issued the following order, and have equipped the superiors accordingly with weapons and pistols: As soon as a factory which has already been attacked a few times can count on the raid’s being aimed at that particular factory again, then the personnel leave the factory, but in closed groups by shops, under the leadership of the man in charge of the shop, and, to the extent that they are German personnel, they leave singing military songs.”
Are superiors armed with weapons and pistols to lead contented German workers away from a factory in case of an air-raid? Little wonder that the foreigners who had been brought in like chattels ran away when the opportunity presented itself. Were these workers who were fleeing, voluntary workers?
Commenting on the gravity of the task of fighter production, and the importance of the months of April and May 1944, he said—
“That will be decided in six to eight weeks. If we succeed in this, then we will once again have time to carry out all the other tasks and jobs of this war and can also achieve greater successes in other fields.”
Were the “other fields” tasks to be accomplished in the sowing of seeds of the Reich’s culture?
The defendant has said that he knew nothing about the living conditions of the foreigners. It is obvious that he knew something, for he said—
“I also ask you to be of considerable assistance in the question of lodging in connection with the question of the relationship between our military personnel at the airfields and the workers. If we bring the people over to work, we also have to provide them with places to live. As far as foreigners are concerned, this has to be done in some suitable way. They cannot be put together with our people, just like that. But they should not be so far away from the airfield that one cannot get them to work at all.”
No, don’t let them live with the native workers, but be sure that they live close enough to the factory so that they can put in their 72 hours a week!
The importance of the fighter program is emphasized when he said—
“There are no laws of bureaucracy, there are no regulations, there is nothing at all as important as the task of winning the war.”
The defendant could not agree with anything that Hitler stood for after March 1943. He was trying to get out, but here he speaks of Hitler and his henchmen—men who, he said, were leading Germany to certain catastrophe:
“It is quite surprising how the population has endured this thing so far and how it always gets on its feet again when it is led in the proper way by true leaders who, thank God, are present among the people through the Party and the rest of the leadership. But you must not forget, gentlemen, war nerves have reached a point which cause us in the leadership group worry.”
He has said that he was not a wholehearted Nazi, but here he referred to himself as one of the true leaders and this at a time when the hands on the clock tolling the hours of the Reich were approaching twelve. Yet he would have you believe that he was a minor man.
He did not confine his speaking efforts solely to the Luftwaffe; he was one of the leaders, and as such it was natural that he should address the armament feeder industry. On that subject he said—
“What I am telling you today was told the other day to the entire armament feeder industry—that includes the blacksmiths, foundries, crankshaft workers of the iron producing industry, etc. They were likewise exhorted to produce the maximum. In the same way the Gauleitungen, all of the provincial offices, wherever we were, were addressed by us to that effect. But everyone considers that if he does not do his duty, we do not ask whether there is a law, we ask only that he is the responsible one, and that we will seize him no matter who he is.”
His first peroration is indicative of his attitude.
“Please go wherever you are going and knock everybody down who blocks your way! We cover up everything here. We do not ask whether he is allowed to or whether he is not allowed to. For us, there is nothing but this one task. We are fanatics in this sphere. We do not even consider letting anything at all distract us from that task. No order exists which could prevent me from fulfilling this task. Nor shall I ever be given such an order.”
Yes, the defendant was a fanatic. Too, he was one who could cover up. It was a willful man who could say that.
There is an interesting statement concerning the number of employees of the Luftwaffe. The defendant set it at 1.8 million. This is somewhat in excess of the .5 million figure that one witness mentioned.
It has been insisted that he had nothing to do with labor, it has been insisted that he could give no orders, yet in his second peroration to the same speech, he said—
“We have given orders that will make you laugh. Some labor control office or other suddenly declared that the Jaegerstab was not entitled, according to paragraph so-and-so, to establish a 72-hour workweek; it was not valid. I said: The gentleman is herewith informed, if he should say such a thing once more, he will be picked up; I have excellent cellars in this house. Then the opposition disappears immediately. But you have to count on such things, and the difficulty for you is that, in order to get through all the junk, one should clean out, first of all, a whole lot of little pigsties. Something will come out of this whole affair with us, yet. Whoever of my technical people from the Ministry does not earn his keep with the Jaegerstab now, and does not cooperate, I guarantee that he will never appear again in this Ministry, in the machine where I give the orders.”
Is this the man who said he could not have people sent to concentration camps? The witness Krysiak was “picked up” for having said in 1940 that Germany would lose the war. He was arrested by the Gestapo as the result of a private conversation. It is unbelievable that a field marshal could not, and did not, exercise the same power.
Today is the third anniversary of the speech of 25 March 1944 made by the defendant. His closing remarks on that day detail decisively the philosophy of the then field marshal of the Luftwaffe. Those assembled had been listening to their chief since midmorning. The hour was late. The hands of the clock were past twelve. Germany was in the fifth year of war. The defendant was concluding his speech. He said—
“Gentlemen, I know, not every subordinate can say: for me the law no longer exists, but he has to have someone who covers up for him. Not out of cowardice, but if you act according to the spirit of the old field service regulation, ‘Abstaining from doing something hurts us more than erring in the choice of the means’, and if, moreover, you keep in touch and immediately clarify difficult points so that something can be done, then we are willing to accept the responsibility, whether this is the law or not. I see only two possibilities for me and for Germany; either we succeed and thereby save Germany, or we continue these slipshod methods and then get the fate that we deserve. I prefer to fall, while I am doing something that is against the rules but that is right and sensible, and be called to account for it, and, if you like, hanged, rather than be hanged because Papa Stalin is here in Berlin or the Englishmen. I have no desire for that. I would rather die in a different way. But I think we can accomplish this task, too. We are in the fifth year of war—I repeat: The decision will come during the next six weeks. Heil Hitler!”
The time is at hand for another decision, a decision which will follow the dictates of sound reason. The record which will be made by this Tribunal and its judgment will be one that shall give courage to peaceful free men everywhere. Indeed, the defendant is fortunate that the decision in the present case is in the hands of those who do believe that the law exists and will continue to exist. There is no place for passion or for prejudice in the ceaseless tasks, the seeking of truth and the establishing of justice.
-----
[143] Mr. Clark Denney delivered the closing statement before the Tribunal on 25 March 1947, Tr. pp. 2436-2488.
[144] Trial of the Major War Criminals, vol. I, p. 306, Nuremberg, 1947.
[145] Defendant in case of United States vs. Karl Brandt, et al. See Vol. I.
[146] Defendant in case of United States vs. Karl Brandt, et al. See Vol. I.
[147] Same as preceeding footnote.
[148] Same as preceeding footnote.
[149] Trial of the Major War Criminals, vol. I, p. 321, Nuremberg, 1947.
[150] Ibid., p. 232.
[151] Ibid., p. 246.
B. Closing Statement of the Defense[152]
DR. FRIEDRICH BERGOLD: May it please the Tribunal. In my opening statement I drew a picture of the defendant Milch which differs considerably from the description given by the prosecution. It is my hope that in the long course of producing evidence I have given proof that my conception is the full truth.
According to the testimony of the witness Richter, the affidavit of the witness von Mueller and according to the defendant Milch’s own testimony, nobody can doubt that Milch has never been a good National Socialist. His love for peace and his longing for a final understanding between the nations of Europe, especially between Belgium, France, England, and Germany, became completely obvious. No one who believes in justice would refuse to believe him if he states that he regarded the war as a misfortune. He was also one of the few intelligent men to admit Germany’s defeat in the First World War. There was no proof supplied that in any way prior to 1933 he supported any armaments. His testimony and military affidavit from von Mueller have shown that under his management the Luftwaffe was always a peaceful instrument of communication among the nations. It is to be regretted that the examination of foreign politicians, such as Van Zeeland, Pierre Cot, and Delbos, were not permitted, because only then the personality of Milch would have been shown in its true light. He must have been a peaceful and just man; otherwise, all these statesmen would not have had confidence in him. Even the witness delegate Messersmith, whose affidavit, Document 1760-PS, was introduced in the International Military Tribunal proceedings, affirmed that Milch condemned the coercive methods of the Nazis. He was different from the other Party members, so that after 1937 he lost Goering’s confidence. At that time he asked to be allowed to retire but in spite of his threat of suicide, he did not obtain that permission.
Such a man of such a past must be believed when he testified that even in 1939 he had no knowledge of Hitler’s aggressive intentions. Milch had misgivings about Hitler because he regarded the measures taken against Czechoslovakia as a breach of peace, and he was sufficiently intelligent to see that Britain would no longer tolerate such violations. Hitler was dishonest with him and always put before him his intentions for peace, even forbidding him the manufacture of bombs. The defendant never requested the manufacture of bombs because he intended to lead a war of offense, but only because, understanding the international situation, he was convinced that England would fight against the Nazi regime.
Up to that time, your Honor, nobody can find any inconsistency in the defendant’s outlook. It was no offense if he requested a Wehrmacht for his country in view of the world situation, and therefore he favored a reasonable rearmament. As long as all nations were peace-minded and maintained armies, Germany had the right to maintain armed forces as well. I beg you to remember that the defendant demanded from his superiors that rearmament should be effected in a slow and reasonable manner and that he had differences with them on account of this.
It was not for nothing, your Honor, I repeat that. Only for one to keep all these things in mind will it be possible to judge whether or not the defendant’s statement regarding the conference of 23 May 1939 is correct. A man who loves peace and works for peace was present at that conference and states today, or testified that the speech in question did not contain any mention of aggressive war against Poland or any other country. He even testified in this courtroom that this speech did not have the contents as it is laid down in the Schmundt protocol.
I realize that the International Military Tribunal came to the conclusion that the Schmundt protocol is correct. All defendants and witnesses who were heard at that time declared that the contents of the speech were not of so aggressive a nature as it is laid down in the minutes. The defense counsel made a mistake at that time of not calling all the witnesses which I requested. Nobody went to the trouble of critically examining the text of the record. I can understand why the IMT reached a different conclusion, having heard only the defendants’ general objection, which remained unsubstantiated in detail. Nowhere is it yet permissible in law to maintain the verdict of a previous court when new and better evidence has been submitted.
The witnesses Warlimont, Schniewind, Engel, and Raeder stated that several passages of the Schmundt record contained a number of false assertions regarding Hitler’s words. Warlimont testified that he was not present, although he is listed as among those present. Milch’s testimony made it absolutely definite that Goering was not present. If there were only so few persons present and there were mistakes made concerning the presence of persons, the record must have been made up a long time after the event, otherwise no faults of that kind would have been possible. Schniewind testified that a number of points contained in the Schmundt record were never discussed at that time at all. He had the opinion that many ideas laid down in the record were borne out at a later period, that is to say, 1940. These ideas concerned, for example, the use which could be made of war production after the defeat of France, the importance of aircraft carriers for convoys, the collaboration of Italy, and the break-through of the Maginot Line by this force, about Japan, and last but not least, the so-called Fuehrer Decree. By the statement of Felmy it is proved forever that the so-called Fuehrer order was given only on 12 December 1940. Even Raeder stated that the principles of the Fuehrer order were laid down at another occasion and that they were accordingly carried out afterwards. This other occasion was given by the statement of Felmy. Also Raeder did not hear anything about Japan; he considered it impossible that Italy and the break-through of the Maginot Line were discussed and he also states that nobody mentioned a better production of cruisers. He also testified that in that meeting a two-front war was not mentioned because he, as an officer, would have noticed that. Furthermore, he testified that Belgium and Holland were not referred to and that after the speech Goering did not open a debate. Even though the witness was not present at all times, it is rather strange that he should not have heard mention of any of the very points not heard by the other witnesses. The defendant Milch gave you the precise details of those points of the speech which were not mentioned at the time, and he was even in a position to tell you when these various points were first conceived.
Who, assuming responsibility for justice, can still seriously maintain the findings of the IMT now that these precise statements have shown us the errors of the Schmundt record? A record containing so many grave mistakes is no longer of probative value and can never be made the basis for any judgment. I am convinced that after this trial the historians of the whole world will regard the Schmundt record as the product of a later period, i.e., between the fall of 1940 and the spring of 1941 and that they will regard it as the result of time, drawn up to make Hitler, then regarded as the victor, seem possessed of a prophetic gift which in reality he never had.
The conference did take place on 23 May 1939; that is true. Its real topics, however, can no longer be stated on the basis of the Schmundt record. Thus, the statements made in the first Nuernberg trial gain a different and greater significance. Never again, therefore, will it be possible for anyone to say that on that occasion Hitler preached war and the enslavement of Europeans.
There is yet another argument possible against this record, which, it is alleged, also contains the plan for slave labor. Document EC-194, Exhibit 8, and 016-PS, Exhibit 13, submitted by the prosecution, show in all clarity that the use of European peoples in German armament works was a measure forced by the emergencies of the war and that the idea was born and realized only by the military difficulties resulting from the war with Russia.
With clean hands and a pure heart, Milch entered the war in August 1939 having previously advised Goering to fly to Britain to prevent the war. He himself became the victim of Hitler’s deception, and he himself believed that the war had been forced upon Hitler. Who can disregard justice to such an extent as to reproach Milch with having held that belief? It is his misfortune, but not his guilt, to have been deflected from the truth by misleading propaganda. Who would so misinterpret patriotism, heretofore regarded as one of man’s noblest instincts, as to reproach Milch for having done in 1939 his duty as a soldier?
He never prepared any aggressive wars. In every case he was informed shortly before the event, and nothing is more typical of the opinion his superiors held of him than the fact that he chanced to hear about the preparations for the war against Russia through a subordinate, who had been told of Hitler’s plan before the field marshal was told. The first Nuernberg trial has already shown that Milch saw Goering at once in an effort to prevent that war. Goering himself admitted this. Milch’s good intentions were of no avail because Goering turned him down. As Milch’s superior officer, he even went so far as to forbid Milch to see Hitler and to tell him that he, Goering, would prevent Milch from being admitted to Hitler’s presence.
One of your Honors, in putting questions to the defendant, aimed to show that it might be regarded as incriminating to the defendant that he did not resign in 1941 or at least in 1943. Your Honors, only if one has lived in Germany these last years is it possible truly to judge that problem. As I said in my opening speech, one can judge the man only against his background, through his upbringing, from which usually nobody can escape no matter in what country he lives. Milch was brought up as a soldier. He absorbed ideas which for centuries were regarded as true and inviolate laws. It is no guilt for him not to have freed himself from them. I have said this once before.
At that time nobody in Germany was in a position to protest against certain events, against certain aims of the Party. All that one could do was to criticize things within one’s own immediate circle and tell one’s intimate collaborators how to improve matters. If in Germany anybody had attempted at any time to express criticism publicly, either by word or by publicly resigning, nobody would have been the wiser for it. This system was so ruthless and its stranglehold over public opinion so great that it would and could suppress anything.
You need only remember that during the first IMT trial it was shown that von Papen’s criticism in his Marburg speech was completely withheld from the German public. Had Milch done anything, nobody would have heard about it, and his action would have been useless, perhaps senseless, as nothing would have been changed for the better. Your Honors may not know that six to eight generals, including General von Falkenhausen, once Commander in Chief in Belgium, and Colonel General Halder, one of Germany’s highest and best leaders, were thrown into concentration camps because they had deviated from Hitler’s line. This is not connected with 20 July 1944. Nobody in Germany knew about this. Pictures of General Count Sponeck were sold as of a hero two years after this man had vanished into a concentration camp. Such were the lies and the deceptions of Goebbels’ propaganda. We have learned since the end of the war that prior to 20 July 1944, there were 50 to 60 generals in Moabit prison, without anyone in Germany knowing anything about that. You will understand the full falsehood of propaganda when you recall the base distortions by which the dismissals of Generals von Blomberg and von Fritsch were announced to the German public.
Believe me, your Honors, protests in Germany were not possible at that time. The only result would have been the futile death of the protesting person. If Milch had attempted to fly abroad, his whole family—such were the detestable methods of those in power—would have been put to death on the basis of what was known as family responsibility.
Milch cannot be reproached with not having refused service and allegiance. No soldier could do this. Should a member of the Anglo-American Air Forces suddenly have refused to go out on an operation which would bring death to innocent women and children, he would not have been regarded as a hero. He would have been put before a court martial.
That Milch did not participate in an attempt on Hitler’s life, who would accuse him of that? Although he was an energetic man, the defendant was, because of several concussions of the brain which he suffered, inclined to terrifying fits of rage, or ranting speeches, but the evidence has shown that in his heart of hearts he was kind and soft. He would ameliorate sentences already passed, and as the witness Richter testified, he compensated for a fine, which he inflicted himself, by secretly passing into the family of the punished man a very large sum of money, larger than the fine itself. The witness Vorwald expressly stated that basically Milch was a man soft of heart, who conducted himself *self soft, who only in a rage caused by disease and worry utters harsh words never followed by action, is not capable of murder. Thus, no just man will charge him with not liquidating Hitler, and Milch did what in his conscience he felt to be possible and necessary. He had the courage of telling the dictator to his face what he thought of the situation. He demanded that Hitler desist from his plans, dismiss the most important men, such as Goering, Ribbentrop, and Keitel, give up the supreme command, and establish a cabinet of equal powers, and he finally desired that peace should be brought about.
Your Honors, it would be easy to say that as a field marshal he did not thereby endanger himself. The statement of the next witness Krysiak, the fate of the generals which I mentioned to you, show what was done in Germany to men who did such things, but the defendant went one step further. He succeeded in inducing Goering also to demand the end of the dictatorship and the instituting of a Reich cabinet. Your Honors, this means that this defendant thereby risked his life. He could not foresee that nothing would happen to him. That nothing did happen to him was not due to his rank, but to Hitler’s opinion that this man was not yet dispensable. Everybody can only be sentenced according to his potentialities. Your Honors must not compare conditions in your free and noble country to those in Germany. Only the German world as it was should be the basis of your judgment here. It is not true to say that Milch gave his continued support to the objectionable aims of the Party. He continued to do his duty because, as he testified, he wished to prevent the worst from happening to his people, the total destruction of the cities and of Germany’s culture. It was his constant hope to organize the defense in such manner as to prevent bombing warfare from taking its full effect, that same bombing warfare which is the scourge of mankind, whatever one may think of its military value. Would it be for us to judge him on the fact that he did not obtain his aim because of the stupidity and failings of his superiors? Milch furthermore testified before you that by an improved defense he hoped to achieve better peace terms for his people. I can assure your Honors that since 1941 Goebbels’ propaganda told the German people time and again of the horrible terms the enemy would impose on them in the event of peace. That included an item to the effect that the whole of the German male population would be castrated should Germany lose the war so that the German people would perish. Who has the courage to say it is despicable for a man of battle to organize a defensive system under the news impact of such items in order to obtain better peace terms?
It would be a distortion to say that Milch thus believed Hitler’s aim of destroying Europe, for he knew that the war was lost. He was intelligent enough to see that with the lost war the end of Hitler’s ideology would come. It was not the Party he wanted to serve when he hoped for less severe peace terms with a better defense, but a lost war that would not mean the loss of the legal rights of a whole nation as is the case unhappily today. Only he who comprehends and understands all these things can appreciate Milch’s actions and judge them fairly. And later, when he saw that his objective of saving the German people from the worst would fail, Milch withdrew from the regime. He could not resign on his own. That, for a soldier in Germany, was an impossibility. He did not choose to act dishonorably, which no one can expect from a decent man. In Germany soldiers are removed from their offices only by their superiors. Thus, as he put it himself, Milch could only organize his own elimination from office by gradually transferring his tasks to Speer’s Ministry. As his superiors thereupon regarded him as superfluous and were glad to be rid of this man, Milch was finally free. Then began the scheme on the part of his superiors to liquidate him. Such was the position of Milch, the man, and such by and large were his motives. For him to have acted in this and no other way is not dishonorable, and only he can cast the first stone who never in his born days gave in to public opinion in defiance of his better judgment, who has never considered his superiors, and who proved himself to be above his upbringing, and had the courage of fighting for his convictions even with the most brutal methods.
Before dealing with the details of the indictment I should like to make these basic points. The prosecution created the impression that under the conspiracy count it would hold Milch responsible for everything in totality that was done in connection with labor assignments and experiments within the confines of the Luftwaffe, nay, within the confines of the German government departments. This is not admissible. The indictment may be referred to Control Council Law No. 10. Nothing is mentioned there that conspiracy to commit crimes against humanity or war crimes constitutes a punishable offense. Only conspiracy against peace is punishable. The way the law is formulated, particularly count 2 of Article 2, makes it clear beyond doubt that activities listed therein only concern participation but no independent types of crime. Where there is an independent crime then also in the case of war crimes and crimes against humanity there would have to be a provision similar in count 1-A, Article 2 of the Control Council law where a crime is defined as “participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the purpose of committing one of the crimes above set forth.” In this connection the verdict of the IMT must also be considered. At the end of the sixth part of the verdict it states:[153] “Count one, however, charges not only the conspiracy to commit aggressive war, but also to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity,” but the Charter does not define as a separate crime any conspiracy except the one to commit acts of aggressive war. Article 6 of the Charter provides: “Leaders, organizers, instigators, and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan.” In the opinion of the Tribunal these words do not add a new and separate crime to those already listed. The words are designed to establish the responsibility of persons participating in a common plan. The Tribunal will therefore disregard the charges in count 1, that the defendants conspired to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity, and will consider only the common plan to prepare, initiate, and wage aggressive war. And under figure 8, the IMT states further:[154] “As heretofore stated, the Charter does not define as a separate crime any conspiracy except the one set out in Article 6(a) dealing with crimes against peace.” The verdict was so formulated because the Charter was unclear at this point. As above stated, the Control Council law contains no such provisions, so much the less because in this case conspiracy does not constitute a separate crime. The provision set forth in Article 2, paragraph 2, No. 6, “whoever was connected with this planning or execution”, is only a form of individual defense and cannot be put on a par with the concept of the common plan or conspiracy. Article 2 defines clearly the type of crime referred to in paragraph 1, namely (1) the individual crime of violation of peace; (2) conspiracy against peace; (3) individual war crimes; (4) individual crimes against humanity; and finally, the form of participation in paragraph 2. Therefore, it is rendered that a so-called conspiracy to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity is not a punishable offense.
It has to be examined therefore whether Milch made himself guilty of any individual type of participation. It would have to be shown that either as a principal or accessory he participated in a crime or that he especially ordered or initiated it. It would have to be proved that he gave his approval for a definite crime. That approval, however, cannot refer to a general approbation but can only be considered as participation in crime if, by his approval, he strengthened and stiffened the criminal will of the perpetrators. It must therefore be made clear that he knew of the individual crimes and that he intended to put them into action by means of his approval. Even in that case his subsequent approval would not suffice; since still nowhere in the world is anyone punished because of an inner or moral attitude. Finally, it must be examined whether Milch was connected with the planning or commission of such crimes. Here again it must be understood, of course, that this connection must be capable of causing the crime, and that Milch knew about the connection and therefore the crime. The question of membership in any organization or association which was connected with the execution of crimes requires special examination. It is clear that mere membership, as such, in any organization wherein any member may at one time have committed a punishable act cannot make every other member of that organization punishable. Otherwise a monstrous situation would arise where the commander in chief of a large army was punishable if any member of that army committed a war crime. Where in this world in all time has it happened that in such a huge organization as wartime armies’ soldiers did not at one time or another commit punishable acts? This is inevitable and it occurs in all armies. It can therefore only be a question here whether the organization or the association of which the defendant was a member had as its particular purpose the commission of war crimes or crimes against humanity.
Letter (f) of Article 2, paragraph 2, must be considered here. Since Milch is not charged with a crime against peace, it would also have to be especially proved that he participated in the common plan of conspiracy for the commission of crimes against the peace. That he held high office cannot of its own make him punishable. This is also evident from the Tribunal of the IMT who acquitted three persons who held equally high office in Germany.
Bearing in mind these points of view, one has to examine the individual counts of the indictment. In answer to the prosecution’s charge that Milch in February 1944 had ordered two Russian officers to be shot, Exhibits Milch 40 to 44, and the testimony of the witness Vorwald have proven that the said officers were shot on the basis of an expressed order by Hitler who received, through political channels, the report of the incident earlier than Milch. Exhibits Milch 40 to 44 and the testimony of Vorwald have made it clear that Milch, first of all, had no possibility of issuing such an order, and secondly, that he did not cause its being ordered, and thirdly, that he only gained knowledge of the incident after the officers had been shot.
The witness Vorwald was in a position to testify that Milch even angrily protested against such an order.
The passage in the record of the 53d meeting of the Central Planning Board of 16 February 1944 contained in Defense Exhibit 11, can therefore not be made the basis for a judgment. Whoever, knowing the German language, reads the text critically must realize that the utterances of Milch recorded therein are contradictory in themselves and, therefore, cannot possibly contain the real statements made by Milch. They are contradictory to the true course of events; they are contradictory to Milch’s real authority, and finally, they are contradictory to the inner attitude of the defendant who himself angrily described this act as a crime.
It is significant for the question of the probative value of all verbatim records submitted to consider that such recording of the true events is found here. Such records containing such mistakes cannot be made the basis for a judgment. If we assume, however, that Milch really made these utterances which are so wrong, then this passage would remove all doubt that Milch during moments of excitement was no longer master of his thoughts and words and, therefore, cannot be held responsible for them. It would be a serious offense against justice, however, if judgment was to be pronounced on the basis of such stenographic notes taken by an unknown person who may have been in error.
Milch is furthermore accused of having abetted, participated in, and been connected with cruel and inhuman experiments carried out on concentration camp inmates at Dachau. I believe that here, too, evidence has shown that Milch is innocent. It has been proved by the clear, although long-winded, deposition of the witness Hippke that the defendant had heard for the first time on 31 August 1942 that human experiments were being carried out on others than the volunteering members of the Luftwaffe; that is, at a moment when the high-altitude experiments were already completed and when the freezing experiments were about to be completed.
In this connection I recall that the final report on freezing experiments was available in print already on 10 October 1942, so that these experiments too must have been completed by a considerably earlier date. On 31 August 1942, the defendant learned merely from Hippke that human experiments had been carried out on criminals who had been sentenced to death and who had volunteered to obtain a pardon. He was told expressly that nothing had happened so far during these experiments. It is obvious that experiments as such do not in themselves constitute an offense against humanity, whether or not they are in use in some foreign countries. At any rate much evidence has already been submitted by the defense in the medical trial, proving that, also in democratic states of the world, experiments have been carried out and are being carried out on volunteering criminals, experiments which constitute a danger to the life and health of the experimental subject.
The prosecutor has submitted in evidence his last exhibit, Document 1971-PS, Prosecution Exhibit 161, showing irrefutably that Himmler too had ordered that only men sentenced to death are to be used for these experiments. Hippke did not even misinform Milch. That, besides the experiments which were of importance to the Luftwaffe, Himmler had also started secret experiments is shown from this very Exhibit 161 because therein Himmler directs Rascher to continue these special experiments on which he had reported to him and even to carry out revival experiments.
Both witnesses Ruff and Romberg have testified unanimously that nothing has happened during these experiments. Death casualties had occurred during Rascher’s own experiments which he carried out on Himmler’s behalf. Only the aim of these experiments remained unclear to the witness, which is now being clarified by Exhibit 161, but Milch had no knowledge of all this. He fully believed what Hippke told him, nor did he ever have any cause to distrust Hippke and he could not distrust him more as he knew that high-altitude experiments had already previously been carried out on Luftwaffe personnel of his own air force without any danger being involved. Not even Hippke has had any knowledge of cruelties and death casualties. How much the less can be proved that the defendant could have had any knowledge. It does not say anything against the defendant that he had signed already before 31 August 1942 some letters which had been submitted to him by his offices. Nobody has been able to state that Milch had dictated these letters at all. It could not even be proved that he had seen or read the letters from the SS to which these letters refer. It is impossible for a man who has such a burden of work and such a large sphere of tasks as the defendant to take care of every trifling matter in his office, that these letters—which to anybody who has no knowledge of the underlying facts appear harmless and unimportant—could also not arouse the defendant’s suspicion. Should he be charged with responsibility for them then, this would be a responsibility which could not be borne by anybody. This would mean to overestimate human working capacity. It is the very idea of any great organization to relieve the chiefs or the heads of attentions to details in order to make them free for the main tasks. If such a man were to be asked to take care of everything, then the organization would be unsuccessful and no man in the world could form a great work comprising many people, and no man in the world would be willing to head such an organization if the chief of the organization should be held responsible for everything that his subordinate agencies commit. Everybody has the right generally to trust his subordinates as long as he has no reason to distrust them.
Hippke’s descriptions were unimpeachable and gave no reason for misgivings. His tenure of office at that time was irreproachable so that Milch had not to distrust Hippke’s activities and all the less so because already at an earlier date human experiments had been carried out by the Luftwaffe in a manner above reproach. Milch has testified to the effect that he had not read the report on high-altitude experiments. Evidence has shown that he has not seen the film nor could he have cause for this film to be shown, only if he would have stayed in Berlin, but he was not even in Berlin on that day; therefore, he could not become suspicious from what occurred. Likewise Milch never received the report on freezing experiments nor did he ever get a final report on this matter.
Finally, Milch had no reason to distrust the fact that the SS participated in the experiments. He knew that Hippke was part of it and was therefore entitled to believe that everything was in order. Therefore, Milch was neither a principal in nor an accessory to, nor has he ordered or instigated these experiments. He has never given his consent to the crimes committed because he had no knowledge whatsoever of them nor was he connected with their planning or their execution, nor was he a member of any organization aiming at the commission of such crimes. It is not the aim of the Luftwaffe to carry out such criminal experiments, and with the DVL he had nothing to do at all. It is irrelevant that at that time Rascher was a member of the Luftwaffe. Exhibit 161 proves that Rascher received the orders to execute the crimes as a member of the SS from Himmler himself and also carried them out in that capacity. Finally, it must be said that the Wolff letter of November 1942 was only written after the crimes were committed. It has not been proved that Milch ever saw this letter. He was not in Berlin when the letter arrived. That he has testified. The letter was sent to the Medical Inspectorate which only answered it in 1943 as Hippke has testified. Also, the fact that Rascher was transferred to the SS had nothing to do with the defendant. That was a matter settled outside of his competency. The personnel chief of the Luftwaffe was at no time subordinated to him, and it must also be taken into consideration that, according to the evidence, Milch had no knowledge of Rascher’s having committed any crimes. One cannot charge Milch with the fact that Rascher referred to him. The testimony of Neff and Defense Exhibit 56, the affidavit of Punzengruber, have shown to this Tribunal that Rascher was a confirmed liar whose statements have no probative value and, therefore, I believe that Milch in this matter too has shown to this Tribunal his complete innocence.
Before I go into the charges against Milch for his participation in the so-called slave labor program, I must make a few fundamental statements. I shall begin by examining the question as to what extent the Hague Convention on land warfare and the Geneva Convention of 1929 were valid for the treatment of Russian prisoners of war. By the statements of witness von Neurath, it has been confirmed that the U.S.S.R. in 1919 specifically withdrew from the Hague Convention on land warfare as well as the former Geneva Convention. Jurists will not dispute the fact that a formal withdrawal from agreements is of greater importance in the relations between states than the act of joining such a convention. Even if one were of the opinion that the Hague Convention on land warfare and the Geneva Convention represented merely the codification of already existing international law, so that the state that did not join the conventions would also be bound to this already existing international law in all details, even in such a case the expressly stated withdrawal from such a convention must mean also a withdrawal from the natural international law. If this were not the case, the withdrawal from such conventions would be an act without meaning which such intelligent politicians as those found in the U.S.S.R. would never undertake. Nor is this conception of mine contradicted by the expert opinion offered in the first Nuernberg trial (Canaris Doc. No. EC-338)[155] because this expert opinion is only concerned with the order of Hitler and Keitel regarding the killing and cruel treatment of prisoners. It is, of course, clear that inhumane acts do not become permissible because of withdrawal from conventions. What we must examine here, however, is purely the question whether or not, and for what activities, such prisoners of war may be used. Detailed regulations of international law, which in themselves do not contain atrocities, can in my opinion be nullified by expressly withdrawing from a convention codifying existing international law. Finally, we wish to draw attention to Article 82, paragraph 2, of the Geneva Convention of 1929 which contains the following regulation: “If in wartime one of the belligerents is not a member of the convention, the regulations of this convention remain valid, nevertheless, for the belligerents who have signed the convention.” This does not mean that the signatories are bound to the Geneva Convention also with regard to the treatment of soldiers of a nonsignatory power, but only with regard to soldiers of the signatories who are at war. Article 82, paragraph 2, of the Geneva Convention, therefore, states that with regard to the relations of nonsignatories the convention is not valid. The regulation was made so that it should not be thought that if a nonsignatory participated in the war the Geneva Convention would not apply to that war.
That my opinion was shared by the U.S.S.R. becomes clear beyond doubt from Defense Exhibit 49 presented by me, which contains the decision of the Council of the Peoples Commissioners of the U.S.S.R. of 1 July 1941. This decision does not mention any limitation with regard to the use of prisoners of war for labor except for the regulations under number 25. According to this, prisoners of war may not be used as workers in the battle zone nor for the personal needs of the administrations, or by other prisoners of war (orderly services). Defense Exhibit 51, concerning employment of German women prisoners of war in Russia, also reveals the same conception of the U.S.S.R.
The objections that not Russia’s conception but that of the United States of America matters here is not justified. Existing regulations between two states can only be judged on the legal relations valid for those two states. If both states regulate a given question in agreement with conclusive acts in the same way, that regulation becomes international law valid for the relations of those two states and must be taken into consideration by all other states. It is the right of sovereign states to regulate their relations as they wish. Other states have no right to interfere in the right of sovereignty and they must acquiesce in the legal conception existing between those two states regarding any issue concerning their citizens. Therefore, legal opinions of another state must not be taken as a basis for the judging of actions which occurred between the nationals of these two states.
As in Milch’s sphere of competency Russian prisoners of war were used neither at the front nor as orderlies, he cannot be found guilty so far as the treatment of Russian prisoners of war is concerned.
All this also applies to the treatment of the Russian civilian population whose rights could have been cared for by the Hague Convention for land warfare alone. Here, too, Russia’s express withdrawal from the convention is of great importance.
In my opinion it cannot be argued that Germany attacked Russia and that, for the reason, employment of the civilian population would be illegal even if this were not illegal in itself. That alone would mean that Germany would be bound to the regulations and that Russia was not. From the point of view of international law, this is an impossible situation. For two belligerent states, there cannot be a different international law.
Moreover, the validity of the regulations laid down in the Hague Convention for land warfare can be cancelled by a special factor which precludes lawlessness. In all codes of law of the civilized world, the law of so-called emergency situations exists. This conception of law must also be applied to international law. That Germany was in an emergency situation in the sense that the use of the civilian population for labor in the occupied territories was only caused by the emergency situation, I showed in detail a little while ago. Modern war means total war and as such has suspended, in several points, international law as it existed up to now. It is uncontested that according to the Hague Convention for land warfare actions of combat against the civilian population are forbidden. Modern air warfare, having as its aim total annihilation of armament and production of the enemy, brought with it to a great extent warfare against the civilian population without any of the belligerents regarding such combat actions as forbidden according to the Hague Convention on Land Warfare. This also applies to the total blockade of a country which aims at starving the population of that country. These comprehensive ways of waging war which hit all classes of the population permit, in my opinion, to a state which is at war, especially on account of the fact that its civilian population is brought into the strife, to use for its purposes labor from occupied countries so as to maintain its production and armament.
Concerning the relations of the other nations involved in the war, there is no doubt that for the above the Hague Convention on Land Warfare and the Geneva Convention of 1929 are valid. But it is just as clear that it is left to the nations to change and abolish these regulations by special agreements between one another. A good example here is the Armistice Treaty signed in 1944 between the Russian and Romanian governments according to which Romania had to pledge itself to put at the disposal of Russia a large number of people for reconstruction purposes. Complying with this agreement, in January 1945 many thousand members of the Romanian state were deported to Russia by compulsion and against their will. This case shows what, in such matters, may be legal and valid. Moreover, that agreement was made under some force of bayonets, as in all history is usually the case with every treaty between a conquered and conquering state. The Defense Exhibit 47 proves that in the case of Germany the Control Council (see sec. VI, number 19 of the Proclamation No. 2) imposed on the German authorities even without a treaty, but simply on unilateral orders, the same obligation, i.e., to put at disposal labor for personal services inside and outside Germany. That such orders could naturally only be fulfilled by the German authorities by means of a labor service law will not be contested by anybody.
These one-sided orders given by the victor to the vanquished, whether they be issued on the basis of an armistice brought about by force of arms or on the basis of command or law following the unconditional surrender of a state, are not contrary to law.
It should, therefore, be stated that the rules of the Hague Land Warfare regulations can be suspended between two states. I have given proof for the fact that there were between Germany and France agreements whereby the French population had to make themselves available for work in Germany, first, by volunteering, and later, on the basis of a law for compulsory labor issued by the French Government. No restrictions were laid down to what extent and for what purpose these people were to be employed.
The objection has been raised that the Vichy Government was a government of traitors, but it was that government which concluded the armistice with Germany, and throughout the war all Frenchmen, including those in de Gaulle’s camp, would raise passionate protests when they thought that one of its articles had been violated. Thus, they all acknowledged that an armistice could be concluded and was concluded. Once you acknowledge the existence of an armistice agreement, you cannot, logically or legally, deny the legality of the government which has concluded the armistice. You must eat your cake as it is and you must not pick out the plums alone.
As for the situation in Holland and Belgium, both those countries surrendered unconditionally. According to international law Germany was, therefore, in a position in its dealings with the authorities of these countries to regulate the labor commitments of the civilian population unilaterally in the same manner as this has now been handled in regard to the German population by the Control Council.
As far as Poland is concerned, that country, on the basis of the partitioning agreement between Russia and Germany, had lost its sovereignty. That such partitioning agreements can abrogate the existence of a state has already been historically proved by the former partitioning agreements of the bordering countries in regard to the Polish state. Moreover, the agreements concluded between the victorious nations after this war have abrogated the sovereignty of the German state over very large areas in the East and thus have created new sovereignty for the population of these territories. Germany released the Polish prisoners of war and could at any time issue legal labor directives as regards the Polish civilian population since the latter were under German sovereignty.
So far as the Italian prisoners of war are concerned, the evidence has shown that the Mussolini Government, which at the time was the covenant government in that part of Italy not occupied by the allied forces, made them available for work in the armament industry, especially after Germany had to manufacture armaments for Mussolini’s Italy. Here it should also be mentioned that Milch’s opinion that Italian prisoners of war who fled from a transport should be shot does not mean a cruelty. All countries of the world have prisoners shot who attempt to escape as proved by me in Defense Exhibit 26. So far as the civilian population of other southeastern states are concerned, they were only recruited and employed as free workers based on approval by the legally existing governments of these countries.
In addition, it is interesting to point out that the agreement between France and Germany, according to which France was supposed to allocate French civilians for the labor commitment in exchange for the release of prisoners of war, had a parallel in the discussion of the question regarding the fate of German prisoners of war still in allied countries. In France, in particular, the request has been made to make possible the release of German prisoners of war by making available German civilians as workers in place of the prisoners of war. This, too, is evidence to the effect that such an agreement is not contrary to international law.
That, your Honors, is the legal position as I must present it.
In regard to the question of guilt, a special point has still to be considered. All legal theories consider that the defendant is not liable for punishment if after careful consideration and careful inquiries he has gained the conviction that his action was permissible. It has been shown that in Germany prisoners of war and foreign civilians were being employed within the war production even at the time when Milch had not yet taken over the office of the GL (Generalluftzeugmeister—Air Ordnance Master General). In other words, he was already confronted with the situation, the exploitation of which he is being reproached for today.
The testimony of the witness Vorwald and that of the defendant himself showed that Milch made inquiries from the competent authority as to whether the employment of prisoners of war and foreign civilians which he planned to use was admissible under the existing regulations. He has testified here that he received an affirmative answer. Furthermore, he testified that the admissibility of the utilization of foreign civilian workers was discussed soon after the First World War in a large staff committee of the German Reichstag. The chairman of that staff committee was Prof. Dr. Schuecking, a legal authority of repute, who had become known throughout the world as a passionate champion of pacifism and democracy. This committee, as the defendant gathered from the discussions held at the time, could not and did not find that employment of foreign civilian workers in armament industry was inadmissible.
Impressed by his earlier experience, the defendant had the right to believe the information given to him by his superior office that employment of foreign manpower and of prisoners of war was admissible. Moreover, this information was not issued without reason. The reasons given for it were rather in accordance with the reasons which I have described in detail above. How should Milch, who is not a legal expert, who as a layman did not understand anything about applicable international law, how could he form a different opinion? It is the right of every citizen to believe the legal information supplied by his superior and the concomitant authorities, for no one can impose upon a citizen the duty to undertake on his own independently an examination of the legal questions involved. In a modern state this would result in an untenable situation whereby every one of the citizens would acquire his own conception of law. Differing opinions abroad Milch was not in a position to hear since he was not allowed to read foreign newspapers nor listen to foreign broadcasts, nor did he do so.
He acted in good faith, and that has to be considered in his favor today, the more since he knew and may well have assumed that these measures were only temporary and were forced by the necessities of war.
[At this point the following discussion took place:]
PRESIDING JUDGE TOMS: Is it a principle of the German law that ignorance of the law is an excuse for violating it?
DR. BERGOLD: It is a principle inasmuch as if somebody has been misled by his superiors on the significance of the law. Everybody must inquire what the law is, but if his superior authorities give him certain information, he can rely on that.
Q. Suppose a person is advised by his own counsel as to the law, and counsel is wrong, does that excuse the client?
A. The client’s lawyer is not sufficient. The authority must be a government official.
Q. Well, suppose a high government official, a man in high authority who was not a lawyer, advised his subordinate as to his legal rights and duties, and that advice was wrong?
A. That would mean that there would be an excusable error, an excusable legal error.
Q. If, for example, Goering, who was a person in high authority, advised Milch that he had the legal right to go out and shoot a person, would that be justification for Milch’s doing so, legally?
A. No. Because as to the question of whether you can commit murder or not everybody knows about that; but the point as to whether the employment of foreigners was admissible under international law is a very tricky legal point, and there, of course, there is a difference.
Q. You mean that every one is supposed to know that he cannot shoot a man.
A. Yes. Everybody knows that.
Q. But everyone is not supposed to know that he can force a man to unwilling labor?
A, No. He is not obliged to know that. That is why Milch applied to receive this information about international law.
Q. You make a distinction between homicide and slavery?
A. Yes. I make a difference not, perhaps, as in this exact example, but I make a difference between the natural knowledge of law, which everybody has, and special questions and special knowledge not shared by everybody in the state. The point whether you can kill or steal is common knowledge, but the question whether international law permits the employment is not something which everybody knows. This question is one which only specialists and legal experts can decide, and if any man concerned tries to obtain information as to whether it is permissible, and obtains that information from a specialist of a governmental department who says, yes, then it does not become permissible in itself, but we have what is known as an excusable legal error.
Q. Would you take the same position as to enforced civilian labor?
A. Yes, on the whole question whether anyone can employ foreign workers or prisoners of war.
Q. I would like to get this straightened out.
A. There are a number of other difficult legal points which I need not go into here. This is certainly an example of what occupies us here.
Q. That is true. I want to get your position perfectly clear. I think it is—
A. Let’s take, for example, the question whether, in any foreign country which is occupied, the occupier may issue occupation money; let’s assume that this is punishable according to some international regulation which is difficult to interpret and which a layman is not in a position to know. Now, if the Reich Bank, as expert, told the governor of the occupied country that it was permissible, then the chief of this occupied country, the military authority, would have an erroneous opinion for which he could not be held guilty.
Q. Now, that theory of law becomes a very uncertain guide, does it not? It depends upon interpretation of not the lawyers, nor the professors, but of high government officials; they make the law.
A. No. My client inquired of the competent offices, not of Goering, but of the competent offices, namely the legal departments. In all the ministries there were legal departments, also in the Reich Air Ministry and in the Wehrmacht itself. They employed specially trained experts. I draw your attention to—
Q. Just a minute. Then the head legal experts make the law as far as the defendant is concerned?
A. No, no, he does not make the law but he tries to, and that is, of course, the legal error that—
Q. He makes the law by which the defendant may govern himself?
A. Yes, for this special case, as long as he does not hear an opinion to the contrary, let’s assume.
Q. Oh, what happens after he does hear the opinion to the contrary, then which law does he abide by?
A. In that case he can act no longer at all. If he acts, he acts on what is known from the Roman law as “eventual dolus”, an evil intention, in case he comes up against the law. I assume that the term “eventual dolus” is known to your country, too.
Q. Supposing that he gets two conflicting opinions from the legal ministry, or one of the legal advisers in a high place tells him he may do a thing, and another in an equally high place says he may not, how does that solve the dilemma?
A. In that case he must not commit the act, because his attention has been drawn to the difference in the legal opinions, and that is where we have the “eventual dolus”. If he does not depend on it, and does it on his own risk, then in that risk he committed a wrong.
Q. I am frank to say that this is a new and startling legal theory. Did you understand that?
A. Yes. I understood.
PRESIDING JUDGE TOMS: Well, we have your position.
[Dr. Bergold continues.]
His good faith, however, was reinforced by the fact that all the measures against English and American prisoners of war, which are being objected to, were not carried out. That the reasons expressly stated for this were that no agreement except a change in the regulations had been conveyed normally to the British and American prisoners of war. Whoever has the least psychological insight will understand that the observing of the Geneva Convention principles towards those two countries must have made the deviation from them in respect to other countries appear to the defendant as authorized, all the more as this deviation had been based on presence of other agreements, or the lack of other protective measures.
As far as the question of actual recruiting and using of manpower is concerned, a differentiation must be made between recruiting, bringing foreign laborers to the country, and their treatment on the whole on the one hand, and on the other hand their use within Germany in the labor assignment.
May it please the Tribunal, the case in chief, and the submitted documents of the prosecution, especially the Exhibits No. 13, 14, 14-A, 15, 15-A, and 17 eliminated any doubt as to the fact that Sauckel alone was competent for the recruiting of foreign laborers and their transport to Germany and for the treatment of the foreign workers, and that Hitler over and over again confirmed against the attacks of Speer that he was the only competent man. Not one single document has been submitted which would show that Milch participated in the recruiting, transfer to Germany, and treatment of the workers. The witnesses Speer, Koerner, Richter, Hertel, Eschenauer, Pendele, Vorwald, as well as Milch himself, have testified under oath that neither they nor the defendant knew anything about all the abuses which have become evident in the sphere of Sauckel’s work.
I call your attention to Document 407-II-PS, Defense Exhibit 3, which reveals how Sauckel always and everywhere emphasized that he took care of the foreign workers to the best of his ability. In this exhibit he makes the assertion that foreign workers have never in the history of the world been treated as well as they were treated by him in this most severe of all wars. The testimony of the witness Schmelter and of Milch has shown that Sauckel had made the same declarations and told the same lies to them also. There is no need for any further statement to the effect that the recruitment and even the forced transport of the workers into the Reich on the basis of an order could have been carried out in an absolutely humane manner and that all these atrocities, murders, and tortures which took place need not have occurred. Such actions are not of necessity connected with such events. The fact that in the East and in France, parts of the population were called up and drafted by classes by means of labor service decrees could not and did not have to make Milch suspicious. Forced drafting of people occurs in all countries which have a compulsory military service or labor service. Examples of the latter are Germany and Bulgaria. The latter state had ordered service according to each group before the Hitler regime existed, and how could Milch, after all, have found out about the inhuman acts in the recruitment and transport into the Reich and the treatment within the Reich? Obviously, only if he had observed such incidents himself or if complaints reached him through his subordinates or through these foreign workers themselves.
Milch testifies here in a creditable manner that during the entire course of the war he had never observed such conditions. During all these years he made his trips by plane and, in some exceptional cases, by special train; that in this way he could naturally not observe such facts is quite clear. The witnesses have confirmed that they never reported abuses to him. The only things he heard were isolated complaints that the food was inadequate at times or that there was a lack of clothing and shoes. In themselves, these were conditions which resulted at the time from the wartime emergency and applied also to the German civilian population. All of the above-mentioned witnesses and Milch have, however, confirmed that Milch on his own part immediately ordered that the conditions should be remedied.
These incidents, however, cannot be called inhuman acts or atrocities, cannot be called crimes. The witnesses Pendele, Hertel, and Vorwald, as well as the defendant himself, have testified that the foreign workers never brought any complaints to the defendant. They all expressed their happiness. It may be that they shied away from complaining to Milch. That, however, was not Milch’s fault. He had the right to believe the assurances of the persons he questioned, the more so because his conversations with them were carried out in the friendliest, even the most cheerful manner.
Now, how could Milch have found out about these incidents? I have already mentioned that he could not obtain knowledge about that from foreign reports, because he did not receive such reports. Thus, it should be established that Milch was not responsible, first, for the directive for the so-called slave labor; secondly, the recruitment of manpower; third, the inhuman acts perpetrated in connection with this, the transport to Germany, and the crimes connected therewith, and finally, fifth, the treatment of foreign workers in Germany and the atrocities committed in connection therewith.
He knew nothing at all about them. He did not commit these crimes; neither as a principal nor as an accomplice. He neither ordered such crimes nor instigated them. He did not take a consenting part in them either. On the contrary, he always eliminated minor abuses and constantly saw to it that the conditions of the foreign workers were ameliorated by special gifts. He was in no way connected in a causative manner with the planning or execution of these crimes, and here I refer you to my earlier legal statement, for he would have had to know about them, that such atrocities, murders, and other inhuman acts occurred in connection with the recruitment, transfer to Germany, and treatment within Germany if he is to be held responsible for them. Neither did he belong to the organization which was connected with the recruiting, transport, and treatment, namely, the Organization Sauckel. If at all, he could be charged only with the utilization of foreign workers.
No just man who values that name can, by virtue of knowledge subsequently acquired, condemn the actions which a defendant committed at an earlier time in ignorance of what later became known. Today the whole world is full of the horrors which have been brought to light. It is not true, however, that these horrors were desired by the supreme leadership. That Sauckel acted independently here and that he alone bears the guilt is shown by Defense Exhibit 3, in which Sauckel lied to Hitler, saying that workers had never been treated so well as by him.
I do not wish to defend Hitler. As a German, I myself have every reason to raise the most bitter and serious charges against the man whose account of guilt can never be paid up, but here it must be said that Hitler could hardly have included the commission of atrocities and murders in his plan for the foreign workers, for if that had been the case, Sauckel would not have had to lie as he did. Then he would not have had to pretend to his lord and master that he was treating the foreign workers so well. Such lies, such deceit, are practiced only by the subordinate who is aware that he has violated instructions and that he can be punished by his superior.
Document R-124, Defense Exhibit 32 shows clearly that in two cases Sauckel acted against Hitler’s instructions in committing his crimes. Therefore, even Sauckel’s labor organization was not created for the purpose of committing atrocities, murders, and other inhumane acts. Sauckel and a number of his subordinates made themselves guilty on their own accounts, and as guilty persons they strove to keep secret and to cover up their crimes. That the defendant cannot be responsible for these secret acts is hardly to be doubted.
I realize that in answer the prosecution will remind me of all the documents with severe statements by Milch which have been submitted to the Tribunal. This is a serious count of the indictment, but one can achieve clarity on the complex of questions thus brought up only if one considers whether Milch made these severe statements only against foreign workers and prisoners of war or whether they were simply a part of his nature.
The witnesses Richter, Foerster, Hertel, Eschenauer, Pendele, and Vorwald have confirmed that Milch in his tantrums threatened even his German subordinates, his best workers, with hanging and shooting, and here in this room several men have appeared on the witness stand whom the defendant shot or hanged in words. This clearly shows that the defendant was not one-sidedly filled with hatred of the members of foreign nations; besides, this was hardly to be expected in the character of a man who for years energetically worked for peaceful collaboration with other peoples and who despised the racial doctrine and the idea of the “master race”. Rather, it makes it clear that he threw out such wild expressions only when he was excited, so that his subordinates acquired the habit of laying bets on the number of people who would be shot, when they knew that exciting matters were up for discussion. I read a number of passages to you from the notorious speech before the quartermasters and fleet engineers, in which he raged against those present and against himself in the same terms as he used against the foreigners. And in other documents submitted by the prosecution, one can find such expressions used against Germans, against members of the leading class of the German people, and against German workers. All this proves that an unfortunate inclination of Milch is here expressed for which, like a sick person, he cannot be held responsible, especially since he never carried out the punishments which he threatened. All the witnesses whom I have called to the stand from Milch’s entourage have testified that he used such terms only in tantrums. These tantrums occurred frequently, and always when he had met with major difficulties in the way of his work to save Germany from complete destruction. He was a sick man. He suffered several very serious accidents, all with severe brain concussions. It is an old experience of medicine that such people are easily excitable, and you must not forget how much this man had on his mind. He was a clairvoyant. He knew that the war was lost for Germany. He realized what horrors Germany was doomed to through the increasingly violent air war. He knew what help was possible in the distress of his people, and he had to stand helplessly by while his short-sighted and perhaps malevolent superiors frustrated, hampered, and prohibited all his precautions. In such severe physical distress, even a healthy man would become so irritable that he would be subjected to violent outbursts of anger. How much more violent would these outbursts be in the case of the sick defendant. His distressed soul housed in a suffering body, helplessly exposed to its worries, reacted in this way to relieve the tension.
Many witnesses, in particular the witness Vorwald, have told you that when such excitement occurred the defendant even changed physically, that the back of his neck became red and swollen and that afterwards he no longer knew what he said while he was in such a state. That this testimony, especially that of the witness Vorwald is true, is shown with actual certainty by the incidents between the defendant and Goering on the occasion of the report on the crimes committed by Terboven in Norway on the civilian population, and Document R-134, Exhibit 159 of the prosecution. The prosecution without justification bitterly reproached the defendant for failure to protest against this monstrosity. The defendant in his defense was not able to answer that he had done so. Vorwald has testified that this process took place in connection with an outburst of anger about precisely that incident, and because the testimony of Vorwald that the defendant did not remember afterwards what had happened during his period of excitement is true, the defendant was not able to carry out a full answer in his own defense because of his excitement. He did not remember. Your Honors, it is clear you have achieved deep insight into the souls of men. Therefore, surely you are able to judge that this incident has revealed the truth of what the defendant and his witnesses have told you. Otherwise he would be able to cite his protest as a defense against the charge of the prosecution.
Now, I assume that the prosecution will object that these fits of rage occurred much too frequently and that they are therefore not a pathological symptom but a normal expression of his character. Your Honors, this can be disputed by a very simple consideration. The so-called GL (Generalluftzeugmeister—Air Ordnance Master General) meetings took place twice a week. That means that from the time when the defendant took office there were a total of about 160 meetings. In addition, there were 60 meetings of the Central Planning Board. Finally there were about 30 Jaegerstab meetings, altogether about 250 meetings in which the defendant participated. The meetings lasted many hours. According to my concept the average number of pages of verbatim transcript of the GL was about 200 for a single meeting, or about 30,000-32,000 pages for the GL alone. If one includes the transcripts of other meetings then one comes to figure approximately at least of about 35,000 pages for all the transcripts at a conservative estimate. This is an enormous figure from all these many meetings. From all these many, many pages of transcript, the prosecutor has been able to submit only a very few pages with only very occasional extravagant statements. Therefore, the question is asked whether this was the normal tone of the defendant. It is also significant that in the meetings of the GL, such outbursts occur much more frequently than in the transcripts of the Jaegerstab or the transcripts of the Central Planning Board. In the GL meetings the defendant was in his own realm among us “parson’s daughters”, as the witness Vorwald said. Such outbursts naturally occurred there more often because according to experience a human being can let himself go more easily among his most intimate friends than among his subordinates. Nevertheless the outbursts remained isolated.
How curious is it that the emotional disturbances of the defendant occurred repeatedly in connection with the same subjects of discussion, for example, in the question of the work done by the French industry, the French people, the question of so-called slackers, or the discussion of threatening and inciting remarks made by foreigners. Sometimes several outbursts occurred at brief intervals, one after the other. Why, your Honors? Because the matters that excited the defendant were not settled. But this leads us to the question of whether the defendant followed up these wild words with deeds. He never did. Just consider, for example, the question of slackers or the question of the work done by the French industry, the French people. These apparently so malevolent orders issued in anger were not carried out. These stones were repeatedly laid in the path of the defendant. Here, your Honors, I ask you to penetrate into the depth of the circumstances with the understanding that characterizes a legal person. The defendant repeatedly became excited, for example, over the so-called slackers, Germans unwilling to work whom he considered to be traitors. Each time he issued strict orders, expressed wild threats, but would it not have been the most natural thing for this excitable man on all these occasions, which followed one on the heels of the other, to shout at his subordinates and to reproach them, to ask them why the orders which he had given and supported before in anger and which he had advanced repeatedly had not long since been carried out? Would that not have been the most natural and the first thing that he would have done in his anger if he had really expected and wanted his wild orders carried out? Your Honors, look at it from the human point of view. Revive all the experiences of your long and no doubt rich lives and examine with me whether I am not right in what I say.
I challenge my learned opponent to show me in all these instances, which are really appalling, one single expression indicating that the defendant objected to the failure to carry out his earlier threatening orders. Not a single word can be found and here, your Honors, the truth becomes so obvious that no intelligent man can ignore it. It sounded incredible in the mouth of the witnesses when they said again and again that no such orders were carried out. It has been put to the defendant that it is improbable that a field marshal did not expect his orders to be carried out and that all his subordinates did not immediately rush to carry out his orders, but the man who is sitting before you told the truth in spite of all appearances to the contrary, for if he as a field marshal had expected his orders issued in anger to be carried out then he would surely at one time or another have expressed dissatisfaction because they had not been carried out. But he did nothing except to get angry from his sickness and his anxiety about his people. It is clear not only from the Terboven case that he actually knew nothing about what he had screamed out and that he never seriously pressed home his demands. The Court has questioned him repeatedly about these expressions. He always supplied that he did not remember them and he did not believe that he had said so. He has often had to tell you that what he shouted was wrong if he had actually said it. That too seemed incredible at first, but as this man afterwards no longer knew what he said in these attacks then he cannot testify about them. It is also clear that a man in such a fit speaks many untruths and one cannot assert that he lied deliberately. The man, as I say today, has told you the truth as far as he can know it to the best of his knowledge and belief. These transcripts cannot convict him of untrustworthiness. Moreover, in many cases the transcripts are no doubt full of mistakes, distortions, and errors. I have shown you a number of passages which must be wrong. I have shown you transcripts such as NOKW-359, Exhibit 75, which speak of Milch’s presence and statements although on that day he could not have been present in the Jaegerstab. This is also true of some records of ostensible GL meetings. I have also proved that other transcripts make no logical sense in German and that several statements must have been run together there. Today, of course, no one can say whether these various statements were all made by the defendant. Many witnesses which I have examined on this matter, for example, to name but a few, Richter, Pendele, Hertel, Speer, and Vorwald, have testified that the transcripts contained many errors and that they were never corrected, that they were sometimes even intentionally distorted when the defendant attacked his superiors. Such passages were either left out or changed in such a way that the attacks on the person in question were no longer recognizable. But who would seriously consider it permissible to use such faulty transcripts as evidence?
All the witnesses from the entourage of the defendant have told you finally that in these Central Planning Board, as well as in the Jaegerstab and GL meetings, that in addition to transcripts reproducing the individual speeches and opinions so-called records of results were drawn up which contained only the really important decisions, orders, and regulations. They alone were valid for the subordinates. Those concerned acted according to them alone. It is noteworthy that the prosecution has not submitted a single one of those records of results containing any inhuman orders issued by the defendant. I beg of you, your Honors, not only to give severe consideration to the weaknesses of the defense, I beg you to draw your severe conclusions from the weaknesses of the prosecution as well. The fact that no incriminating records of results have been submitted proves once more that these threats were never carried out.
Your Honors, in disturbed times other men, too, sometimes say things which cannot be taken seriously. Men can be charged only according to their deeds, not according to their chatter. If you have access to Churchill’s speech made in his first excitement after Dunkirk, you can see what violations of international law he recommended to the civilian population of England when he called upon them to prevent a German airborne landing. But he never actually issued any such orders, and so no one will try him for that. When the late General Patton said at one time that he intended to continue to collaborate with such of the German Nazis as were specialists, some excited American newspaper ran this headline: “Patton Should Be Shot.” Who would be so stupid as to call these newspapers inhuman? No one in the world; no one takes such excited words seriously. No one can say that these outbursts of anger meant that Milch approved the atrocities which occurred elsewhere in Germany.
The affidavits of Kruedener, Defense Exhibit 37, Lotte Mueller, Defense Exhibit 38, the testimony of witnesses Koenig, Vorwald, Pendele, have all shown that this man always and everywhere tried to help people in distress. He, who ostensibly wanted to force the foreign workers and concentration camp inmates to work by means of starving them, had the concentration camp inmates supplied with food from his estate near Rechlin in order to improve their diet. Thus, in his actions, he did the opposite of what he shouted in his anger. But one could raise a very serious charge to the effect that Milch by his thoughtless manner of speaking incited the elements throughout the country which committed such misdeeds. But this again, your Honors, is untrue. You have not heard one single example here of anyone having acted according to Milch’s words and having referred to having done so. These displays of fury only occurred among people who knew Milch and knew that he could not be taken seriously in such moments. All witnesses have stated for you that these fits only became known to the circle of intimates.
I lived in Germany throughout the war. Although the sins of the high-ranking leaders of the Reich were eagerly discussed among the people, I never heard one word about Milch’s fits of rage. In reply to my question the witness Vorwald stated convincingly that nobody spoke about these incidents to other persons because they did not wish to expose their superior to whom they were attached. His loyal followers surrounding him with a cordon of silence. Nothing could be more understandable, and every decent person who respects his superior will and must act in the same manner, for, in spite of his occasional fierceness, Milch was popular with his subordinates. The witnesses Richter, Hertel, Pendele and Vorwald, among others, testified before you that Milch was highly esteemed. Richter actually called him the best and fairest superior whom he had ever met in all his life. Here, your Honors, in this praise Milch’s true nature appears before our eyes.
I believe, therefore, to be justified in saying that one cannot and must not judge Milch by his wild talk. To infer guilt from that would mean to pass a judgment which could never be upheld before justice. Nobody may be judged by empty phrases. I would like to tell you a true story here which occurred in Germany during the discussions about a new, more stringent National Socialist penal code. At that time the Party took the point of view that criminal intent in itself was punishable, and thus, during a meeting of the Penal Law Commission in connection with the question of the meaning of murder, a long debate developed as to whether a person who intended to bring about the death of an enemy by prayer was to be punished by death for murder. The majority of Party members concurred with this mad opinion on the punishment of criminal intent. The sensible ones protested against it for a long time. When the debate was nearing its end, Dr. Guertner, the Reich Minister of Justice at the time, a clear-sighted man, rose and with one single sentence made reason prevail. These were his words: “Gentlemen, I do not understand you. All my life a corpse has been part of a murder.” The narrow-minded Party doctrinaires had to give in to the scornful laughter that followed these words. And in that way I should like here to think of Milch’s wild talk and exclaim, “Where is the corpse?”
In my opinion the only remaining question which needs serious discussion is merely that of the employment of foreign workers, of PW’s, and of concentration camp inmates. To begin with, it must be mentioned that the prosecution in its opening speech maintained that Milch more than anybody else in Germany was occupied with the employment of forced labor in Germany. That statement, however, is in no way correct. That, at least, has been clarified by the evidence beyond all doubt, it seems to me. There can be no doubt that Sauckel and Speer had considerably more to do with so-called forced labor than Milch, quite apart from Hitler and Goering themselves.
It is necessary to visualize clearly the scope of Milch’s sphere of activities and of his authority. Your Honors, even if you were only to check the three part Defense Exhibit 55 which I submitted, even to a superficial scrutiny only, you would realize immediately that Speer alone had a great deal more to do with this work than Milch. Speer was in charge of all armaments for the army and navy which, measured in human beings, by far exceeded the Luftwaffe, and alone exceeded the volume of the Luftwaffe armament many times, in particular as Milch only dealt with the construction of airplanes and as all equipment for the crews, in fact were part of the army equipment. Furthermore, Speer was in charge of all other productions in the German Reich. Finally, after the establishment of the Jaegerstab, Speer was also placed in charge of all armaments for the Luftwaffe. This Defense Exhibit 55, to which the defendant has sworn and which is based on the prosecution’s own Exhibit 58, reveals a much greater and more comprehensive scope of Speer’s organization. It was he, who as the central authority, not only controlled an apparatus with considerably more tasks, he alone also had at his disposal the executive authorities in the country, who dealt with all matters which had to be taken, whereas Milch had no executive organs at his disposal. He had, therefore, no executive powers whatsoever. Speer alone was in charge of the powerful main committees, the main industrial rings, in which the captains of industry exerted their influence and power.
He was also in charge of the armament commissions and armament officials of the armament inspectorates and armament detachments in the defense districts. And lastly, the Gau plenipotentiaries and provincial economic offices in the whole country listened to him. He was with Hitler almost every week, and therefore, he possessed much more influence to which Sauckel’s power—
[At this point, the following discussion took place:]
PRESIDING JUDGE TOMS: May I ask you what was Koerner’s special interest?
DR. BERGOLD: I am not speaking about Central Planning Board here. I am only speaking about the GL.
Q. I know, but in the Central Planning Board what particular field was Koerner interested in—the navy?
A. Koerner? No. He was mainly in charge of agriculture. He testified to that effect.
PRESIDING JUDGE TOMS: Very well.
[Dr. Bergold continues.]
Speer was with Hitler almost once a week and had therefore much more influence to which Sauckel’s power set the only limit. The man, Milch, never possessed such a machine. The GL was nothing but a technical agency in the Reich Air Ministry which generally, as the witnesses Vorwald and Hertel confirmed, was told by the General Staff of the Luftwaffe what was to be constructed. If Milch had really been the powerful man as the prosecution describes him, it would have been possible for him to carry out his plan for Germany’s air defense. But the achievement of this goal for which this man worked with unbelievable effort and with all energy was denied to him simply because he was only in charge of a technical office which could not make any decisions whatsoever. Hitler, Goering, and the General Staff of the Luftwaffe decided what this man had to construct and what plans he was to carry out. He carried them out within the framework of the task with which he was entrusted, always being suspended in the middle, without ground under his feet, without the direct authority to give orders to industry, without influence on the supply of manpower and materials; he could only get influence through the Central Planning Board, and there too the fundamental decisions were made by Hitler, by the latter himself, on the advice of Speer. It is not necessary for me to name all the witnesses. All his collaborators have testified to that effect.
May it please the Tribunal, if you examine the statements made by Hertel and Vorwald, you will gather from them beyond any doubt that the GL had nothing to do at all with the question of labor, with the recruiting, transportation, and assignment of workers. The GL, and this cannot possibly be doubted by anyone after hearing all these witnesses and especially after Milch’s testimony, had merely to make the blueprints for airplanes and the construction necessary for this purpose, and then to place the orders with the completely independent industry, following in all this the instructions of the General Staff and the orders given by Hitler and Goering. All witnesses from the GL have confirmed before you that the GL had nothing to do at all with the labor question; that he did not request one single worker or exert any influence on Sauckel. It is true that requests for labor passed, for statistical reasons as well as for control purposes, through the GL office. But it is important to remember and never to forget that industry submitted its real labor requests throughout the country to the labor exchange offices which were Sauckel’s agencies and to the armament inspectorates and armament detachments which were Speer’s agencies.
Vorwald and the defendant himself have shown you with unmistakable clearness that the only thing which the GL had to do with these requests was merely that he examined these requests of industry concerning the material point as well as the labor point, and that he then reported to the Speer Ministry whether and in how far the requests of industry were exaggerated and false and if the GL considered fewer material and less manpower to be adequate.
Now, what does such an activity actually mean? Surely not, as the prosecution submits, the enslavement of new workers, but exactly the contrary; namely their reduction. If the GL had not exercised this activity, Sauckel would have got much larger requests from industry and he would have procured this labor by means of more forceful methods than he actually did. That industry had to request workers in order to carry out its tasks assigned by Hitler, Goering, and the General Staff of the Luftwaffe, who were the authorities who decided on the extent of the construction program of air armaments, was however not caused by the GL. He was nothing else but an executive organ in the chain of command from Hitler, Goering, and the General Staff. He was merely the technical agency which had to make the blueprints and constructions, and then, after approval by higher authorities, had to submit them to industry for the undertaking of the orders.
This, your Honors, is the recital of the evidence produced on the activity of the GL, and the only thing which the GL did in the framework of this activity was to reduce to the lowest level the requests for labor made by industry, for the many reasons that he was sufficiently expert to look through the exaggerated requests of industry which could never get enough workers. It is significant that the GL minutes which have been submitted nowhere reveal a discussion of real manpower guidance, but, at the utmost, that once a few questions were discussed for information purposes. It is furthermore highly significant that among the entire organizations of the GL there were no offices for labor assignment and labor research as was the case in the Armament Ministry of Speer (see Defense Exhibit 55), but merely for statistics of the personnel. There is nothing to clarify the real situation better than this fact.
Has the fact that industry, which had to carry out Hitler’s construction program, employed foreign workers, prisoners of war, concentration camp inmates, been caused by the defendant? Industry had employed these people before the beginning of Milch’s tenure; it employed them because Hitler had ordered through Sauckel that industry had to employ these people—not in order to obtain slave labor for slave labor’s sake—but only for the reason to be able to throw still more Germans into the greedy jaws of the fiendish war and thus surely causing disaster for Germans as well as for other peoples.
As far as the GL is concerned—the least reproach can be cast upon Milch, of all the reproaches that can be cast upon him. It only consists in that he passed orders on to the air armament industry (and where did this not occur during the war?), and that he saw to it that no exaggerated requests for material and manpower were made.
The prosecution has proved nothing which could contradict these statements. But Milch has—and this, too, has been proved—not only curtailed exaggerated labor requests of industry by means of his statistics, thus preventing the increase of foreign labor, but in addition to that, as was stated by the witnesses Brauchitsch, Pendele, Hertel, Vorwald, and others, he always endeavored seriously and successfully to maintain the German workers in the factories; and in doing so he even saved German workers who should have been drafted, at least to the amount of 70,000 for the air armament factories, keeping thus on a lower level further requests for foreign workers and their assignment. A man who, as the prosecution means, is keen on slave labor does not act in that way.
Finally, there is another point to be mentioned in this connection. The International Military Tribunal—which, by the way, states expressly in its verdict against Sauckel that there is no doubt of Sauckel having had the over-all responsibility for the slave labor program—that Tribunal stated in its verdict against Speer that it has to be considered as a mitigating circumstance in his favor, that by setting up protected factories Speer had kept many workers in their homelands. Your Honors will remember the depositions of Hertel, Vorwald, and Milch, of which it results that as early as 1941 Milch, first together with Udet and later on alone, had factories working in France on the basis of a free agreement with the French plants in order to employ French workers in their home country. These agreements were, as has been testified to by Foerster, completely free, because in 1941 the industry of that part of France which at that time had not yet been occupied had concluded them. Therefore, Milch was the inventor of the idea to have labor employed on the spot in foreign countries. It was not only in France that he, being the first, carried that out. You have heard that this occurred also in Holland and in Hungary. Now, if the International Military Tribunal counted this circumstance as a mitigating one for Speer, it must all the more be credited to the defendant who acted that way not merely from 1943 onward, as did Speer according to his own statement in this trial, but already as early as 1941, and was the first to do so. In this instance again the defendant proved to be a man who endeavored to mitigate as much as possible the difficulties which had arisen from the prevailing emergency. That much as far as the defendant’s activity as GL is concerned.
When I come to consider in how far Milch’s activity on the Central Planning Board could be charged against him, I am aware that some of the minutes of the Central Planning Board could, in themselves, be interpreted as a charge against Milch. But if your Honors consider that out of sixty meetings of the Central Planning Board the prosecution could only list fifteen meetings in which labor questions were discussed—this being done in some instances in a perfunctory and casual way—it results from this fact already that the Central Planning Board, as to its aim, was not charged with the guiding of manpower, which at that time was the focal point of many schemes in all countries and, above all, in Germany.
In this trial there was much argument between the prosecution and the defense as to the significance and the essence of the Central Planning Board until, eventually, with the help of the key Document NOKW-245, Prosecution Exhibit 157, the argument was decided. There it says literally, “Speer and I (that is, Milch) are of the opinion that he (Sauckel) has to be incorporated somehow in the Central Planning Board in order to get the labor assignment, as well as the material, into our hands. At the present time we have no possibility to steer it.” These words were voiced on 23 February 1943 after the Central Planning Board had been in existence for already one year. These words were not voiced at that time for the purpose of ex post facto whitewashing, but they expressed the complete truth and have characterized the situation in quite simple and clear words for always and unmistakably. No decree has been submitted, nor order of Hitler has been proved, to show that this situation was changed. At no time, indeed at no time, was Sauckel a member of the Central Planning Board. If the prosecution wants to consider the wish Milch uttered at that occasion as incriminating, they are at liberty to do so. However, this is not a punishable deed, and nobody can tell what amount of good Milch could have done if he had factually been in charge of the labor assignment. His other deeds account for the assumption that he would certainly have stopped abuses and would have mitigated all that was necessary as far as possible. The members of this trial would not believe, at first, in the depositions of all the witnesses who have been heard here, including Koerner, stating that the Central Planning Board dealt with labor questions merely for reasons of information. The wording of the speeches seemed to contradict it. But, your Honors, the witnesses have also testified before you that the speeches could only be understood if they are read. Prosecution Exhibit 157 has put an end to all such doubts. Whoever wants to pronounce here the verdict with all the necessary seriousness cannot bypass this document. Nobody can contend any longer that the defendant has not told you the full truth. Therefore, his statement under oath is to be believed, which agrees with Speer’s statement in that the so-called labor assignment meetings were held with Sauckel always with the sole aim to obtain from Sauckel, who had reported so many false figures and was not scrupulous about telling the truth, eventually and for once, clear figures. Likewise, Document NOKW-195, Prosecution Exhibit 143, the report on the meeting of 28 October 1943, held at Goering’s place, shows a constant struggle with Sauckel in order to obtain true figures because Hitler would not believe that Sauckel’s figures were completely false. It has been proved that factually both Speer and Milch have been reproached because they did not fulfill the program made by Hitler, although many millions of workers had allegedly been at their disposal. Alone for air armament, according to Goering’s calculation based on Sauckel’s figures, five million workers should have been available—whereas the entire air armament employed a much lower total of people. As Hitler was a dangerous man and his reproaches could have disagreeable consequences, Speer and Milch cannot be blamed for wanting to get this subject clear; consequently, if they discussed this problem in detail—especially during the 53d and 54th meetings of the Central Planning Board—this has nothing to do at all with labor procurement. That these meetings have not been summoned by Milch—that they have been summoned by Speer and his ministry—has been proved. Milch presided over these meetings only because Speer was ill. But he only carried through the order of his friend Speer. But even these discussions do not alter the fact that the Central Planning Board as such had nothing to do with labor procurement. These very discussions were of a purely informative nature. By them the Central Planning Board did not obtain any influence on the carrying out of labor procurement nor on its distribution. How characteristic it is, however, for the personality of Milch that he used even this discussion about Sauckel’s figures in order to reduce the millions of new workers whom Hitler had ordered in January 1944 to quite a considerable extent.
In all the discussions submitted there is nowhere a word to be found, either to the effect that Milch had requested workers for his air armament. If the need for workers was under discussion, then always only, as the defendant himself confirmed, in regard to the basic industries—that is, mining and the iron industry and in regard to agriculture. It was always a question, as the records show, of the commitment of prisoners of war. But even according to the Geneva Convention prisoners of war may be employed in mining, in the production of iron, and in agriculture. These places of work are not actual armament industries.
That Milch did not have anything to do with the commitment of Russians in antiaircraft defense, which was not under him at all; that, on the contrary, he even opposed it, and that that part of the minutes of the 33d meeting of the Central Planning Board must be incorrect here, too, has been stated by the witnesses Hertel, Koenig, as well as others equally incontestably. It has now been proved that this order was issued by the OKW directly via Goering.
Thus Milch, in his capacity as member of the Central Planning Board, was neither perpetrator of, nor accomplice in, crimes; nor did the Central Planning Board have as its purpose the commission of such crimes. Its sole purpose was the distribution of raw materials—an activity which is not prohibited under any conditions.
The third activity of Milch which could bring him in connection with the so-called slave labor was the activity on the Jaegerstab. Were one to view this membership in the Jaegerstab from the point of view of the prosecution, one could perhaps maintain the previously formed opinion that this activity was limited to the increased use of slave labor. The testimony of Speer, Vorwald, and Milch, however, have shown that the Jaegerstab had two main aims, namely, first, to raise the production of fighter planes and, secondly, to facilitate Milch’s resignation from his office by transferring the entire air armament industry to the ministry of Speer.
Formerly, to be sure, Milch was one of the chairmen of this Jaegerstab, but the witnesses—among them Schmelter, Hertel, Eschenauer and Vorwald—have testified that the actual chairman of this Jaegerstab was Saur. Milch very soon withdrew from the Jaegerstab; in March 1944 he still participated in fifteen meetings, in April only eight, in May only five, and in June only two. Nothing proves the veracity of the testimony of the defendant more than the quite obvious decrease in his participation. If one considers the fact that the Jaegerstab held its meetings daily one realizes how rapidly the decrease in the activity of the defendant was. If one considers furthermore that he was not always present at the meetings at all, that he did not hear most of the details of the discussions at these meetings, one can say with certainty that he was really not the man who had the biggest influence in the Jaegerstab, and who performed the practical work there. The expression “breakfast director”, which the witness Dorsch applied to the defendant, characterizes the situation excellently. The Jaegerstab was concerned with labor questions only insofar as it guided the so-called transfer of workers who were already working in industry, in the event changes in production occurred, especially effecting, as far as possible, their transfer from closed down bomber factories to fighter plane factories. However, in this connection it is almost exclusively a question of so-called skilled workers, as the witness Schmelter, a specialist in this field, has confirmed. In this process no new workers of any kind were introduced into industry. The witness Schmelter, however, finally expressly confirmed that no real influence was exerted on Sauckel and his offices. Wishes regarding the transfer were merely referred to the Organization Sauckel. This fact in particular was emphasized in the statement of Schmelter with all the clarity desirable.
Thus, it has been proved in regard to this committee, too, that it had nothing to do with the bringing of workers into Germany from abroad, nor dealt with their redistribution. Thus, it was also not the purpose of the Jaegerstab to decide labor questions. Finally, it has thus been clarified that the ministry of Speer was the office which handled labor questions, insofar as it was necessary in the framework of the transfers. On the basis of the submitted documents, it seems at first as though the Jaegerstab had initiated and carried out the building of underground factories or of concrete protected factories above ground. The witnesses Speer, Hertel, Eschenauer, Koenig, Pendele, as well as Milch, himself, however, all clearly and decisively confirmed that these constructions were ordered directly by Hitler and Goering, and that the defendant had opposed these orders because he considered them senseless. It has furthermore been declared that Hitler himself, handled the needs of workers for these undesirable constructions. The Jaegerstab was connected with these constructions, according to all the testimony, only to the extent that it had to examine which ones of the fighter plane factories had to be installed in them. In this connection it must be remembered that a number of these constructions were also allocated for armament factories of the Wehrmacht. Thus, Milch also cannot be charged with any responsibility in this count. He was neither formally nor actually in a position to prevent Hitler’s and Goering’s orders.
Nor had Milch anything to do with the allocation of Hungarian Jews to these factories, quite apart from the fact that it has been made clear that these Jews were allocated only in the summer of 1944, which was stated by the last prosecution witness, Krysiak, that is, at a time when Milch had withdrawn from his office for some time. It has been proved that Hitler issued relevant orders here and that the Jaegerstab trip to Hungary was entirely unconnected with this matter because it was undertaken solely for the purpose of a conference with the legal Hungarian government. These consultations were merely concerned with agreements regarding aircraft production by the Hungarian industry in the large caves near the Danube. Not one single document has shown that Milch either agreed to or welcomed the employment of Hungarian Jews.
To sum up, I may say then that even within the Jaegerstab Milch was neither a principal nor an abetter in the crimes listed in the indictment. I might add that it was not the purpose of the Jaegerstab to carry out such crimes. In any case he was by no means the leading man on that board. It has been found with certainty beyond all doubt that the Jaegerstab served the purpose of helping the defendant to withdraw from office.
Mention must also be made of the question of concentration camp inmates working. Before going into details, I should like to make a few basic remarks. From all the trials in which I acted as counsel, from the questions asked in this courtroom, from various discussions I have had with citizens of your country, I have, your Honors, attained the certainty that in your circles no one believes in the truthfulness of the defendants’ and all other witnesses’ statements, namely that the average German knew nothing about the happenings in the concentration camps and that the defendant did not know of the existence of such camps, with the exception of Dachau and Oranienburg. As most Germans certify to this and as all witnesses swear to this under oath, it is first of all difficult to understand why such statements are not believed. It can only be explained by the fact that the citizens of your country have been so much influenced by press propaganda and the newly discovered facts that they put more trust in the reports of their newspapers than in the assurances of the citizens of a country which is now known throughout the world as the place of origin of many atrocities.
But should such prejudice which does not originate from [one’s] own and actual experience influence the judgment? I believe and always have believed that it is one of the essential laws of justice to base one’s judgment strictly on facts which have become evident during a trial. It is a proven fact that in Germany no one was allowed to write about concentration camps; that the rules of secrecy which had been imposed by the dictatorial regime had to be kept very strictly; and that even the German authorities in case of their violating these rules of secrecy, were threatened with death, as I have proved by the submission of Defense Exhibit 36.
From the statement of the witness Roeder, who, incidentally, explained that the defendant had neither the power of passing a death sentence nor of sending people to concentration camps, you have learned that the concentration camp inmates spoke to nobody about their condition. Even the prosecution witness Krysiak has told you that the prisoners did not dare to lodge complaints to anybody. How could the Germans generally learn about conditions in concentration camps? Milch, too, could not and did not learn about them, as he has told you, for the secrecy was kept even among the highest authorities. May the propaganda of your country insist on the contrary as much as it likes, what I have stated here still remains true, and I can certify it myself.
I myself who during the time of the so-called Third Reich often enough defended men who were accused because of their political views, I, who was watched by the Gestapo, who was attacked in the public newspapers of Nuernberg and especially was mentioned with name in the notorious “Stuermer” on account of my defense of unhappy Jews, I, too, didn’t learn anything about these camps, although clients came to me after their release from the concentration camp Dachau. I always asked them and I always received the answer that they had nothing special to report. It was, of course, no pleasant life, but they reported that it was not so bad.
I would ask you, your Honors, to consider how we could have learned of these conditions.
May I remind you in this connection that deeds have been committed in the east of the former German territory, in the Sudeten-German border territories of Czechoslovakia, and other countries, deeds which, even if one imagines them at their worst, remain far behind the truth. About these atrocities the international press has kept silent although one day history will speak and one will learn about them with horror. I have refused to give proof of the events which were brought about by your armies after the collapse. I could have mentioned many deeds which can be called nothing but grave infringements against the Geneva Convention. I could have given you a picture of how in the prisoners’ camps in the early days hundreds of German prisoners died of starvation. I am not accusing anyone. Shortcomings of organization and of human nature but not express orders and rules account for it.
I only mention this, your Honors, in order to point out that you did not learn about this and that it is only our unhappy and wretched people who know about it. But we who have had the bitter experience of the power of propaganda and of the force of secrecy know that ignorance of such matters can be excused and believed. Therefore, no one may say from the outset that all the unanimous statements by witnesses and the declarations of Milch are to be disbelieved. They have been sworn to; and the verdict must take them into consideration.
According to these it is certain that Milch only knew of the employment of concentration camp inmates in the Heinkel plant in Oranienburg and that he was of the opinion that these were German criminals and German political prisoners, of whose mistreatment, however, he had no knowledge. The use of prisoners and convicts is not a crime against humanity. This, however, should not have to be mentioned. In all countries in the world it is customary for prisoners to be obliged to work. In Germany this was even regulated by law to such an extent that the prisoners who were condemned to prison, that is, not to the penitentiary, also had to work. For a prisoner to have to work is not an atrocity. An atrocity can be seen only if the prisoner has to do this work under conditions which injure his health or which are inhuman.
But Milch did not know that the food, the housing, and the treatment of the prisoners were inhuman. One would have to prove such knowledge before one could punish him for it. You have heard, on the contrary, that he always did everything possible when he heard of individual cases of abuse. He even tried to help, as the Kruedener affidavit, Defense Exhibit 37, proves, in a case where he was not competent. As the testimony of Kruedener revealed this was a case of inadequate accommodations. Moreover, as the witness Koenig has testified, he instituted an improvement in the food given the prisoners at Rechlin on his own initiative, and he generally saw to it that workers got better rations.
But that does not mean that he knew that those prisoners were starving. It was unfortunately so that because of the total blockade of Germany by the Allied forces the food available to the civilian population of Germany was very poor. I myself had only had the minimum ration card; and I could tell you a long story about how difficult it was to work on such rations. Milch, however, obtained better food for everyone working under him for armament. It was he who was the first to obtain extra rations for his air armament industry because the workers worked overtime. As a number of records of the Central Planning Board and the Jaegerstab show, he obtained additional rations for the prisoners of war and, for example, sent the Russians into agriculture so that they might get better food there and be padded a little. He had an office set up in the Jaegerstab in order to obtain additional food and clothing for the workers, as the witness Schmelter has testified.
The improvement in the food of the inmates of Rechlin concentration camp was part of these measures. If he did this through his estate, it was because he had no influence with the administration of the concentration camps in respect of the issue of additional ration cards.
It would not correspond with justice if he was pronounced punishable for the employment of concentration camp inmates under these conditions. The compulsory labor of prisoners has always been lawful in Germany even before the Third Reich. He knew nothing of cruelties and atrocities or inhuman treatment. Therefore, his consent to these cannot be proved.
If I may summarize then, I believe that my opening statement for the defense had correctly revealed that Milch was not a slave holder, moreover that he never aspired to be one, that he was of the opinion that the employment of such workers was permitted, and finally that he had done everything to keep down the employment of foreign workers as much as possible and to make it as humane as possible. At any rate the prosecution’s description of him is in no way accurate, and could only originate from a misunderstanding of the man, his speeches, and of his background. Sauckel and Speer had far greater responsibility in this connection. It was they who had real influence, and not Milch, but even in the case of Speer who was higher than Milch in his position, the International Military Tribunal has granted extenuating circumstances in connection with the manpower issue. I am convinced that Milch thought employing such labor was permissible, and that he did everything in his power to keep such employment to the lowest level and as human as possible.
I am conscious of the fact that the verdict of the International Military Tribunal is a great obstacle for me, and nevertheless the Tribunal was merely composed of human beings, and it had passed judgment under particularly difficult circumstances, and in composition it opened the door to politics into the courtroom. I do not need to remind you that in the English speaking countries, several verdicts of the Tribunal were subjected to very serious criticism. I myself here attacked one point of this verdict with better witnesses and better evidence, that with regard to slave labor, for example, the International Military Tribunal based itself upon a wrong assumption. Nobody stated there that the U.S.S.R. had called off the Hague Convention of Land Warfare. I checked up on those features of defense, and I found that all the time it was only talk that the U.S.S.R. had not become a partner of the convention. The statement of von Neurath revealed that notice of withdrawal was expressly given.
Here we not only pronounce penalty verdicts or judgment, but also political judgments, whether we want to or not. Especially in politics there is always some fluctuation. Every day new facts turn up, which throw different light upon things. The distance of time which always grows greater and greater and separates us from the irritating events of the past allows an ever clearer judgment. The man who returns from battle is always confused. The more he becomes calm the more he admits justice towards his enemy.
Honorable Judges of this Tribunal, when you judge please don’t forget the whole personality of Milch. He always concerned himself as a good and noble man, and I am not only convinced of that as his counsel but also as a human being. The world would have a different outlook if his superiors had listened to his advice, which was intended to serve the people of this world, and the common will of the people, and peace. In his heart he always took the side of the fighter who fought for united Europe, which now has been joined also by his former enemy number one, Churchill. May this statement of Milch which has thrown new light upon things serve this aim. Poor and tortured Europe needs an enduring peace. May his statements also open the eyes of those among the German people who still cannot give up their misconceptions of many years, and show them what crime has been committed against them.
But you, Honorable Judges, must recognize from the attitude of the defendant Milch that he never became unfaithful to himself, and even if he had been perhaps under the spell of erroneous conception, he has always wanted the best for his and other people.
I have profound confidence in you, Honorable Judges, that you, equally detached from your own people, will find an independent, true and righteous judgment that corresponds to the truth. I shall consider it as an honor for my person if I have contributed to this through my painstaking labor.
-----
[152] Defense Counsel Dr. Friedrich Bergold delivered the closing statement before the Tribunal on 25 March 1947, Tr. pp. 2377-2435.
[153] Trial of the Major War Criminals, vol. I, p. 226.
[154] Ibid., p. 253.
[155] Memorandum of 15 September 1941 from Canaris to Keitel concerning an OKW order regulating the treatment of Soviet prisoners of war, contained in Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression, vol. VII, p. 411, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, 1946.
VI. FINAL STATEMENT OF THE DEFENDANT, 25 MARCH 1947[156]
DEFENDANT ERHARD MILCH: Since I became a soldier in 1910 my work has been devoted to my German people. In the First World War I was at the front from the first to the last day. Then with others I built up the German air lines, and when in 1933 the government asked me to enter the Air Ministry, despite many misgivings, I could not refuse to take up that task because it was pointed out to me that I could not turn a deaf ear to this call of the German people.
I have remained faithful to the idea which I conceived at the time of the air lines, that all nations must collaborate, particularly the European nations. Pressed together in a small area, and whenever possible, mostly outside my actual sphere of work, I dedicated myself to that task. I was opposed to war because my experiences from the First World War showed me that the living standard of any people would not be improved by war, and on the contrary everybody would be grievously harmed.
It was for me a matter of course, even in the late great war, the planning of which was unknown to me, to do my duty in my post. My full effort was dedicated to the air defense of the German homeland. This I conceived to be the only possibility to obtain bearable peace terms. Even though I had nothing to do with the employment of workers, including foreign workers, I considered it to be my duty to make precise investigations into the admissibility of work by foreigners, investigations which were answered in the affirmative; I also made efforts to keep the numbers as low as possible and to see to it they would work in protected factories in foreign countries.
I always made efforts to improve the living conditions of all types of workers.
My statements made to the best of my knowledge and conscience to this Tribunal were directed to the world at large, and above all to the German people, in order to show that only by peaceful understanding of the nations among each other could life and civilization be secured in future and that understanding was not only necessary but also possible if good will prevails. But I also wanted to show my fellow Germans quite clearly that an autocratic government which is not controlled must end in disaster.
My personal fate is of no consequence in this connection. I am interested only in one thing—that the German people should, as soon as possible, be relieved of their untold suffering and should join the community of nations as an equal partner.
-----
[156] Tr. pp. 2489-90.
VII. JUDGMENT
A. Opinion and Judgment of the United States Military Tribunal II[157]
The indictment in this case contains three counts, which may be summarized as follows:
Count One: War crimes, involving murder, slave labor, deportation of civilian population for slave labor, cruel and inhuman treatment of foreign laborers, and the use of prisoners of war in war operations by force and compulsion.
Count Two: War crimes, involving murder, subjecting involuntary victims to low-pressure and freezing experiments resulting in torture and death.
Count Three: Crimes against humanity, involving murder and the same unlawful acts specified in counts one and two against German nationals and nationals of other countries.
For reasons of its own, the Tribunal will first consider counts two and one, in that order, followed by consideration of count three.
COUNT TWO
More in detail, this count alleges that the defendant was a principal in, accessory to, ordered, abetted, took a consenting part in and was connected with, plans and enterprises involving medical experiments without the subjects’ consent, in the course of which experiments, the defendant, with others, perpetrated murders, brutalities, cruelties, tortures, and other inhuman acts. The so-called medical experiments consisted of placing the subject in an airtight chamber in which the air pressure is mechanically reduced so that it is comparable with the pressure to which an aviator is subjected at high altitudes, and in experimenting upon the effect of extreme dry and wet cold upon the human body. For these experiments inmates of the concentration camp at Dachau were selected. These inmates presented a motley group of prisoners of war, dissenters from the philosophy of the National Socialist Party, Jews, both from Germany and the eastern countries, rebellious or indifferent factory workers, displaced civilians from eastern occupied countries, and an undefined group known as “asocial or undesirable persons.”
In approaching a judicial solution of the questions involved in this phase of the case, it may be well to set down seriatim the controlling legal questions to be answered by an analysis of the proof.
(1) Were low-pressure and freezing experiments carried on at Dachau?
(2) Were they of a character to inflict torture and death on the subjects? (The answer to these two questions may be said to involve the establishment of the corpus delicti.)
(3) Did the defendant personally participate in them?
(4) Were they conducted under his direction or command?
(5) Were they conducted with prior knowledge on his part that they might be excessive or inhuman?
(6) Did he have the power of opportunity to prevent or stop them?
(7) If so, did he fail to act, thereby becoming particeps criminis and accessory to them?
The periods during which these experiments were conducted become extremely significant in determining the responsibility of the defendant. The evidence is uncontradicted that the low-pressure experiments were inaugurated in March 1942, and were concluded by the end of June 1942. The cold water experiments extended from August to October 1942, and the freezing experiments from February to April 1943. During all of these periods the defendant was Under State Secretary of the Reich Air Ministry, Inspector General and Second in Command under Goering of the Luftwaffe, to which post he was appointed 19 November 1941. In these various capacities, certain military duties devolved upon him, especially as Inspector General. For example, he was ordered by Hitler to take an air squadron to Norway on a purely military expedition, and during the siege of Stalingrad, early in 1943, he was ordered by Hitler to attempt to transport into Stalingrad by air food and supplies for the beleaguered German Army. His high military standing is indicated by the fact that he was one of the twelve field marshals of the German armed forces. The major part of his duties, however, revolved around the production of aircraft for the Luftwaffe. He was primarily a production man, charged with the duty of keeping military airplanes supplied in sufficient quantity to the air arm of Germany’s military machine. This naturally involved the procurement in large quantities of the two essential ingredients of production—labor and raw material—and an over-all supervision of any efforts having to do with that arm. One of the defendant’s immediate subordinates was Professor Hippke, who held the post of Inspector of the Medical Services of the Luftwaffe. Hippke was a physician, and had supervision of all matters involving the health and physical welfare of the personnel of the Luftwaffe.
The low-pressure experiments at Dachau were conducted by three physicians, Dr. Romberg, Dr. Ruff, and Dr. Rascher. It is quite apparent from the evidence that Dr. Rascher, who was attached to the Luftwaffe but made frantic efforts to have himself transferred to the SS, was principally responsible for the nature of the experiments. Dr. Ruff and Dr. Romberg were also attached to the Luftwaffe and were, therefore, remotely under the command and control of the defendant, but the evidence is persuasive that, although they were interested in and helped conduct the experiments up to a certain point, the excesses which resulted in torture and death are attributable to Dr. Rascher. It is quite apparent that the actual activities of these three physicians were far removed from the immediate scrutiny of the defendant even though their activities were conducted within the orbit of the Luftwaffe, over which the defendant had command.
Approaching now the determinative questions listed above, some progress can quickly be made in arriving at judicially satisfactory answers.
(1) As to the first question, the evidence is overwhelming and not contradicted that experiments involving the effect of low air pressure and freezing on live human beings were conducted at Dachau from March through June 1942.
(2) Approaching the second question, it is claimed by the defendant that only legitimate scientific experiments were conducted which did not involve pain or torture and could not ordinarily be expected to result in death. It is remotely possible that so long as the experiments were under the guidance of Dr. Ruff and Dr. Romberg some consideration was given to the possible effect upon the subjects of the experiments. But it is indisputable that the experiments conducted by Dr. Rascher involved torture and suffering in the extreme and in many cases resulted in death. Under the specific guidance of Dr. Rascher, the air pressure was reduced to a point which no flier would ever be required to undergo (14,000 meters). The photographs of the subjects undergoing these experiments indicate extreme agony and leave no doubt that any victim who was fortunate enough to survive had undergone a harrowing experience. The Tribunal does not hesitate to find that these experiments, performed under the specious guise of science, were barbarous and inhuman. It has been urged by the defendant that the only persons used as subjects of these experiments were habitual criminals who had been sentenced to death and who were given the dubious option of offering themselves for the experiments and receiving as a reward, if they survived, a commutation of the death sentence to life imprisonment. This claim scarcely merits serious consideration. A number of witnesses stated that they had a vague understanding that this was the case, but the record is entirely barren of any credible testimony which could possibly justify such a finding of fact.
(3) The prosecution does not claim (and there is no evidence) that the defendant personally participated in the conduct of these experiments.
(4) There is no evidence that the defendant instituted the experiments or that they were conducted or continued under his specific direction or command. It may perhaps be claimed that the low-pressure chamber, which was the property of the Luftwaffe, was sent to Dachau at the direction of the defendant, but even if this were true it could not be inferred from that fact alone that he thereby promulgated the inhuman and criminal experiments which followed. The low-pressure chamber was susceptible of legitimate use and, perhaps, had Dr. Rascher not injected himself into the proceedings, it would have been confined to that use.
(5) Assuming that the defendant was aware that experiments of some character were to be launched, it cannot be said that the evidence shows any knowledge on his part that unwilling subjects would be forced to submit to them or that the experiments would be painful and dangerous to human life. It is quite apparent from an over-all survey of the proof that the defendant concerned himself very little with the details of these experiments. It was quite natural that this should be so. His most pressing problems involved the procurement of labor and materials for the manufacture of airplanes. His position involved vast responsibilities covering a wide industrial field, and there were certainly countless subordinate fields within the Luftwaffe of which he had only cursory knowledge. The Tribunal is convinced that these experiments, which fell naturally and almost exclusively within one of his subordinate departments, engaged the attention of the defendant only perfunctorily, if at all.
(6) Did the defendant have the power or opportunity to prevent or stop the experiments? It cannot be gainsaid that he had the authority to either prevent or stop them insofar as they were being conducted under the auspices of the Luftwaffe. It seems extremely probable, however, that, in spite of him, they would have continued under Himmler and the SS. But certainly he had no opportunity to prevent or stop them, unless it can be found that he had guilty knowledge of them, a fact which has already been determined in the negative. As early as 20 May 1942, the defendant wrote to Wolff, Himmler’s Adjutant, stating:
“* * * our medical inspector [Dr. Hippke] reports to me that the altitude experiments carried out by the SS and Luftwaffe at Dachau have been finished. Any continuation of these experiments seems essentially unreasonable * * *
“The low-pressure chamber would not be needed for these low-temperature experiments. It is urgently needed at another place and therefore can no longer remain in Dachau.”
Certainly the defendant did not have the opportunity to prevent or stop the experiments if he had been told and was convinced that they had terminated on 20 May 1942, and there is no reason to believe that he did not rely upon Dr. Hippke’s report as to their termination. Considerable emphasis is laid upon the testimony that a motion picture of the experiments was brought to Berlin and exhibited in the Air Ministry Building, where the defendant had his office. It may even be said that the picture was brought to Berlin for the defendant’s edification. But it appears that he was not present when it was shown and that, in any event, the showing was long after the experiments were concluded, at which time the defendant certainly could do nothing toward preventing them or stopping them.
(7) In view of the above findings, it is obvious that the defendant never became particeps criminis and accessory in the low-pressure experiments set forth in the second count of the indictment.
As to the other experiments, involving subjecting human beings to extreme low temperatures both in the open air and in water, the responsibility of the defendant is even less apparent than in the case of the low-pressure experiments. The same letter of 20 May 1942 to Wolff does indicate that the defendant was aware of the proposed sea-water experiments. In it he says—
“* * * the carrying out of experiments of some other kind, in regard to perils at high seas, would be important. These have been prepared in immediate agreement with the proper offices; Oberstabsarzt Weltz will be charged with the execution and Stabsarzt Rascher will be made available until further order in addition to his duties within the medical corps of the Luftwaffe. A change of these measures does not appear necessary, and an enlargement of the task is not considered pressing at this time.”
It is true that Rascher wrote interminable reports as to the results of these experiments, but there is no proof that they ever reached the defendant. On the contrary, they were addressed to Himmler and to Rudolf Brandt, his adjutant. At the Nuernberg conference in November 1943, which was held after all experiments had been finished, reports were made which even to a mildly curious lay person might have indicated that the experiments had been tinged with excesses and fatalities. But two facts are striking. First, the defendant was not present at the conference and only received a report of it later; and, second, the experiments were at that time all over.
It must be constantly borne in mind that this is an American court of justice, applying the ancient and fundamental concepts of Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence which have sunk their roots into the English common law and have been stoutly defended in the United States since its birth. One of the principal purposes of these trials is to inculcate into the thinking of the German people an appreciation of, and respect for, the principles of law which have become the backbone of the democratic process. We must bend every effort toward suggesting to the people of every nation that laws must be used for the protection of people and that every citizen shall forever have the right to a fair hearing before an impartial tribunal, before which all men stand equal. We must never falter in maintaining, by practice as well as by preachment, the sanctity of what we have come to know as due process of law, civil and criminal, municipal and international. If the level of civilization is to be raised throughout the world, this must be the first step. Any other road leads but to tyranny and chaos. This Tribunal, before all others, must act in recognition of these self-evident principles. If it fails, its whole purpose is frustrated and this trial becomes a mockery. At the very foundation of these juridical concepts lie two important postulates (1) every person accused of crime is presumed to be innocent, and (2) that presumption abides with him until guilt has been established by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Unless the court which hears the proof is convinced of guilt to the point of moral certainty, the presumption of innocence must continue to protect the accused. If the facts as drawn from the evidence are equally consistent with guilt and innocence, they must be resolved on the side of innocence. Under American law neither life nor liberty is to be lightly taken away, and, unless at the conclusion of the proof there is an abiding conviction of guilt in the mind of the court which sits in judgment, the accused may not be damnified.
Paying reverent attention to these sacred principles, it is the judgment of the Tribunal that the defendant is not guilty of the charges embraced in count two of the indictment.
COUNT ONE
Count one of the indictment charges the defendant with the commission of specified war crimes, as defined by Article II of Control Council Law No. 10, in that he was a principal in, accessory to, ordered, abetted, took a consenting part in and was connected with, plans and enterprises involving slave labor and deportation to slave labor, resulting in the enslavement, torture and murder of civilians of foreign countries. The indictment further charges that he similarly participated in the use of prisoners of war in war operations and work having a direct relation to war operations, resulting in inhuman treatment and death to captured members of the armed forces opposed to Germany. The indictment alleges that these acts were in violation of international law and the recognized principles of civilized warfare and in specific violation of numerous treaties and conventions to which Germany was a party.
It is claimed by the prosecution that the defendant’s responsibility for these alleged crimes arises from his activities in three capacities (1) as Aircraft Master General (Generalluftzeugmeister); (2) member of the Central Planning Board; and (3) chief of the Jaegerstab. The Central Planning Board was established by a decree of the Fuehrer, dated 29 October 1943. That decree fitted the task of production of material goods of every kind into the framework of the Four Year Plan and charged the Central Planning Board with the procurement and distribution of material of every description. The Board consisted of Reich Minister Speer, Under Secretary Koerner, and the defendant. On 1 March 1944, the Jaegerstab was established, consisting of Speer, Saur (a subordinate of Speer), and the defendant. The Jaegerstab concerned itself exclusively with the material needs of the Luftwaffe, and was headed, naturally, by the defendant. It became apparent that neither of these two bodies could adequately deal with the problems of production without constantly dealing with the question of labor supply. Meetings of the Central Planning Board were held at least weekly and the minutes of those meetings which were offered in evidence show a constant and unremitting concern with the problem of labor. Fritz Sauckel was in supreme command of the procurement of labor for the entire war effort, and his conduct in carrying out his task has been vividly portrayed in the judgment of the International Military Tribunal:[158]
“* * * As local supplies of raw materials and local industrial capacity became inadequate to meet the German requirements, the system of deporting laborers to Germany was put into force. By the middle of April 1940 compulsory deportation of laborers to Germany had been ordered in the General Government; and a similar procedure was followed in other eastern territories as they were occupied. A description of this compulsory deportation from Poland was given by Himmler. In an address to SS officers he recalled how in weather 40 degrees below zero they had to ‘haul away thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands.’ On a later occasion Himmler stated:
“‘Whether ten thousand Russian females fall down from exhaustion while digging an antitank ditch interests me only insofar as the antitank ditch for Germany is finished * * *. We must realize that we have 6-7 million foreigners in Germany * * *. They are none of them dangerous so long as we take severe measures at the merest trifles.’
“During the first two years of the German occupation of France, Belgium, Holland, and Norway, however, an attempt was made to obtain the necessary workers on a voluntary basis. How unsuccessful this was may be seen from the report of the meeting of the Central Planning Board on 1 March 1944. The representative of the defendant Speer, one Koehrl [Kehrl], speaking of the situation in France said: ‘During all this time a great number of Frenchmen were recruited, and voluntarily went to Germany.’
“He was interrupted by the defendant Sauckel: ‘Not only voluntary, some were recruited forcibly.’
“To which Koehrl [Kehrl] replied: ‘The calling up started after the recruitment no longer yielded enough results.’
“To which the defendant Sauckel replied: ‘Out of the five million workers who arrived in Germany, not even 200,000 came voluntarily.’ And Koehrl [Kehrl] rejoined: ‘Let us forget for the moment whether or not some slight pressure was used. Formally, at least, they were volunteers.’
“Committees were set up to encourage recruiting, and a vigorous propaganda campaign was begun to induce workers to volunteer for service in Germany. This propaganda campaign included, for example, the promise that a prisoner of war would be returned for every laborer who volunteered to go to Germany. In some cases it was supplemented by withdrawing the ration cards of laborers who refused to go to Germany, or by discharging them from their jobs and denying them unemployment benefit or an opportunity to work elsewhere. In some cases workers and their families were threatened with reprisals by the police if they refused to go to Germany. It was on 21 March 1942 that the defendant Sauckel was appointed Plenipotentiary-General for the Utilization of Labor, with authority over ‘all available manpower, including that of workers recruited abroad, and of prisoners of war’.
“The defendant Sauckel was directly under the defendant Goering as Commissioner of the Four Year Plan, and a Goering decree of 27 March 1942 transferred all his authority over manpower to Sauckel. Sauckel’s instructions, too, were that foreign labor should be recruited on a voluntary basis, but also provided that ‘where, however, in the occupied territories, the appeal for volunteers does not suffice, obligatory service and drafting must under all circumstances be resorted to.’ Rules requiring labor service in Germany were published in all the occupied territories. The number of laborers to be supplied was fixed by Sauckel, and the local authorities were instructed to meet these requirements by conscription if necessary * * *.
“* * * the evidence before the Tribunal establishes the fact that the conscription of labor was accomplished in many cases by drastic and violent methods. The ‘mistakes and blunders’ were on a very great scale. Manhunts took place in the streets, at motion picture houses, even at churches and at night in private houses. Houses were sometimes burnt down, and the families taken as hostages, practices which were described by the defendant Rosenberg as having their origin ‘in the blackest periods of the slave trade.’ The methods used in obtaining forced labor from the Ukraine appear from an order issued to SD officers which stated:
“‘It will not be possible always to refrain from using force * * *. When searching villages, especially when it has been necessary to burn down a village, the whole population will be put at the disposal of the commissioner by force * * *. As a rule no more children will be shot * * *. If we limit harsh measures through the above orders for the time being it is only done for the following reason * * *. The most important thing is the recruitment of workers.’
“The resources and needs of the occupied countries were completely disregarded in carrying out this policy. The treatment of the laborers was governed by Sauckel’s instructions of 20 April 1942 to the effect that—
‘All the men must be fed, sheltered and treated in such a way as to exploit them to the highest possible extent, at the lowest conceivable degree of expenditure.’
“The evidence showed that workers destined for the Reich were sent under guard to Germany, often packed in trains without adequate heat, food, clothing, or sanitary facilities. The evidence further showed that the treatment of the laborers in Germany in many cases was brutal and degrading * * *. They were subject to constant supervision by the Gestapo and the SS, and if they attempted to leave their jobs they were sent to correction camps or concentration camps. The concentration camps were also used to increase the supply of labor. Concentration camp commanders were ordered to work their prisoners to the limits of their physical power. During the latter stages of the war the concentration camps were so productive in certain types of work that the Gestapo was actually instructed to arrest certain classes of laborers so that they could be used in this way. Allied prisoners of war were also regarded as a possible source of labor. Pressure was exercised on noncommissioned officers to force them to consent to work, by transferring to disciplinary camps those who did not consent. Many of the prisoners of war were assigned to work directly related to military operations, in violation of Article 31 of the Geneva Convention. They were put to work in munition factories and even made to load bombers, to carry ammunition and to dig trenches, often under the most hazardous conditions. This condition applied particularly to the Soviet prisoners of war. On 16 February 1943, at a meeting of the Central Planning Board, at which the defendants Sauckel and Speer were present, Milch said:
“‘We have made a request for an order that a certain percentage of men in the ack-ack artillery must be Russians; 50,000 will be taken altogether, 30,000 are already employed as gunners. This is an amusing thing, that Russians must work the guns.’”
And on 4 October 1943, at Poznan, Himmler, speaking of the Russian prisoners, captured in the early days of the war, said:
“‘At that time we did not value the mass of humanity as we value it today, as raw material, as labor. What, after all, thinking in terms of generations, is not to be regretted, but is now deplorable by reason of the loss of labor, is that the prisoners died in tens and hundreds of thousands of exhaustion and hunger.’
“The general policy underlying the mobilization of slave labor was stated by Sauckel on 20 April 1942. He said:
“‘The aim of this new gigantic labor mobilization is to use all the rich and tremendous sources conquered and secured for us by our fighting armed forces, under the leadership of Adolf Hitler, for the armament of the armed forces, and also for the nutrition of the homeland. The raw materials, as well as the fertility of the conquered territories and their human labor power, are to be used completely and conscientiously to the profit of Germany and her allies * * *. All prisoners of war from the territories of the West, as well as the East, actually in Germany, must be completely incorporated into the German armament and nutrition industries * * *. Consequently it is an immediate necessity to use the human reserves of the conquered Soviet territory to the fullest extent. Should we not succeed in obtaining the necessary amount of labor on a voluntary basis, we must immediately institute conscription or forced labor * * *. The complete employment of all prisoners of war, as well as the use of a gigantic number of new foreign civilian workers, men and women, has become an indisputable necessity for the solution of the mobilization of the labor program in this war.’”
Continuing with the quotation from the IMT decision:[159]
“* * * As the dominant member of the Central Planning Board, which had supreme authority for the scheduling of German production and the allocation and development of raw materials, Speer took the position that the Board had authority to instruct Sauckel to provide laborers for industries under its control and succeeded in sustaining this position over the objection of Sauckel. The practice was developed under which Speer transmitted to Sauckel an estimate of the total number of workers needed. Sauckel obtained the labor and allocated it to the various industries in accordance with instructions supplied by Speer.
“Speer knew when he made his demands on Sauckel that they would be supplied by foreign laborers serving under compulsion. He participated in conferences involving the extension of the slave labor program for the purpose of satisfying his demands. He was present at a conference held during 10-12 August 1942 with Hitler and Sauckel at which it was agreed that Sauckel should bring laborers by force from occupied territories where this was necessary to satisfy the labor needs of the industries under Speer’s control. Speer also attended a conference in Hitler’s headquarters on 4 January 1944, at which the decision was made that Sauckel should obtain ‘at least 4 million new workers from occupied territories’ in order to satisfy the demands for labor made by Speer, although Sauckel indicated that he could do this only with help from Himmler.
“Sauckel continually informed Speer and his representatives that foreign laborers were being obtained by force. At a meeting of 1 March 1944, Speer’s deputy questioned Sauckel very closely about his failure to live up to the obligation to supply four million workers from occupied territories. In some cases Speer demanded laborers from specific foreign countries. Thus, at the conference 10-12 August 1942, Sauckel was instructed to supply Speer with ‘a further million Russian laborers for the German armament industry up to and including October 1942.’ At a meeting of the Central Planning Board on 22 April 1943, Speer discussed plans to obtain Russian laborers for use in the coal mines, and flatly vetoed the suggestion that this labor deficit should be made up by German labor.
“Speer has argued that he advocated the reorganization of the labor program to place a greater emphasis on utilization of German labor in war production in Germany and on the use of labor in occupied countries in local production of consumer goods formerly produced in Germany. Speer took steps in this direction by establishing the so-called ‘blocked industries’ in the occupied territories which were used to produce goods to be shipped to Germany. Employees of these industries were immune from deportation to Germany as slave laborers and any worker who had been ordered to go to Germany could avoid deportation if he went to work for a blocked industry. This system, although, somewhat less inhumane than deportation to Germany, was still illegal. The system of blocked industries played only a small part in the over-all slave labor program, although Speer urged its cooperation with the slave labor program, knowing the way in which it was actually being administered. In an official sense, he was its principal beneficiary and he constantly urged its extension.
“Speer was also directly involved in the utilization of forced labor as Chief of the Organization Todt. The Organization Todt functioned principally in the occupied areas on such projects as the Atlantic Wall and the construction of military highways, and Speer has admitted that he relied on compulsory service to keep it adequately staffed. He also used concentration camp labor in the industries under his control. He originally arranged to tap this source of labor for use in small out-of-the-way factories; and later, fearful of Himmler’s jurisdictional ambitions, attempted to use as few concentration camp workers as possible.
“Speer was also involved in the use of prisoners of war in armament industries but contends that he utilized Soviet prisoners of war only in industries covered by the Geneva Convention.
“Speer’s position was such that he was not directly concerned with the cruelty in the administration of the slave labor program, although he was aware of its existence. For example, at meetings of the Central Planning Board he was informed that his demands for labor were so large as to necessitate violent methods in recruiting. At a meeting of the Central Planning Board on 30 October 1942, Speer voiced his opinion that many slave laborers who claimed to be sick were malingerers and stated: ‘There is nothing to be said against SS and police taking drastic steps and putting those known as slackers into concentration camps.’”
Under the provisions of Article X of Ordinance No. 7, these determinations of fact by the International Military Tribunal are binding upon this Tribunal “in the absence of substantial new evidence to the contrary.” Any new evidence which was presented was in no way contradictory of the findings of the International Military Tribunal, but, on the contrary, ratified and affirmed them.
The next question to be answered is whether or not the defendant Milch in this case knew that foreign slave labor and prisoners of war were being procured by Sauckel and used in the aircraft industry, which the defendant controlled. The defendant’s own words, as gleaned from the minutes of the Central Planning Board and from his own testimony, conclusively answer this question in the affirmative. He testified that he knew that prisoners of war were employed in the airplane factory at Regensburg and that some twenty thousand Russian prisoners of war were used to man antiaircraft guns protecting the various plants. He stated further that he saw this type of war prisoners manning 8.8 and 10.5 [centimeter] antiaircraft guns at airplane factories in Luftgau 7 near Munich. Sauckel, the Plenipotentiary for Labor, sat in on at least fifteen meetings of the Central Planning Board, over which the defendant presided, and discussed at great length and in elaborate detail the problems involved in procuring sufficient foreign laborers for the German war effort. He frankly disclosed the cruel and barbarous methods used in forcing civilians of the eastern countries into the Reich for war work. He related the difficulties and resistance which confronted him and the methods which he used and proposed to use in forcibly rounding up and transporting foreign workers. The advisability of using prisoners of war and inmates of concentration camps in the Luftwaffe was frankly discussed, with the defendant offering advice and suggestions as to the most effective methods to be used. In the face of this overwhelming evidence, disclosing page after page of discussion between Speer, Sauckel, and the defendant in which the defendant urged more severe and coercive methods of procuring foreign labor from the East, it would violate all reason to conclude that he had no knowledge of the source of this labor or of the methods used in procuring it. His voice is constantly heard, pleading for more laborers from this source and clamoring for a larger share in Sauckel’s labor pool. Hildebrand and Sagemeier for the coal mines, Rohland for the foundries, Kehrl for the coal and iron industries, Bruch and Becht for the rubber industry, Speer for the armament industry, and Milch for the aircraft industry—all these and others joined in a pagan chorus, in which the harmony was frequently strained, but all singing the same song, “We need laborers, men and women. We don’t care where you get them, but give us more.”
At the 54th meeting of the Central Planning Board, Sauckel stated in the defendant’s presence:
“* * * Thereupon I even proceeded to employ and train a whole batch of French male and female agents who for good pay, just as was done in olden times for ‘shanghaiing’, went hunting for men and made them drunk by using liquor as well as words, in order to dispatch them to Germany. Moreover I charged some able men with founding a special labor supply executive of our own, and this they did by training and arming, with the help of the Higher SS and Police Fuehrer, a number of natives, but I still have to ask the Munitions Ministry for arms for the use of these men. * * *.
“* * * I and my assistants in fact have sometimes seen things happen in France that I was forced to ask, is there no respect any more in France for the German lieutenant with his 10 men? * * * We Germans must make an example of one case, and, by reason of this law, if necessary put Prefect or Burgomaster against the wall, if he does not comply with the rules; otherwise no Frenchman at all will be dispatched to Germany.”
The defendant contributed to the discussion by saying:
“* * * As soon as you arrive the men run away to protect themselves from being sent to Germany * * *. The men even then will be whisked away unless quite another authority and power is on the watch, and this can only be the army itself. * * * I can find no remedy but that the army should assert itself ruthlessly.”
As indicating that the defendant was not indifferent to the problem, at the same meeting, in referring to procuring labor from Italy, he offered the following suggestion:
“We could take under German administration the entire food supply for the Italians and tell them: only he gets any food who either works in a protected factory (that is, a factory in Italy manufacturing German war material) or goes to Germany.”
Later in the same conference, the defendant made another contribution to the solution of the problem of foreign labor, saying:
“Now during the transfer it is necessary to see that the people really do arrive and do not run away before or during the transfer. If a transport has left a town and has not arrived, 500 to 600 persons from this place must be arrested and sent to Germany as prisoners of war. Such a thing is then talked about everywhere. If actions like this and other similar ones are carried out often, they would exert a certain pressure. The whole thing would be made easier, if we had control of food.”
At the 53d meeting of the Central Planning Board (16 February 1944), the defendant stated:
“Our best new engine is made 88 percent by Russian prisoners of war and the other 12 percent by German men and women.”
Instances could be multiplied in which the defendant not only listened to stories of enforced labor from eastern civilians and other prisoners of war and thereby became aware of the methods used in procuring such labor, but in which he himself urged more stringent and coercive means to supplement the dwindling supply of labor in the Luftwaffe. As Germany’s plight became more desperate, her loss of military personnel presented an alarming dilemma, resulting in the defection of thousands of workmen to the armed forces. This resulted in a shifting of the dilemma to industry, and spurs were put to the labor procurement officers to fill the widening gap in the industrial labor ranks. Every branch of war industry constantly clamored for replacements and each vied with the others for a greater quota from the labor pool. Confronted by the desperate situation, the labor procurement officers, headed by the implacable Sauckel, cast aside all restraint and set out systematically to herd into the Reich any human being who could contribute to Germany’s war effort. Under Sauckel’s whip, no means however harsh were overlooked, and no person however exempt was spared.
The defense on this count is ingenious but unconvincing. As to the use of prisoners of war, the defendant testified that he had been advised by some unidentified person high in the National Socialist Councils that it was not unlawful to employ prisoners of war in war industries. The defendant was an old and experienced soldier, and his testimony revealed that he was well acquainted with the provisions of the Geneva and Hague Treaties on this subject, which are plain and unequivocal. In the face of this knowledge, the advice which he claims to have received should have raised grave suspicions in his mind. Presenting an entirely different aspect to his defense, he testifies that many of the Russian prisoners of war volunteered to serve in the war industries and apparently enjoyed the opportunity of manufacturing munitions to be used against their fellow countrymen and their allies. Other Russian prisoners of war, he states, were discharged as such and immediately enrolled as civilian workers. The photographs introduced in evidence, however, show that they still retained their Russian army uniforms, which makes their status as civilians suspect. Be that as it may, it does not adequately answer the charge that hundreds of thousands of Polish prisoners of war were cast into concentration camps and parceled out to the various war factories, nor the further fact that thousands of French prisoners of war were compelled to labor under the most harrowing conditions for the Luftwaffe.
As to the French civilian workers who were employed at war work in Germany after the conquest of France, it is the contention of the defendant that these workers were supplied by the French Government under a solemn agreement with the Reich. It is claimed with a straight face that the Vichy Government, headed by Laval, entered into an international compact with the German Government to supply French laborers for work in Germany. This contention entirely overlooks the fact that the Vichy Government was a mere puppet set up under German domination, which, in full collaboration with Germany, took its orders from Berlin. The position of the defendant seems to be that, if any force or coercion was used on French citizens, it was exerted by their own government, but this position entirely overlooks the fact that the transports which brought Frenchmen to Germany were manned by German armed guards and that upon their arrival they were kept under military guard provided by the Wehrmacht or the SS.
It was sought to disguise the harsh realities of the German foreign labor policy by the use of specious legal and economic terms, and to make such policy appear as the exercise of conventional labor relations and labor law. The fiction of a “labor contract” was frequently resorted to, especially in the operations of the Todt Organization, which implied that foreign workers were given a free choice to work or not to work for Germany military industry. This, of course, was purely fictitious, as is shown by the fact that thousands of these “contract workers” jumped from the trains transporting them to Germany and fled into the woods. Does anyone believe that the vast hordes of Slavic Jews who labored in Germany’s war industries were accorded the rights of contracting parties? They were slaves, nothing less—kidnapped, regimented, herded under armed guards, and worked until they died from disease, hunger, and exhaustion. The idea of any Jew being a party to a contract with Germans was unthinkable to the National Socialists. Jews were considered as outcasts and were completely at the mercy of their oppressors. Exploitation was merely a convenient and profitable means of extermination, to the end that, “when this war ends, there will be no more Jews in Europe”. As to non-Jewish foreign labor, with few exceptions they were deprived of the basic civil rights of free men; they were deprived of the right to move freely or to choose their place of residence; to live in a household with their families; to rear and educate their children; to marry; to visit public places of their own choosing; to negotiate, either individually or through representatives of their own choice, the conditions of their own employment; to organize in trade unions; to exercise free speech or other free expression of opinion; to gather in peaceful assembly; and they were frequently deprived of the right to worship according to their own conscience. All these are the sign-marks of slavery, not free employment under contract.
The German nation, before the ascendancy of the NSDAP, had repeatedly recognized the rights of civilians in occupied countries. At the Hague Peace Conference of 1907, an amendment was submitted by the German delegate, Major General von Guendell, which read:
“A belligerent is likewise forbidden to compel the nationals of the adverse party to take part in the operations of war directed against their country, even when they have been in his service before the commencement of the war.”
The German manual for war on land (Kriegsbrauch im Landkriege, Edition 1902) stated:
“The inhabitants of an invaded territory are persons endowed with rights * * * subject to certain restrictions * * * but who otherwise may live free from vexations and, as in time of peace, under the protection of the laws.”
During the First World War, an order of the German Supreme Command (3 October 1916) provided for the deportation of Belgian vagrants and idlers to Germany for work, but specified that such labor was not to be used in connection with operations of war. The order resulted in such a storm of protest that it was at once abandoned by the German authorities.
It cannot be contended, of course, that foreign workers were entitled to comforts or luxuries which were not accorded German workers. It is also recognized that, especially during the latter part of the war there was a universal shortage of food and fuel throughout the Reich and in the discomforts arising therefrom foreign workers were bound to share. But it is an undoubted fact that the foreign workers were subjected to cruelties and torture and the deprivation of decent human rights merely because they were aliens. This was not true in isolated instances, but was universal and was the working out of the German attitude toward those whom it considered inferior peoples. If any decent human consideration was shown these workers, it was merely to maintain their productivity and did not stem from any humanitarian considerations.
The Tribunal therefore finds the defendant guilty of the war crimes charged in count one of the indictment, to wit, that he was a principal in, accessory to, ordered, abetted, took a consenting part in and was connected with, plans and enterprises involving slave labor and deportation to slave labor of the civilian populations of countries and territories occupied by the German armed forces, and in the enslavement, deportation, ill-treatment and terrorization of such persons; and further that the defendant was a principal in, accessory to, ordered, abetted, took a consenting part in, and was connected with, plans and enterprises involving the use of prisoners of war in war operations and work having a direct relation to war operations.
COUNT THREE
Count three of the indictment charges the defendant with crimes against humanity committed against “German nationals and nationals of other countries.” Sufficient proof was not adduced as to such offenses against German nationals to justify an adjudication of guilt on that ground. As to such crimes against nationals of other countries, the evidence shows that a large number of Hungarian Jews and other nationals of Hungary and Romania, which countries were occupied by Germany but were not belligerents, were subjected to the same tortures and deportations as were the nationals of Poland and Russia. In count one of the indictment these acts are charged as war crimes and have heretofore been considered by the Tribunal under that count in this judgment. In the judgment of the International Military Tribunal (Vol. I, Trial of the Major War Criminals, p. 254), the court stated—
“From the beginning of the war in 1939, war crimes were committed on a vast scale which were also crimes against humanity.”
This is a finding of law and an interpretation of Control Council Law No. 10, with which this Tribunal is in full accord.
Our conclusion is that the same unlawful acts of violence which constituted war crimes under count one of the indictment also constitute crimes against humanity as alleged in count three of the indictment. Having determined the defendant to be guilty of war crimes under count one, it follows, of necessity, that he is also guilty of the separate offense of crime against humanity, as alleged in count three, and this Tribunal so determines.
In exculpation, the defendant states that he was a German soldier and that whatever was done by him or with his knowledge or consent was done in pursuance of a national military policy promulgated by Hitler and in obedience to military orders. He protests that, no matter how violently he disagreed with the methods used by the German Reich in the furthering of its policy of aggressive war, he was helpless to extricate himself and had no alternative except to stay with the venture to the bitter end. It is true that withdrawal may involve risks and dangers, but these are incidental to the original affiliation with the unlawful scheme. He who elects to participate in a venture which may result in failure must make his election to abandon the enterprise if it is not to his liking or to stay as a participant, and win or lose according to the outcome.
Much significance must be attached to the meeting of 23 May 1939, at which the defendant was admittedly present and in which Hitler spoke at great length as to his plans for the subjugation of friendly minor nations and the ultimate conquest of Europe. A purported record of the events at this meeting has been introduced in evidence and has been found to be reliable and accurate by the International Military Tribunal. The defendant has throughout insisted that this record is spurious and was made by Schmundt long after the occasion which it records. Of course, it was never anticipated that this record, which was marked “Top Secret, To be Transmitted by Officer Only,” would ever be captured and its contents become known. It is not surprising that those who sat and listened to the astounding program of the Fuehrer now wish that they had been absent. It cannot be denied that there was a meeting of some kind which the defendant attended and at which the Fuehrer spoke, and further that it was held a few short months before the actual invasion of Poland, as forecast in the report of the meeting. The Schmundt paper does not pretend to be a verbatim report of Hitler’s exact words, but certainly all of the diabolical plans which it reveals were not manufactured by Schmundt out of thin air, attributed to Hitler, and then marked “Top Secret”. Even if Hitler said only a small part of what is attributed to him by Schmundt, there was enough said to advise and warn a man of the defendant’s intelligence and experience that mischief was afoot. Every sentence shrieks of war. The record hints at nothing else, and, if all references to conquest and war and world domination are eliminated, Hitler did not speak at all. At this early date, the defendant must be charged with knowledge that a war of aggression, to be ruthlessly pursued, was planned. This, then, was the time for him to have made his decision—the decision which confronts every man daily—to be honorable or dishonorable. Life consists quite generally in making such decisions. As an old soldier, schooled in the code of war and well aware of the principles to which an honorable soldier must adhere, he sat complacently and listened to a proposed program which violated national honor, personal integrity and the moral code of an honest soldier. He made his choice and elected to ride with the tyrant.
When the defendant joined the National Socialist Party in 1933, Germany was in the throes of dire economic and political distress and was burdened by a myriad of political parties, each with its separate program and all functioning at cross-purposes. The defendant elected to affiliate with the NSDAP because, he testified, he believed it offered the most likely agency for bringing order out of chaos. But very soon he must have realized that he had joined a band of villains whose program contemplated every crime in the calendar. The Nazi code was not a secret. It was published and proclaimed by the Party leaders in long harangues to the people; decrees and directives were broadcast; the infamous Streicher was spreading anti-Jewish obscenities throughout the Reich in “Der Stuermer”; Roehm and a large number of the SA were murdered by Hitler’s orders; hundreds of German citizens were cast into concentration camps for “political re-education,” without hearing or opportunity for defense; the iniquitous Gestapo stormed through the land, with power over life and liberty which could not be questioned; in public view Jews were beaten and killed, their synagogues burned and their stores destroyed. The Party proclaimed its objectives from the house-tops and verified them by open public conduct throughout the Reich. The significant fact which must not be overlooked is that all these things happened before the war was launched, at a time when there was no claim upon the loyalty of the defendant as a soldier to protect his homeland at war. He protests that he never subscribed to the master race philosophy, but 18 years before he joined the Party in 1933, its precepts and demands had been proclaimed, among which was Point 4—
“Only a member of the race can be a citizen. A member of the race can only be one who is of German blood, without consideration of creed. Consequently no Jew can be a member of the race.”
The humblest citizens of Germany knew that the iniquitous doctrines of the Party were being implemented by ruthless acts of persecution and terrorism which occurred in public view. Thousands of obscure German citizens were only too well aware that they were living under the scrutiny of an army of spies and saw their friends and relatives summarily dispatched to concentration camps for the slightest suspicion of dissidence. The defendant did not live in a vacuum. He was not blind nor deaf. Long before 1939, long before his military loyalty was called into play, long before the door of withdrawal was closed, he could have seen the bloody handwriting on the wall, for murder and enslavement of his own countrymen was there written in blazing symbols. But he had taken on the crimson mantle of the Party, with all its ghastly implication, and he wore it with glory and profit to himself to the end. Others with more courage and higher principles and with more loyalty to the ancient German ideals rebelled and withdrew from the brutal crew—von Clausewitz, Yorck von Wartenburg, Schlegelberger, Schmitt, Eltz von Ruebenach, Tesmer. These men in high positions had the character to repudiate great evil, and if in so doing they took risks and made sacrifices, nevertheless, they made their choice to stand with decency and justice and honor. The defendant had his opportunity to join those who refused to do the evil bidding of an evil master, but he cast it aside and his professed repentance now comes too late.
What a sordid picture of a civilized nation—the nation of Goethe and Heine, of Beethoven and Schubert, even of Bismarck and von Hindenburg—fawning and cringing at the feet of a small man with delusions of grandeur. Even when madness crept in to intensify his frenzy and fear of defeat put spurs to his ferocity, they still said, “We are his people. He is our immaculate leader.” Men of large capacities, even of genius, prostituted their talents before a puny renegade who used them impiously and paid off his puppets with medals and pelf. But the strutting menials stayed with him. So long as success was on the horizon, they bowed and scraped and sought to outdo each other in supine adulation. They tell us now, “Hitler was wrong.” But they never told him that. Right or wrong, their only concern was, “Can he win the war? And what will it mean for me?” They heard him proclaim as early as November 1937, “The question for Germany is where the greatest possible conquest could be made at the lowest possible cost,” and they nodded and shouted, “Heil Hitler,” and maneuvered to get closer to him. Before the invasion of Poland, they heard this bloodthirsty tyrant say, “In starting and making a war, not the right is what matters, but victory.” And this defendant, as part of the unholy array, rolled up his sleeves and said, “Let me help. Give me men and more men, no matter where you get them.”
In a civilized state which recognizes the sanctity of human lives and human rights, no man—no group of men—should be endowed with omnipotence. The history of human relations, from Herod to Hitler, has repeatedly demonstrated this to be true. Omnipotence is only for God. Be a man ever so wise, ever so benevolent, ever so trustworthy, there still exists in him the frailty, the fallibility, the susceptibility to temptation that is inherent in every man. If the only protection against the tyranny of an autocrat is his own self-restraint, that is not enough, for power feeds on power, and the temptation to stretch authority to its limit is irresistible.
What, then, of the responsibility of those who bask in the reflected radiance of omnipotence, who get their sustenance from it and who arrogantly carry out its mandates and crush any resistance to it? Are they not the hands and limbs of the monster, carrying out the orders of the head? Surely, they cannot be allowed to detach themselves from the corpus by saying, “These arms and legs are innocent—only the head is guilty?”
In an authoritarian state, the head becomes the supreme authority for woe as well as weal. Those who subscribe to such a state submit to that principle. If they abjectly place all the power in the hands of one man, with no right reserved to check or limit or repudiate, they must accept the bitter with the sweet. This is especially true of those in high places in the state—those who choose to enjoy the honor, the emoluments and the power of such high stations. By accepting such attractive and lucrative posts under a head whose power they know to be unlimited, they ratify in advance his every act, good or bad. They cannot say at the beginning, “The Fuehrer’s decisions are final; we will have no voice in them; it is not for us to reason why; his will is law,” and then, when the Fuehrer decrees aggressive war or barbarous inhumanities or broken covenants, to attempt to exculpate themselves by saying, “Oh, we were never in favor of those things.”
One cannot escape the conviction that, had the war terminated in victory for Germany, all of the acts of Hitler, including those related to the charges in this indictment, would have been hailed as strokes of genius, and that this defendant would now be elbowing his way into the front row of those claiming to have successfully and victoriously carried out Hitler’s orders and policies—in fact, claiming co-authorship in many. But with Germany defeated and Hitler dead, it becomes naively convenient to take refuge in the flimsy claim that no one except Hitler was in favor of the invasion of Poland and Russia and France and the rape of Holland and Belgium and Norway and Denmark.
The defendant insists that he knew nothing of the atrocities and violence which were cumulating day by day throughout Europe. Being a good German, he says, he supinely obeyed the decree which forbade listening to foreign broadcasts or reading foreign periodicals. He surrendered to a political philosophy which outlawed the ordinary means of knowledge and which prevented the formation of rationalized opinion or judgment. No one might read or listen or talk except in predetermined channels. Ignorance was prescribed by law. The first weapon of tyranny is to keep its victims in darkness. The Germans were an intelligent, cultured people; they were not ignorant serfs. What a travesty to say that a people which has produced some of the greatest intellects in human history is not fit to be told the truth.
Desperate and discouraged peoples, distraught with the crushing problems of hunger and insecurity, have always cried out for a miracle worker to lead them out of the wilderness. Then is the golden opportunity for the mountebank with bland promises and soothing phrases to provide a poisonous panacea for their distress. In their desperation they fail to realize that despotism has a way of beginning with benevolence and ends by being merely despotic. Masquerading in the mantle of a messiah, the wily opportunist lulls them into subscribing to some glib Fuehrerprinzip which means, “Ask no questions; leave everything to me.” And when the debacle comes, they realize that they have left everything to him—honor, dignity, self-respect, liberty, even life itself—and they end up degraded, ashamed, impoverished, and hopeless. But have they ended up wiser? The universal fear today is that in their desperation they will repeat the vicious process by saying, “Last time we picked the wrong man. Let us seek a new messiah. He will save us.” The lessons of one generation are quickly forgotten by the next, but the inexorable laws of nature are immutable. The tragic fruits of tyranny and intolerance will always be the moral decay of peoples and the degradation of human dignity.
Over the heavy gates which shut in the hapless victims at Dachau is a legend reading, “Work will set you free.” The toil of slaves cannot set them free; it only serves to further enslave them. Some day an enlightened German people will storm those gates and all others like them and recast them into an image of Truth—an imperishable figure with eyes open and unbandaged. So long as Truth stands free and untarnished, no future Hitler will ever arise to deceive and degrade the German nation. Then there will never be another Dachau.
[Signed] ROBERT M. TOMS PRESIDING JUDGE FITZROY D. PHILLIPS JUDGE MICHAEL A. MUSMANNO JUDGE SENTENCE
This Tribunal takes no pleasures in performing the duty which confronts it, but the deliberate enslavement of millions must not go unexpiated. The barbarous acts which have been revealed here originated in the lust and ambition of comparatively few men, but all Germans are paying and will pay for the degradation of their souls and the debasement of the German honor, caused by following the false prophets who led them to disaster.
It would be a travesty on justice to permit those false leaders, including this defendant, to escape responsibility for the deception and betrayal of their people. It would be even a greater injustice to view with complacence the mass graves of millions of men, women, and children whose only crime was that they stood in Hitler’s way. Retribution for such crimes against humanity must be swift and certain. Future would-be dictators and their subservient satellites must know what follows their defilement of international law and of every type of decency and fair dealing with their fellow men. Civilization will be satisfied with nothing less.
It is the sentence of this Tribunal that the defendant Erhard Milch be confined to the Rebdorf Prison for the remainder of his natural life.
-----
[157] Concurring opinions were filed by Judge Musmanno, see pp. 797-859, and by Judge Phillips, see pp. 860-878.
[158] Trial of the Major War Criminals, vol. I, pp. 243-47, Nuremberg, 1947.
[159] Ibid., pp. 381-83.
B. Concurring Opinion by Judge Michael A. Musmanno
The defendant is Erhard Milch, Field Marshal in the German Luftwaffe, Inspector General of the Luftwaffe, State Secretary in the Air Ministry, Generalluftzeugmeister, representative of the Wehrmacht on the Central Planning Board, Chief of the Jaegerstab and member of the Nazi Party. He stands indicted of war crimes and crimes against humanity as defined in Control Council Law No. 10, enacted by Allied Control Council on 20 December 1945.
The indictment contains three counts which may be briefly summarized as follows:
COUNT ONE
Erhard Milch is charged with having knowingly committed war crimes as principal and accessory in enterprises involving slave labor and having also willingly and knowingly participated in enterprises involving the use of prisoners of war in war operations contrary to international convention and the laws and customs of war.
COUNT TWO
The defendant is accused of having knowingly and willfully participated in enterprises involving fatal medical experiments upon subjects without their consent.
COUNT THREE
In the third count the defendant is charged with responsibility for slave labor and fatal medical experiments, in the same manner as indicated in the first two counts, except that here the alleged victims are declared to be German nationals and nationals of other countries.
The defendant has entered a general denial of Not Guilty to all counts. To the charges of slave labor he has answered in effect—
1. That the term slave labor is a misnomer and that all foreign workmen in Germany during the war were there of their own free will.
2. That if they did not come voluntarily they were treated humanely, considerately, and were not subjected to any ill-treatment either in transportation or while actively employed for the Reich.
3. That if ill-treatment, fatal or otherwise, of foreign workmen occurred, the defendant was in no way responsible for such ill-treatment.
To the charges of responsibility for fatal medical experiments inflicted on involuntary subjects, the defendant replies substantially—
1. That the high-altitude and freezing experiments were not painful to the subjects, nor did any illegal deaths result therefrom.
2. That if fatalities did occur, they were suffered by those already condemned to death, or were caused by persons over whom the defendant had no control.
3. That in any event, Milch was in no way officially connected with the illegal and fatal experiments.
I. SLAVE LABOR (a) Methods of Recruitment
The defense has affirmatively asserted that there was no slave labor in Germany during the war, or that if it did exist, its scope was negligible. The Tribunal finds that this assertion is not supported by the testimony in the case. It concludes, on the contrary, from the evidence presented at this trial that the German Reich during World War II did actively and plenarily employ slave labor. It further is of the opinion that the Third Reich used and abused slave labor to an extent and in a manner hitherto unknown in either modern or ancient history. The exploitation of human beings by Germany during the years of the war must take its place, in point of cruelty and inhumaneness, with the most iniquitous slave practices of the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians, and Persians. The building of the Pyramids, the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, and other ancient landmarks under whip and lash have their modern counterpart in the German building of the Western Wall, the Gothic Line, military fortifications, concentration camps, and munitions factories. The guilt of the German Reich is greater than that of the ancient empires because in that area of antiquity the immorality of human bondage was not universally accepted, whereas in 1939 no country in the sisterhood of civilized nations had failed to condemn and outlaw involuntary servitude in its every form.
It is submitted in behalf of the defendant that foreign workers came to Germany of their own will. It is true that in the early stages of the European conflict, Germany offered such inducements in foreign countries as to persuade numbers of their subjects voluntarily to proceed to that country for remunerative employment. In those first days of Blitzkrieg when nation after nation fell helplessly under the invincible Nazi war machine, workers accepted employment in Germany not only because of promises made, but because exterior evidence to their bewildered minds seemed to portend that soon the frontiers of Germany would be coterminous with the boundaries of Europe itself. Thus, but small choice remained to them; whether they worked at home or in Germany the master was destined to be the same.
However, when the subjugated peoples perceived at Stalingrad that the unbeatable German army could be beaten, when they heard the roar of American propellers in the sky and the clank of British tanks returned once more to the battle, a light of hope gleamed that it might not be true, as Hitler had said, that his rule and order were to endure a thousand years, and then these people refused the coin and currency of the German Reich. From then on the feet of foreign workers were not turned willingly toward Germany. And in the face of this defiance, Sauckel, German Plenipotentiary for Labor, declared, “Should we not succeed in obtaining the necessary amount of labor on a voluntary basis, we must immediately institute conscription or forced labor.” (T-58.)[160]
There is no adding machine tape to which one can turn to determine the exact total number of foreign workers impressed into German industry, but Fritz Sauckel, Plenipotentiary General for Labor, declared, “Out of 5,000,000 workers who arrived in Germany, not even 200,000 came voluntarily.” (T-149.) Heinrich Himmler placed the number of foreign workers at from 6,000,000 to 7,000,000. (IMT 243)[161].
On 9 November 1941, Hitler declared in a speech—
“The territory which now works for us contains more than 250,000,000 men, but the territory which works indirectly for us includes now more than 350,000,000. In the measure in which it concerns German territory, the domain which we have taken under our administration, it is not doubtful that we shall succeed in harnessing the very last man to this work.”
Hitler was never quite able to achieve the fullness of this ambitious program, but it was not due to any relinquishment of efforts in that direction by himself or his criminal coadjutors. Of course, this program was in direct violation of Article 52 of the Hague Convention which declares—
“Requisition in kind and services shall not be demanded from municipalities or inhabitants, except for the needs of the army of occupation. They shall be in proportion to the resources of the country, and of such a nature as not to involve the inhabitants in the obligation of taking part in military operations against their own country.”
In the very initial stages of the German invasions, the officiating agents phrased their demands for labor in language which gave the recruitment an aspect of voluntary action on the part of the workers. Thus, when the German forces entered Lithuania, male and female farm workers were called upon by the military administration to sign up for six months’ employment on large estates, but after the signatures were obtained the promises were not kept. (T-97.) And it was not long until all pretense at voluntary recruitment was abandoned and then Lithuanians, ordered to official agencies “only for registration”, were held there and taken away under military guards to the local barracks where they had neither the opportunity to bid their families good-by nor to put their most personal affairs in order. (T-97-98.)
There were other pacific methods to “persuade” foreign workers into employment for the Reich. Thus, Governor General Frank of Poland recommended that one way to force Polish workers into Germany was to withhold their unemployment insurance. (T-112.)
However, these genteel methods in Poland soon gave way to means more direct. Recruitment now degenerated into a fierce manhunt with unsuspecting victims being seized on the streets, in railroad stations, from their homes, even in churches. (T-83.)
“Everybody is exposed to the danger of being seized anywhere and at any time by members of the police, suddenly and unexpectedly, and being brought into an assembly camp. None of his relatives knows what has happened to him; only weeks or months later, one or the other gives news of his fate by a postcard.” (T-83.)
In Ukrainia skilled workers whose names had been furnished to the police by corrupted village elders were “dragged from their beds at night to be locked up in cellars until shipped.” (T-67.) As neither the male nor the female workers were given time to gather up their belongings they often arrived at the collecting center without shoes or other adequate clothing for the long and torturing journey ahead. (T-67.)
A directive applying to recruitment in White Ruthenia declared—
“All permissible means shall be used to obtain manpower from White Ruthenia. Do not hesitate to apply extraordinary measures.” (T-91.)
In the same directive “the recruiters” are told, “Everything you do for Germany is right, everything else is wrong.” (T-93.) So wide-sweeping was this recruitment drive waged by the SS and police in one area of White Ruthenia that 115,000 hectares of farm land became useless because the whole population had been removed. (T-93.)
Goering bluntly declared in a speech at the Reich Ministry of Air on 7 November 1941, in connection with the Four Year Plan that Poles, Dutchmen, etc., were to be taken, “if necessary as prisoners of war and employ them as such, if work through free contract cannot be obtained. Strong action.” * * * “Foreigners not to be treated like German workers.” (T-53.)
One Leyser in making a report to Rosenberg on the situation in his district of Zhitomir gives the answer to the assertion of voluntary labor when he says—
“It is certain that a recruitment of labor, in the sense of the word, can hardly be spoken of. In most cases, it is nowadays a matter of actual conscription by force. The population has been stirred up to a large extent and views the transports to the Reich as a measure which does in no way differ from the former exile to Siberia during the Czarist and Bolshevist system.” (T-94.)
A report on recruitment measures taken in Holland reveals—
“All Jewish Netherlanders, whom the Germans could lay their hands on, with the exception of a small group of exempted persons, were brought together here; hospitals, old age homes, institutions for the blind and other disabled persons were emptied in order to concentrate the inmates in Westerbork for deportation. Even the inmates of lunatic asylums did not escape deportation.” (T-125.)
On the subject of workers from the Netherlands, Goering said on 28 October 1943, in the presence of the defendant—
“After that has been done once, one has to modify the system for the second blow. Then the Dutch people will be no longer out in the streets on Sunday for pleasure promenades * * *. First, all the people must be brought together in a pen. Then they will be asked individually who works where. Then the men will be selected accordingly.” (T-2094.)
And on the subject of foreign exchange at that same meeting, Goering contributed this bit of wisdom in finance—
“All we need to do is to fix the rate of exchange * * * today the German mark equals 20 francs, tomorrow 23, then 27, then 40, and so forth, up to one million, or one billion. We have had all that. The same holds true for the guilder. One cigarette now costs in Holland 1.50 guilders; formerly it cost 10 cents. I merely have to say, 1.50 guilders equal 10 pfennigs or one mark equals 15 guilders.” (T-2095.)
It may be well to note at once that all quotations from the transcript represent excerpts from records and documents located in the official files of the German Reich. The evidence advanced by the prosecution in this case was almost exclusively documentary. Thus, if any observation in this opinion seems overly emphatic and appears to go beyond the restraint usually found in judicial pronouncements, it will still fall short of the force of language employed in some of the original reports made by German officials to their own superiors at the time of the events described. A top secret memorandum on conditions in occupied Russian territory declared—
“It is no longer a secret from friend or foe that hundreds of thousands of them literally have died of hunger or cold in our camps * * *. We now experience the grotesque picture of having to recruit millions of laborers from the occupied eastern territories, after prisoners of war have died of hunger like flies, in order to fill the gaps that are formed within Germany. Now the food question no longer existed. In the prevailing limitless abuse of the Slavic humanity, recruiting methods were used which probably had their origin only in the blackest periods of the slave trade.” (T-121.)
Even Rosenberg acknowledged the severity and harshness of the recruitment program and protested, not, to be sure, on humanitarian grounds, but because “endangered persons prefer to escape their fate” by going over to guerilla bands. (T-78.)
The fury with which the manhunt for workers was prosecuted reached such extremes that in many instances villages were burned down as “retribution for failure to comply with the demand for the appropriation of labor forces directed to the communities.” (T-80.)
And it was not only where large numbers were demanded that savage reprisals occurred. In a little village where 25 workers had been ordered but none reported, the German militia set fire to the houses of those who had fled. Then—
“The people who had hurried to the scene were forbidden to extinguish the flames, beaten and arrested, so that seven homesteads burned down. The policemen meanwhile ignited other houses. The people fell on their knees and kissed their hands, but the policemen beat them with rubber truncheons.” (T-80-81.)
All because the mighty Reich needed 25 men to throw into its vast workshop of millions turning out the steel teeth of war.
In the same instance the German militia continued into other villages and where they did not find the workers they seized the parents. “The workers who had not appeared until then were shot.” Then, in the report we are quoting from, appears the damning phrase which shows more than anything else to what a low ebb the dignity of man had been reduced and degraded by the German Reich. “They are now catching humans like the dog catchers used to catch dogs.” (T-81.) The report closes on a statement which must needs bring a blush of shame to the cheek of every member of the civilized human race—
“People from many villages went on a certain day to a pilgrimage to the monastery Potschaew. They were all arrested, locked in, and will be sent to work. Among them there are lame, blind, and aged people.” (T-81.)
It has been asserted that the defendant and others holding high office cannot and should not be held responsible for the acts of subordinate officers in far away places, and of whose activities they could have no knowledge. But these smaller officers were only putting into effect the policies publicly declared over and over by the chieftains. Thus, when a certain Koch spoke in Kiev and declared—
“I will draw the very last out of this country. I did not come to spread bliss. I have come to help the Fuehrer. The population must work, work, and work again * * * for some people are getting excited that the population may not get enough to eat. The population cannot demand that. One has only to remember what our heroes were deprived of in Stalingrad * * *. We definitely did not come here to give out manna; we have come here to create the basis for Victory.” (T-86.)
He was only repeating what had been said by Hitler, Himmler, Goering, and Milch, in varying forms. The defendant claims that he did not literally mean the blood and thunder declarations admittedly authored by him, and that phase of the case will be discussed in detail later. But underlings who heard these wild, inflammatory utterances did not know that Milch was only barking, if in fact we are to assume that his ferocious words were only purposeless growlings. The men in the field did not stop at words, because they were in a position to act and did act—directly on the people. Koch was not voicing a concept original with him when he said in that same speech—
“We are a master race which must remember that the lowliest German worker is racially and biologically a thousand times more valuable than the population here.” (T-86.)
Unfortunately, however, his utterances were not confined to rhetoric, but being in a position to put them into flesh and blood effect, he did so.
Quotations from documents furnishing further proof of involuntary foreign labor in Germany are too numerous to repeat in the judgment. Reference, however, will be made to but one more before proceeding to the next item for discussion. In the recruitment of 1 million workers demanded in the Ukraine, SS Major Christensen, in charge of operations, declared that whatever harsh treatment was required should be controlled. He thus orders that in arresting communist functionaries it is no longer necessary to arrest all the close relatives of a member of the communist party. He decrees further that in searching for workers “when it becomes necessary to burn down a village, the whole population will be put at the disposal of the commissioner by force.” (T-129.)
This is regarded as a concession, and then comes what must be classified as the most heart-rending utterance which has come out of this war—
“As a rule, no more children will be shot.”
Not an out-and-out prohibition against shooting children; not that more care should be exercised in the handling of children; but only a general, vague suggestion that this SS battalion of murderers must not fire at children on sight just as one might mow down sparrows or rabbits. However, if the situation requires, then of course, children will be shot with everybody else, for the order goes on to say, “Slavs will interpret all soft treatment on our part as weakness.” “The most important thing,” the directive concludes, “is the recruitment of workers.” (T-129-130.)
(b) Treatment of Workers
On 20 April 1942, Fritz Sauckel announced his labor mobilization program which contained the one supremely cruel proposition regarding treatment of foreign workers—
“All the men must be fed, sheltered, and treated in such a way as to exploit them to the highest possible extent at the lowest conceivable degree of expenditure.” (T-58.)
After the announcement of this inhuman decree of maximum work with minimum sustenance, Sauckel followed with—
“It has always been natural for us Germans to refrain from cruelty and mean chicaneries towards the beaten enemy, even if he has proved himself the most bestial and most implacable adversary, and to treat him correctly and humanly, even when we expect useful work of him.” (T-58-59.)
It can be imagined with what kindness an underling of Sauckel’s would treat a worker whom Sauckel has already characterized as a “bestial and most implacable adversary”.
As a result of the minimum sustenance directive it is not difficult to understand the report of a Dr. Hupe who stated—
“During the last few days we have established that the food for the Russians employed here is so miserable that the people are getting weaker from day to day. Investigations showed that single Russians are not able to place a piece of metal for turning into position, for instance, because of lack of physical strength. The same conditions exist at all places of work where Russians are employed.” (T-55.)
Wilhelm Jager, senior camp director at the Krupp Works, reported that diet prescribed for eastern workers was 1,000 calories less per day than the minimum prescribed for any Germans. Further, that while German heavy workers received 5,000 calories a day, eastern workers in comparable jobs received only 2,000 calories. Such meat as was allowed the foreign workers was that which had been “rejected by the veterinary, such as horse meat or tuberculin infested”. (T-103.) The clothing allowed the eastern workers was likewise entirely inadequate. They had no overcoats and, because of the shortage of shoes, many were forced to go to work barefoot even in winter. In the work camps tuberculosis was widespread among the eastern workers, caused by bad housing, insufficient and poor food, overwork and insufficient rest—
“These workers were likewise afflicted with spotted fever. Lice, the carrier of this disease, together with countless fleas, bugs, and other vermin tortured the inhabitants of these camps. As a result of the filthy conditions of the camps nearly all eastern workers were afflicted with skin disease. The shortage of food also caused many cases of Hunher-Oedem, Nephritis, and Shighakruse.” (T-103.)
These conditions became infinitely worse, of course, during the time of air raids—
“The French prisoner-of-war camp in Nogerratstrasse had been destroyed in an air raid attack and its inhabitants were kept for nearly half a year in dog kennels, urinals, and in old baking houses. The dog kennels were three feet high, nine feet long, and six feet wide. Five men slept in each of them. The prisoners had to crawl into these kennels on all fours.” (T-105.)
A Dr. Stinnesbeck reports on 12 June 1944—
“The PW camp at Nogerratstrasse was in most deplorable condition. The people live in ashcans, doghouses, old baking stoves, and self-made huts.” (T-106.)
Visiting camp Humboldtstrasse, Dr. Stinnesbeck found 600 Jewish women who worked at the Krupp factory. They suffered from festering wounds and other diseases. They had no shoes and went about in their bare feet!
“The sole clothing of each consisted of a sack with holes for their arms and head. Their hair was shorn. The camp was surrounded by barbed wire and closely guarded by SS guards.” (T-106.)
Concentration camp inmates were made to work, to which there can be no objection on the grounds of inhumanity. In fact, some useful toil is preferable to idleness in prison. But camp commanders were instructed that the “employment must be, in the true meaning of the word, exhaustive, in order to obtain the greatest measure of performance.” (T-61.)
“There is no limit to working hours. Their duration depends on the kind of working establishments in the camps and the kind of work to be done. They are fixed by the camp commanders alone.” (T-62.)
Certain “antisocial elements” were by special order “to be worked to death”. In the literal Gestapo language “death” was never used rhetorically or figuratively. Those who were to be killed through work were listed as “under protective arrest”. This included Jews, gypsies, Russians, and Ukrainians; Poles with more than three-year sentences; Czechs and Germans with more than eight-year sentences. (T-63.)
In these work camps frequently children of tender age were forced to toil.
“An indication of the awful conditions this may lead to is given by the fact that in the camps for eastern workers, camp for eastern workers ‘Waldlust’, Post Office Lauf, Pegnitz, there are cases of eight-year old, delicate and undernourished children put to forced labor and perishing from such treatment.” (T-99.)
Those who were imported for farm work fared no better than their factory brothers. A directive issued by the Ministry of Finance and Economy at Baden on the control of Polish farm workers in Stuttgart and Baden directed that farm workers were to be quartered in stables, and the employer was urged that “no remorse should restrict such action.” (T-47.) “Fundamentally”, this extraordinary document proclaims, “farm workers of Polish nationality no longer have the right to complain, and thus no complaints may be accepted any more by any official agency.” (T-46.)
To deprive a human being of the right to complain is in effect to classify him lower than an animal because even a beast of burden is privileged to announce his objections to harsh and cruel treatment. Nor were the Polish workers permitted the consolation and comfort in adversity which religion affords. “The visiting of churches, regardless of faith, is strictly prohibited.” The edict of the Ministry of Finance said further that this prohibition against attendance at churches even excluded the visiting of churches when no service was in progress. The visiting of theatres, motion picture shows, or other cultural entertainment also was prohibited. (T-46.)
“Gathering of farm workers of Polish nationality after work is prohibited, whether it is on other farms, in the stables, or in the living quarters of the Poles. The use of railroads, buses, or other public conveyances by farm workers of Polish nationality is prohibited.” (T-47.)
The difference between slave labor of this type and outright slavery is a margin faint and indistinguishable. There was no limit to the hours of work, and the employer was invested with the right, bestially inherent in the proprietorship of slave owners, to inflict corporal punishment on the worker “if instruction and good words failed”. Nor was there any one to determine whether good words had failed because the “employer may not be held accountable in any such cases by an official agency.” (T-47.)
Heinrich Himmler took a very active part in the slave labor program. Concerning commitment of manpower from the East, he laid down strict rules which, if violated, brought severe punishment. He decreed that—
“In severe cases, that is in such cases where the measures at the disposal of the leader of the guard do not suffice, the state police office has to act with its means. Accordingly, they will be treated, as a rule, only with strict measure, that is with transfer to a concentration camp or with special treatment.” (T-53.)
We learn further on in the directive that the “special treatment” so casually referred to as if it were some slight deprivation of comfort or convenience means nothing less than hanging!
“Special treatment is hanging. Hanging should not take place in the immediate vicinity of the camp. A certain number of the manpower from the original Soviet Russian territory should attend the special treatment; at that time they are to be warned about the circumstances which led to this special treatment.” (T-53.)
If workers sought to escape, search measures were to be decreed locally, and when caught the fugitive must receive special treatment. (T-54.)
Heinrich Himmler was one of the most relentless pursuers of slave labor, as, of course, he was the most notorious executant of all that was inhuman, indecent, cruel, and vulgar in the entire Nazi program. Himmler does not defy description, he invites it. He stands out in the whole hideous camp of Hitler barbarians as the most savage of them all. A fiend in human shape, a monster in the clothing of man; there is no wild beast, bound only by jungle code, which, in point of honor, was not his superior; there is no slimy, maggoty larva, wriggling in the stagnancy and stench of the foulest cesspool which could be regarded his inferior. His creed was murder, his religion massacre, his belief kidnapping, his faith treachery, and his dogma oppression in every form. Only one thing mattered and that was German blood—
“What happens to a Russian, to a Czech, does not interest me in the slightest. What the nation can offer in the way of good blood of our type, we will take, if necessary by kidnapping their children and raising them here with us. Whether nations live in prosperity or starve to death interests me only insofar as we need them as slaves for our Kultur; otherwise, it is of no interest to me. Whether 10,000 Russian females fall down from exhaustion while digging an antitank ditch interests me only insofar as the antitank ditch for Germany is finished * * *. When somebody comes to me and says, ‘I cannot dig the antitank ditch with women and children, it is inhuman, for it would kill them,’ then I have to say, ‘You are a murderer of your own blood because if the antitank ditch is not dug, German soldiers will die, and they are sons of German mothers. They are our own blood.’ That is what I want to instill into this SS and what I believe I have instilled into them as one of the most sacred laws of the future. Our concern, our duty, is our people and our blood. It is for them that we must provide and plan, work and fight, nothing else. We can be indifferent to everything else.” (T-145.)
When hundreds of thousands of Russian prisoners of war died from exhaustion and hunger, his regret was not that they died, but that it was deplorable “by reason of the loss of labor.” (T-144.)
The defense in this case denied that foreign workers and prisoners of war were maltreated, and produced some evidence to dispute the prosecution’s contentions in this regard, we quote from the affidavit of one Albin Schirmer, a resident of Nuernberg—
“From the year 1929 onwards, I was employed by the Hercules Works, Ltd. at Nuernberg (Nuernberger Herkuleswerke G.m.b.H.), and worked there in the capacity of foreman throughout the war. The necessary workers were requested by the firm from the Labor Office. The Labor Office allocated French prisoners of war, free French, and Czech workers to the firm. The free foreign workers, who also cooperated in executing the commissions of the Luftwaffe, were treated in every respect in exactly the same way as the German workers. Some lived in furnished rooms. Some lived in a camp as it was cheaper there. Working hours, wages, ration cards, and the supplementary ration cards for workers, whose hours were long, were the same as for any German. Equally, freedom of movement during leisure hours, permission to attend theaters, churches, and cinemas, the protection of the Labor Front and of strength-through-joy, permission to visit public houses and German families were available to free foreign workers as well as to German workers. Intercourse with German girls was also permitted to free foreign workers. This, however, did not apply to prisoners of war. The sanitary installations of the firm were good, and were available for the use of foreign workers, as well as of the German workers. The prisoners of war had fixed times for taking showers whereas the free foreign workers had their showers at the same time as the Germans. The free French workers were allowed free postal communication with France, and they also went there on leave. I know of only two cases in which free French workers did not return from their leave in France.
Many French prisoners of war volunteered as free workers, in order to be eligible for the resultant advantages. Even the prisoners of war had beer sent to them every day.
During air raids, the free foreign workers played their part with devotion, a thing which they would certainly not have done if they had not considered that they were well-treated.
After the arrival of the American troops most of the French workers said good-by to me in a friendly fashion, shaking hands with me, and wishing me luck. The female workers from the Ukraine too liked it here according to their statements.”
Why should one doubt that in the vast German workshop which employed a score of millions, here and there some foreign workers were not abused but in the long run fared well? It would need to be someone wearing spectacles of pitch and groping in a Cimmerian night of prejudice and pique to assert that the German people are incapable of hospitality and generosity. The very fact that there were concentration camps in the land attests to the fact that not everybody accepted Hitler’s and Himmler’s crackpot master race ideology. However, even accepting Albin Schirmer’s affidavit at face value, it is but one little flower in a jungle of evidence establishing that only a very few foreign workers were so fortunate as to be showered with the care and comforts and allowed to revel and luxuriate in the liberties vouchsafed those who were so lucky as to be employed in the Hercules Works, Limited, at Nuernberg.
As against this idyllic picture of happiness in a powder plant or strength-through-joy in Nuernberg, there is recalled the image of the last witness at this trial. He also was a German, Joseph Krysiak, and he too worked in a war factory. In December 1940, he remarked in a conversation to some friends that if America entered the European conflict, Germany could not win. The ubiquitous Gestapo learned of his observation and he was committed to a concentration camp, from which he went daily to work at the Me [ssersmitt] 109 plant at Gusen I. His living conditions were a trifle less felicitous than those described by Schirmer. Krysiak worked twelve hours a day, he had coffee for breakfast, watery soup for lunch, and at night seven men shared a loaf of bread. If he did not reach the quota of work assigned him for the day, he was beaten. Later he was sent to another factory, and of working conditions there he said—
“We were working at Saint George, Gusen II, for twelve hours. Also, the transport to and from work and back to this camp occupied two to three hours as well, so that these people altogether had only four to five hours sleep under the worst imaginable conditions. Four people had to sleep in one bed.
“Q. Did you work seven days a week?
“A. Yes, and the day and night shift, and Sundays, too.” (T-2366.)
When asked what effect these conditions had on the health of the workers, he replied—
“The most dreadful effect, the majority died in Mauthausen and Gusen II. It was a rule no one was released, but transports which were filled were where detainees would die.”
And as to his own particular condition, he stated—
“All I can say now is that I suffer from TB and I am medically being treated, and this is what those five years did to me.
“Q. What was your condition before going to the concentration camp?
“A. I was active in sports, and I was a long distance runner. I can say my lungs were not blemished at all.”
The shattering of this man’s health is perhaps only a small part of the disaster which has befallen him. From the witness stand he gave the impression of one who had been spiritually crushed by his five years’ ordeal. His voice faltered, his shoulders drooped, his eyes looked out into distance. He was alive, but something within him had perished. Perhaps he reflected on the tragedy that this awful thing which had happened to him had been inflicted by his own countrymen, not for opposing his country but for speaking a truth which, if listened to, could have averted not only his own ruin but the misery of millions of his brethren.
II. PRISONERS OF WAR
Article 31 of the Geneva Convention provides—
“Work done by prisoners of war shall have no direct connection with the operations of the war. In particular it is forbidden to employ prisoners in the manufacture or transport of arms or munitions of any kind, or on the transport of material destined for the combatant units.”
The Hague Convention of 1907, Article 6 provides—
“The State may utilize the labor of prisoners of war according to their rank and aptitude, officers excepted. The tasks shall not be excessive and shall have no connection with the operations of the war.” (T-155.)
These prohibitions on the use of prisoners of war were flagrantly violated by the Germans in World War II. On 7 November 1941, Hermann Goering, speaking at the meeting in the Reich Ministry of Air, already referred to, declared that “it would be ideal if entire factories could be manned by Russian prisoners of war.” (T-52.) Then, insofar as feeding these prisoners was concerned the notes of the speech report: “Food is a matter of the Four Year Plan. Supply their own food (cats, horses, etc.).” (T-52.)
On 20 April 1942, Fritz Sauckel, Plenipotentiary General for Labor Mobilization, proclaimed that—
“All prisoners of war, from the territories of the West as well as of the East, actually in Germany, must be completely incorporated into the German armament and nutrition industries.” (T-58.)
On 26 August 1941, the Reich Labor Ministry directed the presidents of the Regional Labor Offices as follows:
“Upon personal order of the Reich Marshal, 100,000 men are to be taken from among the French prisoners of war not yet employed in armament industry, and are to be assigned to the armament industry (airplane industry). Gaps in manpower supply resulting therefrom will be filled by Soviet prisoners of war. The transfer of the above-named French prisoners of war can be utilized only in quite large concentrated groups under the well-known tougher employment conditions.” (T-49-50.)
In a discussion with Sauckel, the defendant, and others on the subject of manpower available for the armament industry, Goering stated on 28 October 1943, that out of 2,200,000 in armament production, 770,000 were prisoners of war. (T-2093.)
On 14 April 1943, Sauckel reported to Hitler that “1,622,829 prisoners of war are employed in the German economy.” (T-90.)
Noting that the utilization of prisoners of war in the war program was a very profitable enterprise for the Reich, Goering regretted that any had ever been released. However, it was a mistake easily rectified.
“I should like to see that the prisoners of war who have been released, Norwegians and so forth, be taken again. Insofar as officers are concerned, this has been done to a certain extent. It was the greatest nonsense ever committed by us and for which nobody thanks us. We have made prisoners of entire armies and we let them go again. We do not get anything from Norway.” (T-2096.)
At a Jaegerstab meeting on 19 June 1944, it developed that 300 American prisoners of war were assigned to work at the Dornier airplane factory at Oberpfaffenhofen, but with good Yankee obstinacy, knowing their rights, they refused to work. Lange, of the Speer Ministry, complaining about this said—
“They simply sat down, drank coffee, and ate corned beef, and could not be persuaded to work in spite of threats of shooting. Now, the question has been asked if we should not start a shooting action.” (T-2102.)
And the only reason they were not shot is that the Fuehrer feared reprisals.
III. PARTICIPATION OF MILCH IN THE SLAVE LABOR PROGRAM
It was not contended by the prosecution at the trial that the defendant was aware, nor would it have been physically possible for him to have had knowledge, of all the excesses, inhumanities, and illegalities encompassed in the far-flung slave labor program which spread its cruelties into practically every part of Europe. However, its very bigness and the great production power which it generated in every department of the German war plant negates the defendant’s position that he was utterly ignorant of its existence. This opinion has gone to some length in pointing out the numbers involved in the compulsory work program, and the heinousness of some of its operations, and has quoted from official decrees promulgated in its unfoldment, not only for the purpose of demonstrating the basis for condemning the whole illegal enterprise, but also for the purpose of laying the foundation for consideration of Milch’s responsibility in this phase of German war guilt.
On 23 May 1939, Hitler outlined his plans for war to his fourteen most trusted and important military chieftains. Milch attended that then secret, and now notorious, conference. Hitler there said, “The population of non-German areas will perform no military service and will be available as source of labor.” (T-37.) This statement is taken from the memorandum made by adjutant Lieutenant Colonel Schmundt, who was present and preserved a drastically condensed record of the speech for the Reich files. The accuracy of the Schmundt record was attacked in the IMT trial and came under fire here. The defendant goes so far as to conjecture that the Schmundt statement was prepared months, perhaps even a year, after Hitler’s speech, and was intended to demonstrate Hitler’s uncanny and possibly supernatural powers of prophecy by the undeniably sure method of writing up the prophecy subsequent to the happening of the event predicted. The memorandum obviously is not definitely precise because it consists of only ten pages whereas the speech lasted four and one-half hours. As the memorandum manifestly cannot be complete, neither can human recollection (unaided by notes) be infallible. Milch, who made no notes at all, testified that labor was not mentioned in the speech, but Admiral Schniewind, also present, and who testified in court, stated that he did not exclude the possibility that labor was discussed. (T-1326.)
In any event, whether Hitler did or did not mention labor in his utterances of that day is not so important as it is that Milch was present when Hitler made crystal clear his intentions to attack Poland, and, if it became necessary or expedient, to fight other countries as well, with the inevitable subjugation of the conquered peoples. Slave labor was an inescapable concomitant of the type of total war Hitler intended to wage, and the character of which Milch could not fail to appreciate.
As a field marshal in the German Reich, Milch could not ignore the existence of Sauckel’s proclamation on 20 April 1942 that “the raw materials as well as the fertility of the conquered territories and their human labor power are to be used completely and conscientiously to the profit of Germany and her allies.” (T-57.)
But in the evaluation of Milch’s criminal responsibility for Germany’s use of slave labor something more is needed in a court of law than presumptions of his assumed general knowledge of what was taking place. It must be established that he, himself, participated in the slave labor enterprises, or knowing that such illegal practices were being committed, he, having the power to do so, made no effort to curb or halt them. The prosecution contends that the defendant, as a member of the Central Planning Board and of the Jaegerstab, and as Generalluftzeugmeister (Aircraft Master General), was thoroughly cognizant of Sauckel’s program and that he, Milch, actively participated in slave labor practices.
(a) Central Planning Board
The Central Planning Board was made up of three members, Speer, Milch, and Koerner, each having equal authority, although, as it developed, Speer and Milch dominated the proceedings. The function of the Central Planning Board in the main was the distribution and allocation of raw materials necessary for the entire conduct of the German war economy, the planning of intended construction or enlargement, and the systematization of transportation industry independent of the shortage of raw materials. During the war this Board had 60 meetings and much time was given to consideration of the manpower problem confronting the various departments in the huge German war workshop. Sauckel often appeared before the Central Planning Board to report on the foreign labor situation. Various other officials came before the Board to express their needs in connection with foreign workers. Milch often presided at these meetings. He was absent on several occasions but all quotations from the minutes of the Central Planning Board meetings, cited in this opinion, are from meetings where he was present, and he is therefore chargeable with knowledge of their contents.
Wehrmacht representatives were often in attendance at the Central Planning Board meetings, and on 25 July 1944, Field Marshal von Kluge, Commander in Chief West, issued an order on labor recruitment—
“As the only limitation, the Fuehrer has ordered that no forcible means shall be employed against the population in the actual combat area as long as it shows itself prepared to assist the German Armed Forces. However, recruiting of volunteers from among refugees from the combat zone is to be carried out vigorously. Moreover, every means is justified to seize as much labor as possible, apart from the powers granted to the armed forces.” (T-271.)
It will be noted that the Fuehrer orders that forcible means shall not be used if the population assists. This is comparable to saying that the armed robber is thoroughly peaceful in his intentions because he will not shoot if the victim surrenders his valuables voluntarily.
The proof in this case that foreign workers were brought into Germany against their will generally does not come from them, but almost exclusively from their abductors. At one of the meetings of the Central Planning Board, Mr. Timm, representing the Plenipotentiary General for Labor, reports that they are encountering resistance to recruitment—
“In all countries we have to change over more or less to registering the men by age groups and to conscripting them in age groups. They do appear for registering as such, but as soon as transport is available, they do not come back so that the dispatch of the men has become more or less a question for the police. Especially in Poland the situation at the moment is extraordinarily serious. It is well known that vehement battles occurred just because of these actions.” (T-197-198.)
The word “recruitment” will be used in this opinion not in its literal sense of voluntary enlistment, but in the broad sense of both voluntary and involuntary gathering up of workers.
It is the contention of the defense that Milch had nothing to do with the actual recruitment. It is, of course, true that he did not go into France, Italy, Hungary, Russia, and other countries, to physically rope the workers and drag them into Germany, but is the guilt any less if one sits back in his office and signs the order which casts the uncoiling rope for the far-reaching lasso?
Goering, in an interrogation conducted 6 September 1946, stated that after the death of Udet it was Milch, as Chief of Supply for the air forces, who put forward the needs of the Luftwaffe for workers. The requests were forwarded to Speer, and Speer would ask Sauckel for the workers for the entire armament branch. Sauckel, on 24 September 1946, made a very important declaration in an affidavit on the part Milch played in the matter of obtaining workers—
“Milch produced the figures for aviation. The same was done by Speer in his sphere of activity. Speer and Milch, however, also exerted influence on the allocation of workers. How far this came within their capacity as members of the Central Planning Board I cannot say; in any case they did this in their ministerial capacity.” (T-281.)
Thus, if Milch knew how workers were actually being recruited, how they were being transported, and to what they were being transported, he cannot claim exoneration in the assertion that he did not take them in hand personally. And, if this knowledge is established, then he, when he asked for workers, was, in effect, consigning foreign workers to the suffering and torture of which he had cognizance. Behind each requisition for foreign labor there shone the inevitable backdrop of the lurid scenes of labor camps with their “special treatment,” disease, vermin, starvation, whipping, illness, and death.
On 8 April 1943, Milch wrote Sauckel and Goering, announcing that in certain sections he had proclaimed an 84-hour week in the air force industry. (T-196.) The defendant has explained that this applied only to those engaged in guard work. Witness Krysiak testified that he worked 84 hours a week.
At the 1 March 1944 meeting of the Central Planning Board, Sauckel particularly addressed himself to Milch who was presiding, and said—
“Thereupon I even proceeded to employ and train a whole batch of French male and female agents who for good pay, just as was done in olden times for ‘shanghaiing’, went hunting men and made them drunk by using liquor as well as words, in order to dispatch them to Germany.” (T-228.)
As evidence that he was encountering difficulty in obtaining foreign workers, Sauckel pointed out that several dozen of his very able labor executive officers were shot. (T-228.) In France he wrung from Laval the concession “that the death penalty be threatened for officials who tried to sabotage the labor supply.” And then he adds that “if the Frenchmen despite all their promises do not act, then we Germans must make an example of one case, and by reason of this law, if necessary put Prefect or Burgomaster against the wall.” (T-232.)
It is a long speech which Sauckel makes, and then Milch replies, analyzing in his turn the foreign labor question. He complains bitterly that more men have not been called up from France—
“Four whole age groups have grown up in France; men between 18 and 23 years of age, who are therefore at that age when young people moved by patriotism or seduced by other people are ready to do anything which satisfies their personal hatred against us—and of course they hate us. These men ought to have been called up in age groups and dispatched to Germany; for they present the greatest danger which threatens us in case of invasion.” (T-236.)
“If one had shown the mailed fist and a clear executive intention, a churchyard peace would reign in the rear of the front at the moment the uproar starts. This I have emphasized so frequently, but still nothing is happening, I am afraid.” (T-237.)
When Sauckel complains about the trouble he is having in getting workers from Italy, Milch recommends—
“We could take under German administration the entire food supply for the Italians and tell them, only he gets any food who either works in a protected factory or goes to Germany.” (T-240-241.)
When on another occasion one Kehrl declared that it would be difficult to control the food situation in France because food was delivered by parcel post, Milch made the extraordinary pronouncement, “I personally as military commander would confiscate all goods sent by parcel post.” (T-295.)