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.
The first and second from Schmidtke on 10 January and from Gangolf on 13 January refer to another similar incident other than that with which we are here concerned. The third letter from Winterstein on 12 January says nothing about the deaths. The affidavit of Predl, other than stating that the deaths occurred on a Saturday, is of no value. The witness Barthelmeus, who made an affidavit, though a resident of Nurnberg, was not called. The affidavits of Klein and Popp ware offered; each is in a prison camp in the American zona, yet neither was called. The letter of Janko recites the facts in a context suggestive of the words used by the defendant when he described the incident in the 53rd meeting on CPB on February 16, 1944. Here, too, it is submitted that the circumstances under which the statement was made, leave no doubt that it was substantially accurate. The defendant boasted of his prowess as a commander who ordered executions when he would impress those who curried his favor at the Central Planning Board meetings but now he says he had no authority to give orders and if he had given them, they would not have been obeyed.
The defendant has offered, as a plausible reason for the employment of Russian, French and Italian prisoners of war, the fact that various historical events made it unnecessary to abide by the terms of the Conventions concerning prisoners of war. The witness von Neurath testified that Russia had renounced the Conventions in question, and hence Germany could renounce them as to Russia. As for France, it is contended that the alleged government headed by Pierre Laval had concluded an arrangement with the Reich which made it legal to employ prisoners of war in tasks forbidden by the Conventions. A similar reason is advanced for the use of Italian Prisoners, the concluding of an arrangement between the Reich and Mussolini. The International Military Tribunal made a finding with respect to this matter (p. 16892). "The argument in defense of the charge with regard to the murder and ill-treatment of Soviet prisoners of war, that the USSR was not a party to the Geneva Convention, is quite without foundation. On 15 September 1941, Admiral Canaris protested against the regulations for the treatment of Soviet prisoners of war, signed by General Reinecke on 8 September 1941.
I might add that Admiral Canaris was a member of the German navy. Resuming the quotation:
"He"--Canaris--"then stated: 'The Geneva Convention for the treatment of prisoners of war is not binding in the relationship between Germany and the USSR. Therefore only the principles of general international law on the treatment of prisoners apply. Since the 16th Century, there have gradually been established along the lines, that war captivity is neither revenge nor punishment, but solely protective custody, the only purpose of which is to prevent the prisoners of war from further participation in the war. This principle has developed in accordance with the view held by all armies that it is contrary to military tradition to kill or injure hapless people... The decrees for the treatment of Soviet Prisoners of war enclosed are based on a fundamentally different viewpoint' This protest, which correctly stated the legal position, was ignored".
The defendant was a soldier of some experience, he know it was improper, even criminal, to have the Russian prisoners work in the Luftwaffe factories, but he paid no attention to the breach of this duty of the soldier. The manner in which the Reich bludgeoned a treaty from the French is too well known to warrant discussion. It cannot be contended with any seriousness that the French prisoners of war, who were negotiated into slavery by a puppet government, were voluntary employed of the Germans. Indeed the witness Le Friec has testified that when he was taken to work in the airplane factory, he was told that he would "work on baby carriages". The position of the defendant with reference to Italian prisoners of war and their illegal employment is still more absurd, if that is possible. The Wehrmacht had moved into Italy early in the war and in 1943, when the Badoglio government concluded an armistice with the Allies, the Wehrmacht continued to occupy the northern part of Italy as an occupying power. They allegedly made a treaty with the by then tottering shadow of the former sawdust Caeser and proceeded to bring the Italian prisoners of war to the Reich to work. Here again the soldiery had been sold into bondage by their former chief. The record shows that the Russian, French and Italian prisoners of war were used to work in airplane factories. Whether they made the fighter plane, ME 109, or the jet fighter, ME 262, or the transport plane, Ju 52, is of little moment.
In the total warfare in which the Reich was engaged, there is one certainty, that nothing was being constructed which was not part of the war armament program.
The International Military Tribunal stated in this connection (p. 16915): "Many of the prisoners of war were assigned to work directly related to military operations, in violation of Article 31 of the Geneva Convention. They were put to work in munitions factories, and even made to load bombers, to carry ammunition and to dig trenches, often under the most hazardous conditions. This condition applied particularly to Soviet prisoners of war. On February 16, 1943, at a meeting of the Central Planning Board Milch said: 'We have made a request for an order that a certain percentage of men in the Ack Ack artillery must be Russians; 50,000 will be taken altogether. Thirty thousand are already employed as gunners. This is an amusing thing, that the Russians must work the guns'".
That every aircraft factory in the Reich had anti-aircraft batteries to protect it, goes without saying. Who would know better than the defendant that such use was made of the Soviet prisoners of war? Further, this type of artillery was a part of the Luftwaffe and not a separate branch in the ground farces, as it is in the US Army. The witness Foerster has testified that Soviet prisoners of war worked at the gun positions. If the number two man in the German Air Force could not have done anything toward arranging that the prisoners of war did not work in the factories or work the guns, then no one in the Wehrmacht could have done anything about the situation.
We have heard much of the defendant's violent temper and the resulting statements which, witnesses assert, were never taken seriously by those who heard them. The explanations offered by the Defense are as frivolous as the alleged outbursts were frequent. It would have been difficult, if not impossible, for one who occupied the positions held by the defendant, to accomplish anything if his subordinates had to sift all of the strong statements he made, in an effort to determine which of them were seriously said. Further, his strong statements about the procurement and treatment or 1 laborers are closely aligned with the grim reality as we have seen it.
We submit that this man of violent temper believed in, and consciously advocated, the ruthless measures he recommended, and that his subordinates, to the best of their ability, complied with his recommendations. It is not reasonable to assume that one with his power could have made statements, of the kind of which we have heard here, and that he would then rely on the good offices of those who were around him to insure that nothing was done as a result of these statements. The Reich was not a country of innocent victims of one tyrant, but rather it was composed of a series of tyrants, each like the mastertyrant, each with his own group of subordinates, who carried out the wishes and whims of their respective chiefs. If all men who held positions of authority in the Reich are to be believed when they say that they were personally opposed to criminal excesses, then we have the fantastic conclusion that these crimes were committed in the face of influential and unanimous opposition.
The witnesses produced by the Defense left a little to be desired. Without indulging in exhaustive detail, a few statements made by some are worth comment.
The witness Koenig said that he didn't know Himmler was head of the SS until 1945.
The witness von Brauchitsch did not know families were broken up and sent to concentration camps. It was this man, the aide to Goering, who passed on the Terboven letter of May 1942 to the defendant. The Court will recall that the letter told of the attempted escape and the resulting concentration camp detention of the Norwegians. It was the defendant who said that an attempt to escape by a prisoner of war is an honorable thing. Would not a similar effort on the part of some Norwegians merit something less than a concentration camp? Brauchitsch had said a little earlier that he did not know that foreigners were in concentration camps.
The witness Felmy has stated that some Jugoslav partisans were sent to Germany as laborers.
The witness Schniewindt, who was present at the conference of 23 May 1939, did not under any circumstances gain the impression that aggression was announced. 2477 The witness, Vorwald, a subordinate of the defendant and hence his concern for these proceedings, may be assumed as being something short of disinterest, was thoroughly glib and exceptionally agreeable.
He even agreed with the statement, on cross-examination, that the forces of the Reich were no longer in Africa in 1943. It is a matter of historical record that the invasion of that Continent began in November 1942 and that the campaign was concluded in the spring of the following year.
The witness Doerner, still laboring under the spell of the former leaders, stated that he believed Goering to be the last great man of the Renaissance.
The last witness of whom we shall speak is Karl Wolff. In his affidavit, he spoke of meetings between Himmler and Milch over coffee and cigars. He spoke of the great cultural works of the SS. Was he speaking of Dachau and Manthausen? With some vehemence, he insisted that he had deported only 1,050 Jews from all of Italy. He knew nothing of Dachau that led him to believe that anything unusual was happening there. Although he did say that in his visit there in 1942, the place was so clean that one could have oaten from the floor.
These represent a fair cross section of the witnesses, all of whom had roles of varying importance in the tragedy with which we are here concerned. Even as the defendant contends that he knew nothing of what went on, so do they echo the same refrain.
Much time has been spent in attempting to discredit the Schmundt record of the 23 May 1939 meeting. The Court is familiar with the findings which have been made by the International Military Tribunal, on this subject. There has been no additional light thrown on the matter by the evidence here presented to indicate that the Schmundt record is anything other than a correct record of the events which transpired at the meeting.
We wish to discuss now in conclusion one document offered by the Prosecution. This we have saved until the last because we believe that of all the evidence presented by the prosecution it is most typical of the defendant as a man and as a Nazi. We refer to the minutes of the conference of Air Force engineers and others which was presided over and was addressed by the defendant on 25 March 1944. This document, like so many others in this case, was initialed by the defendant.
The defendant stated that, as of the date of the conference, "We have in our employ today approximately 60 percent foreigners..."
He continued, "The ratio is gradually approaching 90 percent foreigners with 10 Percent German managers."
These are statements by a man who said he did not know about the extent to which foreign labor was used in his own industry, let alone in Germany. He stated that:
"The Fuehrer order provides cleanly that the fighter plane program which the Fighter Staff is starting has priority over all other fields of armaments..."
He showed knowledge of the production of tanks and infantry munitions. He spoke of having the Air Force production "to an extent safely underground" in four months time. It is here that he stated that he was head of the Jaegerstab and that Saur was his deputy and chief of staff. Touching on his conferences with the various plant officials, he stated:
"On the spot the individual gentlemen are then told - supported by the combined authority of the State, the Wehrmacht, and the Party, that is Saur and me, Speer is unfortunately still on sick leave, otherwise he would also be present - what it is all about."
He commented on labor:
"Thus, all pertinent questions are dealt with in the conferences about the commitment of labor and all competent men, who have anything to do with the commitment of labor, meet, especially the President of the competent Provincial Labor Office. Thus it is determined on the spot, in the individual spheres, what the factory lacks."
This is the man who has constantly maintained that he had nothing to do with labor. One can readily imagine a session between the Luftwaffe Field Marshal and a Labor Office chief.
We have heard the defendant deny and redeny any knowledge of the slave labor program as such, let alone the extent to which it went. It is our contention that anybody who walked the streets of Germany could net have failed to have become aware of the activities which were being carried on by Sauckel and his henchmen.
He makes an interesting reference to bureaucracy:
"It is an error to believe that civilian offices are more bureaucratic than military offices. On the basis of my continuous and extensive experience, I can assure you, exactly the opposite is true."
This from one who would have the Tribunal believe that his staff and officers were one big happy family who ran things in a rather casual catch as catch can fashion.
Speaking of the arrival of laborers, he said:
"In brief, the people arrive there and are put to work there. If any doubts exist as to whether a request is justified - for the people are not requested by numbers, but as electricians, blacksmiths, fitters, turners, as unskilled laborers, as foreigners - then this is settled. If the result shows that the request for people is not justified, then the matter is referred to a commission and this commission examines the facts within 48 hours. If it becomes apparent that dirty dealings are going on, my special court martial is called into Play, and it hands down a quick decision."
This from a man who has stated that he had no power to give orders. He stated further, "the normal work week in our industry is 72 hours." The witness Krysiak testified that they worked 84 hours at the factory where the Mauthausen inmates were employed.
Speaking of the difficulties that resulted from the hoarding of spare parts by the various foremen, he said:
"Now it is your task to teach these people some sense and to nut the entire system of hoarding on a sensible basis. I therefore ask you, as the Senior Authorities in the field; teach that to these people by force. There is no sense in writing letters. Such letters are not read. They would not understand them anyhow."
The wish of a Field Marshal is as an order and he advocated the use of force on his own people. The extent to which he urged that they go was expressed a few lines further on when he stated:
"Whoever hoards supplies must be punished immediately. By punishment I also mean shooting. For if these people are told what is at issue here and they still try to hide parts of their supplies or to cover them up, that is dirty dealing and a crime against Germany. I want to say that very clearly and I want to say it in very sincere words, so that you yourselves will realize that we are dealing here with a question which is of decisive importance for German's well being, that we are not dealing with an ordinary point of discussion but with a question which decides about the life and death of Germany."
He advocated killing Germans, not slackers but hoarders. He consciously used strong language, yet he would have it believed that he never smoke harshly except in a rage and that nothing ever came from his outbursts. He indicated knowledge of the overall figures on the breakdown of working hours.
"In considering the figures one has to know that 52 percent of the total man hours spent in equipping a plane and only 48 percent in building the aircraft frame and engine."
He has said that he was powerless to do anything about requests from industry, yet he stated:
"If I want something from industry, then industry comes and says, 'Yes, I have those and those requests.' Only then can I do what you want."
He again speaks of the death penalty when he says:
"Gentlemen, in this connection I may call your attention to another important point.
If I visit an office and find out that something is being hidden there, then I ask for the death penalty for such a crime today. That is fraud. That is sabotage of the German armament industry."
Can it be seriously contended that these words were regarded by the listeners as mere outbursts?
Next we have another illuminating passage on his attitude toward prisoners of war:
"Then there is still the human factor. We often had considerable difficulty with the human factor. The fluctuation there is very considerable. The quote of the Luftwaffe in the distribution of manpower was considerably lowered. The foreigners run away. They do not keep any contract. There are difficulties with Frenchmen, Italians, Dutch. The prisoners of war are partly unruly and fresh. The people are also supposed to be carrying on sabotage. These elements cannot be made more efficient by small means. They are just not handled strictly enough. If a decent foreman would sock one of those unruly guys because tho fellow won't work, the the situation would soon change. International Law cannot be observed here. I have asserted myself very strongly and with the help of Saur I have represented the point of view very strongly that the prisoners, with the exception of the English and the Americans, should be taken away from the military authorities. The soldiers are not in a position, as experience has shown, to come with these fellows who know all the answers. I shall take very strict measures here and shall put such a prisoner of war before my court martial If he has committed sabotage or refused to work, I will have him hanged right in his own factory. I an convinced that that will not be without effect."
These words are strangely reminiscent of his speech at the 53rd meeting of the Central Planning Board. He knew he had advocated and participated in flagrant violations of International Law and here he went on record on this subject.
We see the defendant making a "big request" of the Quartermaster General and calling for "energetic action" by the Chief of Supply. This was a meeting of considerable moment and these statements did not go unheeded.
He spoke of the laborers:
"...We in the Luftwaffe armament industry have Russians, French prisoners of war, Dutch, and members of 32 other nations. The obtaining of interpreters alone presents a big difficulty there."
Then he adds:
"We, the Quartermaster General and Generalluftzeugmeister, have already agreed that we are to balance the personnel also. Above all it is necessary that the member of the troops be treated in exactly the same way as the industrial worker."
We have a strong statement concerning the feelings of the German worker. He said:
"By unjust treatment the German worker means that the treatment is not the same for all. That is what makes the German worker indignant. He wants everyone to be treated the same way. He wants justice and does not want to be mistreated in words or any other way. He cannot stand it and he is right in not being able to stand it."
The defendant advocated that the German worker be carefully handled. The Tribunal has heard from the witnesses Ferrier, Lb Friec, and Krysiak how the foreign workers were handled.
He outlined the working program for the Raster weekend:
"Finally I ask that the troops received the fundamental order to work on Good Friday, the Saturday before Raster, and on Raster Monday in the same way as the people in the factories. The soldiers just do not have to go on furlough either. They must be told why."
Are these the words of a man who is without authority to issue orders concerning the troops?
He acknowledged his employment of Russian prisoners of war and advocated that shirkers among the factory laborers be whipped back to their jobs. He said:
"I further ask for support by the Luftwaffe physicians. With all the rabble that we have among the foreign workers there is of course a lot of shirking.