A. To the best of my knowledge that is correct.
Q. Was the witness Hippke often received by the Defendant General Milch?
A. No.
Q. And why not?
A. Because the Field Marshal did not like to see Hippke. He did not like him.
873 a
Q. Did you ever say, "No, thanks", when Hippke wanted to report?
A. Yes.
Q. For what reason?
A. Yes, I believe he did not like Hippke. Because he talked too much.
Q. Did the defendant tell you about it, that the SS was carrying out experiments together with the Luftwaffe physician Rascher in Dachau, and that the whole thing was supervised by Ruff?
A. No.
Q. Is it a fact that most of the official visitors of the defendant went through your office?
A. Yes, quite a few of them but not all of them.
Q. It was the procedure, however, was it not, that they first had to go through the Medical Inspection Office and had to go through you?
A. Unfortunately, these proceedings were not conducted openly but secretly; that is why they couldn't have gone through some other channel.
Q. The witness Hippke testified here that on the 20th of May, 1942, he wanted to see Milch for a report, or to make a report, and that he was not received however, but he left a report slip; do you know about this happening, or did those things happen very often, generally speaking?
A. Yes, it happened often. During my office, certain people left record slips for the Defendant.
DR. BERGOLD: This letter of the 20th of May, 1942, reads as follows "Dear Wolffy: In reference to your telegram of the 12th, May, our Medical Inspector reports to me that the altitude experiments carried out by the SS and Luftwaffe at Dachau have been finished. Any continuation of the experiments seems essentially unreasonable. However, the carrying out of experiments of another kind, in regard to perils at high seas, would be important. These have been prepared in immediate agreement with the proper office. Oberstabsarzt Seltz will be charged with the execution and Stabarzt Rascher will be made available with 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. The low pressure chambers would not be needed for those low temperature experiments. It is 874 a urgently needed at another place and therefore can no longer remain in Dachau.
I convey the special thanks iron the supreme commander of the Luftwaffe to the SS for their extensive cooperation.
I remain with test wishes for you in good comradeship and with Heil Hitler Always yours "E. Milch To SS Obergruppenfuehrer Wolff Berlin SW 11"
Q. Was the defendant Milch on such good relationship that he could talk to him and call him "dear Wolfy" or how do you explain that the Obergruppenfuehrer was not also calling him at that time by the first name and not Field Marshal? This can be clearly seen from the letter of the 27th of February 1942, to which I shall refer later.
A. The way these people addressed each other as not in most cases the result of close intimacy.
Q. How does it come that Field Marshal Milch is writing to Obergruppenfuehrer Wolff with such great intimacy?
A. As concerns the personal relationship between Obergruppenfuehrer Wolff and Field Marshall Milch, I never noticed such a relationship.
Q. Do you know that Wolf was generally addressed as "Wolffie"?
A. Yes, I heard that.
Q. In the letter of 20 May, 1942, which I submitted to you; could that letter have been dictated by the defendant Milch, or was it dictated by somebody else?
A. All these letters were written by somebody else and submitted to the Field Marshal and the Field Marshal just put his signature on them in those cases.
Q. And all those cases where the letters were submitted to the defendant did he review the letter closely or did he just sign them?
A. I don't believe that a close reviewing was possible; the Field Marshal signed after the personnel who had written the letter said a few words to him in other words, explain the contents of the letter.
Q. How many letters do you think that Milch had to sign within a day?
A. I can remember that there were quite a few letters. I found out that the Field Marshal signed eight hundred letters within three days.
Q. Witness, was the field of work of the defendant a small one or a large one?
A. It was just about in-between; in any case rather larger than smaller.
Q. Did he have, for the various experiments, did he have much time to examine those things?
A. No.
Q. Witness, on the 25th of August, 1942, in connection with these experiments, a letter from Hitler came in where he asked to accept a report of Dr. Rascher and Dr. Ruff and to call these gentlemen and receive these gentlemen for a film-lecture. Is that fact known to you?
A. No.
Q. Do you know if on the 25th of August, the defendant Milch was in Berlin?
A. No, I don't know that.
Q. Witness, the witness Hippke testified here that this letter, with the enclosures, was sent to him. Is that the normal channel of things that such questions concerning such medical questions were sent on without any further trouble; or if the defendant was asked before their conveyance if they should be sent or not?
A The normal channel was that either the gentleman came in to sign the letters themselves or they were conveyed through normal office channels.
Q Witness, do you know that on the 11th of September, 1942, in the Reich Ministry for Aviation, during a conference, a film was shown concerning the Dachau experiments?
A No, I don't know that.
Q Witness, a letter came in written by the Obergruppenfuehrer Wolf on the 27th of November, 1942; this letter was answered by the witness Hippke on the 6 of March, 1943; whereupon Hippke says that the State Secretary Milch has given me your letter of 27 November regarding the release, etc., how did this happen between the 27th of November, 1942 and the 6th of March, 1943, the lapse of time; did it occur upon the orders of the defendant Milch?
A No. I am sure that he submitted the letter to some other office.
Q There was no order of the defendant Milch to leave such a letter around?
A No.
Q Witness, I shall now proceed to another question which has nothing to do with this medical case. May it please the Tribunal, this witness is here only once; I have to ask a few other questions. Witness, you have known the defendant for a very long time.
A Yes.
Q Is the defendant a man of bad character, or was he a rather humane man?
A. I have fifty years of civil service, and I had many superiors, all military superiors, that is; and I want to say and I can say that he was correct and fair.
Q Witness, how can you explain that in the records there are quite a few strong words 877 of the defendant where he continually speaks of the fact that people who do not do their work or duty ought to be shot, hanged, beaten or punished in some other way.
A. Well, that was the way of the defendant; to use boasting remarks once in a while; although the defendant, I am sure, thought in some other way, in very honest ways that is.
Q. Can you tell this Tribunal of a characteristic hanging, where the defendant sentenced somebody to death, and what actually happened to the persons sentenced later on?
A. The Field Marshal had a very small jurisdiction only in the house small cases; and sometimes he sentenced somebody -- for instance if somebody, when there were secret papers and somebody left the drawers open, which were found open -- in those cases he had them pay a fine of fifty or eighty marks which were later collected. Later on though, he was sorry about sentencing the men to pay fifty or eighty marks and he made up for it by ordering that there be sent to the wife of that man or to the family during any of the holidays; some money, which amount was higher than the fine paid.
Q. Isn't it correct that in such cases he first threatened to have the guilty one hanged, etc.?
A. Well, yes, the defendant always said those things.
Q. Were these threats made very often?
A. Very often, and I still remember -
Q. Were you yourself threatened in the same manner -- to be hanged? Were you over hanged?
A. Yes, and I am still alive too.
Q. Was it known that those words which the defendant used were never meant?
A. Yes, that was known in the Luftwaffe undoubtedly.
Q. Did these outbursts of rage increase after the accidents he had?
A. Yes, after the accident in Stalingrad they did increase undoubtedly; after that time he was very nervous and he sort of burst into rages; but latter 878A on he was very sorry about it.
I am a layman myself, but personally I believe that this is in connection with the accidents.
Q. When was that accident, witness?
A. That was during the siege of Stalingrad.
Q. In other words, around the end of 1942 or early in 1943?
A. Yes, January 1943, perhaps.
Q. Witness, I shall now submit to you from the document book 2 C of the Prosecution, page 174; the Exhibit No. I have not here, I believe this is Document No. KW 247. It is an undated authorization of Goering, and I would like to have him read it before I ask questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Where is it found in the English Document Book?
DR. BERGOLD: Page 99.
Q. (Continued) Did you read the power of attorney?
A. Yes.
Q. Witness, did such an authorization ever exist?
A. I don't know if such an authorization existed; I have never seen one.
Q. Would it be possible that such an authorization would have been issued in 1944 by Goering to the defendant Milch?
A. I don't believe that is possible; I don't believe that this is possible.
Q. Isn't it correct that in July 1944, the defendant had already or almost broken with Goering?
A. That was the case most of the time, or always.
Q. Now tell us, witness, the relationship between Milch and Goering.
A. It was always a bad relationship, which almost lead to his elimination.
Q. When did that elimination take place?
A. Well, there was a constant elimination so to say; namely, that the Field Marshal had point by point removed all Milch's powers and the powers were taken over by Goering.
Q. Do you know that in June, 1944, he resigned from his position as Air 879A Ordinance General of Air Force?
A. Yes, I know that, but I don't remember the date.
Q. Was that in the summer of 1944?
A. That may have been in the summer of 1944; I don't remember the year, however.
Q. In the summer of 1944 you don't believe he could have gotten such an authorization?
A. No, as I mentioned before, I believe it is almost impossible.
Q. Witness, do you know that the defendant Milch and General von Gablenz helped a former associate of Milch, Dr. Schatzky, to escape from Germany and to go to America?
A. Yes, Dr. Schatzky is known to me.
Q. I want you to tell the Tribunal who he was.
A. Schatzky was working with the German Lufthansa. He had to leave the Lufthansa because he was a Jew, and with the help of the Field Marshal he was sent to Holland and when the situation was no longer bearable there for Schatzky the now already dead General von Gablenz came and discussed the matter with the Field Marshal and the Field Marshal saw to it that Schatzky could go to the states.
Q. Witness, isn't it correct that in general the defendant saw only those letters which bore the signature "MI" with red pencil and the date?
A. Yes, that's correct.
Q. Were those letters always dealt with by him or did he only read them?
A. That meant that the Field Marshal only saw them. That's all.
Q. Witness, do you know that in the Central Planning Board in the Jaegerstag the technical discussions they took verbatim records?
A. I don't know that. The verbatim records were always taken and were then presented or submitted.
Q. Were they ever reviewed by the defendant or by somebody else? Does that mean in every case that the Minister actually read that, actually ordered that or was that usual as the style of the German officials that a representative always wrote in the "I" form?
A. In those offices there were two styles. The "I" style and the unpersonal style. This did not at all mean when I used the "I" style that the Reichsmarshal or the Field Marshal had any idea at all of this letter.
Q. Is it correct that very often the reporters came to you and wanted to have letterhead papers with the defendant's name on it?
A Yes, that was usual.
Q Did you know that Milch very often criticized Hitler, Goring, Himmler, and Goebbels.
A Yes. Well, once in a while I heard something similar.
Q Did you know that such terms were used during the discussions and conference and that he told the stenographers to skip these passages?
A Yes, of course, these passages had to be skipped or changed.
Q Was the defendant often received by Goering for oral reports.
A No. Very, very seldom only.
Q At the time of the Fighter Staff did you know that in his place a certain Mr Sauer reported on the work of the Staff to Goering?
A Sauer was the actual head of the Fighter Staff and he took care of these things personally. As far as I know the yield Marshal did not assist--did not participate in these conferences.
Q Did the Field Marshal Milch have a close contact with party organizations?
A No, he did not have any contact with the party organizations. I paid his fees for him.
Q Is it correct that Milch addressed Obergruppenfuehrer Wolf only in order to help people who were being persecuted by the Gestapo?
A I know such cases where that happened.
Q Did you ever find out that Sauckel ever saw Milch regarding labor questions and did he have such a position to report on that directly to Milch?
A I never saw Sauckel in our place and I don't know that he had such a position.
Q Could Sauckel reach the defendant through some other channels other than through you?
A No, there was only one channel to the Field Marshal and that channel led through my room.
Q Is it correct that all of the persons who wanted to see Milch had to see you first?
A Yes.
882 a
Q Do you know if Milch said to tho former Chief of the Laftwaffe Ruedel and Chief of the Lafthanse Feerster and Hippke-- if he trusted them all?
A Concerning this answer I can only give you my opinion about it.
Q Yes, please.
A I believe that he did not trust them.
Q When do you mean? Whom out of the three?
A He did not trust the latter.
Q For reasons of irreliability or personal reasons? Did you know that in the Office of Milch concerning the applications for concentration camp inmates went through his office?
A No, I only know that the Field Marshal applied for workers from the German troups and he tried to get these workers free--tried to have them released.
Q Was Milch in a position to send someone into a concentration camp.
A No, as far as I knew, no.
Q Do you know if he over issued orders concerning PW's or foreign labor and that these people ought to be hanged or killed or shot?
A. No, the Field Marshal did not have this power.
Q Do you know witness, that in February 1944 there was in escape of Russian prisoners, namely, two officers, by using a plane?
A Yes, I do. As far as this was a mechanic. This was said to be a mechanic who took off with somebody else.
Q What happened then? Did they succeed in excaping or what did happen?
AAs far as I know they had to make an emergency landing. They were re-captured.
Q Do you knew if the defendant did anything in connection? If he ordered anything?
A No.
Q At that time was he in Berlin?
A Yes, I believe he was but I can't tell you for certain.
883A
Q Isn't it correct that he learned about it?
A Yes, I remember. He was in his room--he was standing in his room when the news came.
Q Do you know if Milch concerning this matter had a talk with Hitler?
A No.
Q Would you have had to know that?
AAll of the discussions which the Field Marshall wanted to have with the gentleman had to go through my office.
DR BERGOLD: May it please the Tribunal, this answer is one of the most important answers in this complex. Why, I shall show the Tribunal later. It is of the greatest importance that Milch did not talk with the Fuehrer concerning this incident. Later on I shall prove that the order that these people be shot came from the Fuehrer.
Q Witness, do you think it possible that tho Defendant Milch declared during a session of Planning Board that he had these Russian prisoners shot or hanged? Or do you think that it is a mistake in the records?
MR DENNEY: If Your Honor please, we certainly let him go far afield. Now he is asking, 'Do you think it is possible that the Defendant could have said something?" There is nothing to show that this nan is anything but a civil servant who apparently is in an adjoining office. He is a faithful old retainer who was in some sort of a secretarial capacity. He was not a member of Central Planning. There is nothing to show he was ever there. I submit it is going too far to ask, "Do you think it is possible that the Defendant could have said' something"
THE PRESIDENT: Do you think it is a little late to draw the line?
MR DENNEY: I think we should draw it somewhere or we will be here all day.
THE PRESIDENT: This morning I asked the witness if he suspected that another man might have thought a third man was in the position to do something.
MR DENNEY: I am trying to be fair about this. This is the thing that impels me to say something at this time. I have boon listening to Dr. Bergold testify for about 45 minutes. Tho question before this last one was, "Could milch have seen Hitler except through you? The witness said, "No. He could not." That is so obviously ridiculous, I thought I better say something.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal is ready to rule.
DR. BERGOLD: I would like to say -
THE PRESIDENT: I am about to rule with you, so you need not labor the point. In view of your emphasis on this particular point in the proceedings, and your insistence that is most important, we are not inclined to draw the line against this testimony at the moment.
We will reserve the right to determine how much you are proving, but we don't feel inclined to foreclose you from presenting this testimony which you say is most important. At this point, we will take a recess 885 a
