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.
Q Is it, however, correct that you first made efforts toward this with Hitler, or is that correct?
A That is quite correct. I was because of the same situation as there was in England between Beaverbrook and Bevins at the same time. Here again, the Minister for Production asked that he have the right to give orders to the labor Minister. And in that case, as in my case, this right was refused him. There were various border spheres which were regulated by common decrees, signed by Sauckel and myself. These decrees are available but do not touch the basic problem cf the right to issue orders.
Q Witness, can you state, the reasons why the employment of foreign laborers was undertaken?
A I don't understand the question.
Q I was trying to be careful so that the prosecution should have no cause to blame me. What reasons led to the employment of foreign labor?
A Why, simply because there was not enough manpower there.
Q What brought it about in Germany that there were too few workers available?
A In Milch's and my opinion this was caused by an insufficient exploitation of German work reserves. In our estimation there were in Germany at least reserve manpower forces of at least three million men and women who could be employed if simply the same standards were applied to them as are applied in England and America. The precise numbers can be found in a communication of March 1944 from me to Sauckel, after I ascertained the percentage of women employed in England through reading it in the newspapers. Further, the same reserve, or the same statistics can be found if you study the minutes of a meeting that took place in June 1939 under the chairmanship of Goering, and during which Syrup of the Work Ministry gave precise statistics on the available reserve of German women who could be used in war production. Also, in this calculation of Syrup's at that time, and after and in comparison with Status of women employment in March 1944, it could be seen that we did really have at that time a reserve cf three million in Germany.
The reason why these German female workers were not employed lay both with Hitler and with Sauckel, who were both of the opinion that the birth rate could decline seriously as a result of employing females. There were a few other curious notions on the part of Hitler regarding the employment of females, which are to be found in a document of Sauckel's which is to be found in my document book.
Q. If I have understood you correctly you say that the use of foreign workers could be attributed to the failure to use German reserves and to the war conditions?
A. Could you please repeat that question?
Q. Did I rightly understand you if I summarize your previous rather long statement that the use of foreign workers was brought about by the failure to use three million German women and because of war conditions?
A. That is, in general, true. It is of course difficult to answer or to take such a problem from the entire context of industry. In this matter of dispute with Sauckel it was question of my embracing the point of view that these workers in Germany should be utilized and the foreign workers in the occupied territories should. be used to increase German production.
Q. Do you know whether, from the very beginning of the war, there was a plan for using a great number of foreign forced labor?
A. I do not know that from my own experience. From what I heard in the first trials that is, --
MR DENNEY: Just a minute, until we have the end of the answer.
A. (Con't) I do not know this of my own experience, since in my own trial, I heard of such things.
Q. In other words, you did not know of such a plan personally beforehand, before taking up your office?
A. No.
Q. Do you know whether Milch wished to use foreign workers in the air industry, or whether he was against that?
A. Milch had a very important reason for employing German workers in the air industry, for the airplanes are more susceptible to sabotage than any other product of the entire industry as a whole. For this reason, Milch continually pointed out that, in America for instance, a great part of the air industry was carried out by women. Pictures that appeared in English and American magazines were collected by us and used as an argument. These were propaganda pictures which appeared in these magazines.
Q. Did you know or did you not know that even before you became Armaments Minister, French factories worked for the air industry in France----the time previous to 1942 is the time I am speaking of?
A. That is not known to me personally, what program the Luftwaffe had before 1942 in France. Knowledge of the programs of the Luftwaffe in the occupied territories I received about summer or autumn of 1943 when I interested myself in the priority plants and the whole production in the occupied territories.
Q. Was there a production program already under way at that time in France?
A. You mean an air production?
Q. Yes; that's what I mean.
A. So far as I recall, the air industry had in France only production of JU-52, Junkers 52, in other words, were the only machines produced in France. This was a slow transport plane, of a speed of about 190 kilometers per hour. It was impractical to send either to France or to allocate to France or any occupied territories the production of airplanes or any other armaments because in a technical war the changes in these modern types follow so closely one on the other, that, as a matter of fact, it can only be carried out in one country.
This led to the fact that, both in the Army and in the Air 1152(a) Armaments no serious efforts were made to take up such production in the occupied territories.
Q. Witness, there are verbatim meetings of the Central Planning; were they checked on by any responsible person after they were expedited?
A. No, we had no time for his, nor was it necessary for these verbatim minutes were available only to Stephans so that he could draw up his summary report of the meetings.
Q. Did Milch, after the first meetings of the Central Planning, tell you once that he had checked through the minutes, and did he tell you what he had found out in so doing?
A. No, I cannot recall that he did. I know only that in the case of the minutes of these verbatim meetings, he discussed them with us and did not consider them to be reliable. It was the custom in the Four-Year Plan also, and it originated with Goering and was carried out by the stenographer Stettler, and carried over by him into the Central Planning. It was, namely, the custom of taking verbatim minutes on the meetings.
Q. Did you know that in 1943 Russian prisoners of war were to be used in antiaircraft artillery?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Do you know who originated this notion?
A. That was Goering's idea. He gave the necessary orders to General Foerster.
Q. Was this measure agreeable to Milch?
A. Neither Milch nor I approved of this measure, because in this was 19,000 Russian prisoners of war were to be withdrawn from war production, who were experts, and who had been trained as skilled workers. The harm that would thus be done to production, we considered not to be tolerable.
Q. Did Milch also have or state his misgivings or doubts about the fact that these Russians were thus being obliged to fight against their allies?
A. I don't recall that he did.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: I think we'll have a little break now.
(A recess was taken)
BY DR. BERGOLD:
1153(a)
Q. Witness, I shall now submit to you the record of the 33rd meeting of the Central Planning Board as it is contained in Document Book 3A of the prosecution (submitting document). From this record you will see that Milch at that time had said, "We have ordered that Russian prisoners of war should work in anit-aircraft artillery." Previously, you have testified that Milch had been against the employment of such workers for that purpose. How does this expression "We" come about?
A. That is something which I cannot explain exactly either. Particularly since General Foerster had previously been made an independent agency by Goering. This is something I know quite certainly since Milch was most disgusted about this fact. As for the interpretation, what Milch might have meant, "We", is something I can't say anything about.
Q. Is it correct that quite frequently, when Milch was making severe criticism regarding the program, the stenographers of the record were asked either to omit it or to somewhat change it?
A. That did happen quite often. Milch used to make severe remarks about our allies and encehe allowed such remark to slip out, he would tell the stenographer afterwards not to include such a remark in the record. I can remember, for instance, that I too, on several occasions, told the stenographer of the record, in the interest of Milch, to omit such remarks from the record.
Q. Did it also happen that it was said that the stenographer should alter things a little?
A. No, I cannot remember any such case or detail.
Q. Thank you. Is it known to you that in the Central Planning Board the so-called dodger's work was discussed?
A. Yes.
Q. And did Central Planning do anything about these shirkers in connection with these conferences we are talking about?
A. I only know about a remark made by me in a Central Planning Board meeting when I said that some of these slackers should be taken to a concentration camp. Following this remark, nothing particular was undertaken, which becomes apparent from the wording of the record of Central Planning.
Q. And now I shall turn to the Jaegerstab. What were the reasons leading to it; that the Jaegerstab was formed?
A. In February 1944 there were concentrated air attacks by the American Air Force on the fighter aircraft works in Germany. Generally, these attacks were considered to be a preparation for an invasion. According to those officially concerned in the Central Planning Board, from the Air Ministry, March, April, May 1944, would only produce enough parts - 60% compared with the previous months. Considering this catastrophic situation, Milch defied it to visit me in the hospital and we discussed the necessity of creating an organization by means of which my ministry organization would be closely connected with the reconstruction program of these fighter factories and would be included in a responsible manner. Milch's efforts to transfer such armament works to my ministry were not approved of by Goering, and consequently, the form the Jaegerstab was chosen. Although Goering was even opposed to this decree signed by me and objected to it - perhaps "objection" isn't Quite the right word - shall we say, he turned against this decree.
Q. Did the foundation of the Jaegerstab have any particular purpose with reference to Milch's person?
A. No. No; you can't call it that, at that particular stage. You can't say that there was a particular purpose. It was merely Milch's and my own aim to bring about a solution which would serve the necessities arising from the general position and which would also, on the other hand, take care of Goering's prestige.
Q. Is it correct that even as early as Autumn, 1943, Milch was trying to be relieved of the work of the GL?
A. Milch and I - we were both of the opinion much earlier, as early in fact as the end of 1942, that a sharing up of production among the various branches of the armed forces was a perfectly impossible solution from the point of view of organization, and that output that supplies all branches of the armed forces would be much higher if a joint armament program would exist such as was the case with the other warfaring nations. I cannot remember that Milch put the state of his health into the foreground when we talked I can only remember that his health had suffered somewhat.
After he had a serious car accident near Rostow,in January or February, 1943. he said there had been a collision between his car and a locomotive.
Q. Witness, I am having a flan submitted to you, a plan of the Jaegerstab submitted by the prosecution, which has been compiled by Mr. Sauer. Do you consider this plan to be correct?
A. To certify the correctness of such a plan would mean some hours of work. All channels which exist are entered in it.
Q. Are you concerned with one particular part?
A. Yes; This plan contains Himmler's name as being a member of the Jaegerstab.
Q. And there is mention of a Mr. Kammler. Was Himmler in that capacity or was his agency a member of the Jaegerstab?
A Naturally, Himmler was not a member of the Jaegerstab. Just as all other ministers who entered in this plan, with the exception of myself, were not members of the Jaegerstab. As far as the question of Kammler's activities is concerned, I shall have to speak most generally, and I think we'll have to subdivide it in individual questions.
Q Well, but first of all, I should want to know whether Kammler was a member of the Jaegerstab at all?
A I can't tell you that on the basis of the knowledge I have whether Kammler was a member of the Jaegerstab or not. As far as I'm concerned, I called to the Jaegerstab one representative of each of my departments, totaling eight, so that there were eight representatives of those departments, working as members of the Jaegerstab. These representatives of mine had instructions at ways to give the essential instructions when there had been air attacks. Sauer, as chief of this staff, had some sort of jurisdiction, to give instructions to these representatives of my department. That was of course the initial purpose of the Jaegerstab when it was founded, I mean, a sort of agency should be created whore all the departments of my ministry, namely, buildings, transportation, etc., should be assured of supplies, of spare parts, and small parts, of raw materials, and that they should be at the disposal of those agencies who needed this potential. Naturally, it was the custom with us that the meetings, not only of the Jaegerstab, but at all other meetings there should be representatives of from other ministries in attendance. I, myself could not appoint a member of another ministry as a member of the Jaegerstab. I would quite certainly, quite definitely know if another ministry had ordered such a wish, because the matter would have had to come before me for my approval, and that is not the situation.