The next document, if Your Honors please, is NOKW-267, of which we don't have a German copy at the moment, but Dr. Bergold, we will get one this afternoon or tomorrow morning. We offer this as Prosecution Exhibit 153 for identification. This is a letter of 13 August 1943 which has to do specifically with the problem of the transportation of timber, and it is to be noted from the context of the letter that, "The Forestry Office has recently transmitted the enclosed note to State Secretary Koerner and proposed to discuss the matter in the next meeting of the Central Planning and to bring about a decision." And Liebel says that he takes the liberty of bringing this to the attention of the defendant, and to point out that the removal of the difficulties will be of decisive importance for the armament industry. Then the alleged difficulties which are involved are stated on the next page. One of the notations has to do with civilian Russians, making available 7,000 civilian Russians for timber trade enterprises, 5,000 for mining timber trade, and 2,000 for the fibre wood industry.
Now, there has been considerable discussion here as to whether or not the Central Planning was actually a part of the Four Year Plan. We have here a document which the Court has not seen before, which is NQKW260, which we offer as Prosecution Exhibit 154 for identification. This is signed by Goering, and there is a second Page - the German copy is being obtained, Dr. Bergold.
THE WITNESS: Is nothing going to be said about this one, the one that you have just submitted previously, because there we are concerned with the question of transport on the railways. At that time Hitler issued a special order of a temporary nature to the effect that we in the Central Planning Board should deal with the dropping off of rail transport fig ures; that we should take care of that.
In the first place we were concerned with allocation of increased iron and timber allocations for the construction of rails, sleepers, and locomotives. This was a matter which only happened once and this letter of Liebel's, who belonged in the Speer office, deals with the affair. I just wanted to give you that explanation as to why it went to the Central Planning Board at all.
Q. Well then, this was just an isolated instance. Now, in Exhibit 154 for identification, the first is a note signed by Goering and a copy of it was received by the defendant. Your initials appear on the letter of 7 September 1943, do they not?
A. Correct.
Q. And Goering says: "I transmit enclosed my decree of 4 September 1943 as a supplement to my order of 22 April 1943 in respect to the Central Planning of the Four Year Plan. The Supreme Authorities, the High Command of the Army, the High Command of the Navy, the High Command of the Luftwaffe, the Military Commanders, the Reich Commissioners in the occupied territories, the Reich Protector, the Governor General, the Chiefs of the Civil Administration, the General Plenipotentiaries, Plenipotentiaries, and Special Plenipotentiaries for the Four Year Plan have received a copy of the decree."
Then it is interesting to note the reference on the next page to the planning office, about which there has been some discussion here. This again is signed by Goering and says that it is a supplement to his decree regarding the Central Planning of the Four Year Plan with respect to the changes in ministerial powers occasioned by the Fuehrer decree of 2 September 1943 concerning the concentration of economy. The thing with which we are concerned principally is Central Planning and in order to secure the coordination of war needs in all branches of economy, I am setting up a Planning Office under the General Plenipotentiary for Armaments.
It will be at the disposal of the Central Planning for all its tasks. The tasks' and powers of the Planning Office will be fixed by the General Plenipotentiary for Armaments"...who was Speer..."who, with my consent, will appoint the Chief of the Planning office."
A May I give you an explanation with regard to this?
Q Certainly.
A In the first -
THE PRESIDENT: Let me inquire whether it needs any explanation? What does it tend to prove, Mr. Denney, anything?
MR. DENNEY: Just that he said that the Central Planning board had nothing to do with the Four Year Plan, your honor. He made that statement on direct examination, and he also said that there was no connection between any of these ministries in the Central Planning board, and this decree has to do with the Planning Office under the Speer Armament ministry, and says that it will work in conjunction with the Central Planning Board.
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
MR. DENNEY: It is a matter of minor moment, but as long as the point has been made, and we have the document I think it ought to be offered.
THE WITNESS: May I then, your honor, reply please?
THE PRESIDENT: Of course.
MR. DENNEY: Certainly.
A (Cont'd) At this time which is mentioned here and where it says the concentration of war economy, reference is made to the fact that civilian output under the minister Funk had been or was being transferred to Minister Speer. Goering now is giving authority to the Plenipotentiary for Armament Tasks in the Four Year Plan, who was Speer, to the effect that civilian production too is to be taken over by him.
That, however, had nothing to do with the Central Planning Board. Speer, in his capacity as Armament minister, was the Plenipotentiary General for Armament Tasks in the Four Year Plan. Goering further decides that Minister Funk should join the Central Planning Board which, however, was also due to an order from Hitler, and I don't really know why Goering is repeating it on this occasion.
The Planning Office mentioned at the bottom was Speer's Planning Office, but Speer had decided right from the beginning that this department should simultaneously carry out the preparations for the meetings of the Central Planning Board in order to avoid the creation of some new special department. It was entirely a matter of economy. Actually that was the exact way in which I reported it at the time.
Q Well, Goering indicates that the Central Planning Board is part of the Four Year Plan in his memorandum, doesn't he, the first one?
A Yes, but that wasn't the situation as far as we wore concerned, in practice. otherwise, somehow I would have been making reports to Goering together with Speer, but all we did was report to Hitler. Only the reports for the Central Planning Board regarding such points as touched the Four Year Plan had led to it. Before the work of the Central Planning Board had actually begun to discuss all these matters with Goering, Speer said to me, "We have got to put Goering up to date. It's a matter of courtesy, otherwise, he will feel that there is interference in his own sphere." And that was the reason that on one occasion there was a conference in his offices. I have already given you the date for it; it was in 1942, at the very moment when Hitler had given the order for the creation of the Central Planning Board.
MR. DENNEY: The next document, your Honor, is N0KW-180, which is a conference with Goering on 4 November 1943 at the Junkers plant in Dessau. Again we don't have a German copy of this. It is in the process of coming.
DR. BERGOLD: Really, your Honors, I must ask Mr. Denney to see to these things in good time. It isn't making my task as a defense counsel easier if I get the approximate hint of what is going on. After all, I've got to see it myself. If consistently such quantities of documents are being submitted which I will maybe get at some future date, then I shall not be able to prepare my re-examination. For instance, I am still without the document mentioned yesterday afternoon which dealt with the conversation with Sauckel. I've got to have that.
MR. DENNEY: If your Honor please, this business of not having copies is not unusual from our side. The sane thing has happened with Dr. Bergold. I think this is the fourth document that we haven't been able to give him of the many that we have submitted; and we're making every effort to get them. I hope to have them by the end of today's session, and he certainly will have ample opportunity to out any inquiries he has to the witness with reference to them. I've been very careful in the documents which have been submitted which haven't been given him. I've read everything in that has any bearing. I certainly don't propose to inconvenience him any more than is absolutely necessary just based on the physician problem of getting the documents.
THE PRESIDENT: Of course, the procedure isn't ideal but it nay be unavoidable. It leaves Dr. Bergold without much of an opportunity to examine the document in German and to plan his redirect examination if he wishes. I'm not blaming anybody. It is just a vice which is inherent in the size of the task. Would you be satisfied, Dr. Bergold, if you get the documents tonight, by the end of the afternoon?
DR. BERGOLD: Yes, all right. But it is absolutely essential that I have them by the end of this afternoon, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: I'm sure every effort will be made to get them to you.
DR. BERGOLD: Thank you very much.
BY MR. DENNEY:
Q. Concerning Document 155, for identification. Do your notes show that on 4 November 1943 you were at a conference with Goering?
A. That's right, yes, at the Junkers Works at Dessau.
Q. Was there anyone else present?
A. Yes, it was a very large circle of people who came from Goering's staff, and also a number of my gentlemen were there at the time. Then there were a few members of the Junkers Works. I can't give you the exact number of people. I would estimate that it amounted to about ten or twelve people altogether.
Q. Now, here on page 6013 Goering is talking and he says, "Give the Stalag commander my greetings and tell him I said the Stalag is the biggest racket in Germany and merely a camp where getaways are being organized wholesale. The men do not even have to bother to dig a tunnel since they can walk out freely in broad daylight. The Italians get beaten up when they do not work. If Reinicke cannot do the work" - that is referring to General Reinicke, the head of the prisoners of war "I shall dismiss him and get somebody else. I will not be bothered with it any longer. It is absolutely useless to take the Italians as soldiers for they report for duty, it is true, but then they bolt again. We need them here, however, as workers for the '100,000 man operation'. In the second place, why do we not get the machines? If I want to have them, I just have to occupy a factory by surprise."
Then you speak. You say, "There are no transportation facilities to make this possible. We have to let certain plants go on working in Italy, such as ball bearings, steel castings, and others, and we cannot take the people from there. The same applies to the technical sphere. The people there are working for us. All depends on our policy toward the Italians. I have ordered that they can be beaten up if they do not work. I have also given permission that Italians caught sabotaging be sentenced to death. If this measure is not desired by the higher author ities, which seems to be the case, we are powerless.
Then the Italians in the Reich will not be of any use to us."
Do you recall ordering that Italians who didn't work should be beaten?
A No, because I never gave that order.
Q Well, now, up to this time you were always talking to people whom you ranked. Now here you were telling Goering that you had given that order. We don't see Goering interrupting and saying "No, no, you didn't give any such order."
A But Goering doesn't know it at all. This is a question of pacifying Goering who previously had demanded equally severe measures. Never at any time has such an order been given.
Q Was Goering demanding that these people be beaten and be put to death, too?
A It states in the previous paragraph, "The Italians are being beaten, and so forth," and subsequently we told him to pacify him, "That's already happening. The most severe punishment is being threatened."
Q So you didn't give the order. You were lying when you told Goering that?
A Yes. The order was never given, nor do I know who wrote this down at the time, nor whether it was ever said in this particular form. I'd rather like to doubt it.
Q Well, now, if you'll look over on the last page, which is just a few pages later, you'll notice that there is a note to you from Lt. Col. von Brauchitsch. He says, "Forwarded herewith for your attention and further handling are the uncorrected stenographic notes on the conference at the Reich Marshal's office on 28 October 1943." And they are listed as "Top Secret", and you got the fourth copy. You put your initials on that down there, didn't you, at the bottom?
A Yes, I initialed the receipt of this letter from Brauchitsch.
Q You received it on the 15th of November, about two weeks after it happened?
A. No, it was dated the 12th of November, on which day it was written by Brauchitsch, and my initials are the 15th of November. That's three days later when it was put before me.
Q. Well, that's what I said, that you initialed this 15 November, which was approximately two weeks after the date of the meeting.
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. So you were lying to Hitler and to Goering when you said that?
A. I believe that this is a different set of minutes than those of the Junkers meeting because, you know, there was another meeting at the Messerschmidt works. Maybe there is a third one, too, I don't know. There were several inspections carried out by Goering which had been summarized in such a report. It also says, you see, that it should be checked, and quite possibly later on it was looked through and checked, and maybe it was even altered. This is the copy which Brauchitsch sent along.
Q. Well, I'm still asking you, did you say it?
A. Well, I can't remember it. I can't remember having used these very words. I only know that were pacifying Goering and that we told him that everything was already being done and that he should not worry.
EXAMINATION BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. You won't deny that you said this, will you
A. I don't believe that I used these words; that I said it like that.
Q. Well, then you do deny it?
A. I am saying that approximately using the following sense we later reported to Goering when he said that severe measures ought to be adopted, namely, that we on our part or, rather, I mean some other source had already ordered measures in order to pacify him. We ourselves hadn't given any instructions.
Q. Wait a minute. I don't care for your motives. I don't care why you said it or did not. Will you try to answer this question. Did you say what it says on this paper or did you not?
A That I cannot remember having said in this way. The way it is put here in this document it isn't true.
Q What do you mean? The facts that you stated were not true?
A I mean the contents of what I am supposed to have said in this document would be incorrect. It says that I am supposed to have given the order that there should be beatings and that likewise in the case of sabotage people were to be sentenced to death.
Q We have had any number of instances where you told people who were subordinate to you many things that were not true. That isn't the question. Did you say this, if you know?
A I couldn't have told Goering that because it wasn't the truth.
Q That's hardly the test, is it, because you've pointed out to us a dozen instances in which you told people things that were not true about ordering people to be shot and beaten. You mean you couldn't have told Goering something that wasn't true?
A What you are saying would appear to be correct. If I really said these words, but that is what I am doubting.
Q All right, we'll leave it on the note of being doubtful then.
THE PRESIDENT: What I had in mind, I am not interested in Goering's statement, which has nothing to do with the issue here. You stated, "If we do not provide the Italians with food, and tell them only these who fight and work for us will get food," and Goering interjects, "That is what the Americans do." Do you find that?
A I've just found it now, yes.
Q What do you suppose he meant?
A I cannot recollect the words said at that time. It sounds as if he had been saying that the Americans were only feeding those who were working or fighting.
Q Was that the general impression? Did you believe that?
A I never heard it in that form, nor did I think about it.
Q You had no opinion about it?
A No, no, I had no opinion about it. I have no means of judging it. May I perhaps in this connection say one more thing. You can see from the first page that this entire correspondence was handed on by me to the Chief of the GLC. This was done with regard to the fact that Brauchitsch makes the remark that it should be checked. I cannot tell you now whether this was re-drafted or not.
MR. DENNEY: I omitted one of the GL conferences, which we now offer as Prosecution's Exhibit No. 156 for identification.
BY MR. DENNEY:
Q Were you at the meeting on 21 July 1942?
A Yes. There was a meeting.
Q This is one quotation from this meeting, a statement by the defendant. The last paragraph starting below the words "I do not care." The defendant is speaking and he said, "At the GLA, the question also arose whether such French labor as is needed in France, can be protected against the Sauckel drive. I have talked the matter over with Speer, and we have come to the conclusion that we can not promise any definite protection there because we are afraid that in that case the whole drive for skilled workers would be a failure. This drive has to get going first, and after all, there are still sufficient skilled workers in France.
Don't forget that not even 1,000,000 Frenchmen are here as PW's while we have 7 to 8 million soldiers. Therefore, the French are still in a very favorable position. But they must realize that they will be brought to Germany all together if they don't work hard enough at home."
What was your idea of bringing all the Frenchmen to Germany to work?
A No, no, once again we are concerned with prisoners of war being released, of which, of course, since several million had been taken prisoners; especially, as I had been talking to Speer, and he had an order from Hitler to the effect that at that time we should not slow down Sauckel with his block plans completely, something, of course, which we did later on.
Q You still maintain these people were working for you voluntarily?
A Those who were working in France, yes.
Q How about the people who were working in Germany?
AAt that time we were completely convinced they had been recruited voluntarily, if they were not prisoners of war. Prisoners of war, of course, had been placed at our disposal for work by the French government of Vichy, so that their employment was a legal matter.
Q You say it was a legal matter. Did you regard the French government at Vichy as anything else You know what happened to Mr. Lavall?
A. Yes, but you know after the war at the time the French Government of Petain was certainly the leading Government for us.
Q. Well, I won't argue that question with you. When did you first learn that the people over here were not voluntary workers, the Frenchmen who were working, other than the prisoners of war?
A. I cannot give you the exact date. What I know is that there was an agreement regarding the annual employment of the French workers with the French Government, for the purpose of working in Germany, which had been formulated. Naturally it can be assumed that these people who would withdraw were being rounded up and could not be regarded as volunteers, but they were people who by order of their own Government were 2198a were brought to us.
Q When did you say you first learned that concentration camp workers were being used in the Luftwaffe as workers?
A I cannot give you any exact dates on that.
MR. DENNEY: Well, the next document, Your Honor, is NOKW 245, Exhibit No. 157. A particular matter here has to do with a speech by the defendant on page 5407 as follows:
"I told Sauckel that we will cooperate on all matters on the very spot, that we will get the thing done but not smash up anything that is producing for us, or is going to produce. He admitted that his men had acted wrongly. In the program there are 1886 airplanes which we want to deliver. We were to deliver 1790; 130 planes we want to deliver in addition, and I still hope to go beyond that figure. Out of this, the German side has to deliver a planned amount of 1769 planes. On February 20 it already delivered 1290 planes. So far no month was so favorable, especially if you consider that this month has three days less than a normal one. Already 521 fighter planes have been delivered against a planned number of 677. The figure is higher indeed than the plan, and we hope to be able to deliver still somewhat more.
"But we need certain components to be delivered by the French. Sauckel understood that he was wrong and promised to arrange this. We hope he will keep his promise; otherwise, I shall have to use the Reichsmarshal, and something will have to be done so that Sauckel will make up for it by the end of the month. Speer and myself are of the opinion that he must be incorporated somehow in the Central Planning in order to secure manpower for us as well as the material. Now we got the first workers in November; prior to that date none at all. Of course, by taking into account the many fluctuations he arrives at phantastic figures. We try to diminish the fluctuations with the aid of Himmler and Ley.
"The military physicians are put in to examine the men. I have proposed that a man who leaves his working place more than three times a year should be put into a detention camp, and released only when he stays on the very spot. In the Purchasing program we have 20,000 such pigs who are constantly roaming; in our own plants 30,000; in the Armyprogram alone 100,000 which do nothing else but run away.
They run away, contact the next firm, take with them a few useful things in food and clothing, if possible, and away they are. Those fellows would be most pleased if they could report themselves as unemployed at the labor office. The best workers we have are the concentration camp inmates. That is our elite."
How many concentration camp workers did you have working for you at that time in February 1943?
A That I cannot tell you.
Q Well you are calling them the elite of your working program, did you not?
A I am just thinking it over. This cannot be connected with the concentration camps.
Q How did you use Himmler and Ley in connection with the fluctuation of German workers? You seem to call on Mr. Himmler in several instances.
A No, we did not do that.
Q Now Goering was at this meeting too, and also Jeschonnek, who was the Chief of Staff?
A Yes. Only there is something which I must reconstruct in my mind in reference to that meeting. The first question means that Sauckel had interfered with the block hours, and as I am saying he realized his mistake when he was trying to put them right, since we had received parts from France. Let me say it did not really happen in reality, but there was the question of slackers, which was being touched on again. That concerns -- we are not concerned with the ordinary fluctuations, but only the people that were used, only slackers, those being people who kept running away, and the plan was Himmler's recommendation that extra rations above the normal food ration should only be given to such people if they really did work.
However, that proposal was turned down, because it would have meant changes in the administration of rations, and under no circumstances was one prepared to include the firms or plants in which these problems appeared, because from the First World War of 1914, bad 2200A experience had been made in this way.
Ley who had been included in our food program, because he had the welfare of these people in his charge through "Strength and Joy" and other organizations. And through intensifying that part of the work such people who came into that part of the program, or some who were rescued, were to be put into a different mood, which in turn was to result in improved output.
Q You were using Himmler then as early as 22 February 1943 in connection with these people; is that right?
A No, no, I did not employ him or use him. I heard this from him, and in one of the meetings which have been submitted in the minutes, I myself made the suggestion that this system now ought to be employed; maybe that way we would get control of these shirkers. These shirkers who are being spoken of here are traitors who, according to our laws, could most certainly have been punished very severely. They are not ordinary Germany workers. They are abnormal German workers, people who neither wanted to do their duty for their country as soldiers nor as workers in this terrible war, and surely it is a matter of course that we would on our part be most hostile to these people and that we would not have any false pity for them. However, no measure was actually arrived at which could really have brought about or did bring about any changes in this connection.
Q You say that, "The best workers we have are the concentration camp inmates." What kind of concentration camp inmates were you speaking of?
AAs I said, the Heinkel Camp at Oranienburg was the only one I knew of at the time, and I did not have any personal impression of the work done by these people, so that I really cannot imagine that I used this word concentration camp inmates, since I did not know anything about them and how they worked, and I cannot remember anything about another working column in another plant at that time.
Q You certainly couldn't make the statement just based on Oranienburg where you say that you did not have any personal knowledge about what they did.
A No, we must have misunderstood each other. I am denying that concentration camp inmates are being talked about at all in this connection, particularly since I myself could not imagine how they worked.
A You don't recall making this statement at all?
A Regarding the concentration camp, no. That would not have corresponded to the truth. Our best workers were our German workers and I can only have mentioned somehow a special quota of German workers who were the very best, because we were very satisfied with their work.
2202A
Q As far as you know, the concentration camp inmates were all Germans too, weren't they?
A That I would assume, yes. They did not by any means take a place ahead of other German workers. That would be absolutely wrong. I say it was the other way around. Our German workers, the ones who were not in concentration camps, were certainly the ones who were by far the better.
MR. DENNEY: Note that General Vorwald was at that meeting, Your Honors, and I neglected to mention Colonel Brauchitsch, who said that he had never heard anything about beatings or any employments of any foreign workers, was at two of the prior meetings, and also General Vorwald was at two of those which I shall call to the Court's attention.
THE PRESIDENT: We'll take the customary recess.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is in recess for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: Tribunal No. 2 is again in session.
Q (By Mr. Denney): Witness, just before the recess reference was made to the Vichy Government, don't you know that the Vichy Government that dealt with the Third Reich was nothing but a puppet government which was forced upon them by Hitler and the rest and they were made under duress to consent to the various impositions which Germany wanted to force upon them?
A. I didn't know that.
Q. Well, you knew that you hadn't signed any peace treaty with France at that time?
A. Yes, I knew that.
Q. When did you find out that the Vichy Government was nothing but a puppet government?
A. That was never told me. My personal regard for Marshall Petain was considerable, and I never hold him to be a puppet nor did I know through which means this government was formed.
Q. Well, you knew from meetings of the Central Planning Board as late as February of 1944 that Sauckel was going over and telling Laval what should be done with reference to French workers?
A. Yes, there were conferences between Laval and Sauckel.
You certainly knew that you were practically at bayonet's point to foreign these people to come over to Germany.