They had to supply them to these labor offices. When they were unable to recruit these workers, they had in the course of their duty to send reports to the superior agencies and organizations in the GBA Sauckel. In the various Wehrkreise there were inspections of armaments which were immediately subordinate to the armament ministry; and their task was in proportion to the urgency of the plans of the Wehrmacht to bring about an adjustment of workers in their work and plans through a tour of inspection.
Q. Witness, in what manner did the GL have anything to do with this question of labor?
A. The GL was informed of the labor question as well as the raw material question by the aviation industry. These plans were given their requirements of raw material and workers to the GL. In the second draft when they were at the GL, that is, in the planning office, the GL, there was an office which took note of these affairs specifically for the various contracts with the aviation industry referring to payment; and it had to be tested in that sense with prices. It was also necessary that the number of the necessary workers had to be determined. This agency also chiefly took tasks which the office of labor supplied; and it served to the GL in that way. At discussions of Goering and Hitler over these workers, this question of workers was supported by them.
Q. Why and in what manner did these supports come through?
A. I remember that very often from the higher instances; that is, from Goering and Hitler we received instructions that Sauckel had brought in all the workers, saying, "Why can't you carry out your program?" Then in our information we said there was a possibility of trying it out to see whether Sauckel had actually supplied us workers or not. In most of the cases the labor had not been supplier. The figures which Sauckel gave were very doubtful to us from the very beginning.
Q Why and in what manner did that support for labor come through?
A I remember that very often from higher instances, that is, from Goering and Hitler, we received instructions that Sauckel had brought in all the workers, so why can not you carry out your program, and then we called the information center when we had the possibility to try out and see whether Sauckel had actually supplied all the workers, or not. In most cases labor had not been supplied, and the figures which Sauckel rave were very doubtful there.
Q Witness, did you check these figures on raw material and workers, that is, the figures which came to you in from Sauckel. Did you check the necessity for the requirement of these laborers?
A That was not my task but the task of the plannint office, that is, Office A, and on this requirement of raw material I can not show it, because it does not exist there. It was this office's part to take care where the counting of raw material needs were necessary for the program, and also were the statistics of workers.
Q And these requirements, did the office check the requirements, and diminish it?
A Yes. That is, these raw material figures were counted very closely, and also the figures of labor were cheeked, because we had certain experiences, and know what the production of certain number of planes, or motors, would need; that is, how many laborers would be necessary, and this planning office, therefore, generally deducted some workers, and the figures which after wards were checked were figures of justified requirements of the industry, and we supported these figures in the higher instances, that is, in the ministry -- the armament Ministry.
Q You speak of Armament Industry, that is Speer, isn't it?
A Yes.
Q Therefore, Speer had the last decision in these matters, that is of the raw material quantities, and of what members of labor would be granted for production. Did he have this last decision?
A The Armament Ministry granted the raw materials, and it distributed this for the GL, that is, it gave the total amount to the GL, and the distribution in particular was carried out by the Planning Office.
So far as Labor is concerned, Speer -- that is the Armament Ministry had no authority, but it was the General Plenipotentiary of Labor, Sauckel, who had the authority.
Q We already often have spoken here of the Armament Industry, and the GL, we have heard about it very often. Could you tell me in order to clarify this matter once and for all, what is the difference so far as you know where the authority is concerned, what is the difference between Speer's and Milch's?
A Speer was the Armament and War Production Minister, and he was responsible for the total armament of the Navy, or the Army, and also for the ammunition production, of all the parts of the armed forces. The GL on the contrary was only responsible for the final armament for airplanes motors, airplane equipment, and also for a few special ammunitions for the aircraft. The Armament Ministry decreed that he had quite a great organization of many branches; on the one hand he had the authority in the civilian section, over all main councils and divisions, and, in every army district he had a plenipotentiary for armament which was under his direct supervision - - - who was under his direct supervision. The military sector of the Armament Ministry had the Armament Inspectorate, which was under its supervision. That machinery was not at the disposal at all of the GL.
Q Did Speer not have also, concerning the Luftwaffe, the authority in the Armament in sofar as he had the raw materials for semi-finished products?
A Yes, this was one of the main tasks, that is, the raw materials and the semi-finished products, because of the allotment of these two sectors always was important for the program - - decisive for the program.
Q Isn't it correct also that Speer's armament task also included the construction sector?
A Yes, Speer had his own construction sector, or construction offices, and also the whole organization -- the Todt Organization was subordinated to him.
Q As far as the direction of the armament tasks were concerned, from whom did Speer receive his orders and directives?
A Directly from Hitler, sofar as I know, he went every week, at least once or twice, to Hitler in order to make an orderly report. We were very sorry to see that Goering did not take such an interest there, and Fieldmarshall Milch did not have permission of Goering to go to the Fuehrer directly.
Q Could you know, or point out to me the difference between Speer and Milch sofar as the armament tasks are concerned?
A The Armament Minister Speer in contradiction with the GL had an official influence on the question of labor insofar as the Armament Industry had the Armament Inspectorate, which was subordinated to him; therefore, the armament Ministry could give orders to this Inspectorate, and that therefore, it was possible if the program was especially urgent, to give orders to the Armament Inspectorate that it should ship workers from one plant to another. For instance, to withdraw from the Navy factory workers and send them into the Army factory, and to withdraw workers from the Air Armament and send them into the Navy Armament. This authority was not the authority which the GL held.
Q Witness, it is not only a belief but actually occurred also that Speer took workers from you without having his permission confirmed previously?
A Yes, that had been done. It had been even often.
Q Was Milch connected in any way with prisoners of war?
A No.
Q What were the channels of the orders, and who disposed of the prisoners of war?
AAll prisoners of war, that is, prisoners of war in our part of the army force were subordinated to the OKW, and from the local viewpoint existing in Germany, they were subordinated to the deputy commander of the district.
Of these army commands, each of them had a special general who was in charge of the POW matters.
Q If prisoners cf war were assigned its workers, on whose orders was that done, by the GL for the Army Air Armament, or by whom?
A No, the GL had no authority to do it, but the workers were distributed by the General Plenipotentiary for labor) and the POW's were assigned by and were acquired by a plan for certain tasks and had to be accepted.
Q Was the GBA Command that caused that, or was it the Armament Command
A I'll have to think it over, this organization. Insofar as I remember the assignment, the POW's in the industry was caused by Hitler himself, and the industry was forced to accept these POW's, but who actually procured the POW's I can not tell you. Anyhow, the GL and its organs had nothing to do with all those questions of laborers and of the POW's.
Q Witness, we just heard from you the difference between Speer and Milch in reference to the labor questions. Now Speer as a witness testified that Milch did not participate to present the recruitment of labor for the aircraft industry, is that correct? Is that correct?
A That is not correct. Can only be a question of supporting the requirement of labor by the industry during these programs, that is, at the armament Industry and the GBA.
MR. DENNEY: Your Honor, I object to Dr. Bergold impeaching his own witness by calling another one. It so happens that the prisoner Speer gave some testimony which he did not like , so now he is trying to impeach Speer by asking this man whether or not what Speer said is true, which he can not do. He can ask what he knows, and tell him what Speer said and if that is right, and if it is proper.
DR. BERGOLD: May it please the Tribunal. I have to say that in Germany it belongs to the basic right of a lawyer to put to the witness the testimony of another witness, and to have him take his position as to that testimony. If it should not be the customary law in America, then I ask the Tribunal again -
MR. DENNEY: I appreciate Dr. Bergold's lecture on German law -
THE PRESIDENT: Say it again.
MR. DENNEY: I appreciate Dr. Bergold's lecture on the German law, but my impression would be the flag behind Your Honor is the one to govern, and not the one with the Swastika on it.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a minute.
DR. BERGOLD: It was also customary in the times of the Kaiser.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I am afraid that it is customary in the United States. I know of no rule which forces a defendant to be bound entirely by the testimony of one witness so that the witness can not be contradicted by another. The form of Mr. Denney's objection is that one witness may not be confronted by the testimony of another and be asked whether or not it is un true. He can be asked however, "Is that a fact?" It is a rather nice distinction, sometimes without a difference. It is perfectly proper to state to a witness that another witness has stated certain facts, given certain testimony, and then to inquire of the second witness, "Are those the facts?" You may not say, "Is he telling the truth?" That is not permitted.
DR. BERGOLD: I shall take notice of this difference in the future.
BY DR. BERGOLD:
Q Witness, do you know whether Speer knew of the organization of the GL and knew it well?
AAt the time we rather gained the impression that he did not know exactly the organization of the GL.
Q Witness, just before you said that the GL had no direct connection with Sauckel. Do you know that Sauckel was obliged to make monthly reports on his work to the GL?
A No, I have no knowledge of that.
Q Did you have personal, connections in your office with Sauckel?
A No, I had not.
Q Can you tell us how the labor entered into the aircraft industry?
AAs far as I remember from my conferences with my colleagues of the Planning Office and also from the conferences with Field Marshal Milch at the GL, the labor situation during our activity -- that is, from 1941 to 1944-did not deteriorate. That is, the number of laborers did not increase. On the contrary, in cases of illnesses, the GBA had to cover these requirements, but the number of laborers was not improved or increased.
Q How was this sphere of workmen in the armament industry?
A Well, about 500,000.
Q Witness, we once talked about 2,000,000 workers in the aircraft industry.
A That figure can not be correct. If you speak of 2,000,000 you have to count all the other sectors which were not directly connected with the air industry; that is, ammunition, for instance.
Q Do you know that in the time before the war there was a statistical plan in which armament industries which were only part of the aircraft industry but also of the army, were incorporated in the aircraft industry?
A Yes, we always objected to this method of counting.
Q In your opinion, what actually comprises the air craft industry?
A First of all, the aircraft frameworks and the aircraft motor works; navigation instruments and radio instruments and other equipment of the aircraft, navigation instruments, and also small parts of the aircraft ammunition. That is, especially secret ammunition which could be produced only in special plants.
Q This conception makes you think that the number of workers employed was 500,000?
A Yes.
Q And these workers also included foreign civilian workers; do you have knowledge of that?
A Yes, during my visits to the plants I have seen Russians and Frenchmen
Q What was the out-put of these foreign workers?
AAs far as the work of the female Ukrainian workers especially, was concerned, the industry was full of eulogy.
Q During your visits did you speak to those people, asking them about their situation, their difficulties and complaints?
A Yes, I always did that, as an officer should do with his troops.
Q And what knowledge did you gain from these questions?
A These people were satisfied with their fate. After all, our aim was, above all, to increase the output, and, therefore, the Field Marshal and I always insisted on fulfilling the justified requirements of the industrial plants with respect to food and clothing and lodging for these workers.
In the beginning there were probably some difficulties, but later on we never had complaints insofar as this question was concerned.
Q Did you hear any complaints from those people concerning the manner in which they had been recruited abroad or the manner in which they had been brought to Germany?
A No, I never heard any complaints.
Q During these visits at the plants, did Milch attend these visits, too?
A Very often I was with him and went to these visits.
Q What conclusions did you draw from the fact that the output of these foreign workers was so satisfactory, as far as the conduct of foreign workers was concerned?
A If the output was so good as the plants told us, then the treatment of these foreign workers-- food and so on-- must have been good.
Q During these visits, did you see that foreign workers wore kept behind barbed wire?
A No, that can not be correct either. I can recollect that in 1944 when we in Berlin had a Russian maid, that this girl could go into her camp every evening. At that camp she knew some people from her home place, and she met them there, and she often visited them.
Q Did you have knowledge that in the air armament there were POW's who were employed?
A Yes, we took them ever when we took over the office in 1941, and we found them at the time. They were already in the air armament.
Q Can you give an example of where you saw Russian prisoners of war?
A In the air factory Obertraubling near Regensburg.
Q What kind of airplanes were constructed there?
A Big transport planes, ME 323's, gliders which later on became a motor plane with six motors.
Q Was that a fighter plane?
A No, I said that it was a mere transport for freight.
Q Did you hear anything about the output of these POW's? Did you receive reports?
A Yes, on the spot I talked to foremen and production managers, and they confirmed that these Russian workers were very good at their work. They had difficulties in the beginning, especially with translations of the technical terms, but afterwards they got along pretty well.
Q Did you hear anything of bad treatment of prisoners of war?
A No, in our area we heard nothing like that.
Q But, outside of the GL office, what did you hear about it?
A Only in 1941, after the first big battles in Russia, there were some talks in the headquarters in which I was at that time, that there was not enough food supply for the large number of POW's
Q Was that on purpose at that time?
A I could not tell that.
Q Witness, you always talk of Russian prisoners of war. What do you know of Frenchmen?
A The French prisoners of war, we also had them.
Q Did you hear anything about mistreatment of these prisoners of war? Did you hear any complaints?
A No.
Q Did you have anything to do with French civilian workers? You always talk of smaller groups.
A. Yes. I know that, for instance, in the precision work of the metal works on air armament industries, which was a part of the Siemens plant in Berlin, Spandau, there wore French women workers.
Q. But, did you hear any complaints about it?
A. No.
Q. Witness, you know the regulations of the Geneva Convention, don't you?
A. Yes.
Q. Concerning the employment of prisoners of war, did you have any doubts whether it was permissibly or not?
A. Yes. This question approached me from the very moment, or when we took over the office, and I know that I discussed this point with Field Marshal Milch, and he told me at that time and advised me that the assignment of Russian POW's was done on the orders of Hitler, and in spite of that the Field Marshal told me why the chief of the planning office, that is General von Gablenz, brought the matter to the O.K.W. and had it checked over again and the matter was confirmed. These prisoners were not employed in the manufacture of Armaments and ammunition, weapons and ammunition, but as I said before in my example from Obertraubling, they were employed at the production of a transport plane.
Q. Witness, is it correct that the G.L. had already also of course carried out the plans for the air armament?
A. Yes. There was an agreement with the Vichy Government, and this agreement provided for an air armament program which showed a proportion of five to one, at least nominally, in favor of Germany and France and provided for a production of aircraft, but in reality this program was only executed in the proportion of one to one, but there also no war aircraft were produced but only the TU-52, for instance, which is decidedly a transport plane, and the TU-104.
Q. Witness, the agreements with the French firm were they on a voluntary basis or was the French firm caused to have these agreements?
A. They were agreements on a voluntary basis, yes. They were, for instance, that the general manager, Vernier, of the Gnome et Rhone firm in Paris came to Berlin once to see Field Marshall Milch and to discuss the product which was produced at his plant.
Q Witness, do you know that some of these French plants, did they take orders away from you and without asking the G. L. ?
A Yes, We were very sorry to see that, but Sauckel recruited in these factories in which we had already work executed for the Luftwaffe, and this work was done by the Frenchmen, but he still recruited French workers in order to bring them to Germany. We had that through our liaison office, the liaison office of the G. L. at Paris, but we did not succeed in having these measures stopped, and the result was a decrease in the output at the French works.
Q Witness, as a result of that did the G/ L/ introduce a blockage of these firms, had it closed and turned them into the Speer teams which were protected factories?
A Yes, this expression "protected factories" originates from the Luftwaffe, and later on it was adopted by Speer for the production which was under his orders.
Q That means that in the Luftwaffe you really introduced before Speer these so-called protected factories?
A Yes.
Q Witness, you just spoke of a liaison office of the G. L. at Paris. I would be interested to know whether Milch could give orders to the military commanders or the civilian agencies in the occupied territories if possible. Why was this liaison office?
A No, this liaison staff was only a technical matter. It was for the French work. This liaison office included the construction inspectorates of the Luftwaffe in these works.
Q Therefore, he had no authority to issue orders to these agencies
A No.
Q Did the G. L. or Milch have any authority to punish the workers in the air armament?
A No.
Q And over the prisoners of war?
A No.
Q Witness, is it correct to say that the planning office, the socalled office A, did have difficulties with Speer concerning the labor question?
A Difficulties were constantly arising.
Q Witness, do you have any knowledge or information in general concerning the treatment of the foreign workers in Poland, or in Russia, did you receive any information on that, or concerning France?
A No.
Q Do you know anything on the secret orders which were ordered byHimmler or his subordinate agencies?
A No.
Q Do you know anything about the reports of Rosenberg on the mistreatment of foreign workers?
A No.
Q Did Milch ever tell you that he had received such reports?
A No.
Q Witness, shortly after, on the 4th of November, 1941, after you had turned over the C office to Udet on the 7th of November, 1941, who had a discussion with Goering on the utilization of Russian prisoners of war, were you present at this meeting or did you hear about this meeting?
A No.
Q This meeting, was that within the framework of R. L.
A I didn't hear anything about this meeting, but if it is a question of assignment of P. O. W's then I could only imagine that Goering, in his capacity of plenipotentiary for the four-year plan, made a speech.
Q You mentioned before, Witness, if I understood you correctly, that you had Ukrainian workers in your household?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q Now, the directives from the labor front concerning the treatment of the Ukrainian house personnel, for instance, when they have their free time, when they are not allowed to go to the cinema, when they have follows, did you know about this directive when you employed this maid?
A No.
Q A while ago you already told us that this maid could go out and could go and visit some friends?
A Yes.
Q Did you also know whether she was allowed to go to the movies?
A We didn't prohibit and we didn't forbid her to go to the movies.
Q But you didn't hear whether she went to the movies or not?
A No.
Q Would it have been possible to the G. L. to prevent your employment of foreign workers or .P O. W.'s?
A No, that was impossible, because otherwise we would have even still less workers than we already had.
Q That is a technical question. If theoretically the G. L. would have refused their employment what would have happened?
A Everybody would have said, "Well, the G. L. has already enough of that, enough workers.
Q Witness, did you have any knowledge that also inmates of concentration camps were employed?
A That is in the air armament? Yes, I had knowledge that at Heinkel Oranienburg the employment of concentration camp inmates took place.
Q Did the G. L. request these people, or how did it come about that they were employed?
A No, they were not requested by the G. L., but during a conference it was seen, a conference with the director of Oranienburg Heinkel, it was seen he had the possibility of getting these people.
Q Did you know that Goering and Himmler had discussed and reached an agreement concerning the employment of the concentration camp inmates?
A No.
Q But Himmler sent a report, an important report, on the employment of concentration camp inmates in the air armament. Did you or the F. L. have any knowledge of this report?
A No.
Q You know, that is I think you know, do you know that Sauckel had an agreement with the German Labor Front concerning the care after the camps of the foreign workers?
A No, I have no knowledge of that, but I suppose so because the German Labor Front after all also took care of the other camp.
Q And why did it happen, in order to have a strong authority over the workers, or rather, why?
AAccording to my opinion that was only a care measure.
Q. Witness, did you have any knowledge that in the Air Armament foreigners had been hanged or shot or beaten or mistreated?
A. No, I have no of that.
Q. Did you have any knowledge of the fact that POW's had been shot in the Air Armament?
A. Yes, there was one case of which I had knowledge, and that was the case -- if I remember -- the case in Obertraubling near Regensburg in the same plant which I mentioned before. At that plant, I think it was in February, '44, during the night the engineer on duty rang up -- I think he was of the OKL, and he said that the Fuehrer had ordered that two Russians who had tried to escape from Obertraubling, that these two Russians were to be shot, and had been shot. And I remember that I received this report in the morning and that I passed it on to the Field Marshal Milch right away as a special occurrence.
I myself was rather excited about it because this had not been reported to me directly by the construction inspectorate which I had in Obertraubling, but I received the report from the OKL -- Supreme Command of the Luftwaffe -and the Field Marshal himself was rather aroused especially because -- and I remember that he said that it is the right of the prisoner of war to escape; they cannot be shot for that. There will be difficulties about that.
Q. Witness, you just said you had construction inspectorates. Does that concern the buildings or is that rather the construction of aircraft?
A. No, that is the construction of aircraft. That is an agency perhaps to receive the constructed aircraft or tho parts of the aircraft, and they have to check the technical efficiency of these parts and have to admit them or reject them and to certify to the plant that the work is good and that this plane can be accepted.
Q. And this construction inspectorate should have reported this escape right away on its own initiative?
A. Yes, because this construction inspectorate, which was locally in the different plants of the aircraft industry, this inspectorate might be said to be a liaison organ between my own office and this plant, and they had directives, my orders, which I had issued to report on all happenings in this plant which could have an effect on the production according to the program; that is, for instance, if the raw material distribution stopped, and in that case it had to be reported right away that it was caused by the fact that they had no aluminum or no iron in order to enable me to take the necessary steps right away, the steps with the competent authorities in order to fill this gap.
Q. Witness, do you know that in 1934 there was another escape of prisoners of war and these prisoners of war tried to escape with an aircraft?
A. Yes, that happened in France. I think that a British pilot actually escaped in an ME 109.
Q. Do you know anything of the escape from Prenzlau in the Uckermark?
A. Yes, also this case succeeded. In this case the escape succeeded also.
Q. You mean that the prisoners of war escaped?
A. Yes.
Q. This shooting of the two Russian officers, was that the only case which you know, a case in which prisoners of war had been shot or hanged?
A. Yes, the only case. By the way, I remember that in the report it was said that Hitler had wanted to hang these people formerly in the assemblage hall, but then he only insisted upon their being shot.
THE PRESIDENT: Shall we take our recess, Dr. Bergold?
DR. BERGOLD: Yes.
THE MARSHAL: This Tribunal will be in recess for fifteen minutes.
(Recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: Tribunal Number II is again in session.
DIRECT EXAMINATION (Resumed) BY DR. BERGOLD:
Q. Witness, I shall now come back to those Russian officers. Is it a fact and is it correct that in connection with the flight of these Russian officers the GL was reproached by Hitler?
A. Yes, considerably so.
Q. Witness, can you tell me anything about the fact that Mr. Milch had suggested the shooting of these Russian prisoners to the Fuehrer?
A. I already mentioned before that the report concerning the shooting came from the OKL. It was mentioned there that the Fuehrer had already ordered to have them shot. In other words, there was no possibility whatsoever for the Fieldmarshal Milch to do anything about it.
Q. When you reported to Milch, did. you have the impression that he knew about it already or were you under the impression that was the first time that he was being informed of that matter?
A. No, I was under the impression that I was the first one who reported this matter to him.
Q. Witness, these foreign laborers, how were they treated by the GL in general? Was the GL interested in abusing them or exploiting them?
A. The GL was interested in an increase of output. Consequently, they had to see to it that these foreign laborers were given more food and better treatment.
Q. Witness, how were the working hours within the air armament industry?
A. Approximately eight to nine hours a day.
Q. Isn't it correct that later on longer working hours were ordered namely, up to fourteen hours?
A. Yes, namely, then the Jaegerstab took over.
Q. What was Milch's opinion and the position that he took toward these working hours?
A. He was against it because during previous trials to increase the working hours, it had been proved that generally speaking there would be a big decrease of output if the working hours were extended to a greater amount.
Q. Who then insisted on issuing a fourteen hour working period in the Jaegerstab?
A. Mr. Sauer was the man who did that.
Q. If the air armament industry required or requested workers through the working offices, the labor offices, and if they received orders, did the GL contrive to get foreign labor?
A. No. On the contrary, they were always interested in getting as many skilled workers as possible and mostly Germans.
Q. Were foreign laborers actually asked for?
A. No.
Q. Do you know of any steps of Mr. Milch to receive German laborers?
A. Yes, he tried that repeatedly.
Q. What efforts were made? How did he try to get those German workers?
A. I do not quite know how to answer this question of yours.
Q. By what means did he try to get these laborers, these German laborers, or at least try to keep them?
A. With his confidences and conversations with Speer and with his request to Goering.
Q. Do you know-- and I want to ask you precisely now--that he freed people who had to go the the Wehrmacht and that he kept them in the air armament industry?
A. Yes. I do remember that now. We tried several times to keep German skilled workers from the OKW; in other words, to free them from there and to get them back to our armament staff. Many actions like that were started, for engineers, constructors, as well as for skilled workers.
Q. Can you remember figures? Were these figures rather high or low?
A. Yes, I do. I remember that the number 40,000 was mentioned once and also the number of 60,000.
Q. Witness, what was the air armament situation towards the end of 1941 compared with the enemy armament status?
A. Towards the end of 1941 what we found was desperate. If I may go into details and state here figures, in the field of bombers there were no bombers whatsoever. There were hardly any new types of bombers. The destroyers, also the ME-110, were rather limited; and the ME-210 was not ready. On the contrary, all of the tests which were carried out led to new accidents. The plane tipped. In other words, it could not be used for the front. The new four-engine bomber which had been asked for a long time before was not being developed but was the HE-177.
In the field of engines an increase of output for the fighters was necessary, for the ME-109 and the Focke Wulf 190. Both engines, the DB-605, and the GMBH-01, were only used at the front towards the earlier part of 1942 but unfortunately with many mistakes. The troop and its confidence could only be satisfied or restored with special new actions. That is as far as the development field was concerned. Productively at the time when we took ever the armament, 760 to 800 planes were finished per month. That was towards the end of 1941. Amongst them there were only 200 fighters per month. It was clearly to be seen that this situation had to be eliminated as soon as possible if catastrophe were not to take place. The figures which we knew in particular concerning the efforts of the enemy countries in the production of four-engine bombers were a signal for us, particularly in the field of defense. In other words, concerning fighters and night fighters, considerable efforts were to be made by us in order to increase both planes and numbers. That was the situation as we found it towards the end of 1941 after the death of Udet.