Q. Was that also Milch's opinion?
A. Yes.
Q. So far as you know, did he have any discussion with Sauckel on this subject?
A. I have to think about that a moment. I believe I recall that there were discussions on this matter, but I cannot give details on the subject.
Q. Thank you. How good was the work of the foreign civilian workers in the aircraft industry? Were they good workers or poor workers?
A. In my previous capacity as chief for recruitment, I concerned myself in great detail with the effectiveness of foreign workers and I ascertained - and this has also been proved by what the firms said that the efficiency of foreign workers Was good.
Q. What conclusion can one draw, in your opinion, from this? Can one conclude that they felt themselves to be slaves or that they were contented with their treatment?
A. In my official trips to the firms I looked into the treatment, care and housing of foreign workers and in a few cases I also partook of the food that the workers ate. I can state that the care, housing and treatment of foreign workers were good.
Q. That, of course, is true only in the field of the air armament industry?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you receive complaints on the part of foreign workers regarding poor treatment, or how did the foreign workers express themselves to you on these official trips?
A. I heard of no complaints about poor treatment. I had talks with these workers. If they had had complaints, nothing was heard of it.
Q. Do you know that the defendant also Carried out such visits and got information for himself in this way?
A. Yes, I took part in a few trips with Field Marshal Milch and I saw and heard that Field Marshal Milch also talked with the foreign workers and inquired into their welfare.
Q Was he given any complaints?
A. I know of none.
Q. Did Milch have any punitive power over the workers in the aircraft industry?
A. No, not over the industry workers, aircraft industry workers.
Q. Not over the foreign workers either?
A. No.
Q. Could Milch condemn foreign workers to death, have them shot or hanged?
A. No.
Q. Could he put them in concentration camps?
A. No.
Q. Regarding prisoners of war, did he have any punitive power over them?
A. No.
Q. Could he shoot or hang prisoners of war?
A. No.
Q. Could he put them in concentration camps?
A. No.
Q. Witness, do you know of Himmler's regulations regarding foreign workers which he issued to police offices and the SD?
A. No, I don't.
Q. Do you know of Rosenberg's complaints to Sauckel about foreign workers?
A. No.
Q. Do you know of the reports concerning the treatment of Polish workers in Poland?
A. No.
Q. Were reports such as I have just mentioned in the last three questions submitted to the GL?
A. Not that I know of.
Q. Did you work closely and confidentially with Milch?
A. Yes.
Q. Did he tell you about his misgivings, doubts, and needs openly?
A. Individual conversations he also let it be seen that there were considerable difficulties.
Q. When he spoke to you so openly, did he let you know that he considered the war lost?
A. It was difficult and dangerous to make such statements. Openly, of course, such statements were not made but I personally believe from several statements of an indirect nature that I heard him make that he was of that opinion.
Q. You just said, witness, that your work with Milch was carried out well and in confidence, that the relations between you were good.
A. Yes.
Q. But you know that Milch very often had sudden fits of anger and threatened with killing, hanging, or shooting?
A. Yes, That, of course, took place, but in this one must know Field Marshal Milch to understand. If something did not work out quite well, then very often Field Marshal Milch became excited and spoke most strongly, and he spoke very often of shooting and hanging. If everything that he threatened to do were carried out, I would not be sitting here myself.
Q. He threatened you with shooting and hanging.
A. Yes.
Q. Although your relations were good?
A. Yes.
Q. Was that generally known in Milch's circles?
A. Among the closer workers that, of course, was known and it was interpreted as it was intended -- that such and such a matter must be carried on at high pressure and that business had to be attended to.
Q. After he had quieted down again, did Milch confess that he was sorry for having so expressed, himself? Did he more or less excuse himself or apologize?
A. Yes, later he said that he had not really meant it that way.
953 a
Q. In the year 1941 were you already employed in the office of the GL?
A. I came to the office of the GL on 1 November 1941.
Q. Then you know the order of Goering regarding the exchange of 100,000 French prisoners of war from agriculture to the armament industry, or do you know this order?
A. No, I know nothing of it.
Q. Do you know that Sauckel and Ley had an agreement that the DAF, which was in charge of camps, should take over the direction of camps for foreign workers - the DAF, German Work Front?
A. I recall that the DAF was in charge of the camps. When this agree ment was reached I do not know.
Q. Was this measure to the advantage or disadvantage of the foreign workers?
A. The foreign workers, so far as I could observe, were well treated and well taken care of.
Q. Do you know that Goering frequently criticized Milch because reduction was too low; also that Goering had provided the workers necessary to achieve the required production?
A. Yes. I remember particularly a trip of mine to Berchtesgaden with Milch. In this discussion Goering accused Filch most strongly of this.
Q. Now did Milch defend himself?
A. At that time I was commissioned to report telephonically to the offices of the GL and to ascertain the correct date on the situation. These data were available within ten minutes and were submitted to Goering but Goering did not accept them as valid. He said that our statis tics were false and incorrect.
Q. Were those Sauckel's figures on which he based his contentions?
A. Yes.
Q. Was filch interested in the use of foreign workers? Die he give orders, for instance, that their wages should be lowered or anything of that sort?
A. No. The GL could issue no such regulations regarding the amount of wages.
954a
Q You stated previously that Milch made efforts to get German workers; can you tell me more about that?
A German workers were supported or were given bonuses for particular efficiency. Additional payments were made.
Q Witness, you are not answering my question; what efforts did Milch make to get German workers?
A We fought for every single German worker and, when the supply of German workers became smaller and smaller, we made efforts to find workers in the Luftwaffe itself, for instance, the Luftwaffe Intelligence Service supplied six or seven thousand men for the industry, and further, workers who were about to be inducted into the armed forces were formally inducted, and then immediately put again at the disposal of the industry.
Q Witness, were these measure of Milch's carried out in order to protect the German workers or in order to employ as few foreign workers as possible?
A It was important to us to have as many German workers as possible and to keep them.
Q When, at the end of 1941 - autumn, 1941 - you took over office, were there foreign workers and prisoners of war working in the aircraft industry?
A Yes.
Q Was this true when Milch became GL?
A Yes; that was somewhat later.
Q What was the situation in armaments at the end of 1941? German conditions and enemy conditions in air armaments?
AAt the end of 1941, the situation in armaments was such that General Udet had a lot of work to do. He based himself on the development of new models and for a time production itself was neglected and, for all practical purposes, did not rise since the beginning of the war.
Q What was the relation between German and enemy armaments production?
A Enemy production was greatly superior to German.
Q The sharp conduct of the GL was directed toward getting more workers to increase the production, or did it work out in a further sharpening of the enslavement of the workers? 955
A Field Marshal Milch, after taking over office as GL, undertook far reaching measures in order to increase armaments production. Thus, the production in 1942 rose by 47 percent, so far as I recall, as compared with 1941, and in 1943 it rose another 35 to 37 percent as compared with 1942. This increase in production came about as the result of technical measures in the plants from early -- the increase in parts of production, and in making available the necessary technical means to the individual firms. The workers were not overworked in order to bring about this increase in production.
Q Witness, several witnesses have here stated that Milch wanted to build, primarily, fighters. Is it not true that he wanted to build, rather, bombers?
A No; Field Marshal Milch, shortly after taking over office, ordered the fighter production program. We had at that time the plan of building 6,000 fighters a month, and had to work out that plan. This plan was turned down by Hitler, who said, on the contrary, more large bombers should be produced because he intended another aggressive war against England.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will take its customary afternoon recess.
THE MARSHAL: This Tribunal is in recess for 15 minutes.
THE MARSHAL: Tribunal No. 2 is again in session.
BY DR. BERGOLD:
Q. Witness, the last thing you reported was that Milch thought there should be more fighters produced in the industrial plants than bombers. Was that due to his desire to defend the homeland, or for fighting purposes, offensive warfare.
A. The reason for this program was that the homeland should be protected; and the evidence which we had was that the air armament of the former enemy countries was so strong that offensive warfare in the air was no longer possible; with those six thousand fighters which the factories were to produce,the homeland should be protected from air raids.
Q. Witness, when Milch became Generalluftzeugmeister, GL, did he have to create a new organization; and what was the reason for this?
A. The organization when he took over the office of the GL was a very difficult one Major General Udet was combined personally the chief of the technical office and at the same time the RCL. The consequence was that twenty-four offices,I believe there were twentyfour, were directly dependent upon General Udet personally, but it is impossible to supervise twenty-four offices by one person. In addition to that there was the fact mentioned by me before that Milch changed the organization according to his point of view. He coordinated several offices, that is to say, the planning board which was the basic condition for the organization, the technical office, which was in charge of technical developments and production, the Marshal's office and the industrial offices and the chief of those offices were dependent only to the person of Field Marshal Milch, and thus Milch had a much better survey of the work done.
Q. Do you know that -- do you know when this organization was change -- when the Luftwaffe Research Institute was released and was put free at the disposal of the RCL?
A The research council was founded for them, and this research council in its work was quite free and was subordinated directly to Goering.
Q That was different from Udets?
A Yes, it was.
Q Were these institutes directly subordinated to Baeumker under Udet?
A Yes, they were.
Q Is it true that Goering was the man at the time who was in charge for Udet?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q Is it correct that in the reorganization Baeumker was released and he went to Munich where he started an institute of his own?
A Yes.
Q Witness, within the framework of the activity were Russian prisoners of war ever used to load bombs on aircraft?
A Such an order is not known to me.
Q Were they employed to carry ammunition?
A No.
Q To service anti-aircraft guns?
A Not on the behalf of the GL.
Q But is it known that Russians were ordered to serve anti-aircraft guns?
A I know that Russians were employed in anti-aircraft duties but I cannot recall where they came from - from which sector they were taken.
Q Is it known to you that Milch was opposed to this because he didn't want to lose those people as workers?
AAs I said already, that at this moment I don't know where they came from I should have a little time to think about this.
Q Can you tell us what things belonged to the air armament? What this term was supposed to mean?
AAir armament factories comprised first, aircraft producing factories, second, engine factories, thirdly, producing air intelligence instruments, four, firms of general equipment, five, factories producing ammunition and fire-arms, six, special ammunition factories, eight, ground equipment factories and in addition all repair shops of these various offices and factories.
Q Just a moment please. Witness, the prosecution has submitted a document - this is the report by Himmler of 9 March 1944, correspondence between Goering and Himmler on the employment of concentration camp inmates at the air armament industry. This is exhibit No. 71, Doc. No. 1584 PS and from Document Book 4 of the Prosecution concerning the Jaegerstab.
Exhibit No. 71, it's the fourth exhibit reading from the top in that book. I would ask the Court to look at the table which is attached at the top--which is attached to the document. Witness, it is said here as aerial industry the anti-aircraft staff Auschwitz. Was that part of the air armament?
A No.
Q The east Machine Factory -- the GMBH -- was that part of the air industry?
959-A
A. No, the production of anti-aircraft guns was part of the Waffen -the armament office.
Q. Siemens & Schuckert, Auschwitz, at first completion of plant, later switch and control instruments for night fighters.
A. I do not know that factory. I couldn't say exactly; that factory is net known to me.
Q. The Erla Machine Factory, the MBH?
A. Yes, that was part of it.
Q. Was the Junkers Flug and Motorwerk at Schoenobeck?
A. Yes, they were.
Q. The Bolde-Arnstadt?
A. That was weapons office.
Q. Light metal work Braudenbach?
A. At Werdinger Rode?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes.
A. Then Dachau? It says here high frequency.
A. High frequency development?
Q. Had that anything to do with aerial armament? I refer to highfrequency development work.
A. I only knew no institute in Ober*fafien hofen. This one I do not know.
Q. Page 63 of the document bock. The BMW Munich Allach? and the Durnier plant? Were they part?
A. Yes, they were.
Q. Engineer Dr. Kimmel of Munich. How about that factory?
A. I do not know if the Kimmel factory was a part of it.
Q. The Air Force Research Institute, in Munich is shown here. Is that a part of the aerial industry in Munich?
A. I do not know that one.
Q. How about the Mosserschmitt works?
A. They were a part.
Q. The Air Force Planning Office at Sudelfeld?
A. I did not know it.
Q. Breezifix, Dachau?
A. Breezifix, in my opinion, worked for several branches of the Wehrmacht.
Q. What about the Sachse Company at Kempten?
A. They were sub-suppliers. They work not commissioned by GL. They were sub-suppliers.
Q. Deutsche Erd-und Stein Werke?
A. Yes, I know about this.
Q. Spare parts were produced?
A. Spare parts were produced for the Regensburg factory.
Q. Starting at what date?
A. That I do not know. I only heard about this during a journey. I believe it was in March 1944. The Regensburg works had been attacked and became decentralized after that. Apparently part of its work was trans ferred there.
Q. GL had no influence on this?
A No. The firms did that independently.
Q How about the Ceramic Works, Bohemia in Neurolau? Plane parts production.
A He is a sub-supplier.
Q Luftfahrtgeraetewerk, Zwodau? (Aeroplane Equipment Works).
A That is unknown to me.
Q Then, once again, Deutsche Erd Steinwerke G.m.b.H. at Herzogenbusch, airplane assembling plant, for repair of aeroplane motors.
A Oh, yes.
Q That is a stripping plant?
A Yes.
Q Had that anything to do with GL?
A These factories, at that time, were -- it is hard for me to answer the question at this time. I would have to refresh my memory first. I really do not know what the state of affairs was at that time. This was a sub-supplier without knowledge of the GL.
Q Then Deutsches Erd & Steinberg Werk at Mauthausen, airplane parts for Messerschmitt.
A Could only be a sub-supplier.
Q Flugmotoren G.m.b.H., Wiener-Neudorf? Initially construction measures, later airplane parts.
A That again most likely was a sub-supplier.
Q Heinkelwerke ?
A Yes.
Q They were ?
A Yes.
Q This time the plant in Natzweiler?
A This is a stripping plant.
Q Jastramm? Bergedorf, Hamburg and Neuedamme, airplane parts.
A That was a factory for equipment.
Q Did that belong to the GL or was it a supplying works?
A It was a supplying works.
Q 962 Q Dassag G.m.b.H. in Hamburg which manufactures magnetos?
A I do not know about that. r
Q How about the Air Ministry testing ground at Ragensbruck? Construction measures.
A It is not known to me.
Q Geraete Werk Bommen G.m.b.H.?
A Not known to me.
They produce aerial terpedoes?
A Oh, yes.
Q Then the Heinkelwerke. Then Mechanische Werkstatte G.m.b.H., Neubrandenburg?
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Dr. Bergold, might you suggest to the Tribunal just what 962a relevancy this has to the charges in the indictment against the defendant?
DR. BERGOLD: He is charged with having employed prisoners and concentration camp inmates. For that reason the prosecution has submitted this document.
JUDGE MUSSMANO: Can you not with some few direct specific questions draw from this witness whatever he knows on those charges?
DR. BERGOLD: I only wanted to acquaint him with this sort of list before I go into detailed questions; however, I have reached the conclusion. I can easily stop here.
Q Witness, in all these factories concentration camp inmates were employed. Was this done by order of the GL? Did the GL know at all that that happened?
A The employment of these concentration camp inmates has not been done by order of the GL. I said before that the GL had no influence on which workers were put at his disposal.
Q Did he hear about the details of this?
A He did not hear about the details but I, myself, found this out while on an official journey. Whether this was known to the different officials I do not know. It was not known in our office to this extent.
Q You heard about this during an official trip in the spring of 1944. Did you report to Milch about this or did you omit to do this?
A Immediately after this, the Jaegerstab was founded, everything was changed.
Q You did not report about this at all, did you?
A No.
Q Do you know the agreement with the French about the construction of aircraft?
A I know there was an agreement with France at that time. In that agreement the quota of five to one was decided upon.
Q Is it correct that Milch, as early as 1942, fought against Sauckel's withdrawing workers from French air armament factories?
A Yes, he did. This taking away of workers from factories was a disadvantage to us, because when Sauckel took his first measures of returning the workers from France we did not only lose these workers. All the other ran away for fear that a second recruitment would occur and the factories in France almost stood at a standstill.
These factories were the basis for the availability of our airfleet in France; therefore, considerable arguments followed. This measure mas ridiculous because these workers who were experts of aircraft construction could not be employed in Germany in the same branch of their work, but had to be employed in completely alien fields, such as the construction of tanks.
Q. Were you ever present at meetings of the Central Planning Board?
A. No. I was never present.
Q. Witness, on 8 April 1943 Milch wrote to the Plenipotentiary for the Four Year Plan the following letter.
DR. BERGOLD: Your Honors, this is Exhibit Number 49 and Document Number NOKW 287. It is in Volume 2-C of the Prosecution's document book. In the German document book it is 136. It is a letter dated 8 April 1943. In the index of document book 2, it is the 11th exhibit, reading from the top. I am sorry, I have made a mistake. On the second page of the index
THE PRESIDENT: It is Exhibit 49. We have it.
DR. BERGOLD: Very well.
Q. Witness, this is a letter to the Plenipotentiary of the Four Year plan, Commissioner for the Allocation of Labor.
"The continuously increasing drafting of German members of the staff, from the production as well as from the security teams (plant protection and plant fireguards), make it necessary to assign more and more foreign labor to the factories of the armament industry. This assignment of foreign labor offers special tasks to the plants of the armament industry with regard to security measures which can no longer be guaranteed with the forces at present at the disposal of the industry."
"Therefore, you are urgently requested to direct the labor offices to place at the disposal of the armament plants upon their request as quickly as possible the competent forces for protection and fire guards, because otherwise normal security in the plants can no longer be guaranteed.
Witness, by this request, did that mean that those people should guard the foreigners or were they meant for protection against sabotage, theft, espionage or fire?
A I do not know the letter.
Q What do you mean by plant protection?
A Protection of the works was an organization --
MR. DENNEY: Your Honor please, he has now read him the letter which the witness did not write, and the witness said he does not know of the letter, and he is now asking him to interpret the letter, which I submit is going far afield, and I think he has certainly been given a lot of latitude up to now.
DR. BERGOLD: I don't think I have asked him about the letter. I am merely asking him about a technical term, that is, "What is plant protection," that the witness knows from his own specialized knowledge.
THE PRESIDENT: You could have asked him that without reading him the letter.
DR. BERGOLD: I thought he know about the letter, and he could make a specific statement. Had I known this, I would have asked him direct.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, ask him now what the term "plant protection" means.
BY DR. BERGOLD: What is plant protection?
A Plant protection is to protect the plant. In the first place the Security Service to avoid theft and to provide the protection at night, guard the entrances, etc.