Above all, it did not concern my field of tasks, at least not directly. There were many speeches at gauleiter conferences, and very often they wore also mimeographed. There were many people who particularly stressed that the speeches they made should be directed to all the offices, but that was not a reason for me, with the burden of work I had, to road through such a long speech. It is possible that it was submitted to me and that I glanced through it.
Q. It must have been submitted to you if your initials are on the outside of the speech.
A. Yes on the outside. I do not contest that it was submitted to me. Certainly it has been submitted to me. That can be seen from the initials "M.I." as also from the date "6/4", that is, the day it arrived at my office and was submitted to me as well as from the "M.I." on the letter that was sent by Sauckel.
Q. Now, with reference to the rate of money in foreign exchange that Goering discussed in that meeting at Karinhall on 28 October 1943, you told the Tribunal that you did not recall hearing about the rate of exchange at that meeting. Do you recall hearing about it at any other time?
A. The rate of exchange, yes, that has been discussed at some occasions, but, with the best of my intentions, I cannot tell you when it was discussed and who discussed it.
A. Do you recall anything regarding the discussions?
Q. No, I have no recollection that it was at that time, but I consider that impossible that I could remember it.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Denney, let's get an unequivocal answer to this. Did you put the initials on the letter from Sauckel?
A. The "M.I.", yes, indeed.
THE PRESIDENT: You wrote that?
A. Yes, I did. I wrote it. Somebody else wrote "to the files--"
THE PRESIDENT: Never mind what somebody else wrote. Now, on the first page of the pamphlet, the printed speech, there are some initials.
Did you write those?
A. On the cover, yes; I did, "M.I., 6/4", that is what I wrote.
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
2100a BY MR. DENNEY:
Q. Do you recall saying that Americans were never assigned to work in any of the airplane factories?
A. Yes, I said that.
MR. DENNEY: This is Document NOKW 364, which is a partial translation of the minutes of the Jaegerstab, held on 19 June 1944. The cover page, which is photostated here in German, which will be given to the Secretary General, bears the initials of the defendant.
THE PRESIDENT: Is this a new exhibit?
MR. DENNEY: Yes, Your Honor. This will bear Exhibit Number 135 for identification, if Your Honor pleases. Document NOKW 364, a partial translation of the minutes of the Jaegerstab of a meeting held 19 Juno 1944. On the covering page there appear the initials of the defendant. Perhaps the Secretary General would be good enough to lot Mr. Blakeslee have the original so the cover page can be shown to the defendant. Just show it to him, Mr. Blakeslee.
(A document was handed to the defendant).
BY MR. DENNEY:
Q. Witness, those are your initials, are they not?
A. Yes, they are. They mean Engineer General. Those are my initials.
Q. And when you personally received papers you put your initials on them did you not?
A. If it was submitted to me, yes. As it was put on my desk, then I put my initials on it.
Q. And you just put them on the outside page?
A. Yes, as a proof that I passed it on to the agency which should receive these letters. I myself did not participate in that meeting. The next day I retired, and when these matters came into my office, I did not read them, paid I passed them on. That is all I did.
Q. The only part of this document that we are interested in is on page 41, Your Honors.
Who was a Mr. Lange? L-A-N-G-E.
2101a
A. He was a man from tho Speer Ministry, and he was detached to the Fighter Staff.
Q. Do you know Schaede, S-C-H-A-E-D-E?
A. Yes, he also was detached from the Armament Office, or rather, from the Technical Office, and was sent to me by Speer.
Q. Did you know a man named Kleber, K-L-E-B-E-R?
A. Yes, I think he was detached from the High Command of tho Army, or the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces, the OKW.
Q. Starting at the bottom of page 41 with Lange speaking:
"This morning a representative of Dornier, that is, Oberpfaffenhofen, reported to me that 300 Americans who were put to work at the factory refused to work. They simply sat down, drank coffee, and ate corned beef, and could not be persuaded to work in spite of threats of shooting. Now, the question has been asked if we should not start a shooting action. That was turned down by higher authority, though. Thereupon tho 300 Americans were removed. Five hundred Russians are supposed to be coming. I am airing this question because this example can ultimately act infectiously on tho other prisoners of war. The matter should have been bettor brought out from tho beginning. Either these people should never have been put to work, or one should have persisted with severity.
"Schaede: I do not know what the procedure is. The easiest method would be that they get nothing to eat.
"Kleiber: I'll take the matter up.
"Schaede: The matter is clear. We can not shoot them. The Fuehrer refused to do that for fear of reprisals. However, we have had experience with another method. In the camp everything stops for four days. There are no parcels, no rations. This method is also used over there. We'll break them."
Apparently the war was so far along on 19 June 1944 -- some thirteen days after the initiation of the successful beachhead in tho Normandy Peninsula -- that even Hitler would not let them shoot Americans at that time, but Your Honors can see that these men, who were members of the same organization, the Jaegerstab, with which the defendant was connected, seriously considered shooting.
The only thing that prevented them from shooting was that they were afraid of reprisals, and instead of that they said, "Well, we'll just stop everything for four days; don't give them any food. They'll have no rations," and one way or the other, that would break them.
When did this come to your attention?
A I heard that today for the first time, those contents. At that time I didn't read it, and nobody--After all, I resigned on the next day. The submission of the documents could only have taken place after I retired. Most probably I just passed it on to the agency which was concerned with this matter, and that was none of my own agencies. Ay note only means that I sent it back to an agency which was now out of my field of task, and the contents have been shown to me today for the first time.
Q The Dornier factory was an airplane factory, was it not?
A Yes, Dornier was an aircraft factory.
Q They speak here of Oberpfaffenhofen. That is down south west of Munich, is it not?
A Yes, that is somewhere near Munich. You see from this that the allotment of such workers did not pass via the GL, because I never heard anything of the fact that Americans were assigned work at any place.
MR. DENNEY: The next document, if your Honors please, is NOKW-418, which is a partial translation of the minutes of a conference of the General Luftzeugmeister, presided over by the defendant on Tuesday, May 5, 1942.
Q Does your diary show you were present at that meeting on that date?
A Second of May? Second of May, yes.
Q Fifth.
A Oh, the 5th of May you mean.
Q Of 1942. NOKW 418
A Yes, there was a conference of the GL.
Q Do you remember what you talked about there?
A No, I can't remember that.
Q You do not have any notes that would indicate it?
A No, just the fact, I just know the fact there was such a conference.
MR. DENNEY: If your Honors please, we offer this as Exhibit 136 for identification, being document NOKW-418, partial translation of a conference presided over by the defendant on 5 May 1942.
Q Did you know a man named Alpers, A-l-p-e-r-s?
A Yes, I did.
Q That did he do?
A He was in the technical office and he dealt with the questions of procurement of airplanes. That is the airplane without the motor and without equipment.
Q Can you look at the cover page there and see whether or not you initialed this?
A Yes, I can.
MR. DENNEY: Perhaps you had better let him hold on there for a moment. You can go over and sit down if you want to.
Q You note on the first page there that Alpers says, "The reason given is shortage of labor. And in fact there are 2,000 men licking at Heinkel-Oranienburg." And then you said, "As far as the French are concerned, 60,000 of the ones that we had been promised are still missing." How many Frenchmen had you been promised?
A. Well, at the present moment I could not tell you that. I didn't even find the spot so far. Yes, I couldn't tell you what was said at that time, what they promised us at that time.
Q I am interpolating, "40,000 are still missing." So at least you had 20,000 Frenchmen then, didn't you?
A. I think it says 2,000 here.
Q There is an interpolation after the first sentence of your speech or your remarks.
A Somebody made an interpolation at that time, but I didn't say that.
Q Oh, no, you said 60,000 were missing.
A Yes, that is what I said.
Q Somebody else said, no, it is only 40,000, and then you go on to say, "If we get these men," the 40,000 who are missing, "I would assign 2,000 to Heinkel-Oranienburg."
A Yes, I planned that.
Q It is what you said, isn't if?
A I couldn't tell you that I said it.
Q Then a man named Fridag, who was Fridag?
A Fridag was a man who belonged to the main committee for airplane bodies. That was the organization which came from the total armament industry which was organized by Speer.
Q Fridag said, "The French become worse and worse, I threw out 80 of them who will be sent to concentration camps in Russia. They refused to work. The French say at 4 o'clock! "I won't work another hour," and you cannot make them work another hour. This happened four weeks ago all of a sudden, when the first bombing attack on Paris took place, whilst before that the French were the best people." What did you do when Fridag told you he was sending people to concentration camps in Russia?
A I haven't taken any steps at ail after that.
Q Then you said, "We were told at Oranienburg that they were good as long as they don't get spoiled by our German people." Then Fridag said, "It happened here after we got the French from Messerschmitt, according to the French they got a warm meal twice a day there and had their laundry done. We cannot do either. We don't have a warm meal twice a day either.
At Messerschmitt the living conditions were better." And then you said, "Gablenz--" Was that your friend, General Von Gablenz?
A Yes, that was the chief of the planning office.
Q "I want you to get in touch with Reinecke concerning these French." Who was Reinecke, the general in charge of prisoners of war?
A Well, I couldn't tell you that now. After all Reinecke was not personally in charge of the PW's. He had a general there. I couldn't just remember that name now, but I have to read it through. I am not quite in the atmosphere yet. I don't know what it is.
Q Well, anyway, if you told Gablenz to get in touch with Reinecke, you said, "I demand that if the people refuse to work-
A Well, I can't remember that now. I don't know that.
Q You said, "I demand if the people refuse to work they immediately be placed against the wall and shot before all the other workers." You were suggesting rather stringent measures pretty early, weren't you, May 1942?
A I cannot remember anything of the kind, and I cannot imagine either that that has been told in that form.
Q Then you say, "I ask you to get in touch with the Reich Fuehrer SS and to ask him to discuss the matter with the Fuehrer. Now is the right time, unless we do something effective now, the others will become bothersome. I ask that their being sent to concentration camps be taken into consideration too. I will tell you afterwards how you should act in such a matter."
A I think there must have been something mixed up. If you read the next paragraph you'll see that also.
Q You were thinking about sending people to concentration camps in May of 1942, weren't you?
A I doubt it very strongly, that I said that. If you read, the next paragraph you see that something must have got mixed up in the minutes there.
Q. Well, there's certainly nothing mixed up as far as I've read in this speech of yours. You're telling your good, friend Gablenz to see Reinecke, He, Reinecke, a general in the army, who is head of the prisoners of war, and you're also telling him to get in touch with Himmler and asking him to get in touch with Hitler. You know all these people.
A May I read the next paragraph, please?
Q Certainly; read the next paragraph.
A "So I do not agree. You should make another proposal. At the beginning you can not expect more after all." That shows clearly that this passage has become separated from its context and something quite different must have been involved. Furthermore, I could never have recommended to Gablenz to talk with Himmler, because these two were mortal enemies.
Q Yes, I realize that everybody was a mortal enemy of everybody else in the Third Reich, but, from your notes, which you've initialed, it says that you told Gablenz to get in touch with Reinecke to get in touch with Himmler and ask him to speak to Hitler; there's certainly no confusion as far as that goes.
A Yes; my initials have nothing to do with that, because the contents were not read and were not checked either, because that was an excerpt from some--extensive document.
Q You presided over the meeting, didn't you?
A Yes; I was.
Q You were the General Flugzeugmeister in May 1942?
A Yes, I was.
Q Well, let's go on a little farther in it. Now, down on page 392 of the original, you see a photostatic copy of your initials at the bottom there? 2108
A On 392, isn't it? Yes, I think that is the case. It seems like it.
Q And if you turn over the page, do you see, perhaps one or two pages, do you see a signature of Gablenz's, at the bottom?
A Yes, I do.
Q So Gablenz wrote something that went on here?
A Yes, it's signed Gablenz. Then, in my own handwriting, above, "To my files", then Speer -- that would be on page 394.
Q Yes; and that has to do with the entry of-Gablenz wrote a note on 18 May which you received on 19 May, didn't he?
A I can't read the date which is after my name. The letter is the letter of the 13th of May by Gablenz. It's dated 13th of May, at least. But my own reception date I can not read.
Q Well, you see point six in Gablenz's note? This is on page 392, the same page that your initials are on.
A I just talked of another page now. I understood "394".
Q Now, will you look back to 392, please?
A Yes.
Q Do you see your initials on 392, up to the right?
A Yes; I do.
Q And the date, 19/5, which means 19 May, appears after that, doesn't it?
A Yes.
Q And over to the left, below that, appears "Berlin, 18 May 1942"?
A Yes, I see that.
Q Now, will you turn over to point 6 of Gablenz's note to you, which is still on page 392?
A. Yes, let's do that.
Q Now, point 6 has to do with -- "For Heinkel-Oranienburg the 2,000 workers are brought in as follows: 400 Russian Women", after that, the notation, "already arrived." Then, below that, "47 Czech Women (already arrived". Furthermore in accordance with main plan No. 1, 300 Poles (arrival to be expected on 19.5.42", which is the 19th of May, "and from the Sauckel Action)", and, below that," 400 Frenchmen (from unoccupied France)", and, below that, "400 Dutchmen (Metal workers)." Now, what was the "SauckelAction"
A I couldn't tell you that in detail. One of the Sauckel-Actions, I suppose, was known under that particular name at that time, because, after all, all the other workers were also supplied by Sauckel. I suppose that was shortly after Sauckel had received his assignment, and there were still action in progress originating from his predecessor, and I think his name was Syrup. He was subordinate to Minister Selte, Labor Minister, and Sauckel, the newcomer, now had arrived and he just started his own actions, that's the way I suppose it was.
Q Now, these Czech women--how many other plants did you employ Czech women in?
A I don't think that they are Czechoslovakian women; I think they are male workers. The Russians, above--those are female workers, otherwise it would read "Tschechinnen", which means Czechoslovakian female workers.
Q Well then, in how many plants did you employ Czechs?
A I couldn't tell you at the moment. I myself didn't make them work there.
Q Now you were getting in some Poles for Oranienburg or the Heinkel plant.
A Yes; it only stated that they are supposed to be about to come.
Q They were expected on the day that you made this note on this, were they not?
A That was possible, that they were to come.
AAnd the Dutch, where else did you employ Dutch workers?
A I couldn't tell you that, because they weren't sent in there by our officers, because this here is only an information we received. I suppose that the agencies of the industry complained about the lacking workers in Heinkel Oranienburg and that then our agencies investigated the matter, whether these workers come or would not come. In one of these conferences at my offices this subject was then discussed, because I there made reference to it at the top of the letter, reference to the conference on the 5th of May, and the Planning Office as Statistical Agency reports here the information which it probably had 2110A requested from Sauckel, and according to which 400 Russian women had been assigned, 47 Czechoslovakian, and then, it continues, what is to come-those are only intentions of Sauckel and he now is forwarding this information.
But for the GL, it became apparent from that Heinkel actually could fulfill the contract he had taken upon himself, provided that the promised workers actually arrived. And that was the task of this agency of the Planning Office, to establish whether the workers promised to the industries by Sauckel and reported as having been supplied, really had arrived.
Q Now, these Poles that were brought in by a Sauckel-Action, the Frank-Decree of 21--. Withdrawn. Now, you know, below that, it says:
"The remaining 453 workers are to be dispatched as soon as new Sauckel contingents are released."
A Yes; I see that.
Q And at the bottom, before Gablenz's signature, you will note that there are some figures over in the left-hand column, "11,651--1,500--13,151"; do you know what those meant?
A I assume that this was an addition of the figures at the right, now that is a matter which is not, if you allow me, I'll just read it a little bit. That is only a notation for our information, sent by Gablenz, according to which other people, for instance, the Plenipotentiary for Chemistry, which is just listed here and the B.F.M., the meaning of which I do not know had received workers' and I noted Speer in order to ask Speer who had to keep himself informed about these matters via the Armament Inspectorate, and to tell him that we wouldn't receive enough workers while other instances here were actually receiving these supplies, but in no event the workers listed here were meant for the armament industry of the Luftwaffe.
Q Do you recall where you were on 27 May 1942?
AAt that time I was in Berlin.
Q Do you have a Generalluftzeugmeister meeting on that day?
A Yes, we had.
MR. DENNEY: If Your Honors please, this is Document NOKW-407, which we will offer as Exhibit 137 for identification, being an excerpt from the Generalluftzeugmeister conference of 27 May 1942. The first page has been appended in order that the initials of the defendant on these might appear.
Q Show it to the defendant please, and I will ask him, are these your initials which appear at the top of the first page, which I believe is 7-763.
A Yes, M.E., that's on page 763.
Q And you put those on there?
A I should think so, yes. Of course, I couldn't tell you that exactly.
Q Well, doesn't it say Z.M. above it?
A I couldn't read that. Z.M.--no, I can't really see it.
Q Well, you don't question that these are your initials, do you? Doesn't it say "to my files" above your initials?
MR. DENNEY: Perhaps we could pull up the blind behind him, Colonel.
A I cannot read it exactly on this copy.
Q well, it's not on that page. It's on the first page.
A Yes, on the first page. Yes, now with this light we can see it.4 It's "to my files".
AAnd you wrote it on there and put your initials under it, Didn't you?
A Yes, I did.
7 All right. There is only one short quotation here which appears on page 798, which is page 36 of the original, von Gablenz speaking.
He says: "Yesterday the first---(blank) has exploded in France, at the Arade Plant, an explosive, a float, but no damage has been done."
Then the defendant speaking; "What measures have been taken in consequence? I want to have a report on what has been done, how many people have been shot and how many hanged? If that guy cannot be found today fifty men should be selected and if I were you I would hang three or four of them whether they are guilty or not. It is the only way." Do you recall saying that?
A No, I cannot recall saying that. But if any steps had been taken, I certainly would recall it.
DR. BERGOLD: Kay it please the Tribunal, I would like to request Mr. Denney to submit the whole of this report. I suppose that witnesses are present whom we could hear today still and who could confirm whether come steps had been taken or not. I suppose, for instance, that it might have been that General Verwald was attending that conference. From such a small action you cannot see enough.
MR. DENNEY: We will be glad to give Dr. Bergold the entire meeting.
THE PRESIDENT: Can that document be furnished during the recess, do you think? Is it immediately available?
Mr. Denney: I don't know, your Honor. I will endeavor to get it during the recess for him.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: On the outside of the document here it purports to show that the defendant presided over the meeting on May 27, 1942, at 9:00 a.m.
Did you preside over this meeting?
THE WITNESS: Yes, if I attended these meetings of the GL, I always was the senior official and I always presided over the meeting.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: I just wanted to know if you presided ever this meeting?
THE WITNESS: If I attended the meeting, then I certainly presided. I couldn't say that up to now, because I have no document submitted to me to that effect.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Did you attend the meeting?
THE WITNESS: I suppose so, yes, yes.
Q (By Mr. Denney) The next document is HOKW-406, which consists of the covering page and one page of a meeting of 7 July 1942 presided over by the defendant, and this is offered as Exhibit Number 138 for identification.
On page 1392 of the original, who was the man named Toennes?
A. I am sorry; I didn't understand the name.
Q. (Spelling) T-o-e-n-n-e-s or perhaps T-h-o-e-n-n-e-s.
A. I couldn't tell you that.
Q Well, the last three sentences day: "If that does not succeed, then I intend to fill the now Heinkel Plant in the East entirely with Frenchmen brought down there by force. If they don't work in France, they may work as prisoners in Poland, after all we have to remember that it is we and not the French who have won the war."
Where was your now Heinkel Plant in the East?
A I couldn't tell you that either at the moment. There was an intention to establish a Heinkel Plant in the East, but as far as I knew, it has never been opened.
DR BERGOLD: May it please your Honors, I make two requests. First of all, Mr. Milch should be supplied with a copy also because it is very difficult as the names are mispronounced, and in this way there can be a false testimony. Second, here again I would like to have the original in order that I may be able to check whether Vorwald, the only witness still present, was attending that meeting, and in order to be able to establish whether or not Vorwald can testify in this regard.
MR. DENNEY: We will be glad to furnish Dr. Bergold with photostatic copies of the originals. The originals we are unable to furnish him because we don't have them. The originals are in the Air Ministry of the Royal Air Force in London.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, a photostatic copy is just as good.
DR. BERGOLD: Very well.
Q (By Mr. Denney) The next document is NOKW-408, which is a report of Generalluftzeugmeister conference presided over by the defendant on 28 July 1942.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Denney, just a second.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Mr. Denney, there is a long paragraph here, and I would suggest that you read the whole paragraph to the witness, and possibly that would refresh his recollection as to what took place at the meeting and whether or not this was said.
Q (By Mr. Denney) Document 406, this is an excerpt from page 1392 of the original of NOKW-406, Exhibit 138 for identification, a meeting of 7 July 1942, in which you were speaking about an engine. You said: "I do not like the engine. I have inspected it and for the time being, anyhow, I shall not take the 177 plane as a traveling plane. With regard to the output of Prague I want to say this: Of course, one must recognize good output even of a foreigner. On the other hand, as far as the French are concerned, something must be done now. Gablenz, ring up Toennes and tell him that this is a crazy situation. However, we would still try first to arrange it in a friendly way through Toennes. If that does not succeed, then I intend to fill the new Heinkel Plant in the East entirely with Frenchmen brought down there by force. If they don't work in France, they may work as prisoners in Poland.
After all we have to remember that it is we and not the French who have won the war."
Does that recall to you whether or not--
A No, I cannot recall it, but I might be able to clarify the matter. There was one plant in France, I still remember that, which always was in contrast with the others because its output was so very bad. These were the protected factories, Speer plants, which we have mentioned so often, and most probably this was again a question of bringing the workers, who, at that time were working there and who were released prisoners of war, that those PW's should be taken back into Germany. In the meantime I remember now that there was an intention at a certain time to open a Heinkel Plant in the East, but as I said before, the plan was not executed. After all, we had talked so much at that time that I simply cannot remember all the things that have been said.
Q This is Exhibit 139 for identification, Document NOKW-408, a conference of the Generalluftzeugmeister held on 28 July 1942, presided over by the defendant. I would particularly direct the Court's attention to the statement on page 1646 of the original, which is on page 3 of the document, where he is speaking about production difficulties in France. The defendant talking: "As far as we are concerned that is very difficult, but at the very moment when the deadline is passed for me, I shall say: now there is no more French production. The workers are sent on leave or taken away immediately for other work. The French always want the proportion 1 to 5, but they only reach 1 to 2 or 3. In reality they have very much more as we have received only old French junk. If we consider the actual output that we have received, then the proportion is not even 1 to 0 or 2, but exactly the contrary;