EXAMINATION BY THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE MUSMANNO):
Q Witness, did the Central Planning Board have influence in the matter of the procurement or the allocation of workers?
A We did not have such influence but we were always aiming at it. We were always trying to reach clarity as to whether Sauckel's figures were correct or not, because Hitler was holding us responsible for the insufficient distribution of steel and through that the low figure in armament production.
Q Very well, Now, you recall having testified before the International Military Tribunal in the first case, do you not?
A Yes, I testified there.
Q Well, you seem to have made there a statement somewhat contrary to the one you've just made, namely, that the Central Planning Board had no influence. The record indicates that you said, "On the question of the availability of working forces it had no command authority. The distribution of workers was influenced in art by the Central Planning Board, since the armament industry could see what was necessary in each regard." So, therefore, you did have some influence, did you not?
A May I say in this connection that the sense of my statement at that time was that Speer in his sphere and I in mine were making requests regarding the distribution, and there again we were trying to gain influence because only we knew through reports from our agencies where workers were needed and which workers were needed. Sauckel, on the other hand, went to the extent of stating there that it was he alone who was distributing workers and that he could not fulfill our wishes.
Q Yes. Now -
A May I first give, you an example?
Q Witness, I don't want any long explanation. I have a number of questions so please endeavor to answer them briefly. We merely want to clarify whatever may be in doubt before the Tribunal in these last few moments of the trial.
In reading the transcript I find that here and there some doubts arise in my mind. Some of them may be the result of faulty transmission and some may arise out of the questions and answeres themselves.
Now, in the very early part of your testimony you spoke of the Versailles Treaty and yon mentioned various prohibitions. Here is something I don't understand at all, so there must have been some grave error in the transmission. You spoke of one of the prohibitions being the poison of South American Indians, called "Gurare." Now, that doesn't make any sense to me. What did you moan by that?
A What I wanted to say was that the disarmament conference at Geneva hadn't arrived at any result. That was the meaning.
Q Well, what did that have to do with South American Indians?
AAs a matter of fact, the disarmament conference arrived at only one resolution, namely, that Gurare, an arrow poison, was prohibited in Geneva at that time. That was only meant to be one example, to the effect that no results were possible.
Q I see. That's all I desire.
JUDGE MUSMANNO:
Q. Then you referred to a meeting in England, and gave us an interesting quotation which, standing alone, is rather ambiguous. Some Englishman said to you at a party, "Today you meet your first and second best enemy. Don't be confused by this, but if there is an attack hit back," Now what is the connection, what did he mean by that, and who was it that said it?
A. That was Lord Trenchard.
Q. Who?
A. Lord Trenchard, and of course it was a joke on his part. He brought us together with Mr. Churchill, and Mr. Amery, and had previously told me knowing of my efforts, that they on their part, and I on my part ought to arrive at a peaceful and friendly solution. He told me jokingly previously that maybe these men are ready to try you out, but that during the conversation don't be bashful after all an Churchill, is so far as I was concerned, a very very high ranking personage, "That you go ahead and answer them in a recognizable manner." It was a, friendly conversation and not a conference or meeting.
Q. Was Churchill present?
A. Yes.
Q. What was meant "That you meet your first and second best enemy"?
A. The person in question was trying to say of this, that here in England there are various attitudes towards Germany. One attitude is that of being rather angry about everything that Hitler had been doing, and these two gentlemen belonged to that school of thought, whereas -
Q. Very well, that is clear. Now I find this statement by you, which has to do with the airforce and in isn't quite clear to me in the record. You said: "I would have to introduce very strong and sever measures.
I suffered under the conditions something which I may be able to refer to tomorrow, to a horrible degree. I could see the decline and collapse of my country drastically before my eyes. I know how help could come. I tried it, and I didn't get it."
Q. What help was that?
A. We were concerned with the question of creating an air defense inside of Germany in time, which was to be strong enough for the defense of the home country.
Q. In other words; what you mean is, that you were seeking augmenting defense by the fighter plane forces?
A. Quite.
Q. In the earlier part of your testimony you spoke of Hitler, and you seemed to be admiring him considerably in these early days. You said that from 1933 to 1938 he was adored and worshipped by people. Was he adored by the Jews whose property he had confiscated; whose property he had destroyed; and whose personal dignity he had degraded; or, didn't you regard the Jews as people?
A. When I had referred to this liberty of the people, naturally I considered the Jews to be people; part of the people; that I did not include them in the words of mine was because they were not in a position. They came within my ideal.
Q. And since we are on the subject of Jews, I would like to refer to something which occurred at the first trial. Now you are not compelled to discuss this matter if for any reason you prefer not to, but you will recall that you were cross examined by Justice Jackson on the subject of your being Aryanized. Do you recollect that?
A. Yes; I recall it.
Q. Now you gave an explanation at the trial which; however was not definitive, it seems to have been left in midair, and since you have given us quite a long autobiographical sketch of yourself, if you would care to enlighten us on this point, you are free to do so.
A. It is my point of view that I made a definite statement at the time.
Q. Yes.
A. That point of view I still adhere to.
Q. Let us see. You were asked certain questions and gave certain answers as follows:
"Q. At that time Goering had referred to 1933, so we will have no misunderstanding, Goering made you what you call a full Aryan; is that right?
"A I don't believe he made me a full Aryan; but that I was one.
"Q. Well, he had it established, let's say?
"A. He had me in clearing this question, which was not clear.
Question: "That is, your mother's husband was a Jew, is that correct?
Answer: That is not meant by that.
Question: You had to demonstrate lack of connection as to any Jewish source, is that correct?
Answer: Yes, everybody had to do that.
Question: And in your case it concerned your father, your alleged father, is that correct?
Answer: Yes. And there the inquiry rested.
A. Yes.
Q. Just what had to be done to demonstrate that you were a full Aryan, and why did the question arise?
A. The first time that question arose was in 1933, and the occasion was the following: The president of the German Air Plan was reported as being adverse to the Hitler regime, and I stood in front of that man to protect him, and following that, a man who was a member of the SA sent a letter to Goering; and I would like to add, that this was a man who was trying to become State Secretary of the Air Ministry by such a method, and who had been deeply hurt that he as am old Party member had to take a second place behind me, that he wrote this letter from those rumors that were current to the effect that he said, Secretary of State Milch is not a full Aryan.
This happened in the Summer of 1933, Goering forwarded this letter to me, and I then went to Goering, and following that I was asked to submit my family tree, of my origin, and that is how this matter arose, that was the reason.
Q. You had to establish that no Jewish blood flowed in your viens, is that correct?
A. Yes, that is what I was supposed to do.
Q. And you established that to their satisfaction?
A. That was established, yes.
Q. In your eulogy of Hitler as you admired him in the early days, you said that he believed in God. Do you know why he persecuted the church if he believed in the Supreme Being?
A. Persecution of the churches was something which I only heard about afterwards and later on, during these later years.
Q. You did not know that the Church and the clergy had been warred against by Hitler?
A. During those early years I did not know it, no. I have three clergymen in my own family. All three of them were not members of the Party. All these three, too, I often met, and not one of them ever told me anything about this war going on at that particular time, when they told me that later.
Q. Very well. It is just as easy to answer the questions, simply.
Now, I understand you to say that the first time you learned of the proposed war against Poland was on August 21st, and even then it was not very clearly indicated that a war would actually be unleashed, and that actually it was not until the very eve of the attack, that is to say, at five o'clock in the afternoon of August 31st that you were directed to put the Luftwaffe, or all your forces in readiness for the attack. Is that correct? Is that what you said?
A. On 31st August, not to alert, but I did receive the order that the attack would start tomorrow, whereas, previously over-all preparations had been made through the meeting which took place with Hitler on 22 August that there was a possibility of instituting negotiations, and these negotiations were to carry on, too. These negotiotions came to an end on 31 August at 1700 hours.
Q. I understood you to say that after the meeting of May 23, 1939, you were convinced that war was not intended?
A. 23 of May?
Q. Yes, 23 May 1939?
A. Yes.
Q. That you had no intimation of Hitler's intentions of aggressive war on Poland?
A. Yes, because at that time, according to my recollection, Hitler stated again and again that he was certainly going to settle the problem, and that he would not allow war to break out.
Q. And that you had called to his attention the necessity of manufacturing bombs, because you believed that hostilities might break out.
A. This had been the previous date before the 23rd, and also after the 23rd, because I myself did not share Hitler's optimism, because although he could not have intended to wage war, his policy might nevertheless have brought war just the same, but after all he was not alone.
The others would have something to say as well.
Q. And that assumption lulled you into the conviction that there would be no war since he refused you authority to manufacture bombs?
A. Today I have to realize that in that line, at that time I did not discover this.
Q. Very well, and then you say that it was not until the 12th of October that you were authorized to manufacture bombs, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q In the meantime you had conquered Poland. What were you using against Poland, bonbons?
A Every bomb we had at the time, usually small type bombs, mostly explosive bombs of 10 kilograms weight.
Q You said that you had only small bombs, 10, 60 and some of 250 kilograms, which you could drop in a few minutes, and then your bomb supply would have been exhausted.
A What I said was this: During the 18 days of the Polish campaign we dropped approximately 60 per cent of all the bombs we had, although only 50 per cent of the air force was being employed in that theater. If then, now that we were at war with the Western countries too, an attack had come from there, then the air force would have remained without bombs after one week.
Q When did you first learn that an attack on Russia was intended?
AAt the beginning of January 1941 -- I beg your pardon -- Yes, that is right, 1941, on 13 January actually. It was then that Goering during a conference in a large circle of commanding officers informed us, that ones' attention should, be drawn toward the East, as Hitler was fearing an attack by tho Russians.
Q Yes, and you finally came to the conclusion that the declaration of war or rather, the undeclared war against Russia was a crime against Germany.
A Yes.
Q Did you think it was a crime against Russia?
AAgainst Russia, yes.
Q Also.
A Yes.
Q Now, you endeavored to see Hitler to persuade him not to enter this war.
A Yes.
Q And your immediate circle, your military friends, realized that it was foolhardy to provoke a war with Russia and thereby establish two fronts?
A Exactly the way I saw it, yes. My immediate circle were of the same opinion I was after we had spoken to him.
Q And all the generals were of the same impression -- that it was hopeless for Germany and that further it was tragic and suicidal to Germany to allow Hitler to take over the control of the armed forces? You were practically unanimous in that belief, were you not?
A This was never discussed in any larger circle.
Q But you have testified here -- it is in the record -- that you were all of that belief.
A This transpired at a later stage, when it was discussed with him. Later we discovered that they were all of the same opinion.
Q When was that?
A In the course of the war.
Q When did you realize that it was a mistake to have Hitler as commander in chief of the armed forces?
A I personally?
Q When was it so universally known, even though not expressed at a public meeting, among the generals, that it was suicidal, a great mistake, to have Hitler as the commander in chief?
A Generally the view arose after Stalingrad. That is when it became general.
Q And when was that?
A That was the end of January 1943.
Q Yes. You still had two and a half years of war ahead of you?
A Yes.
Q Why didn't you do something about having Hitler removed?
A It was my duty toward my people to maintain my allegiance. I had sworn an oath to keep allegiance to Hitler, too. I am only a human being who can see this world subjectively and I can not claim the ability to be an objective reporter of such situations, and I believe that in the whole of Germany's history there is not one example where soldiers arose against their military commander.
I certainly do not know of one.
Q Even though you realized that Hitler was leading Germany into stark annihilation and destruction, and even though all the generals were of that same belief, you yet upheld this fetish of an allegiance which was destined, and very clearly so, to bring unparelled misery to the people that you professed to be faithful to?
A Your Honor, I personally did not claim the right to say that my judgment was right and that Hitler's judgment and the judgment of all those who were next to him was wrong.
Q Then, you modify your statement that Hitler was wrong? You say that he might have been right?
A No, no, I am not saying that. What I am trying to say is that it was my point of view that the question whether the head of the state was to be over thrown or not was a matter for the constitution, and that for this eventuality the constitution and the powers of the state contained the means through which in such cases there could be intervention, but then it could not be the task of any individual general to take steps in such questions, which were, after all unlawful.
Q You don't mean seriously to tell this Tribunal that you had constitutional government in Germany and that you would have to await the results of election to displace a man who was leading you into abysmal disaster?
A No, no, that is not what I want to say. All I want to say is that something like that ought to be in existence; such institutions ought to be there, and, of course, apparently it was not possible, although, formally, the parliamentary system had been maintained, and, of course, there were ministers who, according to the constitution -and, this constitution had not been abolished in our country, you must remember, not formally speaking, that is -- who according to the constitution had the duty in their individual spheres to look after the interests of the people to the best of their ability.
Only the soldier in our country had no political functions.
Q We'll sum it up this way, then, and see if you agree with the statements. That although you know as early as November 1941 that Germany was bound to destruction because of having entered a war, although you were more convinced of this when war was declared against Russia, and that no doubt at all remained in your mind after Stalingrad, that your people were doomed to a defeat with all the misery which accompanies it.
2259A knowing all this, you yet continued with all your energies and all your intellectual forces to carry on this war, which could only bring more misery to your people, is that correct?
A. I continued to do my duty as I had sworn to do, and may I , Your Honor, put one question? I have now spent two bitter years thinking it over in activity. What could a man like me have been able to do in practice?
Q. There were many things you could have done. In the first place, you could have discussed with your brother generals how to remove this madman from the leadership of your nation. That is one thing you could have done. You did not line up with the generals who attempted to eliminate that Memicidal maniac in July 1944, did you?
A. No.
Q. No, the only way that you demonstrated your desire to help your people although you know that a continuation of the war could only bring them further misery, was to bring in more slave workers -- to threaten with machine guns , the hangman's noose, whips, and all other dire tortures and eventualities if they did not work. That is the way you attempted to dimish the horrors which were facing your people; is that correct?
A. No, that is not correct.
Q. Tell me one thing which you did which helped your people, to whom you profess such allegiance and whom you say you wished to help, when you know a continuation of the war could only load to the further tortures and horrors which your attorney so graphically described just a few minutes ago.
A. Of course, I could not foresee everything that happened or that could happen. Secondly, I myself considered it to be my duty to use all my force and power to create a home air defense for Germany so that our home country should not be destroyed. Had this plan succeeded, then Germany would have achieved a final position without the home country being destroyed, on the basis of which peace negotiations could have been possible. The awful thing about it all to no is that this effort of mine --- and as I have told you this effort was 2260(a) by no means a miner one -- nevertheless had failed, a thing which I recognized at the beginning of 1941.
At that time, considering the possibilities I had at that time, I had nothing left but to try to retire.
Q. To that extent it merely meant a continuation of the war, only on defensive lines?
A. In order then to make peace.
Q. Now, you say you could do nothing. Could you not have resigned? Could you not have tendered your resignation? Could you not have indicated that morally, spiritually, religiously , honestly, and according to all your conscientious scruples, you could not continue with a war that was encompassing the horrible destruction which we see on all sides of us here in Germany to say nothing of all of Europe?
A. All that I told Hitler personally on 5 March.
Q. Why couldn't you have resigned after Stalingrad?
A. I tried that, but it was not possible. It was not accepted.
Q. Why wasn't it possible? Why couldn't you write out and say, "I, Ehard Milch. Hereby resign"?
A. That was turned down. It was said "It is out of the question".
Q. Out of the question? Why? It was within your power to stay away from the office; you could have stayed away from troops. It wasn't really a matter of papers. It was a natter of will . You could have withdrawn from the war.
A. In that form, according to the military conceptions in Germany, Your Honor, that was an impossibility. A German soldier could not do that.
Q. You would have been executed; is that what you are loading up to?
A. That might not have been the main point as far as I was concerned. It would rave been utterly useless.
Q. Then you were not honest with yourself, because you were convinced that it was unjust war, that it was an incorrect war, that it was a suicidal war, and yet, with all that, you lot every possible energy that you possessed -- and you had many -- to a continuation of that war.
A. Your honor, whether I am convinced of something or not convinced, 2361(a) that is not a question for the soldier, and it is not tho decisive point for him not to do his duty.
Everyone who is a soldier must do his duty. I bad tried many a time to offer my resignation.
Q. You did eventually offer a resignation which was accepted?
A. No, no, I did not clearly make my exit, but through initiating a reorganization of the entire armament program, which succeeded, it was through that that I organized myself out.
Q. Now to another subject: In explaining many extravagant utterances, utterances of fearful punishment to workers, were not meant. What you made these statements because you say that you were horribly depressed; is that correct?
A. About what? I failed to understand.
Q. You say that you were very much depressed, and because of your mental depression you uttered these remarks in anger.
A. That was the exterior cause, the external cause. That was a disease of mine which I bad at the time, which was brought on through that.
Q. You were depressed because Germany was losing the war?
A. Yes.
Q. You were not depressed because Europe had become a slaughterhouse and that human dignity had been defiled as it never had been before since nan know shame; you weren't depressed at that , were you?
A. Oh, yes, those two things were closely connected as far as I was concerned.
Q. You were concerned about what was happening to the human race in general, were you?
A. I was worried about tho entire war and the entire excesses of the affair, and all the dreadful things which this war brought upon us and which it would further bring upon us.
Q. And being so concerned, you would order further excesses against the foreign workers by ordering machine guns and the whip and the hangman's noose?
A. No such order was ever passed on. Never was such an order as much as issued. They were purely figures of speech, without any serious background.
2262(a) I did neither want anything like that in reality, nor did I at any time give such an order.
Q. And do you think that those remarks contributed to the tranquility of the situation?
A. You mean in my case? They were explosions, and somehow they gave me relief.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is recessed until 1330 hours.
AFTERNOON SESSION
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. BERGOLD: If His Honor has no further questions, I would like to put one question.
THE PRESIDENT: Judge Phillips has some questions of the witness.
BY JUDGE PHILLIPS:
Q. Coming back to Prosecution Exhibit No. 3, Document L-79, which is known as the Schmundt Report, I understood you to say, witness, that you attended that meeting?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Were you there during the entire meeting?
A. Yes, I was present at the entire meeting.
Q. And you heard what was said there?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And, after hearing that, I understood you to say that you had no idea that Poland was going to be attacked, or that war was imminent?
A. Yes. There was no mention of an attack which was to take place. I understood before, after Goering spoke - did I hear that correctly?
Q. I asked you the question, if you did not state on your examination, that after hearing this speech of Hitler's, that you had no idea that Poland was going to be attacked, or that war was imminent.
A. Yes, no mention was made that Poland should be attacked.
Q. Was Hitler's speech read or was it delivered without manuscript?
A. Without a manuscript; it was improvised.
Q. Was the report or stenographer present to take it down?
A. No, there was not.
Q. Did you receive a copy of it after it was written up?
A. No.
Q. You had never seen the so-called Schmundt Report until after this trial began?
A. I saw it in the first Nuernberg trial.
Q. Well, since these trials began?
A. Yes, I saw it during the Nuernberg trial.