Q. Well, anyway they talked with you about it, didn't they?
A. Yes, it seems that this conference took place. I have no personal recollection.
Q. About the matter of the initialing of these communications. Did you initial everything that came to your desk?
A. Do you mean these initials on this report, those "Mi's"? As I recall it I always put my "Mi" there. Whether the date was always there or not depended. Normally I usually put the date with it. Only in cases when I dealt with the matter very quickly so that it could be put with the files, then I often only put "Mi". All these were things which I didn't read myself. That would have taken up many hours. That was impossible for me.
Q. Did you always initial everything that came to your desk?
A. I assume so, yes. I am convinced of that but perhaps I may have omitted to do so. Whether or not I omitted to do so I am unable to say now but on the whole I think I was very reliable as far as signing was concerned, because otherwise my people outside wouldn't know whether it had reached me or not, and then it would be submitted to me again normally until it was finally initialed and disappeared.
Q. Now, about the people of foreign extraction who worked -withdrawn. About the people who were non-Germans who worked for the Luftwaffe - what ones did you know that you had besides French and Russians?
A. When I became G.L. at the end of 1941, Russians and Frenchmen were already working with us and if other nations were present there, although I cannot recall them, they must have been present at that time, too. I mean, for instance, Belgians, which I read something about just now.
Q. The next document is NOKW 272, which is a partial, extract from a conference held between the defendant and one Rautenbach on 22 February 1944. We don't have the cover page here. Do your notes show that you saw Rautenbach on that date?
A. Yes, on the 22nd of February I was in Wernigerode with the Jaegerstab and Rautenbach - the factory there.
Q. This is Prosecution's Exhibit 151 for identification, and midway on page 22 of the original, the defendant speaking, "How is the personnel made up proportionally, as regards Germans and foreigners, and men and women?"
Then Rautenbach says: "In Wernigerode we have some 6,000 and in Solingen some 4,000 work hands, all together some 10,000 people. Of these 76 percent in Wernigerode are foreigners and 24 percent Germans, end this includes the non-productive labor, though not office workers. Furthermore, we have 550 German women and 600 foreign ones in Wernigerode. Before the outbreak of the war we had hardly any women at all, only in the offices apart from the 'Kernmacherei' in Solingen. There were no foreigners employed there at all."
Then the defendant says, "To what nationalities do the foreigners belong?"
Engelke comes in, "We have almost all nationalities here, in the main there are: 2,000 Belgians and Frenchmen, about 1,000 Poles and Russians, in addition 800 concentration earn internees, among whom you can find the most widely different nationalities, and then some Czechs and Poles."
And then the defendant says, "With/what workers are you not satisfied? The Frenchmen are good, skilled workers, but lately by not returning from their furloughs they have become unreliable. The Eastern workers, particularly the women, turn out very well once they have been schooled and trained. In the foundries and 'Kernnacherei' they are perhaps our best workers."
Rautenbach: "That refers to Wernigerode. In Solengen we had the best results with Frenchmen and the worst with Italians, meaning the Italian workers and not the prisoners of war. For that reason we do not employ any Italians here in Wernigerode. They are only 50 to 60 percent efficient."
Then the defendant says, "Could not the following be done: give the Italians in principle only half of their food rations, letting them earn the other half when they do their work well?"
Rautenbach: "We introduced that already but the pilfering that starts ---"
Milch interrupted and said, "Then we must take counter measures against such pilfering. Diesing, we will discuss that with the Reichsfuehrer SS."
I am sorry, in the original it just says Reichsfuehrer. It doesn't say "SS". I don't believe there is any other Reichsfuehrer besides Himmler. Do you recall that?
A. Himmler is meant here, of course, but there were other Reichsfuehrers, of course. I may say here that that factory did not belong to. the Luftwaffe industry. It was a foundry work that made semi-manufactured goods, and those factories were not part of the Luftwaffe industry. It did not concern the GL. We merely maid a visit there with some people from Speer in order to inspect this modern foundry equipment, and the preposition that they should be given only half the food ration does not mean that they should only be given half their ration. Half their ration should be given, which roughly corresponds to the ration for the German civilian and non-working German civilian families, etc. They should be given that in any case, but the supplementary rations, they should be only given the supplementary rations if they worked for us.
Q. Here you were advising a factory owner, you, a German field marshal, you say the factory had nothing whatever to do with anything you were concerned with and yet you were projecting yourself into his business and suggesting how he should out down on the rations of his employees.
A. He himself was not in a position to do so because the rations were not distributed by the factory, but that is merely a question put to him, whether that method had been tried out by the authorities con cerned with that sort thing.
THE PRESIDENT: Recess until one-thirty
THE MARSHAL: This Tribunal is in recess until 1330 this afternoon (A recess was taken until 1330 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1300 hours, 19 March 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: Tribunal II is again in session.
ERHARD MILCH - Resumed CROSS-EXAMINATION (Continued) BY MR. DENNEY:
Q Witness, do you recall the other day speaking about isolated instances with reference to the treatment of Polish people?
A I am not quite sure what you are driving at.
Q Well, if you will recall his Honor spoke to you about how Polish people were treated and you said in certain isolated instances they might have been mistreated.
A Yes, that was my idea.
MR. DENNEY: This document is 654PS which are notes on a discussion among Himmler, Dr. Rothenberger, and SS-Gruppenfuehrer named Streckenbach and SS-Obersturmbahnfuehrer named Bender. We offer this as prosecution's Exhibit 152 for identification. I will only read from it in part.
If your Honor, please, I thought that we had only offered part of this but it seems that we have offered all of it before, so we will withdraw this offer and I call your Honor's attention to Exhibit No. 16 in evidence which is at page 67 of Document Book 1a. Dr. Bergold has the German copy. This document expresses, as of that date, at least, the 18th of September 1942, the attitude so far as Polish people were concerned in Germany at that time, paragraph 2 stating the delivery of antisocial elements from the execution of their sentence to the Reichsfuehrer of the SS to be worked to death.
Persons under protective arrest, Jews, gypsies, Russians, and Ukrainians, Poles with more than three-year sentences, Czechs and Germans with more then eight-year sentences, according to the decision of the Reich Minister for Justice, first of all, the worst anti-social elements among them just mentioned are to be handed over. I shall inform the Fuehrer of this through Reichsleiter Bormann." And then they continue talking about the administration of justice by the people, and, over in the last paragraph, number 14, "It is agreed that a consideration of the intended aims of the government, for the clearing up of the Eastern problems, in the future, Jews, Poles, gypsies, Russian-Ukrainians, are no longer to be judged by the ordinary courts, so far as punishable offenses are concerned, but are to be dealt with by the Reichsfuehrer-SS. This does not apply to civil law suits, nor to Poles whose names are announced or entered in the German racial list." I think that is an example to which the Court's attention should be called at this time with reference to the way the Polish people were treated as early as 1942, and it is also worthy of note that they were denied the German judicial process, such as it was at that time, particularly with reference to the criminal courts. It does say that in civil law suits, it isn't applicable, but I should think so far as they were concerned they'd much rather be allowed the questionable benefit of German judicial processes as opposed to those of Mr. Himmler and his people.
Q. You didn't know anything about that, witness?
A. No.
Q. So far as you knew, the Poles were always very well treated here?
A. I never saw ill treatment of any kind, or myself ever heard about it.
Q. You never heard of foreigners being thrown into concentration camps for minor offenses?
A. In my opinion, only for serious perpetrations, only for the same crimes which would cause Germans to be put there too.
Q. In other words, they ought to get the same treatment as the German people?
A. That is what I assumed.
Q. The next document is 242, NOKW, which is a letter of 13 October 1941 which would be Exhibit, -
THE PRESIDENT: 152.
MR. DENNEY: 152; yes, Your honor.
Q. (Continuing) This letter was not written to the defendant, but it concerns him. It's written to the president of the District Labor Office in Westphalia, and it has to do with the assignment of workers to a factory, specifically, a drop--forge installation, to increase the manufacture of airplane engines. Perhaps you can help us with the signature?
A. I can't read it. It is the armament Inspectorate, Army Defense District 6, according to the heading, and it states: "By order" and then there follow the names. The signature is not familiar to me.
Q. hell, in any event, the parts with which -
DR. BERGOLD: One moment. (Examining documents.)
Q. (Continued) The second letter, the one dated 28 august 1941, signed by one Schultz-Bless, bears the heading on it "Generalluftzeugmeister." The first letter indicates that the defendant has informed the Armament Inspection of this Wehrkreis, that they will need a certain number of workers to set up and develop a drop-forge to increase the manufacture of airplane engines, and the writer says that, for this purpose, "a thousand more workers must be assigned to the firm by the end of this month." It states, in addition, that "French prisoners of war will do." And he goes on further, and says: "A direct use of Russian prisoners of war is out of the question."
In the second letter (he) indicates that:
"Up to 1 October 1941 Goering will place 80 - 100,000 French 2185 (a) prisoners of war at the disposal of the aircraft armament industry for their employment in production."
And there's an interesting note down a little farther, that: "The prisoners of war are to receive about 75% of the net-wages of German workers." Do you recall having been advised of this at the time?
A No; that I cannot remember. At that time, both in August and in October, 1941, I had nothing to do with the question of manufacturing aircraft engines, nor can I recollect that at any time did I give information to that effect to the Armament Inspectorate. I consider that that's out of the question.
Q Well, that was the point I wanted to make. You've insisted that you had nothing to do with this prior to the time that Udet died, which was in November 1941, as I recall, and you became Generalluftzeugmeister on November 19 of that year, and yet here we find a letter from the Armament Inspection Office of Wehrkreis VI, saying that you are requesting laborers.
A Well, I can't believe that I should ever have done that because this was a problem which didn't concern me at all. It doesn't state here that I'm supposed to have asked for workers. It merely says that the union of Buchum had received a special task from the Reich Air Ministry which had special priority, and now the Inspectorate continues to say that we're concerned with construction of a drop-forge for the increase of production of aircraft engines, which, at the time, was not one of my tasks.
Q Well, but this was something that was being done at the request of the Supreme Commander of the Luftwaffe, who was Goering?
A Yes, but it didn't come to me. Something like that would have gone to Udet or his deputy.
Q Well, the man who wrote the letter here says that you have informed the Armament Inspection. He certainly would not dare to use your name if you didn't do it. He wasn't trying to sabotage you, was he? In 1941 things were pretty good.
A This could be some sort of a misunderstanding. Some other department might have used my name, that happened very often.
Q Yes, your name seems to have been used a great deal.
A Yes, and what's more, I can prove it by means of these very instances where it was done wrongfully. Might I draw your attention to one more point that becomes obvious to me, and that is this 75% of average wages which is being mentioned. That isn't a little since prisoners of war were drawing their rations from the camps as well as any other rations they needed, whereas the German laborer with his net wages had to purchase his food, take care of his lodgings, and buy his clothes.
Q Well, you know that the Geneva Convention provides that you have to feed prisoners of war with exactly the same rations that you give your own troops, don't you?
A Yes, yes, and I assume that in addition to this, that was being done. That brings you to the reduction of wages to 75%. What this amounts to is that expenses for food, lodging and clothing would amount to only 25%.
Q Of course, we had testimony here by one of the Frenchmen to the effect that they were forced to pay for some of these items. However, I won't argue with you about it.
The next document, if Your Honors please, is NOKW-267, of which we don't have a German copy at the moment, but Dr. Bergold, we will get one this afternoon or tomorrow morning. We offer this as Prosecution Exhibit 153 for identification. This is a letter of 13 August 1943 which has to do specifically with the problem of the transportation of timber, and it is to be noted from the context of the letter that, "The Forestry Office has recently transmitted the enclosed note to State Secretary Koerner and proposed to discuss the matter in the next meeting of the Central Planning and to bring about a decision." And Liebel says that he takes the liberty of bringing this to the attention of the defendant, and to point out that the removal of the difficulties will be of decisive importance for the armament industry. Then the alleged difficulties which are involved are stated on the next page. One of the notations has to do with civilian Russians, making available 7,000 civilian Russians for timber trade enterprises, 5,000 for mining timber trade, and 2,000 for the fibre wood industry.
Now, there has been considerable discussion here as to whether or not the Central Planning was actually a part of the Four Year Plan. We have here a document which the Court has not seen before, which is NQKW260, which we offer as Prosecution Exhibit 154 for identification. This is signed by Goering, and there is a second Page - the German copy is being obtained, Dr. Bergold.
THE WITNESS: Is nothing going to be said about this one, the one that you have just submitted previously, because there we are concerned with the question of transport on the railways. At that time Hitler issued a special order of a temporary nature to the effect that we in the Central Planning Board should deal with the dropping off of rail transport fig ures; that we should take care of that.
In the first place we were concerned with allocation of increased iron and timber allocations for the construction of rails, sleepers, and locomotives. This was a matter which only happened once and this letter of Liebel's, who belonged in the Speer office, deals with the affair. I just wanted to give you that explanation as to why it went to the Central Planning Board at all.
Q. Well then, this was just an isolated instance. Now, in Exhibit 154 for identification, the first is a note signed by Goering and a copy of it was received by the defendant. Your initials appear on the letter of 7 September 1943, do they not?
A. Correct.
Q. And Goering says: "I transmit enclosed my decree of 4 September 1943 as a supplement to my order of 22 April 1943 in respect to the Central Planning of the Four Year Plan. The Supreme Authorities, the High Command of the Army, the High Command of the Navy, the High Command of the Luftwaffe, the Military Commanders, the Reich Commissioners in the occupied territories, the Reich Protector, the Governor General, the Chiefs of the Civil Administration, the General Plenipotentiaries, Plenipotentiaries, and Special Plenipotentiaries for the Four Year Plan have received a copy of the decree."
Then it is interesting to note the reference on the next page to the planning office, about which there has been some discussion here. This again is signed by Goering and says that it is a supplement to his decree regarding the Central Planning of the Four Year Plan with respect to the changes in ministerial powers occasioned by the Fuehrer decree of 2 September 1943 concerning the concentration of economy. The thing with which we are concerned principally is Central Planning and in order to secure the coordination of war needs in all branches of economy, I am setting up a Planning Office under the General Plenipotentiary for Armaments.
It will be at the disposal of the Central Planning for all its tasks. The tasks' and powers of the Planning Office will be fixed by the General Plenipotentiary for Armaments"...who was Speer..."who, with my consent, will appoint the Chief of the Planning office."
A May I give you an explanation with regard to this?
Q Certainly.
A In the first -
THE PRESIDENT: Let me inquire whether it needs any explanation? What does it tend to prove, Mr. Denney, anything?
MR. DENNEY: Just that he said that the Central Planning board had nothing to do with the Four Year Plan, your honor. He made that statement on direct examination, and he also said that there was no connection between any of these ministries in the Central Planning board, and this decree has to do with the Planning Office under the Speer Armament ministry, and says that it will work in conjunction with the Central Planning Board.
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
MR. DENNEY: It is a matter of minor moment, but as long as the point has been made, and we have the document I think it ought to be offered.
THE WITNESS: May I then, your honor, reply please?
THE PRESIDENT: Of course.
MR. DENNEY: Certainly.
A (Cont'd) At this time which is mentioned here and where it says the concentration of war economy, reference is made to the fact that civilian output under the minister Funk had been or was being transferred to Minister Speer. Goering now is giving authority to the Plenipotentiary for Armament Tasks in the Four Year Plan, who was Speer, to the effect that civilian production too is to be taken over by him.
That, however, had nothing to do with the Central Planning Board. Speer, in his capacity as Armament minister, was the Plenipotentiary General for Armament Tasks in the Four Year Plan. Goering further decides that Minister Funk should join the Central Planning Board which, however, was also due to an order from Hitler, and I don't really know why Goering is repeating it on this occasion.
The Planning Office mentioned at the bottom was Speer's Planning Office, but Speer had decided right from the beginning that this department should simultaneously carry out the preparations for the meetings of the Central Planning Board in order to avoid the creation of some new special department. It was entirely a matter of economy. Actually that was the exact way in which I reported it at the time.
Q Well, Goering indicates that the Central Planning Board is part of the Four Year Plan in his memorandum, doesn't he, the first one?
A Yes, but that wasn't the situation as far as we wore concerned, in practice. otherwise, somehow I would have been making reports to Goering together with Speer, but all we did was report to Hitler. Only the reports for the Central Planning Board regarding such points as touched the Four Year Plan had led to it. Before the work of the Central Planning Board had actually begun to discuss all these matters with Goering, Speer said to me, "We have got to put Goering up to date. It's a matter of courtesy, otherwise, he will feel that there is interference in his own sphere." And that was the reason that on one occasion there was a conference in his offices. I have already given you the date for it; it was in 1942, at the very moment when Hitler had given the order for the creation of the Central Planning Board.
MR. DENNEY: The next document, your Honor, is N0KW-180, which is a conference with Goering on 4 November 1943 at the Junkers plant in Dessau. Again we don't have a German copy of this. It is in the process of coming.
DR. BERGOLD: Really, your Honors, I must ask Mr. Denney to see to these things in good time. It isn't making my task as a defense counsel easier if I get the approximate hint of what is going on. After all, I've got to see it myself. If consistently such quantities of documents are being submitted which I will maybe get at some future date, then I shall not be able to prepare my re-examination. For instance, I am still without the document mentioned yesterday afternoon which dealt with the conversation with Sauckel. I've got to have that.
MR. DENNEY: If your Honor please, this business of not having copies is not unusual from our side. The sane thing has happened with Dr. Bergold. I think this is the fourth document that we haven't been able to give him of the many that we have submitted; and we're making every effort to get them. I hope to have them by the end of today's session, and he certainly will have ample opportunity to out any inquiries he has to the witness with reference to them. I've been very careful in the documents which have been submitted which haven't been given him. I've read everything in that has any bearing. I certainly don't propose to inconvenience him any more than is absolutely necessary just based on the physician problem of getting the documents.
THE PRESIDENT: Of course, the procedure isn't ideal but it nay be unavoidable. It leaves Dr. Bergold without much of an opportunity to examine the document in German and to plan his redirect examination if he wishes. I'm not blaming anybody. It is just a vice which is inherent in the size of the task. Would you be satisfied, Dr. Bergold, if you get the documents tonight, by the end of the afternoon?
DR. BERGOLD: Yes, all right. But it is absolutely essential that I have them by the end of this afternoon, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: I'm sure every effort will be made to get them to you.
DR. BERGOLD: Thank you very much.
BY MR. DENNEY:
Q. Concerning Document 155, for identification. Do your notes show that on 4 November 1943 you were at a conference with Goering?
A. That's right, yes, at the Junkers Works at Dessau.
Q. Was there anyone else present?
A. Yes, it was a very large circle of people who came from Goering's staff, and also a number of my gentlemen were there at the time. Then there were a few members of the Junkers Works. I can't give you the exact number of people. I would estimate that it amounted to about ten or twelve people altogether.
Q. Now, here on page 6013 Goering is talking and he says, "Give the Stalag commander my greetings and tell him I said the Stalag is the biggest racket in Germany and merely a camp where getaways are being organized wholesale. The men do not even have to bother to dig a tunnel since they can walk out freely in broad daylight. The Italians get beaten up when they do not work. If Reinicke cannot do the work" - that is referring to General Reinicke, the head of the prisoners of war "I shall dismiss him and get somebody else. I will not be bothered with it any longer. It is absolutely useless to take the Italians as soldiers for they report for duty, it is true, but then they bolt again. We need them here, however, as workers for the '100,000 man operation'. In the second place, why do we not get the machines? If I want to have them, I just have to occupy a factory by surprise."
Then you speak. You say, "There are no transportation facilities to make this possible. We have to let certain plants go on working in Italy, such as ball bearings, steel castings, and others, and we cannot take the people from there. The same applies to the technical sphere. The people there are working for us. All depends on our policy toward the Italians. I have ordered that they can be beaten up if they do not work. I have also given permission that Italians caught sabotaging be sentenced to death. If this measure is not desired by the higher author ities, which seems to be the case, we are powerless.
Then the Italians in the Reich will not be of any use to us."
Do you recall ordering that Italians who didn't work should be beaten?
A No, because I never gave that order.
Q Well, now, up to this time you were always talking to people whom you ranked. Now here you were telling Goering that you had given that order. We don't see Goering interrupting and saying "No, no, you didn't give any such order."
A But Goering doesn't know it at all. This is a question of pacifying Goering who previously had demanded equally severe measures. Never at any time has such an order been given.
Q Was Goering demanding that these people be beaten and be put to death, too?
A It states in the previous paragraph, "The Italians are being beaten, and so forth," and subsequently we told him to pacify him, "That's already happening. The most severe punishment is being threatened."
Q So you didn't give the order. You were lying when you told Goering that?
A Yes. The order was never given, nor do I know who wrote this down at the time, nor whether it was ever said in this particular form. I'd rather like to doubt it.
Q Well, now, if you'll look over on the last page, which is just a few pages later, you'll notice that there is a note to you from Lt. Col. von Brauchitsch. He says, "Forwarded herewith for your attention and further handling are the uncorrected stenographic notes on the conference at the Reich Marshal's office on 28 October 1943." And they are listed as "Top Secret", and you got the fourth copy. You put your initials on that down there, didn't you, at the bottom?
A Yes, I initialed the receipt of this letter from Brauchitsch.
Q You received it on the 15th of November, about two weeks after it happened?
A. No, it was dated the 12th of November, on which day it was written by Brauchitsch, and my initials are the 15th of November. That's three days later when it was put before me.
Q. Well, that's what I said, that you initialed this 15 November, which was approximately two weeks after the date of the meeting.
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. So you were lying to Hitler and to Goering when you said that?
A. I believe that this is a different set of minutes than those of the Junkers meeting because, you know, there was another meeting at the Messerschmidt works. Maybe there is a third one, too, I don't know. There were several inspections carried out by Goering which had been summarized in such a report. It also says, you see, that it should be checked, and quite possibly later on it was looked through and checked, and maybe it was even altered. This is the copy which Brauchitsch sent along.
Q. Well, I'm still asking you, did you say it?
A. Well, I can't remember it. I can't remember having used these very words. I only know that were pacifying Goering and that we told him that everything was already being done and that he should not worry.
EXAMINATION BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. You won't deny that you said this, will you
A. I don't believe that I used these words; that I said it like that.
Q. Well, then you do deny it?
A. I am saying that approximately using the following sense we later reported to Goering when he said that severe measures ought to be adopted, namely, that we on our part or, rather, I mean some other source had already ordered measures in order to pacify him. We ourselves hadn't given any instructions.
Q. Wait a minute. I don't care for your motives. I don't care why you said it or did not. Will you try to answer this question. Did you say what it says on this paper or did you not?
A That I cannot remember having said in this way. The way it is put here in this document it isn't true.
Q What do you mean? The facts that you stated were not true?
A I mean the contents of what I am supposed to have said in this document would be incorrect. It says that I am supposed to have given the order that there should be beatings and that likewise in the case of sabotage people were to be sentenced to death.
Q We have had any number of instances where you told people who were subordinate to you many things that were not true. That isn't the question. Did you say this, if you know?
A I couldn't have told Goering that because it wasn't the truth.
Q That's hardly the test, is it, because you've pointed out to us a dozen instances in which you told people things that were not true about ordering people to be shot and beaten. You mean you couldn't have told Goering something that wasn't true?
A What you are saying would appear to be correct. If I really said these words, but that is what I am doubting.
Q All right, we'll leave it on the note of being doubtful then.
THE PRESIDENT: What I had in mind, I am not interested in Goering's statement, which has nothing to do with the issue here. You stated, "If we do not provide the Italians with food, and tell them only these who fight and work for us will get food," and Goering interjects, "That is what the Americans do." Do you find that?
A I've just found it now, yes.
Q What do you suppose he meant?
A I cannot recollect the words said at that time. It sounds as if he had been saying that the Americans were only feeding those who were working or fighting.
Q Was that the general impression? Did you believe that?
A I never heard it in that form, nor did I think about it.
Q You had no opinion about it?
A No, no, I had no opinion about it. I have no means of judging it. May I perhaps in this connection say one more thing. You can see from the first page that this entire correspondence was handed on by me to the Chief of the GLC. This was done with regard to the fact that Brauchitsch makes the remark that it should be checked. I cannot tell you now whether this was re-drafted or not.
MR. DENNEY: I omitted one of the GL conferences, which we now offer as Prosecution's Exhibit No. 156 for identification.
BY MR. DENNEY:
Q Were you at the meeting on 21 July 1942?
A Yes. There was a meeting.
Q This is one quotation from this meeting, a statement by the defendant. The last paragraph starting below the words "I do not care." The defendant is speaking and he said, "At the GLA, the question also arose whether such French labor as is needed in France, can be protected against the Sauckel drive. I have talked the matter over with Speer, and we have come to the conclusion that we can not promise any definite protection there because we are afraid that in that case the whole drive for skilled workers would be a failure. This drive has to get going first, and after all, there are still sufficient skilled workers in France.