THE MARSHAL: Tribunal No. 2 is again in session.
BY DR. BERGOLD:
Q. Witness, you have taken note of the affidavit; has this affidavit ever gone into effect?
A. No.
Q. According to the state of affairs, and in relation to the relationship between Goering and Milch, do you think it is possible that in June, 1944, such a power of attorney was given to him?
A. This power of attorney I saw for the first time today, and as I knew the things as they were at the time, I am very surprised at the document. This power of attorney would give power to Milch which he never would be able to carry in to effect because it interferred so much with the competence of other high offices that Milch would not have been in a position, even with such a power of attorney from the Reich Marshal, to take measures of such an important nature which were set out in the power of attorney. I can only call this document an order which was given in complete disregard of the real state of affairs; and I know that I can say this with certainty: that Milch never made any use of that power of attorney. If Milch should have been given such wide powers as are set out in the document; if he should have been able to carry them out, then he would have been in a position to carry out plans in the field of air armament; but the contrary was the case. I think this power of attorney is nonsense; and I may doubt that the man who wrote the power of attorney was completely normal, and he submitted the document without any real knowledge of the state of affairs. I may say that such powers of attorney at that time were issued quite frequently, and the men who issued them were not aware of the extent of the possibilities.
Q. Witness, is it not true that in June 1944 Milch was dismissed from his offices by Goering?
A. In June 1944 although an official dismissal had not taken place, I cannot recall the precise dates, in any case the relations between Reichmarshal Goering and Field Marshal Milch were such that that alone makes the issue of that power-of-attorney of such wide powers completely impossible.
Q. Witness, do you know whether building companies were under the order of Milch and of what type these building companies were?
A. Building companies were part of the Luftwaffe. That is to say, they were made up of those who were no longer suitable for armed service, as the name says, used mainly for construction purposes. It's true that Milch at his request was given, I believe, a building battalion which, at first, had the task to build a worker's settlement from wooden huts near Hagen. When this task had been completed this building battalion was left to the Field Marshal who passed it on to OT, particularly for the purpose to increase air-raid shelters in private dwellings -- to increase the safety of private houses in Berlin. Then the number of the building companies decreased because even the older classes were called up and as far as the more suitable men were concerned Mich had to give up this battalion this succeeded only after a certain time because it was his point of view that due to extensive enemy air-raids the protection of the population was at least as important as other military tasks.
Q. Were foreign workers contained in these building companies or prisoners of war?
A. This was a German group which consisted exclusively of Germann soldiers.
Q. Thank you. Witness, do you know whether and in what manner Milch made efforts to transfer the production of spare parts to foreign territories in France.
A. Some industries on the fringe of Germany -- the Armistice Commission, I know in the summer of 1940 to April of 1941 I represented the Luftwaffe on that commission.
I know that under my leadership there were negotiations 928A with the French part of the Armament Commission in order to fulfill a wish of the Reichsmarshal to make available the French air armament industry for German purposes.
In these negotiations it was seen that this wish, which the Reichsmarshal exercised a certain pressure to fulfill, wasn't possible for this reason; the factories, the French factories, which worked to produce aircraft were not only in the occupied part of France but also many of them were in the so-called Free France. Occupied Franco could not, without the help of what I called the Free Zone work. It was impossible that these two economic groups which depended upon each other not be torn apart but they should jointly work on that work. This could only be done through an agreement.
This could only be done through an agreement in these negociations which I had with the French Government. It became possible in a friendly manner to conclude such an agreement. The French Government was inclined to support this agreement because I provided in the agreement that the French be allowed a certain amount of benefit of the distribution of products. There was a clause in there about the proportion which was to be five to one. The produced aircraft should be given to France or Germany respectively.
The French Government in opposition to the complete disarmament of the French Army had been given permission by the Armistice Commission to produce spare parts for anti-aircraft batteries to a certain extent in order to protect the Mediterranean district. For that purpose aircraft from French production should be used. I left the Armistice Commission in April, 1941, but I know that this agreement took effect in march 1941 to a much greater extent than anticipated. The proportion not five to one, but 1-1.
So, in effect, the proportion really became one to one because the French industry--
THE PRESIDENT: Just a minute, Will you please direct this witness's answer to something relating to the guilt or innocence of the Defendant Milch? His rambling testimony so far does not even remotely concern it.
Q Witness, I will now ask you to explain to us whether Milch worked on these negotiations and gave his approval?
A When I worked on the negociations, Udet was still Generalluftzeugmeister and as far as he took part in these negociations, I dealt with Udet or his chief. Udet, who was really a subordinate, took part in these negotiations. That was a matter for the Luftfahrt Ministry.
Q I now come to the point of terror aviation. Do you know details as to what attitude Milch took about this?
A I believe in 1944, in the summer, I was ordered by the Reichsmarshal to issue an order to the Luftwaffe which contained a clause saying that soldiers of the Luftwaffe must not protect enemy pilots who made emergency landings or bailed out and who were exposed to the just indignation of the 930-A German population.
I refused to issue that order. I reported to Fieldmarshal Milch. Milch listened to the reasons I gave for not issuing the order, and agreed with me Q Thank you.
A He adhered to my motives.
The word "Armament Industry" was a very extensive term. Can you give the court an example as to what was meant in Germany by this term? Can you give an example from your own life?
A Yes, indeed, I can. I owned a tile yard in Silesia which served purely for peaceful purposes. During the war it was used as a socalled subsidiary works.
Without being a part of the armament industry, it would not have been possible to keep up this factory, to get workers and so forth. From this example, I can discuss that the name "Armament Factory" was relatively wide, and that the term "Armament Factory" was not by any means given these works which actually produced armaments; but also works which served the purpose of keeping up actual armament production.
Q Witness, were you in charge of DVL?
A No.
Q Did you know that the transfer underground of armament plants was ordered by Goering? Who ordered it?
A This was done by order of Goering.
Q I would like to ask one more question about the character of Milch. Did you know that he frequently used strong language and was fond of threatening people with shooting or hanging?
A Yes. That is well known to me, but according to the saying, his bark is worse than his bite. We did not take much notice. No person threatened with hanging or shooting ever actually suffered that fate.
Q Was it well-known among your circle that you should not take notice of these words?
A That was very well known.
Q Once he was over his indignation, did Milch apologize for these expressions? Did he apologize to the people concerned?
A I cannot say in every case, but he was firmly convinced that he said many things which he did not mean. Oh, yes, in one case, he apologized to General Martini, gave an explanation and the matter was settled.
Q Did these expressions of indignation increase after his accident at Stalingrad?
A That and the failure of his armament industry to succeed, perhaps made him very excitable and tense after 1943 DR. BERGOLD: Thank you, Witness. I have no further questions. I put the witness at the disposal of the prosecution for cross-examination.CROSS-EXAMINATION.
BY MR. DENNEY:
Q Witness, when did you enter the German-French Commission?
A When the German-French Commission was formed. That was in my opinion, in June 1940, after the campaign of that year.
Q After the French capitulation early in June?
A Yes, After the capitulation of France.
Q You stayed there until April 1941?
A After April 17, 1941, yes that is right.
Q Then what did you do?
A Then I was a military commander in Serbia.
Q Were you commanding on air float there?
A No.
Q What were your duties?
A As a military commander, I was responsible for the Military security of the country and the administration of the country of Serbia.
Q That is, you had something to do with the occupation forces?
A Do I understand by "occupation forces" you mean the Germans standing in Serbia?
Q Yes.
A No. At my time, the divisions in Serbia were under Fieldmarshal Weichs. My activities were restricted mainly to the civilian administration.
932 a
Q How long did you stay there?
A Two months.
Q Then what did you do?
A I was then commander general of the First Air Corps at the time in France, and at the beginning of the Russian campaign in Russia.
Q Where were you stationed?
A Then in East Prussia; later on in the Baltic countries, and in the end in Charkow.
Q How long did you stay there as commander of the First Air Fleet, or First Air Corps?
A Until September 1942, that is to say, up to that point; then I became Chief of Air Defense in the Reich Luftfahrt Ministry.
Q During that period there when you were with the First Air Corps, you were actually the Commander-General?
A Yes.
Q And that terminated in September 1942?
A Yes.
Q When you entered the Air Ministry in Berlin, Hippke was subordinate to you was he not?
A Yes.
Q And Milch was your superior?
A Yes.
Q And Goering was Milch's superior?
A The Reichmarshall.
Q The Reichsmarshall Goering?
A Yes.
Q Did you ever attend any meetings of the Central Planning Board?
A No.
Q Did you ever attend any meetings of the Jaegerstab?
A No.
Q You never attended any of the Fuehrer's conferences?
A No. That is to say, no, not a conference.
the Fuehrer in 1938. When I was commander of the air division in Greifewald visited the division for one day and this was not a conference but merely a military inspection.
Q What I refer to, what was called a Fuehrer's conference, about which you probably heard?
A No.
Q When these Russian prisoners occasionally were assigned to the German Anti-aircraft guns, you didn't know what their status was, whether they were prisoners of war, or whether they had been discharged, or what their actual status was?
A No, except these were assigned to us as prisoners of war. Their treatment, their food, their pay, their clothes, or their personal status was regulated in a special way, their relations wore always regulated. I assume that from the start they were still prisoners of war, because on their tunics they wore the emblem so far as I know of "US" which signified prisoners of war. As I have already told my counsel, it was intended to lead this formation somehow into the Wlassow's Army. I cannot remember whether these orders were actually executed or carried out, or not.
Q Do you recall what they were paying when they first came to you?
A What wage they were given I don't know. I only know they were paid but I don't know how much. They were also given special privileges, as a certain number of cigarettes, and special food, and so on. They were certainly separated from the masses of their fellow prisoners for special privileges.
Q And you said that you believed fifty thousand Russian prisoners were supposed to be at your disposal but actually you got a number somewhat less than that?
A Yes.
Q Have you any idea about how many you did have?
A The figure was perhaps a strict one-half, which would have been strictly twenty-five thousand, and there were roughly about eight or ten heads at one battery -- gun battery.
Q. So far as you can recall, there were only twenty-five thousand of them, and at these gun batteries were eight or ten of them assigned thereto?
A. Yes, I would say eight, ten or about twelve, the exact figures I can not recall.
Q. And so far as it was possible for you to say, they were employed in France where they would not have to shoot at their own planes?
A. That was our order.
Q. Of course, it might be a little bit difficult at night if a Russian plane came overhead to know whether they were firing at it, or at an English plane, or an American plane. The planes certainly did not have anything in their radar that would tell them whether they were Russian or not?
A. The Russians trusted to our general judgment. They did not go so far as East Prussia in their operations. Only in the last year of the war, then did the Russian front push westward in isolated cases, pushed a little farther, but that was only the last month of this war, in central Germany and southern Germany and Bavaria in the west of Germany there never were any Russian planes.
Q. You stated that on all death sentences had to be approved by Goering. Does that mean death sentences of Luftwaffe personnel, or does it also include death sentences of prisoners who were held by the Luftwaffe?
A. They were exclusively death sentences on members of the German Luftwaffe, that is, the German soldiers. The confirmation of sentences of prisoners of war was in my opinion not the responsibility of a commander of the Luftwaffe section. Quite generally the rule was that prisoners of war as soon as they had been committed to an offense which should have been punished perhaps by death were not to be sentenced by the troop commander, but the prisoners had to be handed over to the Security Service, and the Luftwaffe had no longer anything to do with it. I also know that a sentence of death against a prisoner of war never reached us through the ordinary channel, or was submitted to the Reichsmarshall.
Q. So when you talk about Goering reserving the right to approve every death sentence, you are merely referring to the Luftwaffe personnel, of the soldier under him.
A. Yes.
Q. How many pieces were there in a German Anti-aircraft gun battery?
A. That depended on the calibre of the battery; normally four guns; later on in cases of shortage of personnel the battery shrank to eight; smaller batteries of two centimeter; two point six centimeters were up to twelve guns. It depend on the purpose -- for what purpose they were to be used.
Q. And in the German Army, unlike as for comparison the American Army, the Anti-aircraft is part of the Luftwaffe, is it not?
A. That is a part of the Luftwaffe. That is, to say, the Army that was introduced in t he war, the Army had Anti-aircraft batteries at the times, but only light batteries, with a big mass of Antiaircraft guns were under the Luftwaffe.
Q. That differed from the American army setup, where they were a sort of an organization known as the Anti-aircraft Battery, and also a part of the Coast Artillery?
A. Yes.
Q And in your direct examination you also said that at the time this question of using Russian prisoners of war in the anti-aircraft batteries came up that the defendant was opposed to this use because the Russians employed in the armament industry were needed there and they could not be spared for the anti-aircraft work?
A Yes. Milch was opposed to this, to taking Russian prisoners of way away from armament factories for the purposes of anti-aircraft batteries.
MR. DENNY: No further questions.
DR. BERGOLD: May I put one more question to the witness, Your Honors?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. BERGOLD:
Q Witness, I once more come back to the question of the confirmation of the death sentences. Is it not true that Goering reserved the right to confirm all death sentences passed by the Luftwaffe jurisdiction?
A Yes.
Q Is it not true that this Luftwaffe jurisdiction in some cases concerned civilians, such as workers of the armament industry?
A In my opinion, no.
Q But you are not quite certain, are you?
A I can not say for certain, but in my opinion the jurisdiction of the Luftwaffe dealt exclusively with members of the Luftwaffe. Should civilians be concerned and should they be sentenced by a Luftwaffe court in some cases, there wore perhaps special regulations. Normally, one may say that members of the Luftwaffe were subject to Luftwaffe jurisdiction and nobody else.
Q Another question, witness. You said before that the armed forces, the army, had anti-aircraft batteries. Is it not true that the navy also had anti-aircraft batteries?
A I did not mention it, but, of course, the navy had anti-aircraft batteries on their ships, and the navy also had anti-aircraft batteries for coastal protection.
DR. BERGOLD: Thank you. I have no further questions of this witness.
MR. DENNEY: No more questions, if Your Honor please.
THE PRESIDENT: The Marshal may remove this witness.
(Witness excused.)
DR. BERGOLD: May it please the Court, we should now hear the witness Neff, according to my plan. However, by the time he has come in and the formalities have been fulfilled, my questioning would be torn in half. May I therefore propose to the Court that it have the luncheon interval now in order to have a uniform interrogation afterwise?
MR. DENNEY: I have no objection, if Your Honor please.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the objective that we are aiming at is to get all other witnesses done and over with by Friday morning. We want the dock cleared for the defendants in Tribunal I by Friday morning. Let me ask you, Dr. Bergold -
DR. BERGOLD: May it please the Court, I understand that very well, but at the moment there are hardly any witnesses at my disposal. The witnesses, Kalk, Vorwald, and Eberhard are not present. There is only the witness Hertel here now, and the witness Eschenauer. The witness Gauss has just arrived. I have not talked to him yet, and that would not be in context anyhow. Nobody else is not present yet.
THE PRESIDENT: They are not present?
DR. BERGOLD: So that we shall have much too much time until Friday.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean these other witnesses are not here in Nurnberg?
DR. BERGOLD: No, they have not arrived yet, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Neff, is here and Hertel is here?
DR. BERGOLD: Neff is here; Hertel is here, and Eschenauer is here. The examinations will easily be over with by Friday.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, if that is true, that is all that I am concerned with. We'll take the noon recess now until one-thirty.
THE MARSHALL: The Tribunal is in recess until 1330.
(The Tribunal was recessed until 1330 hours.)
938 a AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1340 hours, 12 February 1947)
THE MARSHAL: Tribunal No. 2 is again in session,
DR. BERGOLD (Attorney for defendant Erhard Milch):
Your Honors, I ask permission to call the witness Walter Neff.
THE PRESIDENT: The Marshal will bring the witness Neff into the Court Room.
The witness will raise his right hand and repeat after me:
I swear by God, the Almighty and Qmniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath)
THE PRESIDENT: The witness may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. BERGOLD:
Q. Witness, can you speak slowly, and after my question make a small pause before you answer so that the interpreters can interpret my questions fully.
Witness, please state your first and last name.
A. Walter Neff.
Q. When were you born?
A. 22 February 1909; near Augsburg.
Q. What was your last position?
A. My last position was that of administrator of a factory in Dachau.
Q. Do you know Milch? That is, personally from the time before the catastrophe of 1945?
A. No, I do not know Milch personally: I did not know him personally during that time.
Q. Did you see him for the first time here in Nurnberg?
A. I had never seen him personally; I only read the name.
Q. In other words, you do not know him.
A. No.
Q. If I tell you that this gentleman here in the gray uniform, who sits across from you, is Milch, you still assert that you have not known him before 1945?
A. I cannot ever recall having seen this man.
Q. Witness on the 23rd of December, 1946, you delivered an affidavit; signed an affidavit for the Prosecution; do you recall that?
A. Yes.
Q. In this affidavit you said the following: Field Marshal Milch's name was frequently mentioned in Dachau; is that correct?
A. Yes, that is correct; Milch's name was mentioned by Drs. Romberg and Rascher many times.
Q. In what connection?
A. When the question of transporting the so-called low pressure chambers came up, Milch's name was mentioned in this connection.
Q. In what way did this take place, witness.
A. I had the impression that Dr. Romberg was not in agreement with the experiments Rascher was carrying out, and had the intention of taking the cars from the campus as soon as possible. Rascher strove toward the opposite; he wanted to keep the cars in the concentration camps as long as possible. To what extent Rascher succeeded in keeping them there, that I do not know in particular.
Q. In what way was Milch's name mentioned in that context?
A. Dr. Romberg said that he would turn to Milch in order to bring it about that the cars were taken away. Rascher also said he would turn to Milch and if that were to no avail he would turn to Himmler so that the cars stayed there.
Q. Was Dr. Hippke's name also mentioned in this context?
A. Now, after I hear the name here I do seem to recall having heard it, but I cannot, for sure, say in what connection, but I have heard the name.
Q. You further stated, "I am sure that Milch knew Dr. Rascher."
Is that correct; are you really sure of that, and on what ground are you sure of that; or was that merely a conjecture on your part?
A. So far as Dr. Rascher can be believed, Rascher must have been personally acquainted with Milch and in touch with him, for Rascher said that he would turn to Milch; and did once go away; whether or not he actually visited Milch at that time I do not know, nor do I know whether he visited Himmler.
Q. Did Rascher tell you that he knew Milch personally, or did he merely say he wanted to turn to Milch?
A. So fa.r as I recall, he simply said he would turn to Milch.
Q. Then, witness, presumably you cannot say for certain that he knew Milch personally; you can only say that from this statement of Rascher; you deduced that he knew him personally; is that correct?
A. That is correct; to be sure Rascher said that several times and said that he was going hither; then, after the cars stayed there longer than had been anticipated, I drew the conclusion that Rascher did know Milch.
Q. But that was merely a deduction on your part?
A. Yes.
Q. How was it that the cars stayed longer -- when they were to be taken away?
A. So far as I recall, they should have been taken away at the beginning of June. Then there was a delay, but I cannot tell precisely when they were taken away; it was, however, the middle of June.
Q. You just said "to the extent that Rascher could be believed." Did you ever have occasion to ascertain that Rascher did not always speak the truth?
A. No, Rascher often told un-truths, and it was very difficult to discriminate between what was the truth in what he said and what was a lie. It was his boast.
Q. What was the manner of speaking to say boast; the German word 'Renommieren' means to boast; renommieren, to exaggerate; is that the true way that I defined the word "Renommieren"?
