"Question: Just a moment. If you had the impression that this telegram was a forgery, why then did you not, as a superior, take legal action against Rascher or at least disciplinary action?
"Answer: Because Rascher would immediately have been able, through his connections with Schnitzler, who was an SS Fuehrer, to got a true telegram for himself from Himmler.
Question: And moreover you were afraid of the SS? Answer: It was clear that because of Rascher's dislike I was in danger of entering a concentration camp myself." Some three pages further at the bottom: "Answer: The final commission he probably received or could have received from Milch. Milch could give direct orders to everyone. I have the impression that up to the time of my departure, that is to say, until Rascher left me, there wasn't any such commission and that those matters were only later clarified by Ruff. Question: Some sort of order must come to have the low-pressure chamber to Dachau. Answer: Ruff could send it himself. Question: Did the order come from above? Answer: The difficulty in answering your question lies in the fact that these relations, as I said in the beginning, changed. There were various rival struggles because in the "C" Office all wanted to keep all of its physicians for itself and Hippke assumed that all physicians were subordinate to him even if they belonged to the "G" Office. This subordination relationship was not entirely clear." Then another few pages: "That is not the question. I have only the vague idea of Hippke. Why did not Weltz say that Rascher was no longer wanted? Why did not Weltz inform his immediate superior, a man with whom he seemed to be on pretty good terms? Answer: The difficulty was -- well, how shall I put it? Question: Permit me, doctor, in this case you could have said it quite well. You could have mentioned the telegram. You could have mentioned it even to Hippke. Answer: Yes, that would have seemed to me an interference in the cooperation between Ruff and Romberg which I initiated myself. If, on the other hand, I bring them together tomorrow and go to Hippke tomorrow Rascher will not be agreeable to that action. Question: I believe that Hippke would have said to himself that Weltz is an honorable man. On the other hand, he would have called Ruff back through the "O" Office. At the moment where Romberg complained about Rascher and, as I understand it, that Rascher had even turned himself into a murderer in the high-altitude experiments. He would have appealed then to Ruff. Ruff would have gone to Hippke and brought it about that the low-pressure chamber be used elsewhere."
I skip now.
"You have the following objection to Rascher of a personal nature? Answer: He put his father in a concentration camp."
Now, the second question.
"This second reason alone would have sufficed to have convinced Hippke that the SS wanted such experiments made it should have made them itself. Why did you not speak to Hippke as a physician? That, in my opinion, would have been your bounden duty and why did you not for all of these reasons inform Hippke ? I can't understand that because of any fear of eventual consequences from the SS, Answer: That could not have played any role. Question: But explain to me your sin of omission, why you didn't inform Hippke. If you went to Hippke you could never have stepped in the back of Ruff, Answer: I didn't know that."
It's to be seen from this that Weltz whom Hippke appointed knew nothing of all of these things that were going on. The very conclusion of this document:
"To sum up, you did not inform Hippke of these experiments at Dachau? Answer: No. Question: are you absolutely sure? Answer: I am entirely certain. Question: And the reason? Answer: Because I had left. Question: Because you had left then and had just dropped the matter? Answer: There were not to be experiments on the part of my institute on the part of Ruff. Wherever I had achieved a right to supervise Rascher was part of my office. Otherwise, I wasn't interested in these experiments at all. Question: Now, one last question. One thing I cannot explain that you didn't find out that there were no fatalities in these high altitude experiments. No, I never found that out. Question: You didn't see the final report? Answer: No, I did not receive it. Let me add, Stabsarzt Lutz, who worked with me, did not know of this thing even in the year 1944 although he was well acquainted with Romberg and although he had travelled around extensively.
That's how secret it was."
That's what I wish to read from this document. I now read from my Document Book No. 1. The chronological summary at the conclusion of the book in order to show the Tribune what, in view of Hippke's statements, what can be seen even from the available documents, to show that Milch really knew nothing about these matters. Exhibit 87, dated 15 May 1941, Rascher to Himmler. This was Rascher's first proposal to Himmler that experiments be made on human beings.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a minute, doctor. What exhibit number, please?
DR. BERGOLD: This is simply a chronological listing and I have just mentioned Exhibit No. 78. If I want to give this exhibit a number I give it the number 30. I continue. Exhibit No. 80, dated 24 July 1941, Himmler to Rascher, gives his consent to this proposal. Then the talk between Weltz, Kottenhof and Hippke took place in which the gentlemen agreed on their procedure. Hippke was not able to state here that Milch ever knew anything about that. Exhibit 81, 5 April 1942, Rascher to Himmler, first report on high altitude experiments. It was secret. You will remember Hippke's testimony and the document according to which Rascher could not give any reports without Himmler's permission. Exhibit 82, 16 April 1942, Wolf to Hippke, requests for extension of Rascher's assignment. Hippke did this without bringing in Milch. Then on the same day 16 April 1942, Rascher's second report to Himmler on the high altitude experiments. Exhibit 83, 27 April 1942, a letter from Brandt to Rascher in which the entire report for Himmler was to be forwarded to Milch. Of the same day, Exhibit 84, 27 April 1942, Hippke to Himmler, in which it is stated that the forwarding of the request to extend Rascher's assignment is under way, this too remained unknown to Milch. Exhibit 85; 1 May 1942; Rascher to Himmler, third report on high altitude experiments was secret. Exhibit 87, letter of 20 May 1942, Milch to Wolf requesting the return of the high pressure chambers after the conclusion of the high altitude experiments.
The report that Weltz has been assigned to experiments with ship-wrecked persons.
912-A Hippke stated here on Friday that he gave no oral report of this to Milch, but only a short memorandum when he visited him.
This, then, concluded those experiments. Thus, in my opinion, no proof has yet been brought that Milch knew anything of what went on in the experiments.
I continue. Exhibit 89, 4 June, 1942, Milch to Hippke, proposal requesting further keeping of low-pressure chambers and extension of Rascher's assignment. Hippke stated regarding this that this was not an order, but simply a proposal.
Exhibit Number 90, 15 June 1942, Rascher to Himmler. Rascher reports on his talk with Hippke. He reports also that Hippke did not receive any further reports in view of Himmler's refusal to approve.
Exhibit Number 114, 28 July 1942, final report on high-altitude experiments.
Exhibit 95, 25 August 1942, Himmler to Milch, transmission of the report on high-altitude experiments.
Then comes the letter from Sievers to Brandt of 26 august 1942, request as to whether the report of the high-altitude experiments is to be submitted to Milch. I submitted this yesterday as Exhibit 28 Ml.
Then Exhibit 109 of the Prosecution, 29 August 1942, Brandt to Sievers, report on the transmission of the high altitude reports to Milch. This is the exhibit, which as we mentioned yesterday, was erroneously dated.
Exhibit 115, 31 August, 1942, Milch to Himmler, acknowledgment of receipt of the report on high-altitude experiments. You will remember Hippke testified that this was the first time that Milch was given more precise details on the experiments; but Hippke did not tell him of any fatalities.
Exhibit 91, 1 September 1942, Rascher to Himmler, report on the freezing experiments.
Exhibit 123, 11 September 1942, a film about altitude experiments was shown to the staff of Milch, whereby as has been proved that Milch was not present then.
Exhibit 93, 22 September 1942, Himmler to Rascher, acknowledgment of the interim report on freezing experiments.
10 October 1942, final report on tho freezing experiments. The witness Hippke testified he never received this. Please enter the Exhibit number on this which is 114.
This concludes the freezing experiments without Defendant Milch's finding out about the cruelties taking place in connection with them.
Number 95, 10 October, 1942, Hippke's letter of thanks to Himmler. In this connection let me point out and draw attention to an exhibit of the Prosecution which was submitted yesterday. It is Exhibit 130, 6 November 1942. Sievers characterizes this letter to be a refusal. I can quite understand that people not accustomed to German usage would have thought this letter was an acceptation. But from this note of 6 November 1942, it can be seen that in the language that was used was the language used in German at that time. This was a refusal. It is very well understood that this was a refusal and not an acceptance.
Exhibit 104 of the 16 October 1942, the final report of Rascher to Himmler on freezing experiments. Hippke said that this was never sent to him, nor could he have told Milch of it. There is no proof that final report of Rascher's was ever shown to Milch.
Exhibit 110, 21 October 1942, Sievers to Brandt, announcement of new low-pressure experiments which the SS carried out independently because as Hippke said yesterday, he never had the low-pressure chamber put at their disposal again.
Then comes this freezing conference in Nuernberg on the 26-27.10. 42. I read the report yesterday which lay persons could not understand. It was probably published only during March or February 1943 for when Hippke wrote to Himmler on the 19 February 1943 it was not yet ready.
Then comes Exhibit 111 of November 1942. It is a draft of a letter from Himmler to Milch. It has never been proved that this was sent off.
Exhibit 118. The letter from Wolff to Milch corresponds with this draft. It is a request to release Rascher from his work. The defendant will prove that he was at this time not in Berlin at all. The letter was not sent.
Exhibit 120 of 19 February 1943 is an independent letter from Hippke to Himmler, thanks for SS cooperation.
Then we have exhibit 119, the answer to Wolff's letter by Hippke, 6 March 1943. This was also done independently by Hippke and then on 14 March 1943, there is a talk between Hippke and Rascher on the letters released. This is Prosecution Exhibit 126. I think you will be so good to let me add that it can be seen from this that the defendant could not have known of it.
I now ask that the Witness Foerster be called.
THE PRESIDENT: The Marshal will please bring in the Witness Foerster.
BY JUDGE SPEIGHT:
Q. Witness, raise your right hand and repeat after me:
I swear by God, the Almighty and Onmiscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
JUDGE SPEIGHT: You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. BERGOLD:
Q. Witness, I ask you not to speak too rapidly because of the mechanical set-up here. I ask you, also, to pause after every question I ask so that the translation of the question can be concluded before you begin your answer.
DY DR BERGOLD:
Q Witness, state your first and last names?
A Hellmuth Foerster.
A When were you born?
A 19 April 1889.
Q What was your last position in the German Army?
AAs a General of the airforce I was Chief of the Airforce Ministry. Before I answer further, I should like to make a statement. Is it not a fact I am called a prisoner of war, and under the protection of the Geneva Convention, which is recognized by the American Army. I was chained and brought here under a guard. Since I am neither a defendant, nor belong to the criminal organization, nor to war criminals, I regard this treatment as a personal insult, and ask for the protection of this Tribunal against a repetition of this behavior.
DR BERGOLD: I have nothing to add to that myself. I wish to point out to the Tribunal I have heard that in case number one the Prosecution has already objected to the bringing here of witnesses in chains. I have not objected to it here because I want to await the decision of Tribunal No. 1. I appeal to the generosity of the Court that I should not have to do anything about it here.
BY DR BERGOLD:
Q Witness, do you know the defendant Milch?
A Yes.
Q Can you recognize him in the room, and if so, will you point to him as to where he is?
A (witness points to the defendant Milch)
DR BERGOLD: I ask that the record show the witness has identified the defendant.
THE PRESIDENT: The record shall so show.
BY DR. BERGOLD:
Q Witness, when did you have and how long have you had relations of an official nature within the Reich Air Ministry with Milch?
A Since the Autumn of 1939.
Q In what capacity with Milch?
AAs General -- or Inspector General of the Luftwaffe, and as General for the Special Task.
Q Were you Chief of the Luftwehr of the Air Ministry?
A No, after my office, or my services as General for Special Task, I went to various other offices as a member of the German-French Commission in Weisbaden, as Military Commander in Serbia, as Commander General of First Air Corps, and then from the Autumn of 1942 on I was Chief of the Air Defense in the Air Ministry.
Q In your last capacity was Hippke, Medical Inspector of the Luftwaffe, subordinate to you?
A Yes, he was subordinate to me in his person, and with my office in his business.
Q Witness, what report did Hippke make to you regarding experiments at Dachau?
A None.
Q Was it his duty to do so, as a matter of fact?
A No.
Q Was Hippke then in this respect independent of you?
A Yes, he was the Chief Medical Inspector of the Luftwaffe, and was in the purely technical field independent. He was subordinate to me only in respect to any military matters.
Q Witness, did you ever know anything about results of experiments that took place in Dachau?
A I saw or knew nothing of experiments in Dachau itself. The Medical Inspector gave me a report on the basis of the medical conference that took place in Nurnberg, telling me that new ways had been developed for the treatment of persons who had been frozen, and he explained this therapy to me in detail without, however, telling me how it had been discovered. The matters did not interest me either. I was interested only in results of military matters.
Q Did you speak with Hippke about what you heard from him, or, reported to Milch on these subjects?
A It is possible that on occasions of a personal report to Milch I did mention these new treatments. I can, however, recall having done so, and that if this therapy existed it would not have been an occasion for a special report to the Field Marshal Milch. I am very sure that this report did hot take place, but it might have been incidental to some other personal report or conversation. That is possible.
Q Thank you. If it did happen, you only reported on what you knew yourself of the results?
A Of course.
Q Witness, an affidavit has been submitted to the Tribunal by one Mr. Schroeder. It is in document book, the Prosecution Document Dock NOKW 126. It is exhibit number -- it did not receive any exhibit number from the Prosecution so far as I can see, and according to my imagination it is on page 25 of 5-B. Whether the number is correct, I don't know. That is, Exhibit 107.
MR DENNEY: It is page 137 of the Document Book in my opinion.
BY DR BERGOLD:
Q I show this affidavit as of Dr. Oscar Schroeder, and look at the third paragraph which reads: "When I was a prisoner of war, General Foerster told me that he was present at an interview between General Erich Hippke and Field Marshal Milch in the middle of 1942. At that time the continuation of the experiments which Dr. Sigmund Rascher was carrying out on human beings was discussed. Foerster declared that Hippke and he opposed to the continuation of these experiments, and while Milch supported their continuation." Witness, is Schroeder correct in what he said here, or incorrect?
A This statement of Dr. Schroeder is wrong. In my interrogation before Captain Koch I mentioned this matter, and asked that I be allowed to speak to the man who had made this statement, as that conversation took quite a different turn.
Q What was it?
A That is to say, the conversation with Schroeder, which was in the prison in Now Ulm, in connection with a report before the court there. There was mentioned the same letter which Goering was said to have signed in connection with the same subject experiments. Personally I asked the medical inspector whether anything true in these reports, since I personally know nothing of them. In the course of this conversation Hippke's name, of course, was mentioned, because Hippke was at that time the medical inspector. I told Schroeder I considered it out of the question that Hippke could have taken part in any suck thing, on the basis of what I knew of his character, since I also know that he was a very religious person. In the course of this conversation I also expressed my personal opinion. I said I personally was an opponent of suck a thing, and could not understand them, understand people carrying out such experiments on living persons themselves. If they were criminals condemned to death, who, if they volunteered for this work, only would be given a chance if they survived the experiment of not being submitted to the condemnation they had received. In other words, I said in my personal opinion Hippke and I also would never lift our hands to such things, and, of course, didn't leave any doubt that he knew about these things; consequently, there is no true truth in his statement other than a subsequent discussion between me, Hippke and him.
I asked the interrogator to confront no with Schroeder in order to clarify this matter, but this consultation unfortunately did not take place.
Moreover, the third person who was allegedly there, Hippke, is here in Nurnberg, and it would be very easy to ascertain from Hippke whether this discussion took place or not.
Q. I wanted to ask you, witness, Did it take place with Milch?
A. I can state under oath that it did not take place with Milch.
Q. I turn now to an entirely different natter. Do you know from your official connections that in 1944 efforts were being made and measures were taken to use Russian prisoners of war in flack and antiaircraft artillery?
A. Yes, I knew that.
Q. Can you tell me who ordered that? Did Milch order it?
A. Who originally ordered it I can not say for sure. I assume however, that the OKW must have issued same such original order, which was given to my office by the General Staff of the Luftwaffe. I know for certain, however, that the order was not issued by Field Marshal Milch.
Q. Witness, were these Russians brought to the flack artillery compulsorily or how?
A. The measures that were ordered at that -- it was assured that they were only volunteers. Of course, we in the Luftwaffe objected to the use of Russians in flack. Our misgivings centered around the fact that it did not seem expedient that Russian prisoners of war, let us say even compulsorily, had to shoot at aircraft iron their own country, or, at any rate, if not to shoot at them, had to help out in the shooting at them. It could then happen that the people who were sent over for this work were volunteers. It was entirely certain that this was so, because the Vlassoff army was being built up at this time, and a large number of Russian prisoners of war reported voluntarily to enter this Vlassoff army.
Moreover, we ordered that under no circumstances should Russian prisoners of war be used in batteries in which there was a possibility that they, these batteries, would fire at Russian planes. The batteries at which they were working were in the West exclusively or were for air defense in Middle Germany or Western Germany; that is to say, in regions whore Russian planes never flew.
Q. Is it known to you that the voluntary Russian workers ever demanded that they should net shoot at their own planes?
A. Yes, it is known to me that individual Russian prisoners of war made this condition before they volunteered for this task. I can further state that when I personally was present at flack batteries at which Russians were employed and when I assured myself of their actual activities and accommodations and so forth, although I spoke with a great number of prisoners of war, I never heard any complaint from these people that they were obliged to man these guns against their will.
Q. Witness, it is true that these Russian prisoners of war when they reported for this work were released from imprisonment and were called assistants or auxilliary volunteers in the German army?
A. What their legal status was, that is, whether from that moment on they were no longer prisoners of war, that I do not know. I know only that their designation was officially "auxilliaries" and that for these auxilliaries, with the abbreviation HIWI, there were particular regulations regarding them by the OKW stating that their personal status and their total treatment and payment should be such and such. In other words, it was ascertained what it should be. Whether they were officially released from imprisonment or not, they were at any rate, a special group for whom there were special regulations.
Q. The Vlassoff army was an army led by a Russian general and manned by Russian prisoners of war; is that not so?
A. Yes.
Q. They were freed from imprisonment?
A. That must be.
Q. At any rate, these were volunteers in the Vlassoff army?
A. I am sure of that.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you tell us the name of the army: We do not get it.
DR. BERGOLD: Vlassoff, V-L-A-S-S-O-F-F. That was the name of the Russian general who led it.
Your Honor, this is the same phenomenon on the German side of the war that occured on the Russian side with German prisoners of war. The Russians built up an army of volunteer German prisoners of war which called itself "Free Germany" under the command of General von Seydlitz. In other words, both the Russians and the Germans used volunteer prisoners of way against each other. It was a lamentable occurrence, but it was a reciprocal one.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Dr. Bergold, I would like to know of the witness if he knows as a matter of fact whether these Russian prisoners of war manning the flack batteries were actually members of the Vlassoff army.
DR. BERGOLD: Witness, do you know whether the Russian anti-aircraft members were members of the Vlassoff army, or were they a special group?
A. When the Russian prisoners of war were given to us they did not belong to the Vlassoff army, but I do remember that in the course of time there was consideration of incorporating these anti-aircraft Russians in some way or another in the Vlassoff army. Whether this measure was over taken, I do not know.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: So that when they were actually placed in position at the batteries the first time, they were not then a part of the Vlassoff organization?
A. The first time that they manned the batteries they were not members of the Vlassoff army, but let me add what I forget to say previously. It was laid down that under no conditions should the Russians man the guns themselves.
They only had subordinate positions of one sort or another--transport of munitions or such things; in other words, they were in position in which they did not actually do the shooting.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Whatever they did, it was an integral part of tho operations in handling of the batteries; is that correct.
A. No, the central part of operating a flack battery is the calculation of the range; in other words, the ascertainment of where the plane is in relation to the direction of the barrel of the gun when the gun is fired, and the Russians had nothing to do with that.
BY DR. BERGOLD:
Q. Witness, at any rate, you and your office were informed that these were volunteers?
A. That was specified to us.
922-A Q. And none of the Russians whom you spoke to contradicted that?
A. No, none of them.
Q. Witness, is it true that most of the Russians were made available by the OKW and only part were then transferred from the air armament?
A. So far as I can remember today, there were about 50,000 Russians for this purpose at our disposal. This number was not, however, met by the OKW, I assume because there were not enough volunteers, since the actual number of prisoners of war would have made it possible to collect these men if they were not volunteers. As a matter of fact, we got about half of them, half of the 50,000.
I then remember that the proposal was made that Russian volunteers from industry should provide the missing anti-aircraft units, but I do not know to what extent this took place. I do recall however that Field Marshal Milch at that time was strongly against this measure on the grounds that the Russians being employed in armaments were needed there and that he could not forego them.
Q. Witness, I now come to another question. Do you know that Milch made continual efforts to keep the German workers who were working in the air industry from being inducted into the army in order not to lose them for his armaments works?
A. I know of one case which, as far as I am not deceived by my memory, took place in 1943. At that time the OKW had ordered that certain annual classes of men were to be called for active military service. There were about 40,000 men among this number who were working in the air armaments industry. Field Marshal Milch protested the induction of these men. The order, however, originated from OKW, from a high office, and for this reason it had to be carried out. I could not bring it about that these men were made available to me by Milch. I consequently went to Goering personally and asked him to decide the question. Goering did agree with the reasons that Milch put forward and ordered that the men in the air armaments should remain there.
On the other hand, Goering was not able to oppose an order from the OKW. Consequently, a way was found which, formally speaking, seemed to fill this order. That is, these 40,000 men were officially made into military formations but then were immediately given leave and continued their work in industry.
Q. Witness, do you know of a case in which a larger group of people were returned to work in this same way?
A. Yes, there was a contingent of 12,000 to 15,000 men who were in the air intelligence and who were commanded to return to industry, to the electrical industry, for the manufacture of radar equipment and other important electrical equipment that is used in aviation or flack. Here, also, a great effort had to be made to extract these men from Milch to be used with the troops.
Q. Thank you. Witness, did Milch have opportunity to issue orders to the OKW; OKH, or OKL?
A. No, in no respect.
Q. Did he have an opportunity to give orders to the military offices in the occupied territories?
A. No.
Q. Did he have the opportunity to punish, hang, or kill or shoot foreign workers or prisoners of war?
A. No. Foreign workers were there in a purely civilian capacity and were under purely civilian authority. Prisoners of war were in no way under the orders of Field Marshal Milch but were employed by other offices over which Milch had no control.
Q. Do you believe that, for instance, a Stalag Commander would have accepted an order from Milch to shoot the Russian prisoners of war or to hang them?
A. No; I do not believe that a Stalag Commander would have carried out an order of that sort under any circumstances.
Q. Because Milch was not his superior?
A. Yes.
Q. Is it true that, in the German army, every sentence of death must be approved by the highest commander?
A. When you say "highest commander" you mean the Reich Marshal, namely Goering?
Q. Yes.
A. This order die exist at the beginning of the war. This right was delegated to air fleet chiefs but perhaps even before the war this right was taken away from the air fleet chiefs and Goering reserved for himself the right to approve every death sentence. I can say that so definitely because the man through whom these matters went was subordinate to me and all cases in which there was a death sentence requested went through von Hammerstein and through me, so that I had the opportunity to take a position on these matters before Hammerstein submitted these matters to Goering.
Q. Milch had no influence in this respect?
A. No. This was an immediate sentiment since I was ordered to report on such matters to Goering directly without reporting to Milch what I was doing, which I did, of course.
Q. Mas Milch Goering's total representative at any time?
A. I can remember no case. I know, on the contrary, that Goering, at those times in which Milch was officially at his headquarters -namely, when he was, on leave and so forth -- nevertheless carried on business as before. He also reserved for himself the right, officially, in these cases in which he wished someone to represent him completely -- he would order him specifically in that case -- but I know of no single case in which Goering issued such an order.
I also know that Milch was never appointed as Goering's full representative. Let me add that Goering appointed officers according to his own choice as representatives in particular cases with no regard for rank or order.
Q. I shall now show the witness the draft of an authorization to be Goering's deputy, of 1944. I ask the witness to read this document and to tell me whether he has ever seen it, or whether it was ever valid?
THE PRESIDENT: The witness may read the document during our recess, which we will take at this time.
THE MARSHAL: This Tribunal will recess for 15 minutes.
(a recess was taken).