Q So you were in charge of prisoners of war for the Wehrmacht starting in September 1939 when the war broke out until what date?
A I did not actually have the supervision of prisoners of war. We only had certain tasks which were important for the hone front. If the prisoners of war were in occupied territories, they were under the Wehrmacht branches generally under the Army.
2278 a
Q. Will you answer the question that I asked you, Witness? You were in charge of an office in the Wehrmacht which had to do with prisoners of war starting in September of 1939 and you continued to hold that position until when?
A. Without any change, up to January 1944. Then I was given another task; and as chief of the Wehrmacht office I was relieved by a permanent deputy. Then I took it over again fully from March 1945 until the end of the war.
Q. And at the time that you had a permanent deputy, starting January 1, 1944 you were still in charge of it, were you not?
A. Yes; but I was relieved from my responsibility because there were so many things I could not do myself. However, my permanent deputy always informed me on the most essential points.
Q. Now, you knew that prisoners of war were used to work in German armament factories?
A. Work in armament factories was not forbidden by the Convention. The Convention only forbade that prisoners of war should be used to manufacture arms, ammunition, and to transport such things to the troops. I do not recollect it precisely; but that, I think, is roughly what the Convention said.
Q. Well, you knew that in Germany prisoners of war worked in factories that produced arms, munitions, material that was used by the Wehrmacht and its branches.
A. I must make a more precise statement here. To work in such an armament factory as Krupp is not an offense against the Convention. They can be employed there and could have been employed in such work with tasks which were not connected with the manufacture of munitions and arms; but I know, and Scapini once told me that--
Q. We're not interested in what Mr. Scapini told you; and I'm not interested in your making speeches. You can make all the speeches you. want to when Dr. Bergold is up here. Just answer my question. You knew that prisoners of war worked in factories that manufactured armaments, munitions, and material that was used by the Wehrmacht or its branches, didn't you?
A. Specific knowledge I do not have.
Q. Well, did you have general knowledge of it?
A. I did not know any details that they worked at places which were prohibited generally, that is to say, that they worked on producing armaments. It was once told me by Scapini, and I attempted to clarify that matter. At that time Keitel, the chief of the OKW, told me that in that respect no objection could be raised by us, because Sauckel and the French government had come to a special agreement on the basis of the Convention.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you give up, Mr. Denney?
MR. DENNEY: Oh, no, sir.
Q. You knew that you furnished prisoners of war to Sauckel to work; furnished prisoners of war to Sauckel, the General Plenipotentiary for Labor, to do work, didn't you?
A. I don't follow the last point, that Sauckel asked ---?
Q. Well, just withdraw everything, and we'll do it in steps. Did you know Sauckel?
A. Yes, of course.
Q. Fritz Sauckel?
A. Yes, indeed.
Q. What was his position?
A. Sauckel was -- what was the name? He was the Plenipotentiary for the Assignment of Labor.
Q. Now you furnished labor to Sauckel, prisoners of war, didn't you?
A. Well, that wasn't done by the OKW, the employment of prisoners of war was made independently by the commands of the Wehrkreise.
Q. Well, all right. Did the Wehrkreis commands furnish prisoners of war to Sauckel to be used as laborers?
A. Yes, of course, in connection with the representatives of the labor exchanges and the economic offices.
Q. Yes and once those prisoners of war had been furnished to Sauckel, you lost control over them, didn't you? You had nothing to do with them any more after that?
A. The OKW, no, no. The camps according to the rules and regulations, before the prisoners of war were assigned to work had to examine the order to see if it was in accordance with the regulations, and if it was not in accordance with the regulations they were not allowed to be employed.
Q. So that you did check, you or your subordinates either in your office of the OKW office, for prisoners of war or in the various "Wehrkreisen", in and determined in every instance what kind of work a prisoner of war was going to do before he was released to Sauckel?
A. Yes, that went quite automatically through the camps. The OKW did not deal with the details at all, we only sent the prisoners of war to the aircraft command, and then the whole operation went on automatically. It was not agreed between Sauckel and OKW that prisoners of war could be sent to such and such an organization, but that was done locally on application.
Q. Yes, but prisoners of war would be sent out to the "Wehrkreisen" when the labor administration had asked for workers, and they would be assigned to the labor administration. Is that correct? And then they'd go to work?
A. Yes, quite.
Q. And then you are certain that none was ever employed in any occupation that in any way violated the Geneva Convention?
A. Well, that is very difficult to answer.
Q. That was your job?
A. No, that was not my job.
Q. You were head of all the prisoners of war?
A. Firstly I was not a superior on that question but we merely worked on that point for the OKW, and secondly, on these questions as to assignment, there were decrees according to which the branches had to act, as the Wehrkeris Commander was not my subordinate. I had no official position in this natter.
That was not organized along the American line, when then there is a commander of war. We were completely decentralized.
Q. You did not know what kind of work prisoners of war did?
A. Generally they were used wherever there was a shortage of labor in industry and in agriculture.
Q. You were a member of the People's Court, were you not?
A. Of what?
Q. You tried some Generals arising out of an incident that took place on 20 July 1944. Haven't I seen your picture in the movies as a member of the court?
A. Yes, you did.
Q. And you also were the general who on 8 September signed an order in reference to Russian prisoners of war, which order Admiral Canaris commented on 15 September 1941, which was put in evidence in the first trial, which is quoted in the judgment, and you had stated that the Soviet Union was not a party at the Geneva Convention, and Admiral Canaris in his comment on your order said that, "The Geneva Convention for treatment of prisoners of war is not binding in the relationship between Germany and the USSR. Therefore, only the principles of general international law on the treatment of prisoners of war applied. Since the 18th century these have gradually been established along the lines that war captivity is neither a revenge nor a punishment but solely a protective custody, the only purpose of which is to prevent the prisoners of war from further participation in the war. The 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 view" and to the protest made by Admiral Canaris to the orders which you had signed with reference to the treatment of Russian prisoners of war, Keitel, who was your chief in the OKW, said, "The objections" - speaking of what Admiral Canaris said - "arise from the military concept of chivalrous warfare. This is the destruction of an ideology:
therefore, I approve and back the measures".
Do you recall that?
A. Am I to have said all of this?
THE PRESIDENT: Now do you give up?
MR. DENNEY: Maybe I ought to, Your Honor, but I won't.
BY MR. DENNEY:
Q. You say you worked very closely with a man named Scapini?
A. Yes, sir, I did.
Q. Did you know who Scapini was?
A. Yes.
Q. Now he received a letter, you said you worked very closely with him, in reference to French prisoners of war?
A. Yes, quite.
Q. And anything that came up with reference to French prisoners of war of course went through him, didn't it?
A. Yes, and he passed on complaints when they were complaints.
Q. Yes, when complaints came up from below they went to Scapini, and Scapini came to see you?
A. Yes.
Q. You were the head man?
A. Yes, otherwise they went through the offices.
Q. Now I show a letter that Scapini wrote back, which is the German copy Exhibit No. 132 for identification, if Your Honor please. It is the reply that Scapini made to the protest made by the French prisoner of war Paul Le Friec, who testified here as a witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Denney, do you have English translations of this Exhibit. We don't seem to have it.
MR. DENNEY: No, I am sorry, Your Honor. Do you have a German copy, Dr. Bergold?
DR. BERGOLD: Yes, and I still want it.
MR. DENNEY: Exhibit No. 132 for identification, Your Honor.
BY MR. DENNEY:
Q. Do you recall, witness, Scapini taking up this matter with you? Just answer the questions. Don't make speeches, please. Did Scapini take this matter up with you?
A. It is possible, yes.
Q. And does this letter which I have shown you substantially set forth your attitude about this question?
A. I did not recall it that way, and as I said before Keitel had told me Scapini had concluded an agreement with the French government that the convention itself reflected -- I don't know the particular paragraph in that convention but that a new agreement had replaced the old convention, and that seems to be the case, because I now recall that Keitel had also said that the French prisoners of war were considerably helped in the future by the casening of the situation, and they were much better off than they would be under the obligation arising out of the Geneva Convention.
Q. Did you agree with what is set forth in this document. Is that substantially your position in reference to that matter? Don't tell me anything about Keitel or Sauckel or anybody else. Just answer the question.
A. My personal attitude on that point was not decisive. The decision on these matters was up to Keitel or Hitler.
Q. But whatever Keitel or Hitler said you agreed with, is that right?
A. No not at all. In many, many cases I made strong protests and I tried especially in many cases to divert certain matters with regard to prisoners of war and to prevent them from being carried out until these regulations were given. My task was to make the proposition or comment on orders which were given and these I made precisely.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you mind if I give up and take a recess?
MR. DENNEY: No, we can take a recess, but not to give up on this.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will recess for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken).
2284-a
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
Q. (By Mr. Denney): Did you know that prisoners of war were employed in Airplane factories?
A. Well, I do not know that in detail, no. I never did have the opportunity to bother with details.
Q. No, I am sure you didn't, but do you know whether or not they were? You can answer that yes or no.
A. I really can't tell you that exactly. I never dealt with the details. That some of the people had been used in the aircraft factories is possible of course.
Q. Some of the prisoners of war?
A. Yes, I think so. I take it.
Q. Well, there is no sense in prolonging this. I will read you an order that you signed on 8 September, 1941, one of many orders that you signed. Listen and see if you recall. This is taken from the judgement of the International Military Tribunal and has to do with murder and ill treatment of prisoners of war. I am quoting from Page 229 of the First Volume, the official transcript of the record.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: The reporters aren't getting it, Mr. Denney, something is wrong.
MR. DENNEY: The English reporters?
THE PRESIDENT: The German reporters.
Q. I am reading, Your Honors, from the First Volume of the official record of the International Military Tribunal in English, Page 229 of that volume. Lister to this, Witness. On 8 September, 1941, Regulations for the Treatment of Soviet Prisoners of War in all prisoner of war camps are issued signed by General Reinecke, the head of the Prisoner of War Department of the High Command. These orders stated, "The Bolshevist soldier has therefore lost all claim to treatment as an honorable opponent in accordance with the Geneva Convention. The order for ruthless and energetic action must be given at the slightest indication of insubordination, especially in the case of Bolshevist fanatics. Insubordination, active or passive resistance must be broken immediately by force of arms, bayonets, butts, and firearms.
Anyone carrying out the order who does not use his weapons or does so with insufficient energy is punishable. Prisoners of war attempting escape are to be fired on without previous challenge. No warning shot must ever be fired. The use of arms against prisoners of war is, as a rule, legal." You signed that order, didn't you?
A. Not the order. The directives had been issued by Keitel and I signed the circular. I did not issue the order either.
Q. You signed the circular passing the order on?
A. Yes, I signed this covering order upon which is written, the order was issued. In other words, this was not signed upon my orders but by the chief of the OKW, who had given the order.
Q. You passed it on?
A. Yes, of course I did. These directives had been set up by Hitler or Keitel respectively, and they had been given out with the ordinance to the Wehrkreise.
Q. You were in charge of prisoners of war?
A. I was not the commander in chief in prisoners of war matters, never, nor did I have any powers whatsoever to issue orders. I was just the office and I told you that 90 percent dealt with other things and 10 percent dealt with the treatment of prisoners of war.
Q. But part of your 10 percent in dealing with prisoners of war was passing on this order?
A. Yes, the order was passed on.
Q. By you.
A. Yes, the order was passed on, and partly signed by me.
Q. By you?
A. Yes, it was passed on by me, upon orders.
MR. DENNEY: Your witness.
DR. BERGOLD: I have no further questions, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The Marshal will remove the witness.
DR. BERGOLD: I would appreciate it if General Vorwald could be sent in. I would like to explain one thing here, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness Vorwald, please.
DR. BERGOLD: I examined the witness Reinecke yesterday, in the presence of representative of the prosecution--rather, I only saw him, with Mr. Kaufmann, and I did not ask him any further questions than what I had asked him here in this Tribunal. The whole thing only took five minutes.
THE PRESIDENT: This witness has been sworn heretofore. I advise the witness that any statements now made will be made under oath, under the oath administered when he was a witness previously. Do you understand?
THE WITNESS: Yes I do.
General Vorwald, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. BERGOLD:
Q. Witness, I will submit to you a document, NOKW-352, Exhibit No 132. The speech of the Plenipotentiary General for Lacor, Sauckel, will be submitted to you and I want you to take a look at it. (Document handed to witness. ) Would you look up page number one of the speech, or number two, as it says here --
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Bergold, Exhibit 132 is the Soapini letter.
DR. BERGOLD: Oh, yes. 133 --excuse me.
Q. (Cont'd) I want you to take a look at Page number 11 and page number 12. Can you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. You will find there dashes in parentheses marked in red pencil.
A. Yes.
2287 (a)
Q Witness, in the office of the GL, was it customary that only Milch used a red pencil, or did other gentlemen in there also use a red pencil?
A No. I, for instance, myself, also used a red pencil. Other gentlemen also used a red pencil. The Field Marshal, most of the time, if he marked something, and if he made certain remarks to it, he resigned it by putting MI and also the date.
Q Thank you. Witness, were you present at the conference which took place on the 28th of October 1943 with Goering and were Speer and Sauckel also present?
A No, I was not there when they were there.
Q I shall come now to Exhibit No. -- just a moment, please. My other copies were not in order.
Witness; did you ever find cut at any place that Americans were to be employed at the firm of Dornier-Oberpfaffenhofen in June 1944?
A No.
Q Did Herr Milch ever tell you that he had ordered or agreed to having Americans work in the air armament?
A No, and I never heard of that, and I don't believe Americans were employed.
Q Witness, I shall come now to NOKW-418, Exhibit No. 136. This is a meeting with the GL. I would like to ask you now, generally speaking, with reference to this GL meeting, what kind of records were taken during the GL conferences?
A I already mentioned that fact last time. There was a verbatim record which was taken down by two female stenographers, and this verbatim record was then reviewed by an engineer of my office, namely, of the "C" Office, or rather, taken by him, and that record was completed which was to go to the various divisions of the offices, and the various places of the Ministry, and to all those people who were interested in it. In other words, the small record is the only one that went out, which had been regularly signed by myself and submitted to the Field Marshal.
Only this record had any value whatsoever on the outside. The verbatim records were kept by Herr Richter, who sent them to Mr. Milch, and therefore there were only two copies of every meeting.
Q. Witness, if you say in other words, those office records or executive records were signed by you, what do you mean by that? Can you explain why this happened?
A. Yes, in these long verbatim records there were so many things that were not considered very important, and what happened during the conversation which was not too important, or something which was not on the record, was struck out. The most important things or the most important conclusions that were reached during the meetings, and the directives that went out to the various offices, and whatever was important for the GL, we compiled that in a short record which contained either three or four pages.
Q. Witness, and you reviewed those records.
A. Yes, everytime, because most of the time they were technical things which were being discussed there, things perhaps that the planning office was interested in, which was our parallel office and they were controlled or reviewed by the chief of that branch, and I received it as the last person and I then sent it to the Field Marshal for his signature.
Q. In other words, one can say that records from the GL conference which were not signed by you and Milch had no value whatsoever, not an official value anyway?
A. Yes.
Q. Witness, you said that these verbatim records were kept by Herr Richter in the ante-room of Mr. Milch?
A. Yes, I only went through one of these records myself.
Q. Was it entirely correct or did it contain mistakes?
A. This verbatim record was full of mistakes, and it is quite obvious because at such a meeting where perhaps thirty to fifty people were present, sometimes there were several interpolations, and two shorthand stenographers could not possibly follow.
Q. Witness, is there the possibility that the stenographers used their takes in order to make copies of those and give than to other people?
What were the orders the stenographers had?
A. The stenographers -- the Field Marshal's stenographers had strict orders that their takes, just as they are taken here in this Court, were to be given to Richter after they had been transcribed and also to turn in the transcript as well.
Q Did an order exist that the stenographers had to destroy their first takes?
A. The first takes always had to be destroyed.
Q. Were the stenographers sworn to do that?
A. Yes, the Field Marshal always pointed out that fact before the meeting started. I remember that.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Dr. Bergold, it isn't clear to me just what is meant by the first takes were destroyed. Here I understand that a "take" refers to a certain period of time, twenty minutes or so.
DR. BERGOLD: No, no, he means by that, that the take, or rather, the stenotypist writes down on a piece of paper whatever he has taken down, and then he transcribes it on the typewriter, and the paper, like this one right before you, that paper was to be destroyed. That was considered the first take, the original of the shorthand take.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Yes, I see.
Q. Witness, did you have the duty of supervising the execution of the decisions made in the GL meetings?
A. Yes, because most of the things discussed were referring to my office itself, because they were technical meetings, the questions of raw material and laborers always appeared. However, most of the things dealt with development on Tuesday, sometimes on Friday or requisitioning, or sometimes on development things; in other words, all purely technical matters. That is the reason why I had been told by the Field Marshal to draw up the program for every meeting and to inform the participating agencies before the meeting; in other words, all the agencies in the Ministry and also the General Staff and the executive sections, etc.
Q. Witness, in that discussion of 5 May 1942, Document NOKW-480, Exhibit 136, Milch, with reference to the French prisoners of war, said 2291 (a) the following:
"Gablenz, I would appreciate it if you could contact Reinecke, with reference to the French. I want you to see to it that people, be placed against the wall and be shot in front of all the other employees when they refuse to work. In other words, I want you to contact the Reichsfuehrer SS and ask him to bring the whole matter to the Fuehrer's attention. This would be the correct moment to reach great aims by interfering, or else the other people will also act in the same way. I request that the sending of these people into special camps also be considered. Later on I will read to you how such a matter should be dealt with. In other words, I do not agree. You should make another suggestion. The first few days will not help any anyway."
A I do not understand the last thing.
Q Witness, I don't understand the last statement either. I am assuming first of all, that the record is correct. Do you know whether this order to Gablenz was ever actually carried out, and whether Gablenz talked to Reinecke, and whether he got in touch with the Reichsfuehrer SS?
A No, this matter would have had to come to my knowledge if such stops had been initiated, because during one of the following meetings this report would have had to be put before the Field Marshal, and apart from that Gablenz had no contact with Himmler and couldn't have any contact with him, because there wasn't any type of collaboration between those two. He certainly didn't talk to Reinecke either, because I would have heard of that, and during some meeting or other the report demanded by the Field Marshal would have had to be read out, but that didn't happen. I said before, the points for the program wore drafted by me even for other departments.
Q Witness, then how do you explain this statement?
A That's one of those outbursts of fury to which we were accustomed in the case of the Field Marshal. I recollect that during this and various other meetings dealing with the program in France, the program which was running on behalf of the Air Force and which was mentioned here the other day, wasn't turning out enough and the Field Marshal became furious, and these outbursts of fury were well known and we knew about them, and whatever was the outcome of that outburst couldn't be taken seriously.
We knew perfectly well he didn't mean it and that any of the things he said in such cases were impossible.
Q Witness, if he had such attacks of rage, could you see an outward sign, a physical sign.
A Yes, I always used to sit on his left--during the meetings he sat on my right--and I could see how his neck became red and how it was swelling. And I knew how he would burst out.
Q Witness, please, will you tell this Tribunal how the members of your Staff would previously act with regard to such outbursts? What -actually what do you know?
A Well, actually bets were made. It might sound funny to you now, but I have got to say so. Bets were made on whether he would break out with regard to the matter that come up for discussion.He was known for that, and all the people working under me, even from other departments, knew this. And they know that that was not to be taken too tragically. First of all, there was nothing you could do; if we had taken any steps in the sense of what he said and how these minutes wore pictured, then we certainly would have been ourselves shouted at by Himmler.
Q Witness, so that there were previous bets that such outbursts would occur?
A Yes; people from my department were always address in such a manner so they were told they would be put against the wall or hanged, I remember the Chief of the Engine Department, with whom the Field Marshal was angry, was being interrupted and on one occasion his collar burst and he said, "I am going to have you hanged."
Q So that such outbursts of rage against members of the Staff weren't normally taken down in the minutes.....?
A I don't believe they were, because, after all, all of us would stick together like tar on paper, and we would go through thick and thin with the Field Marshal. And we would never allow things like that to penetrate to the outside.
Q Yes, I see. Witness, during such conferences, only members from the GL were there?