THE PRESIDENT: That is the original document.
DR. BERGOLD: I thank Mr. Denney and the Court.
BY DR. BERGOLD:
Q. Witness, I come now to Exhibit No. 49, NOKW 287. This is the document that was submitted to you yesterday by the prosecutor regarding the "workday". I show it to you again, witness, and I will ask you to answer the question whether this document has anything to do with the length of the work day in the Luftwaffe industry or of any special branch.
A. No. Is that NOKW 287?
Q. Exhibit No. 49 from the Book 2-C of the Prosecution. This is the passage regarding which Mr. Denney spoke at some length, the passage dealing with the length of the working day. Witness, is this document with the work day in the Luftwaffe industry?
A. No, it is concerned with the protection of industry. At the top just under the address it says "re: protection of industry," and I just read through it and it is perfectly clear that only the protection of industry was here concerned for which a 84 hour week had been ordered. From the beginning of the war the personal pronunciation is used, but that again is the ministerial style. The phrase "from me" means "from the GL" and the indication for "Udet" means my predecessor. The industry work at that time was 48 or 54 hours a week, in 1942.
Q. Witness, why did these protection of industry require 84 hours a week? Was that the real period of work?
A. No, that was no real period of work but the period of preparation for work was here included.
To a certain extent these people were on guard 84 hours a week, including Sunday, of twelve hours a day. On that there were always two shifts, with one taking relieving the other. In the factory they had their living quarters, in other words, a large number of these people were living there, and they stood guard exactly as they do in a military guard. For two hours they pulled guard there and then for four 2218a hours they could rest, so that the 84 hours mentioned here were of no excessive demand.
This is not 84 hours work at the machines. The fire service was included here also, which always had to stand by.
Q. Witness, did you order this work day, and, if you did, how could you have done so?
A. As I said, this industry protection was ordered by my predecessor at the beginning of the war. In 1941 I took that over and continued that arrangement. The directive was not an independent one but was one within the general regulations for the industry as a whole, issued by the competent authorities; so as many of these persons were to be conscripted into the army, a new reserve was required to finally bring the number up to a basic total of, namely, 2500 to 3000 men. I mention in conclusion that these men also carried out Security Service, that is, if work was not being done, guards went through the factory and where secret manufacturing was being carried on they placed a special guard, even during the day, so that espionage or sabotage would not be possible.
Q. Witness, I come now to Exhibit No. 143, NOKW 195. This is a conference with Goering on 28 October 1943, which my esteemed colleague of the prosecution put to you, yesterday in which Goering made the proposal that army units should capture men in Holland. Do you know whether this measure was carried out?
A. I never heard that and so far as I know we never received any allotment of Dutchmen, nor do I believe that the local officers would have obeyed such an order from Goering.
DR BERGOLD: Your Honor, on this point I should like to refer the Court to the regulation of the IMT, because the time is so short I have not been able to find the passage, but from Steinbauer's dissenting opening plea for Seyss-Inquart I discovered that it was proved before the IMT that it was only in the autumn of 1944 that the Wehrmacht forcibly removed persons from Holland, in connection with the Anglo-American invasion Moreover, this document which I just got today is so large that I must reserve for 2219a myself the right to return to it tomorrow.
Now I come to Exhibit No. 135, NOKW 364. This refers to the assignment of three hundred Americans
Q. Witness, Lange says here, "This morning representatives of the firms Dernier-Oberpfaffenhofen told me that 300 Americans who were to be employed there had refused to work." Witness, what do the German words "Die eingesetz werdenrsollten"-- who were to be employed"-- mean? Does that mean that they were already working or does it mean at that moment it was being planned that they should be employed?
A. That means that it was being planned to use them.
DR. BERGOLD: Your Honors, the phrase "werden sollen" means in German that something now is planned for the future. It does not refer to an already completed fact.
BY DR. BERGOLD:
Q. Witness, on 20 June you resigned; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Where were you on the 19, 20th, and 21st of June 1944?
A. On the 19th of June I was in the Reich Air Ministry, but the Jaegerstab did not meet there but in Tempelhof. I was not in Tempelhof. Then on this day Speer telephoned me and told me that we were to meet Hitler on the 20th. Then the next morning I flew to Salzburg and the meeting between Hitler, Goering and Speer took place. We went by car to Obersalzburg. On the 21st I was in Berchtesgaden.
Q. Witness-
A. On the 22nd I was in Berchtesgaden. On the 23rd I was also in Berchtesgaden. On the 24th I was in Austria. I was in Austria also on the 25th.
Q. Witness-
A. It was only on the 27th that I returned to Berlin.
Q. Witness, before you resigned your office, did you find out that it was intended to use American prisoners of war for work?
A. No, never. That would have struck me because in all regulations in this matter basically and in principle all Americans and British were excepted. That was always emphasized.
Q. Witness, in the opinion of the Prosecution, you put your initials "MI" on this report. Does that mean that you read this report?
2221a
A. No, I never read the verbatim record of anything during these years. For office reasons they were put on my desk every morning when they came in. I then put my initials on them, and my secretary then knew that the report could be passed on or could be filed.
Q. Thank you. Witness, I come now to NOKW-418, Exhibit No.136. This concerns your statements to General Gablenz and General Reinecke regarding the punishment of Frenchmen. Likewise, with the Reichsfuehrer SS, you should get in touch with him about this matter. Was this directive ever implemented on your part?
A. No, I can remember that Gablenz frequently after I had exploded, pointed out to me as my friend what I was doing, laughed at my behavior and said, "Today you blew up again," and then when I was surprised at that he told me the details.
DR. BERGOLD: Unfortunately, a small part of this document is lacking in my copy, which the Prosecution gave me. I have it only up to page 360, and I shall be obliged if I could have the appendix, so that I can return to it tomorrow. This is the passage in which Poles and Dutchmen are discussed, but it is unfortunately missing from my copy.
BY DR. BERGOLD:
Q. Witness, in Document NOKW-407, Exhibit 137, there is mention of an explosion in France in the Arado Plant. Can you tell me what this is all about?
A. Yes. I remember the case. This was a hydroplane, an Air-sea rescue plane which was to save crews that had bailed out into the sea. Just before it was about to take off, one of the cylinders exploded. It was a bomb with a time fuse. It was clearly a case of sabotage, sabotage being the worst thing that a pilot can confront.
There wore cases of sabotage in the first world war also, but, God be praised, they were infrequent, and in the first years of this war there were only very few cases of sabotage. Now, around this time, the number of sabotage cases increased, and it was particularly unpleasant in the question of those mines that have been described previously which made airplanes explode in midair. I believe that no pi 2222a lot in the world is not filled with great bitterness when he hears of such a mean, dastardly action.
A flier has other and better ways of losing his life, more normal ways.
Q Witness, I come now to NOKW-406, Exhibit 138. This is the affair in France in which you ordered Gablenz to call up Toennes. Do you still recall who this man Toennes was?
A I cannot remember the name myself, but he must have been in the so-called liaison office in Paris, where there was a certain liaison with the French aircraft industry which was working toward cooperation between Germany and France.
Q Witness, you spoke of the new Heinkel Works in the East. Do you know where that was to be cuilt? Was it ever put into operation?
A The reason why it was to be located there was to escape from the combing area of the most, and I recall that it was to be fuilt somewhere in the area of Kielce in Poland, where the conditions were for some reason favorable. The GL was not in charge of picking the location. That was a matter that the factory took care of. The construction was started. However, as far as I know, it was not concluded because the area of Kielce was full of partisans. There were a few Germans from the factory who were sent to that area ahead of time, and they were killed. Consequently, the factory had no desire to go to that area and gave up the whole plan.
Q Witness, I came to NOKW-408.
THE PRESIDENT: Which we shall take up at 9:30 in the morning.
Take 25, page 1, 1630 to 1635, March 19, 1947, Hoxsie (Simha)-AK
DR. BERGOLD: I have a request, that we may finish tomorrow, I ask permission to call the witnesses Vorwald and Reinecke tomorrow at eleven to be heard in the matter of these G.L. meetings, and Reinccke to be heard in the matter whether the defendant ever either directly or indirectly spoke with him in connection with the treatment of French prisoners.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you want these witnesses at eleven o'clock whether you have finished or not with your indirect examination of the defendant?
DR. BERGOLD: I believe that I shall be through with my redirect examination at eleven. Perhaps first of all only the witness Vorwald should be called.
THE PRESIDENT: I think, we had better wait until you have finished your examination of the defendant, and then we will have them brought to the courtroom. It may be in by eleven. We will wait until you have finished.
DR. BERGOLD: Thank you.
THE MARSHALL: This Tribunal is in recess until 0930 hours tomorrow morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 20 March 1947, at 0230 hours.)
2223(A) Official transcript of the American Military Tribuinal II in the matter of the United States Of America, against Erhard Milch, defendant, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 20 March 1947.
Justice Toms presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the judges of Military Tribunal II.
Military Tribunal II is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the Court.
ERHARD MILCH -- Resumed REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. BERGOLD:
Q. Witness, I now come to Document NOKW 408, Exhibit 139, at the end you spoke about Friedrichshafen, and you say that the directors Schneider and Berger should be sent to a concentration camp as soon as they become obstructive. Who were Schneider and Berger? Were they German citizens?
A. Yes, they were. They were directors of Dornier.
Q. Witness, did you cause anything in that direction?
A. No.
Q. You had a special court, did you not?
A. Yes.
Q. Would that have been competent, to sentence people for sabotage?
A. Yes, it would.
Q. Did you order any proceeding?
A. No.
Q. Witness, Document No. KW 409, Exhibit 140: You are speaking again of the difficulties arising in the French industry, and you say that sabotage might occur. You then say "I would ask that I should be made the military commander in that case; then I would have fifty percent of the employees shot and the rest would be beaten." Did you apply to your superior officer at any time to become a military commander?
A. No.
Q. Witness, a number of documents have been offered dealing with the question of slackers. You say that you wished to see Himmler about that, or the SD, because of the treatment these people.
Did you at any time speak to Himmler about slackers?
A. No.
Q. Can you tell us on what days you saw Himmler during the war? The other day you gave us the whole figure, which was seven times. Can you give us the various days on which you saw him?
A. Yes, I can. In 1939 on the 2nd of May; in 1940, 15th of March; 1941, 17 March and 17 June.
Q. What did you discuss on those occasions?
A. In 1938 matters concerning personnel, people from the Ministry who had got into trouble with the police. Also on March 15 in 1940, on the 17th of March in 1941, I did not put down what I talked to him about; but on the 17th of June I again put down "Personal questions." In 1942 I didn't see him at all. In 1943 I saw him on the 12th of April with Speer.
Q. What did you discuss at that time?
A. I cannot say exactly what this was about. I didn't make a note of it at that time. That was very brief as far as I was concerned. I just greeted him and went away very quickly. On 20 November in 1943 I saw him for some time. That was in Breslau where Hitler was addressing cadets and young officers I had been ordered to go there and quite accidentally I happened to run into Himmler. After that we had a conference after that, alone; and I attempted to interest him in air defense problems in order to get him to use his influence on Hitler and Exploit that influence. In 1944 after I had resigned as GL and State Secretary, I saw him on the 23rd of June near Salzburg. The only problem there was to explain to him why I had resigned and what I intended doing now, that is to say, to withdraw myself from all my other tasks.
Q. In 1942, in other words, you didn't see him at all?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever see an SD officer about the question of slackers?
A. No.
EXAMINATION BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Witness, when you resigned -- and when was it? 1944?
A. Yes, it was on the 20th of June, 1944.
Q. You resigned as GL but you retained your post as Inspector General?
A. Yes sir, that is correct,. That was a special order from Goering.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR. BERGOLD:
Q. Witness, I now come to Exhibit 142, NOKW 416, again a conference was held in 1942 on the 26th of August, where once again the question of slackers is being discussed and a Herr Brueckner says that a labor camp had been established. You had told him that you wished to have more details about that in the next conference. Did Brueckner ever give you those details?
A. As far as I recall, no. He himself had nothing to do with that question.
Q. That is part of Vorwald's testimony.
THE PRESIDENT: Let me ask another question, please.
EXAMINATION BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Witness, at the time of your capture, what military rank did you hold? Were you still a Field Marshal?
A. Yes, I was. In Germany you stay a Field Marshall until you die. Field Marshals are not dismissed in Germany.
Q. Were you exercising any military authority at the time you were captured?
A. No, I was with out any assignment at all; and I was not Inspector General at the time either.
Q. You were simply Field Marshal without assignment and hold no other post?
A. That is correct.
Q. That had been true since you were relieved as Inspector General in January 1945?
A. Yes, indeed. In January, 1945.
Q. I meant January; I intended to say January.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR BERGOLD:
Q. Witness, now I come to Exhibit 145, NOKW 288. I shall read a passage to you.
It is the passage where you are speaking of the stamping out of an uprising. A man called von der Heyde says; "These are lists of industrial plants which belong to the security decrees 1, 2, and 3, in order to decide whether they need anti-aircraft protection or not." Witness, does that mean protection against uprisings or protection against air-raids?
A Only against air-raids.
Q Then you reply to that question to protect industry against air-raid as follows: "I do not wish to refuse. The man who has submitted it is not very clever. The people wish to do this. I saw Himmler about this the other day; and I told him that his main task should be, to protect German industry if the foreign workers should make an uprising. That refers to the uprising of the Botokuden, which is a Negro tribe. Thereupon you speak about these people being shot by soldiers. Then you continue: "I told Himmler I shall join you. He said, "I wish to know where the most important factories are.' He refers quite generally to armament. I do not know whether he actually means this. I assume that the problem is the same one. Should we oppose this? After all, Speer will help him anyway."
Q Witness, I do not understand the context here. First you say that the people who arranged for anti-aircraft protection were not very clever; but then you could speak about Himmler and of uprisings. Then you say, "I do not know whether it is that; I assume that that is it." Witness, if you have talked to Himmler, about it, you should know, shouldn't you, what the problem is?
A I can't quite see any sense in this. I think this is a matter of several issues here. Himmler had nothing to do with antiaircraft protection and I cannot understand how all these things were mixed up here to that extent.
Q Did you see Himmler on 19 October 1943, and talk to him about uprisings?
A No. I never spoke to Himmler at all in October 1943.
Q You spoke to him in April.
A Yes, and then in November.
Q Did you discuss the question of an uprising with Speer in April.
A No.
Q But how can you say then that you saw him?
AAll I can imagine here is that, as it happened once or twice, that the records were wrongly kept. I have no recollection of the question that an 2228a uprising was expected at that time.
Q. Witness, but if you said these words, would it have been correct?
A. No, it's out of the question. I didn't see Himmler nor did I see Speer about this question.
Q. So if you used those words at the time they would have been wrong, wouldn't they?
A. Yes; but I am firmly convinced that I never said it.
Q. Witness, I now return once more to a document, which is Document NOKW? 416, Exhibit 36. I didn't have pent of this document yesterday. There is a report attached to this document by the GLA, the Planning Office of the GLA, dated 13 May. You initialed it -- yes. Czechs are mentioned here, Poles and Dutchmen. Now, you told us that you never knew anything about Dutchmen and Poles. How is it that you no longer know this? Did you see that sort of report only once, and did you not go into the details? Did your memory not retain it? How is it?
A. I have no recollection that Poles and Dutchmen worked for us. I did know generally speaking that Dutchmen and Poles were in Germany, but I never saw them in our armament industry. Of course, such reports I could not always remember.
Q. Witness, now I come to NOKW--347, which is Exhibit 147. Here the Italians are mentioned, prisoners of war. You said yesterday Mussolini wanted to send these Italians to Germany and that they were to work there. Was there any restriction attached to this where they worked?
A. Not that I know of; not that I know of.
Q. They were at your disposal and were in reservation?
A. In the first place they were to work for the armament, for the greater part of the armament in Italy was manufactured in Germany. Guns, ammunition, and aircraft, these were reserve departments, and aircraft, or course, of the GL, and they were built in Germany for the Italian Army. It had begun after the capitulation or even earlier. I had been to Rome, I believe that was at the end of -- I must look that up, it was at the end of 1942, from the 1st to the 5th of December and an agreement was made with the Italians that we in Germany would build a large part, or would have a large part of the Italian production, and the Italians were to build aircraft, and then I suggested they should limit themselves to the fighter type.
Q. And after the capitulation they would extend the manufacturing for Germany?
A. Yes. Owing to the events following the capitulation of Italy, the possibility to manufacture things in Italy had become very difficult, and then Germany had to supply much more.
Q. Now the question, for that reason Mussolini put these people at your disposal?
A. I assume that was his main reason.
Q. Witness, not I come to N0KW 449, Exhibit No. 148, that is the passage where you say that you had received reports that Poles or French had told the people you had better treat us well, or we will then see to it that you will be shot at once, and not tried first, Did you hear such statements also outside of your sphere, as it was stated?
A. Yes, I know for instance that some of the Russian servant girls in Germany told their employers that these employers treated them differently from what they had been told before.
DR. BERGOLD; Your Honor, on this occasion I want to present an affidavit that will be given Exhibit No. 57-Milch. It could not be translated because time was too short, and I wish to read it into the record.
