It must, therefore, be demanded that in the case of each document, of each act, with due consideration of the extent of his working sphere and, consequently, with due consideration for his working capacity, one should examine whether he could obtain knowledge thereof, whether he could humanly anticipate, examine them, and, by reason of his authority, could at all prevent them.
Finally, I shall prove to you that the documents submitted to you as official documents are not exact, not reliable; that they never were examined by the defendant and his associates, and that they contain inaccuracies, distortions and wilfull deceptions.
Regarding the powers and position held by the defendant, a number of witnesses and the defendant himself will attest that his powers were not so great nor so permanent as the Prosecution assumes.
We will show that while the Medical Inspector of the Luftwaffe was subordinate to him in his capacity of Inspector-General of the Luftwaffe, this subordination was a more formal than a practical one, that the staff of the Medical Service was not at all subordinate to him and that especially he did not have under his direction the DVL.
We shall further prove that even the Centrall Planning Board did not have the significance that the Prosecution assumes, that this agency was much more an advisory and information agency, that it was chiefly occupied with the allocation of raw materials and that only these decisions of the meetings were binding which were summarized in the so-called "Results."
Finally, we shall show that the defendant, it is true, was one of the founders of the Jaeger staff, but that he was not its Chief and that his importance in this commission was far less than it would appear on first consideration. The work of the Jaeger Staff and of the defendant was aimed solely at the protection of Germany against bombing attacks, and Milch very soon lost all influence in this Jaeger Staff.
In the presentation of all this evidence, I would ask the High Tribunal to have in mind one difficulty which particularly in this case is nearly insurmountable.
The documents submitted by the Prosecution are only parts of a body of material the extent of which can be termed gigantic. When one considers that the Jaeger Staff for instance from the time of its establishment held daily meetings and that from those meetings only these few stenographic records of a few sessions have been submitted that appear in the document books of the Prosecution, then one realizes that one even five percent of the material pertaining to the Jaeger Staff has been submitted.
Similar, although perhaps not equally striking, is the situation with reference to the minutes of the Central Planning Board. All these documents which were not submitted are not accessible to me at all. Does not, however, justice demand that the material in its entirety should be available to the defense counsel for examination? Already it was possible for me to discover in the incriminating documents numerous passages which threw a different light on the indictment. Is it highly not probable then, that numerous other passages may be found in all of the other material likely to extenuate to a high degree the guilt of the defendant, or which, in any case, might show many things in a better light?
In an ordinary trial with a considerably narrower scope it is much easier for a defendant to conduct his defense than here where material of such volume is at hand, that even if he had the best of memories it would be impossible for him to point out to me, his counsel, where and what kind of exonerating material can be found. That simply surpasses the capacity of the human memory, of the human ability to think. In parsing I would say that probably in all of the armies which fought in this war the responsible men used strong language during meetings and discussions which, had they all gone down in records, would cause the milder ones of our present day to shake their head. The wrath, impatience, worry and the anguish because of damages sustained frequently lead the responsible persons to wild utterances. What counts is not whether such words were uttered but the deeds which came after such excitement dies away.
The Prosecution had many long months to prepare its case. We, the defendant and I received the real documents on the indictment only in January.
It is beyond human capacity to examine everything within as short a period of time with the thoroughness which is necessary to assemble the required counter-evidence. The presentation of argument on the part of the defendant can, therefore, be but full of gaps.
It is particularly difficult in this case because within the short time available for the preparation it is impossible to study all the problems which are brought to light as a result of the Dachau experiments. This calls for special technical knowledge which a man such as the defendant, who never studied medicine, simply cannot possess. However, as this trial is held simultaneously with the trial on the Dachau experiments, the danger exists that the important and exonerating facts brought to light there, through the defendant experts and their well informed counsel, and which cannot be properly appraised in the present case and in this way, the cause of justice is endangered. All of this I merely say in order to ask Your Honors not to lose sight of these angles in judging this present case. Honorable Judges please bear that in mind, also when examining the documents which I shall submit and, giving ear to that extent to the voice of humanity and of justice lend your assistance to a man who, cut off so long and bitter a time from all his information and other aids to support his memory has been called upon to defend himself before you. If at any time the fundamental principle of penal justice, which exists since the days of the wise Romans, should find application "In dubio pro reo", in the case of doubt favor the accused, it should find strict application in this case. That is what I wanted to tell you as an introduction.
May it please the Tribunal: I must now make application to you for a further recess, and please do not be alarmed, to until next Monday. This application is a matter of great distress to me, because I am also considerably interested in a speedy termination of the case at trial.
During the past days, my associates and I have worked most strenuously, and we have made every effort to meet the deadline of today. However, it proved impossible. The volume of work is simply gigantic as it is a fact that in this present trial, the trial of Speer and of Sauckel, and the trial of the physicians, are being recapitulated. The material at hand is tremendous, and there is not the faintest chance for a careful preparation.
Taking only the minutes of the Central Planning Board, the minutes of the Fuehrer Meetings, and of the Jaegerstab, they comprise about six stacks, measuring approximately a foot high. Nobody can carefully read this material in a week or ten days, and work on it.
As an addition to my other work, I merely was able to tackle this material by taking in with my eyes whole sections in one grasp. The strain to my eyes was such that at times it made me dizzy. It would be important for the trial to study these minutes carefully and, especially, to submit the text to a critical examination because after they had been written up nobody examined them and they contain inaccuracies. A critical examination of the text, however, might establish their lack of reliability; this, in any case, would make them of doubtful value as evidence.
But this material covers merely the minutes which the prosecution has submitted. There are additional volumes of minutes in the house here, which I found out one of these last days only, --by accident-- and I should like to examine them also. In that connection, I purposely make it a point to disregard all of the minutes which are still in the Documentation Center in Berlin. But even when taking merely the minutes used by the Prosecution, I lack two minutes on the Jaegerstab and also two minutes on the Central Planning Board, up to today.
It would also be necessary to examine all the exonerating documents submitted by the counsel for Sauckel and Speer to see whether they can apply here.
I also must report that of the witnesses granted to me only a few are available for me here. So far I was not able to speak to the witness Speer because the permission of the Control Council is still outstanding. This is one of the most important witnesses without whose statements it is altogether impossible to bring this trial to a conclusion.
The witnesses Vorwald and Hertel (not inferior to Speer in their importance as associates of many years' standing and as they are persons familiar with all the activities of the defendant), have not yet reached Nurnberg.
Nearly all of the other witnesses, who are not residents of Nurnberg, have also not yet arrived.
It goes without saying that with all these witnesses I must have thorough discussions because they will supply information of utmost importance and possibly additional proofs of decisive import.
Another great difficulty is inherent in the fact that on the point of the indictment which pertains to the charge that Milch caused the shooting or hanging of two prisoners, the Prosecution submitted as evidence merely one record, an utterance by Milch which the defendant is certain that it can be termed false. Consequently, I have initiated comprehensive searches throughout Germany which already have yielded partial results, but which not yet been concluded because unfortunately the time for such investigations has as yet been too short.
I was not yet able to examine the physicians indicted in the Dachau trial, to obtain their objections as experts against the indictment. I was not yet able to speak to them because I could not do this until they were approved as witnesses and because they are in permanent demand by their own counsel for their own pending trials.
In this trial of the physicians objections are raised which possibly invalidate the entire indictment relative to the high altitude and freezing experiments, in the Spring and Summer of 1942.
Milch is unable to supply me with any information on this because he understands nothing about it.
In every country in the world a trial of the nature as this one would naturally be postponed until after conclusion of the trial of the physicians because quite obviously the decision in their case will establish a precedent for the present trial in a large degree.
Your Honors, in addition to all of the above, I must discuss all of the submitted documents with my client and that work would call for a greater expenditure of time.
Even with things following a normal course and with endeavors of reasonable proportions, all of these tasks would take up many weeks. Here I am expected to accomplish in a few weeks a piece of work which goes far, far beyond the strength of any person which not even a superman could accomplish.
It is not true to facts, however, that upon receipt of the indictment in November, I would have been given the time to prepare for the case. If Your Honors please, the indictment is so generally formulated that it was impossible for me and the defendant to recognize on what proofs and on which individual concrete events it was based. The leading men of the last era have talked so much in all these years; they have decreed so much that today, especially in view of the prolonged detention as prisoners, it is impossible for them to remember all they have said and all they have considered. From the very outset, however, I endeavored to obtain the Minutes. Despite all efforts, I did not receive them only since the early part of this month the information is being made available to us; only since submission of evidence by the Prosecution, do we at all know what-- in concrete terms-- the defendant is charged with, and only since then it was possible for me to engage in an orderly and appropriate proportion. In America a lawyer's rights are far more comprehensive than in Germany. He can call for witnesses, can ask for information. All of these things are prohibited to a lawyer in Germany. It also is true that since the collapse it is impossible to find a German witness who is willing to make statements unless reproaches can be leveled against him on the strength of written records. They are all afraid to make depositions in favor of the defendant because in certain localities such witnesses encounter difficulties from the population.
Before the prosecution's evidence was submitted, I therefore, was altogether unable to do any practical work. In Germany, Your Honors, one is very well aware of the difficulties of an attorney. This accounts for the requirement of very old standing that after the indictment has been served, all of the files of the Prosecution must be made available to the defense counsel so that he can inform himself as to what the concrete charges are against the defendant, and to enable him to start with the work at once. Because it is aimed to avoid that a defendant be placed at a disadvantage compared with the Prosecution which always had the time for the preparation which it may need. That is a principle for fair treatment, which principle must not be violated unless conducting a trial against a defendant is to end in illegality. Your Honors, in the present situation it is still necessary for me to conduct a series of investigations. I must be given the opportunity to clarify further the case of the murder. In that connection I cannot even make full use of the assistance of my associates, because it already has been my experience that one refused to give the correct information to my assistants because only I, the actual defense counsel, enjoys confidence. Today, for instance, a man approached me in order to make a statement to me which he refused to make in front of my assistant.
Your Honors, if a criminal case is at all expected to serve justice in any way whatsoever, there must be the endeavor to determine the objective truth. Since according to your system of law the Prosecution is merely concerned with presenting all that is incriminating - as explicitly stated by Justice Jackson of the International Military Tribunal in reply to one of my objections raised at the time, then I, the counsel, must also be given the time needed for the preparation which cannot be dispensed with whatever efforts I may make. These recent days many people in this courthouse building have confirmed my opinion that it is an impossibility to prepare this trial which calls for such volume of material in a few days. I simply cannot do it. Nobody in the world can do it. This would reduce the defense to a farce, unless I fulfill my duty completely.
All of the other defense counsels - in the trial before the International Military Tribunal as well as in trials of subsequent proceedings - have incomparably more time than I. In their case the material of the Prosecution is made available for many, many weeks.
There are many defendants. Consequently that means an appreciable gain of time for the defense, of which they can 508- A take full advantage.
This is denied to me here. My case is a special one.
I know that perhaps there are other reasons which will determine the decision of the Prosecution to bring the trial to a speedy conclusion. However I am of the opinion that is not admissible. Each trial is a world of its own. It must not be that consideration for other developments should forcibly bring about acceleration which will make a defense, a true defense, impossible. The prevention of an adequate defense is all over the world ground for attacking a verdict. No revision is in certain respects possible here. All the greater, however, is the duty for all of us to do everything, to eliminate every chance for a miscarriage of justice and to make his defense possible for the defendant in full measure.
I declare that having a great practice of my own here in Nurnberg which I presently must neglect completely, I am therefore considerably anxious in getting out of this case quickly to keep down the loss arising therefrom to me. But never shall I trespass against my duty.
Harrased by the pressure of time, the nightmare of my responsibility haunts me in my sleep at night. Your Honors, I plead with you, with all the force of that which is serious, do not misinterpret my position and do not reject my request. However bold it may seem, it is modest enough. Even with this additional adjournment I must draw on all the generosity of conduct of which I am capable, to check my doubts and to believe that I shall then conduct the defense adequately.
My application cannot ask less than that, however, or else my conscience will reproach me for the rest of my life.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Bergold, the Court understood that you had some documents to present this morning; is that true?
DR. BERGOLD: I have arranged a document book which I have here; however, I want to prepare a second such book. If I present the documents today, they will not stand in proper perspective. I want to have them available in connection with the calling of my witnesses, so that they can be properly presented to the witnesses. If I present them separately as they are now, they will each demand a long commentary. Moreover, if we proceed to trial now, I can not proceed with the other work of which I have just spoken at length;
509 - a I cannot call my witnesses, nor collect my data and affidavits, and they will be gone forever.
That is why I ask at this time that additional time be granted me. If your Honors will be cooperative with me now,-- and on the understanding that my witnesses can be produced -- I think that immediate matters can be proceeded with much more rapidly, later. In a trial in Germany, the Defence cannot call witnesses, that has to be done by the Tribunal. And, in the IMT the Tribunal, there, also, took it upon itself to call all of the witnesses; they took care of that matter; calling them by judges, from other countries, and they were brought to Nurnberg. I have not found time, nor have I been in a position, to do that. Since the witness TEICK, the medical officer for the Defendant is in the British Zone, in Berlin, and not here, he must be brought here and I have no power to do that; that has all to be done by others. I am powerless; I have applied to the SecretaryGeneral and he has so told me that he will do everything he can to assist me in getting the witnesses here, but still they are not here today.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, if you had been permitted the right to call a witness and you know that the witness is available you have the assurance that the witnesses will be produced when you need them, have you not?
DR. BERGOLD: Yes, to be sure.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you not assured then?
DR. BERGOLD: Yes, but the witness should come as quickly as possible; Your Honor, I have to speak to him; I must see him here in the court him self so that I may ask him questions to be sure that when I question him he would not be able to answer; that would take an enormous amount of the court's time and, therefore, it is necessary that we have to speak to him in advance. As we learned in the IKT, the witness have to take time to come; unless I can get a chance to talk to the witnesses, as I say, it would take a great many days of time as well as the court's time.
THE PRESIDENT: You understand, of course, Dr. Bergold, that the prosecution is confronted with every much the same sort of difficulties as confront you, and even the prosecution cannot instantly produce a witness out of thin air, just because the prosecution wishes to call that witness; isn't that true, Dr. Bergold?
DR. BERGOLD: Yes, Your Honor, that is true. I am simply drawing a picture of my dilemma, of my position; I am not drawing or making reproaches toward the court. All of my main witnesses -- none of them are here -- I have only a few of my minor witnesses available. During the last few days only a few of my witnesses arrived here. As I stated, I simply want to draw before the Tribunal a picture of the position in which I find myself and I assure, Your Honor, we are doing everything we can. We began to read the documents from the first trial; I took a first series of a lot of important facts; I require a new document book. Your Honors, it is really beyond my capacity within my time limit to do that. It so happens that the defendant knows absolutely nothing about medicine, and I myself know nothing.
The documents must be read; the objections which were raised, must be examined and only after we have done that, do we recognize what the issue is. It is impossible to attempt to carry on, to proceed with two trials at once.
THE PRESIDENT: I am going to ask you again, Dr. Bergold, whether or not you have some documents assembled that you are ready to present to the court this morning?
DR. BERGOLD: Your Honor, I did have, and do not have some documents, but if I present them now I should be presenting them out of context and I do not wish to do that.
THE PRESIDENT: What do you mean "out of context"?
DR. BERGOLD: These are documents which relate to business of the prosecution--which are to serve to eliminate exonerating statements of the witnesses and which are to present certain statements. If I present these documents now, I should be presenting them out of context; I don't wish to do that.
THE PRESIDENT: I think perhaps you underate the ability of the court to put them in their proper context.
DR. BERGOLD: No, Your Honor, we are all human, and whatever is presented out of context, first of all an explanation is necessary.
THE PRESIDENT: Judicial experience enables one to assemble the various items of proof and put them in their proper pidgeonholes, even if they are not presented in logical order. I think we are quite capable of doing that, and if the documents which are ready, can be submitted, you can trust the court to put them in their proper environment, with testimony or other documents.
DR. BERGOLD: I am afraid about it. Perhaps it may be possible so to do, but in so doing it might also lead to some rather absurd consequences. But I still need further time for my preparations.
I absolutely need this week for which I have asked. Whether I received it today or tomorrow really doesn't make much difference but I do need it. I assure you that I do not want to drag out this trial. The situation is such that it is really an enormous task. You, as Judges, are still in a somewhat more easy position that I am. You have the material submitted to you -- I must laboriously assemble it.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Court will take a few minutes to retire and consider your application.
JUDGE MUSSMANO: Dr. Bergold, in your general remarks you made a comparison between the American and German method of preparation for a trial and you indicated that an American lawyer has a greater facility in seeking witnesses and in speaking with them, and then you said that a German lawyer is somewhat circumscribed in his method of approach.
DR. BERGOLD: Yes.
JUDGE MUSSMANO: Well, certainly you are not being denied an opportunity in this trial, are you, to speak with witnesses, to seek them out, to talk with them? Are you being ....
DR. BERGOLD: That didn't come through entirely clearly - your remarks
THE PRESIDENT: Ask him the question again.
JUDGE MUSSMANO: Are you being limited or circumscribed in any way in your efforts to seek witnesses, to speak with them, or to prepare them for presentation in court?
DR. BERGOLD: Yes. In general, in Germany it is forbidden to speak to a witness before the trial. That is most unusual. The usual procedure is that it usually happens that the witness is approached here. However, that is not your concern, that concerns the Tribunal and so on. This is a difficulty that does stand in our way in Germany. In a German trial I would have made myself culpable if I spoke to a witness before the trial. I would be banned from the bar if I did that. This is the difference.
JUDGE MUSSMANO: But you certainly understand that the Tribunal will allow you that liberty and will certainly protect you in any difficulties that might arise in your associations with your colleagues or with the German courts?
DR. BERGOLD: Certainly I understand that. But the mentality of the witnesses who know this is, of course, very limited. However, I have no opportunity to question the witnesses myself. If I write to a witness that he should come he doesn't have to come and mostly usually he does not come because he is afraid of other people. That is the consequence of the moral collapse that has taken place in Germany. However, if the Tribunal does not bring the witness here for me I am helpless.
JUDGE MUSSMANO: I merely wanted to assure you that the Tribunal will not hold you to any strict accountability in so far as the German rules are concerned.
DR. BERGOLD: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: The Court will retire for just a few minutes to consider the application of the Counsel and will return to announce its decision.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Bergold, you have some apprehension that this Tribunal ....
DR. BERGOLD: (interrupting): Excuse me. No interpreter.
THE PRESIDENT: You express some apprehension that this Tribunal will be unduly persuaded or influenced by some possible determination in Tribunal I. We want to assure you that our decision will be based entirely upon the testimony that we hear in this court room - entirely independent of any other determination.
DR. BERGOLD: Yes, I understand that. But my argument runs along the following lines; In this first trial there are proofs being submitted which are not at my disposal because I cannot speak to those people who are suitable to submit exonerating material and who also would be suitable to make exonerating statements for this trial. That is my argument. That these exonerating evidences are not in a position to be submitted. In due course, because only in course of time it will be possible to submit them. My colleagues in the other case do not give them to me because they are jealous and because they want to submit the evidence themselves. I cannot learn them until after they have been submitted upstairs.
The defendants upstairs also are not inclined to tell everything to me because they are afraid that the defense upstairs will be impeded. That is the difficulty and the anxiety I have, not that the high Tribunal will be swayed in some manner or other. That is not my fear, but only that exonerating materials will not be available to me because it is not being submitted upstairs and consequently will not be known to me. Milch does not understand anything and he cannot tell it to me. I do not understand anything about medicine either.
THE PRESIDENT: The consequence of your suggestion is that this trial be delayed until the conclusion of the testimony at least in Tribunal I?
DR. BERGOLD: No. I only want to have time because much has been submitted already, at least some important things, I should like to submit. Not everything but some. Naturally, I cannot suspend the trial until the other one is finished. I understand that. But some of the important material is coming out now only because the defense is beginning in a few days and only then I'll learn it and I can submit it. Did I express myself intelligently?
THE PRESIDENT: We understand. The Court is going to insist that you present the documents which you have already assembled and which are translated through the diligent efforts of the Translation Division and are here before the Court. I want to assure you that the Court can properly allocate and separate these documents and attach them to their proper place in the chain of proof, especially with your help. I suggest that when a witness is called to whose testimony these documents pertain that a mere suggestion by you that the Court refer to Document such and such a number in connection with that witness' testimony will be sufficient for your protection. We're not a jury and we're not so easily confused perhaps by the complexities of proof as a jury might be, and with your skilled help I am sure we'll be able to keep the proof in order in our minds. If you will present the documents which you have available now the Court will then announce its decision as to your request for an adjournment until next Monday.
DR. BERGOLD: Which decision, if the President please?
THE PRESIDENT: I'll state it differently. Please proceed now to offer the documents which you have in court.
DR. BERGOLD: If the Tribunal please, I should like to submit an informal question.
In my document book there are a number of documents which I took from the documents submitted by the Prosecution. Inasmuch as these documents are in the possession of the Prosecution and in part have already been submitted I cannot submit them as evidence and I can only read from them. How, informally speaking, is the submission of evidence as such to take place? Will it be sufficient that I make reference to these documents which are in the possession of the Prosecution or do I have to obtain them from the Prosecution?
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Denney, you might explain the Modus Operandi to Dr. Bergold.
MR. DENNEY: If your Honors please, I am not sure that I understand what Dr. Bergold is referring to.
DR. BERGOLD: The minutes of the Central Planning Board.
MR. DENNEY: We have relied on certain extracts of certain Central Planning Board minutes. If what Dr. Bergold submits in this document book and at a later time comes from minutes which he have presented to the Court why then of course we see no reason for resubmitting the material which is already in evidence. However, if he is going to take other meetings or material from meetings which we have used but which material specifically has not been presented by us then I submit that he should prepare his documents just as we have and offer them in evidence in the usual way.
THE PRESIDENT: I think he is concerned with authenticating the documents. That is, with proving the identity of the documents. Is that right, Dr. Bergold?
DR. BERGOLD: In the first place, that's right, and in the second place I do not receive these documents. They are not given to me. I am only permitted to read them. I merely may see them in the office of Lieutenant Garrett but I am not permitted to take them out. Consequently I cannot take them and submit them to Milch.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you made copies of them?
DR. BERGOLD: In my document book I do have copies.
THE PRESIDENT: Doesn't that answer it? The documents here before the Court are copies or originals now in the hands of the Prosecution. There is no question as to their authenticity - as to their identity.
MR. DENNEY: In so far as I am concerned I haven't seen any of these he proposes to offer until this morning. I was just reading the index and it says R-124 which was taken from the minutes which we have submitted.
THE PRESIDENT: Every document bears the number given to it by the Prosecution?
MR. DENNEY: On the ones which are here, Your Honor. There are some which do not have numbers. Pages 11, 13 and 16, for example, and Pages 1 and 2. I certainly want to cooperate with Dr. Bergold in every way I can. So far, except for the ones noted, there is certainly no objection to them. I won't know until I see them.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, let's go ahead. We'll assume that these documents are authentic. At least these are copies of authentic documents. If there arises any objection on that ground we'll hear it when it comes up.
DR. BERGOLD: Thank you.
I have read from my document book, page 6 of the German edition. I cannot yet say what page of the English edition it will be because the English translation was given to me only a few minutes before the opening of the session this morning. Consequently I could not make a comparison as yet.
THE PRESIDENT: If you will give us the document number we can find it.
DR. BERGOLD: Page 6, R 124, "Minutes of the Change of the Working Contract of 20 February 1942."
THE PRESIDENT: Let's give this an exhibit number.
DR. BERGOLD: This is Exhibit Milch 1, Page 8 of the English Document Book. Berlin, 20 February 1942. Points of discussion on trip to Fuehrer Headquarters on 19 February 1942, from pages 7 and 8 of original. I want to show that the Defendant Milch endeavored to obtain for the foreign workers the best possible conditions, especially as regards their wage. It reads:
""Upon suggestion of Field Marshal Milch the Fuehrer determines that the six-month commitments for foreign workers must be dropped and that the contradictory tax regulations must be rescinded; on the contrary, agreements are to be made according to which in the case of employment of longer duration (exceeding six months) bonus payments of some kind will be made once, particularly as there will be the appropriate saving of the cost of travel back and forth."
This will show that when speaking of contracts, a contract generally is a voluntary agreement and not compulsory. Then I submit -
THE COURT: Just a moment. You may proceed.
DR. BERGOLD: On the following page R124, the Fuehrer minutes on a suggestion made by Speer on the treatment of foreign workers, dated 8 January 1942, Exhibit No. 2, page 8 of the English Document Book. Berlin, 8 January 1943. Points of discussion from the Fuehrer Interview of 3, 4, 5 January 1943. On Page 16, Speer -- this was a meeting between Speer and the Fuehrer -
"The Fuehrer demands unequivocally that in no case must it be permitted that France be less burdened than Germany. Germany must sacrifice her blood for this war. We must demand of France that she contribute more fully economically than hitherto. Should any indication of resistance arise in the case of French labor employed, such labor will be deported if necessary as civilian internees. At the slightest attempt of sabotage the most rigorous measures must be taken. Softness of any kind, for humanitarian reasons, is out of place. The Fuehrer agrees with my suggestion," says Speer, "that on all questions pertaining to the exploitation of the industrial power of France in behalf of armament, matters will be conducted directly by the Ministry for Armament and Munition."
When it says in the case of resistance offered, deportation as civilian internees, that is to say that if there is any attempt made in France of armed resistance, then the people should be seized and deported as civilian internee This does not contradict the firm conviction which demands compliance with the orders given by the occupation power.
The following document is Document 407 II PS, dated 10 March 1943 to the Fuehrer. Page 9 of the English document, Exhibit 3. I want to show by it that Sauckel left all agencies in ignorance and how he went ahead and used methods which were not proper. It is dated 10 March 1943, teletype.
"To the Fuehrer, Fuehrer's Headquarters, with the urgent request to be submitted to the Fuehrer in person immediately for a decision.
"Subject: Difficulties originating from drafted labor in former Soviet Territories.
"My Fuehrer, You may be assured that the labor assignment is being pushed by me with fanatical will but also with circumspection and with due consideration for economical and technical as well as human necessities and conditions "Replacement for soldiers who will be relieved and the stockpiling of additional labor needed for the armament programs can and will be carried through, notwithstanding the fact that especially during the last two winter months the greatest difficulty had to be overcome.
Yet it was possible to make for January and February alone 258,000 foreign workers available to the war economy despite the fact that in the East transports practically ceased. The employment of German men and women is in full progress. Inasmuch as the difficulties of the winter months will now increasingly disappear and as preparations were made by me also the transports from the East can again be resumed in full measure. Although the yield of the registration and employment of German men and women is excellent, the employment of the strongest and most efficient foreigners who are used to work cannot be neglected.
"Unfortunately, some of the Commanders-in-Chief in the East have prohibited the compulsory enrolment of men and women in the conquered Soviet territories for -- as Gauleiter Koch informs me -- political reasons.
"My Fuehrer, in order to enable me to carry out my assignment, I ask that these orders be rescinded.