Q I come now to the next document on the next page NOKW 365, page 142, which complains especially that they have no need to make demands on Sauckel if no demands would be carried cut. Is this statement here reproduced correctly? Was that your complaint?
A It is quite possible. I mean they were very pressed for workers; I can very well believe they said our hands are tied if Sauckel doesn't issue any orders. That is probably the reason for this statement of mine.
Q. I come now to the next document, NOKW 334, page 143 of the English book. It is a question at this time of prisoners of war who were employed in Truebau and were to be transferred to Brunswick. According to this document, the competent General Schmidt protested this transfer because they were employed in a concern at Brunswick where fighter squadrons were present, and he wasn't in a position to transfer them, and Gabel said they must -- and Gabel then said the prisoners must go to Brunswick. Who was Gabel?
A I don't know at the moment.
Q Does it mean that the prisoners will go there if Brunswick is attacked? What does it mean?
A If Brunswick continues to be attacked. That of course means that he would think it was a wonderful idea because they were prisoners of war.
Q Or it could mean that if Brunswick were attacked he wanted to transfer the prisoners. Were you present at this meeting?
A I don't know; I don't recall being there, if I was present at this conversation. I can't recall the transfer question.
Q In other words, you cannot make a definite statement about this passage?
A No.
Q Do you know that once at the plant at Erla there was an uprising of Russian prisoners of war?
A No.
Q I come now to NOKW 442, a few pages later. Here you are speaking of a transport of Italians -- 50,000 Italians have not yet been transported. It was due to the fact that the escort for the transport has not yet been ap pointed.
The conversation with Plenipotentiary yesterday in Milan proved that the transport should leave today for this place Woerl (?) where further distribution will be undertaken. Who were these 50,000 Italians?
A So far as I can recall, these were Italian internees; there were about half a million Italians already being employed in Germany in 1943; allegedly there were another 50,000 in Italy who had not been brought over. I assume that this conversation is dealing with those 50,000.
Q It is spoken of here that this is an action on our part. Who is this "our part"?
A The Fighter Staff.
Q Who said that?
A Sauckel said that? Who said that?
Q Who said this is an action on our part; is that an action on the part of Speer or the Fighter Staff; he says this is our undertaking.
A I mean to say at this time this was an action on the part mainly for the Ministry and that Sauckel undertook it because the transport was to be carried out by Nagel. Nagel was transportation chief for Speer's Ministry. The difficulties involved in bringing over forces from Italy were very strong particularly in the transportation field. I know that at that time negotiations were being carried on with Nagel so that he should bring them over in trucks. Thus the transportation will have to be carried out by vehicles of the Ministry and for that reason Sauckel thought he had certain rights over these people. That is to say, this action of ours means that we have brought them over; consequently, we want to use them in the armament industries where they are needed. I recall also that Sauckel was agreeable to this. He said if you transport these people, then you can keep them and use them as you want to. That question mark in there, the inquiry, was a transient camp where the workers from Italy were kept before further distribution. The camp belonged to Sauckel.
Q. Now, I come to NOKW-336 and from my document book I wish to use page 91; my own page 91. Page 156, I believe, of the English Document Book, page 80 of the original. Milch said: "How long do the Italian PW's actually work? Schmeltor: As long as the factory works. There is a regulation that PC's must work so long. Milch: Could you not look into this? You can see people on the streets about 4 or 5 o'clock and nobody after that. Schmelter: I can look into it. "Milch says: "I do not believe that any Italian prisoner of war works 72 hours. Schmelter: They will probably work in those factories less than 72 hours. Can't we have them all work 64 hours? In this way me could get along if everybody did that. "That was a statement by Milch. "Schmelter: I have already made the suggestion that in civil production workers should work longer. We have many who work 48 hours. Milch; Than we could hit a compromise. We don't always have to have them work 72 hours." What was Milch's aim in making such a suggestion?
A. Probably he wanted to bring it about that the manpower of the Italian war prisoners should be fully exploited.
Q. And as respect to the prisoners who work 72 hours; what about them?
A. It's to be assumed from his remarks in general that they should have a lower number of work hours frequently.
Q. Is this for both German and foreign workers?
A. Yes. The 72 hour week was established right in the first days of the Jaegerstab on order of the Jaegerstab. In my opinion that was a rather exclusive requirement which was not put into practice because of that. In the course of the first few months they tried to roach a more reasonable regulation of this.
Q. What do you know about labor utilization of English and American prisoners of war?
That is to say, Americans and British who were captured in Germany?
743 A
A. In 1944, that is to say, in my time, no new prisoners of war were used because we didn't capture any more. So far as I knew British and American prisoners of war were not used in armament factories. Repeatedly proposals in this direction were made also in the case of non-coms and officers. In the case of Officers -- it was Polish Officers, if I recall, no change in the regulations was made, so far as I recall. Instructions were transmitted to the OKW but I do not know if anything came of them.
Q. I come now to your two sworn affidavits of 19 November 1946; Exhibit No. 76 is a sworn affidavit of yours of that date. NOKW-266, dated 19 November, page 101. I should ask you not to interrupt my questions, otherwise the translation will not come through. Under No. 4 you said that Chief of Staff Sauer distributed the workers in the Fighter Staff. Now, what should that mean? Docs that mean a transfer or is that where he directed it himself or what does it mean?
A. That is to say, that because of the stoppage of production in armor production there were available manpower forces and the workers were distributed partially by Sauer himself in the Fighter Staff meetings. For example, it was determined that workers should transfer from one plant to another, particularly since they were skilled laborers.
Q. Did you know that in 1944 in order to protect the aircraft industry there were underground and protected factories built?
A. Yes.
Q. You know who gave the original order for this?
A. So far as I know the order for this re-location of industries in subterranean plants was given from the Fighter Staff itself. I was not competent in this matter but naturally I took part in the discussions of this Fighter Staff and heard it there.
I heard that it was decided that as to bombed-out factories, a different place which the Fighter Staff would determine should be 744 A re-located to these places.
Q. That's no answer to my question. Witness, I asked who gave the original order for the construction of these subterranean factories? Do you know that?
A. If I may repeat; you want to know who ordered in the first place that these plants should be transferred to subterranean factories? That I do not know.
Q. Do you know Herr Kammler?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know from whom he received the order to construct these special subterranean factories?
A. Here again I do not know precisely who gave him the original order. In any event at the first beginning of the Fighter Staff Kammler became a member and was commissioned to undertake the construction of subterranean buildings for Fighter Staff protection. The Fighter Staff also assigned or told him what individual objectives. He report d from time to time how many square meters were now ready. But who first originally gave these orders to Kammler whether it was Himmler or Hitler or some agreement or something like that, I don't know.
Q. Was Kammler commissioned with this and in this Fighter Staff because of an order of Himmler or because of some special order elsewhere?
A. I am not able to say, I assume that Himmler also gave him an order. The individual orders, what he was to build, he received from the Fighter Staff.
Q. Witness, you said previously that within the frame of your tasks you entered Speer's Ministry?
A. No, I did not say that. Within the framework of my tasks I represented the armament office.
Q. But the armament office was part of Speer's Ministry?
A. Yes.
Q. Did Kammler, within the Fighter Staff represent Himmler?
A. I do not know his powers or his functions and I cannot say. He was in the construction sector. That I know, but Himmler had charge of more things than really construction.
Q. Do you know Dorsch?
A. Yes.
Q. Is it true that those above-ground plants in the Fighter Staff were discussed in individual meetings of the Fighter Staff. I also know that at first it was considered who should be commissioned with the construction of those buildings. Whether Kammler or the construction organization, namely, the Plenipotentiary General for construction, that was mainly the predecessor of Borsch. Then in a meeting at which I was not present, I have only heard of those things accidentally, it was decided to choose Borsch for this. Proposals were made to Hitler regarding this construction. So far as I know, Dorsch also supplements these proposals on the technical side. The decision that construction was to be undertaken was taken so far as I know by Himmler. It was broken down into six parts, the first of which - however, at first only one or two were carried out.
Q. A correction; the decision was made not by Himmler but by Hitler. Did you know whether Speer or Milch were against tho construction of such above-ground plants?
A. No, I do not.
Q. That wasn't discussed in the Fighter Staff, or were you present at such meetings?
A. No, as I said, I wasn't present when this question came up. That did not concern no but I believe -- well, I don't know.
DR. BERGOLD: No further questions to the witness.
Mr. DENNEY: If Your Honor please, I have spoken with William McHaney about the possibility of Dr. Bergold interrogating Dr. Hippke, and he has no objections to it. In view of the lateness, I would rather not start on this witness now, if it would be agreeable to the Court. We are not going to sit this afternoon and -
THE PRESIDENT: May I use part of the time for a couple of question to the witness?
MR. DENNEY: Yes.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Will you try to answer these questions as simply and briefly as you can. Were Russian prisoners of War used in the armament industry?
A. In the armaments plant Russian prisoners of War were also employed. At what they were employed, I do not know, since they were already there when I came and I did not myself inspect the plants.
Q. Did you ever see Russian prisoners of war either manufacturing or transporting munitions of war?
A. In plants and in transports? No. Neither in plants nor in transports did I see Russian prisoners of war.
Q. That question is perfectly clear and you understand it?
A. I shall repeat it. I was asked whether these prisoners of war worked -- whether I have seen them in plants or in transport.
Q. That's right.
A. And I answered in the negative.
Q. Were Russian prisoners of war used in the decentralization of the Luftwaffe after the heavy bombings?
A. Not that I know of. So far as I know, after the heavy bombings Russian prisoners of war were no longer available. They had already been assigned elsewhere. I do know that after the heavy bombings, that is, in the year 1944, new Russian prisoners of war were not used in armaments or in the bombed out factories. It is, of course, possible that the local labor offices used Russian prisoners of war for this purpose, but we in the central offices knew nothing of this.
Q. Will you answer the same questions as to Polish prisoners of war?
A. So far as I know, Polish prisoners of war consisted solely of officers. Only officers were available. The others had been freed. The officers, however in contradiction to many wishes that were expressed, were not used. At least if they were , I know nothing of it.
Q. Will you answer the same questions as to Hungarian Jews.
A. Hungarian Jews, among other things, were used in the construction of fighters -- fighter planes. Female Hungarian Jews were also used in the actual construction of fighter planes.
Q. Were they voluntary workers?
A. No. Those were inmates of concentration camps, prisoners at the disposal of the SS.
Q. So the Hungarian Jews who were employed in the manufacture of fighter planes were forced to work in that connection?
A. The Hungarian Jews, so far as I recall, were offered by the SS to be employed in armament production. At first there were 1,000 of them, or 500 who were employed. Then a number of plants said that they wanted such workers and they were then allotted by the SS to these plants and there they were obliged to work.
Q. Then the SS, which was one branch of the German military establishment, simply dealt out the Hungarian Jews to anybody who needed them?
A. No. Thu Hungarian Jews, like all concentration camp inmates, were housed in camps that were either in or near the plants and which were constructed by the SS. They were then taken to work every day, and after the work they were again brought back by the SS to the camps. Also, the supervision of the work, for security reasons, was carried out by the SS. So far as the technical side of it was concerned, it was carried out by the representatives of the plant.
Q. Of course you don't claim they were paid for their work?
A. That I do not know. I do know only the general regulations concerning concentration camp prisoners, and I know them in part. I know that these prisoners, at least toward the end, also received some sort of wages. What the payment was, I do not know. I do know that the plant had to give the SS a certain amount for each prisoner, but what the prisoner himself received, I do not know.
Q. Do you know whether these Hungarian Jews worked through any contract with foreign government, as was the case in France?
A. Let me repeat the question whether Hungarian Jews worked on the basis of an agreement with a foreign power -- foreign government. Was that the question?
Q. Yes.
A. Not that I know of.
Q. I have no other questions. One more question please. You said that you know that Russian prisoners of war were working in the armament factories but you didn't know what kind of work they were doing.
A. Yes.
Q. Did you ever see them in any of the factories?
A. No.
Q. What do you think they were doing?
A. I guess some of them were engaged in construction. So far as skilled workers were concerned they were certainly working at tasks that they were qualified to do. So far as they were unskilled workers they might have been doing almost anything.
Q. If they were working in munition factories they were doing something to manufacture munitions, were they not?
A. If they worked in munitions factories then they must, of course, have had something to do with manufacturing munitions, even if they only worked in the courtyard, or something like that. They still had something to do with the manufacture of munitions.
BY JUDGE MUSMANNO:
Q. Witness, much has been said about the importation of women workers as domestic labor. Do you know what these women actually did when they were brought into Germany?
A. Let me repeat the question. I was asked whether I knew what the women who were brought to Germany did. Was that the question?
Q. Yes.
A. I do not know, because I did not visit any plants at all, or almost none.
Q. But when they were used as domestic labor, that phrase has been used often in the various interrogatories. Do you know what is meant by that phrase?
A Yes, they were servant girls or as domestic servants in individual households. So far as I know there were perhaps 50 to 60,000 foreign female workers in individual households where they worked.
BY JUDGE PHILLIPS:
Q Witness, did you ever know of any prisoners of war, especially Russians, being used to man anti-aircraft guns?
A In the construction or in the use of the anti-aircraft?
Q In the use of anti-aircraft.
A Yes, I have heard of that. I heard that Russian prisoners of war were used to man anti-aircraft guns of that sort.
Q Do you have any idea how many were used for that purpose?
A No, I don't.
Q Did you ever see them being used for that purpose?
A No.
Q On what fronts were they used?
A I believe they were used on the home front, not on the actual battle front, but that is simply my opinion.
Q. Against American planes, British planes and Russian planes?
A. They shot at whatever planes were over Germany.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: That is all.
DR. BERGOLD: May I ask one further question?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
BY DR. BERGOLD:
Q. Witness, you spoke of female Jews. When were these female Jews employed?
A. I do not know the precise date. It was the summer of In my estimation, it must have been May.
Q. Let me show you NOKW 359. It is the next to the last document of the Prosecution, Stenographic Notes on the Jaegerstab Meeting of 27 June 1944. You said, "I have a few more points. Up until now 12,000 female concentration camp internees, Jewesses, have been demanded. The matter is now in order. The SS has agreed to deliver these Hungarian Jewesses in batches of 500. Thus the smaller firms, too, will be in a better position to employ these concentration camp Jewesses. I request that these people should be ordered in batches of 500."
Is this the point of time from when onward these females were used?
A. Yes. It must have been about this time. The difficulty was the following: The SS demanded that the females should should be delivered in batches of thousands only. Most factories could not use such a large number of females. Consequently, the SS was asked if it could not deliver them in smaller groups. That is the reason.
Q. Witness, is there a difference between the concept of "Ruestungsfabrik" which means armament factory and "Munitionsfabrik" which means a munitions factory? Is there a difference in Germany?
A. Ruestungsfabrik took care of all sorts of armament production, materials, finishing up the deliveries and so on and so forth. Munitionsfabrik is the narrower concept and contents itself with the manufacture of munitions only.
Q. Did the Munitionsfabrik belong inside the concept of "Luftruestung" air armament?
A. So far as the Luftruestung is concerned, they did, yes. The limitation of these concepts was not however uniform. Unfortunately, we had very few uniform concepts. They were often misused.
Q. Were factories that made sheet metal and so on, armament factories? Did they fall under the concept of armaments?
A. They did, yes.
DR. BERGOLD: Thank you.
Your Honors, since I have not been able to get in writing my request to hear Hippke, and that question has not been clarified heretofore, perhaps I can say something about that. I shall call Hippke after the cross-examination of the present witness. I assume that the approval of Hippke as a witness also includes the fact that I may call him here and put him on the stand?
MR. DENNEY: If Your Honors please, I have nothing to do with whom he calls. He may call anyone he desires.
THE PRESIDENT: He is giving you notice that the next witness will be Dr. Hippke.
MR. DENNEY: I assume we are back to the 24 hour question. What he wants me to do is to waive it. I wish he would ask me.
THE PRESIDENT: No.
DR. BERGOLD: I could not tell you about Hippke 24 hours ahead of time because I did not know the rule that he would not be available to us for eight days also applied to the fact he could not be called as a witness. Now we have a clear explanation of that.
THE PRESIDENT: It is all right. Everybody understands, including Mr. Denney, that Hippke will be the next witness.
The Court will adjourn until tomorrow morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 7 February 1947 at 0930 hours.)
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 7 February, 1947, 0930-1700, Justice Toms, presiding.
THE MARSHAL: All persons, please find your seats. The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal Number II. Military Tribunal Number II is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal. There will be order in the Court.
MR. DENNEY: I believe the Colonel has just gone out to get the witness.
(RESUMED)
FRITZ SCHMELTER
BY MR. DENNEY:
Q. Witness, you're reminded that you're still under oath.
A. What's that?
Q. You are reminded that you are still under oath.
A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall being interrogated several times?
A. Yes.
Q. Here, in Nurnberg?
A. Yes.
Q. November and December 1946 and again in January of this year?
A. Yes.
Q. In one of these interrogations, on 30 December 1946, you were asked what the Jaegerstab did to bring workers from Hungary into Germany; do you recall that?
A. Yes.
Q. And do you recall that you made reference to certain trips of the Jaegerstab to Hungary?
A. Yes.
Q. You made this statement: "The Jaegerstab, during its existence, made at least a total of 10 to 12 trips"?
A. Yes.-
Q. Just answer the questions, witness. I have your answer. If the Jaegerstab, during its existence, made at least 10 to 12 trips -- that is the statement you made during your interrogation?
A. Yes. But not to Hungary, if I may remark.
Q. All right. You were asked this question: "Who was in charge of these trips?" And you answer was: "So far as I remember, it was Milch. Milch participated in most trips of the Jaegerstab."
A. In most of them; yes.
Q. in the same interrogation on 30 December, the record indicates that you made this statement: "I know about 100,000 workers from Hungary; however, these were Jews who were allocated to construction. I know nothing about 8,000 workers who evidently were skilled workers, intended for the fighter production program."
A. Yes.
Q. You were then asked: "Is it known to you that these 100,000 Jews were used by Todt in the interests of the Jaegerstab?" and you made the following answer: "Yes, that is known to me."
A. Yes.
Q. You were interrogated on 24 January and asked this question: "Do you know whether the Luftwaffe, in the Luftwaffe industry, used concentration camp prisoners, not in the building program, but for production." and your answer was: "I don't know. I don't think so, except for women. The SS once offered us a lot of women. The difficulty was that, at first, at least 1,000 and later 500 were to be employed. Various firms got women after that, and I think that Heinkel, in Oranienburg, used concentration camp prisoners, not only women, but all the inmates."
A. Yes.
Q. The answer was yes, if Your Honor please. And Heinkel was an airplane factory, was it not, producing the Hienkel plane?
A. Yes.
Q. On November 15, of last year, you were asked if you knew that Himmler used concentration camp inmates for the underground buildings of the fighter staff, and your answer: "Yes; you do mean the finished buildings, do you not? And then you were asked: "The underground ones, the completion of the existing caverns or tunnels, or the like, where concentration camp inmates were employed?"
and your answer, "Yes."
A. Yes.
Q. And you were also asked: "Were these construcions built in the interest of the Luftwaffe?" Your answer: "These new constructions; yes."
A. Yes.
Q. The next question: "Exclusively in the interest of the Luftwaffe. And did the orders for the new constructions come from the fighter staff?" Answer: "Whether other constructions were also built there; probably yes." Question: "I am only interested in the Luftwaffe?" Answer: "Also for the Luftwaffe. I do not know whether for others. I would not like to pin myself down."
A. Yes.
Q. Later you were asked: "Do you know that prisoners of war were at all employed in the air rearmament?" and you stated "Yes; I should like to say, the rearmament plans. The air rearmament also employed prisoners of war in its plans."
A. Yes.
Q. In the same interrogation of 15th of November, you made this statement: "Field Marshal Milch, who signed himself responsible for air armament, recruited his labor independently to a certain extent."
A. I'm afraid I didn't quite understand that.
Q. In the same interrogation of 15 November 1946, you made this statement: "Field Marshal Milch, who signed himself responsible for air armament, recruited his labor independently to a certain extent."
A. I no longer recall making that statement. Perhaps - could I see the context? I don't know what the word "independently" is supposed to mean there.
Q. Just answer the questions, witness. In reply to a question: "What was Field Marshal Milch's position in the Jaegerstab?" you stated, "There were two chairmen in the Jaegerstab, Speer and Milch. In the first session, or rather in most of the sessions, Milch participated personally; Speer did not. Speer was present only in exceptional cases. In his place, Sauer, who was at the same time manager, initiated the contact with the rest of the armament industry. Milch was Chief of the Jaegerstab, besides Speer."
A. Yes.
Q In the same interrogation of 15 November you made the following statement: "assignment of labor was involved in every question including every question of production."
A Yes.
Q On the 26th of November you made the following statement when you were interrogated: "mobilization of manpower as a matter which is closely connected with production was very much discussed. Everybody had a word to say, had a request for something and they suggested or said I could do better, etc."
A Yes.
Q Do you recall being present at the 53rd and 54th meetings of the Central Planning Board? The 54th meeting was held on March 1, 1944.
A I was present at two or three meetings. I do not, however, know whether I was present on the one on the first of March.
Q The meeting at which labor was discussed.
A Yes, I assume that I was there, yes, but I cannot say for certain.
Q These two meetings were presided over by Field Marshal Milch.
AAs much as I remember, yes, that's true.
Q Do you recall Sauckel being at these meetings?
A I remember one meeting exactly at which Sauckel was present, one exactly - but not more than one.
MR. DENNEY: Dr. Bergold, do you have the German copy of NOKW198 which is the chart bearing the labor statistics for the first quarter of 1944? (to page) will you get it and give it to the witness, please? (page secures copy of document) Thank you. If your Honor please, I think this -- I don't seem to have the document book here but I think it appears in Document Book 2-A and it's the insert -it's the chart on labor to which we later added. I don't think your Honors will need it if you don't have it. (to witness) Have you ever seen this chart?
A No.
Q You never saw it?
A These are not work statistics.
Q Give it back. The witness hasn't seen the chart. I can't examine him. Witness were you a member of the Nazi party?
A Yes, I was; since 1932.
Q 1932. Did you hold an office in the SS?
A Not in the party, in the SS I had a rank because of my official position, Obersturmbannfuehrer, but exercised no function and no active orders.
Q When were you appointed Obersturmbannfuehrer in the SS?
A 1941.
Q 1941. If your Honor please, I have no further questions.
RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. BERGOLD:
Q Witness, on the trip to Hungary were you present when the committee went to Hungary?
A No, I travelled only as far as Prague and returned.
Q Do you know the purpose of this trip to Hungary?
A Not precisely. I know that there was a question of production to take place in Hungary but precise information I do not have.
Q Do you know that there was a definite contract with the Hungarian Government?
A I heard about that subsequently.
Q Did you then hear that this trip had the purpose of bringing Hungarian Jews to Germany?
A No.
Q Thank you. The prosecutor spoke to you of 100,000 Jews. Did you know that these were to be used by Mr. Dorsch?
A Yes.
Q And mainly, as far as the tasks that he had, mainly to bombproof factories?
A Yes.
Q Do you know whether the Fighter Staff ordered these 100,000 Jews or whether somebody else did?
A The employment of these 100,000 Jews in this construction organization took place on Hitler's orders. I, myself, was not present at this discussion. Dorsch, however, was present and told me that Hitler had ordered -- had said Himmler has 100,000 Hungarian Jews for bomb-proof factories and is to make them available.
Q Do you know whether and in what number and when these Jews arrived to carry out this construction work?
A I do not know precisely the dates. It was in the summer of 1944. Nor do I know whether all of them arrived. Once I concerned myself with the question regarding the guarding of these people. At that time the SS did not have enough guard personnel and Hitler ordered Keitel to provide 10,000 soldiers which were to be withdrawn from the Eastern Front and to make them available to the SS so that they, the SS, would have the necessary guard personnel. Thereafter, I heard nothing further about the matter and assumed that the Jews for the most part were employed. I deduced this from the fact that I otherwise should have heard of it again probably.
Q I discussed just yesterday with you whether these buildings were ordered by the Fighter Staff. I do not need to return to that question. Were these constructions used exclusively by the Fighter Staff or for other advantages, such as armored cars?
A Originally they were exclusively planned for fighter construction but I do recall that as time went on there were also discussions of using them for other manufacture, for instance, tanks, and this construction should take place in these buildings. Since, however, I had nothing to do with this professionally, I can only report on this from hearsay. In other words, I know nothing precisely.