A. No. Nothing could be done -- I didn't quite get the date.
Q. 1942.
A. 18 August 1942, because in 1941 I was not yet in my office.
Q. Witness, can you tell me why again and again this question of shirkers was being touched upon and why, apparently, an order is issued repeatedly that it should be dealt with, why there are repeated inquiries coming from the defendant?
A. Just like the Field Marshal and every one else, I was angry about these shirkers because these shirkers were people who were loafers. They were Germans who didn't want to work and they would go from one working place to the other, enjoy all the advantages, and would not carry out their work properly. And the mass -- the bulk of the German workers were working sincerely at their work --whereas these people were shirkers from their work and sometimes I felt very angry about these people.
Q. Witness, why was it that the subject came up for discussion again and again, that the defendant repeatedly went to the central camp, that this should be done?
A. Well, that is the best sign -- that nothing was actually done against it.
Q. Witness, I shall now turn to NOKW 416, Exhibit 142. It is a GL conference on 26 August 1942. Witness, on that day there was supposed to be the funeral of von Gablenz and two of his pilots. Was there on that day of Gablenz's funeral a GL meeting at all?
A. No. The funeral service for General von Gablenz and his two co-pilots in my opinion took place already at either eleven or twelve a.m. so it would not have been worth it to hold a meeting; there wasn't one on that particular day.
Q. Witness, assuming that the date of this meeting, presented in the Tribunal's report, is wrong. I should now like to discuss its contents with you. Here, too, the question of shirkers is once again discussed and a Mr. Brueckner stales that he knew that such labor camps had been established, upon which the defendant, Milch, said -- at the next conference I want to hear from you in detail as to where they have been established, who is taking care of them, and how we can transfer these honorable gentlemen who don't want to work, to these camps.
Witness, did Brueckner make such a report at any time?
A. No, I cannot remember one; that, too, would have had to go through my record department and my program department because they always compiled the program for these meetings. Brueckner made no report on that matter during any meeting.
Q. I shall now come to Exhibit 144, NOKW 286. Here we are concerned with a, conference of the 9th of September 1942, and I should like to first of all talk to you about it and then put it before you. Witness, it was during that conference that a certain Mr. Deutschmann elaborated on the fact that in front line repair shops people were deserting and Milch then said that they should have their bottoms slapped by the Russians and that they ought to get into contact with the SD, and that it would be better to slap them rather than give them anything to do -and goes on to say, "we have already drawn the attention of the Reichsfuehrer-SS to this." Who was this Mr. Deutschmann?
A. Deutschmann worked in my office. He was the man responsible for the air torpedoes and similar matters. He had nothing whenever to do with frontal repair shops and he should not have spoken about this either.
A. It is quite incomprehensible to me. He was a group chief in the Department B-7, That is the purchasing department 7 and the group which had dealt with the obtaining of aerial torpedoes.
Q. Did you ever hear at any time that this was discussed, namely, that Milch had given orders that the SD should be informed that Poles ought to be beaten?
A. No, nor can I remember exactly this particular meeting of the 9th of September during which this Deutschmann is supposed to have talked about a frontal repair shop.
DR. BERGOLD: Your Honors, let me remind you that the defendant Milch has testified that on the 9th of September a meeting hadn't taken place at all.
Q. Witness, I shall now put to you the minutes; and I should like you to look at the first page. Is the initial, the "M.A.", in the handwriting of the defendant, in your opinion?
A. No, it doesn't really look like it.
Q. Will you please turn to the following page where there is a list of participants? Does that list of participants contain the name Deutschmann at all?
A. No.
Q. Then will you please give it back to me?
A. My name, I can see, is not contained there either.
Q. Thank you. Then will you let me have it back, please?
DR. BERGOLD: Your Honors, I wish then to state that the defendant has said that there was no meeting on the 9th of September; and the witness doesn't know either that there was one. Deutschmann had nothing to do with frontal repair shops; and according to the opinion of the witness the initials in the defendant's handwriting -- I don't know whether we cannot consider them a forgery which has been manufactured somewhere.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Bergold, is it your contention then that this is a pure fabrication just made up out of whole cloth; that there never was any meeting; and that Milch didn't say this or anything else?
DR. BERGOLD: No, no, only with reference to this one of the 9th of September.
THE PRESIDENT: That's what I mean, too. Is it your contention that this -
DR. BERGOLD: Yes, that this is a forgery.
THE PRESIDENT: --That no such meeting was ever held?
DR. BERGOLD: It didn't take place, no. Deutschmann had nothing to do with this natter at all at any time.
THE PRESIDENT: Neither Deutschmann nor Milch were there?
DR. BERGOLD: Neither was present, that's right.
THE PRESIDENT: And Milch didn't say this or anything else?
DR. BERGOLD: He didn't say it, no.
THE PRESIDENT: Somebody just sat down and imagine this whole transaction?
DR. BERGOLD: That, your Honors, I don't know either, who forged it; but at any rate even the reference number at the top, ZMA, is not the defendant's, so the witness just testified. There is a similarity; but it is not accurate nor the same; and the well-known "Mi" isn't there either.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, whom do you suspect?
DR. BERGOLD: I cannot say who may have done this. It is not my habit to invent matters like that. I am merely stating that this individual record is not authentic. We are not particularly worried about one individual meeting, your Honors; but what I do consider is that what was in my hands here is not authentic, not genuine.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, there's a good deal of difference between saying that there are typographical mistakes in a report and saying that a whole report is completely imaginary and is manufactured; and that's your contention about this one, is it not?
DR. BERGOLD: Your Honors, it is my opinion that such mistakes, namely, that Milch was supposed to have been present, and that Deutschmann was supposed to have been talking about that subject at all, and that a meeting was supposed to have taken place on a day when there was no meeting, as well as that there is an initial on this which does not originate from the defendant, it is my view that these all can't simply have been errors.
But here I come to the conclusion--and of course it is merely my opinion--that here we are concerned with some sort of falsification, by whom, of course, is unknown to me.
THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE MUSMANNO): What date do you have there, Dr. Bergold?
DR. BERGOLD: 9th of September 1942. This is only the one conference of the 9th of September I'm referring to.
THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE MUSMANNO): This says September 3rd, not September 9th.
DR. BERGOLD: That's the photostatic copy. My client just tells me that on the 3rd of September there was not a GL meeting either.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Denney, the copy of this exhibit which we have indicates that the meeting was held on September 3.
MR DENNEY: There may be an error in the typing, your Honor. These papers that we have here are all from the same file that were photostated in the British Air Ministry in London; and they are in the same position as they were when they were captured.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, which date was the defendant questioned about? The 9th or the 3rd?
MR. DENNEY: I don't recall, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Judge Phillips says he was questioned about the 9th.
MR. DENNEY: I can check in the record. I believe I asked him if "ZMA" here were his initials; and he said they could be; they didn't look like them, but they could be.
THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE PHILLIPS): His answer, which I wrote down, was, "It looks like my writing; but I am not sure."
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Bergold, he referred to his diary and said that he was elsewhere on a certain date. Now, was that the 9th or the 3rd?
MR. DENNEY: Of course, we don't admit that. He never has offered his diary in evidence. He's just using it to refresh his recollection.
DR. BERGOLD: Your Honors, now I shall either have to put the defendant quickly on the witness-stand or I could make a statement to you. Anyway, he wasn't in Berlin on the 9th, nor was ho in Berlin on the 3rd of September either.
THE PRESIDENT: He is prepared to testify to that?
DR. BERGOLD: Yes, he is prepared to testify.
MR. DENNEY: If your Honor please, he was questioned about this document with reference to the 9th; and I said: "I will hand you the cover page which precedes this particular note; and look at the top there and see if you didn't put in your hand, 'ZMA' on it." Then he answered: "My name is not on there." I said, "Your name, no, but isn't that in your handwriting? Isn't that the same 'ZMA' that appears in all these other notes?" He then said: "It could be, yes." However, he is not quite sure.
DR. BERGOLD: And hero this witness now testifies that ho docs not consider it to be the defendant's handwriting. In the case of all these many documents, one doesn't matter that much, your Honors; but I am being sure that these documents can be objected to. They are not without fault.
DR. BERGOLD: Your Honor, I shall now come back once more to the question which was under discussion yesterday: that is, the difference between verbatim record or minutes, and the so-called resulting records because both were taken down, the verbatim record naturally having been taken down by the stenographer; and following that the executive records were prepared, and that one which only and alone contained the verbatim and official resolution. The difference is not that one is not an official record; the difference is that wherein the written record and those matters which are contained therein were the actual results which were to be regarded as instructions or orders, since during such meeting there was a lot of cross talking going on. One did not talk according to plan, and any one word which was used, one did not want to be tied down to. It is a better conviction for that reason that the verbatim record be prepared, this record giving it alone; and I shall now like to show you the difference of the meeting of the Central Planning Board. Unfortunately, we don't have the final record of the GL meeting, and I shall have to make an application for this later. The results of the 20th meeting of the Central Planning Board went back to the first meeting therein contained. I have chosen the 15th conference, and there we have the verbatim record of the 15th meeting, and you can see that here on these points are the results of what was discussed, and what became valid, and no names are mentioned, whether here in the verbatim record, and of the individual who made those speeches that were listed of where resolutions were passed which are on the resulting records. This is the official contents of the meeting, even if it is an official verbatim record. The official resolution and the official contents of the meeting arc only considered as only such, and I therefore want to ask the witness whether, in the case of a GL meeting only those matters were taken down in the resulting record which were no doubt the final and official resolutions on the subject. That was the object of that.
THE PRESIDENT: I think we understand just what you mean, Dr. Bergold, and it is quite usual for an official record of any meeting to be condensed, and to contain all of the conversations and comments that go on at that meeting. We are quite accustomed to that same thing.
DR BERGOLD: Yes, and Your Honor I am here to make an application to the effect that I had not the possibility to get that kind of record. If these records have been captured, then the final record, or resulting record must also be available, and they contain the official resolution which went out, and they would contain the actual action taken, and, in the name of justice I now beg this Tribunal to instruct the Prosecution with reference to the meetings which verbatim have been submitted to you, the resulting final record not being submitted, because it must be just as available as the verbatim records are. You can not think of them now in any other way, because tho words that are stated there, and because of the action, that you can judge upon him. In the final report we have the action of the defendant, and what the defendant says, and the final record as given in such order.
THE PRESIDENT: Your point is that no matter what the defendant said, that no action resulted?
DR. BERGOLD: Yes, that is right.
THE PRESIDENT: You are not attacking tho record of what he said, but only that he may have done or not done officially.
DR. BERGOLD: Your Honor, I am attacking the record that he did not carry out what he said, that it is not even certain that he said all of that.
Certainly he said a lot of nasty things, and he is not denying that, and whether it was said exactly like that in every individual case, that is not definite either. We have no course other than of certain facts of all he did and had not done, I am not denying that, nor is Mr. Milch denying it.
THE PRESIDENT: It is your contention it was a false alarm, and he let it go, and then he stopped.
DR BERGOLD: Yes, he barked then he stopped.
2315A BY DR. BERGOLD:
Q Witness, I shall now turn to Exhibit No. 146, NOKW No. 288. I refer to where the concentration comp detainees are being mentioned, and 500 concentration camp detainees who were compiled in a list by certain Herr Petersen. Witness how can you explain that "concentration camp prisoners" being compiled by Mr. Petersen? Was that correct?
A No, not by Mr. Petersen. That was an office which was in charge of concentration camp prisoners. Then when they finally came with a list of five-hundred people who would have been suitable for the work which was demanded there.
Q Just a moment. It is not correct to say that Petersen was the commanding officer there?
A. Yes, that is right, he was the commander of all provost marshall provinces.
Q Witness, is it not known to you that the concentration camp inmates were working on construction at Rechlin, at the construction of an airport?
A Yes.
Q Could you say by that for special reasons, for on experimental station, Petersen had chosen experts for the experimental list of these people?
A No, that is out of the question, no concentration camp inmates were taken for such purposes. These were secret matters, and the experiments were very secret indeed, only especially elected persons known were used.
Q Now I come to another passage. In that former exhibit of a meeting dated 19 October, I have a record which I would like to read to you in its entirety: starting with --"Von der Heyde: You are here concerned with the valuation list of the industrial enterprises which are classified into security ratings," Then -- I beg your pardon. I am afraid I talked about this already yesterday. No, I talked to the defendant about it.
I am getting old. "It concerned the valuation list of the industrial enterprises which are classified into security ratings 1, 2, and 3, thus deciding whether they should have anti-aircraft protection or not." What was his concern in this matter, witness?
2316A
A These were instructions which came from the OKW stating that there exists some disorder in the plant, and that their priority should correspond with the type of the laborers, and that such laborers be checked, to make sure that the anti-aircraft protection proscribed will be provided in such a way as to give due priority to the most important work.
Q Now let's continue. "I don't want to turn it down, but the man," that is Milch speaking, "I don't want to turn it down, but the man who submitted it is not a clover man. What these people want to do is certainly the following. The other day I talked to Himmler about it, and I told him that his main concern should be to provide protection to German industry in case of internal uprisings of the foreign workers."
A No, not at all, it docs not make sense.
Q Just a minute, then it goes on and says: "I said, that, in consideration thereof a well established method I hope should exist, and I have already given orders to the chief of AW and to the experimental stations to the effect that military training must be provided in this field."
A The Chief of the AW is the Chief of the training station, the entire training program of the pilots was under his control, and the experimental stations are those which came under the jurisdiction of my office; they came under the KDE.
Q Do you understand what these departments were to claim themselves with regard to the internal disquiet of the foreigners?
A The chief of the training system had everything to do with it, but in this country, well, that does not make sense at all.
Q Continuing: Then for instance in the locality "X" an uprising occurs a sergeant with a few men, or a lieutenant with 30 men arrives at the plant, and first of all fires into the crowd with his automatic gun with the intention of killing as many as possible.
This is the substance of the orders given even though our own foreign workers wore involved. Witness, did Milch, at any time give orders that in case of an uprising an officer should start fire into a crowd, or to take part in the matter.
2317A
A He had nothing to do with this matter, and as I recall it uprisings were dealt with by the police.
Q Then continuing: "But first of all he must succeed in laying them out flat on the ground, and then every tenth man is to be singled out and shot, while the others are lined up to watch it. If our machines and installations are being wrecked, then such measures will have to be adopted. I have told Himmler, I'll go along with you and he said, 'I want to know where the most important production plants are located.'" Now at the beginning it said, "The other day I talked with Himmler, and I told him that it would have to be up to you to take care of suck production, and now it said, I have told him I'll accompany you, "and then it goes on and says, "I can not know exactly whether that is what they want, but I presume that is meant by it. Why should they oppose that? He would get that information from Spoor anyhow. In reality, what does that have to do with aircraft production and I don't understand it at all, really I don't know what to do. It does not make sense to me." Witness, in the German language does this make logical sense?
A. No, something must be missing, or there is something which does not belong there.
Q At any rate, in the beginning it says that the plants needed anti-aircraft protection?
A Yes, that was a matter for which I am not competent. I know from our department--or from our main department that he had to cooperate in compiling this list which was completed in the Central Planning Office, but my advice with regard to the several plants was that he could not estimate the priority to be given as accurately as I could.
THE PRESIDENT: This is not so mysterious to me as it appears to be to you. The plants were threatened with uprisings among the foreign workers, which has nothing to do with plant protection. It is noted he voices some fear that there will be a riot or uprising among the foreign workers, and he proposes that if such uprising occurs he will appeal to Himmler, who commanded the SS, to put down the uprising in the manner indicated. What is mysterious about that?
DR. BERGOLD: No reasons why it should be mysterious, Mr. President, but nevertheless it is so because it does not make sense. It comes from Von der Heyde's statement regarding the anti-aircraft protection, and secondly, "I do not want to turn this matter down, but the man who submitted it is not a clover man. What these people want to do is certainly the following. The other day I talked to Himmler about it, and I told him that his main concern should be to see to it that protection is provided for the plants." Let's talk about the anti-aircraft protection. He said, "I don't want to turn this down," the anti-aircraft protection for machines. "But the man who submitted it is not a clover man," and, "You certainly ought to do this," and that he wanted to do that and he wanted antiaircraft protection, but he does not want uprisings - - that is not sensible, that is not logical. The theory is originally clear. But you are either an expert on anti-aircraft protection, or else you cannot hit anything, and he does not want to turn it down.
A Well, I don't get it at all. Quite frankly, I don't know what it is. This does not make sense to me.
Q Witness, in the German does this make logical sense?
A No. Something must be missing, or something was added which doesn't belong there.
Q At any rate, the beginning words of von der Heyde deal only with aircraft protection?
A Yes, that was a matter with which I am most conversant. I know my own department had to cooperate in compiling this list. It was completed by General von der Heyde's planning office, but he needed my advice in regard to several plants because he could not judge priority as accurately as I could.
THE PRESIDENT: This is not so mysterious to me as it appears to be to you. The plants were threatened with uprisings among the foreign workers. It hasn't anything to do with plant protection. Milch voices some fear that there will be riots or uprisings among the foreign workers, and he proposes that if such uprisings occur, he will appeal to Himmler, who commanded the SS, to put down the uprisings in the manner indicated. What is mysterious about that?
DR. BERGOLD: No. The reason why this is so mysterious, Mr. President, is that it does not make sense. It starts with von der Heyde's statement regarding anti-aircraft protection. Milch says, "I don't want to turn this matter down. The man who submitted this is not clover." No wants to say they don't want antiaircraft protection but protection against uprisings. That is not sensible. That is not logical. The first is so abundantly clear to every expert that he could not hit upon the idea of saying, "I don't want to turn it down. These people obviously want to do this and that." It does not have any internal connection or logic. It is bound to be wrong. At the end he says, "I can't know for certain whether this is it, but I assume that we are concerned with the matter."
All of this is not logically connected. According to the laws of logic, it does not make sense. Somehow this had been inserted somewhere else. Some one else may at that moment have said 2320-A something, but whether this comes from Milch or from whom this passage does originate and who has interpolated it at this point -that is something one cannot say.
Your honors, you can sentence a man on the basis of written statements only if these written statements are clear in themselves, This passage in its present form cannot have been said, because it is full of contradictions. There are two separate portions. One is uprisings, and one is anti-aircraft protection. Somehow they became mixed up but it is impossible to say who disarranged these parts. Originally, it started with antiaircraft protection, and then it deals with something quite different. You have heard from tie witnesses that 30 people were there and that the stenographer quite often could not see who had been talking.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there anything strange in Milch changing the subject? Is there anything strange that he talked about two different things?
DR. BERGOLD: No, but the reason why this is peculiar is that the introductory words in German -- According to German linguistic habits, you cannot change the subject like that. Every language has laws which you can break only if you are an imbecile or if you are exceptionally stupid, and if this man says, "I don't want to turn it down -- the anti-aircraft protection -The man who has put it before us is not clover. These people certainly want to do the following." These are the people who suggested anti-airraid precautions, and something has to follow which deals with air raid precautions, but what does follow is, "I talked to Himmler about it the other day." That is so madly stupid in the German language that it does not make sense at all.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, at the risk of being stupid in the English language, I should like to change the subject too and ask the witness what he understands by the word "Betekuden".A. "Betekuden", that was an expression which was used for some motley crowd of people.
THE PRESIDENT: It does not mean "negroes", does it?
A. No, no.
2321-A Dr. Bergold:
Originally, your Honor, it was a negro tribe.
THE PRESIDENT: There were no negroes working for the Germans, were there?
DR: Bergold: No. A mothley crowd of people.
THE PRESIDENT: A mob.
DR. Bergold: In the case of soldiers, when new recruits loafed about and were standing around stupidly, an officer would come up and yell at them, "You're standing around like Botekunden.". It is a German military expression.
BY DR. Bergold: Q. Witness, in a meeting of 18 January 1944 which has the same NoKW and Exhibit Number, there is talk about fluctuations once again and also about the fact that people were being lost throught this. Then Milich states, "Then you, Verwald, have to exert pressure, and likewise the KDE has the same principle that this has, that must not happen again. There is still enough work left which has to be done, and I would be thankful if Department VI would support me as well.". Does this mean that you had to restrict work if these workers were missing.
A. This is incomprehensible to me. May I read It?
Q. Yes, certainly.
A. Yes, now I understand. I had to read it first. Now It becomes clear. It deals with the entire system of changes. The changes in our case played an important part. Changes aggravated the manufacturing process in industry immensely, since tools and moving bolts were subject to continuous changes which made even production of aircraft and equipment impossible. This is the origin of the expression, "Then you should exert pressure and say that this or that may no longer be done, meaning that these changes demanded by the General Staff or the troops through the General Staff must cease so that production could continue.
*2322* smoothly.