Q That means that there were no separate minutes for these individual conferences, but they were parts of the general minutes?
A Yes, that is my recollection.
2018-B
Q Witness, I now pass on to the minutes, NOKW-346 of the 20th of March. There Saur tells you, "As far as Hungary is concerned, I should be greatful if the Field Marshall would call up Mr. Sauckel and tell him that the whole group mobilized in Hungary should be primarily at the disposal of the Jaegerstab. Large Schanz-Columns"--which means heavy labor companies, literally columns of ditch diggers-- "must be formed. The people have to be treated like the prisoners, criminal prisoners; otherwise they will not work." The witness Vorwald has already testified in this regard, but I ask you to give the Tribunal an answer yourself with regard to the question whether you granted this demand and whether you took steps with Sauckel.
A. At this day, Saur had summoned the German Engineers Association and the German Association of Electricians. He had summoned them to attend this meeting in order to get support in a general way from these circles. And I assumed that he wanted to boast a little bit--as we call it--and he wanted to show that he was giving, issuing directives to me, the Field Marshal; that I had no idea of executing these demands, and I have not taken any steps and have not discussed the matter, neither with Sauckel nor with anybody else, because, after all, that was no task for me, in any way. I had nothing to do whatsoever with construction questions. That is sufficient.
Q. Witness, in this same meeting, Saur speaks of 54,000 Czechoslovakians. There were 17,000 for Czechoslovakia, itself; 31,000 for the Reich. Would you tell us, witness; do you know anything about those Czech workers?
A. No.
Q. I now pass to you NOKW 388. There, you see; and this is the conference of 28 March 1944. Here a certain Mr. Nobel is speaking, and he says that the labor assignment situation in the repair sector is unsatisfactory. Of the 2,000 people promised -- not one has yet arrived. And you answer: "Tell Schmelter that if I can help in any way by calling Sauckel, etc, he should let me know." Later on, Schmelter came and no further discussion was made with regard to that matter. But how did that occur? What kind of people were they? Were they German workers -these repair workers who are experts -- or what kind of workers were they?
A. I could not tell you that in detail, but I assume that there might have been some of each kind. I don't know where these workers came from or to come from, but, in itself, we had in our repair sectors more Germans than in the new construction because this work after all is much more difficult. It is much more difficult. It is much more difficult than to produce spare parts for a new plane. Repair factories which I knew had German staff. But, here again, I could not call Sauckel because I never called Sauckel over the telephone at all; but I had offered it here because at an earlier stage already it had been said that Speer's people had difficulties with Sauckel and that they never took the chance of calling Sauckel over the telephone any more.
Q. Now, in this conference there are other discussions concerning labor questions, and, more precisely, the question that Sauckel did not fulfill the demands in spite of the fact that he had reported very large figures. Could the same be said with regard to this as what you have said concerning the Central Planning Board?
A. Yes.
Q. You speak of taking the servants away from the housewives--that means 800,000 servants-
A. Germans...
Q. Yes; Germans. And here you have to fight for 2,000 men.
A. Yes.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Do you say those domestic servants were Germans?
DR. BERGOLD: Yes, in Germany there were much larger proportion of young girls in the households as far as I know than is the case in the United States. In Germany, every household of upper-middle class people had house servants. That amounts to an enormous figure--and they are always Germans.
THE WITNESS: May I say one thing? There were already also, a certain number of Ukrainians, but this figure is in addition to the 800,000 German workers. But I wanted to have workers from these Germans because other documents show that I always fought against the tendency which was in accordance with Hitler's orders, according to which German women were not to be used as laborers, as far as possible.
2021 -A Hitler quoted biological reasons for that tendency but I didn't recognize these reasons because we were engaged in a battle for life or death of our nation, and, therefore, I considered it right that out of these German house servants our small figures should be covered.
Q. Witness, during the same conference you speak of a "robbing action" which had to be carried out because legal means could no longer be used... Would that mean that you were going to shanghai foreign workers--or how do you account for the words "robbing action?"
A. It should have been the contrary to the word "legal". That means we were willing to try to circumvene the German conscription, and towards other German authorities we wanted to violate these prescriptions. But we never succeeded in doing so, either, because, unfortunately, we were unable to do so.
Q. Witness, during the same conference, reference is made to the fact that you wanted to protect the fighter factories from having to surrender labor, and that, therefore, you wanted to write a letter to Keitel of the OKW, and a letter to Mr. Sauckel. Why did you propose that?
A. From the fighter factories, soldiers were continuing to be drafted into the German Wehrmacht. We only heard of that later on, after the fact. And, therefore, I tried to succeed, in obtaining that the drafting from the fighter factories was to be informed first of all--was to be told us in the fighter staff, in order to enable us to raise a protest. And, therefore, the name Keitel OKW and Sauckel, of course, had to know that, because he, after all, was supposed to send reserves and replacements into these factories. But the old method was used; the Armed Forces only notified the factories of the drafting, and we didn't even hear of it at all. And we were suddenly quite astonished to see that the production was decreasing. And when we asked the factory then, they just told us: Well, they have drafted so-and-so many soldiers from our factory. We have lost again so-and-so 2022-A many of our skilled workers.
Q. That is sufficient, witness. In the document NOKW 365, a certain Mr. Lange says: Schmelter's man complains especially that they have now no chance to make severe demands on Sauckel which would be carried out. Saur then asked you that it would be best if you, yourself, went to Sauckel as the man in charge of labor recruitment, and you said 2022-B to him," I shall tell him that the 10,000 red tickets have not been covered."
Did you actually ask Sauckel or tell Sauckel?
A. No, I did not tell him. After the meeting I told the man that he should do so himself because Saur's demands, after all, went much further. And I answered that I only wanted to tell him something about the red tickets, but, after all, that was not a question I had to deal with.
Q. Witness -
A. Furthermore, I want to say that might have meant, also, I would tell him. That means, if I were in your place I would--and not "I will." This kind of mistake happens very often on every page of the minutes because I never had the intention to speak with Sauckel, myself because, after all, that would have served no purpose whatsoever. And especially, if there were no witnesses while I talked with him.
Q. Witness, I now pass to NOKW 334. This document deals with the assignment of French forces -- we already talked of that matter; but it deals also with the assignment of prisoners of war -- near Braunschweig, and there you say the famous sentence: "I also think it is a very good thing that POW's should be sent there if Braunschweig is always attacked." What does this sentence mean?
A. In this conference there was a representative of the high command of the Luftwaffe. Before the meeting I had succeeded--and this was quite some work for me--in obtaining that we would get a barracks for our workers on airfields which, according to my statements, was about 15 kilometers or 20 kilometers out of Braunschweig. And in these barracks there were the fighters. Home fighters were placed in these barracks. When, finally, I succeeded in getting the barracks for ourselves, the home authorities who were in charge of these fighters made difficulties. I had received my permission from the General Staff but the Air Fleet, the Home Air Fleet, said, No; and the representative had declared that the fighters should remain there, and had to remain there. I said, I have to get that factory; I need it for the purposes of the fighter staff.
And on that they said, already in one of the preliminary conferences: "What do you want there at all? After all, the factory won't be standing very long anyhow. It is much better if you shift the workers and the production somewhere else right away."
But we had no place anywhere else. Then I said, "Even if the attacks are there, it is much better if these people get there and are sent there because in this factory they are mainly old people and women, and if we send young people there, they can also help when the plances are around, when it's burning, and they can also have the clearing work," because the women were not very good for that kind of work and also the old men couldn't give much help. But the danger was not great there. It's quite obvious exactly from the fact that the Air Fleet Reichs, the Home Air Fleet, had sent home fighters there. The factories at Braunschweig were in the city, right near the city, and these places which were far out were not attacked. But if they should have been attacked, then these people could have helped.
I wanted to bring forward the argument and refute the argument of the Home Air Fleet which was trying to get these barracks away from us.
Q. Thank you. Witness, I now pass on to NOKW-389, which is the conference of the 2nd of May. There an incident in the earlier work is referred to, during which POW's had started a large-scale mutiny. Did you have any knowledge of this mutiny?
A. Yes, I had received a so-called special report on that matter before the conference, that is - and the whole matter was so unique and so different from anything that had happened before that I hardly believed the contents. I did not really believe the contents and I wanted to wait on what the definite report would be.
Q. Witness, Kammler said on that occasion that he had thirty people hanged in special treatment. Was the fighter staff in any way connected with that matter, or in what capacity had Kammler hanged these people?
A. There was no connection whatsoever with the fighter staff anyway, but I assume that it was some occurrence in the framework of the SS at some time. I don't know Kammler very well, but it might even have been just a tale he gave us in order to influence the others - in order to boast. I couldn't tell what it was.
Q. Witness, I now pass to Document LO-390. This is the matter with the Italians, and there also we have a connection with the Document NOKW 442.
Will you first of all answer the question, what kind of Italians were involved here? Were they civilian workers or were they PW's?
A. These were the so-called Imis, who were interned soldiers. On the strength of an agreement with the Mussolini government, they were the Italians who had declared themselves in favor of the Badoglio government. On that Mussolini had them captured, and he stressed the point that they should, if possible, work with us.
Q. In *** connection with the transport of these people, you said that you are of the opinion that shooting should take place if somebody tries to escape from the train. How did you come to this opinion?
A. Well, we had received a report that the first transport or whatever it was had been dissolved by itself because the people had just left the trains, and it was quite legal in case of escape that the surveying power should use their arms. I understand by that if an attempt to escape cannot be prevented by any other means, then they should be entitled to shoot but not if the people had already been recaptured. But, as I have proved, that is quite the same for all other powers, also.
Q. But did you issue an order in this connection?
A. No, that wasn't my task. We had nothing to do with the transport of these people.
EXAMINATION BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Your statement would only be true if they were prisoners of war, would it not?
A. Yes, they were prisoners of war.
Q. You don't mean that people who were coming voluntarily be agreement with their own country to work in Germany could be shot if they changed their minds and tried to go back, or do you mean that?
A. I may explain this then briefly. This was just one occurrence. In Italy there was an opposition against the Mussolini government and a revolt against that government. Now, one part of the Italian groups declared themselves in favor of Mussolini, and another part declared themselves against him.
Mussolini captured that part which had declared themselves against him with the help of Germany, and they were declared prisoners of war. These people now were prisoners of war of the German-Italian alliance, and Mussolini placed these people at the disposal of Germany as prisoners of war. He wanted to get them out of Italy because after all they were not secure enough in Italy, and he handed them over to Hitler for work purposes, and now these Italian PW's were to be transported to Germany, and that is how it came to this conference.
Q. Then we have the strange situation of Italian nationals being prisoners of war of Italy?
A. Yes, that was the situation. There was a mutual question. That is, the Bodoglio people also captured the Mussolini partisans. After all the nation didn't know where to go, and there were partisans for one as well as for the other.
Q. Did anyone who was a partisan and who was captured become a prisoner of war of the other faction?
A. Yes. They even did the following. The officers were asked whether they declared themselves for Mussolini or for Badoglio. I know of one of them, a good friend of mine. He was for a long time the Italian air attache in Berlin. This man declared himself for Badoglio, and as a consequence he was/interned and became a PW. He then remained in Italy as a prisoner of war, as an officer prisoner of war. Other officers, again, declared themselves pro Mussolini. If they were in the northern part of the country, that is, behind our front lines, then they were sent to the Graziani army, which continued to fight with the Germans. But if the man was behind the other front line, that is, behind the allied front line, then he became a prisoner of war there, if he declared so. Of course, I can't know whether he declared himself for Badoglio.
Q. The same situation was true in France, wasn't it?
A. In France there was a slightly different situation.
Q. Yes, but generally the same situation was true in France?
A. Yes, to a certain extent, at least. The difference was that as long as France was in the fight, that is, until the armistice, the France nation was united in the battle against Germany, but then later when the armistice was concluded and was broke later on by a part of the French, then another part remained on our side, and there we had similar conditions as in Italy.
BY DR. BERGOLD:
Q. Witness, in other words, these Italians were not civilian workers who had volunteered to come to Germany and work.
A. No, if they had come to Germany as volunteers, after all they wouldn't have run away.
Q. I now pass on to NOKW-361. This is the conference of the private staff of the 9th of May, 1944, and this concerns a journey from the 8th to the 10th of May. Witness, can you remember that journey?
A. Yes.
Q. In this passage reference is made to the assignment of concentration camp inmates in the mining industry. Did you attend this conference?
A. These were only part conferences. As far as I remember, that was in Bruck at the Mur. In that case I did not attend any of the conferences with the exception of the speech I made at the beginning where I gave directives to the competent local authorities, and I gave them a report on the situation. I stressed the importance of the fighter production. At the end there were always a few words of thanks for the good reception. All other conferences were only part conferences which had been detached, but besides that I don't remember what you just said now.
Q I now pass onto NOKW 349, this is the conference of 23 May, which probably deals also with the employment of Jews for the large air raid shelters.
A May I ask for that again?
Q On 23 May, I just want to ask you whether you were attending these conferences?
A No, I was not in Berlin at that time. No, not at all. I was at Obersalzberg with Goering.
Q I now pass to NOKW 336, which is the conference on 26 May. Witness, did you attend this conference?
A Yes. Yes, and for that time I was there together with Speer. I think that was the first time that day when he attended any Fighter Staff meeting. But I did not attend the whole of the meeting, but together with Speer, so far as I remember, I left the meeting before it ended.
Q Here again reference is made to the Hungarian Jews, and "Schlempp's report that what Dorsch told me, and Speer answered: "We have often made such calculations but people never came." What do you know of that matter?
A That is possible in spite of the fact I don't remember it.
Q Witness, then suddenly reference is made, and that is on page 80 of the original, reference is made of the fact that you asked "How long did Italian prisoners of war worked there." Will you tell me where did this conference of 26 May 1944, where did that conference take place?
A This conference exceptionally took place in the Reich Air Ministry, because Speer came to the conference, and Speer had told us it would be too far for him to go to the Templehof.
Q Just a minute, witness, that is sufficient. Witness, will you tell us how it came then you say, "How long did the Italian Prisonners of war work there." Did you see the Italian prisoners of war work in Berlin?
A No, but I saw them walk around in the afternoon, and there were large numbers of them.
Q Were they accompanied, or were they guarded?
A Yes, if you can call that a guard, because there were fivehundred Italians, and they were with an old territorial soldier. They went where they wanted, and in whatever manner they wanted.
Q But that is quite peculiar. First of all they have to report either at the Italian plant with a very heavily armed guard, and now they walk around in Berlin?
A Yes, and they did so at the time when everybody else was still working. After all the practice was different from the theory.
Q I now pass to NOKW 350, and this is the eighth journey of the Budapest enterprise. Do you know where this journey went? Could you tell us about it?
A Yes, that was the very first to attend, the 3rd of July.
Q Oh, yes.
A This journey went to Budapest, June, and on the 2nd June in the morning we arrived at Budapest. The report of the matter, as I recall from my notes show it was a matter to discuss with the government Horty who was the Prime Minister at that time, and his Deputy Imredy, to conclude a state agreement with them concerning a joint firther production in Hungary, on which occasion Hungary had to service planes which were already in making. There were caves, there were wine caves of large volumes, and were fivehundred fighters amongst them that were to be produced, and a large part of which were to be delivered to Germany, while Germany was to send reconnaissance planes and bombers to Hungary, and also ach-ach batteries with ammunition. This was a matter or public production barter.
Q Witness, but did this journey ever serve the purpose of bringing Hungarian Jews to Germany?
A No, there was no word at all about that. That was not our task at all because -
Q Go on.
A That is all.
Q Witness, during one of these conferences, you made reference to the fact that "No Frenchman will work after the invasion had started, and I am of the opinion that the French should be forced to come over into Germany, and should be forced to come over as prisonners." How did you come to make such a statement?
A First of all, I don't know whether the words are quite correct that was as they are put in these minutes, but in the case of French prisonners of war which were to leave conditionally were to be brought over before the invasion started, in order to prevent them from fighting against us over there, but rather to make them turn into the status of prisonners of war.
Q Then this you speak of having machine engines in France, and you said everything is to be brought over into Germany, also the engines. Are those French engines, or were those engines which had been transported there from Germany to France?
A These were engines, that they had sent over to France because of the fact all the French worked for us in the productive factories, and they produced instruments for us, and they had no machinery for the production of those engines, and, therefore, we had to send our tools and instruments and also the engines, because we could not do anything with French engines.
Q Thank you. Witness, did you attend the conference of June 7, 1944, which comes under NOKW 348?
A That was of June?
Q Yes?
A No, at least I did not put it down. May I ask what it dealt with?
Q You are not listed in the stenographic report, but there was a teletype machine?
A If there was a teletype machine, no, in that instance I did not attend.
Q I now refer to NOKW 358, the fighter staff conference of 30 June. Did you attend that conference, that is, June, that is this second one?
A No.
Q And another document I come to, NOKW 335, Fighter Staff conference of 31 July, did you attend that conference?
A Yes, indeed. Just a minute. 31st, yes.
Q 31st.
A Yes, that was the final conference, wasn't it? No, on the 31st I did not attend, I made a mistake then. I attended the conference on the 1st of August.
Q I just want to make a brief reference, and I want you to answer the question I just put to you now. Did the Fighter Staff have the authority, and did the Fighter Staff reduce the authority in the field or task of Sauckel, or didn't it?
A No, it did not reduce the authority, and it did not reduce the authority of any other ministry either, or of any other government agency.
Q Now did Sauer distribute workers to the factories?
A So far as I know or I think, no, because of the fact -- it is true, that Speer had the authority to shift workers within his factories, but that only could be even done by Sauckel. I might answer, after all, the GL did not have that authority.
Q Witness, I now close this chapter, this chapter on the Fighter Staff, and I now pass onto the question of medical experiments. In 1932 was the Health Inspectorate directly under your authority?
A No.
Q Under whose authority was that?
A It was under the authority of the Chief of Air Defense.
Q And who was the Chief of Air Defense?
AAt that time that was still the General Ruedle, but then in 1942 was replaced by General Foerster.
Q And who was the medical inspector?
A That was the General Oberstabsarzt Hippke.
Q Witness, in this trial you have heard often enough of these medical experiments. Did you in 1944 have any connection, or any concern at all with these medical experiments?
A No.
Q Did you never have any report from Hippke, or from Mr. Ruff, or Rascher, or by Himmler, and have a proposal made by them that the air force should participate in human experiments at Dachau?
A No.
Q Witness, have you any knowledge of letters which were exchanged between Rascher and Himmler, or letters between Rascher and Brandt of 1941 concerning these medical experiments? Did you receive knowledge of these letters?
A Not before this trial.
Q Witness, on the first report on high altitude experiments, on April 5, 1942, did you receive knowledge of this report which Rascher sent to Himmler, and was it submitted to you?
A No, so far as I know this report never came to the Reich Air Ministry.
Q Witness, the request made by Wolf to Hippke, 16 April 1942, according to which Rascher's assignment should be prolonged, was this letter made known to you?
A No.
Q The same day there was a second report, also of 16 April, a second report made by Rascher concerning the high altitude experiments. Was this report submitted to you?
A No.
Q Did Hippke make a report to you of the fact that on 27 April he had written to Mr. Wolf and reported to him that he had prolonged Rascher's assignment?
A No.
Q Did you have any knowledge of the third report made by Rascher and sent to Himmler concerning high altitude experiments of 1 May 1942? Was it submitted you?
A No.
Q I now pass to the letter of 20 May 1942, which is Exhibit No. 87. That is your letter to Mr. Wolf concerning the remaining, or rather, the withdrawal of the high altitude chamber and the beginning of experiments concerning sea rescue questions. I submit this to you and ask you to explain your position with regard to it.
A May I have the original?
Q In that case, I shall have to ask the Secretary General to have Exhibit 87 brought into the courtroom.
A In that case, I would also ask that my letter to Himmler of 31 August be brought.
Q In that case, I ask also that Exhibit 115 be brought in the courtroom.
AAnd perhaps also Exhibit 89, if I may suggest it, because that is my letter of 4 June to Hippke.
THE PRESIDENT: Let's make sure we have these numbers. How many exhibits do you want, now?
DR. BERGOLD: Three. Exhibits 87, 115 and 89.
BY DR. BERGOLD:
Q. But perhaps for the time being you can explain your position with regard to this letter.
A. Reference is made here to a telegram which Wolf is said to have sent to me on the 12th. I can not remember that telegram was sent to me. Maybe I can ask whether this telegram is in evidence.
Q. This telegram is not in evidence, witness.
A. May I say that if a telegram is sent on the 12th, then it will be received on the 12th or, at the latest, on the 13th. From the 10th to the 13th, inclusive, I was not in Berlin. Even if it had been sent to my address, the telegram would have been sent on automatically by my office. They would not have waited until I was there.
Q. But where would they have forwarded it to?
A. They would have forwarded it to the Medical Inspectorate. Even if I had been there, such a telegram or such a letter would always have been forwarded by my office to the competent authority. My reply is dated May 20. I have not dictated this letter, and I would like to prove that from the original Hippke has testified that he had submitted corresponding evidence to my office and he wanted to talk with me but I was not there. I quite understand that also because if I look at my notes, on that day there was a very important commemoration for armament workers, and there were a lot of important speeches from important person, from the V I P's, except from Hitler. Goering had something to do with it, and Speer. That day I came to my office only in the evening for a few minutes, because there was subsequently a joint dinner together with the workers.
On the 21st, which was the next day, I had been summoned to Goering's house at Karinhall in the early morning, and I did not return to Berlin, and I went to Rostock, where I had to be the whole day the following day. Therefore, I had not the possibility to go to my office for more than a few minutes before dinner and I just had to glance through the letters I received and the letters which were to be sent out.