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;
5 to 1 in favor of the French. At the present time we receive six to nine planes from the French. I could well imagine that they get out 45 for themselves. I shall shut up the shop with a single stroke and have the workers and the machines come to Germany. If it does not work on a voluntary basis, then we do it by compulsory contracts. Perhaps I shall first give them a week to think it over. It is a fact that, on the whole, these people work in silent opposition. One cannot blame than for it either, it is true, but they should not have started the war."
Do you recall that statement?
A The fact itself, I remember. I mean, the fact that we talked about those matters, and I even remember that the proportions 5 to 1 were the proportions which were supposed to exist, and that practically the proportion was 1 to 5 in favor of the French. And as I said before, there was a failure to act by certain agencies, and this matter simply could not be put in order. Thus the sense and the meaning of the protected factories was no longer existing for us if we couldn't change the situation. After a lot of hemming and hawing the situation changed, and thus the protected factories were maintained. I also say that after all, I cannot reproach the people if they use the factories for their own armament purposes for the armament purposes of the French government, but that it was not in the interests of Germany after all, and furthermore, France had declared war upon us. That's a fact.
Q You spoke about compulsory contracts there. You say, "If it does not work on a voluntary basis, then we do it by compulsory contracts."
A These details, of course, I cannot remember. I cannot say either what I imagined when I said that.
Q. Do you know what a compulsory contract is?
A. First of all we ourselves could not conclude suck a contrast because this was just mere talk perhaps in order to exert a certain pressure that the situation in France should now change for the better. It could be supposed that everybody would talk about that. Perhaps many of the words spoken in these meetings are not rendered correctly. I wouldn't know what it meant when I said in a general way these people work "through their teeth". That has no meaning in German.
Q. Back on Page 1645, a page ahead of the one about which you are talking, you say, "It really is always the same story with that firm." You are speaking about the Dornier firm. "The blame lies with the firm itself. The new supervising agent should be informed. I told admiral Lass that he should have them both come over to him from Friedrichshafen, as soon as the first complaints come in. I shall put those two, Schneider and Berger into a concentration camp for the duration of the war as soon as they make difficulties."
Do you recall saying that?
A. No, I cannot remember that. I can only repeat I didn't have any possibility of putting them into a concentration camp. That was just a mere expression of anger because somebody had failed in the armament.
Q. You could get people out of concentration camps, couldn't you?
A. Only if on certain occasions I had the possibility of obtaining them with the consent of the competent persons; but I also proved that during the war I had only a very slight contact with these agencies. I can assure you that I never brought anybody into a concentration camp. It is true that I got some people out of concentration camps; but I never got anybody into a concentration.
Q. Whom did you have to see to get somebody out of a concentration camp?
A. Well, in peace-time in general I did that via Wolf; but some times I also got results via Goering's office because, after all, Goering was for a long time Prussian Prime Minister; and Generally I used that channel.
2118a
Q During the war didn't you get people out of concentration camps?
A No, I cannot remember that during the war I got people out of concentration camps. At least at the present moment I cannot remember one single instance; and the total situation should be investigated, in order to see what kind of failure occurred at that time. Also in all the other cases in question it became apparent that this kind of failure excited me beyond all bounds because I saw the general significance of the matter. Then, too, I was not so very careful with my words; and very often I went further than I wanted to go; but I didn't mean it that way. I can assure you that no one ever was punished and that no action ever followed that.
EXAMINATION THE THE PRESIDENT:
Q Did you say, "If one cannot blame them for it either, it is true that they (meaning the French) should not have started the war"? Did you say that?
A Your Honor, I cannot recall it.
Q What did you say?
A I just said, Your Honor, I cannot literally recall these words one by one; but these were expressions of strong emotion and excitement.
Q I understand. Did you think that was the fact?
AAt that time, yes, because I knew at that time that it was France who had declared war upon us. The real connections and real background of the war became apparent to me much later.
Q But it says here that you stated that France started the war. Never mind who declared war; but did you ever think that France started the war?
A No, that was not my opinion.
Q Then it isn't your opinion now?
A No, today my opinion is quite different, your Honor, because in the meantime I have received information that the complication with Poland, whence originated the war, were of an altogether different nature than those told by our propaganda at that time 2119A BY THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE MUSMANNO):
Q When you made that statement you had in mind that France formally declared war on Germany; is that correct?
A Yes, that's what I meant.
Q What was your opinion as to who provoked the war between the United States and Germany? Which nation was the provoker in that instance?
A Germany alone. After all, Germany had declared the war.
Q So if Germany declared war against tho United States and France declared war against Germany, the more fact of the declaration of war does not really indicate who started the war.
A That is quite correct. It is rather the outward form which is expressed by the declaration of war. But if I may give a short commentary to the words of your Honor, at that time I was under the impression that the war between Germany and Poland had been caused--I mean not declared but caused--by Poland. At least cur German propaganda aimed at that. They gave us a lot of facts. At that time I had no occasion to look into tho real background of the matter. Therefore, I believed that the declaration of war by France was without any motive at that time, that is, because I didn't know that the actual beginning of this war, this actual beginning, was also Hitler's fault.
THE PRESIDENT: The translation, I think, should be "without any justification" instead of "without any motive."
THE INTERPRETER: Without any motive.
THE PRESIDENT: That's right?
THE INTERPRETER: Motive, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is in recess for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. DENNEY: May it please Your Honors, the next document is NOKW-409which will be exhibit No. 140 for identification.
BY MR. DENNEY:
Q Do your records show that you attended a conference of the Generalluftzeugmeister on 4 August 1942?
A Yes, indeed. These discussions were twice a week.
Q In a proposed excerpt of a meeting presided over by tho Defendant on 4 August 1942, who was a man named Geyer? G-e-y-e-r?
A Geyer? He was a ministerial diligent from the Air Ministry. I think that is the man you mean. May I have a copy as well, please?
Q Yes. On the outside of the cover page of that meeting appears a notation "To my personal files," does it not?
A No. My files -- I can't read what it says on the back, but I don't think it says "personal files" -- I don't believe, but it doesn't make any difference anyway.
Q Well, did you write what is on the outside there?
A Yes, I did.
Q Now a man named Geyer, whom you have identified -
A Yes, this Geyer who used to belong to the supply office.
Q It says:
"In the West there is a danger of the French going on strike in the event of a British attack. In that case the whole of the engine supply would be severely handicapped." And then you said:
"In such a case I would ask to be appointed Military Commander myself. I would band the workers together and have fifty percent of them shot? I would them publish this fact and compel the other fifty percent to work by beatings if necessary. If they don't work, then they, too, will be shot. I would get the necessary replacement somehow. But I hope the Military Commander will do duty. I'm not worried about it. The word "strike" must never be used.
For us there is only "living or dying", but not "striking". That goes for the educated man as well as for the worker, for the German as well as for the foreigner. The word "strike" means death for the man who used it."
Was that you attitude as to the way to treat these workers in the event they refuse to work?
A No, that was not my attitude. As it can be seen from the records of the Central Planning Board, in all cases like this one here, being a case in which I thought that the danger for Germany was to big, and I was very worried about it, and since this worry got me very cross, I used such strong words as soldiers usually do. I never meant it that way, and never was there an order given to that effect.
It is just one of those lyrical expressions which, were also used by other soldiers and by statesmen in other countries very often. As a matter of fact that was never my opinion nor my attitude nor my idea.
Q. Excuse me. A little later in this same document, on page 1760 you state, "In spite of all he has brought in quite a tidy number," speaking of Sauckel to whom Gablenz had referred earlier in the discussion, and you continued, "Sauckel has brought ever 1.6 million people to Germany, 1.3 million from the East and the rest from other countries." That was in 1042, August, when you knew that Sauckel had brought over a million and a half people into Germany.
A. I take it that is the way he reported it, yes. However, I don't believe it has any connection with what I mentioned before.
Q. But you know in August 1942 he had brought 1,600,000 workers into Germany, didn't you?
A. No, I didn't know that. However, I probably learned this assertion from some letter that was submitted to me. I learned that this had been assorted and at that time it was still a matter of doubt whether Sauckel's figures were correct or not. However, we did not see anything about it. because that is the question here, and that already struck us at that time, because we never would have discussed the question hadn't it struck us.
Q. You say, "In spite of all he has brought in quite a tidy number."
A. Yes, according to what he asserted. I don't say it is a fact.
Q. Where did you learn those figures?
A. Unfortunately, I do not have the part that precedes this part here. However, I take it that somebody else mentioned such a figure, either at this conference here or outside of this conference.
Q. Now, you said just a moment ago that you got a letter or something that indicated these figures.
A. Just a moment please, where did it say that?
Q. No, that is what you said.
A. No, I said here somebody else had mentioned it at this conference. This is only one page from the whole context as I have here. The preceding 2123(a) page is sixty-one pages ahead of this one.