No, that wasn't Richter. Richter was the file clerk for those stenographic records. That is, the shorthand report as it is available here must have gone to the technician of my department, the engineer of my department , who, according to this verbatim record, then drafted the executive protocol. That is the short one; and it is a short one. The short one went to all departments which had to be informed; and they checked it; and then eventually at the end, it came before me so that in all cases before putting it before the Field Marshal for signature, I would read it and initial it.
Q Well, neither you nor the engineer nor Richter over put anything into the official record that hadn't actually happened, did you?
A Richter? No, I don't believe so. He didn't add anything, no.
Q Did you add anything?
A No, no.
Q Did the engineer over add anything? I mean did he put words into the document that had not been spoken?
A No. This verbatim record had nothing added to it. It was according to the wording of that record that the short record was prepared. It wasn't in the form of a meeting with talk and counter-talk; it merely consisted of instructions, you see, it was an extract, so to speak.
DR. BERGOLD: Your Honors, from these verbatim records the actual orders were extracted; and they were then put into a special verbatim record; and it would therefore be essential for the prosecution, if they want to prove that these statements on the part of the Field Marshal went out as orders, to show the executive record containing such orders.
It would only then be possible that it actually happened in fact.
THE PRESIDENT: I'm talking about his having said these things; not that he issued the orders that he threatened to issue but whether he actually said then; and I think there's no dispute about that, even by the defendant, is there?
DR. BERGOLD: Yes; particularly in the case of this Reinecke protocol, you can see that the sense in itself is incomprehensible because it says at 2300 a the end
Q Witness, do you mind reading it?
A "I should like Dietrich that dispatch to punitive camp should be taken into consideration. Yes, that hardly makes sense; not quite clear. I am therefore not agreeable. You ought to make a different suggestion. Initial period, of course, can't bring anymore."
DR. BERGOLD: Your Honors, if you read this entire speech of Milch ligically and examine it logically, you've got to come to the realization that it is incomprehensible because he says at the beginning, "I want action." And he says, "There people ought to be shot"; and at the end he says, "I am not agreeable."
THE PRESIDENT: Do you think the garbled ideas are Milch's or the court reporter's or the stenographer's?
DR. BERGOLD: I think Milch is right. Your Honors, unfortunately this has not been discussed in this trial; but I have examined the records of this trial. I have made innumerable applications to the Secretary General's office. There is the most fantastic nonsense contained in the records of this very Tribunal. I haven't been able to check them all because that would be the work of a giant. But mistake after mistake occurs in the records of this very Tribunal here every day. I have been thinking of the few which I have examined where mistake follows mistake and completely distorting mistakes are apparent.
Here we are speaking slowly. Only one person is speaking at a time. There arc two court reporters; four court reporters. Whilst there those people were talking crosswise and they weren't being considerate. If somebody was talking and yelling - while here Field Marshal Milch is speaking slowly - everything burst out like a waterfall.
I am convinced that those verbatim records have no probative value because certainly they have not been taken down in their exact meaning.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I'm trying to find out just what you do contend. Do you say that he didn't make these remarks or that he didn't mean them and never carried them out?
2301 a
DR. BERGOLD: Your Honors, I allege this first of all. I deny that the wording was that which appears in these verbatim minutes; but even if it were correct, he would not have meant it. Thirdly, I allege that he certainly didn't execute them.
THE PRESIDENT: I think that's covering a good deal of ground. First he didn't say it -- Now, wait a minute, I'm taking your version of it now. First, he didn't say it. Second, he didn't mean what he said. Third, he didn't do what he said he meant.
DR. BERGOLD: No, I didn't say that, your Honor. Here again, you see, there's an erroneous translation. What I said was this. I believe that the verbatim records do not fully and correctly represent the truth and that it contains mistakes. If, however, they have been taken down correctly, which, of course, naturally must have happened on some occasions, then he didn't mean them the way it states; and they weren't executed. That's what I want to say.
THE PRESIDENT: I think that's just what I said; but we'll drop it.
BY DR. BERGOLD:
Q Witness, I am now turning to the GL meeting on July the 7th, NOKW-406, Exhibit 138. There it states"that to the achievement of Prague. I would like to say that of course it must be recognized at some stage that a foreigner can attain good output in his factory work; but in the case of the French something will be done. Gablenz, call Toennes on the phone and tell him that this is a pigsty of the worst order. But first of all we've got to try through Toennes to put the matter right. If it is not successful, then I propose that the now Heinkel Works in the East be fully staffed with Frenchmen, who will be forced to come over. If they don't work in France, well, they can work as prisoners in Poland."
Now, my first question. Who was Toennes?
A I know a Chief Engineer Toennes who later worked at Hamm. He was a member of the liaison office of the GL in Paris. But that didn't come under me. That came under Gablenz. That's the Planning Office. Otherwise I couldn't imagine who this man could be.
Q Witness, what do you know about the Heinkel Works in the East -when it was constructed and when it was completed?
A The Heinkel Works in the East was never completed. A few machines were erected. Their tooling machines and a part of the staff began to work there. There were a few engineers, I think, but this is in the territory which was continuously being upset by partisan activities. Later on because of the advance of the Russian front, it had to be abandoned. The machines were sent back; and it was never completed. But I know the plans. That's enough.
Q Witness, in July 1942 did anyone work there?
A No, that's out of the question.
Q When was there any work done for the first time, approximately?
A Well, in 1942 the plan for the construction of the works there was only just conceived by Heinkel; and the reason why the plan was conceived was because the Heinkel Works at Oranienburg and at Warmomuende had been attacked. So that it can only have been around about the middle of 1942 that the idea was conceived to construct the works in the East. That alone shows that you can't create a work like that by clapping your hands on foreign territory and it shows that the plant wasn't completed. At any rate around about that time there wasn't a single brick in its place.
Q Well; it is correct that it was only in 1943 that some people worked there?
A Yes, I can remember that the director of the Heinkel Works spoke about it and that he had considerable qualms regarding the continuous partisan activities in that territory. The plant, like a hedgehog position, had to defend itself.
Q That is enough; thank you. Witness, if Milch in 1942 said, "I am going to send these people to the Heinkel Works in the East," did the possibility exist at all at the time for this?
A No, not at all.
Q Well, then was this in your opinion a serious plan or not?
A Well, I think this was an expression such as they would call out in the heat of battle and on the basis of anger and rage.
Q Witness, I now turn to NOKW-408, Exhibit 139. There Milch is once again talking about Frenchmen; and he is saying that the proportion between French and German aircraft wasn't one to five but approximately five to one. Then he says, "I am going to shut the shop; and I'm going to have workers, and machines taking the work; and if it isn't done on a voluntary basis, I'm going to force them. Maybe I'll give them a week to think it over." Did any corresponding action occur?
A No. I said the other day that to the contrary after these initial difficulties in France, production was running rather smoothly. I described the good relationship between private industry and the defendant and described it by saying that the liaison in one works in France paid a visit to the Field Marshal in Berlin to discuss the program with him.
Q That's enough.
A But at the beginning there were difficulties; and they had to be overcome. The reason was that the French tool machines.
Q That's enough -- didn't fit outs.
A That's definitely enough.
Q Witness, in the same program Milch is speaking about Friedrichshafe; and he says: "I told Admiral Laas that he should have those come up from Friedrichshafe as soon as the first complaints were received. I'm going to have these two gentlemen, Schneider and Burger, put into concentration camps for the duration as soon as they become obstructionable; and Dr. Dornier, too, is partly responsible for this."
First of all, who were Schneider and Berger?
A These were two engineers from the Dornier Works. I don't know them personally; but the names are familiar to me from various meetings which Dr. Dornier attended.
Q Did Milch take any action against these two gentlemen?
A No, we got along with them very nicely, afterwards. It is another spontaneous statement, and I can only say again and again that we had worries, a hell of a lot of worries even at that time. You can understand from the atmosphere at the time, when he read these words, that the Field Marshal, together with myself and my collaborators were making efforts that the air armament should be a defensive armament program, and for the reason which I gave the other day, he did not succeed in doing so in view to the resistance put up by the General Staff, Goering, and eventually Hitler, to those whose reasons for desire of his to protect Germany against the attacks of the four-engine bombers of the British and Americans was not realized. These attacks resulted in increasing devastation, particularly of our air armament plants, and it was getting more and more difficult from day to day, until finally one could explode after that happened.
Q Witness, would ha have had to put these two men before a special court martial, or give special treatment,if he wanted to? He could have done it?
A He could have done it.
Q Did he do it?
A No, they did not.
Q Did he start proceedings against them?
A No, he did not. This court only dealt with cases of corruption.
Q Thank you.
A I myself was once interrogated for that.
Q Thank you. In the Exhibit No. 140, dated 4 August 1942, NOKW 409, there is talk of Frenchmen once more, He said, "I will request therefore, to be nominated as military commander, and then I'd get the group together, and I would have fifty percent of them shot, if this continues. As to the remaining 50%, I would beat them until they worked, if necessary, and if they did work I would have them shot as well, so on and so forth." Did he take any action on that?
A No action was taken, and consequently he could not have taken any action there primarily, and it was one of his routine matters, and part of which routine we used to go through the orders of the day.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you have considerably more examination?
DR. BERGOLD: Yes, I have more.
THE PRESIDENT: Then we will recess until tomorrow morning.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is in recess until 0930 hours tomorrow morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 21 March 1947 at 0930 hours.)
Official transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the Matter of the United States of America against Erhard Milch, defendant, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 21 March 1947, 0930-1700, Justice Toms presiding.
THE MARSHALL: Military Tribunal No. 2 is in session.
God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal. There will be order in the court.
MR. BERGOLD: Your honors, to begin with I would like to make a request for permission that ay secretary may collect two exhibits of the Central Planning Board from Lt. Garrett - such as we had here a few days ago. With the aid of these two copies I can prove to the court the difference between the verbatim record and the resulting executive record.
THE PRESIDENT: My switch was turned when you started -- you want your secretary to bring ...
DR. BERGOLD: Yes, that she should go to Lt. Garrett's office to have two such booklets brought here, such as were lying here two days ago, if I have the permission of the Tribunal to do so.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal is agreeable if she can arrange it with the Defense Information Center. The Tribunal is willing.
DR. BERGOLD: Thank you very much.
WOLFGANG VORWALD -- Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION - (Continued) BY DR. BERGOLD:
Q. Witness, I am coming to Exhibit 141, NOKW 412, dealing with a meeting dated 18 August 1941. Milch in this meeting deals with fluctuals and shirkers and mentions that one should discuss with Sauckel and Speer what action was to be taken with these people, and whether they should be sent into the camps administered by the SS. I have already asked you several times whether anything was actually done against these shirkers. I would like to ask you with reference to that --did anything happen?
A. No. Nothing could be done -- I didn't quite get the date.
Q. 1942.
A. 18 August 1942, because in 1941 I was not yet in my office.
Q. Witness, can you tell me why again and again this question of shirkers was being touched upon and why, apparently, an order is issued repeatedly that it should be dealt with, why there are repeated inquiries coming from the defendant?
A. Just like the Field Marshal and every one else, I was angry about these shirkers because these shirkers were people who were loafers. They were Germans who didn't want to work and they would go from one working place to the other, enjoy all the advantages, and would not carry out their work properly. And the mass -- the bulk of the German workers were working sincerely at their work --whereas these people were shirkers from their work and sometimes I felt very angry about these people.
Q. Witness, why was it that the subject came up for discussion again and again, that the defendant repeatedly went to the central camp, that this should be done?
A. Well, that is the best sign -- that nothing was actually done against it.
Q. Witness, I shall now turn to NOKW 416, Exhibit 142. It is a GL conference on 26 August 1942. Witness, on that day there was supposed to be the funeral of von Gablenz and two of his pilots. Was there on that day of Gablenz's funeral a GL meeting at all?
A. No. The funeral service for General von Gablenz and his two co-pilots in my opinion took place already at either eleven or twelve a.m. so it would not have been worth it to hold a meeting; there wasn't one on that particular day.
Q. Witness, assuming that the date of this meeting, presented in the Tribunal's report, is wrong. I should now like to discuss its contents with you. Here, too, the question of shirkers is once again discussed and a Mr. Brueckner stales that he knew that such labor camps had been established, upon which the defendant, Milch, said -- at the next conference I want to hear from you in detail as to where they have been established, who is taking care of them, and how we can transfer these honorable gentlemen who don't want to work, to these camps.
Witness, did Brueckner make such a report at any time?
A. No, I cannot remember one; that, too, would have had to go through my record department and my program department because they always compiled the program for these meetings. Brueckner made no report on that matter during any meeting.
Q. I shall now come to Exhibit 144, NOKW 286. Here we are concerned with a, conference of the 9th of September 1942, and I should like to first of all talk to you about it and then put it before you. Witness, it was during that conference that a certain Mr. Deutschmann elaborated on the fact that in front line repair shops people were deserting and Milch then said that they should have their bottoms slapped by the Russians and that they ought to get into contact with the SD, and that it would be better to slap them rather than give them anything to do -and goes on to say, "we have already drawn the attention of the Reichsfuehrer-SS to this." Who was this Mr. Deutschmann?
A. Deutschmann worked in my office. He was the man responsible for the air torpedoes and similar matters. He had nothing whenever to do with frontal repair shops and he should not have spoken about this either.
A. It is quite incomprehensible to me. He was a group chief in the Department B-7, That is the purchasing department 7 and the group which had dealt with the obtaining of aerial torpedoes.
Q. Did you ever hear at any time that this was discussed, namely, that Milch had given orders that the SD should be informed that Poles ought to be beaten?
A. No, nor can I remember exactly this particular meeting of the 9th of September during which this Deutschmann is supposed to have talked about a frontal repair shop.
DR. BERGOLD: Your Honors, let me remind you that the defendant Milch has testified that on the 9th of September a meeting hadn't taken place at all.
Q. Witness, I shall now put to you the minutes; and I should like you to look at the first page. Is the initial, the "M.A.", in the handwriting of the defendant, in your opinion?
A. No, it doesn't really look like it.
Q. Will you please turn to the following page where there is a list of participants? Does that list of participants contain the name Deutschmann at all?
A. No.
Q. Then will you please give it back to me?
A. My name, I can see, is not contained there either.
Q. Thank you. Then will you let me have it back, please?
DR. BERGOLD: Your Honors, I wish then to state that the defendant has said that there was no meeting on the 9th of September; and the witness doesn't know either that there was one. Deutschmann had nothing to do with frontal repair shops; and according to the opinion of the witness the initials in the defendant's handwriting -- I don't know whether we cannot consider them a forgery which has been manufactured somewhere.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Bergold, is it your contention then that this is a pure fabrication just made up out of whole cloth; that there never was any meeting; and that Milch didn't say this or anything else?
DR. BERGOLD: No, no, only with reference to this one of the 9th of September.
THE PRESIDENT: That's what I mean, too. Is it your contention that this -
DR. BERGOLD: Yes, that this is a forgery.
THE PRESIDENT: --That no such meeting was ever held?
DR. BERGOLD: It didn't take place, no. Deutschmann had nothing to do with this natter at all at any time.
THE PRESIDENT: Neither Deutschmann nor Milch were there?
DR. BERGOLD: Neither was present, that's right.
THE PRESIDENT: And Milch didn't say this or anything else?
DR. BERGOLD: He didn't say it, no.
THE PRESIDENT: Somebody just sat down and imagine this whole transaction?
DR. BERGOLD: That, your Honors, I don't know either, who forged it; but at any rate even the reference number at the top, ZMA, is not the defendant's, so the witness just testified. There is a similarity; but it is not accurate nor the same; and the well-known "Mi" isn't there either.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, whom do you suspect?
DR. BERGOLD: I cannot say who may have done this. It is not my habit to invent matters like that. I am merely stating that this individual record is not authentic. We are not particularly worried about one individual meeting, your Honors; but what I do consider is that what was in my hands here is not authentic, not genuine.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, there's a good deal of difference between saying that there are typographical mistakes in a report and saying that a whole report is completely imaginary and is manufactured; and that's your contention about this one, is it not?
DR. BERGOLD: Your Honors, it is my opinion that such mistakes, namely, that Milch was supposed to have been present, and that Deutschmann was supposed to have been talking about that subject at all, and that a meeting was supposed to have taken place on a day when there was no meeting, as well as that there is an initial on this which does not originate from the defendant, it is my view that these all can't simply have been errors.
But here I come to the conclusion--and of course it is merely my opinion--that here we are concerned with some sort of falsification, by whom, of course, is unknown to me.
THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE MUSMANNO): What date do you have there, Dr. Bergold?
DR. BERGOLD: 9th of September 1942. This is only the one conference of the 9th of September I'm referring to.
THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE MUSMANNO): This says September 3rd, not September 9th.
DR. BERGOLD: That's the photostatic copy. My client just tells me that on the 3rd of September there was not a GL meeting either.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Denney, the copy of this exhibit which we have indicates that the meeting was held on September 3.
MR DENNEY: There may be an error in the typing, your Honor. These papers that we have here are all from the same file that were photostated in the British Air Ministry in London; and they are in the same position as they were when they were captured.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, which date was the defendant questioned about? The 9th or the 3rd?
MR. DENNEY: I don't recall, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Judge Phillips says he was questioned about the 9th.
MR. DENNEY: I can check in the record. I believe I asked him if "ZMA" here were his initials; and he said they could be; they didn't look like them, but they could be.
THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE PHILLIPS): His answer, which I wrote down, was, "It looks like my writing; but I am not sure."
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Bergold, he referred to his diary and said that he was elsewhere on a certain date. Now, was that the 9th or the 3rd?
MR. DENNEY: Of course, we don't admit that. He never has offered his diary in evidence. He's just using it to refresh his recollection.
DR. BERGOLD: Your Honors, now I shall either have to put the defendant quickly on the witness-stand or I could make a statement to you. Anyway, he wasn't in Berlin on the 9th, nor was ho in Berlin on the 3rd of September either.
THE PRESIDENT: He is prepared to testify to that?
DR. BERGOLD: Yes, he is prepared to testify.
MR. DENNEY: If your Honor please, he was questioned about this document with reference to the 9th; and I said: "I will hand you the cover page which precedes this particular note; and look at the top there and see if you didn't put in your hand, 'ZMA' on it." Then he answered: "My name is not on there." I said, "Your name, no, but isn't that in your handwriting? Isn't that the same 'ZMA' that appears in all these other notes?" He then said: "It could be, yes." However, he is not quite sure.
DR. BERGOLD: And hero this witness now testifies that ho docs not consider it to be the defendant's handwriting. In the case of all these many documents, one doesn't matter that much, your Honors; but I am being sure that these documents can be objected to. They are not without fault.
DR. BERGOLD: Your Honor, I shall now come back once more to the question which was under discussion yesterday: that is, the difference between verbatim record or minutes, and the so-called resulting records because both were taken down, the verbatim record naturally having been taken down by the stenographer; and following that the executive records were prepared, and that one which only and alone contained the verbatim and official resolution. The difference is not that one is not an official record; the difference is that wherein the written record and those matters which are contained therein were the actual results which were to be regarded as instructions or orders, since during such meeting there was a lot of cross talking going on. One did not talk according to plan, and any one word which was used, one did not want to be tied down to. It is a better conviction for that reason that the verbatim record be prepared, this record giving it alone; and I shall now like to show you the difference of the meeting of the Central Planning Board. Unfortunately, we don't have the final record of the GL meeting, and I shall have to make an application for this later. The results of the 20th meeting of the Central Planning Board went back to the first meeting therein contained. I have chosen the 15th conference, and there we have the verbatim record of the 15th meeting, and you can see that here on these points are the results of what was discussed, and what became valid, and no names are mentioned, whether here in the verbatim record, and of the individual who made those speeches that were listed of where resolutions were passed which are on the resulting records. This is the official contents of the meeting, even if it is an official verbatim record. The official resolution and the official contents of the meeting arc only considered as only such, and I therefore want to ask the witness whether, in the case of a GL meeting only those matters were taken down in the resulting record which were no doubt the final and official resolutions on the subject. That was the object of that.
THE PRESIDENT: I think we understand just what you mean, Dr. Bergold, and it is quite usual for an official record of any meeting to be condensed, and to contain all of the conversations and comments that go on at that meeting. We are quite accustomed to that same thing.
DR BERGOLD: Yes, and Your Honor I am here to make an application to the effect that I had not the possibility to get that kind of record. If these records have been captured, then the final record, or resulting record must also be available, and they contain the official resolution which went out, and they would contain the actual action taken, and, in the name of justice I now beg this Tribunal to instruct the Prosecution with reference to the meetings which verbatim have been submitted to you, the resulting final record not being submitted, because it must be just as available as the verbatim records are. You can not think of them now in any other way, because tho words that are stated there, and because of the action, that you can judge upon him. In the final report we have the action of the defendant, and what the defendant says, and the final record as given in such order.
THE PRESIDENT: Your point is that no matter what the defendant said, that no action resulted?
DR. BERGOLD: Yes, that is right.
THE PRESIDENT: You are not attacking tho record of what he said, but only that he may have done or not done officially.
DR. BERGOLD: Your Honor, I am attacking the record that he did not carry out what he said, that it is not even certain that he said all of that.
Certainly he said a lot of nasty things, and he is not denying that, and whether it was said exactly like that in every individual case, that is not definite either. We have no course other than of certain facts of all he did and had not done, I am not denying that, nor is Mr. Milch denying it.
THE PRESIDENT: It is your contention it was a false alarm, and he let it go, and then he stopped.
DR BERGOLD: Yes, he barked then he stopped.
2315A BY DR. BERGOLD:
Q Witness, I shall now turn to Exhibit No. 146, NOKW No. 288. I refer to where the concentration comp detainees are being mentioned, and 500 concentration camp detainees who were compiled in a list by certain Herr Petersen. Witness how can you explain that "concentration camp prisoners" being compiled by Mr. Petersen? Was that correct?
A No, not by Mr. Petersen. That was an office which was in charge of concentration camp prisoners. Then when they finally came with a list of five-hundred people who would have been suitable for the work which was demanded there.
Q Just a moment. It is not correct to say that Petersen was the commanding officer there?
A. Yes, that is right, he was the commander of all provost marshall provinces.
Q Witness, is it not known to you that the concentration camp inmates were working on construction at Rechlin, at the construction of an airport?
A Yes.
Q Could you say by that for special reasons, for on experimental station, Petersen had chosen experts for the experimental list of these people?
A No, that is out of the question, no concentration camp inmates were taken for such purposes. These were secret matters, and the experiments were very secret indeed, only especially elected persons known were used.
Q Now I come to another passage. In that former exhibit of a meeting dated 19 October, I have a record which I would like to read to you in its entirety: starting with --"Von der Heyde: You are here concerned with the valuation list of the industrial enterprises which are classified into security ratings," Then -- I beg your pardon. I am afraid I talked about this already yesterday. No, I talked to the defendant about it.