In addition to its jurisdiction over fighter production, the Jaegerstab was charged with the program for the decentralization of the German aircraft industry, both to above ground bombproof installations and to subterranean locations. Much of the labor employed in both chases of the project was concentration camp labor. The defendant must have known this fact.
One phase, the transfer to new installations under ground, was under the immediate supervision of SS Gruppenfuehrer Heinz Kammler. Kammler was a member of the Jaegerstab. Where, as was the case in some instances, labor was not forthcoming in sufficient quantity, Kammler informed the Jaegerstab of his intention to take large numbers of persons into protective custody for use on his projects. Members of the Jaegerstab knew that manpower shortages on the construction projects were at least in part due to the high death rate. The conditions of employment on the projects have not been substantially disputed. The Jaegerstab was well informed of these conditions. While on trips with the Jaegerstab, Kammler visited these projects and his fellow members of the Jaegerstab were well advised as to the manner in which workers employed on them were treated. Where it was necessary to hand thirty people merely as an example to others, Kammler reported this fact to the Jaegerstab.
A second phase of the program, the transfer of fighter production to bombproof factories above ground, was carried out for the Jaegerstab by Stobbe-Dethleffson and later Xavier Dorsch. While Stobbe-Dethleffson and Dorsch were immediately in charge, it was the Jaegerstab which received the funds and raw materials necessary for the carrying out of this project. When sufficient progress had not been made under Stobb-Detbleffson, the Jaegerstab demanded that Dorsch carry out this program. The defendant was a leader in the planning which preceded Borsch's appointment.
By the testimony of Dorsch, Milch was one of a small group present at Goering's at which details of the project were worked out, including the question of manpower. Dorsch was represented on the Jaegerstab by Schlempp, and later Knipping, deputies designated for this particular purpose.
Schlempp informed the Jaegerstab on the progress of the work, bot orally and in writing. Dorsch received manpower from the Jaegerstab, This was the immediate concern of Schmelter.
Early in April 1944 the defendant represented the Jaegerstab at conferences with Hitler where the decision was first taken to carry out deportations. Shortly thereafter, the defendant received written confirmation of the results of this conference, as did Himmler, who was to procure the workers. Progress reports were made and delivery dates agreed upon. Then came the disappointing news that the first transports arriving at Auschwitz consisted primarily of old men, women, and children. Later on there were reports as to the successful allocation of this personnel. The testimony of Dorsch shows that these Jews were used on the construction projects, that the conditions under which they lived were intolerable, and that the death rate on the project was excessive.
In closing this phase of the case, it is submitted that the defendant never resigned from the Jaegerstab. While it is true that the defendant at Goering's behest was removed from certain offices in the Air Ministry in the summer of 1944, he retained his membership in the Jaegerstab until its dissolution, the prosecution contends.
As Generalluftzeugmeister, the defendant had complete control over aircraft production. In this field his authority was unlimited. In particular it has been shown that the defendant requisitioned labor for the aircraft industry with knowledge of the brutal and inhumane techniques employed in recruiting those laborers and that he gave directives for the criminal treatment of these laborers at the centers of production.
There is evidence that the defendant presented the labor demands of the aircraft industry to Sauckel. The Tribunal will recall that in his affidavit Sauckel stated that it was the defendant who produced the manpower figures for aviation. In view of the position occupied by Sauckel in the slave labor program, this statement is of special importance.
The statement of Sauckel is in agreement with the statements of Hermann Goering, the defendant's superior in the Luftwaffe. In his inter rogation the former Reich Marshal stated that the defendant was in charge of the division for labor employment in the Air Ministry and that the industry demands for labor in air armament were made by the defendant.
Even the defendant's collaborator Albert Speer testified to the same effect when he stated:
"The requests cf the air armament industry for laborers were presented by Milch and he did not permit anyone to take this right away from him until March 1944."
The defendant as Generalluftzeugmeister was acquainted with the methods employed in recruiting this manpower. In fact, many of the practices indulged in by Sauckel were formulated at conferences at which the defendant was in attendance. The Tribunal will recall that the defendant was present at a conference in which Goering announced his plan to use the Luftwaffe in the recruitment drive to capture laborers in Holland. The Tribunal's attention is also drawn to the Generalluftzeugmeister meeting of 25 January 1944 in which methods for the more expeditious deportation of young Czechs for work in the Luftwaffe were discussed.
The defendant also knew that prisoners cf war and concentration camp personnel were included in the manpower he was requisitioning and distributing to the aircraft industry. We have seen him trying to increase their numbers in the industry under his control, and we have seen him ordering and abetting the inhumane treatment of this labor.
As chief of aircraft production, the defendant regulated the treatment of foreign forced labor in the German aircraft industry. The defendant fixed hours of labor and conditions of work and by directives to his subordinates set basic policies for the handling of this labor within the industry.
Where foreign workers refused to work the defendant ordered that they be shot. When these wretched slaves attempted to revolt, the defendant directed that some of their numbers be killed, regardless of personal guilt or innocence. In the case of prisoners of war who attempted to escape, the defendant ordered that they be shot.
When the "contracts" of workers under his control expired, the defendant ordered their compulsory extension, and when workers attempted to change jobs, he advocated that they be put in concentration camps.
In the case of Italians who refused to work, the defendant ordered that they be beaten end so informed his chief, Goering. And where French men refused to work in French factories under his control, the defendant stated that he would deport them by force and bring them to Germany or to the East. Similar policies were applied by the defendant in the case of Polish workers.
No more need he said about the Generalluftzeugmeister. The Tribunal has seen the documents detailing the minutes of their meetings. The documents dealing with this phase of the case are particularly revealing in showing the fanaticism of the defendant and the enthusiasm with which he recommended ruthless treatment of the hapless victims of German occupation policies.
We will now restate the pattern originally presented in terms of the proof brought forward at the trial in order to ascertain to what extent the defendant's culpability has been established with reference to the medical phase.
First, the body of the crime. The prosecution contends that in violation of the laws of war and all the laws of humanity criminal high altitude and freezing experiments were carried on by Luftwaffe physicians.
The testimony of Dr. Erich Hippke, the medical Inspector of the Luftwaffe, is of interest on this subject. Hippke stated that Dr. Rascher, a Luftwaffe physician at the time, came to Hippke with a proposal to use prisoners as high altitude experimental subjects in May 1941.
Hippke was in a receptive frame of mind for it was essential that the scope of these experiments he widened and new human subjects were needed. The researchers working on the tests had developed a certain immunity so that results of self-experimentation did not give a true picture of the reactions.
With the aid of Himmler and the SS the Luftwaffe was able to proceed with the experiments which were allegedly necessary in the interests of German military aviation medical knowledge.
But lest one be inclined to believe that these pressure experiments were considered as minor nuisances to the subjects concerned, with no real dangers, note the words of Dr. Hippke:
"I asked him," speaking of Rascher, "how he would be able to obtain such persons for experimentation, and he justified himself by saying that he had connections with the SS who had charge of such penal Prisoners. There were such penal prisoners in Dachau and he would be in a positron to obtain them for these purposes. I myself, because of my inner personal feelings on the matter, was very much against these experiments and could not make up my mind whether I should approve such experimentation."
From the very beginning of the plan to conduct these experiments Dr. Hippke had strong mental reservations concerning the moral principles involved in the task which the Luftwaffe doctors were about to undertake. During the coming year Hippke weighed the problem, and it was with sime misgiving that he finally allowed his doctors to begin the experiments, saying to then: "Please, children, go carefully."
But, tragically enough, his "children" did not go carefully. Instead, they ran amuck with their scientific apparatus and tests. The pressure experiments which were supposed to have been helpful to fliers of the Luftwaffe degenerated into so-called "X-experiments", which meant "execution" experiments.
Seventy to eighty persons were murdered during the spring and summer of 1942 when the pressure experiments were carried on at Dachau.
During the subsequent freezing experiments a comparable number of concentration camp inmates forfeited their lives to the sadistic Dr. Rascher and his Luftwaffe associates.
Dr. Romberg himself admits having seen three persons die in the low pressure chamber mud concedes that at least nine other deaths nay well have occurred when he was absent from his post at Dachau.
Wolfram Sievers, the manager of the Ahnenerbe, the SS Research Institute, witnessed the death of an experimental subject in the freezing tank.
There is adequate evidence that the low pressure and freezing experiments were carried out by Luftwaffe physicians for the benefit of the Luftwaffe. There has been no valid denial of the fact that the defendant was the Luftwaffe official responsible for the deaths and cruelties suffered in these twin torture chambers, the pressure chamber and the freezing tank.
Now, let us examine in more detail the second basic charge of the prosecution, viz., that the defendant was officially connected with these experiments which violated the laws of war and humanity.
We have the "Wolffy" letter of 20 May 1942 in which the defendant tells Obergruppenfuehrer Wolff of the SS that "the altitude experiments carried out by the SS and the Luftwaffe at Dachau have been finished." In this same letter Milch announces that experiments in connection with perils on the high seas would be important; that the necessary arrangements have been made and, since the low pressure chamber is no longer needed, it must be moved from Dachau. Thus the defendant has entered the picture and established his official correction with the high altitude experiments end the low temperature experiments, which proved to be considerable more then mere harmless chilling tests.
If, as the defendant contends, he was not officially responsible for these Luftwaffe medical experiments, then it should follow that other Persons connected with them would not take cognizance of the defendant in this matter. The contention is ridiculous.
The witness Wolff had the following to say regarding a meeting he had With Milch in August or September 1942:
"Thereafter, we had discussed our official questions. I inquired about how he was and if everything between the Luftwaffe end the SS was all right. During that occasion we also spoke about these experiments very shortly, if at all, and we spoke of the invaluable help which the SS was giving us by providing these voluntary inmates, which was helping us with our medical material and which could be used at the front."
It is to be noted that they talked about the experiments and Wolff asked how the Luftwaffe-SS relations were. It is submitted that this demonstrates that Wolff regarded the defendant as the top man in the Luftwaffe medical experiments program, as indeed he was.
Then there are the two letters addressed to Milch by Himmler and Wolff, substantially alike in content. Himmler's, dated November 1942, in which he cites the opposition that exists among "Christian medical circles" to conducting experiments on helpless, involuntary concentration camp inmates. He refers to the narrow-mindedness of such medical men, which "will take at least another ten years" to remove. But this narrowmindedness did not trouble the consciences of Himmler or the defendant Milch. Decidedly not. In the words of the Reich Fuehrer SS: "We two should not get angry about these difficulties."
The prosecution submits that Himmler would not have written a letter in this tenor unless he was certain that his good friend Milch would be in complete agreement with his views.
And how did Himmler regard Milch in connection with the experiments? As a casual on-looker, with a purely academic interest in the results obtained? No, Himmler knew that Milch possessed the overall command, the ultimate authority in the Luftwaffe; that the Inspector General of the Luftwaffe was the man to refer to whenever a question arose as to the disposition of the pressure chamber or the status of Dr. Rascher. Witness Himmler's request in his letter:
"I beg you to release Dr. Rascher, Stabsarzt in reserve, from the Air Force and to transfer him to me to the Waffen SS. I would then assume the sole responsibility for having these experiments made in this field and would out the results, which we in the SS need only for the frost injuries in the Last, entirely at the disposal of the Air Force."
The logical corollary to this statement is inescapable. If Rascher was not transferred to the SS and remained with the Air Force, the responsibility would not be Himmler's alone. And we must remember that Rascher did not leave his Luftwaffe post until the year 1943 after the experimental atrocities had been largely completed. Then where did this responsibility rest? Himmler had not doubts, it was on the shoulders of the defendant Nor did Karl WOLFF, HIMMLER's right hand man, have any doubts as to the responsible person in the Luftwaffe, with reference to the medical experiments.
He, too, wrote to MILCH requesting that RASCHER be released from the Luftwaffe and transferred to the SS. Here was a man, who, by his own testimony, "had a good comradely relationship" with the defendant. On the direct examination, WOLFE testified regarding his connection with MILCH:
"Q. In your position during the war did you have any official dealings with Mr. MILCH?
"A. Yes.
Q. In what connection?
A. During peacetime --that is, from 1933 on, until 1939 -there was a personal cooperation between MILCH and me. All difficulties between the Luftwaffe and the SS were handled at personal conferences in a very comradely way. This usage also took place during the war."
It is because of the situation above described, that the prosecution has called WOLFF the liaison man between HELLER and the SS on the one hand, and defendant and the Luftwaffe, on the other.
The testimony and affidavit of Walter NEFF, the Dachau prisoner who later became a Block Leader in Dachau, is of interest. This man saw RASCHER often. Was MILCH's name mentioned by RASCHER in connection with the medical experiments? It was. In his affidavit, which he did not repudiate when testifying before this Court, NEFF said:
"The name of Field Marshal MILCH was frequently mentioned in Dachau. Every time I asked Dr. ROMBERG how long the cars and the low pressure chambers would remain in Dachau, he assured me that MILCH would attend to everything. Dr. RASCHER said to me that he had communicated with MILCH personally and that the cars would remain in Dachau as long as he specified."
Dr. Siegfried RUFF, an important figure in the medical experiments program, head of the Research Section of the DVL, recognized the defendant MILCH as the supreme authority in the experimental program. In his affidavit RUFF said:
2464(a) "The entire medical research for aviation was under General Erich HIPPKE, in his capacity as Chief of the Medical Service until 1944 and subsequently under Prof.
Dr. SCHROEDER. As Chief of the Medical Service, General HIPPKE was immediately subordinate to Field Marshal MILCH ... The chain of command for these experiments was: MILCH - HIPPKE - RUFF - Romberg."
Again there is the chart drawn up by Dr. Oskar SCHROEDER, outlining the official Luftwaffe channels through which orders flowed from MILCH to HIPPKE, and from HIPPKE to the various doctors engaged in the actual process of experimentation SCHROEDER thus knew definitely that MILCH was the Luftwaffe Chief in the medical experiments program. He later succeeded HIPPKE as Medical Inspector. Consequently, his chart is entitled to material weight in the proof offered by the Prosecution.
Rudolf BRANDT adjutant to HIMMLER, often had occasion to deal with correspondence between the Luftwaffe and the SS, regarding the experiments. In referring to HIMMLER's request that MILCH order Dr. RASCHER to be transferred to the SS, BRANDT wrote a letter to Wolfram SIEVERS, of the Ahnenerbe Society, stating:
" I assume that the General Field Marshal will of himself give the necessary orders, and then confine himself to sending a brief answer to the Reich Fuehrer SS."
And SIEVERS writing to BRANDT about the use of the low pressure chamber says:
"The putting at our disposal of the low pressure chamber, however, will be possible then only if the Reich Fuehrer SS writes in per son to Field Marshal MILCH concerning this."
These two men, SIEVERS and BRANDT, were not informed of the course of the medical experiments nor of the competent personnel in the Luftwaffe and SS in t is matter. On the contrary, SIEVERS admitted witnessing the death of an experimental subject in the freezing tank, and the subsequent autopsy, while Rudolf BRANDT stated in his affidavit:
2465(a) "General Field Marshal E. Filch and Professor Hippke, Inspector of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe, were fully informed about the low pressure experiments.
Actually these experiments could not had been conducted without the knowledge and approval of these men as they were conducted for the benefit of the Luftwaffe and the experimenting persons were mostly Luftwaffe physicians."
In the eyes of other persons, the defendant was the dominant force behind the Luftwaffe participation in the medical experiments program. The Defense has brought forward an adequate proof to show that they were mistaken. It is conviction of the Prosecution that no such proof exists.
The Supreme Commander of the Luftwaffe, the Reich Marshal Herman Goering, was thoroughly familiar with the organization which was his brainchild, the Luftwaffe and the way it functioned. What importance did Milch's position have in Goering's mind.
His affidavit reads:
"Included among the responsibilities of the Office of the Inspector General was the conduct of all research and experiments and of all matters pertaining to health and sanitation inspection...
* * * * * That Generaloberstabsarzt Erich Hippke was the Sanitation Inspector of the Luftwaffe during the period from 1941 through 1944, that the Office of the Sanitation Inspector was directly responsible for the conduct of all research and medical experiments; that the Office of the Sanitation Inspector, of which Generaloberstabsarzt Erich Hippke was the head, was directly subordinate to the Inspector General, former Field Marshal Filch, and that former Field marshal Milch was responsible for all actions taken by Generaloberstabsarzt Hippke, or by the Office of the Sanitation Inspector or its subordinates."
It has been established that criminal experiments, high altitude and freezing, were carried on at Dachau by Luftwaffe physicians, working under the orders and supervision of competent Luftwaffe authorities.
We have shown that all Luftwaffe personnel connected with, or knowing about those experiments from those closest to the place where the experiments were conducted, i.e. Dr. Rascher, and Walter Neff, to those high up in the positions of command, Goering and Schroeder, looked to Milch as the ultimate authority in the medical experiments program. An investigation of the attitudes and convictions of the SS officials concerned in this program, discloses the same picture.
Could all these men have been mistaken? Nero they writing to and referring to the wrong man, when they contacted the defendant? To put forward such a proposition is to deny the facts. There was no error, the facts arc indisputable.
The defendant was and is official responsible for the medical experiments program of the Luftwaffe.
Lastly we come to the question of the defendant's knowledge of the experiments which were being carried out at Dachau for the Luftwaffe.
Throughout direct examination by his Defense Counsel, the defendant has consistently denied receiving reports authored by Rascher, or in any other way being informed of the criminal nature of these experiments, until the time of this trial.
However, he was very much interested in altitude experiment as such, viz: The following excerpt from his testimony under questioning by Dr. Bergold:
"Q. Witness, how far were you interested in these high altitude experiments in question as GL?
A We were interested in the real altitude tests as I know it exactly, because I want to state this figure as 13,500 meters, and we added 500 meters in order to get a square figure.
However, we know that this last 500 meters, which I had mentioned, we wore not too interested in that. We were only interested in the first place in cabin planes, too, after a certain test had been carried out on 388cabin suits, whether it did not succeed or fail, because a person could not move properly the way those suits wore, duo to low pressure up there in the air is felt much more than here on the ground."
2467 a The Tribunal's attention is directed to this figure of 14,000 meters, which is approximately ten miles.
MILCH wanted that altitude simulated in the pressure chamber and the human reactions studied.
It was on 20 May 1942 that MILCH wrote his letter to WOLFF. Hero he said that HIPPKE had reported to him that the altitude experiments carried cut by the SS and Luftwaffe at Dachau were finished. Mention was made of RASCHER's availability for the forthcoming experiments dealing with sea perils. And MILCH stated that the low pressure chamber could no longer remain at Dachau. In this one letter, defendant demonstrates his knowledge that the SS and the Luftwaffe were conducting, and had completed, altitude experiments at Dachau and that Dr. RASCHER was involved There is the letter of 4 June 1942 to HIPPKE, wherein the defendant exhibits his authority in regard to the low pressure chamber and the tasks of Dr. RASCHER.
On 25 August 1942, HIMMLER wrote to defendant enclosing the report an the high altitude experiments. Moreover, he asked MILCH to receive Drs. RASCHER and ROMBERG for a lecture and presentation of the film on the experiments. HIMMLER suggested that MILCH refer the matter to the Reich Marshal "because of its importance".
This last statement should dispel any possible doubts as to the attention accorded these experiments by official German military circles. In fact, defendant himself admitted discussing the experiments with GOERING on 13 September 1942. The defendant spoke of HIMMLER's interest in the program, and the apprehension felt by the Medical Inspector, HIPPKE, although "he did tell me that everything was all right." The disposal of the pressure chamber was settled in this talk with GOERING.
The defendant has said that the experiments, reports and other aspects of the matter were not known to him, partly because he had no time for this, and partly because he had no technical knowledge of the subject. He would have this Court believe that the experimental program was a minor natter -one that the Inspector General of the Luftwaffe would not pay close attention to. Yet we have seen that it was important enough so that HIMMLER was frequently corresponding with the defendant or others on the subject. It was important enough for defendant to bring the matter to GOERING's attention, even to the details of the disposition of the low pressure chamber.
On 31 August 1942, defendant wrote to HIMMLER, acknowledging receipt of the report on altitude experiments, and telling HIMMLER that he was "informed about the current experiments".
While on the stand, the defendant attempted to explain this letter by referring to the usage of German Ministries, where the form "I" means the Ministry as such. But he admitted that he had written the closing sentences of this letter "I" remain yours, as ever, etc." Here ho did not deny that "I" was used in its ordinary sense. It is neither logical nor capable of belief that in the sane letter to HIMMLER, defendant would use the word "I" in two different senses.
It was also on the 31st of August 1942 that HIPPKE discussed the experiments with the defendant, expressing doubts and misgivings. In reply to MILCH's question, HIPPKE told him that those doubts had not been substantiated.
Thus it can be seen, from MILCH's testimony itself, that a cloud of suspicion and evil hovered over the entire medical experiments program.
It is useless, indeed futile, to punish the perpetrators of criminal acts on the one hand, and to ignore those in high positions who have made possible the commission of the crimes.
The defendant has belabored the term "duty" in the course of his testimony. He has spoken of his solemn oath to HITLER and to the German people. It would seem that it was incumbent upon the defendant to acquaint himself with the activities of his subordinates, at least to the extent that he should have known that people were being murdered in experiments, which from the evidence, were useless so far as the advancement of the knowledge of aviation medicine is concerned.
The present case is not without judicial precedent. A close analogy can be drawn between it and a recent case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, in re YAMASHITA, Nos. 61 Miscellaneous and 672 - October term 1945. The procedural and jurisdictional questions therein decided arc of no moment to us now, but the facts of the YAMASHITA case are similar to those of the MILCH case, and the opinion rendered by the Court is particularly in point in the matter of responsibility for senior officers.
General YAMASHITA was the commanding general of the 14th Army Group of the Imperial Japanese Army in the Philippines.
Upon surrendering to United States Forces, he was indicted and tried as a war criminal before a Military Tribunal on the following charge - "while commander cf armed forces of Japan at war with tho United States of America and its Allies, unlawfully disregarded and failed to discharge his duty as commander to control the operations of the members of his command, permitting them commit brutal atrocities and other high crimes against people of the United States and of its Allies and dependencies, particularly the Philippines, and he.... thereby violated the laws of war."
The Court summed up the issue as follows:
"The question then is whether the law of war impo ses on an army commander a duty to take such appropriate measures as are within his power to control the troops under his command for the prevention of the specified acts which are violations of the law of war and which are likely to attend the occupation of hostile territory by an uncontrolled soldiery, and whether he may be charged with personal responsibility for his failure to take such measures when violations result."
The Court cited Articles 1 and 43 of the Fourth Hague Convention of 1907, Article 19 of the Tenth Haguoe Convention, and Article 26 of the Geneva Rod Cross Convention of 1929. It then stated:
"These provisions plainly imposed on petitioner, who at the tine specified was military governor cf the Philippines, as well as commander of the Japanese forces, an affirmative duty to take such measures as were within his power and appropriate in the circumstances to protect prisoners of war and the civilian population. This duty of a commanding officer has heretofore been recognized and its breach penalized by our own military tribunals."
The Court thereupon denied the petition for certiorari, and leave to file petitions, for writs of haveas corpus and prohibition.
In the cases of the medical experiments, we have a much less complex situation. There is no question of a senior officer in an occupied country, rather we are faced with a simple direct chain of command problem. MILCH - FOERSTER HIPPKE. Had MILCH given the order, the experiments would have been terminated, but no order of termination was given - people were murdered and RASCHER remained in the Luftwaffe until he was transferred to the SS in March of 1943. The defendant had an affirmative duty to know what was going on, and an af firmative duty to act so as to stop the experiments.
That he was ignorant of the true state of affairs is unbelievable in view of the letters and the testimony of these who were below him. Field Marshals are not made as are non-connissioned officers. The road is a long one in any army from the position of private to the lofty peak of a Field Marshal.
The defendant would have you believe that his powers were similar to those of a private first class. Yet we have soon him, high in the councils, a confident of Hitler, one who could disagree with Goering, whose deputy he was on occasion, a man who was so thoroughly skilled a soldier that he seriously requested an assignment as a division commander although his service had been in the Air Force for a decade prior to the request. If the defendant was not the responsible officer in connection with the medical experiments, then the scourge of the Wehrmacht has not touched the Continent of Europe. There is no one who knows better than the defendant the principle of responsibility in any Army. By holding the office which he held, he had the duty to control the activities of those who were his subordinates, to insure that they conducted themselves as soldiers and not as murderers. He has failed woefully in the task.
We have concluded now our remarks regarding the criminal activities of the defendant in his various capacities with respect to the slave labor program and the medical experiments. It remains only for us to deal briefly with the defendant's participation in the murder of two Russian escapees, to discuss his defense of irresponsibility because of a bad temper to discuss the use of P.W.s and to touch upon the testimony of some of the witnesses who appeared in his behalf, and the record of the meeting of 23 May 1939.
The defendant has maintained that he knew nothing about the shooting of the two Russian officers who attempted to escape in February 1944. We have his own statement, made at a time when the general situation, from the Wehrmacht's point of view, was acute but not forlorn. The International Military Tribunal has stated at p. 17041 of its Judgment concerning Fritz SAUCKEL, speaking of a statement made by Sauckel at a Central Planning Board meeting, "although he now claims that the statement is not true, the circumstances under which it was made, as well as the evidence presented before the Tribunal, leave no doubt that it was substantially accurate". The word "circumstances" as there used refers to a meeting of the Central Planning Board on March 1, 1944. Milch made his statement at the prior meeting held on February 16, 1944 (53rd). The letters submitted by the Defense in connection with this episode are interesting.