Q Did you speak with Hippke about what you heard from him, or, reported to Milch on these subjects?
A It is possible that on occasions of a personal report to Milch I did mention these new treatments. I can, however, recall having done so, and that if this therapy existed it would not have been an occasion for a special report to the Field Marshal Milch. I am very sure that this report did hot take place, but it might have been incidental to some other personal report or conversation. That is possible.
Q Thank you. If it did happen, you only reported on what you knew yourself of the results?
A Of course.
Q Witness, an affidavit has been submitted to the Tribunal by one Mr. Schroeder. It is in document book, the Prosecution Document Dock NOKW 126. It is exhibit number -- it did not receive any exhibit number from the Prosecution so far as I can see, and according to my imagination it is on page 25 of 5-B. Whether the number is correct, I don't know. That is, Exhibit 107.
MR DENNEY: It is page 137 of the Document Book in my opinion.
BY DR BERGOLD:
Q I show this affidavit as of Dr. Oscar Schroeder, and look at the third paragraph which reads: "When I was a prisoner of war, General Foerster told me that he was present at an interview between General Erich Hippke and Field Marshal Milch in the middle of 1942. At that time the continuation of the experiments which Dr. Sigmund Rascher was carrying out on human beings was discussed. Foerster declared that Hippke and he opposed to the continuation of these experiments, and while Milch supported their continuation." Witness, is Schroeder correct in what he said here, or incorrect?
A This statement of Dr. Schroeder is wrong. In my interrogation before Captain Koch I mentioned this matter, and asked that I be allowed to speak to the man who had made this statement, as that conversation took quite a different turn.
Q What was it?
A That is to say, the conversation with Schroeder, which was in the prison in Now Ulm, in connection with a report before the court there. There was mentioned the same letter which Goering was said to have signed in connection with the same subject experiments. Personally I asked the medical inspector whether anything true in these reports, since I personally know nothing of them. In the course of this conversation Hippke's name, of course, was mentioned, because Hippke was at that time the medical inspector. I told Schroeder I considered it out of the question that Hippke could have taken part in any suck thing, on the basis of what I knew of his character, since I also know that he was a very religious person. In the course of this conversation I also expressed my personal opinion. I said I personally was an opponent of suck a thing, and could not understand them, understand people carrying out such experiments on living persons themselves. If they were criminals condemned to death, who, if they volunteered for this work, only would be given a chance if they survived the experiment of not being submitted to the condemnation they had received. In other words, I said in my personal opinion Hippke and I also would never lift our hands to such things, and, of course, didn't leave any doubt that he knew about these things; consequently, there is no true truth in his statement other than a subsequent discussion between me, Hippke and him.
I asked the interrogator to confront no with Schroeder in order to clarify this matter, but this consultation unfortunately did not take place.
Moreover, the third person who was allegedly there, Hippke, is here in Nurnberg, and it would be very easy to ascertain from Hippke whether this discussion took place or not.
Q. I wanted to ask you, witness, Did it take place with Milch?
A. I can state under oath that it did not take place with Milch.
Q. I turn now to an entirely different natter. Do you know from your official connections that in 1944 efforts were being made and measures were taken to use Russian prisoners of war in flack and antiaircraft artillery?
A. Yes, I knew that.
Q. Can you tell me who ordered that? Did Milch order it?
A. Who originally ordered it I can not say for sure. I assume however, that the OKW must have issued same such original order, which was given to my office by the General Staff of the Luftwaffe. I know for certain, however, that the order was not issued by Field Marshal Milch.
Q. Witness, were these Russians brought to the flack artillery compulsorily or how?
A. The measures that were ordered at that -- it was assured that they were only volunteers. Of course, we in the Luftwaffe objected to the use of Russians in flack. Our misgivings centered around the fact that it did not seem expedient that Russian prisoners of war, let us say even compulsorily, had to shoot at aircraft iron their own country, or, at any rate, if not to shoot at them, had to help out in the shooting at them. It could then happen that the people who were sent over for this work were volunteers. It was entirely certain that this was so, because the Vlassoff army was being built up at this time, and a large number of Russian prisoners of war reported voluntarily to enter this Vlassoff army.
Moreover, we ordered that under no circumstances should Russian prisoners of war be used in batteries in which there was a possibility that they, these batteries, would fire at Russian planes. The batteries at which they were working were in the West exclusively or were for air defense in Middle Germany or Western Germany; that is to say, in regions whore Russian planes never flew.
Q. Is it known to you that the voluntary Russian workers ever demanded that they should net shoot at their own planes?
A. Yes, it is known to me that individual Russian prisoners of war made this condition before they volunteered for this task. I can further state that when I personally was present at flack batteries at which Russians were employed and when I assured myself of their actual activities and accommodations and so forth, although I spoke with a great number of prisoners of war, I never heard any complaint from these people that they were obliged to man these guns against their will.
Q. Witness, it is true that these Russian prisoners of war when they reported for this work were released from imprisonment and were called assistants or auxilliary volunteers in the German army?
A. What their legal status was, that is, whether from that moment on they were no longer prisoners of war, that I do not know. I know only that their designation was officially "auxilliaries" and that for these auxilliaries, with the abbreviation HIWI, there were particular regulations regarding them by the OKW stating that their personal status and their total treatment and payment should be such and such. In other words, it was ascertained what it should be. Whether they were officially released from imprisonment or not, they were at any rate, a special group for whom there were special regulations.
Q. The Vlassoff army was an army led by a Russian general and manned by Russian prisoners of war; is that not so?
A. Yes.
Q. They were freed from imprisonment?
A. That must be.
Q. At any rate, these were volunteers in the Vlassoff army?
A. I am sure of that.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you tell us the name of the army: We do not get it.
DR. BERGOLD: Vlassoff, V-L-A-S-S-O-F-F. That was the name of the Russian general who led it.
Your Honor, this is the same phenomenon on the German side of the war that occured on the Russian side with German prisoners of war. The Russians built up an army of volunteer German prisoners of war which called itself "Free Germany" under the command of General von Seydlitz. In other words, both the Russians and the Germans used volunteer prisoners of way against each other. It was a lamentable occurrence, but it was a reciprocal one.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Dr. Bergold, I would like to know of the witness if he knows as a matter of fact whether these Russian prisoners of war manning the flack batteries were actually members of the Vlassoff army.
DR. BERGOLD: Witness, do you know whether the Russian anti-aircraft members were members of the Vlassoff army, or were they a special group?
A. When the Russian prisoners of war were given to us they did not belong to the Vlassoff army, but I do remember that in the course of time there was consideration of incorporating these anti-aircraft Russians in some way or another in the Vlassoff army. Whether this measure was over taken, I do not know.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: So that when they were actually placed in position at the batteries the first time, they were not then a part of the Vlassoff organization?
A. The first time that they manned the batteries they were not members of the Vlassoff army, but let me add what I forget to say previously. It was laid down that under no conditions should the Russians man the guns themselves.
They only had subordinate positions of one sort or another--transport of munitions or such things; in other words, they were in position in which they did not actually do the shooting.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Whatever they did, it was an integral part of tho operations in handling of the batteries; is that correct.
A. No, the central part of operating a flack battery is the calculation of the range; in other words, the ascertainment of where the plane is in relation to the direction of the barrel of the gun when the gun is fired, and the Russians had nothing to do with that.
BY DR. BERGOLD:
Q. Witness, at any rate, you and your office were informed that these were volunteers?
A. That was specified to us.
922-A Q. And none of the Russians whom you spoke to contradicted that?
A. No, none of them.
Q. Witness, is it true that most of the Russians were made available by the OKW and only part were then transferred from the air armament?
A. So far as I can remember today, there were about 50,000 Russians for this purpose at our disposal. This number was not, however, met by the OKW, I assume because there were not enough volunteers, since the actual number of prisoners of war would have made it possible to collect these men if they were not volunteers. As a matter of fact, we got about half of them, half of the 50,000.
I then remember that the proposal was made that Russian volunteers from industry should provide the missing anti-aircraft units, but I do not know to what extent this took place. I do recall however that Field Marshal Milch at that time was strongly against this measure on the grounds that the Russians being employed in armaments were needed there and that he could not forego them.
Q. Witness, I now come to another question. Do you know that Milch made continual efforts to keep the German workers who were working in the air industry from being inducted into the army in order not to lose them for his armaments works?
A. I know of one case which, as far as I am not deceived by my memory, took place in 1943. At that time the OKW had ordered that certain annual classes of men were to be called for active military service. There were about 40,000 men among this number who were working in the air armaments industry. Field Marshal Milch protested the induction of these men. The order, however, originated from OKW, from a high office, and for this reason it had to be carried out. I could not bring it about that these men were made available to me by Milch. I consequently went to Goering personally and asked him to decide the question. Goering did agree with the reasons that Milch put forward and ordered that the men in the air armaments should remain there.
On the other hand, Goering was not able to oppose an order from the OKW. Consequently, a way was found which, formally speaking, seemed to fill this order. That is, these 40,000 men were officially made into military formations but then were immediately given leave and continued their work in industry.
Q. Witness, do you know of a case in which a larger group of people were returned to work in this same way?
A. Yes, there was a contingent of 12,000 to 15,000 men who were in the air intelligence and who were commanded to return to industry, to the electrical industry, for the manufacture of radar equipment and other important electrical equipment that is used in aviation or flack. Here, also, a great effort had to be made to extract these men from Milch to be used with the troops.
Q. Thank you. Witness, did Milch have opportunity to issue orders to the OKW; OKH, or OKL?
A. No, in no respect.
Q. Did he have an opportunity to give orders to the military offices in the occupied territories?
A. No.
Q. Did he have the opportunity to punish, hang, or kill or shoot foreign workers or prisoners of war?
A. No. Foreign workers were there in a purely civilian capacity and were under purely civilian authority. Prisoners of war were in no way under the orders of Field Marshal Milch but were employed by other offices over which Milch had no control.
Q. Do you believe that, for instance, a Stalag Commander would have accepted an order from Milch to shoot the Russian prisoners of war or to hang them?
A. No; I do not believe that a Stalag Commander would have carried out an order of that sort under any circumstances.
Q. Because Milch was not his superior?
A. Yes.
Q. Is it true that, in the German army, every sentence of death must be approved by the highest commander?
A. When you say "highest commander" you mean the Reich Marshal, namely Goering?
Q. Yes.
A. This order die exist at the beginning of the war. This right was delegated to air fleet chiefs but perhaps even before the war this right was taken away from the air fleet chiefs and Goering reserved for himself the right to approve every death sentence. I can say that so definitely because the man through whom these matters went was subordinate to me and all cases in which there was a death sentence requested went through von Hammerstein and through me, so that I had the opportunity to take a position on these matters before Hammerstein submitted these matters to Goering.
Q. Milch had no influence in this respect?
A. No. This was an immediate sentiment since I was ordered to report on such matters to Goering directly without reporting to Milch what I was doing, which I did, of course.
Q. Mas Milch Goering's total representative at any time?
A. I can remember no case. I know, on the contrary, that Goering, at those times in which Milch was officially at his headquarters -namely, when he was, on leave and so forth -- nevertheless carried on business as before. He also reserved for himself the right, officially, in these cases in which he wished someone to represent him completely -- he would order him specifically in that case -- but I know of no single case in which Goering issued such an order.
I also know that Milch was never appointed as Goering's full representative. Let me add that Goering appointed officers according to his own choice as representatives in particular cases with no regard for rank or order.
Q. I shall now show the witness the draft of an authorization to be Goering's deputy, of 1944. I ask the witness to read this document and to tell me whether he has ever seen it, or whether it was ever valid?
THE PRESIDENT: The witness may read the document during our recess, which we will take at this time.
THE MARSHAL: This Tribunal will recess for 15 minutes.
(a recess was taken).
THE MARSHAL: Tribunal No. 2 is again in session.
BY DR. BERGOLD:
Q. Witness, you have taken note of the affidavit; has this affidavit ever gone into effect?
A. No.
Q. According to the state of affairs, and in relation to the relationship between Goering and Milch, do you think it is possible that in June, 1944, such a power of attorney was given to him?
A. This power of attorney I saw for the first time today, and as I knew the things as they were at the time, I am very surprised at the document. This power of attorney would give power to Milch which he never would be able to carry in to effect because it interferred so much with the competence of other high offices that Milch would not have been in a position, even with such a power of attorney from the Reich Marshal, to take measures of such an important nature which were set out in the power of attorney. I can only call this document an order which was given in complete disregard of the real state of affairs; and I know that I can say this with certainty: that Milch never made any use of that power of attorney. If Milch should have been given such wide powers as are set out in the document; if he should have been able to carry them out, then he would have been in a position to carry out plans in the field of air armament; but the contrary was the case. I think this power of attorney is nonsense; and I may doubt that the man who wrote the power of attorney was completely normal, and he submitted the document without any real knowledge of the state of affairs. I may say that such powers of attorney at that time were issued quite frequently, and the men who issued them were not aware of the extent of the possibilities.
Q. Witness, is it not true that in June 1944 Milch was dismissed from his offices by Goering?
A. In June 1944 although an official dismissal had not taken place, I cannot recall the precise dates, in any case the relations between Reichmarshal Goering and Field Marshal Milch were such that that alone makes the issue of that power-of-attorney of such wide powers completely impossible.
Q. Witness, do you know whether building companies were under the order of Milch and of what type these building companies were?
A. Building companies were part of the Luftwaffe. That is to say, they were made up of those who were no longer suitable for armed service, as the name says, used mainly for construction purposes. It's true that Milch at his request was given, I believe, a building battalion which, at first, had the task to build a worker's settlement from wooden huts near Hagen. When this task had been completed this building battalion was left to the Field Marshal who passed it on to OT, particularly for the purpose to increase air-raid shelters in private dwellings -- to increase the safety of private houses in Berlin. Then the number of the building companies decreased because even the older classes were called up and as far as the more suitable men were concerned Mich had to give up this battalion this succeeded only after a certain time because it was his point of view that due to extensive enemy air-raids the protection of the population was at least as important as other military tasks.
Q. Were foreign workers contained in these building companies or prisoners of war?
A. This was a German group which consisted exclusively of Germann soldiers.
Q. Thank you. Witness, do you know whether and in what manner Milch made efforts to transfer the production of spare parts to foreign territories in France.
A. Some industries on the fringe of Germany -- the Armistice Commission, I know in the summer of 1940 to April of 1941 I represented the Luftwaffe on that commission.
I know that under my leadership there were negotiations 928A with the French part of the Armament Commission in order to fulfill a wish of the Reichsmarshal to make available the French air armament industry for German purposes.
In these negotiations it was seen that this wish, which the Reichsmarshal exercised a certain pressure to fulfill, wasn't possible for this reason; the factories, the French factories, which worked to produce aircraft were not only in the occupied part of France but also many of them were in the so-called Free France. Occupied Franco could not, without the help of what I called the Free Zone work. It was impossible that these two economic groups which depended upon each other not be torn apart but they should jointly work on that work. This could only be done through an agreement.
This could only be done through an agreement in these negociations which I had with the French Government. It became possible in a friendly manner to conclude such an agreement. The French Government was inclined to support this agreement because I provided in the agreement that the French be allowed a certain amount of benefit of the distribution of products. There was a clause in there about the proportion which was to be five to one. The produced aircraft should be given to France or Germany respectively.
The French Government in opposition to the complete disarmament of the French Army had been given permission by the Armistice Commission to produce spare parts for anti-aircraft batteries to a certain extent in order to protect the Mediterranean district. For that purpose aircraft from French production should be used. I left the Armistice Commission in April, 1941, but I know that this agreement took effect in march 1941 to a much greater extent than anticipated. The proportion not five to one, but 1-1.
So, in effect, the proportion really became one to one because the French industry--
THE PRESIDENT: Just a minute, Will you please direct this witness's answer to something relating to the guilt or innocence of the Defendant Milch? His rambling testimony so far does not even remotely concern it.
Q Witness, I will now ask you to explain to us whether Milch worked on these negotiations and gave his approval?
A When I worked on the negociations, Udet was still Generalluftzeugmeister and as far as he took part in these negociations, I dealt with Udet or his chief. Udet, who was really a subordinate, took part in these negotiations. That was a matter for the Luftfahrt Ministry.
Q I now come to the point of terror aviation. Do you know details as to what attitude Milch took about this?
A I believe in 1944, in the summer, I was ordered by the Reichsmarshal to issue an order to the Luftwaffe which contained a clause saying that soldiers of the Luftwaffe must not protect enemy pilots who made emergency landings or bailed out and who were exposed to the just indignation of the 930-A German population.
I refused to issue that order. I reported to Fieldmarshal Milch. Milch listened to the reasons I gave for not issuing the order, and agreed with me Q Thank you.
A He adhered to my motives.
The word "Armament Industry" was a very extensive term. Can you give the court an example as to what was meant in Germany by this term? Can you give an example from your own life?
A Yes, indeed, I can. I owned a tile yard in Silesia which served purely for peaceful purposes. During the war it was used as a socalled subsidiary works.
Without being a part of the armament industry, it would not have been possible to keep up this factory, to get workers and so forth. From this example, I can discuss that the name "Armament Factory" was relatively wide, and that the term "Armament Factory" was not by any means given these works which actually produced armaments; but also works which served the purpose of keeping up actual armament production.
Q Witness, were you in charge of DVL?
A No.
Q Did you know that the transfer underground of armament plants was ordered by Goering? Who ordered it?
A This was done by order of Goering.
Q I would like to ask one more question about the character of Milch. Did you know that he frequently used strong language and was fond of threatening people with shooting or hanging?
A Yes. That is well known to me, but according to the saying, his bark is worse than his bite. We did not take much notice. No person threatened with hanging or shooting ever actually suffered that fate.
Q Was it well-known among your circle that you should not take notice of these words?
A That was very well known.
Q Once he was over his indignation, did Milch apologize for these expressions? Did he apologize to the people concerned?
A I cannot say in every case, but he was firmly convinced that he said many things which he did not mean. Oh, yes, in one case, he apologized to General Martini, gave an explanation and the matter was settled.
Q Did these expressions of indignation increase after his accident at Stalingrad?
A That and the failure of his armament industry to succeed, perhaps made him very excitable and tense after 1943 DR. BERGOLD: Thank you, Witness. I have no further questions. I put the witness at the disposal of the prosecution for cross-examination.CROSS-EXAMINATION.
BY MR. DENNEY:
Q Witness, when did you enter the German-French Commission?
A When the German-French Commission was formed. That was in my opinion, in June 1940, after the campaign of that year.
Q After the French capitulation early in June?
A Yes, After the capitulation of France.
Q You stayed there until April 1941?
A After April 17, 1941, yes that is right.
Q Then what did you do?
A Then I was a military commander in Serbia.
Q Were you commanding on air float there?
A No.
Q What were your duties?
A As a military commander, I was responsible for the Military security of the country and the administration of the country of Serbia.
Q That is, you had something to do with the occupation forces?
A Do I understand by "occupation forces" you mean the Germans standing in Serbia?
Q Yes.
A No. At my time, the divisions in Serbia were under Fieldmarshal Weichs. My activities were restricted mainly to the civilian administration.
932 a
Q How long did you stay there?
A Two months.
Q Then what did you do?
A I was then commander general of the First Air Corps at the time in France, and at the beginning of the Russian campaign in Russia.
Q Where were you stationed?
A Then in East Prussia; later on in the Baltic countries, and in the end in Charkow.
Q How long did you stay there as commander of the First Air Fleet, or First Air Corps?
A Until September 1942, that is to say, up to that point; then I became Chief of Air Defense in the Reich Luftfahrt Ministry.
Q During that period there when you were with the First Air Corps, you were actually the Commander-General?
A Yes.
Q And that terminated in September 1942?
A Yes.
Q When you entered the Air Ministry in Berlin, Hippke was subordinate to you was he not?
A Yes.
Q And Milch was your superior?
A Yes.
Q And Goering was Milch's superior?
A The Reichmarshall.
Q The Reichsmarshall Goering?
A Yes.
Q Did you ever attend any meetings of the Central Planning Board?
A No.
Q Did you ever attend any meetings of the Jaegerstab?
A No.
Q You never attended any of the Fuehrer's conferences?
A No. That is to say, no, not a conference.