Court No. II, Case No. II.
(6) Did he have the power or opportunity to prevent or stop them?
(7) If so, did he fail to act, thereby becoming particeps criminis and accessory to them?
The periods during which these experiments were conducted became extremely significant in determining the responsibility of the defendant. The evidence is uncontradicted that the low-pressure experiments were inaugurated in March, 1942, and were concluded by the end of June, 1942. The cold water experiments extended from August to October, 1942, and the freezing experiments from February to April, 1943. During all of these periods the defendant was Under Secretary of State and Head of the Reich Air Ministry, Inspector General and Second-in-Command under Goering of the Luftwaffe, to which post he was appointed November 19, 1941. In these various capacities, certain military duties devolved upon him, especially as Inspector General. For example, he was ordered by Hitler to take an air squadron to Norway on a purely military expedition, and during the siege of Stalingrad, early in 1943, he was ordered by Hitler to attempt to transport into Stalingrad by air food and supplies for the beleaguered German Army. His high military standing is indicated by the fact that he was one of the twelve Field Marshals of the German Armed Forces. The major part of his duties, however, revolved around the production of aircraft for the Luftwaffe. He was primarily a production man, charged with the duty of keeping military airplanes supplied in sufficient quantity to the air arm of Germany's military machine. This naturally involved the procurement in large quantities of the two essential ingredients of production - labor and raw material and an over-all supervision of any efforts having to do with that arm. One of the defendant's immediate subordinates was Professor Hippke, who held the post of Inspector of the Medical Services of the Luftwaffe. Hippke was a physician, and had supervision of all matters involving the health and physical welfare of the personnel of the Luftwaffe.
The low-pressure experiments at Dachau were conducted by three physicians, Dr. Romberg, Dr. Ruff and Dr. Rascher. It is quite apparent Court No. II, Case No. II.
from the evidence that Dr. Rascher, who was attached to the Luftwaffe but made frantic efforts to have himself transferred to the SS, was principally responsible for the nature of the experiments. Dr. Ruff and Dr. Romberg were also attached to the Luftwaffe and were, therefore, remotely under the command and control of the defendant, but the evidence is persuasive that, although they were interested in and helped conduct the experiments up to a certain point, the excesses which resulted in torture and death are attributable to Dr. Rascher. It is quite apparent that the actual activities of these three physicians were far removed from the immediate scrutiny of the defendant even though their activities were conducted within the orbit of the Luftwaffe, over which the defendant had command.
Approaching now the determinative questions listed above, some progress can quickly be made in arriving at judicially satisfactory answers.
(1) As to the first question, the evidence is overwhelming and not contradicted that experiments involving the effect of low air pressure and freezing on live human beings were conducted at Dachau from March through June, 1942.
(2) Approaching the second question, it is claimed by the defendant that only legitimate scientific experiments were conducted which did not involve pain or torture and could not ordinarily be expected to result in death. It is remotely possible that so long as the experiments were under the guidance of Dr. Ruff and Dr. Romberg some consideration was given to the possible effect upon the subjects of the experiments. But it is indisputable that the experiments conducted by Dr. Rascher involved torture and suffering in the extreme and in many cases resulted in death. Under the specific guidance of Dr. Rascher, the air pressure was reduced to a point which no filer would ever be required to undergo (14,000 meters). The photographs of the subjects undergoing these experiments indicate extreme agony and leave no doubt that any victim who was fortunate enough to survive had undergone a harrowing experience.
The Tribunal does not hesitate to find that these experiments, performed under the spacious guise of science, were barbarous and inhuman. It has been urged by the defendant that the only persons used as subjects of these experiments were habitual criminals who had been sentenced to death and who were given the dubious option of offering themselves for the experiments and receiving as a reward, if they survived, a commutation of the death sentence to life imprisonment. This claim scarcely merits serious consideration. A number of witnesses stated that they had a vague understanding that this was the case, but the record is entirely barren of any credible testimony which could possible justify such a finding of fact.
(3) The prosecution does not claim (and there is no evidence) that the defendant personally participated in the conduct of these experiments.
(4) There is no evidence that the defendant instituted the experiments or that they were conducted or continued under his specific direction or command. It may perhaps be claimed that the low-pressure chamber, which was the property of the Luftwaffe, was sent to Dachau at the direction of the defendant, but even if this were true it could not be inferred from that fact alone that he thereby promulgated the inhuman and criminal experiments which followed. The low-pressure chamber was susceptible of legitimate use and, perhaps, had Dr. Rascher not injected himself into the proceedings, it would have been confined to that use.
(5) Assuming that the defendant was aware that experiments of some character were to be launched, it cannot be said that the evidence shows any knowledge on his part that unwilling subjects would be forced to submit to them or that the experiments would be painful and dangerous to human life. It is quite apparent from an over-all survey of the proof that the defendant concerned himself very little with the details of these experiments. It was quite natural that this should be so. His most pressing problems involved the procurement of labor and materials for the manufacture of airplanes. His position involved vast responsibilities covering a wide industrial field, and there were certainly Court No. II, Case No. II.
countless subordinate fields within the Luftwaffe of which he had only cursory knowledge. The Tribunal is convinced that these experiments, which fell naturally and almost exclusively within one of his subordinate departments, engaged the attention of the defendant only perfunctorily, if at all.
(6) Did the defendant have the power or opportunity to prevent or stop the experiments? It cannot be gainsaid that he had the authority to either prevent or stop them in so far as they were being conducted under the auspices of the Luftwaffe. It seems extremely probable, however, that, in spite of him, they would have continued under Himmler and the SS. But certainly he had no opportunity to prevent or stop them, unless it can be found that he had guilty knowledge of them, a fact which has already been determined in the negative. As early as May 20, 1942, the defendant wrote to Wolff, Himmler's Adjutant, stating:
"........ our medical inspector (Dr. Hippke) reports to me that the altitude experiments carried out by the SS and Luftwaffe at Dachau have been finished. Any continuation of these experiments seems essentially unreasonable........
"The low-pressure chamber would not be needed for these low-temperature experiments. It is urgently needed at another place and therefore can no longer remain in Dachau." Certainly the defendant did not have the opportunity to prevent or stop the experiments if he had been told and was convinced that they had terminated on May 20, 1942, and there is no reason to believe that he did not rely upon Dr. Hippke's report as to their termination. Considerable emphasis is laid upon the testimony that a motion picture of the experiments was brought to Berlin and exhibited in the Air Ministry Building, where the defendant had his office. It may even be said that the picture was brought to Berlin for the defendant's edification. But it appears that he was not present when it was shown and that, in any event, the showing was long after the experiments were concluded, at which time the defendant certainly could do nothing toward preventing Court No. II, Case No. II.
them or stopping them.
(7) In view of the above findings, it is obvious that the defendant never became particeps criminis and accessory in the low-pressure experiments set forth in the second count of the indictment.
As to the other experiments, involving subjecting human beings to extreme low temperatures both in the open air and in water, the responsibility of the defendant is even less apparent than in the case of the low-pressure experiments. The same letter of May 20, 1942, to Wolff, does indicate that the defendant was aware of the proposed sea-water experiments. In it he says:
"........ the carrying out of experiments of some other kind, in regard to perils at high seas, would be important. These have been prepared in immediate agreement with the proper offices; Oberstabsarzt Weltz will be charged with the execution and Stabsarzt Rascher Trill be made available until further order in addition to his duties within the Medical Corps of the Luftwaffe. A change of these measures does not appear necessary, and an enlargement of the task is not considered pressing at this time."
It is true that Rascher wrote interminable reports as to the results of these experiments, but there is no proof that they ever reached the defendant. On the contrary, they were addressed to Himmler and to Rudolf Brandt, his Adjutant. At the Nurnberg conference in November, 1943, which was held after all experiments had been finished, reports were made which even to a mildly curious lay person might have indicated that the experiments had been tinged with excesses and fatalities. But two facts are striking. First, the defendant was not present at the conference and only received a report of it later, and, second, the experiments were at that time all over.
It must be constantly borne in mind that this is an American Court of justice, applying the ancient and fundamental concepts of Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence which have sunk their roots into the English common law and have been stoutly defended in the United States since its birth.
Court No. II, Case No. II.
One of the principal purposes of these trials is to inculcate into the thinking of the German people an appreciation of, and respect for, the principles of law which have become the backbone of the democratic process. We must bend every effort toward suggesting to the people of every nation that laws must be used for the protection of people and that every citizen shall forever have the right to a fair hearing before an impartial tribunal, before which all men stand equal. We must never falter in maintaining, by practice as well as by preachment, the sanctity of what we have come to know as due process of law, civil and criminal, municipal and international. If the level of civilization is to be raised throughout the world, this must be the first step. Any other road leads but to tyranny and chaos. This Tribunal, before all others, must act in recognition of these self-evident principles. If it fails, its whole purpose is frustrated and this trial becomes a mockery. At the very foundation of these juridical concepts lie two important postulates: (1) Every person accused of crime is presumed to be innocent, and (2) that presumption abides with him until guilt has been established by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Unless the court which hears the proof is convinced of guilt to the point of moral certainty, the presumption of innocence must continue to protect the accused. If the facts as drawn from the evidence are equally consistent with guilt and innocence, they must be resolved on the side of innocence. Under American law neither life nor liberty is to be lightly taken away, and, unless at the conclusion of the proof there is an abiding conviction of guilt in the mind of the court which sits in judgment, the accused may not be damnified.
Paying reverent attention to these sacred principles, it is the judgment of the Tribunal that the defendant is not guilty of the charges embraced in Count Two of the Indictment.
THE PRESIDENT: Judge Musmanno will read the judgment of the Tribunal on Count One.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: COUNT ONE
Court No. II, Case No. II Count One of the Indictment charges the defendant with the commission of specified war crimes, as defined by Article II of Control Council Law No. 10, in that he was a principal in, accessory to, ordered, abetted, took a consenting part in and was connected with, plans and enterprises involving slave labor and deportation to slave labor, resulting in the enslavement, torture and murder of civilians of foreign countries.
The Indictment further charges that he similarly participated in the use of prisoners of war in war operations and work having a direct. relation to war operations, resulting in inhuman treatment and death to captured members of the armed forces opposed to Germany. The Indictment alleges that these acts were in violation of international law and the recognized principles of civilized warfare and in specific violation of numerous treaties and conventions to which Germany was a party.
It is claimed by the prosecution that the defendant's responsibility for these alleged crimes arises from his activities in three capacities: (1) As Air Ordnance Master General (Generalluftzeugmeister); (2) Member of the Central Planning Board; and (3) Chief of the Jaegerstab. The Central Planning Board was established by a decree of the Fuehrer, dated October 29, 1943. That decree fitted the task of production of material goods of every kind into the framework of the Four-Year Plan and charged the Central Planning Board with the procurement and distribution of material of every description. The Board consisted of Reich Minister Speer, Under Secretary Koerner, and the defendant. On March 1, 1944 the Jaegerstab was established, consisting of Speer, Sauer (a subordinate of Speer), and the defendant. The Jaegerstab concerned itself exclusively with the material needs of the Luftwaffe, and was headed, naturally, by the defendant. It became apparent that neither of these two bodies could adequately deal with the problems of production without constantly dealing with the question of labor supply. Meetings of the Central Planning Board were held at least weekly and the minutes of those meetings which were offered in evidence show a constant and unremitting concern with the problem of labor. Fritz Court No. II, Case No. II.
Sauckel was in supreme command of the procurement of labor for the entire war effort, and his conduct in carrying out his task has been vividly portrayed in the judgment of the International Military Tribunal?
"........ As local supplies of raw materials and local industrial capacity became inadequate to meet the German requirements, the system of deporting laborers to Germany was put into force. By the middle of April 1940 compulsory deportation of laborers to Germany had been ordered in the Government General; and a similar procedure was followed in other eastern territories as they were occupied. A description of this compulsory deportation from Poland was given by Himmler. In an address to SS officers he recalled how in weather 40 degrees below zero they had to 'haul away thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands.' On a later occasion Himmler stated:
Whether ten thousand Russian females fall down from exhaustion while digging an anti-tank ditch interests me only insofar as the antitank ditch for Germany is finished ........ We must realize 1a.That we have 6-7 millions foreigners in Germany.
......
They are none of then dangerous so long as we trice severe measures at the merest trifles.'
"During the first two years of the German Occupation of France, Belgium, Holland and Norway, however, an attempt was made to obtain the necessary workers on a voluntary basis. How unsuccessful this was may be seen from the report of the meeting of the Central Planning Board on 1 March 1944. The representative of the defendant Speer, one Kochrl, speaking of the situation in France, said:
'During all this time a great number of Frenchmen was recruited, and voluntarily went to Germany.
He was interrupted by the defendant Sauckel:
'Not only voluntary, some were recruited forcibly.'
To which Koehrl replied:
'The calling up started after the recruitment no longer yielded enough results.'
To which the defendant Sauckel replied:
'Out of the five million workers who arrived in Germany, not even 200,000 came voluntarily.' and Kochrl rejoined:
and Koehrl rejoined:
'Let us forget for the moment whether or not some slight pressure was used. Formally, at least, they were volunteers.'
"Committees were set up to encourage recruiting, and a vigorous propaganda campaign was begun to induce workers to volunteer for service in Germany. This propaganda campaign included, for example, the promise that a prisoner of war would be returned for every laborer who volunteered to go to Germany. In some cases it was supplemented by withdrawing the ration cards of laborers who refused to go to Germany, or by discharging them from their jobs and denying them unemployment benefit or an opportunity to work elsewhere. In some cases workers and their families were threatened with reprisals by the police if they refused to go to Germany.
It was on 21 March 1942 that the defendant Seuckel was appointed Plenipotentiary-General for the Utilization of Labor, with authority over 'all available manpower, including that of workers recruited abroad, and of prisoners of war.'
"The defendant Sauckel was directly under the defendant Goering as Commissioner of the Four Year Plan, and a Goering decree of 27 March 1942 transferred all his authority over manpower to Sauckel, Sauckel's instructions, too, were that foreign labor should be recruited on a voluntary basis, but also provided that 'where, however, in the occupied territories, the appeal for volunteers does not suffice, obligatory service and drafting must under all circumstances be resorted to.' Rules requiring labor service in Germany were published in all the occupied territories. The number of laborers to be supplied was fixed by Sauckel, and the local authorities were instructed to meet these requirements by conscription if necessary .........
"....... the evidence before the Tribunal establishes the fact that the conscription of labor was accomplished in many cases by drastic and violent methods. The 'mistakes and blunders' were on a very great scale. Manhunts took place in the streets, at motion picture houses, even at churches and at night in private houses. Houses were sometimes burnt down, and the families taken as hostages, practices which were described by the defendant Rosenberg as having their origin 'in the blackest periods of the slave trade.' The methods used in obtaining forced labor from the Ukraine appear from an order issued to SD officers which stated:
'It will not be possible always to refrain from using force..... When searching villages, especially when it has been necessary to burn down a village, the whole population will be put at the disposal of the Commissioner by force.....
as a rule no more children will be shot.......
If we limit harsh measures through the above orders for the time being, it is only done for the following reason.
.... The most important thing is the recruitment of workers.
' The resources and needs of the occupied countries were completely disregarded in carrying out this policy.
The treatment of the laborers was governed by Sauckel's instructions of 20 April 1942 to the effect that:
'All the men must be fed, sheltered and treated in such a way as to exploit them to the highest possible extent, at the lowest conceivable degree of expenditure.'
The evidence showed that workers destined for the Reich were sent under guard to Germany, often packed in trains without adequate heat, food, clothing or sanitary facilities. The evidence further showed that the treatment of the laborers in Germany in many cases was brutal and dograding..... They were subject to constant supervision by the Gestapo and the SS, and if they attempted to leave their jobs they were sent to correction camps or concentration camps. The concentration camps were also used to increase the supply of labor. Concentration camp commanders were ordered to work their prisoners to the limits of their physical power. During the latter stages of the war the concentration camps were so productive in certain types of work that the Gestapo was actually instructed to arrest certain classes of laborers so that they could be used in this way. Allied prisoners of war were also regarded as a possible source of labor. Pres sure was exercised on non-commissioned officers to force them to consent to work, by transferring to disciplinary camps those who did not consent.
Many of the prisoners of war were assigned to work directly related to military operations, in violation of article 31 of the Geneva Convention. They were put to work in munition factories and even made to load bombers, to carry ammunition and to dig trenches, often under the most hazardous conditions. This condition applied particularly to the Soviet prisoners of war. On 16 February 1943, at a meeting of the Central Planning Board, at which the defendants Sauckel and Speer were present, Milch, the present defendant, said:
'We have made a request for an order that a certain percentage of men in the Ack-Ack artillery must be Russians; 50,000 will be taken altogether, 30,000 are already employed as gunners. This is an amusing thing, that Russians must work the guns.' And on 4 October 1943, at Posen, Himmler, speaking of the Russian prisoners, captured in the early days of the war, said:
'At that time we did not value the mass of humanity as we value it today, as raw material, as labor. What, after all, thinking in terms of generations, is not to be regretted, but is now deplorable by reason of the loss of labor, is that the prisoners died in tens and hundreds of thousands of exhaustion and hunger.'
"The general policy underlying the mobilization of slave labor was stated by Sauckel on 20 April 1943. He said:
'The aim of this new gigantic labor mobilization is to use all the rich and tremendous sources conquered and secured for us by our fighting Armed Forces under the leadership of Adolf Hitler, for the armament of the .armed Forces, and also for the nutrition of the Homeland.
The raw materials, as well as the fertility of the conquered territories and their human labor power, are to be used completely and conscientiously to the profit of Germany and her Allies..... All prisoners of war from the territories of the Jest, as well as the East, actually in Germany, must be completely incorporated into the German armament and nutrition industries.... Consequently it is an immediate necessity to use the human reserves of the conquered Soviet territory to the fullest extent. Should we not succeed in obtaining the necessary amount of labor on a voluntary basis, we must immediately institute conscription or forced labor...... The complete employment of all prisoners of war, as well as the use of a gigantic number of new foreign civilian workers, men and women, has become an indisputable necessity for the solution of the mobilization of the labor program in this war.'
Continuing with the quotation from the IMT decision:
".... As the dominant member of the Central Planning Board, which had supreme authority for the scheduling of German production and the allocation and development of raw materials, Speer took the position that the Board had authority to instruct Sauckel to provide laborers for industries under its control and succeeded in sustaining this position over the objection of Sauckel. The practice was developed under which Speer transmitted to Sauckel an estimate of the total number of workers needed. Sauckel obtained the labor and allocated it to the various in dustries in accordance with instructions supplied by Speer.
"Speer knew when he made his demands on Sauckel that they would be supplied by foreign laborers serving under compulsion. He participated in conferences involving the extension of the slave labor program for the purpose of satisfying his demands. He was present at a conference held during 10 and 12 August 1942 with Hitler and Sauckel at which it was agreed that Sauckel should bring laborers by force from occupied territories where this was necessary to satisfy the labor needs of the industries under Speer's control. Speer also attended a conference in Hitler's headquarters on January 4, 1944, at which the decision was made that Sauckel should obtain'at least 4 million new workers from occupied territories' in order to satisfy the demands for labor made by Speer, although Sauckel indicated that he could do this only with help from Himmler.
"Sauckel continually informed Speer and his represent atives that foreign laborers were being obtained by force. At a meeting of March 1, 1944, Speer's deputy questioned Sauckel very closely about his failure to live up to the obligation to supply four million workers from occupied territories. In some cases Speer demanded laborers from specific foreign countries. Thus, at the conference 1012 August 1942, Sauckel was instructed to supply Speer with 'a further million Russian laborers for the German armament industry up to and including October 1942.' At a meeting of the Central Planning Board on 22 April 1943, Speer discussed plans to obtain Russian laborers for use in the coal mines, and flatly vetoed the suggestion that this labor deficit should be made up by German labor.
Speer argued that he advocated the reorganization of the labor program to place a greater emphasis on utilization of German labor in war production in Germany and on the use of labor in occupied countries in local production of consumer goods formerly produced in Germany. Speer took steps in this direction by establishing the so-called 'blocked industries' in the occupied territories which were used to produce goods to be shipped to Germany. Employees of these industries were immune from deportation to Germany as slave laborers and any worker who had been rodered to go to Germany could avoid deportation if he went to work for a blocked industry. This system, although somewhat less inhumane than deportation to Germany, was still illegal. The system of blocked industries played only a small part in the over-all slave labor program, although Speer urged its cooperation with the slave labor program, knowing the way in which it was actually being administered. In an official sense, he was its principal beneficiary and he constantly urged its extension.
"Speer was also directly involved in the utilization of forced labor as Chief of the Organization Todt. The Organization Todt functioned principally in the occupied areas on such projects as the Atlantic Nall and the construction of military highways, and Speer has admitted that he relied on compulsory service to keep it adequately staffed. He also used concentration camp labor in the industries under his control. He originally arranged to tap this source of labor for use in small out-of-the-way factories; and later, fearful of Himmler's jurisdictional ambitions, attempted to use as few concentration camp workers as possible.
"Speer was also involved in the use of prisoners of war in armament industries but contends that he utilized Soviet prisoners of war only in industries covered by the Geneva Convention.
"Speer's position was such that he was not directly concerned with the cruelty in the administration of the slave labor program, although he was aware of its existence. For example, at meetings of the Central Planning Board he was informed that his demands for labor wore so large as to necessitate violent methods in recruiting. At a meeting of the Central Planning Board on 30 October 1942, Speer voiced his opinion that many slave laborers who claimed to be sick were malingerers and stated: 'There is nothing to be said against SS and Police taking drastic steps and putting those known as slackers into concentration camps.'" That completes the rather liberal quotation on the decision of the International Military Tribunal.
Under the provisions of Article X of Ordinance No. 7, these determinations of fact by the International Military Tribunal are binding upon this Tribunal "in the absence of substantial new evidence to the contrary." Any new evidence which was presented was in no way contradictory of the findings of the International Military Tribunal, but, on the contrary, ratified and affirmed them.
The next question to be answered is whether or not the defendant Milch in this case knew that foreign slave labor and prisoners of war were being procured by Sauckel and used in the aircraft industry, which the defendant controlled. The defendant's own words, as gleaned from the minutes of the Central Planning Board and from his own testimony, conclusively answer this question in the affirmative.
He testified that he know that prisoners of war wore employed in the airplane factory at Regensburg and that some twenty thousand Russian prisoners of war wore used to man anti-aircraft guns protecting the various plants. He stated further that he saw this typo of war prisoners manning 8.8 and 10.5 anti-aircraft guns at airplane factories in Luftgau 7 near Munich. Sauckel, the Minister Plenipotentiary for Labor, sat in on at least fifteen meetings of the Central Planning Board, over which the defendant presided, and discussed at great length and in elaborate detail the problems involved in procuring sufficient foreign laborers for the German war effort. He frankly disclosed the cruel and barbarous methods used in forcing civilians of the eastern countries into the Reich for war work. He related the difficulties and resistance which confronted him and the methods which he used and proposed to use in forcibly rounding up and transporting foreign workers. The advisability of using prisoners of war and inmates of concentration camps in the Luftwaffe was frankly discussed, with the defendant offering advice and suggestions as to the most effective methods to be used. In the face of this overwhelming evidence, disclosing page after page of discussion between Speer, Sauckel and the defendant in which the defendant urged more severe and coercive methods of procuring foreign labor from the east, it would violate all reason to conclude that he had no knowledge of the source of this labor or of the methods used in procuring it. His voice is constantly heard, pleading for more laborers from this source and clamoring for a larger share in Sauckel's labor pool. Hildebrand and Sagemeier for the coal mines, Rohland for the foundries, Kehrl for the coal and iron industries, Bruch and Becht for the rubber industry, Speer for the armament industry, and Milch for the aircraft industry - all those and others joined in a pagan chorus, in which the harmony was frequently strained, but all singing the same song, "We need Laborers, Men and Women.
We Don't Case where You Get Them, But Give Us More."
At the 54th Meeting of the Central Planning Board, Sauckel stated in the defendant's presence:
".... Thereupon I even proceeded to employ and train a whole batch of French male and female agents who for good pay just as was done in olden times for 'shanghaiing' went hunting for men and made them drunk by using liquor as well as words, in order to dispatch them to Germany.
Moreover I charged some sole men with founding a special labor supply executive of our own, and this they did by training and arming with the help of the Higher SS and Police Fuehrer a number of natives, but I still have to ask the Munitions Ministry for arms for the use of these men. ...........
"..........I and my assistants in fact have sometimes seen things happen in France that I was forced to ask, is there no respect any more in Fr nee for the German Lieutenant with his 10 men. ....... We Germans must make an example of one case, and by reason of this law if necessary out Prefect or Burgomaster against the Wall, if he does not comply with the rules; otherwise no Frenchman at all will be dispatched to Germany."
The defendant contributed to the discussion by saying:
"...... As soon as you arrive the men run away to protect themselves from being sent to Germany.......... The men even then will be whisked away unless quite another authority and power is on the watch, and this can only be the army itself. ......I can find no remedy out that the army should assert itself ruthlessly."
As indicating that the defendant was not indifferent to the problem, at the same meeting, in referring to procuring labor from Italy, he offered the following suggestion:
"We could take under German administration the entire food supply for the Italians and tell them: only he get any food who either works in a protected factory (that is, a factor in Italy manufacturing German war materiel) or goes to Germany."
Later in the same conference, the defendant made another contribution to the solution of the problem of foreign labor, saying:
"Now during the transfer it is necessary to see that the people really do arrive and do not ran away before or daring the transfer. If a transport has left a town and has not arrived, 500 to 600 persons from this place must be arrested and sent to Germany as prisoners of war. Such a thing is taken talked about everywhere. If actions like this and other similar ones are carried out often, they would exert a certain pressure. The whole thing would be made easier, if we had control of food."
At the 53rd Meeting of the Central Planning Board (February 16, 1944), the defendant stated:
"Our best new engine is made 88% by Russian prisoners of war and the other 12% by German men and women."
Instances could be multiplied in which the defendant not only listened to stories of enforced labor from eastern civilians and other prisoners of war and thereby became aware of the methods used in procuring such labor, but in which he himself urged more stringent and coercive means to supplement the swindling supply of labor in the Luftwaff As Germany's plight became more desperate, her loss of military personnel presented an alarming dilemma, resulting in the defection of thousands of workmen to the armed forces. This resulted in a shifting of the dilemma to industry, and spurs were put to the labor procurement officers, headed by the implacable Sauckel, cast aside all restraint and set out systematically to herd into the Reich any human being who could contribute to Germany's war effort. Under Sauckel's whip, no means no ever harsh were overlooked, and no person however exempt was spared.