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.
In other words, there can't be any connection between the two, and therefore I assume this because the figure as such was not known to me.
Q. Then below that Gablenz says, "We should not be sorry if Sauckel not only took care of getting the workers but also of distributing then. That way we would fare better."
A. Yes. Well, by that he means Sauckel assorts that he had brought in so many people; however, we would appreciate it if he could possibly take care of the distribution as well. That at least would mean something to us. However, there seems to be some sort of doubt here as far as Sauckel is concerned.
MR. DENNEY: The next document, if your Honors please, is NOKW 412.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Mr. Denney, before you reach this one, I would like to put a question to the witness.
MR. DENNEY: Yes, your Honor.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: You state that you did not mean what you said there in language that was quite clear that you would have so many people shot if they failed to do certain thing.
THE WITNESS: No, I never thought that or even intended to do that.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Curiosity consumes no as to what would happen if an officer inferior in rank to yours took you at your word and actually executed a number of these workers or prisoners of war. Would that officer then be punished?
THE WITNESS: No one was there who would have been in a position to do so. Apart from that all those who were under my orders knew me and my way of handling things.
They know exactly that I didn't mean it the way I said it, and apart from that they always laughed about my remarks if I ranted against the above mentioned.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: In other words the comment of the Field Marshall in a matter of this seriousness was really of no value?
THE WITNESS: Because the people knew that I get excited very easily about certain things, and these incidents here have been selected and sub 2124(a) mitted, of course, from every one of these meetings which took place twice a month, for instance from Flick's report and from some of the ether reports, maybe once or twice.
The nature of many of the reports which I received caused some of those outbursts or explosions, and then I used to fly into a rage as soldiers would, that is, I would just get mad, that is all. However, I never intended to carry out any of these threats and I spoke to my subordinates about this occasionally. They pointed out to me that I used such strong words. They knew exactly from my words that this was not meant seriously. They knew exactly that no suck order had been given and that no one over was punished at my instigation, not even then whom I perhaps would have been justified, if only for the very simple reason that I did not have the authority to punish.
THE PRESIDENT: You want to ask a question?
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Mr. Denney read this paragraph to you, Exhibit 140. I understood you to say this, that the paragraph did not contain your attitude there, that you never gave suck an order, that when you were worried you sometimes used strong language as a soldier would. Didn't you say that?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Well, now, whether you meant it or not, you did say these things, and by so doing you counselled and advised others under you at a meeting which you presided over to do suck things. Whether you meant it or not you did that, didn't you?
THE WITNESS: No, I never gave an order by using such words because my people spoke with me, and after all they implied from my words that I never meant them seriously. 2125
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Didn't you say, "I would hand the workers together and have fifty percent of then shot. I would then publish this fact and compel the other fifty percent to work by beating if necessary." Did you say that or not?
THE WITNESS: I do not remember to have said that. However, three days ago I believe I said that I never knew afterwards when I had such 2125(a) outbursts of rage because I had that rusk of blood to my skull owing to that injury I had, and I couldn't remember what I said at that particular moment.
I just burst out in rage.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Well, if you did say that, you were advising and counselling others to do that, were you not?
THE WITNESS: No, that was not a counsel or an advice to any one, on the contrary. I was known for the fact that if someone had done suck a thing I would have intervened and taken care of the matter.
Q. (By Hr. Denney) Did you attend a meeting of the General Luftzeugmeister on 18 August 1942?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Document NOKW-412, which we offer as Prosecution's Exhibit No. 141 for identification, being a partial translation of an excerpt from the General Luftzeugmeister Conference of the 18th of August 1942. The defendant is speaking. "As soon as the figures for August are ready I request an exact account for my report to the Reichsmarshall and also for the conferences which I want to hold with Sauckel and Spoor beforehand. This account is to show how the labor question has developed, how great the fluctuation is and which nationalities it involves, what real requests we now have to make in the different sectors in order to cover tho needs for specialists and for skilled and unskilled labor, low many of them are foreigners, etc. What happens to those who leave the industries. Are they being compelled to work elsewhere? Are they, as I proposed, under control in the camps supervised by the SS and considered as being in mild concentration camps or are these gentlemen allowed to remain outside and do as they please?" You were referring to labor figures there, were you not?
A. I an referring to various things here. I wanted to have a general synopsis with reference to the extraordinarily bad labor situation, and I wanted to got help from Goering because we did not get enough workers, and therefore I wished to discuss it with Spoor also --- hero I come to a special part which can be soon from the last few pages -namely that a part from the general labor question the fluctuation was also being discussed, and the term fluctuation includes also the slackers or shirkers. Those are people I wanted to have taken care of by the SS, namely these 2127 (a) people who are idling away their time and who do not wish to work, but also in the case of this question nothing ever was proposed to the higher-ups or instigated by us.
Q. You say here how many of them are foreigners?
A. That applies to a compilation having the nature of a statistic, and I want to report to Goering on this statistic. These foreigners have nothing to do with the slackers I mentioned before.
Q. Did they submit the report to you, which you request here?
A. No, I can't recall that.
Q. Well, you said that this was a very grave question, the trouble between the workers, and you were going to take it up with Goering, with Sauckel and Speer.
A. Well, will I have to look it up, whether there had been a discussion with Goering with regard to this question. We have occasionally tried by telephone to obtain a definite date, however, we never succeeded in getting it.
Q. You don't have any present recollection of having seen Goering about this?
A. No, I don't.
Q. Now, perhaps you can tell me what a mild concentration camp is?
A. These were the camps mentioned before, whore people were sent to for a period of two months to be "educated" that is only slackers. At least these people aught to have been sent there. That camp was some kind of institution which according to information from the SS existed theme, however, we never sent such people to these camps.
Q. How did you learn of these mild concentration camps?
A. I know that at the Fuehrer headquarters once, at quite a large gathering, I believe Himmler was there himself -- it was said that the problem of the slackers had been solved because he took care that in his special camps, the supplementary rations over and above the normal rations were only given to the worker on condition that they achieve a normal output.
If they had mild concentration camps they must have had concentration Camps that were less mild.
A. No, that has nothing whatsoever to do with that. That is just a term used here once with no significance whatever.
Q. The only kind of concentration camps you knew about were mild?
A. I repeat, I have only seen the concentration camp Dachau, in 1935. That is the only thing I know about a concentration camp, and the only thing I saw of a concentration camp in all that time.
Q. You never heard about anybody being sent to one?
A. Sent where?
Q. To a concentration camp.
A. Well, of course I knew as well as everyone else in Germany, that people were being sent to concentration camps. They had to be sent there.
Q. What kind of people were in concentration camps?
A. I cannot give you any information about that. I do not know that. I only Can say that of the people I have seen in 1935.
Q. What kind of people did you see in 1935?
A. Criminals, political prisoners from the SA, for the most part.
Q. Did you see any Jewish people there?
A. Yes, indeed. We saw one or two barracks with Jews. However, they also had long sentences. However, I particularly emphasized that I had not seen everything, and do not believe that in 1935 anyone had been locked up yet because of their race or belief, and I assume that this occurred much later as a natter of fact.
Q. You said in 1935 you saw two barracks of Jewish people?
A. I said one or two. I can't remember very well.
Q. Let's say one then. They were segregated, the Jewish people at Dachau, in 1935, weren't they?
A. I think so, yes, they were segregated into groups according to the nature of their crimes. That Was as far as I can recall.
Q. You knew throughout the war the only people who were in concentration camps were political offenders similar to the members of the SA who probably were put there as a result of the putsch involving herr Rhoen, or continual offenders, or were criminals.
A. I believe that they were segregated according to the type of crime. I didn't say that two barracks were only full of Jews, but I said that there were also Jews in one or two barracks.
Q. Well, will you answer my question then? As far as you knew to the end of the War the only people who were in concentration camps were political offenders similar to the people they had there following the Rhoen putsch or people who had committed offenses similar to that or they were criminals who had committed very serious crimes?
A. I can again repeat only that I cannot toll you, that I did not see it, and that nobody ever told me who in particular had been sent to these camps.
Q. Did nothing ever come to your attention before the end of the war which gave you any information as to who was being sent to concentration camps?