Dr. Bergold: I understand. I want to change my question now. Are you not mistaken that this order for silence that it was made in this form? Wasn't it that Hitler only said nobody must divulge the contents of this meeting to third parties? Gentlemen must not discuss it amongst themselves either.
Raeder: Of course, I cannot remember details today after so long a time. It is very likely that Hitler in the beginning of the meeting, perhaps at the end again, said that no other person must learn about this meeting, but I think and I am positive about it - that this was one of the main points of his speech. Those principles as they have been read hero, they were mentioned here, I am quite sure it was another occasion when they laid down those principles and he acted accordingly.
Dr. Bergold: Is it not a fact that this order of silence was only issued in January 1940 when an airplane that carried secret orders mistakenly made a landing in Belgium?
Raeder: I cannot say anything about this. I cannot recollect anything about this.
Dr. Bergold: In this protocol of Schmund, Japan is mentioned. Can you recollect that in this meeting Japan was mentioned at all Raeder:
No, I cannot recollect anything about Japan.
Dr. Bergold: Is Japan mentioned at all in this?
Raeder: No, I cannot recollect - Japan? I cannot remember at this time.
Dr. Bergold This protocol, and. the Fuehrer also mentions that he doesn't want to have any colonies? Die he actually say that?
Raeder I cannot say that - Hitler in this case sometimes changes his point of view.
Dr. Bergold: In this protocol, Hitler further says the following: "If the Army, in collaboration with the Air Force and the Navy, has only taken the most important position, then the industry production will cease to flow into the bottomless pit of the army's battles, The air Forces and the army first will benefit from it". Do you remember a thought like this after the first important successes that industry should only work for the Air Force and for the Navy and no longer for the Army?
Raeder: At this meeting? No I cannot recollect.
Dr. Bergold: Correct. The thought originally was Hitler's only after the collapse of France.
Mr. Denney: Your Honor, I submit that he can't ask him when a thought originated with Hitler. Good Heavens, you certainly can ask him when he first thought about it, but as to what went on in Hitler's mind!
Interpreter: Dr. Bergold wants to drop the question.
Dr. Bergold: Hitler says further that it would mean a better production for cruisers. Can you remember that this was said in 1939?
Raeder: No, I cannot remember.
Dr. Bergold: Furthermore, Hitler mentioned the fact that the Italians should break through the Maginot Line. Can you remember whether military action of that nature was mentioned at that time?
Raeder: No, I cannot recollect. I don't think it is probable that he discussed military questions of that nature at that time.
Dr. Bergold: That concludes my questions.
Raeder: But I cannot remember the presence of Herr Milch. But the protocol in regard to Goering - this would prove that Goering was present.
Dr. Bergold: That is your opinion? Milch - -
Judge Musmanno: You have asked your questions, Doctor. Certainly anything that the witness wants to add by way of bat clarification so as Dr, of Bergold what he telling said him I think what is Milch perfectly said, proper that has, no place.
Dr. Bergold: He only said he could not recollect -that he only wanted to say that Milch was present.
*1437* Mr. Denney:
Well he says he doesn't know.
Dr. Bergold: That will be all.
Mr. Denney: How long did the meeting last?
Raeder: I cannot say. I can only guess at it from the length of the protocol.
Mr. Denney: Do you know whether it was in the morning, afternoon or evening.
Raeder: I couldn't say that either.
Mr. Denney: Do you remember the names of the people who were there?
Raeder: According to the protocol which I read here it is probable that the people listed were there.
Mr. Denney: But you have no present recollection of the peoplo who were at the meeting?
Raeder: No, it was always the first in command and the General Staff.
Mr. Denney: How many such meetings did he (Raeder) attend between the years of 1935 and 1942?
Raeder: At all meetings, the protocols of which have been submitted during the trials, that means November 1937 May 1938 and then there was August 1939 - -
(Mr. Denney: And I think November 1939) Judge Musmanno:
Where was this meeting held? In the Reich Chancellery where?
Raeder: In 1937 and 1938 in the Reich Chancellery.
Judge Musmanno: In 1937 the Reich Chancellery wasn't yet set up, was it?
Raeder: Yes it was.
Judge Musmanno: Well of course there was one. I mean the present one. There is a difference between ---But I understand the May 1939 meeting was in the new Reich Chancellery.
Raeder: If Hitler lived there, then it would have been there. In August 1939 it was at the Berghof.
Mr. Denney: Obersalzburg. But he doesn't know where the meeting of May 1939 was held?
**1438* Raeder:
Yes, I said it was in the Reich Chancellery.
Judge Musmanno: The 1937 meeting was held in his chalet?
Raeder: No I don't say that.
Mr. Denney: That was August 1939. The 1937 one was hold in the old Reich Chancellery.
Judge Musmanno: Were these meetings usually in the daytime or at night?
Raeder: In the daytime - mostly in the afternoon. The Berghof, meeting was in the morning.
Judge Musmanno: Were they strictly formal?
Raeder: Yes, very formal.
Judge Musmanno: Was there any social angle connected with them?
Raeder: Yes, there was a luncheon given at the Berghof, otherwise not.
Judge Musmanno: Which meeting was that?
Raeder: That was August 1939. All had to travel and that's why the luncheon was given - because they all had to journey to Obersalzburg.
Dr. Bergold: Was there a certain uniform prescribed or certain dress prescribed for these meetings?
Raeder: No. We were our civilian suits.
Judge Musmanno: Oh, civilian suits! That's all.
**1439** INTERROGATION Official Transcript of the proceedings of an INTERROGATION duly had and taken, before the AMERICAN MiLITARY TRIBUNAL No. 2, in the matter of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA versus ERHARD MILCH, Defendant, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, commencing at the hour of 0930, on the 19th day of February, 1947, the HONORABLE MUSMANNO, Judge, Presiding.
THE MARSHAL: You will all rise.
(All stand up)
THE MARSHAL: The Honorable, the Judge of Court No. 2. You may be seated.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: The other time we took interrogatories, Dr. Bergold and Mr. Denney, we proceeded as one would in taking interrogatories in a formal way, yet we are permitting both sides all the latitude that would be permitted in regular proceedings in Court.
DR. BERGOLD: May it please the Tribunal, may I call the witness Constantin von Neurath:
JUDGE MUSFANNO: The witness will be brought in.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: You will please raise your right hand (The witness does, as directed.)
JUDGE HUSMANNO: Do you swear by God, to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, all of which you will answer to on the Last Great Day?
THE WITNESS: Yes, I do.
CONSTANTIN von NEURATH, thereupon testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. BERGOLD:
Q Will you please proceed to state your first name and your second name?
A Constantin von Neurath.
Q When were you born?
A 2nd of February, 1871.
Q What was your last position in the German Reich?
A I was a Reich Minister Court No. 2. - Interrogation.
BY DR. BERGOLD: Witness, I have only a few questions to put to you:
Q. In what position were you, as of May 1918 until about 1925?
A. In 1919 (pause) in February of 1919. I rejoined the Diplomatic Services. and was at first in that position in Copenhagen; after that, from 1921 on, I was Ambassador in Rome.
Q. Witness, do you know that the Soviet Government did not recognize the treaties which the Czarist Government had concluded with European and other countries?
A. I know that in 1918 or early in 1919, the then soviet representative in Berlin called at the German Foreign Office and said that the Soviet Government would not recognize any treaties concluded by the Czarist government.
Q. Was there also among these treaties, also the one known as the Hague Convention on Land Warfare?
A. Oh yes. The Hague Convention for Land Warfare was also signed by the Czarist government, but the Soviet Government repudiated it.
Q. Was the Geneva, the revised Geneva Convention of 1929, also one of the conventions mentioned?
A. That was the Convention passed before the -- the Geneva Convention of 1929.
BY DR. BERG0LD: Yes, please, continue along. (Pause) Just a minute. One more question, sir.
Q Is it known to you that the revised Geneva Convention of 1929 was not signed by Russia?
A. Yes, that is known to me.
DR. BERGOID: May it please the Tribunal, I hove no further questions to the witness.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. DENNEY:Witness, you said it was in 1918 or 1919 that a representative of the then Russian Government called at the Foreign Office in Berlin and stated that the Russian Government as it existed at that time did not recognize any treaties which had been entered into by the Government under the Romanoffs?
A Yes.
Q Were you there at the tine he made this statement?
A No. I wasn't present at the time but it was told to me afterwards in my official capacity of a diplomatic representative of the Reich.
Q You were in Denmark at that time, weren't you?
A Yes.
Q And from there you went to England?
A Yes, hut only in 1930.
Q. Was this announcement by the Russian representative of which you have spoken made in other capitals at that time?
A. As far as I know, yes.
Q. He made it all over the world?
A. Yes. In any case it was generally known.
Q. I asked you before whether or not you knew about the treaties of non-aggression and the amendments to these treaties which were concluded between Ribbentrop and Molotov prior to the time that Germany declared war on Russia in 1941?
A. It was known to me that in August 1939 a treaty had been concluded; that is, the non-aggression pact.
Q. Did you know the contents of the treaty?
A. No.
Q. Did you know about any subsequent amendments to the treaty?
A. No.
Q. Where did you first learn the contents of the non-aggression pact?
A. Only here in the trial, here in this trial.
Q. That is, during the first trial before the -
A. Yes, in that trial in which I was sentenced.
Q. The trial before the International Military Tribunal here in Nurnberg?
A. Yes, quite.
Q. Did you ever know that the question of treatment of Soviet prisoners of war was passed on by the legal authorities in the Wehrmacht?
A. No, I had no connection with that and I haven't heard anything about it.
Q. So you don't know whether or not an opinion was ever asked of them as to what would be proper and what would be improper so far as the conduct of the German military forces was concerned with reference to Russian prisoners of war.
A. No, I cannot give you any information on that point.
Q. So far as you know the question was never raised?
A. No, not as far as I am concerned.
MR. DENNEY: No further questions.
DR. BERGOLD: I have no further questions either.
1443 a Court No. 2. Interrogation.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: The witness may be excused. I suggest that he not be returned directly to the prison, but be held outside the courtroom.
(Witness excused)
DR. BERGOLD: May I call the next witness, Erich Raeder.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: The witness Raeder will be brought into the courtroom.
DR. BERGOLD: May it please the Tribunal, I have just heard that Raeder isn't here yet, only Speer.
May it please the Court, I am just told that Raeder does not wish to make statements for Milch. There is a certain animosity between those two men as far as Raeder is concerned, not as far as Milch is concerned. He is angry with Milch, why I do not know. They didn't get on to ether, but I an of the opinion if the Court orders his interrogation he should appear. Surely the witness could not decide himself whether we could -
MR. DENNEY: May it please the Court, I move that the remarks just made by Dr. Bergold be stricken. They have no place in this proceeding. He has called the witness, and for him to get into the record a statement about Raeder doesn't like Milch, but Milch doesn't hold anything against anybody -- it's really absurd. He knows better than to make statements like that on the record. I an sure that the Court isn't interested in the feelings between Raeder and Milch, if any, and I am certain that it has no place in this record. I respectfully submit that they should be stricken. I don't mind his saying anything to your Honor that he wants to, but to come here and make long speeches about how Milch and Raeder feel about one another is fantastic.
DR. BERGOLD: Your Honor, for the record, I only wished to explain to the Court why Raeder didn't wish to turn up, and I therefore would ask the Court to order Raeder to appear.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: And you are willing to withdraw your remarks about Milch not being at odds with the world?
DR. BERGOLD: Yes, yes.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Very well. The prisoner Raeder will be ordered to appear before the Court. Dr. Bergold, will you be willing to proceed with Mr. Speer awaiting the arrival of Admiral Raeder?
Court No. 2. Interrogation
DR. BERGOLD: Yes.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Very well.
DR. BERGOLD: I myself do not wish to ask Speer any questions but Mr. Denney probably has some, so therefore I hand it over to Mr. Donney right away.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Yes.
ALBERG SPEER, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Will you please raise your right hand? Do you swear by Almighty God to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and for which yon will answer on the last great day?
THE WITNESS: I swear that I shall speak the pure truth and nothing but the truth and answer for that on Judgment Day.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Very well. You may be seated.
EXAMINATION BY MR. DENNEY:
Q. I just have one or two questions to ask. Do you recall that we had session similar to this in this court a matter of a week or ten days ago
A. Yes.
Q. And do you remember we had one u stairs in a room two or three days before that?
Yes.
Q. I would like to direct your attention to the first session in point of time, the one which was held before his Honor and Dr. Bergold, end myself, with you present in one of the interrogation rooms. Do you recall that?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Do you recall Dr. Bergold asking you these questions and you making these answers? He said: "'Question: How did the Air Force Industry got its workers?" It was at the beginning of the session. And you said, "The Air Force Industry requested its workers from the Generalluftzeugmeister. Simultaneously the firms made their requests to the labor offices. From 1942 on the requests of the different forces of the Air Force were collected and presented to me. There is a decree between Sauckel and me which was drawn up in 1942".
Court No. 2. Interrogation.
Do you recall that question and that answer?
A. Yes I do.
Q. Then you were asked by Dr. Bergold: "Therefore, from 1942 on the Air Force Industry's requests for workers for the armament inspection were directly announced to you?" And then I said, "He is again assuming the answer in his question" -- speaking to Dr. Bergold through his Honor -- "I suggest that the question he is posing is contrary to the answer the witness has just given. He" ... the witness ... "Said the channel was through the Generalluftzougmeister. And then Dr. Bergold said, "I am trying to prove whether the witness might have made an error before."
And then his Honor said, "Then you should ask him directly," Do you recall that.?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And then Dr. Bergold said -- Dr. Bergold now -- "Did you mean that the requests from 1942 on were not given by way of the Generalluftzeugmeister but directly to you?" And then you said, "I am sorry, but that is not so. The requests of the Air Armament Industries for laborers were presented to Milch and he did not permit anyone to take this right away from him till March 1944" Do you remember all that?
A. Yes.
Court No. 2. Interrogation.
Q. And those statements are correct?
A. Those are correct. I would like to add that our organization was very involved and complicated, and it was very difficult on the basis of the decrees available to reconstruct the precise picture. Moreover, it should be taken into consideration that from time to time the system of request for labor was changed and that after that it was found that the new system did not lead to the desired results of a more precise request for labor, and a new system was needed, but, on the whole, what I said, is correct.
MR. DENNEY: No further questions.
BY JUDGE MUSMANNO:
Q. Her Speer, I would like to understand the machinery by which labor was brought into Germany beginning with the request by any particular department for any particular number of workers. Let us suppose that someone appeared before the Central Planning Board and said, "I will need fifty thousand men for a factory that I am about to construct." How please tell us just what happened. Would you issue an order to somebody? Would he then in turn order someone else, and how did these workers finally then arrive in Germany?
A. If somebody on the Central planning Board requested labor, the Central Planning Board did not issue an order that these workers must be supplied, but the Central Planning Board agreed that those workers can be supplied. An order by the Central planning Board, Sauckel would not have accepted. That is a definite fact. A large area of workers -- in many cases of labor request, my Mini cry collected the requests after the decree with Sauckel of September, 1942.
It is quite clear that the requests for labor did not occur in those long intervals between the meetings of the Central Planning Board, but this had to happen in much shorter intervals and in a constant collaboration with the people concerned, for the enemy air raids and changes in programs which became necessary because of the military situation made these changes very often necessary. Therefore, for the whole of our armament industry and also for certain branches of production outside armament that there were in my ministry, we decided on so-called framework contingents, and priority lists were drawn up. I do not know whether you are interested in that part.
Court No. 2. Interrogation.
Q. Well, not particularly. I want very succinctly a statement as to the steps which ensure after the declaration of someone before the Central Planning Board that he needed a certain number of workers. Who was informed of this request? Who authorized the call for the workers? Who submitted the demand? Who then at the other and gathered the workers? Not in detail -- I just want the steps in movement from the Central Planning Board until the men actually arrived.
A. The Central Planning Board did not deal with that matter anymore afterwards. Let us say the request of labor, say, of the coal mining industry -
Q. Yes.
Q. -- was reported to Sauckel by the coal mining industry itself. Therefore, one could call a meeting of the Central Planning Board as a statement for Sauckel that such labor is very important for the coal mining industry, and that as far as possible he has to supply them. That is necessary within the framework of economic planning, but beyond that the Central Planning Board did not pursue the matter any further or was not in a position to do so even.
Q. Well, did you know there at the fountain head of labor -- because if you made the request originally, that is what started the machinery in motion -did you not know that bringing in workers forcibly from occupied territories to work in the war operation constituted a violation of international convention? Weren't you aware of that right at the very source?
A. What I say now is not meant to be an excuse. I really did not know it. Up to the beginning of my trial here, the regulations of international law were unknown to me, and nobody ever drew my attention to it that such regulations exist; but I want to say once more I don't say this in order to excuse myself, here, but it is a fact that it was like this.
Q. Well, you were certainly quite aware from the decision of the International Military Tribunal just how illegal and improper that was.
A. I took note of it there, and, after all, I received my punishment for it now.
Q. Well, could you not have followed the same line of reasoning adopted by the Tribunal, which, after all, was based upon International convention?
Court No. 2. Interrogation.
You were a man of education, a man of great cultural attainments and of great technical ability, and it was because of those attributes that you were chosen by Hitler to become the Minister of Armaments. Could you not have reasoned that out by yourself? Wasn't it very clear and obvious?
A. I believe that the general knowledge of the principles of international law can only be brought to the knowledge of a wider circle of legal laymen if after a war legal offenses committed during the war will be revealed by a public trial, and thereby a more general knowledge of offenses against international law becomes known. You know that I was an architect and that such knowledge as I had in the field of law I merely received from newspapers, and I know, for instance, all about various legal commitments of architects which on the building side are fairly extensive.
I would say that a groat mistake has been committed hero by omitting after tho first World War to establish international legal conditions by trials, and at the same time to adjust it to the developments of technical warfare instead of which after the first World War the whole question of the deportation of labor, for instance, was decided by the highest German courts, and as far as I know, this decision of that court was not particularly clear. This is how the basis of ignorance is laid in the field of international law, and I believe that many a mistake and many a violation in this war could have been avoided or at least mitigated if a general knowledge of international law had prevailed.
Court No. 2 Interrogation.
Q. Would you say that had there been, following the first world war, trials such as these we are now conducting, that you then would have been aware of the illegality of the practices in which you were engaged; or rather, you would have been aware of the illegality of such practices and that then you would not have participated in them?
A. I am of the opinion that trials against the main responsibility after the first world war would have enlightened public opinion and myself on the basis of international law. I do not wish to go as far as to say that I would not have committed those breaches of law for it is very difficult to excuse one's self after the event by saying one had acted only through ignorance of international law. Nevertheless, I should say that observing international law would have been possible without, while I myself, that without me, less time in my armament drive. Of course only that fact of international law is concerned which deals with the recruiting of labor, whereas the other factor, the so-called legal looting of occupied territories as it is called, there is no doubt that that would have been necessary for an increased output of armament violations of international law as far as the assignment of labor was concerned were in my opinion not only not necessary, but unreasonable, he would have achieved more if we had observed the international law. This is a very complicated topic; I do not know whether you are interested why this should he so.
Q. Well, I merely want you to enlighten me, if you care to, on this specific angle. You are considered a specialist. Now, had there been an international trial following the first world war, and the decision in that trial had been very clear and specific -- as was the decision in this trial -- you would have then known the limitations very specifically on the conduct of war; and having then known Court No. 2 Interrogation.
that you couldn't do certain things, would you then have refused to participate as you did in this world war as a specialist? Having been put on notice that you cannot take labor from other countries forcibly and throw them into the armement industries -- knowing all that, would you then have refused to give your services to Hitler in the prosecution ff the war?
A. The first part of the question I wish to say if a trial and a clear 1450 a Court No. 2 Interrogation.
decision had happened after the first world war, then certainly somebody would have put the international law and regulations on my desk; that is to say he would have informed me of it. The second question, it is not possible to answer the second part of the question so simply, for when I started my office in 1942 the war in all directions had already left all given international regulations. Please don't misunderstand me if I point out hero that economic warfare was waged by the British and Americans with extreme concentrations by bombing warfare which was not a matter of national reprisal because it had industries in occupied territories. On the other hand the war with Russia had gone beyond the normal limits, if I can call it that. It is difficult for me to say who was the guilty party.
Q. I do not refer to that period after the war had reached such a limit that there were no restrictions. I am speaking of before the war started -- whether a man of your education could have been enlisted in a practice which you know and would then have known was entirely illegal and contrary to international law as well as the precepts and dictates of humanity.
A. I would not have participated if I had known the whole material which became known in our first big trial as far as documents were concerned. If I had known that Hitler since 1938 had prepared for war and tied his own fate to that of his people to such an extent that his end was tho end of his own nation -
Q. I didn't intend to enter into such a long discussion on this. All I had in mind was this --- that if those in your classification as specialists would have observed international law, and would have known clearly what international law was -- the restrictions, the limitations and so on -
Court No. 2 Interrogation.
and if we assume that these specialists were men of character; that 1451(a) Court No. 2 Interrogation even though Germany had at the helm a navigator who had become mad, that he could not have run his ship on to the rocks without the crew of specialists who assisted him in the shipwreck--because you would have refused to ship on a venture which was so obviously bound for the rocks, internationally speaking.
