The conclusion is reached that it cannot be done below 200,000. There is a loss here, an additional figure which is far below 100,000. Witness, is that the same which you told the Court the other day when you told about the false figures supplied by Sauckel?
A Yes.
Q You continue, "It is very interesting to see how the figures were before Hitler's. As we thought, they did remain on the same level from January to August. From January to August the Russian figures sank from 22,000 to 19,000, and the others from 48,000 to 28,000. In the summer the prisoners of war became loss, from 70,000 to 10,000." Is that correct in this form? Was that your opinion at the time?
A That was how the statistical department supplied the figures to mo, because without our knowledge people were taken away from us and sent somewhere else.
Q Goering then says, "As I think about the figures which were given to me by Sauckel and see what the effects are in my case, then I ask myself, where are we heading for. Then I always told you there were fluctuations. This word is supposed to explain everything away which exists. I cannot understand that. It is not possible to that extent." I refer to a statement by Heyde, von der Heyde. He says, "We gave 71,000 men to the Wehrmacht this year." Is that a large figure compared to the air armament?
A Here we not only had the pure figures of the air armament but also additionally all that which the OKW gave to us as far as statistical figures were concerned. That started on a figure of roughly two million. We ourselves had only 300,000. In this case the 71,000 listed here refer to the two million and that is not a large figure.
Q Thank you. Then further down you say after a calculation of Speer of recent date, "We have a total figure of 1,832,000 employees. 817,000 are Germans, that is to say, 44 percent; German women, 25 percent; male foreigners, 23.
5 percent; female foreigners, 7 percent." Shortly before that the Reichsmarshall said, "In any case up to now I haven't found one enterprise which has told me it had more than 50 percent foreigners." Then you say these percentages apply only very generally. In certain cases of production the figures are different, is that so?
A Yes. The percentage quoted by you just now are the average. That applies to everything but within the armament the distribution was different in some cases.
Q Goering then says, "That is very interesting. I see with joy that German people are still twice as strep* as the foreigners and thus everything is kept going."
THE PRESIDENT: That will be a good place to stop.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is in recess for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribural is again in session.
DR. BERGOLD: Your Honors, a little earlier I had mentioned the fact that newly submitted exhibits had not yet been submitted in the English translation. Naturally, far be it from me to accuse the translating branch. I know that for technical reasons it could not possibly have been translated in so short a time. The only reason why I said it was because I wanted to apologize for the fact that it was not yet available in the English.
Q. (By Dr. Bergold) Witness, in this document Goering states that "The decisive thing is that in the management of the camps a personnel strength is being maintained which if free would provide the most outstanding help for us in the field of labor or other military necessities.
Is this connected with any of your efforts , I mean towards the reduction of the excessive personnel numbers in the German Army.
A. Yes. Through these means I was trying to free German personnel which were not in fighting units, but which were being used for duty in stores and dumps, and I was trying to got these people free for work.
Q. Witness, you then state, and I quote: "The following considerations are to be made; how much power does the Army have today without Air Force and without Navy? I assume eight million men, and how many of those are actually fighting at the front? Certainly not much more than twenty-five to thirty per cent."
Would this reflect your correct point of view?
A. This was the point of view which I had reported to Hitler as early as the 5th of March 1943.
Q. Goering, a few passages later, says: "But in spite of all this, there remains the great discrepancy between the number of laborers actually supplied by Sauckel and that figure submitted, by the Central Planning Board.
Once again this is connected with the fact that Sauckel's figures were untrue; is that right?
A. Yes, the statement made by him, and it means that the figures could not be correct.
Q. Then follows a passage which says as follows: "Milch submits to the Reichsmarshal a program which, by means of graphs of aircraft production in Germany, comparing it with that in America, Great Britain and Russia."
Would this be the confirmation of the fact that at that time here too you were trying to got Goering to increase fighter production?
A. Yes.
Q. And then you state: "The enemy is proposing to reduce, not to increase, production further although he could, because in the air armament program they have first, place."
What does that actually mean?
A. I was showing Goering the increasing production figures, I think, in connection with the American aircraft, and this graph then does not rise so steeply, only rather more gradually. What I am trying to say with this is that they are now slowing down because they have enough. They could actually increase if they wanted to because they have the facilities for it and the facilities they have because in these countries air armament is occupying first priority. I was trying to point out that here in Germany air armament only occupied seventh place.
Q. Goering then goes on to say, "The Americans can't climb into space with this thirty millions, either." And he goes on to say, "If I look at the conscription figures of the Americans, well, they aren't arriving yet, are they. And that is quite different and there will be quite different crashes on the American side, too. The Americans aren't having any less difficulties than we are having."
Would this be expressing his view that he doesn't believe you?
A. Yes; the submission of these latest graphs -- which were always brought up-to-date -- was carried, out to Goering by me very often. During every report I had them in my briefcase, and Goering didn't believe these figures, and kept saying that difficulties over there were just as great as they were in our country, and that they were also only 'boiling with water'".
Q. Later on you are saying, I quote Milch: "May I report in this connection that requests which I have made are aiming at an increased fighter production program." And Goering follows by saying that, "We may possibly reduce fighter production in favor of bomber production because I simply can not forego these bombers -- at least not those six hundred. I would rather forego eight hundred fighters."
Is that, once again, part of his resistance against you?
A. Yes.
Q. Near the end you are saying in this connection, "I am thinking of vital questions connected with these confronting us, namely, whether our home country in the following Spring is being sufficiently defended when the American bombers arrive. And Goering says, "And if every town in Germany is razed to the ground, the German people will nevertheless survive. Certainly this would be terrible, but the German people lived before there were towns." Would this once again be a final refusal to your proposals?
A. At least on that day everything that I was indicating to him--everything that I was aiming at in connection with the increase of defense -- was being turned down by him.
Q. I now pass on to the last passages in this document, page 73 in the German, and Speer is saying: "At this one point the 1-8 million reserved in this department 2243 are the best people in the industry"; and you are saying, "Yes, they are the best -- as far as quality is concerned."
You are talking about people of reserved occupations. What are they exactly?
A. "UK" means: people who, according to their ages and their state of health, ought to have been competent soldiers; who, however, for reasons of professional work rendered by them, were allowed to remain in industry, a position which could at any time be reversed.
Q. In Germany they always had the two letters UK?
A. Yes.
DR. BERGOLD: Your Honors, I beg you -- and this is of great importance -- to look at Document NOKW 245, Exhibit 157, and I should like you look at page 5408, where the defendant is supposed to have stated: "The best workers we have are the concentration camp people. They are our elite.
This meeting was on February the twenty-second, 1943, and, Your Honors, yesterday the witness testified that he could not have said this since he has only, always, referred to free German workers as being the best. Your Honors, quite obviously it has been established here how wrongly these minutes were being prepared; obviously the stenographer heard the word "UK" and he put the letters "UK" there, couldn't read, his own handwriting any more and wrote "KZ" -Concentration Camps.
In the Document, Exhibit 134, NOKW 195, the witness is expressly speaking of the fact that the best workers were those who were designated UK, so that obviously here, once again, a serious error has crept into the record. The stenographer put down letters which he put down quickly couldn't read any more and which he then, with a great deal of imagination renamed into the letters "KZ" referring to concentration camp inmates. Whereas, obviously the defendant spoke of the elite of German workers, namely those who had been put "UK" and. whom he referred to before Goering as his elite during the same year.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Who are the UK ? What does UK mean?
DR. BERGOLD: UK means unabkoemmlich -- people who can not be spared, people, who in Germany are reserved...in comparison to those people who are liable to be called up as soldiers. Someone who was UK could not be called up as a soldier.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Then they would necessarily be Germans -- would they not?
DR. BERGOLD: Yes, necessarily Germans. People who are UK must be free German workers who are unabkoemmlich, as we call it, in Germany -- reserves for the Wehrmacht.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: How do you explain that in that very same paragraph in which you eulogize, as you say, the German workers, he refers to twenty thousand of these German workers as pigs?
DR. BERGOLD: Those are different ones; those are the shirkers.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: But they are still Germans?
DR. BERGOLD: Yes, Germans, too; yes.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: They were net members of the Master Race -- these?
DR. BERGOLD: Yes.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: You mean they were -- they did belong to the Master Race -- these twenty thousand pigs?
DR. BERGOLD: They were Germans, yes; but those were people who defendant has described as traitors, traitors to their country, and the elite, on the other hand, are those with UK, the very good German workers. And the stenographer put UK -- two letters -- and apparently afterward he couldn't read it any more, He could still see the K and decipher it, and made the K a Z -- concentration camp out of it.
This is proof of the fact that the witness was speaking the truth yesterday because in 1943 he could not have described to Goering these UK people as the elite and previously describe concentration camp inmates as elite. That wouldn't make sense.
THE PRESIDENT: And of course the pigs weren't elite.
DR. BERGOLD: No, no, no. No, certainly not. There are, gentlemen, decent and rotten people in every nation, in every nation in this world.
THE PRESIDENT: So it isn't a matter of race; it's a matter of persons, isn't it?
DR. BERGOLD: Yes, a matter of the individual, your Honor, quite. I shall now turn to Exhibit 157 which I have just had in my hand. Your Honors, I am terribly, terribly pleased about that exhibit, and I'm so glad that for once the prosecution submitted a document which helped me and which supplied my little beat with fresh winds to sail since I had already been promoted captain by some highly spirited person yesterday afternoon.
I beg you to look at page 5407 of that exhibit. There Milch is stating, "Speer and I are of the opinion that he" - this is referring to Sauckel - "should, somehow be included in the Central planning Board so that apart from the material, labor allocation, too, would, be under our control because now there isn't any possibility of steering the situation."
Your Honors, I have spent many an hour to prove to you that the Central Planning Board had nothing to do with the actual allocation of labor or labor problems as such. The witness has stated the same to you under oath. A number of witnesses, Vorwald, Haortel, Eschenauer, Pandele and Schmelter have told you the same story. And now here in 1943 on the 22nd of February Milch is stating with great exactness the very thing which we are trying to prove. Sauckel ought to be included in the Central Planning Board, and only then would the Central Planning Board, aside from raw materials, also have labor allocation under its control, whereas up to then it had had no possibility to steer and to direct the situation.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR. BERGOLD:
Q Witness, was Sauckel ever included in the Central Planning Board?
A No.
Q Would this passage correspond with your views which you have stated here to a full extent?
A Yes, we did want that influence, but we didn't succeed. Hitler refused it point-blank.
Q I consider that this is a key document with reference to the Central Planning Board. May I ask the prosecution if I may have the original of NOKW-252? Witness, I am having this put before you, and I should like you to check Sauckel's speech. There in this speech of Sauckel you will find passages marked with red containing certain entries on the second page, the first page of the take, and also on page 11 and on page 12.
A I've seen it.
Q Witness, these entries marked in red - are those yours? Do they originate from you?
A I believe not.
Q Witness, what was your custom if you were marking such passages?
A I would affix my initials, "Mi".
Q So that if you did mark anything in some such document then you'd make that red mark with pencil?
A Yes, because my adjutant sometimes marked certain passages with red pencil for me in order to draw my attention to those. I see in the first instances that - the first paragraph is put in parentheses. I couldn't imagine for what purpose this would serve. I certainly never did. that.
Q Thank you.
DR. BERGOLD: Your Honors, in that case I have no further questions to put to the witness ?
A May I add one more thing? This letter sent, along by Sauckel is dated the 1st of April 1943, and he is writing to Field Marshal Milch. The following day, April 2nd, he sends the same letter to the State Secretary Milch. This appears to be an indication that he hardly knew rue at the time.
DR. BERGOLD: Now I have no further questions to put to this witness, and I beg your permission to call witness Reinecke.
MR. DENNEY: With reference to what Dr. Bergold just said about this other exhibit, I'd like to call the Court's attention back to the fact that I read it into the record yesterday and we have no quarrel with what he said at that time. He said he wanted to got Sauckel as a member of the Central Planning Board. That's all the statement says.
THE PRESIDENT: His point there, Mr. Denney, was that that indicates that Sauckel, the labor procurement man, up to that time was not a member of the Central Planning Board.
MR. DENNEY: Yes sir.
THE PRESIDENT: That's the emphasis he makes?
MR. DENNEY: Yes, sir.
RECROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. DENNEY:
Q Witness, you were a rated pilot; you had wings?
A Pilot's wings, yes.
Q Until the end of the war?
A Yes.
MR. DENNEY: No further questions.
THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE MUSMANNO): Dr. Bergold, I'm going to put some questions to the witness and I'll refer particularly to the last statement which you made regarding the inability or the lack of authorization on the part of the Central Planning Board to allocate workers.
EXAMINATION BY THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE MUSMANNO):
Q Witness, did the Central Planning Board have influence in the matter of the procurement or the allocation of workers?
A We did not have such influence but we were always aiming at it. We were always trying to reach clarity as to whether Sauckel's figures were correct or not, because Hitler was holding us responsible for the insufficient distribution of steel and through that the low figure in armament production.
Q Very well, Now, you recall having testified before the International Military Tribunal in the first case, do you not?
A Yes, I testified there.
Q Well, you seem to have made there a statement somewhat contrary to the one you've just made, namely, that the Central Planning Board had no influence. The record indicates that you said, "On the question of the availability of working forces it had no command authority. The distribution of workers was influenced in art by the Central Planning Board, since the armament industry could see what was necessary in each regard." So, therefore, you did have some influence, did you not?
A May I say in this connection that the sense of my statement at that time was that Speer in his sphere and I in mine were making requests regarding the distribution, and there again we were trying to gain influence because only we knew through reports from our agencies where workers were needed and which workers were needed. Sauckel, on the other hand, went to the extent of stating there that it was he alone who was distributing workers and that he could not fulfill our wishes.
Q Yes. Now -
A May I first give, you an example?
Q Witness, I don't want any long explanation. I have a number of questions so please endeavor to answer them briefly. We merely want to clarify whatever may be in doubt before the Tribunal in these last few moments of the trial.
In reading the transcript I find that here and there some doubts arise in my mind. Some of them may be the result of faulty transmission and some may arise out of the questions and answeres themselves.
Now, in the very early part of your testimony you spoke of the Versailles Treaty and yon mentioned various prohibitions. Here is something I don't understand at all, so there must have been some grave error in the transmission. You spoke of one of the prohibitions being the poison of South American Indians, called "Gurare." Now, that doesn't make any sense to me. What did you moan by that?
A What I wanted to say was that the disarmament conference at Geneva hadn't arrived at any result. That was the meaning.
Q Well, what did that have to do with South American Indians?
AAs a matter of fact, the disarmament conference arrived at only one resolution, namely, that Gurare, an arrow poison, was prohibited in Geneva at that time. That was only meant to be one example, to the effect that no results were possible.
Q I see. That's all I desire.
JUDGE MUSMANNO:
Q. Then you referred to a meeting in England, and gave us an interesting quotation which, standing alone, is rather ambiguous. Some Englishman said to you at a party, "Today you meet your first and second best enemy. Don't be confused by this, but if there is an attack hit back," Now what is the connection, what did he mean by that, and who was it that said it?
A. That was Lord Trenchard.
Q. Who?
A. Lord Trenchard, and of course it was a joke on his part. He brought us together with Mr. Churchill, and Mr. Amery, and had previously told me knowing of my efforts, that they on their part, and I on my part ought to arrive at a peaceful and friendly solution. He told me jokingly previously that maybe these men are ready to try you out, but that during the conversation don't be bashful after all an Churchill, is so far as I was concerned, a very very high ranking personage, "That you go ahead and answer them in a recognizable manner." It was a, friendly conversation and not a conference or meeting.
Q. Was Churchill present?
A. Yes.
Q. What was meant "That you meet your first and second best enemy"?
A. The person in question was trying to say of this, that here in England there are various attitudes towards Germany. One attitude is that of being rather angry about everything that Hitler had been doing, and these two gentlemen belonged to that school of thought, whereas -
Q. Very well, that is clear. Now I find this statement by you, which has to do with the airforce and in isn't quite clear to me in the record. You said: "I would have to introduce very strong and sever measures.
I suffered under the conditions something which I may be able to refer to tomorrow, to a horrible degree. I could see the decline and collapse of my country drastically before my eyes. I know how help could come. I tried it, and I didn't get it."
Q. What help was that?
A. We were concerned with the question of creating an air defense inside of Germany in time, which was to be strong enough for the defense of the home country.
Q. In other words; what you mean is, that you were seeking augmenting defense by the fighter plane forces?
A. Quite.
Q. In the earlier part of your testimony you spoke of Hitler, and you seemed to be admiring him considerably in these early days. You said that from 1933 to 1938 he was adored and worshipped by people. Was he adored by the Jews whose property he had confiscated; whose property he had destroyed; and whose personal dignity he had degraded; or, didn't you regard the Jews as people?
A. When I had referred to this liberty of the people, naturally I considered the Jews to be people; part of the people; that I did not include them in the words of mine was because they were not in a position. They came within my ideal.
Q. And since we are on the subject of Jews, I would like to refer to something which occurred at the first trial. Now you are not compelled to discuss this matter if for any reason you prefer not to, but you will recall that you were cross examined by Justice Jackson on the subject of your being Aryanized. Do you recollect that?
A. Yes; I recall it.
Q. Now you gave an explanation at the trial which; however was not definitive, it seems to have been left in midair, and since you have given us quite a long autobiographical sketch of yourself, if you would care to enlighten us on this point, you are free to do so.
A. It is my point of view that I made a definite statement at the time.
Q. Yes.
A. That point of view I still adhere to.
Q. Let us see. You were asked certain questions and gave certain answers as follows:
"Q. At that time Goering had referred to 1933, so we will have no misunderstanding, Goering made you what you call a full Aryan; is that right?
"A I don't believe he made me a full Aryan; but that I was one.
"Q. Well, he had it established, let's say?
"A. He had me in clearing this question, which was not clear.
Question: "That is, your mother's husband was a Jew, is that correct?
Answer: That is not meant by that.
Question: You had to demonstrate lack of connection as to any Jewish source, is that correct?
Answer: Yes, everybody had to do that.
Question: And in your case it concerned your father, your alleged father, is that correct?
Answer: Yes. And there the inquiry rested.
A. Yes.
Q. Just what had to be done to demonstrate that you were a full Aryan, and why did the question arise?
A. The first time that question arose was in 1933, and the occasion was the following: The president of the German Air Plan was reported as being adverse to the Hitler regime, and I stood in front of that man to protect him, and following that, a man who was a member of the SA sent a letter to Goering; and I would like to add, that this was a man who was trying to become State Secretary of the Air Ministry by such a method, and who had been deeply hurt that he as am old Party member had to take a second place behind me, that he wrote this letter from those rumors that were current to the effect that he said, Secretary of State Milch is not a full Aryan.
This happened in the Summer of 1933, Goering forwarded this letter to me, and I then went to Goering, and following that I was asked to submit my family tree, of my origin, and that is how this matter arose, that was the reason.
Q. You had to establish that no Jewish blood flowed in your viens, is that correct?
A. Yes, that is what I was supposed to do.
Q. And you established that to their satisfaction?
A. That was established, yes.
Q. In your eulogy of Hitler as you admired him in the early days, you said that he believed in God. Do you know why he persecuted the church if he believed in the Supreme Being?
A. Persecution of the churches was something which I only heard about afterwards and later on, during these later years.
Q. You did not know that the Church and the clergy had been warred against by Hitler?
A. During those early years I did not know it, no. I have three clergymen in my own family. All three of them were not members of the Party. All these three, too, I often met, and not one of them ever told me anything about this war going on at that particular time, when they told me that later.
Q. Very well. It is just as easy to answer the questions, simply.
Now, I understand you to say that the first time you learned of the proposed war against Poland was on August 21st, and even then it was not very clearly indicated that a war would actually be unleashed, and that actually it was not until the very eve of the attack, that is to say, at five o'clock in the afternoon of August 31st that you were directed to put the Luftwaffe, or all your forces in readiness for the attack. Is that correct? Is that what you said?
A. On 31st August, not to alert, but I did receive the order that the attack would start tomorrow, whereas, previously over-all preparations had been made through the meeting which took place with Hitler on 22 August that there was a possibility of instituting negotiations, and these negotiations were to carry on, too. These negotiotions came to an end on 31 August at 1700 hours.
Q. I understood you to say that after the meeting of May 23, 1939, you were convinced that war was not intended?
A. 23 of May?
Q. Yes, 23 May 1939?
A. Yes.
Q. That you had no intimation of Hitler's intentions of aggressive war on Poland?
A. Yes, because at that time, according to my recollection, Hitler stated again and again that he was certainly going to settle the problem, and that he would not allow war to break out.
Q. And that you had called to his attention the necessity of manufacturing bombs, because you believed that hostilities might break out.
A. This had been the previous date before the 23rd, and also after the 23rd, because I myself did not share Hitler's optimism, because although he could not have intended to wage war, his policy might nevertheless have brought war just the same, but after all he was not alone.
The others would have something to say as well.
Q. And that assumption lulled you into the conviction that there would be no war since he refused you authority to manufacture bombs?
A. Today I have to realize that in that line, at that time I did not discover this.
Q. Very well, and then you say that it was not until the 12th of October that you were authorized to manufacture bombs, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q In the meantime you had conquered Poland. What were you using against Poland, bonbons?
A Every bomb we had at the time, usually small type bombs, mostly explosive bombs of 10 kilograms weight.
Q You said that you had only small bombs, 10, 60 and some of 250 kilograms, which you could drop in a few minutes, and then your bomb supply would have been exhausted.
A What I said was this: During the 18 days of the Polish campaign we dropped approximately 60 per cent of all the bombs we had, although only 50 per cent of the air force was being employed in that theater. If then, now that we were at war with the Western countries too, an attack had come from there, then the air force would have remained without bombs after one week.
Q When did you first learn that an attack on Russia was intended?
AAt the beginning of January 1941 -- I beg your pardon -- Yes, that is right, 1941, on 13 January actually. It was then that Goering during a conference in a large circle of commanding officers informed us, that ones' attention should, be drawn toward the East, as Hitler was fearing an attack by tho Russians.
Q Yes, and you finally came to the conclusion that the declaration of war or rather, the undeclared war against Russia was a crime against Germany.
A Yes.
Q Did you think it was a crime against Russia?
AAgainst Russia, yes.
Q Also.
A Yes.
Q Now, you endeavored to see Hitler to persuade him not to enter this war.
A Yes.
Q And your immediate circle, your military friends, realized that it was foolhardy to provoke a war with Russia and thereby establish two fronts?
A Exactly the way I saw it, yes. My immediate circle were of the same opinion I was after we had spoken to him.
Q And all the generals were of the same impression -- that it was hopeless for Germany and that further it was tragic and suicidal to Germany to allow Hitler to take over the control of the armed forces? You were practically unanimous in that belief, were you not?
A This was never discussed in any larger circle.
Q But you have testified here -- it is in the record -- that you were all of that belief.
A This transpired at a later stage, when it was discussed with him. Later we discovered that they were all of the same opinion.
Q When was that?
A In the course of the war.
Q When did you realize that it was a mistake to have Hitler as commander in chief of the armed forces?
A I personally?
Q When was it so universally known, even though not expressed at a public meeting, among the generals, that it was suicidal, a great mistake, to have Hitler as the commander in chief?
A Generally the view arose after Stalingrad. That is when it became general.
Q And when was that?
A That was the end of January 1943.
Q Yes. You still had two and a half years of war ahead of you?
A Yes.
Q Why didn't you do something about having Hitler removed?
A It was my duty toward my people to maintain my allegiance. I had sworn an oath to keep allegiance to Hitler, too. I am only a human being who can see this world subjectively and I can not claim the ability to be an objective reporter of such situations, and I believe that in the whole of Germany's history there is not one example where soldiers arose against their military commander.