A Yes, most of these conferences were of an internal nature. There were representatives of the main committees which had previously been called the Industrial Committee. They were considered by us as being members of our 2294a little circle, as we say.
Q. Witness, with reference to these outbursts of rage and the instructions and opinions of Milch--did you tell third persons about it?
A. No, every one of us never took any one of those things outside because such statements would have put our chief in a bad light outside.
Q. So that other people never heard of what Milch would be saying during such meetings?
A. No; a member of the general staff was there but he, too, was considered a member of the family, and knew the Field Marshal's habits.
Q. Witness, I am once again coming back to the wording of those minutes. I have read to you that he gave Gablenz instructions regarding some action taken regarding the s hooting of Frenchmen, and what is the meaning of the sentence: "I do, therefore, not agree. Make another stich, please."
Would the possibility exist that the first part of the sentence was wrongly taken down?
A. It is very possible because the way you have worded it to me, it doesn't make sense at all. I mean the second, with reference to the first.
Q. Thank you. Witness, I am turning to Document NOKW 407, Exhibit 137. I shall read it to you. It is from Gablenz. "Yesterday, the first of October, Best in France in the Arado works, is an explosive subject and nothing happened." Can you make yourself a picture? Can you draw a picture of the event at the works?
A. We didn't have much manufacturing going on in the Arado Works in France. I mentioned it the other day that we were having aircraft engines made in France for the YU-52 aircraft, but Arado wasn't being used for such manufacturing work. But the word "buoyant explosive" would bring me to the conclusion that perhaps we must have been concerned with a naval airport, and an Arado-96 aircraft which was a reconnaissance aircraft, a naval reconnaissance aircraft; and it is possible that such an aircraft is being made reference to, and that such aircraft station in a naval airport was the subject of a sabotage attempt; but, of course, I can't actually remember this individual case.
Q. Witness, Milch then says: "What happened in consequence: I want a aircraft; and it is possible that such an aircraft is being referred to, and that such an aircraft station in a naval airport was the subject of a sabotage attempt, but, of course, I can't actually remember this individual case.
Q. Witness, Milch then says: "What happened in consequence: I want a 2295a report of what happened.
How many people were shot and how many were hanged?"
A. I have got to laugh about that, about these expressions.
Q. It goes on to say, "If that character isn't discovered, then fifty men will be counted and I would suggest three or four hanged -whether they are guilty or not. There is only one method."
What do you consider the value of this statement? Would you say it was serious?
A. It was meant exactly the same way as those other things. We never listened anymore. After all; we made bets beforehand how many were going to hang today, and how many he was going to shoot...
Q. Is it known to you that a report of such shootings actually was received?
A. No, I mean, I said that the other day. He had no authority to decide life and death of foreign workers or prisoners of war. That power was only held by the Reichmarshal, and he had got it from the Fuehrer. He, himself, couldn't give any such instructions. prisoners of war weren't under his jurisdiction; foreign workers weren't under his jurisdiction; and our own workers weren't under his jurisdiction, from the point of view of discipline. It was the execution of some such statement which wasn't probable at all.
Q. But the Tribunal always believed that it might have become known and it might have incited other people to do things like this; isn't that possible?
A. Well, I mean, matters like that didn't get into the minutes, the record which went cut.
A. Witness, after all, records like that which I have always talked about -- these instructional records -- they ought to be available if the other type is there. But you wouldn't find a single one of those instances contained therein. Witness, I am turning to NOKW 406, Exhibit 138.
JUDGE MUSSMANO: Did he say it didn't get into the minutes? We have the minutes right here. That is the way we found out.
DR. BERGOLD: No; I am talking about the executive records. The witness previously said there were two types of records; first of all, the verbatim, thick ones, and then the thing that was really decided and really ordered -
2296 a the executive, instructional records which were actually signed by the witness and by Milch.
And it is only those, the letter that contained the orders and it is those executive records of which not a single one has been submitted in this court. In order to check I have had all the records given to me. These are records that I have checked in one case and they amounted to two hundred and eighteen -- in one case. Whereas, the executive records only contained very few pages and what Your Honors have here are all verbatim minutes. You see that from the way names are listed and the way conversations are quoted; that is, the executive minutes only contained orders. Is that correct, witness?
A. Yes. The way this record would look is as follows: The heading on the left side; G L, Technical Department, and then CE, and then a number 11, and then the year, and then CB, if it was a material affair. Then followed participants, record of a meeting on such and such a day, and then followed the individual points, beginning with one. And, on the right-hand side, set out, who had to give what sort of instructions.
BY JUDGE PHILLIPS:
Q. Witness, the defendant has gone on the stand in this case and admitted under oath that this very document you are talking about, that he initialed this document with pencil in his own handwriting; and you say that is not an official document.
A. I did not understand what minutes or records you are talking about, Your Honor.
Q. The minutes that Dr. Bergold has just examined you by, Prosecution's Exhibit 137.
DR. BERGOLD: Your Honor, may I show one example to the witness?
BY JUDGE PHILLIPS: Just a minute; I haven't finished.
Q. Do you know that the defendant has gone upon the stand and testified under oath, after having looked at the back of this exhibit, that he in his own handwriting initialed it, put his initials upon the back of it as a meeting of this Central Planning Board; transcript of the record of the conference of the 27th of May, 1942. Do you know that?
A. No.
2297 a
Q. And now you tell the Tribunal that this is not an official record even though the defendant says he initialed it himself.
A. Just now you were talking about a report of the Central Planning Board, and, as far as those reports from the Central Planning Board are concerned, I don't know anything about them at all because I never participated in any of those meetings.
Q. That is just what he was asking you about?
DR. BERGOLD: Your Honors, I am always talking about the G L meetings.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: That is right. It is the G L meeting. And the defendant went upon the stand and testified that he initialed the cover of that report himself; and that he presided over the meeting. Now you tell the Tribunal that that is not an official document.
THE WITNESS: The report was official but what went out was, I described as only executive records, amounting to three to five pages. And the signature at the bottom, that of the Field Marshal, and then followed my initials.
BY JUDGE PHILLIPS:
Q. Well, do you know why the defendant will initial a record and keep it in his own file, if it was not true?
A. You initial a lot of documents which come to our desk in spite of which they don't go on anywhere.
Q. In other words, it didn't amount to anything, and kept it because it was nothing?
A. Yes.
Q. All right.
BY DR. BERGOLD:
Q. Witness, please have a look at this Protocol. On the title page you see M I. Does this mean that this record was now going to be published?
A. No; the Field Marshal had initialed it. That means he actually read the record. But this record in the form in which I have it here, in this particular shape, has never been sent to any department outside our own building. Only those minutes went out I mentioned and which I have referred to as executive records.
2298 a
Q. Witness, does this "Mi" mean that he actually read it?
A. No, just what the action taken in connection with this steonographic record was; and the answer of the Field Marshal, that is something I wouldn't tell you. But possibly he wrote a lot of "Mi's" on a lot of things; and that doesn't mean that he necessarily read them. It merely meant that Mr. Richter, Ministerial Counsellor Richter, could put them into the files.
DR. BERGOLD: Now, your Honors, I draw your attention to the testimony given by the defendant himself to the effect that he only put "Mi" on the document so that it would be put in the files but that he did not read it. Now, what we are really concerned with here is this.
Q. Witness, in these verbatim records, supposed executive orders, such as orders to Gablenz and Reinecke, are supposed to be contained. Everything that was being talked about, would that have been taken into the executive records you have talked about?
A. No.
Q. Was it only those that went into the executive orders?
A. What went into the executive records were those things which were to take effect on the outside, not any of the other things; and I believe that to this matter, this Gablenz affair where these Frenchmen talked to Reinecke, was such that General von Gablenz, either the same day or the following day, went to see the Field Marshal because they knew each other from the old days of the Lufthansa; and probably he talked him out of the whole business. I can't really imagine since I never received a report of the type which was demanded from Gablenz, not did I include any such report in the program.
Q. Witness, final orders were only those that went into the executive protocol?
A. Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: May I ask a question?
EXAMINATION BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Richter corrected the original transcript by boiling it down and eliminating the things that were of no value?
No, that wasn't Richter. Richter was the file clerk for those stenographic records. That is, the shorthand report as it is available here must have gone to the technician of my department, the engineer of my department , who, according to this verbatim record, then drafted the executive protocol. That is the short one; and it is a short one. The short one went to all departments which had to be informed; and they checked it; and then eventually at the end, it came before me so that in all cases before putting it before the Field Marshal for signature, I would read it and initial it.
Q Well, neither you nor the engineer nor Richter over put anything into the official record that hadn't actually happened, did you?
A Richter? No, I don't believe so. He didn't add anything, no.
Q Did you add anything?
A No, no.
Q Did the engineer over add anything? I mean did he put words into the document that had not been spoken?
A No. This verbatim record had nothing added to it. It was according to the wording of that record that the short record was prepared. It wasn't in the form of a meeting with talk and counter-talk; it merely consisted of instructions, you see, it was an extract, so to speak.
DR. BERGOLD: Your Honors, from these verbatim records the actual orders were extracted; and they were then put into a special verbatim record; and it would therefore be essential for the prosecution, if they want to prove that these statements on the part of the Field Marshal went out as orders, to show the executive record containing such orders.
It would only then be possible that it actually happened in fact.
THE PRESIDENT: I'm talking about his having said these things; not that he issued the orders that he threatened to issue but whether he actually said then; and I think there's no dispute about that, even by the defendant, is there?
DR. BERGOLD: Yes; particularly in the case of this Reinecke protocol, you can see that the sense in itself is incomprehensible because it says at 2300 a the end
Q Witness, do you mind reading it?
A "I should like Dietrich that dispatch to punitive camp should be taken into consideration. Yes, that hardly makes sense; not quite clear. I am therefore not agreeable. You ought to make a different suggestion. Initial period, of course, can't bring anymore."
DR. BERGOLD: Your Honors, if you read this entire speech of Milch ligically and examine it logically, you've got to come to the realization that it is incomprehensible because he says at the beginning, "I want action." And he says, "There people ought to be shot"; and at the end he says, "I am not agreeable."
THE PRESIDENT: Do you think the garbled ideas are Milch's or the court reporter's or the stenographer's?
DR. BERGOLD: I think Milch is right. Your Honors, unfortunately this has not been discussed in this trial; but I have examined the records of this trial. I have made innumerable applications to the Secretary General's office. There is the most fantastic nonsense contained in the records of this very Tribunal. I haven't been able to check them all because that would be the work of a giant. But mistake after mistake occurs in the records of this very Tribunal here every day. I have been thinking of the few which I have examined where mistake follows mistake and completely distorting mistakes are apparent.
Here we are speaking slowly. Only one person is speaking at a time. There arc two court reporters; four court reporters. Whilst there those people were talking crosswise and they weren't being considerate. If somebody was talking and yelling - while here Field Marshal Milch is speaking slowly - everything burst out like a waterfall.
I am convinced that those verbatim records have no probative value because certainly they have not been taken down in their exact meaning.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I'm trying to find out just what you do contend. Do you say that he didn't make these remarks or that he didn't mean them and never carried them out?
2301 a
DR. BERGOLD: Your Honors, I allege this first of all. I deny that the wording was that which appears in these verbatim minutes; but even if it were correct, he would not have meant it. Thirdly, I allege that he certainly didn't execute them.
THE PRESIDENT: I think that's covering a good deal of ground. First he didn't say it -- Now, wait a minute, I'm taking your version of it now. First, he didn't say it. Second, he didn't mean what he said. Third, he didn't do what he said he meant.
DR. BERGOLD: No, I didn't say that, your Honor. Here again, you see, there's an erroneous translation. What I said was this. I believe that the verbatim records do not fully and correctly represent the truth and that it contains mistakes. If, however, they have been taken down correctly, which, of course, naturally must have happened on some occasions, then he didn't mean them the way it states; and they weren't executed. That's what I want to say.
THE PRESIDENT: I think that's just what I said; but we'll drop it.
BY DR. BERGOLD:
Q Witness, I am now turning to the GL meeting on July the 7th, NOKW-406, Exhibit 138. There it states"that to the achievement of Prague. I would like to say that of course it must be recognized at some stage that a foreigner can attain good output in his factory work; but in the case of the French something will be done. Gablenz, call Toennes on the phone and tell him that this is a pigsty of the worst order. But first of all we've got to try through Toennes to put the matter right. If it is not successful, then I propose that the now Heinkel Works in the East be fully staffed with Frenchmen, who will be forced to come over. If they don't work in France, well, they can work as prisoners in Poland."
Now, my first question. Who was Toennes?
A I know a Chief Engineer Toennes who later worked at Hamm. He was a member of the liaison office of the GL in Paris. But that didn't come under me. That came under Gablenz. That's the Planning Office. Otherwise I couldn't imagine who this man could be.
Q Witness, what do you know about the Heinkel Works in the East -when it was constructed and when it was completed?
A The Heinkel Works in the East was never completed. A few machines were erected. Their tooling machines and a part of the staff began to work there. There were a few engineers, I think, but this is in the territory which was continuously being upset by partisan activities. Later on because of the advance of the Russian front, it had to be abandoned. The machines were sent back; and it was never completed. But I know the plans. That's enough.
Q Witness, in July 1942 did anyone work there?
A No, that's out of the question.
Q When was there any work done for the first time, approximately?
A Well, in 1942 the plan for the construction of the works there was only just conceived by Heinkel; and the reason why the plan was conceived was because the Heinkel Works at Oranienburg and at Warmomuende had been attacked. So that it can only have been around about the middle of 1942 that the idea was conceived to construct the works in the East. That alone shows that you can't create a work like that by clapping your hands on foreign territory and it shows that the plant wasn't completed. At any rate around about that time there wasn't a single brick in its place.
Q Well; it is correct that it was only in 1943 that some people worked there?
A Yes, I can remember that the director of the Heinkel Works spoke about it and that he had considerable qualms regarding the continuous partisan activities in that territory. The plant, like a hedgehog position, had to defend itself.
Q That is enough; thank you. Witness, if Milch in 1942 said, "I am going to send these people to the Heinkel Works in the East," did the possibility exist at all at the time for this?
A No, not at all.
Q Well, then was this in your opinion a serious plan or not?
A Well, I think this was an expression such as they would call out in the heat of battle and on the basis of anger and rage.
Q Witness, I now turn to NOKW-408, Exhibit 139. There Milch is once again talking about Frenchmen; and he is saying that the proportion between French and German aircraft wasn't one to five but approximately five to one. Then he says, "I am going to shut the shop; and I'm going to have workers, and machines taking the work; and if it isn't done on a voluntary basis, I'm going to force them. Maybe I'll give them a week to think it over." Did any corresponding action occur?
A No. I said the other day that to the contrary after these initial difficulties in France, production was running rather smoothly. I described the good relationship between private industry and the defendant and described it by saying that the liaison in one works in France paid a visit to the Field Marshal in Berlin to discuss the program with him.
Q That's enough.
A But at the beginning there were difficulties; and they had to be overcome. The reason was that the French tool machines.
Q That's enough -- didn't fit outs.
A That's definitely enough.
Q Witness, in the same program Milch is speaking about Friedrichshafe; and he says: "I told Admiral Laas that he should have those come up from Friedrichshafe as soon as the first complaints were received. I'm going to have these two gentlemen, Schneider and Burger, put into concentration camps for the duration as soon as they become obstructionable; and Dr. Dornier, too, is partly responsible for this."
First of all, who were Schneider and Berger?
A These were two engineers from the Dornier Works. I don't know them personally; but the names are familiar to me from various meetings which Dr. Dornier attended.
Q Did Milch take any action against these two gentlemen?
A No, we got along with them very nicely, afterwards. It is another spontaneous statement, and I can only say again and again that we had worries, a hell of a lot of worries even at that time. You can understand from the atmosphere at the time, when he read these words, that the Field Marshal, together with myself and my collaborators were making efforts that the air armament should be a defensive armament program, and for the reason which I gave the other day, he did not succeed in doing so in view to the resistance put up by the General Staff, Goering, and eventually Hitler, to those whose reasons for desire of his to protect Germany against the attacks of the four-engine bombers of the British and Americans was not realized. These attacks resulted in increasing devastation, particularly of our air armament plants, and it was getting more and more difficult from day to day, until finally one could explode after that happened.
Q Witness, would ha have had to put these two men before a special court martial, or give special treatment,if he wanted to? He could have done it?
A He could have done it.
Q Did he do it?
A No, they did not.
Q Did he start proceedings against them?
A No, he did not. This court only dealt with cases of corruption.
Q Thank you.
A I myself was once interrogated for that.
Q Thank you. In the Exhibit No. 140, dated 4 August 1942, NOKW 409, there is talk of Frenchmen once more, He said, "I will request therefore, to be nominated as military commander, and then I'd get the group together, and I would have fifty percent of them shot, if this continues. As to the remaining 50%, I would beat them until they worked, if necessary, and if they did work I would have them shot as well, so on and so forth." Did he take any action on that?
A No action was taken, and consequently he could not have taken any action there primarily, and it was one of his routine matters, and part of which routine we used to go through the orders of the day.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you have considerably more examination?
DR. BERGOLD: Yes, I have more.
THE PRESIDENT: Then we will recess until tomorrow morning.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is in recess until 0930 hours tomorrow morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 21 March 1947 at 0930 hours.)
Official transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the Matter of the United States of America against Erhard Milch, defendant, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 21 March 1947, 0930-1700, Justice Toms presiding.
THE MARSHALL: Military Tribunal No. 2 is in session.
God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal. There will be order in the court.
MR. BERGOLD: Your honors, to begin with I would like to make a request for permission that ay secretary may collect two exhibits of the Central Planning Board from Lt. Garrett - such as we had here a few days ago. With the aid of these two copies I can prove to the court the difference between the verbatim record and the resulting executive record.
THE PRESIDENT: My switch was turned when you started -- you want your secretary to bring ...
DR. BERGOLD: Yes, that she should go to Lt. Garrett's office to have two such booklets brought here, such as were lying here two days ago, if I have the permission of the Tribunal to do so.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal is agreeable if she can arrange it with the Defense Information Center. The Tribunal is willing.
DR. BERGOLD: Thank you very much.
WOLFGANG VORWALD -- Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION - (Continued) BY DR. BERGOLD:
Q. Witness, I am coming to Exhibit 141, NOKW 412, dealing with a meeting dated 18 August 1941. Milch in this meeting deals with fluctuals and shirkers and mentions that one should discuss with Sauckel and Speer what action was to be taken with these people, and whether they should be sent into the camps administered by the SS. I have already asked you several times whether anything was actually done against these shirkers. I would like to ask you with reference to that --did anything happen?