Since the incident described had nothing whatsoever to do with him, I appreciate it all the more that, in his own impulsive way, he used his personal position and the possibilities it gave him to do something humane entirely outside of his normal duties, just as a good deed.
"I am therefore deeply convinced that the atrocities mentioned in the press with which Milch is charged are not true.
"(Signed) Hans Joachim Freiherr von Kruedener "I herewith certify that the above signature of Hans Joachim Freiherr von Kruedener, residing at Braunfels on the Lahn, was given in the presence of the undersigned.
"Braunfels, 30 January 1947, the Local Court, signature, Inspector of Justice as recording official in the office of the Local Court."
Then there are statements on the left about the costs.
I shall now submit the next affidavit by Dr. Lotte Mueller of 7 January 1947, the last document in my document book. It will be given the Exhibit Number MI 38. I shall hand it to the Secretary General. It consists of a letter and an affidavit. The letter reads as follows:
"Dr. rer. pel Lotte Mueller, Berlin-Halensee, 20 January 1947. Kurfuerstendamm 154 a. To the International Tribunal in Nuernberg for the Defense Counsel of former Field Marshal Milch, Nuernberg, Palace of Justice.
"Attached please find an affidavit concerning the case of the former Field Marshal Milch to be used at your convenience. I would like to point out that I have made this declaration voluntarily and without being in any way influenced by others.
"Respectfully yours, (signature) Dr. Mueller."
The affidavit reads as follows:
"My deceased father Dr. Karl Mueller, was Oberstudiendirektor i.R. (retired) in Potsdam, and previous to 1933 leading Social Democrat in Potsdam.
On account of his political activity he was arrested by the Gestapo in July 1933 and brought to a concentration camp.
"Upon the request of my brother, Dr. Martin Mueller, who was killed in action in the meantime, the (later appointed) Field Marshall. Milch used his influence to have my father released from the concentration camp although he knew that my father was arrested for his activity as a Social Democrat. Herr Milch, in spite of considerable resistance from those around him, at last succeeded in having my father released from the concentration camp at the beginning of December 1933.
"I further certify that I have not been a member of the NSDAP nor of any of its affiliated organizations.
"Berlin, 7 January 1947 (signature) Dr. Lotte Mueller.
"I certify that the above signature is that of Miss Lotte Mueller, Berlin-Halensee, Kurfuerstendamm 154a, in charge of the deportment for food of the magistrate of Greater Berlin. Berlin, 7th Jan. 1947. The Notary (signature) Dr. Erich Trost."
Then there is the charge, of course, which is usual in Germany.
This is as far as my document book goes. I shall now, if it please the Court, read the interrogation of the witness Speer.
THE PRESIDENT: Before you do that, Dr. Bergold, will you give us two dates: first, the date on which the film was shown in Berlin, at which Milch, it is claimed, was not present; second, the date of the report of Rascher, Romberg, and Ruff to Himmler -- the one we were talking about this morning.
DR. BERGOLD: The date of the film is 11 September 1946. I beg your pardon, 11 September 1942. The report is dated 28 July 1942. It is probably the letter to Reichsfuehrer SS of 22 September 1942, refers, as the witness stated, to copies 2, 3, and 4 of the report of 28 July 1942.
THE PRESIDENT: The report was actually transmitted on September 22, 1942?
DR. BERGOLD: I think only the copies 2, 3, and 4. It is probable that copy 1 passed on to Himmler before and Himmler on 25 August 1942 sent it on to Milch.
That, in my opinion, is connected. Himmler also received copy 1 and passed it on to Milch.
MR. DENNEY: I don't think we are interested in Dr. Bergold's opinion on what happened to the first copy of the report. All that Your Honors asked was about these three copies that are mentioned here and these are 2, 3, and 4. There is nothing to show where the first one went. It certainly does show that these three went to Himmler and it is just possible that he did not get the first one or that he did. I don't know.
THE PRESIDENT: In any event it was in September when these three went and it was in August when the first one went, if it went.
DR. BERGOLD: On 25 August Himmler sent a report to Milch.
THE PRESIDENT: All right. How about the date of the film?
DR. BERGOLD: 11 September 1942.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
DR. BERGOLD: I shall now read from the record of the interrogation of Albert Speer.
THE PRESIDENT: What Number are you going to give to the interrogation of Speer?
DR. BERGOLD: That is the next number.
THE PRESIDENT: 39?
DR. BERGOLD: 39, yes.
"4 February. Interrogation of Albert Speer. Nuernberg, Germany. Present: The Honorable Judge Musmanno, Mr. Denney, Dr. Bergold, the Marshal."
Do I have to read it word by word?
MR. DENNEY: If Your Honor please, I see no reason to read all the preliminary. Let him just read in what he wants and I will concede that the witness Speer was present, that Judge Musmanno was present, that the prosecution was present, and that he was administered an oath, and then Dr. Bergold can read in whatever parts of it he wants to.
DR. BERGOLD: I only want to point out that he was under oath.
THE PRESIDENT: That is conceded, Mr. Denney, is it not?
MR. DENNEY: I conceded it, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: I might say that what you are about to read I have already read, Dr. Bergdld, almost entirely. The members of the Tribunal have a transcript of what the witness said and we have read it.
DR. BERGOLD: Very well, then I can do without all this. I only thought I had to read it into the record here.
DR. BERGOLD: I, therefore, submit the Exhibit No. 39, Speer's interrogation under oath of 4 February 1947, and would ask the Court to take official notice of this.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. The exhibit has been marked and will be admitted in evidence and considered a part of the record. Has the Secretary-General a copy of this? Will you mark it as an original exhibit M-39? The Document Division is directed to include this transcript in its compilation of the testimony so that this will appear as part of the testimony taken. The transcript is numbered from Page 1 through Page 51. Now this has already been mimeographed, and it merely calls for including it in the daily transcript as it is prepared. It needn't be recopied of course. That is done.
NOTE: The transcript mentioned above now numbered page 1 through page 51, will hereinafter be referred to as page 1136 through 1186.
INTERROGATION OF ALBERT SPEER held on 4 February 1947 at Nurnberg, Germany.
PRESENT: The Honorable Judge Musmanno Mr. Denney Dr. Bergold
MARSHAL: All persons in Court II, rise.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: We are now about to discuss what are technically known as interrogatories, but we will proceed as if the witness were testifying in Court; the same latitude in examination and cross examination will be permitted.
DR. BERGOLD: I suppose, Your Honor, that I shall first ask the witness his name. Will he be questioned under oath?
JUDGE MUSMANNO. Mr. Denney, what has been the practice in interrogatories? Has the witness been sworn.
MR. DENNEY: Frankly, Your Honor, I don't know.
DR. BERGOLD: The witnesses have been sworn.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Yes. Will you please rise and be sworn? Do you swear by Almighty God, to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in this proceeding: that you will withhold nothing and reply directly to all questions which are put to you and for all of which you will answer to on the day of the last judgment?
WITNESS: I do.
DR. BERGOLD: Your Honor, may I also be seated, please?
JUDGE MUSMANNO: You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. BERGOLD:
Q. Witness, please state your name and previous occupation.
A. My name is Albert Speer. From 1942 to 1945, I was Reich Minister for Armaments and Munitions, from 1943 on, Reich Minister for Armaments and war Production.
Q. Are you acquainted with the defendant Milch, who is not present here? 1136
A. Yes; I worked very closely with him.
Q. How long have you known him?
A. I have known Milch, personally, for certain, since 1938, but had no closer contact with him before 1942.
Q. Do you know that, before the outbreak of this war, Milch had charge of all technical matters of the Luftwaffe, and informed you of them?
A. This become known to me in the year 1942 or '3, when Hitler told me that Milch, before the outbreak of the war, when western European cities were reviewed or visited, showed the technical and secret apparatus.
Q. Can you remember any details or any special events that aroused his attention; and details about the order or the communication system that aroused his attention.
A. I must first recapitulate, or rather, state, that Hitler was very excited at that time, and told me that this lack of secrecy in these matter was a very great threat to the German security at the beginning of the war. At this time he mentioned mainly the demonstration of the new radar equipment which made it possible to detect enemy planes through fog; in other word radar. Hitler at that time assumed that the enemy did not at that time have such equipment at his disposal. Consequently his efforts to develop modern radar equipment, which had their source in this inspection.
Q. Thank you. Did you know that Milch conducted the same demonstration for the leaders of the Polish air Force?
A. No; there was no talk of that at that time.
Q. Did you know, during the beginning of the war, that Milch was Inspector General of the Luftwaffe?
A. Yes, that I knew.
Q. Did you know what the sphere of activity was of an Inspector General.
A. I don't know that from my own experience closely enough to (Continued) say anything definite about it, but let me add, I know only of Milch, that perhaps in 1942 or '3, that Milch said to me, "Goering does not wish that he occupy the position as Inspector General of the Luftwaffe.
Q. But this was only in 1942 or '3?
A. Milch could not tell me that before then, because I was not in such close contact with him before then.
Q. Do you know whether the previous Generalluftzeugmeister Udet was subordinate to him in his capacity as Inspector General of the Luftwaffe?
A. From my own experience, I do not know that either, since that was before 1942; I know only of having heard of it from Milch later; that Milch said when Udet and Goering worked very closely together and that the relations between Milch and Udet were not so good.
Q. Did you know that at that time, namely, when you became Reich Minister the relations between Milch and Goering had become tense and poor.
A. I don't know whether there had been bad relations between then previously. At any rate, after the first few weeks of my activity it was clearly to be seen that the relations between Milch and Goering were not good.
Q. I come now to the Central Planning, witness. Whose thought was it first to create the Central Planning Board?
A. That was my idea. I spoke about it to Milch and then we spoke of it together to Goering.
Q. Is it not correct to say, witness, that you went first of all to Hitler and received his permission to create such a board, and then went to Goering?
A. The pre-history of this is a little bit longer than that; shortly after I was named Minister there was a meetng in the Air Ministry. In this conference Milch held the chair. The representatives of the various divisions of the army, a few representatives of the Four-Year-Plan, Funk and others were present. During this conference, everyone was unanimous that it was necessary to create some sort of common planning and arbitrat office. Funk suggested (Continued) that Milch, as the eldest present, should occupy that position.
Thereupon, I laid emphasis on the point that I should occupy that position. Subsequently there was a meeting with Hitler in the Reich Chancellery, in which hitler defined to me my tasks, and most of the 1138 (a) participants in the previous meeting were present.
As a result of this conference there took place under my chairmanship, in my ministry, at another meeting at which the participants in the meeting were shown a document from which it was to be seen that all common interests and problems would, in the future, be decided by myself. The Plenipotentiary General for the Four-Year Plan was concerned in this document, and originated in it. In a few weeks, I came to the point of view that it would be better if I had a joint position with Milch, in order to introduce some responsibility for many letters, and consequently, at that time it was that I suggest the creation of the Central Planning.
Q. During your talk with Goering which you had after the intention was formed to create the Central Planning, did not Goering then say that you should not interfere in any way with the Four-Year Plan, and is it true that he then explained that the Central Planning would concern itself only with the distribution of raw materials, etc?
A. In that what you have stated is not entirely correct. I believe I have to relate this to the whole picture. In this meeting that took place at my ministry, and that is the document that everyone signed that was present, Goering, as representative of the Four-Year Plan, felt himself to have been offended. He told me at that time that under these conditions he could not continue as Deputy for the Four--Year Plan. In particular, he was upset because many Plenipotentiary Generals of the Four-Year Plan had signed this document without having informed him of their intention previously. Both the creation of a Plenipotentiary for Armaments and for the Central Planning were steps that attempted to fix more firmly Goering's position of power on the outside.
Q. Was this also the reason why Goering suggested that Koerner be taken into the Central Planning?
A. Yes; that is true. Milch and I had the intention of carrying on the Central Plannings alone; Goering asked that Koerner be taken into the Central Planning as third member.
Q. I ask you now to define precisely what the tasks of the Central Planning were?
A. The tasks of the Central Planning are laid down in the Creed of Goering's that pertains to the Central Planning. In the main, it was a question here of a distribution and allocation of those raw materials which were necessary for the entire conduct of the economy; further, it was a question of the planning of intended construction for enlargement, for instance, in the chemical industry on long range scale and thus also it concerned determination for the setting down of a large scale raw materials program. A further point which was designated -- set forth in the decree of the Central Planning -- was the regulation of the transportation problem. This point, however, did not become effective and, in its place, a transportation staff for the Reich Communications Ministry was set up.
Q. Can one say that most of the meetings of the Central Planning concerned themselves with the question of raw materials; for instance, iron, coal, and what not?
A. The meetings of the Central Planning concerned themselves almost exclusively with the distribution of raw materials; that is to be seen from the almost 60 verbatim minutes of those Central Planning meetings.
MR. DENNEY: If Your Honor please, I think I've been quite lenient with Dr. Bergold in the questioning but I would appreciate it if he would stop leading the witness.
Almost every question he asks has been objectionable from the standpoint of putting the answer in the witness' mouth. He can ask him what the meetings were concerned with, why was Koerner at it, what happened when the witness saw Goering - that's perfectly all right, but for him to say, "Was Koerner added because of this" or "Were the meetings concerned solely with this or that or the other thing", doesn't really reflect a true picture. I don't suggest that the witness is taking his answer from him. I don't believe he is, but in order that record may be sharp and clean I'd appreciate it if he'd ask his questions properly.
JUDGE MUSSMANO: Dr. Bergold, are you familiar with the AngloAmerican expression "a leading question"?
DR. BERGOLD; Yes, I am.
JUDGE MUSSMANO: I presume from your experiences in the first trial that yon understand what Mr. Denney has in mind?
DR. BERGOLD: Oh, yes.
BY DR. BERGOLD:
Q. I have just shown the witness an exhibit of the Prosecution: namely, from Document book 2A of the Prosecution. It is a decree of the Witness'. Witness, I ask you to explain to the Tribunal in what capacity you issued this decree; that is to say, whether as Armaments Minister or as in charge of the Central Planning?
A. That is a very difficult question to answer. This decree was necessary because the Reich,......or the entire war production had been transferred to me from the Reich Ministry of Economy. It was further necessary some time previous to that I had signed a decree regarding the Central Planning Office, and this decree gave too many powers to the Planning Office. (Planungsamt), to which Funk objected, so that this other decree, the one you showed me, tried to create order in the situation.
To he sure, in a certain sense, the decree is concerned with the work of the Central Planning, because I, as Plenipotentiary General for Armaments in the Four-Year Plan, wanted it, and in the previous decree, had been designated the leader both of that and the Central Planning Board. However, when drawing up this decree I did not call a meeting of the Central Planning, nor did I note that Milch concerned himself particularly with the decree. It was a purely private matter that took place inside my ministry.
Q. Are the offices that you list in the decree offices of the Central Planning or of the ministry?
A. Please tell me which offices you mean in particular there are so many of them listed here, or rather I believe I know what you mean.
Q. I want to know, witness, whether these various offices that you listed here are offices of the Central Planning or of your ministry?
A. I shall glance over the decree rapidly and ascertain that the offices that are provided for here are not offices of the Central Planning, with the exception of the Planning Office, namely, Planungsamt, which had the job of preparing for the meetings of the Central Planning, but which of course did so but which worked for Central Planning only in this capacity.
Q. Witness, in what way did this Central Planning Office work otherwise; that is, this Planungsamt?
A. The Planungsamt was also the planning office for my ministry and had to oversee the entire war production and make suggestions for procedure to me.
Q. In a document submitted by the Prosecution there is also a Planungsamt, Planning Office of the General luftzeugmeister.
Did this Planning Office work together with the Central Planning or with your own Plannugsamt in the Armaments industry?
A. They had nothing to do with each other so far as I know; the Planning Office of the Air Ministry had the function of taking care of long range and planning long range air programs and, in addition, also of course, keeping contact with the various offices of my ministry.
Q. Witness, the so-called Armaments Inspectorates and Commandoes are also mentioned; are these organs of the Central Planning?
A. No. The Arments Inspectorates and Armaments Commandoes were competent solely within the Armaments Office, which was directly subordinate to me personally.
Q. Thank you. Then, in another exhibit the expression "Rustungsdienststelle", Armaments Branch Office, is mentioned. What do you understand by the term "Rustungsdienststelle"?
A. It was our blanket term for Armaments Inspectorates and Armaments Commandoes, and so on.
Q. Within the framework of the Central Planning, witness, was any discussion of labor or the allocation of labor -- I ask you to explain to the Tribunal, within what context and to what extent this took place, such discussion?
A. The Central Planning did not concern itself with the total requirements of manpower. The meetings of the Central Planning, in which labor problems wore discussed, can be subdivided into two categories. The first category: Hitler had given me plenipotentiary powers from 1942 on, to carry on the liaison between workers and soldiers, or rather to take care of the inductions of workers and soldiers, and to distribute such inductions in the various branches of industry. This allocation of what branch of industry inductions were to be made in was discussed in meetings of the Central Planning, and on these occasions a representative of Sauckel or Sauckel himself was present. Since the question of replacement had to be discussed at the same time.
The second category was as follows: Not that they were specific discussions of the problems concerned in the allocation of labor or the utilization of labor, but were discussions of the distribution or allocation of coal or iron, and in these discussions the subject had to be preceded by a discussion of what was really necessary to carry out the coal program for the next year in order to ascertain whether it could be carried out at all. In order that on the basis of these ascertainments the coal could be distributed during the next year, one of the requisites for the production of coal or iron was, of course, also labor forces. Consequently, in such meetings there was generally a representative of Sauckel's or Timm's and we of the Central Planning attempted to receive assurances that would enable us then to work out the distribution for the current period, for the amount of coal involved.
Regarding this meeting of 1 March 1944 which undoubtedly played a large role in these proceedings I cannot make statements on it, since at that time I was seriously ill.
Q. Is it however not true that in February you called a meeting?
A. So far as I recall there was in February 1944 a meeting of the Central Planning at which I also was not present because I had been in the hospital since 10 January. This meeting had probably been prepared by the Planning Office, the Plannungsamt; do you want me to tell you what happened at that meeting?
Q. It was a meeting concerning labor and did it have any connection with the meeting which you had with the Fuehrer in January 1944?
A. No; that meeting had nothing to do with that previous meeting with Hitler of 4 January.
Q. In this meeting on 4 January did Hitler mention the number of about four million as the necessary number of workers for the coming work program?
A. In this meeting of 4 January 1944 Hitler established a work program of four million workers, after he had asked Sauckel and myself to state the requirements. Sauckel stated the requirements in order to maintain the present status of manpower and I stated the requirements that would be necessary to carry on the expansion of our intended program.
Q. In connection with this meeting, did you talk with Sauckel? Did you talk with Sauckel about the workers who would still have to be called with their differences, and if so, of what sort?
A. I cannot precisely recall whether it was at this conference that I discussed with Sauckel the question of these differences of the workers to be allocated. Nevertheless it was known generally and also known to Hitler that the numbers that Sauckel stated were regarded by me as too high, as figments of his fantasy, and that Sauckel was much put out by this. The purpose of the meeting of February 1944 in the Central Planning, was to create a common basis for a common statistical appraisal. Our differences of opinion consisted in the fact that Sauckel made transfers within a factory from one sort of work to another. He called them allocated workers and reckened them as such and the manpower that he shifted from one factory to another, inside Germany, were also considered by him as allocated. In other words his statistics did not show what manpower he had drawn from the German reserve, and the occupied territories.
Q. In the interrogation with Timms who, as you say, was a member of Sauckel's staff, Timms said more or less as follows:
The Central Planning wan to state -- was to collect the requirements of the people who needed workers, and to coordinate in the meeting these various requirements.
Can this statement be characterized as correct?
A. This statement is not correct. It is refuted by the fact that all the verbatim minutes of those meetings -- Central Planning meetings -- are present, and that every economist can see that the Central Planning meetings -- are present, and that every economist can see that the Central Planning did not, as a regular rule, do such work. In my opinion the only meeting that could be mentioned in this context is the one of 1 March 1944.
Q. The prosecution states that the Central Planning exerted itself much more intensively. The prosecution stated that the Central Planning concerned itself with specific and small groups of laborers in the meeting of November 1942 of the Central Planning.
MR. DENNEY: I object to Dr. Bergold telling the witness what we say. He can do that when he sums up. He can ask his questions, but he certainly is not entitled to stand here and say what we maintain. The Court is to judge what we maintain. Dr. Bergold can have any opinion that he wants, but this witness is here to be interrogated, not to be built up by statements of Dr. Bergold of what we have said.
DR. BERGOLD: I was in this case agreeing with the prosecution in what it had said.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: I would suggest, Dr. Bergold, that you, having in mind just what you wish to refute, can directly but the witness a question which will elicit the answer which you feel will be of benefit to you later on.
Q In the meeting of 30 October 1943, that took place in your presence, the Central Planning, within the framework of the allocation of iron, discussed the use of french smelters. Why did that happen?
A The text is familiar enough to me from my own trial, for me to be able to specify this. Smelters are trained workers who observe the smelting process and "who are responsible for the quality of the iron. These smelters can never be more than fifty in number. There could not be more than fifty, who, of course, were of particular importance for the production.
Q Witness, in this case Milch said the following; verbatim: I Should simply say you will receive two people for one of this sort." What did that mean?
A If we are going into such things I really should prefer to see the text. ( Witness was shown the text.) Milch expressed himself very unclearly here, but the minutes are not quite complete here, which of course, is possible. I can understand him to mean, for one smelter who came from France, in this case two french prisoners of war, would be freed in Germany. That's the only explanation I can find.
Q is it true that between the French Government and the Germans, there was an agreement, according to which, if a French worker came to Germany to work, a French prisoner of war in Germany would be freed?
A I am less informed on this from personal experience than from the previous trial. As far as I know the process changed from time to time. There were several agreements of some sort or another with the French Government.
BY JUDGE MUSMANNO: As I recall from that interrogation, I understood that you were seeking to ascertain who were smelters among the French prisoners of war in Germany, and that France was merely to give you the list of those smelters and then you could withdraw them from the prison camps; is that correct?
A yes.
Q That is correct?
A Yes.
Q You had stated just a moment ago that France was to send a smelter from France and then a prisoner of war would be released, which of course, is a little different?
A As I said before, I am not entirely clear as to just what this text here in the minutes means. In what I said, I proceeded on the basis that they wanted to deceive the French, and in this way wanted to get from them without their really wanting to give it, the list of the smelters who were in their prison and the prisoners of war, and for this reason I cannot understand why Milch made this remark. Either Milch did not grasp what I was trying to say or he thought I meant something different from what I did mean.
Q shat was the outcome then of this discussion with regard to the obtaining of smelters?
A Nothing resulted. After the meeting this problem was not further discussed. To be sure, I am not entirely clear or at least donot know whether there were meetings with Sauckel or his representatives. The number involved here was so minute that I was not informed of it later, so I do not knew of it of my own experience. I cannot say then wether or not.
Q Do you know whether the two to one suggestion was ever effectuated into practice?
A No, I do not.
BY DR. BERGOLD:
Q WITNESS, in the meetings of the Central Planning, how were the various decisions reached determined?
A In the meetings of the Central Planning a stenographer was present. Mr. Stephens, who a few days after the meeting drew up and sent to the various participants and people interested a summary of the results of the meeting.
Q Was such a summary made for every meeting?
A It was cur practice to draw up such a summary, but of course I do not know whether or not, perhaps, in one or two cases it was only--because in the Central Planning there were also various preparatory meetings in preparation for the final meeting.
Q Can one say that the results of meetings are to be found in these summary reports?
A Yes. The results of the meetings are set down there.
Q Would these summaries also containreports on utilization of labor?
A No. There were no particular meetings that were concerned with the utilization of labor. Of course, in the minutes of the meeting this decision or that regarding the allocation of labor would be contained, if Sauckel had given the necessary approval.
Q I come now to the question of Sauckel. Could the Central Planning give any orders or directives to Sauckel?
A At all times Sauckel refused to allow the Central Planning to give him orders. Also his representatives at the meetings of the Contrad Panning were not empowered to accept orders from Central Planning. If I had had the power to issue directives to Sauckel, various points of dispute between Sauckel and myself would have been decided in the Central Planning.
Q In an interrogation that I cannot find at the moment, Sauckel stated that, on the basis of a directive of Hitler's he had had to take orders from you; is that Correct?
A No, that is incorrect. And in the IMT trial I corrected that misapprehension.