Q You don't know, I see. You were talking about Englishmen too?
A Yes.
Q How long were these Englishmen with you?
A They were there for eight months at Gussen.
Q Were they prisoners of war?
A They were listed as prisoners of war.
Q Why did they go to a concentration camp, do you know that?
A I am not absolutely certain, but there were rumors they would run away.
Q Witness, you were saying that there were inspections?
A Yes, that is correct, regularly.
Q Were there inspections taken on finished products?
A No. Another commission came separately, and a certain Captain Frank from Regensburg was ahead of them.
Q And at these inspections, what did they inspect?
A They were mainly interested in raising the production, and getting more stuff out of the camp.
Q Did you talk to any members of this inspection group?
A No, not before the trial -- before the collapse. In November 1944, I was confronted during a conference when such an inspection took place.
Q But did any detainees from the camp talk to these inspectors?
A No, they did not have a chance.
Q I don't quite understand the expression, "They did not have a chance."
A They did not get in touch with these inspection parties.
Q So the inspection party did not come to the detainees?
A They went through the camp, but no detainee would have dared to accost an official of the party, or an inspector.
Q So you did not raise any complaint to any such inspecting official?
A No, we could not and we were not allowed to do that.
Q. Did you ever see the former Fieldmarshal Milch, who is sitting at the far end of this bench, during such inspection?
A. No.
2370 a
Q. About how far was Gussen I and II away from Mauthausen?
A. That is the next place from Mauthausen, which was ten or twelve kilometers.
Q. Ten or twelve kilometers, I see. Was that where you slept at Gussen or did you sleep at Mauthausen?
A. I slept at GussenI, Gussen I and II, first, usually Gussen I where the ME-109 was being produced, and later this subterranean factory was built and was established near Gussen II, and it was all a part of Mauthausen. The mother camp was Mauthausen.
Q. Where were those motors that you were talking about at?
A. The one I am talking about now?
Q. These places of work I mean? At Mauthausen?
A. No. The bunch you were talking about, they were at Gussen I and II.
Q. Were they in factories outside?
A. They were outside, factories of that camp.
Q. In which camp was that, a special camp?
A. There was a special camp for that.
Q. You said that you had been beaten?
A. Yes.
Q. Who beat you?
A. I can say with my regrets that the civilians were later on worse than the SS people; that is the Regensburg civilians coming from the ME-109 works in Regensburg, and also the foremen coming from the camp.
Q. When did they come, the foremen?
A. These foremen arrived when the production increased in the concentration camp.
Q. And they went inside the camp?
A. They were living in barracks outside the camps.
Q. Until 1942 you worked in the quarry, you said?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How many hours did you have to work there a day?
A. We had to work eight to ten hours a day, working for the Reichs Party.
2371 a Rally, for which I had to break up stones.
Q. You mean, the "Schwarzbide"?
A. Yes.
Q. Well, that was really heavy work, wasn't it?
A. Yes, we worked with heavy sledge hammers all day in breaking up stones. You can imagine what that meant, too, with this nourishment can't you.
Q. Then the work at Mauthausen, apart from its duration, was that heavier than the factory or quarry work?
A. Normally speaking under normal circumstances.
Q. You can really apply it to any type of work, can you?
A. No.
Q. And what work did you do at Gussen?
A. At Gussen I and II I was in the quarry, when they would blast the stones, and they were loaded into a truck and taken to the stone mason barracks.
Q. I am talking about Gussen?
A. We were working in the ME-109, and later on we were making wings, as well as working on the moving belt.
Q. This work would normally be carried out elsewhere, wouldn't it?
A. Yes, but under much different living conditions.
Q. But it was normal factory work, actually?
A. Actually, yes.
Q. You said you had Swedes working with you?
A. Yes, Swedes and some Swiss were also here.
Q. Swiss?
A. Yes, I remember we had a lot of Swiss.
Q. How did they happen to come into a concentration camp?
A. That I can not tell you. They were political detainees.
Q. Were they not common citizens?
A. I cannot imagine that but a lot of them were in the concentration camp nevertheless.
Q. But the Swedes and Swiss had not been occupied by our victorious armies.
A. Yes, but they were in our concentration camp, some were block clerks and some were just working as Swiss and Swedes.
Q. You said "block clerks" in the plant. They were supervisors and in the personnel, is that right?
A. No, they had this administrative work, which they did.
DR. BERGOLD: Thank you, very much.
THE PRESIDENT: Were you ever taken before a court, or given a hearing before being sent to a concentration camp.
THE WITNESS: No, simply arrested by the Gestapo.
Q. You were simply arrested by the Gestapo, and the next thing that happened, you were in the concentration camp?
A. Yes, and the reason given was political, re-schooling.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, that is as good as any indication.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: What was the state of your health prior to your concentration camp experience?
A. All I can say now is that I suffer from TB, and I am being medically treated, and this is what those five years did to me.
Q. What was your condition before going to the concentration camp?
A. I was active in sports, and I was a long distance runner. I can say my lungs were not affected at all.
Q. You now are impeded in the normal enjoyments of life because of this infliction?
A. Yes, without a question.
Q. What was the exact nature of the deed which you committed, which brought to you your commitment to the concentration camp?
A. It was a statement of a free opinion. Of course, I did not know that it would be interpreted the way it was.
Q. Was it confined entirely to an oral utterance?
A. Yes, not in a general question, it was a detailed statement I never thought in a discussion like that could lead to imprisonment in a concentration camp.
Q. Had you taken up any physical opposition to the regime?
A. That is a difficult question to answer. During my last life abroad in 1938 I had a lot of friends abroad, having been educated in Switzerland, and it is natural, of course, that you would hear a great deal, and then coming back to Germany you checked up, and one would try again and again to talk to people and to hear their opinions, too.
Q. Then your offense was talking?
A. Yes.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q We are wondering what it was that you said that caused you to be sent to prison.
A. First of all, in 1940, I was of the opinion and made the statement having come back from Berlin, that if American entered the war, we would lose it. I knew that, on the other hand, the South Eastern Army was being put together in Munich, and I was having my private doubts about that too. In connection with that, I spoke to one or another of my comrades about that, not knowing that one would go along and report everything to the Gestapo.
Q. What did you say to your friends in Munich about the military situation?
A. Until 1940 there was not much to say. We were always advancing. The Germany army was always advancing. Set-backs did not occur until the time I was in prison.
Q. Well, then, first you said that it was your opinion that when America entered the war, that would be decisive against Germany?
A. Yes, and conditions in Europe were coming to such a critical pitch that one day America would have to enter the war.
Q. Well, did you in your talk advocate overthrowing the German government?
A. No.
Q. It does not seem that you said anything serious enough to be sent to a concentration camp. Was there anything else that you said?
A. No, but if, for instance, you believed and said that Germany might lose the war, that was enough to be taken to a concentration camp or at least to go to a concentration camp for a length of time.
Apart from that, you must add in my case that later on I was speaking about that I was having qualms about metal alloys which in 1940 were not as good as they should have been in order to manufacture first line aircraft.
Q Well, you see, when you expressed the opinion that Germany was about to lose the war, you should have been a field marshal. Then nothing would have happened to you.
A That is something I don't know about.
Q No.
THE PRESIDENT: Any other questions?
MR. DENNEY: No further questions, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness may be excused.
(The witness was excused.)
MR. DENNEY: We have nothing further, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean that concludes the Prosecution's proof?
MR. DENNEY: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you anything further, Dr. Bergold?
DR. BERGOLD: No.
THE PRESIDENT: At 2:49 proofs are concluded. On Tuesday morning at 9:30 Counsel will be prepared to sum up. No shall recess until that time.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is in recess until 0930 hours, Tuesday, 25 March.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 0930 hours, 25 March 1947.)
Official transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America against Erhard Milch, defendant, sitting at Nuernberg, Germany, on 25 March 1947, 0930 hours, Justice Toms presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats. The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal 2. Military Tribunal 2 is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal. There will be order in the courtroom.
DR. BERGOLD: May it please the Tribunal. In my opening statement I drew a picture of the defendant Milch which differs considerably from the description given by the prosecution. It is my hope that in the long course of producing evidence I have given proof that my conception that I have taken is as full truth.
According to the testimony of the witness Richter, the affidavit of the witness Von Mueller, and according to the defendant Milch's own testimony, nobody can doubt that Milch has never been a good National Socialist. His love for peace and his longing for a final understanding between the nations of Europe, especially between Belgium, France, England, and Germany, became completely obvious. No one who believes in justice would refuse to believe him if he states that he regarded the war as a misfortune. He was also one of the few intelligent men to admit Germany's defeat in the First World War. There was no proof applied first in any way prior to 1933 that he supported any armaments. His testimony and military affidavit from Von Mueller have shown under his management the Luftwaffe was always a peaceful instrument of communication among the nations. It is to be regarded that the examination of foreign politicians, such as Van Zeeland, Pierre Cot, and Von Delbos, had not been permitted, because only then the personality of Milch would have been shown in its true light. He must have been a peaceful and just man; otherwise, all these statesmen would not have had confidence in him. Even the witness delegate Messerschmidt, whose affidavit Document 1960-PS was introduced in the International Military Tribunal proceedings, affirmed that Milch condemned the coercive methods of the Nazis. He was different from the other Party members, that after 1937 he lost Goering's confidence.
At that time he asked to be allowed to retire but in spite of threat of suicide could not obtain that.
Such a man of such a past must be believed when he testified that even in 1939 he had no knowledge of Hitler's aggressive intentions. Milch had misgivings about Hitler because he regarded that measure taken against Czechoslovakia as a breach of peace, and he was sufficiently intelligent to see that Britain would no longer tolerate such violations. Hitler was dishonest with him and always introduced his intentions for peace known to him, even forbidding him the manufacture of bombs. The defendant never requested the manufacture of bombs because he intended to lead a war of offense, but only therefore because he was convinced that England, having the understanding of the international situation, would fight against the Nazi regime.
Up to that time, Your Honor, nobody can find any inconsistency in the defendant's outlook. It was no offense if he requested the Wehrmacht for his country to fight the world's conflict, and therefore for that reason he favored a rearmament, and as long as all nations were peaceminded and maintained armies, Germany had the right to maintain armed forces as well. I beg you to remember that the defendant demanded from his superiors that rearmament should be effected in a slow and reasonable manner and that he had a difference in that respect.
It was not without reason, Your Honor, I repeat that. Only for one to keep all these things in mind will it be possible to judge whether or not the defendant's statement regarding the conference of 23 May 1939 is correct. A man who loves peace and works for peace was present at that conference and states today, or testified that his speech in question did not contain any mention of aggressive way against Poland or any other country. He even testified in this courtroom that this speech did not have the contents as it is laid down in the Schmundt Protocol.
I realize that the International Military Tribunal came to the con clusion that the Schmundt Protocol is correct.
All defendants and witnesses which were heard at that time declared that the contents of the speech were not of so aggressive a nature as it is laid down in the minutes. The defense counsel made a mistake at that time of not calling all the witnesses which I requested. Nobody went to the trouble of critically examining the text of the record. I can already understand why the IMT reached a different conclusion, having heard the defendant's general objection, which remained unsubstantiated in detail. Nowhere has it yet been permissible in law to maintain the verdict of the previous court although new and better evidence has been given.
The witnesses Warlimont, Schniewindt, Engel, and Raeder stated that several passages of the Schmundt record contained a number of false assertions regarding Hitler's words. Warlimont testified that he was not present, although he is listed as among those present. Milch's testimony made it absolutely correct that Goering was not present. If there were only so few persons present and there were mistakes made concerning the presence of persons, the record must have been made up a long time after the event, because no faults of that kind would have been feasible. Schniewindt testified that a number of points contained in the Schmundt record were never discussed at that time at all. He had the opinion that many ideas laid down in the record were born out at a later period, that is to say, 1940. These ideas concerned for example the use which could be made of war production, after the defeat of France, the importance of aircraft carriers for convoys, the collaboration of Italy, and the break through the Maginot Line by this force, about Japan; last but not least, the so-called Fuehrer decree. By the statement of Felmys it is proved forever that the so-called Fuehrer order was given only on 12 December 1940. Even Raeder stated that the principles of the Fuehrer order were laid down at another occasion and that they were accordingly carried out afterwards. This other occasion was stated by the statement of Felmys. Also Raeder did not hear anything about Japan; he considered it impossible that Italy and the break through the Maginot Line were dis cussed and he also states that nobody mentioned a better production of cruisers.
He also testified that in that meeting a two-front war was not mentioned, because he as an officer would have noticed that. Furthermore, he testified that Belgium and Holland were not referred to and that after the speech Goering did not open a debate. Even though the witness was not present at all times, it is rather strange that he should not have heard mention of any of the very points not heard either by the other witnesses. The defendant Milch gave you the precise details of those points of the speech which were not mentioned at the time, and he was even in a position to tell you when these various points were first conceived.
Who, taking his responsibility with justice, can still seriously keep up the findings of the IMT now that these precise statements have shown us the errors of the Schmundt record. A record containing so many grave mistakes is no longer of probitive value and can never be made the basis for any judgment. I am convinced that after this trial the historians of the whole world will regard the Schumdt record as the product of a later period; i.e., between the fall of 1940 and the Spring of 1941 and that they will regard it as the result of time, drawn up to make Hitler, then regarded as the victor, seem possessed of a prophetic gift which in reality he never had.
The conference did take place on 23 May 1939; that is true. It's real topics, however, can no longer be stated on the basis of the Schmundt record. Thus, the statements made in the first Nurnberg trial gain a different and greater significance. Never again, therefore, will it be possible for anyone to say that on that occasion Hitler preached war and the enslavement of Europeans.
There is yet another argument possible against this record, which, it is alleged, also contains the plan for slave labor.
Document EC-109, Exhibit 8, and 016-PS, Exhibit 13, submitted by the Prosecution, show in all clarity the use of European peoples in German armament works was a measure forced by the emergencies of the war and that the idea was born and realized only by the military difficulties resulting from the war with Russia.
With clean hands and a pure heart, Milch entered the war in August 1939, having previously advised Goering to fly to Britain to avoid the war. He himself became the victim of Hitler's deception, and he himself believed that the war had been forced upon Hitler. Who can disregard justice to such an extent as to reproach Milch with having held that belief? It is his misfortune, but not his guilt, to have been deflected from the truth by misleading propaganda. Who would so misinterpret patriotism, heretofore regarded as one of man's noblest instincts, as to reproach Milch for having done in 1939 his duty as a soldier?
He had never prepared any aggressive wars. In every case he was informed shortly before the event, and nothing is more typical of the opinion his superiors held of him than the fact that he chanced to hear about the preparations for the war against Russia through a subordinate, who in turn had been told of Hitler's' plan before the Field Marshal was told. The first Nurnberg trial has already shown that Milch saw Goering at once in an effort to prevent that war. Goering himself admitted this. Milch's good intentions were of no avail because Goering turned him down. As Milch's superior officer, he even went so far as to forbid Milch to see Hitler and to tell him that he, Goering, would prevent Milch from being admitted to Hitler's presence.
One of Your Honors, in putting questions to the defendant, aimed to show that it might be regarded as incriminating to the defendant that he did not resign in 1941 or at least in 1943.
Your Honors, only if one has lived in Germany these last years is it possible truly to judge that problem. As I said in my opening speech, one can judge the man only against his background, through his upbringing, from which usually nobody can escape, no matter in what country he lives. Milch was brought up as a soldier. He absorbed ideas which for centuries were regarded as true and inviolate laws. It is not blamed for not having freed himself from them. I have said this once before.
At that time nobody in Germany was in a position to protest against certain events, against certain aims of the Party. All that one could do was to criticize things within one's own immediate circle and tell one's intimate collaborators how to improve matters. If in Germany anybody had attempted at any time to express criticism publicly, either by word or by publicly resigning, nobody would have been the wiser for it. This system was so ruthless and its stranglehold over public opinion so great, that it would and could suppress anything.
You need only remember that during the first IMT trial it was shown that von Papen's criticism in his Marburg speech was completely withheld from the German public. Had Milch done anything, nobody would have heard about it, and his action would have been useless, perhaps senseless, as nothing would have been changed for the better. Your Honors may not know that six to eight generals, including General von Falkenhausen, once commander in chief in Belgium, and Colonel General Halder, one of Germany's highest and best leaders, were thrown into concentration camps because they had deviated from Hitler's line. This is not connected with 20 July 1944.
Nobody in Germany knew about this. Pictures of General Count Spohneck were sold as a here two years after this man had vanished into a concentration camp. Such were the lies and the deceptions of Goebbels' propaganda. We have learned since the end of the war that prior to 20 July 1944 there were 50 to 60 generals in Moabit prison, without anyone in Germany knowing anything about that. You will understand the full falsehood of propaganda when you recall the base distortions by which the dismissals of Generals von Blomberg and von Fritsche were announced to the German public.
Believe me, Your Honors, protests in Germany were not possible at that time. The only result would have been the futile death of the protesting person. If Milch had attempted to fly abroad, his whole family -- such were the detestable methods of those in power - would have been put to death on the basis of what was known as Family Responsibility.
Now can Milch be reproached with not having refused service and allegiance. No soldier could do this. Should an member of the Anglo-U.S. Air Forces suddenly have refused to go out on an operation which would bring death to innocent women and children, he would not have been regarded as a here. He would have been put before a courtmartial.
You would have accused Milch of not having participated in an attempt on Hitler's life. Although he was an energetic man, the defendant, was, because of several concussions of the brain which he suffered, inclined to terrifying fits of rage, or ranting speeches, but they have showed that in his heart of hearts he was kind and soft. Sentences passed he would ameliorate, and as the witness Richter testified he made up the fine which he inflicted himself by secretly passing to the family of the punished man a very large sum of money, larger than the fine itself. The witness Vorwald expressly stated that basically Milch was a man soft of heart who conducted himself as softhearted people would. He whose character is basically soft, who only in a rage caused by disease and worry utters harsh words, never followed by action, is not capable of murder. Thus, no just man will blame him for not having liquidated Hitler, and Milch did what in his conscience he felt to be possible and necessary. He had the courage of telling the dictator to his face what he thought of the situation. He demanded Hitler to desist from his plans, to dismiss the most important man, such as Goering, Ribbentrop and Keitel, to give up the supreme command and establish a cabinet of equal powers, and he finally desired that peace should be brought about.
Your Honors, it would be easy to say that as a Field Marshal he did not thereby endanger himself. The statement of the next witness Krysiak, the fate of the generals which I mentioned to you, show what was done in Germany to men who did such things, but the defendant went one step further. He succeeded in inducing Goering also to demand the end of the dictatorship and the instituting of a Reich cabinet. Your Honors, this means that this defendant thereby risked his life. He could not foresee that nothing would happen to him. That nothing did happen to him was not due to his rank, but to Hitler's opinion to the effect that this man was not yet dispensable. Everybody can only be sentenced according to his potentialities. Your Honors must not compare conditions in your free and noble country to those in Germany. Only the German world as it then was should be the basis of your judgment here.
It is not true to say that Milch gave his continued support to the objectionable aims of the party. He continued to do his duty because as he testified 2385-A he wished to prevent the worst from happening to his people, the total destruction of the cities and of Germany's cultures.
It was his constant hope to organize the defense in such manner as to prevent bombing warfare from taking its full effect, that same bombing warfare which is the scourge of mankind, whatever one may think of its military value. Would it be for us to judge him in view of the fact that he did not obtain his aim because of the stupidity and failings of his superiors? Milch furthermore testified before you that by an improved defense he hoped to obtain better peace terms for his people. I can assure your Honors that since 1941 the Goebbels' propaganda told the German people time and again the horrible terms the enemy would impose on them in the event of peace. That included an item to the effect that the whole of the German male population would be castrated, should Germany lose the war, so that the German people would perish. Who has the courage to say that it is despicable for a man of battle to organize a defensive system under the news impact of such items in order to obtain better peace terms?
It would be a distortion that Milch thus believed Hitler's aim of destroying Europe for he knew that the war had been lost. He was intelligent enough to see that with the lost war the end of Hitler's ideology would come. It was not the party he wanted to serve when he hoped for loss severe peace terms as a result of a better defense, but he hoped for a lost war that would not mean the loss of the legal rights of a whole nation as is the case unhappilly today. Only he who comprehends and understands all these things can appreciate Milch's action and judge them fairly. And subsequently, when he saw that his objective of saving the German people from the world would fail, Milch withdrew from the regime. He could not resign of his own volition . That was an impossibility for a soldier in Germany. He did not choose to act dishonorably, which no one can expect from a decent man. In Germany, soldiers are removed from their offices only by their superiors. Thus, as he put it himself, Milch could only organize his own elimination from office by gradually transferring his task to Speer's ministry. As his superiors thereupon regarded him as superfluous and were glad to be rid of this man, Milch was finally free. Then began the scheme on the part of his superiors to liquidate him.