THE PRESIDENT: The witness may be produced.
MR. DENNEY: Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Denney.
MR. DENNEY: If Your Honors please, I just got the advice this morning from the Secretary-General this witness is going to be called. My understanding is that we are supposed to be advised twenty-four hours in advance. We certainly are willing to waive the notice in this case, but I would appreciate it if Dr. Bergold would advise the Secretary-General in writing in the approved manner, and the Secretary-General will advise me twenty-four hours prior to the time the witness is to be called. Dr. Bergold told me that he will tell me, but I don't want to rely on that. The prescribed procedure is that he will notify the Secretary-General in writing, so we can be advised, twenty-four hours prior to the time the witness is going to take the stand. I would rather rely on the usual channels.
DR. BERGOLD: May I say something about this. I was given the list, and asked to write into the list, on which day and which hour I shall call the witness. I have done so. I thought that this would have been the information desired. I believe that that was the understanding. I thought that came from the Secretary-General. It must have been a misunderstanding.
MR. DENNEY: The Secretary-General may have sent something to Dr. Bergold but nothing to me. I am just asking that he advise me when he is going to call his witnesses and in accordance with the rules.
DR. BERGOLD: I will do so in the future.
THE PRESIDENT: The Court wishes to say to the Secretary-General that he must insist on this regulation.
PAUL KOERNER, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
THE PRESIDENT: The witness will raise his right hand, please, and repeat after me: I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath)
THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. BERGOLD:
Q. Witness, will you please give the Court your full name, Christian end second name, your date of birth, and your former occupation?
A. My name is Paul Koerner. I was born on 2 October 1893. My position was Undersecretary of State of the Prussian Ministry of State, and, from October 1936 onward I was, in addition, the Secretary of the Four Year Plan.
Q. Witness, do you know the defendant Milch?
A. Yes.
Q. Is he present in this court?
A. Yes.
Q. Will you point him out to me?
DR. BERGOLD: Now I would like to ask to show in the record that the witness had identified the defendant.
THE PRESIDENT: The record will indicate that the witness has identified the defendant.
BY DR. BERGOLD:
Q. Witness, since when do you know Mr. Milch?
A. I know for certain that I met him first in 1928.
Q. Do you know what Milch was doing at the time?
A. Milch was the director of the German Lufthansa.
Q. Did you have connections with him officially, or how did you meet him?
A. I met him in 1928 when I saw Hermann Goering in his work, and helped him in that work. Hermann Goering was then the Deputy of the Reichstag, and furthered, as a special task, the interests of aviation.
Q. Did he meet the defendant for that purpose?
A. He occasionally met Goering.
Q. What purpose did these meetings serve?
A. As Goering presided over the Reichstag Committees on aviation on behalf of the Party, he informed himself, whenever it was necessary, on these questions.
Q. What was the purpose of these conversations?
A. In this conversation he merely discussed German civil aviation, and the work of German aviation in the International field.
Q. In these talks was secret armament discussed at all?
A. Never.
Q. Were these talks prior to 1933?
A. As I said before, occasional conversations took place after 1928, and only when it was necessary to do so.
Q. After 1933 did you have connections with the defendant in your official capacity before the war broke out?
A. We did not meet in our official capacities. Our field and the work were completely separated from one another.
Q. Did there at that time exist official connections between tho Four Year. Plan and the General Inspector of the Lufthansa, as well as the other Secretary of State for Aviation?
A. There was no official contact between those authorities.
Q. When did you and the defendant Milch contact each other officially again?
A. Only when I was called to the Central Planning Special Board in the Spring of '42.
Q. By whom was tho Central Planning Board created, and who ordered it?
A. The Central Planning Board was created in the Spring of 1942 on order by Speer, who had conferred with Hitler on this issue previously.
Q. Why was the defendant Milch taken into the Central Planning Board?
A. As far as I can remember the Fuehrer wished that Milch should join this committee.
Q. Who issued the decrees?
A. As far as I Can remember, the legal decree has not been issued at all. All that happened was that Goering's consent for the creation of this committee was secured, and it was the natural course of that because the basic task of the Central Planning Board was a distribution of raw material, which up to that time was managed by the Four Year Plan in collaboration with the Reichsministry of Economics.
Q. What purpose was there in taking you into the Central Planning Board.
A. It was obvious that Goering demanded that I should join the Central Planning Board, because up to that time I supervised the distribution of raw material as Undersecretary of State in the Four Year Plan. Particularly I was to look after the interests -- the actual interest of the Four Year Plan.
Q I would now ask you to describe carefully what tasks the Central Planning Board had to execute.
AAs I said before, the Central Planning Board was created in order to supervise the distribution of raw materials. That means that the Central Planning Board generally met every three months, in order to arrange the distribution for the next quarter and to establish it.
Q Did the Central Planning Board also have the task of distributing labor?
A Never. I have been asked this quite often before, and. I have always spoken about this in detail. Once it was before the Tribunal, and in repeated interrogations.
Q But, witness, there were meetings within the Central Planning Board on the question of the distribution of labor. Why were these called together, and what purpose did they serve?
A These talks took place, yes. As far as I remember, in 1943 and particularly in 1944, the Central Planning did deal with those questions, because Speer had now become responsible for the whole German economic system, and he wanted to be informed on this particularly vital question, especially in reference to his armament industry.
Q Did Sauckel attend these meetings?
AAs far as I can recall, Sauckel was present.
Q Did the Central Planning Board have the right to give orders to Sauckel concerning the distribution of labor?
A The Central Planning Board had not the right to give Sauckel any orders or rules. Such orders were never given. As I said before, these meetings were held purely for purposes of information and particularly, because Speer wanted to be informed on the particularly urgent questions and wanted to form an opinion and impression on the whole position. As is well known, there did not exist a very good relationship between Speer and Sauckel. Speer wished in these talks to be informed on the whole complex of these matters in order, if and when necessary, to call attention to mistakes.
Q Did Speer attempt to be able to give Sauckel orders?
A This attempt was made by Speer in 1942, but he never succeeded. For that reason, there was once a conversation in Hitler's presence between Speer and Sauckel. Hitler took Sauckel's part, and that settled the question once and for all.
Q The Central Planning Board, however, did discuss matters of small numbers of labor. Can you recall that once you discussed French smelting workers?
A If such questions were brought up in Central Planning Board, it was only in order to find a solution in particularly difficult cases of bottlenecks. As far as I can recall, this case that you just mentioned, was as I have described it just now.
Q Witness, I shall now give you a so-called business order of the Central Planning Board which comes from the document book of the Prosecution. I would ask you -
MR. DENNEY: May we know what the witness is being shown?
DR. BERGOLD: Yes, certainly. It is a letter from Schieber, dated 20 October 1942, page 3044 of the document book R-124. It is in document book 3-B.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you give us the page number, Mr. Denney?
MR. DENNEY: It is page 1 of document book 3-B.
BY DR. BERGOLD:
Q Witness, did you read those documents?
A I have read them for the first time now. I certainly did not know up until this moment this letter which I am alleged to have signed, and I may say that I certainly did not sign this letter.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Bergold, the document that we are looking at does not purport to be signed by this witness, but by Walter Schieber.
DR. BERGOLD: Would you go a few pages further, your Honor? There is an accompanying letter. The statute is attached to this letter, and it says Milch, Speer, Koerner. I don't know in what sequence they are.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, we have it on page 3.
BY DR. BERGOLD :
Q Witness, what do you think was the history of this document, if you have not signed it?
A I could well imagine that Speer ordered Schieber, who worked on these things for him, to draw up such a letter, such statutes, and after Speer had taken notice of it and a proved it, he gave permission to circularize it. I must assume that the signatures of the three members of the Central Planning Board were noted on the letter, and that Speer as certain to have intended later to obtain our signatures, but it is definite that this never happened, for I would certainly recall such a letter, without a doubt.
Q Witness, would you have signed these statutes because you agreed with the purposes and aims of Central Planning?
AAs I can see the statutes now, I would never have been able to sign them without Goering's consent, as it represents a very essential change in our original tasks. The Central Planning Board, as I said before, was there only to distribute raw materials, and if it had ever been given such an important task as is contained in those statutes here, Goering would have had to give his consent first.
Q Within the Central Planning Board, was the extension of powers ever discussed?
A Never. Should it have been discussed, I would certainly recall this whole business now, and surely these statutes would have been submitted to me.
Q Was the question of statutes ever discussed in the Central Planning Board?
A I can recall very well that, when the Central Planning Board was created, I was the man who pointed out to Speer and asked Speer whether it would be right to draw up some statutes for the Central Planning Board. Speer declined and pointed out that this would not be necessary, as the task of distributing raw materials was quite clearly defined.
Q Witness, you said that you represented the interests of the Four Year Plan?
A Yes.
Q What did Milch have to do with the Four Year Plan?
AAs I said before, nothing at all. The tasks of the Four Year Plan were in a completely different field from those of Milch, and thus, we could not have had anything to do with each other.
Q I shall now talk about Sauckel. Who gave Sauckel the order to be Plenipotentiary for Labor?
A In the spring of 1942 Sauckel was appointed as Plenipotentiary for the Distribution of labor.
Q Would you speak a little more slowly, witness.
A Sauckel, in the spring of 1942, by the Fuehrer's decree, was appointed Plenipotentiary for the Distribution of Labor. Formally, Sauckel was, on the basis of this decree, under the Four Year Plan. In reality, however, Sauckel had nothing to do with the Four Year Plan, as he received his orders directly from Hitler.
Q This formal subordination of Sauckel to the Four Year Plan, did that lead to a connection with the Central Planning Board?
A No, in no respect.
Q Who was responsible for the hiring of workers?
A Only Sauckel.
Q Who was responsible for the recruitment?
A Only Sauckel.
Q Transport?
A Only Sauckel.
Q Billetting?
AAs far as I know, there existed between Sauckel and the German Labor Front an agreement which was responsible for the social care of foreign workers. I cannot give any more precise information, because the details are not known to me.
Q Was the German Labor Front to be responsible for billeting, feeding, health services, payment, clothing, leisure, and recreation?
A. As I said before, I am not aware of the details of that agreement, but in any case I know that the whole of the social care was looked after by the German Labor Front.
Q. Was this to the advantage or disadvantage of the foreign workers?
A. As far as I know, it was only to their advantage.
Q. What did you hear about the treatment of foreign workers in Germany?
A. I know nothing of any complaints. I never received any complaint.
Q. In what way did Sauckel bring the workers to the Reich? Were they brought on the basis of force or on the basis of volunteers?
A. As far as I knew, these workers came completely voluntarily to the Reich.
Q. Were there agreements with the French Government?
A. I do not know the details of such agreements. I only know what is known generally and what was published in the press.
Q. Did you hear that between French prisoners of war and French workers who volunteered to go to Germany there was an exchange arranged and carried out?
A. As far as I can remember there was between Sauckel and the French Government an agreement which arranged for an exchange between prisoners of war and French workers.
Q. Witness, I have just been asked to have a half-minute interval between question and answer and vice versa so that the interpreters can manage better. Will you please observe this.
Q Witness, do you recall that, in the meeting of 1 March 1944, Sauckel said that from among the 5,000,COO foreign workers, hardly 200,000 came voluntarily to the Reich? Do you know that?
A That question has been put to me in various interrogations, and therefore I knew it. I do not doubt that Sauckel, in a meeting, has said such a thing. If he said so, he based himself, without doubt, not on facts.
Q Is it known to you that before Sauckel, a bigger number of foreign workers came, in bigger numbers, to the Reich?
A Yes, I know that.
Q Can you tell the Court what figures were approximately involved?
A I can't give figures at this point very precisely, but in any case, in the German distribution of labor, even before Sauckel took over that assignment, there were always a considerable number of foreign workers. These workers were -- all of them -- recruited on the voluntary basis and brought to Germany.
Q Witness, the term "considerable" is a bit vague. It is quite understandable that you can't be speaking in terms of exact numbers, but are the figures about 200,000, or much bigger?
A If my memory serves no right, it is a very much bigger figure. It may have, as far as I can remember, gone beyond the million limit.
DR. BERGOLD: May it please the Court, I would like to ask something. I should like to give the witness a passage of the 54th meeting of the Central Planning Board of 1 March 1944, which is not yet in the document books of the prosecution, and which I will submit in my new document book. This passage I was given only on Saturday. It hasn't been possible since Monday to obtain copies from the department concerned. The Secretary General and I have made every effort, but there was another, more urgent, work to be done at the American authorities. For that reason the translation is not ready yet. I would like to ask permission to be allowed to read this passage to the witness, so that it may be in on the records, and perhaps tomorrow or in a very few days, I shall submit the original.
May I do so?
MR. DENNEY: If Your honor please, the document doesn't seem to be very long, and perhaps it's about time for the Court's usual recess we could have it translated into English. The only thing that appears here is in German. During the recess we can call upon one of the interpreters to translate it into English and have it facilitate the matter for everyone concerned. It's just about a page.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Court will take its recess, and will you advise the Court when the translation has been finished and we will resume.
MR. DENNEY: Yes, Your honor.
MARSHAL: This Tribunal is recessed for approximately 15 minutes.
(A recess was taken)
Q Mr. Witness, I shall now read to you the statement made by Gauleiter Sauckel during the session of the 1st of March 1944. Sauckel says: "I would like to call your attention again to the question of volunteers and the whole working of the French labor assignment. The labor program has never been carried out in France on a voluntary basis."
Mr. Witness, you heard the statement by Sauckel according to which in France there was never a recruiting of workers on a voluntary basis. What do you say to that statement by Sauckel; is it correct, or is it not correct?
A I can't imagine that this statement made by Sauckel is true.
Q What do you think was his aim at the time to make such a statement; do you have any idea about that matter?
A I can only imagine that he made such statements in order to shift the guilt for not having fulfilled those requirements and to shift the responsibility on other people's shoulders and to clear himself thus.
Q Was it known to you that Speer made certain remarks to him in that connection, or reproaches?
A It was known to me repeatedly that Speer reproached Sauckel heatedly regarding the methods of his work. Sauckel frequently made exaggerated reports of the figures.
Q What do you think was the attitude of the Central Planning toward these reports?
A. The Central Planning did not have any attitude whatever concerning these reports; only as I mentioned before, Speer considered the Central Planning as a purely informational center for the purpose of getting a clear picture of the whole situation.
Q Did they believe these reports to be true?
A No, nobody believed him. What was the reason why Speer wanted to inform himself on the subject in order to be able to get an absolutely clear picture, and to be able to report to the Fuehrer concerning the measures Sauckel took; and also to be able to prove to the Fuehrer that what Sauckel said very often did not correspond with the facts.
Q What was Hitler's attitude toward those reports?
A That I do not know.
Q Thank you. Witness, do you know the secret decrees issued by Himmler to his Police Office and to the SD, Security Service, concerning the cruel treatment of foreign labor; were they known to you?
A. They were not known to me.
Q Do you know the complaints which Rosenberg made concerning the work carried out by Sauckel, and were they known to you?
A No, I don't know anything about that either.
Q Witness, Were the conditions in Poland known to you. Concerning the Polish workers, did you ever receive such information from the SS or other sources, as for instance, from Lammers?
A I never received such information.
Q Do you know if Milch, I mean through reports received through Sauckel, knew of these conditions or if he ever learned about the conditions during the recruitment of these foreign laborers?
A. No, I don't believe so. If so, such reports are not known to me either.
Q Sauckel, with an affidavit, said that he was to report to the Central Planning; is that correct?
A I do not know anything about it, because such information, had I received it, would have been known to me even today.
Q I shall now proceed to one of the documents of the prosecution. Document Book 1 B. This is exhibit No. 30, Document 407 VPS, 15 April 1943, which is a letter from Sauckel to Hitler concerning questions of labor. In this letter Sauckel explains that now French laborers were to come to the Reich under the same terms and conditions as the former laborers. He reports that he had gotten in touch with the OKW and he asks that 10,000 Belgian prisoners of war be placed under the same status as the French are. Does that concern the exchange of those laborers who came to the Reich on a voluntary basis with PW's.
A I do not know that letter and therefore I do not know the whole matter. However, I can imagine that Sauckel was looking for something similar and was trying to carry out something similar with what had been carried out in France by an agreement.
Q Did the Air Ministry General direct his applications for labor to the Central Planning or did the(air-force industry or) the Luftwaffe industry ask for or require labor through another channel? What do you know about that?
Q The industry passed the labor requirements to the labor offices directly.
Q Did the Central Planning Board never receive requests from industry for labor assignments?
AAs far as I remember, never, and of course, it would have been impossible that the Central Planning could actually fill such requirements of the various industrial branches, because the Central Planning did not have the task to supervise the labor distribution.
Q Witness, you mentioned before that Speer did not believe the numbers mentioned by Sauckel. Could you tell me what Milch's attitude was concerning this matter?
AAs far as I can remember the attitude of Milch was the same as Speer's.
Q I shall now proceed to the Milch case or to the later happenings which happened on the 16th day of February 1943. This Was during the 32nd conference of the Central Planning Board. The happenings are described in Document Book of the Prosecution--Document Book 3 A. It's a conference, the 31st meeting, Document No. R-124. The seventh happening in the English index of the 32nd meeting -- 33rd meeting -- it was page 22, 98 in the original English Document Book 3 A. Milch speaks about Russian prisoners of war and that these prisoners of war were used in France. The original page of the document is 2298 and which is on page 34 of the English Document Book.
THE PRESIDENT: What page number?
DR. BERGOLD: It's on page 34, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Of the original document?
DR. BERGOLD: 2298, Your honor. Milch is talking about Russian prisoners of war having been used in the flak or anti-aircraft artillery. Do you know what was Milch's attitude concerning this matter? Was he for it or against it?
A It's very difficult for me to determine, after such a long time and to remember such a single case. If I do remember that, I would, of course, have to remember very vaguely that Milch was against such an assignment with respect to his decision; of course, for the time being I can't be very sure about it.
Q I now give you this passage and I will show it to you so that you can read it. (Witness is handed document).
A The contents appear there. What I can remember from memory -
Q However, doesn't this sentence, "We made the request or we requested--" does that not mean that he requested it, or what else does it mean? -666
A I can't imagine that Milch could have made such a request and this is a general expression that was used there.
-666a
Q Thank you. Witness, do you remember that in the general conference of the Central Planning Board there was talk about shirkers?
A Yes, indeed.
Q. What measures did the Central Planning Beard take against these shirkers.
A. The Central Planning could not take any steps. I can remember however that this matter -
Q. Was there an agreement? Did they come to a solution?
A. As I mentioned before, the Central Planning Board could not take any measures and could not come to a solution. When there was any such question in the Central Planning Board, then it was not at all difficult then to Inform one's self about these matters.
Q. Do you know decrees by Milch to subordinate the Wehrmacht part or to the industry which ordered a murder like hanging or shooting or a cruelty against foreign laborers, P**s, or German workers?
A. I do not know of any such decrees, and I can't imagine that Milch over could have given such a decree because he was not empowered to do so.
Q. Did Milch ever send anybody to the concentration camp?
A. No, I don't know anything about that, either, and I can' t imagine that.
Q. In the conferences of the Central Planning Board there were minutes. Were these minutes ever controlled by the responsible agencies?
Q. I do not know anything about these verbatim minutes, and if they were controlled after the conferences. I doubt it very much if they were controlled again thereafter.
Q. Do you remember that during the session of the first of March 1944 Milch made the statement that Russian officers who more prisoners and tried to escape were shot upon his orders ?
A. What I know is that Milch himself had no possibility whats over to issue such orders.
If he ever made such a statement during one of the conferences of the Central Planning Board -if Milch ever made such a statement, that is, then it was, of course, gener 668a ally speaking.
Q. What do you mean by "generally speaking"? Did he mention measures taken by some other agency or by his own agency?
A. As far as I can remember, Milch very often reported on measures taken by other agencies and very often he mentioned decrees by Hitler, and he informed those people of the Central Planning Heard there. It is possible that this statement made my Milch was also that ho informed the people of the Central Planning Board concerning the decrees issued by Hitler.
Q. Did it over occur during conferences of the Central Planning Board that Milch, when he announced such decrees, mentioned those and what orders were given to the secretaries.
A. Milch, as far as I can remember, was not very careful with his statements. As far as I can remember, when he reported decrees by the Fuehrer very often he used the "I' in this particular sense. It was known to me and as a friend I often pointed out -- or I pointed out to Milch that he should be more careful when he quotes Goering and Hitler. in this small circle, I said, there is no danger whatsoever that someone might misunderstand such statements. However, one never knows such statements cannot be misunderstood by other people who are not as reliable as we are. That could be interpreted in the wrong sense, which, of course, bears the danger of a wrong interpretation of Milch as a person.
Q. Is it correct that in such cases the secretaries were often asked to change or to leave out such passage, so that one couldn't know who mas spoken about?
A. This did not only happen once, as far as I know, but many times that both Speer as well as Milch, when statements were made or criticisms were made, that they asked the secretaries that they were not to put those statements the way they were into the minutes.