At the moment the Russians - that is, the Russian prisoners of war - are feigning a lot of fatigue and illness. The incidence of sickness of one and a half to two percent which we have had up to now has at least doubled and in some factories it has been increased to eight, nine, and. ten percent. That is, of course, done by previous agreement. There the official physicians must undertake an examination and if the physicians, who have to be very strict, find out that it is not true, then we return the fellows to work by means of the whip. Then the whip serves as cure."
He again spoke of orders that have been given:
"If the factory knows: Now we are going to be attacked, and it has a few trench shelters but does not have a bomb-proof shelter or the like, then the people simply ran away from the factory automatically at each raid after the first one, and they could usually not be caught the next day, either. That applies particularly to the foreigners. We have therefore now issued the following order, and have equipped the superiors accordingly with weapons and pistols: as soon as a factory which has already been attacked a few times can count on the raid's being aimed at that particular factory again, then the personnel leave the factory, but in closed groups by shops, under the leadership of the man in charge of the shop, and, to the extent that they are German personnel, they leave singing military songs."
Are superiors armed, with weapons and pistols to lead contented German workers away from a factory in case of an air raid? Little wonder that the foreigners who had been brought in like chattels ran away when the opportunity presented itself. Were these workers who were fleeing voluntary workers?
Commenting on the gravity of the task of fighter production, and the importance of the months of April and May 1944, he said:
"That will be decided in six to eight weeks. If we succeed in this, then we will once again have time to carry out all the other tasks and jobs of this war and can also achieve greater success in other fields."
Bore the "other fields" tasks to be accomplished in the sowing of seeds of the Reich's culture?
The defendant has said that he knew nothing about the living conditions of the foreigners. It is obvious that he knew something, for he said:
"I also ask you to be of considerable assistance in the question of lodging in connection with the question of the relationship between our military personnel at the airfields and the workers. If we bring the people over to work, we also have to provide them with places to live. As far as Germans are concerned this is not a problem. As far us foreigners are concerned, this has to be done in some suitable way. They can not be put together with our people, just like that. But they should not be so far away from the airfield that one can not get them to work at all."
No, don't let them live with the native workers, but be sure that they live close enough to the factory so that they can put in their 72 hours a week.
The importance of the fighter program is emphasized when ho said:
"There are no laws of bureaucracy, there are no regulations, there is nothing at all as important as the task of winning the war."
The defendant could not agree with anything that Hitler stood for after March 1943, he was trying to get out but here he speak of Hitler and his henchmen - men who, he said, were leading Germany to certain catastrophe, "It is quite surprising how the population has endured this thing so far and how it always gets on its feet again, when it is led in the proper way by true leaders who, thank God, are present among the people through the party and the rest of the leadership.
But you must not forget, gentlemen, the war of nerves has reached a point which causes us in the leadership group worry."
He has said that he was not a whole-hearted Nazi, but here he referred to. himself as one of the true leaders and this at a time when the hands on the clock tolling the hours of the Reich were approaching twelve. Yet he would have you believe that he was a minor man.
He -did not confine his speaking efforts solely to the Luftwaffe! ho was one of the leaders and as such it was natural that he should address the entir armament feeder industry. On that subject he said:
"What I am telling you today was told the other day to the entire armament feeder industry -- that includes the blacksmiths, foundries, crankshaft works of the iron producing industry, etc. They were likewise exhorted to produce the maximum; in the same way the Gauleitungen, all of the provincial offices, where ever we were, were addressed by us to that effect. But everyone considers that if he does not do his duty we do not ask whether there is a law, we ask only that he is the responsible one and that we will seize him no matter who he is.
His first peroration is indicative of his attitude:
"Please go wherever you are going and knock everybody down who blocks your way! We cover up everything here. We do not ask whether he is allowed to or whether he is not allowed to. For us, there is nothing but this one task. We are fanatics in this sphere. We do not even consider letting anything at all distract us from that task. No order exists which could prevent me from fulfilling this task. Nor shall I ever be given such an order."
Yes, the defendant was a fanatic. Too, he was one who could cover up. It was a wilful man who could say that.
There is an interesting statement concerning the number of employees of the Luftwaffe. The defendant set it at 1.8 million. This is somewhat in excess of the .5 million figure that one witness mentioned.
It has been insisted that he had nothing to do with labor, it has been insisted that he could give no orders, yet in his second peroration to the same speech, he said:
"We have given orders that will make you laugh. Some labor control offic or other suddenly declared that the Jaegerstab was not entitled, according to paragraph so-and-so, to establish a 72-hour work week; it was not valid. ** said: the gentleman is herewith informed; if he should say such a thing once more, he will be picked up; I have excellent cellars in this house. Then the opposition disappears immediately. But you have to count on such things, and the difficulty for you is that, in order to get through all the junk, one should clean out first of all a whole let of little pigsties. Something will come out of this whole affair with us, yet. Whoever of my technical people from the Ministry does not earn his keep with the Jaegerstab now, and does n** cooperate, I guarantee that he will never appear again in this Ministry, in the machine where I give the orders."
Is this the man who said he could not have people sent to concentration camps? The witness Krysiak was "picked up" for having said in 1940 that Germany would lose the war. He was arrested by the Gestapo as the result of private conversation. It is unbelievable that a Field Marshal could not, and did not, exercise the same power.
Today is the third anniversary of the speech of 25 March 1944, male by the defendant. His closing remarks on that day detail decisively the philosophy of the then Field Marshal of the Luftwaffe. Those assembled has been listening to their chief since midmorning. The hour was late. The hands of the clock were past twelve. Germany was in the fifth year of war. The defendant was concluding his speech. He said:
"Gentlemen, I know, not every subordinate can say: for me the law no longer exists, but he has to have someone who covers up for him, not out of cowardice. But if you act according to the spirit of the old field service regulation, 'Abstaining from doing something hurts us more than erring in the choice of the means', and if, moreover, you keep in touch and immediately clarify difficult points, so that something can be done, then we are willing accept the responsibility, whether this is the law or not.
I see only two poss bilities for me and for Germany; either we succeed and thereby save Germany, c we continue these slipshed methods and then get the fate that we deserve. I prefer to fall, while I am doing something that is against the rules but that is right and sensible, and be called to account for it, and, if you like, hanged, rather than be hanged because Papa Stalin is here in Berlin or the Englishmen. I have no desire for that. I would rather die in a different way. But I think we can accomplish this task, too. We are in the fifth year of war. I repeat: the decision will come during the next six weeks, Heil Hitler!"
The time is at hand for another decision, a decision which will follow the dictates of sound reason. The record which will be made by this Tribunal in its judgment will be one that shall give courage to peaceful free men everywhere. Indeed, the defendant is fortunate that the decision in the present cruise is in the hands of those who do believe that the law exists and vi 11 continue to exist. There is no place for passion or for prejudice in the ceaseless tasks, the seeking of truth and the establishing of justice.
DR. BEHGOLD: May it please your Honors, before I ask you to allow the defendant to make his final statement, I must follow my profession and make an objection here. Mr. Denney has quoted the affidavit of Schroeder. The Court may remember that I called the witness Schroeder to the witness stand and that I let him go because Mr. Denney said that the affidavit would not be used by him and it would not be part of this trial. I would therefore like to remain on that line, for otherwise I would have had to interrogate Schroeder.
MR. DENNEY: If your Honors please, the only quotation that was made from Schroeder was the chart which was offered in evidence, which he made. We did not offer the affidavit and we did not quote from the affidavit. We only spoke of the chart.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it is understood that the affidavit is not to be considered by the Court. The law provides that at this time the defendant may, if he chooses, make a statement to the Tribunal. If he so desires he will approach the podium and speak into the microphone.
DEFENDANT ERHARD MILCH: Since I became a soldier in 1910 my work was to serve my German people. In the first World War I was at the front from the first to the last day. Then with others I built up German air lines, and when in 1935 the Government asked me to enter the Air Ministry, despite many misgivings, I could not refuse to take up that task because it was pointed out to me I could not turn a deaf car to this call of the German people.
My idea was conceived at the time of the air lines, that all nations must collaborate, particularly the European nations, gathered together on a small area. I have remained faithful and whenever possible, mostly outside my actual sphere of work, I dedicated myself to that task. I was opposed to war because the experiences from the first world War showed me that the living standard of the people would not be improved by war, and on the contrary everybody would be grievously damaged.
It was for me a matter of course, even in the late great war, the planning of which was unknown to me, to do my duty at my place. My full effort was dedicated to the air defense of the German homeland. This I conceived to be the only possibility to obtain bearable peace terms. Even though I had nothing to do with the employment of workers, including foreign workers, I considered it to be my duty to make precise examinations of the admissibility of work by foreigners which was answered in the affirmative, as I made also efforts to keep the figures as low as possible and to see to it that they would work in protected factories (Speer enterprises) foreign countries.
I always made efforts to improve the living conditions of all types of workers. My statements made to the best of my knowledge and conscience to this Tribunal were directed to the world at large and above all to the German people, in order to show that only by peaceful understanding of the nations among each other, could life and civilization be secured in future and that understanding was not only necessary but also possible if there is a will, but I also wanted to show my fellow Germans quite clearly that an autocratic government which is not controlled must end in disaster.
2489 a My personal faith is of no consequence in this connection.
I am interested in only one thing; that the German people should, as soon as possible, be relieved of their untold suffering and should join the community of nations as an equal partner.
THE PRESIDENT: This case is now in the hands of the Tribunal for the rendition of its final judgment. The Court will be in recess until Tuesday, the eighth day of April, at 9:30 in the morning, unless sooner convened.
THE MARSHAL: This tribunal is in recess until Tuesday, April 8, at 0930 hours, unless sooner convened.
"The tribunal adjourned until 8 April 1947 at 0930 hours.)
Court No. II, Case No. II.
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Erhard Milch, defendant, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 16 April 1947, 1400-1530, Justice Toms presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the Courtroom will please find their seats.
The Honorable Judges of Military Tribunal II.
Military Tribunal II is now in session.
God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the Courtroom.
THE PRESIDENT: The case of the United States versus Erhard Milch is before this Tribunal, being Case Number 2. The record will show that the defendant and his counsel are present in Court. Will the Page give a copy of this to Mr. Denney and to General Taylor, and the copy in German to Dr. Bergold? The opinion and judgment of the Tribunal is about to be read. Judge Musmanno, have you something?
THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE MUSMANNO): I am filing a concurring opinion.
THE PRESIDENT: This will be noted, please, by the Secretary General.
The Indictment in this case contains three counts, which may be summarized as follows:
COUNT ONE: War Crimes, involving murder, slave labor, deportation of civilian population for slave labor, cruel and inhuman treatment of foreign laborers, and the use of prisoners of war in war operations by force and compulsion.
COUNT TWO: War Crimes, involving murder, subjecting involuntary victims to low-pressure and freezing experiments, resulting in torture and death.
COUNT THREE: Crimes against Humanity, involving murder and the same unlawful acts specified in Counts One and Two against German nationals and nationals of other countries.
For reasons of its own, the Tribunal will first consider Counts Two and One, in that order, followed by consideration of Count Three.
Court No. II, Case No. II.
THE PRESIDENT: Judge Phillips, please.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: COUNT TWO
More in detail, this count alleges that the defendant was a principal in, accessory to, ordered, abetted, took a consenting part in and was connected with, plans and enterprises involving medical experiments without the subjects: consent, in the course of which experiments, the defendant, with others, perpetrated murders, brutalities, cruelties, tortures and other inhumane acts. The so-called medical experiments consisted of placing the subject in an air-tight chamber in which the air pressure is mechanically reduced so that it is comparable with the air pressure to which an aviator is subjected at high altitudes, and in experimenting upon the effect of extreme dry and wet cold upon the human body. For these experiments inmates of the concentration camp at Dachau were selected. These inmates presented a motley group of prisoners of war, dissenters from the philosophy of the National Socialist Party, Jews, both Germany and the eastern countries, rebellious or indifferent factory workers, displaced civilians from eastern occupied countries, and an undefined group known as "a social or undesirable persons."
In approaching a judicial solution of the questions involved in this phase of the case, it may be well to set down seriatim and controlling legal questions to be answered by an analysis of the proof:
(1) Were low-pressure and freezing experiments carried on at Dachau?
(2) Were they of a character to inflict torture and death on the subjects?
(The answer to these two questions may be said to involve the establishment of the corpus delicti.)
(3) Did the defendant personally participate in them?
(3) Were they conducted under his direction or command?
(5) Were they conducted with prior knowledge on his part that they might be excessive or inhuman?
Court No. II, Case No. II.
(6) Did he have the power or opportunity to prevent or stop them?
(7) If so, did he fail to act, thereby becoming particeps criminis and accessory to them?
The periods during which these experiments were conducted became extremely significant in determining the responsibility of the defendant. The evidence is uncontradicted that the low-pressure experiments were inaugurated in March, 1942, and were concluded by the end of June, 1942. The cold water experiments extended from August to October, 1942, and the freezing experiments from February to April, 1943. During all of these periods the defendant was Under Secretary of State and Head of the Reich Air Ministry, Inspector General and Second-in-Command under Goering of the Luftwaffe, to which post he was appointed November 19, 1941. In these various capacities, certain military duties devolved upon him, especially as Inspector General. For example, he was ordered by Hitler to take an air squadron to Norway on a purely military expedition, and during the siege of Stalingrad, early in 1943, he was ordered by Hitler to attempt to transport into Stalingrad by air food and supplies for the beleaguered German Army. His high military standing is indicated by the fact that he was one of the twelve Field Marshals of the German Armed Forces. The major part of his duties, however, revolved around the production of aircraft for the Luftwaffe. He was primarily a production man, charged with the duty of keeping military airplanes supplied in sufficient quantity to the air arm of Germany's military machine. This naturally involved the procurement in large quantities of the two essential ingredients of production - labor and raw material and an over-all supervision of any efforts having to do with that arm. One of the defendant's immediate subordinates was Professor Hippke, who held the post of Inspector of the Medical Services of the Luftwaffe. Hippke was a physician, and had supervision of all matters involving the health and physical welfare of the personnel of the Luftwaffe.
The low-pressure experiments at Dachau were conducted by three physicians, Dr. Romberg, Dr. Ruff and Dr. Rascher. It is quite apparent Court No. II, Case No. II.
from the evidence that Dr. Rascher, who was attached to the Luftwaffe but made frantic efforts to have himself transferred to the SS, was principally responsible for the nature of the experiments. Dr. Ruff and Dr. Romberg were also attached to the Luftwaffe and were, therefore, remotely under the command and control of the defendant, but the evidence is persuasive that, although they were interested in and helped conduct the experiments up to a certain point, the excesses which resulted in torture and death are attributable to Dr. Rascher. It is quite apparent that the actual activities of these three physicians were far removed from the immediate scrutiny of the defendant even though their activities were conducted within the orbit of the Luftwaffe, over which the defendant had command.
Approaching now the determinative questions listed above, some progress can quickly be made in arriving at judicially satisfactory answers.
(1) As to the first question, the evidence is overwhelming and not contradicted that experiments involving the effect of low air pressure and freezing on live human beings were conducted at Dachau from March through June, 1942.
(2) Approaching the second question, it is claimed by the defendant that only legitimate scientific experiments were conducted which did not involve pain or torture and could not ordinarily be expected to result in death. It is remotely possible that so long as the experiments were under the guidance of Dr. Ruff and Dr. Romberg some consideration was given to the possible effect upon the subjects of the experiments. But it is indisputable that the experiments conducted by Dr. Rascher involved torture and suffering in the extreme and in many cases resulted in death. Under the specific guidance of Dr. Rascher, the air pressure was reduced to a point which no filer would ever be required to undergo (14,000 meters). The photographs of the subjects undergoing these experiments indicate extreme agony and leave no doubt that any victim who was fortunate enough to survive had undergone a harrowing experience.
The Tribunal does not hesitate to find that these experiments, performed under the spacious guise of science, were barbarous and inhuman. It has been urged by the defendant that the only persons used as subjects of these experiments were habitual criminals who had been sentenced to death and who were given the dubious option of offering themselves for the experiments and receiving as a reward, if they survived, a commutation of the death sentence to life imprisonment. This claim scarcely merits serious consideration. A number of witnesses stated that they had a vague understanding that this was the case, but the record is entirely barren of any credible testimony which could possible justify such a finding of fact.
(3) The prosecution does not claim (and there is no evidence) that the defendant personally participated in the conduct of these experiments.
(4) There is no evidence that the defendant instituted the experiments or that they were conducted or continued under his specific direction or command. It may perhaps be claimed that the low-pressure chamber, which was the property of the Luftwaffe, was sent to Dachau at the direction of the defendant, but even if this were true it could not be inferred from that fact alone that he thereby promulgated the inhuman and criminal experiments which followed. The low-pressure chamber was susceptible of legitimate use and, perhaps, had Dr. Rascher not injected himself into the proceedings, it would have been confined to that use.
(5) Assuming that the defendant was aware that experiments of some character were to be launched, it cannot be said that the evidence shows any knowledge on his part that unwilling subjects would be forced to submit to them or that the experiments would be painful and dangerous to human life. It is quite apparent from an over-all survey of the proof that the defendant concerned himself very little with the details of these experiments. It was quite natural that this should be so. His most pressing problems involved the procurement of labor and materials for the manufacture of airplanes. His position involved vast responsibilities covering a wide industrial field, and there were certainly Court No. II, Case No. II.
countless subordinate fields within the Luftwaffe of which he had only cursory knowledge. The Tribunal is convinced that these experiments, which fell naturally and almost exclusively within one of his subordinate departments, engaged the attention of the defendant only perfunctorily, if at all.
(6) Did the defendant have the power or opportunity to prevent or stop the experiments? It cannot be gainsaid that he had the authority to either prevent or stop them in so far as they were being conducted under the auspices of the Luftwaffe. It seems extremely probable, however, that, in spite of him, they would have continued under Himmler and the SS. But certainly he had no opportunity to prevent or stop them, unless it can be found that he had guilty knowledge of them, a fact which has already been determined in the negative. As early as May 20, 1942, the defendant wrote to Wolff, Himmler's Adjutant, stating:
"........ our medical inspector (Dr. Hippke) reports to me that the altitude experiments carried out by the SS and Luftwaffe at Dachau have been finished. Any continuation of these experiments seems essentially unreasonable........
"The low-pressure chamber would not be needed for these low-temperature experiments. It is urgently needed at another place and therefore can no longer remain in Dachau." Certainly the defendant did not have the opportunity to prevent or stop the experiments if he had been told and was convinced that they had terminated on May 20, 1942, and there is no reason to believe that he did not rely upon Dr. Hippke's report as to their termination. Considerable emphasis is laid upon the testimony that a motion picture of the experiments was brought to Berlin and exhibited in the Air Ministry Building, where the defendant had his office. It may even be said that the picture was brought to Berlin for the defendant's edification. But it appears that he was not present when it was shown and that, in any event, the showing was long after the experiments were concluded, at which time the defendant certainly could do nothing toward preventing Court No. II, Case No. II.
them or stopping them.
(7) In view of the above findings, it is obvious that the defendant never became particeps criminis and accessory in the low-pressure experiments set forth in the second count of the indictment.
As to the other experiments, involving subjecting human beings to extreme low temperatures both in the open air and in water, the responsibility of the defendant is even less apparent than in the case of the low-pressure experiments. The same letter of May 20, 1942, to Wolff, does indicate that the defendant was aware of the proposed sea-water experiments. In it he says:
"........ the carrying out of experiments of some other kind, in regard to perils at high seas, would be important. These have been prepared in immediate agreement with the proper offices; Oberstabsarzt Weltz will be charged with the execution and Stabsarzt Rascher Trill be made available until further order in addition to his duties within the Medical Corps of the Luftwaffe. A change of these measures does not appear necessary, and an enlargement of the task is not considered pressing at this time."
It is true that Rascher wrote interminable reports as to the results of these experiments, but there is no proof that they ever reached the defendant. On the contrary, they were addressed to Himmler and to Rudolf Brandt, his Adjutant. At the Nurnberg conference in November, 1943, which was held after all experiments had been finished, reports were made which even to a mildly curious lay person might have indicated that the experiments had been tinged with excesses and fatalities. But two facts are striking. First, the defendant was not present at the conference and only received a report of it later, and, second, the experiments were at that time all over.
It must be constantly borne in mind that this is an American Court of justice, applying the ancient and fundamental concepts of Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence which have sunk their roots into the English common law and have been stoutly defended in the United States since its birth.
Court No. II, Case No. II.
One of the principal purposes of these trials is to inculcate into the thinking of the German people an appreciation of, and respect for, the principles of law which have become the backbone of the democratic process. We must bend every effort toward suggesting to the people of every nation that laws must be used for the protection of people and that every citizen shall forever have the right to a fair hearing before an impartial tribunal, before which all men stand equal. We must never falter in maintaining, by practice as well as by preachment, the sanctity of what we have come to know as due process of law, civil and criminal, municipal and international. If the level of civilization is to be raised throughout the world, this must be the first step. Any other road leads but to tyranny and chaos. This Tribunal, before all others, must act in recognition of these self-evident principles. If it fails, its whole purpose is frustrated and this trial becomes a mockery. At the very foundation of these juridical concepts lie two important postulates: (1) Every person accused of crime is presumed to be innocent, and (2) that presumption abides with him until guilt has been established by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Unless the court which hears the proof is convinced of guilt to the point of moral certainty, the presumption of innocence must continue to protect the accused. If the facts as drawn from the evidence are equally consistent with guilt and innocence, they must be resolved on the side of innocence. Under American law neither life nor liberty is to be lightly taken away, and, unless at the conclusion of the proof there is an abiding conviction of guilt in the mind of the court which sits in judgment, the accused may not be damnified.
Paying reverent attention to these sacred principles, it is the judgment of the Tribunal that the defendant is not guilty of the charges embraced in Count Two of the Indictment.
THE PRESIDENT: Judge Musmanno will read the judgment of the Tribunal on Count One.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: COUNT ONE
Court No. II, Case No. II Count One of the Indictment charges the defendant with the commission of specified war crimes, as defined by Article II of Control Council Law No. 10, in that he was a principal in, accessory to, ordered, abetted, took a consenting part in and was connected with, plans and enterprises involving slave labor and deportation to slave labor, resulting in the enslavement, torture and murder of civilians of foreign countries.
The Indictment further charges that he similarly participated in the use of prisoners of war in war operations and work having a direct. relation to war operations, resulting in inhuman treatment and death to captured members of the armed forces opposed to Germany. The Indictment alleges that these acts were in violation of international law and the recognized principles of civilized warfare and in specific violation of numerous treaties and conventions to which Germany was a party.
It is claimed by the prosecution that the defendant's responsibility for these alleged crimes arises from his activities in three capacities: (1) As Air Ordnance Master General (Generalluftzeugmeister); (2) Member of the Central Planning Board; and (3) Chief of the Jaegerstab. The Central Planning Board was established by a decree of the Fuehrer, dated October 29, 1943. That decree fitted the task of production of material goods of every kind into the framework of the Four-Year Plan and charged the Central Planning Board with the procurement and distribution of material of every description. The Board consisted of Reich Minister Speer, Under Secretary Koerner, and the defendant. On March 1, 1944 the Jaegerstab was established, consisting of Speer, Sauer (a subordinate of Speer), and the defendant. The Jaegerstab concerned itself exclusively with the material needs of the Luftwaffe, and was headed, naturally, by the defendant. It became apparent that neither of these two bodies could adequately deal with the problems of production without constantly dealing with the question of labor supply. Meetings of the Central Planning Board were held at least weekly and the minutes of those meetings which were offered in evidence show a constant and unremitting concern with the problem of labor. Fritz Court No. II, Case No. II.
Sauckel was in supreme command of the procurement of labor for the entire war effort, and his conduct in carrying out his task has been vividly portrayed in the judgment of the International Military Tribunal?
"........ As local supplies of raw materials and local industrial capacity became inadequate to meet the German requirements, the system of deporting laborers to Germany was put into force. By the middle of April 1940 compulsory deportation of laborers to Germany had been ordered in the Government General; and a similar procedure was followed in other eastern territories as they were occupied. A description of this compulsory deportation from Poland was given by Himmler. In an address to SS officers he recalled how in weather 40 degrees below zero they had to 'haul away thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands.' On a later occasion Himmler stated:
Whether ten thousand Russian females fall down from exhaustion while digging an anti-tank ditch interests me only insofar as the antitank ditch for Germany is finished ........ We must realize 1a.That we have 6-7 millions foreigners in Germany.
......
They are none of then dangerous so long as we trice severe measures at the merest trifles.'
"During the first two years of the German Occupation of France, Belgium, Holland and Norway, however, an attempt was made to obtain the necessary workers on a voluntary basis. How unsuccessful this was may be seen from the report of the meeting of the Central Planning Board on 1 March 1944. The representative of the defendant Speer, one Kochrl, speaking of the situation in France, said:
'During all this time a great number of Frenchmen was recruited, and voluntarily went to Germany.
He was interrupted by the defendant Sauckel:
'Not only voluntary, some were recruited forcibly.'
To which Koehrl replied:
'The calling up started after the recruitment no longer yielded enough results.'
To which the defendant Sauckel replied:
'Out of the five million workers who arrived in Germany, not even 200,000 came voluntarily.' and Kochrl rejoined:
and Koehrl rejoined:
'Let us forget for the moment whether or not some slight pressure was used. Formally, at least, they were volunteers.'
"Committees were set up to encourage recruiting, and a vigorous propaganda campaign was begun to induce workers to volunteer for service in Germany. This propaganda campaign included, for example, the promise that a prisoner of war would be returned for every laborer who volunteered to go to Germany. In some cases it was supplemented by withdrawing the ration cards of laborers who refused to go to Germany, or by discharging them from their jobs and denying them unemployment benefit or an opportunity to work elsewhere. In some cases workers and their families were threatened with reprisals by the police if they refused to go to Germany.
It was on 21 March 1942 that the defendant Seuckel was appointed Plenipotentiary-General for the Utilization of Labor, with authority over 'all available manpower, including that of workers recruited abroad, and of prisoners of war.'
"The defendant Sauckel was directly under the defendant Goering as Commissioner of the Four Year Plan, and a Goering decree of 27 March 1942 transferred all his authority over manpower to Sauckel, Sauckel's instructions, too, were that foreign labor should be recruited on a voluntary basis, but also provided that 'where, however, in the occupied territories, the appeal for volunteers does not suffice, obligatory service and drafting must under all circumstances be resorted to.' Rules requiring labor service in Germany were published in all the occupied territories. The number of laborers to be supplied was fixed by Sauckel, and the local authorities were instructed to meet these requirements by conscription if necessary .........
"....... the evidence before the Tribunal establishes the fact that the conscription of labor was accomplished in many cases by drastic and violent methods. The 'mistakes and blunders' were on a very great scale. Manhunts took place in the streets, at motion picture houses, even at churches and at night in private houses. Houses were sometimes burnt down, and the families taken as hostages, practices which were described by the defendant Rosenberg as having their origin 'in the blackest periods of the slave trade.' The methods used in obtaining forced labor from the Ukraine appear from an order issued to SD officers which stated:
'It will not be possible always to refrain from using force..... When searching villages, especially when it has been necessary to burn down a village, the whole population will be put at the disposal of the Commissioner by force.....
as a rule no more children will be shot.......
If we limit harsh measures through the above orders for the time being, it is only done for the following reason.
.... The most important thing is the recruitment of workers.
' The resources and needs of the occupied countries were completely disregarded in carrying out this policy.