the Fuehrer in 1938. When I was commander of the air division in Greifewald visited the division for one day and this was not a conference but merely a military inspection.
Q What I refer to, what was called a Fuehrer's conference, about which you probably heard?
A No.
Q When these Russian prisoners occasionally were assigned to the German Anti-aircraft guns, you didn't know what their status was, whether they were prisoners of war, or whether they had been discharged, or what their actual status was?
A No, except these were assigned to us as prisoners of war. Their treatment, their food, their pay, their clothes, or their personal status was regulated in a special way, their relations wore always regulated. I assume that from the start they were still prisoners of war, because on their tunics they wore the emblem so far as I know of "US" which signified prisoners of war. As I have already told my counsel, it was intended to lead this formation somehow into the Wlassow's Army. I cannot remember whether these orders were actually executed or carried out, or not.
Q Do you recall what they were paying when they first came to you?
A What wage they were given I don't know. I only know they were paid but I don't know how much. They were also given special privileges, as a certain number of cigarettes, and special food, and so on. They were certainly separated from the masses of their fellow prisoners for special privileges.
Q And you said that you believed fifty thousand Russian prisoners were supposed to be at your disposal but actually you got a number somewhat less than that?
A Yes.
Q Have you any idea about how many you did have?
A The figure was perhaps a strict one-half, which would have been strictly twenty-five thousand, and there were roughly about eight or ten heads at one battery -- gun battery.
Q. So far as you can recall, there were only twenty-five thousand of them, and at these gun batteries were eight or ten of them assigned thereto?
A. Yes, I would say eight, ten or about twelve, the exact figures I can not recall.
Q. And so far as it was possible for you to say, they were employed in France where they would not have to shoot at their own planes?
A. That was our order.
Q. Of course, it might be a little bit difficult at night if a Russian plane came overhead to know whether they were firing at it, or at an English plane, or an American plane. The planes certainly did not have anything in their radar that would tell them whether they were Russian or not?
A. The Russians trusted to our general judgment. They did not go so far as East Prussia in their operations. Only in the last year of the war, then did the Russian front push westward in isolated cases, pushed a little farther, but that was only the last month of this war, in central Germany and southern Germany and Bavaria in the west of Germany there never were any Russian planes.
Q. You stated that on all death sentences had to be approved by Goering. Does that mean death sentences of Luftwaffe personnel, or does it also include death sentences of prisoners who were held by the Luftwaffe?
A. They were exclusively death sentences on members of the German Luftwaffe, that is, the German soldiers. The confirmation of sentences of prisoners of war was in my opinion not the responsibility of a commander of the Luftwaffe section. Quite generally the rule was that prisoners of war as soon as they had been committed to an offense which should have been punished perhaps by death were not to be sentenced by the troop commander, but the prisoners had to be handed over to the Security Service, and the Luftwaffe had no longer anything to do with it. I also know that a sentence of death against a prisoner of war never reached us through the ordinary channel, or was submitted to the Reichsmarshall.
Q. So when you talk about Goering reserving the right to approve every death sentence, you are merely referring to the Luftwaffe personnel, of the soldier under him.
A. Yes.
Q. How many pieces were there in a German Anti-aircraft gun battery?
A. That depended on the calibre of the battery; normally four guns; later on in cases of shortage of personnel the battery shrank to eight; smaller batteries of two centimeter; two point six centimeters were up to twelve guns. It depend on the purpose -- for what purpose they were to be used.
Q. And in the German Army, unlike as for comparison the American Army, the Anti-aircraft is part of the Luftwaffe, is it not?
A. That is a part of the Luftwaffe. That is, to say, the Army that was introduced in t he war, the Army had Anti-aircraft batteries at the times, but only light batteries, with a big mass of Antiaircraft guns were under the Luftwaffe.
Q. That differed from the American army setup, where they were a sort of an organization known as the Anti-aircraft Battery, and also a part of the Coast Artillery?
A. Yes.
Q And in your direct examination you also said that at the time this question of using Russian prisoners of war in the anti-aircraft batteries came up that the defendant was opposed to this use because the Russians employed in the armament industry were needed there and they could not be spared for the anti-aircraft work?
A Yes. Milch was opposed to this, to taking Russian prisoners of way away from armament factories for the purposes of anti-aircraft batteries.
MR. DENNY: No further questions.
DR. BERGOLD: May I put one more question to the witness, Your Honors?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. BERGOLD:
Q Witness, I once more come back to the question of the confirmation of the death sentences. Is it not true that Goering reserved the right to confirm all death sentences passed by the Luftwaffe jurisdiction?
A Yes.
Q Is it not true that this Luftwaffe jurisdiction in some cases concerned civilians, such as workers of the armament industry?
A In my opinion, no.
Q But you are not quite certain, are you?
A I can not say for certain, but in my opinion the jurisdiction of the Luftwaffe dealt exclusively with members of the Luftwaffe. Should civilians be concerned and should they be sentenced by a Luftwaffe court in some cases, there wore perhaps special regulations. Normally, one may say that members of the Luftwaffe were subject to Luftwaffe jurisdiction and nobody else.
Q Another question, witness. You said before that the armed forces, the army, had anti-aircraft batteries. Is it not true that the navy also had anti-aircraft batteries?
A I did not mention it, but, of course, the navy had anti-aircraft batteries on their ships, and the navy also had anti-aircraft batteries for coastal protection.
DR. BERGOLD: Thank you. I have no further questions of this witness.
MR. DENNEY: No more questions, if Your Honor please.
THE PRESIDENT: The Marshal may remove this witness.
(Witness excused.)
DR. BERGOLD: May it please the Court, we should now hear the witness Neff, according to my plan. However, by the time he has come in and the formalities have been fulfilled, my questioning would be torn in half. May I therefore propose to the Court that it have the luncheon interval now in order to have a uniform interrogation afterwise?
MR. DENNEY: I have no objection, if Your Honor please.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the objective that we are aiming at is to get all other witnesses done and over with by Friday morning. We want the dock cleared for the defendants in Tribunal I by Friday morning. Let me ask you, Dr. Bergold -
DR. BERGOLD: May it please the Court, I understand that very well, but at the moment there are hardly any witnesses at my disposal. The witnesses, Kalk, Vorwald, and Eberhard are not present. There is only the witness Hertel here now, and the witness Eschenauer. The witness Gauss has just arrived. I have not talked to him yet, and that would not be in context anyhow. Nobody else is not present yet.
THE PRESIDENT: They are not present?
DR. BERGOLD: So that we shall have much too much time until Friday.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean these other witnesses are not here in Nurnberg?
DR. BERGOLD: No, they have not arrived yet, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Neff, is here and Hertel is here?
DR. BERGOLD: Neff is here; Hertel is here, and Eschenauer is here. The examinations will easily be over with by Friday.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, if that is true, that is all that I am concerned with. We'll take the noon recess now until one-thirty.
THE MARSHALL: The Tribunal is in recess until 1330.
(The Tribunal was recessed until 1330 hours.)
938 a AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1340 hours, 12 February 1947)
THE MARSHAL: Tribunal No. 2 is again in session,
DR. BERGOLD (Attorney for defendant Erhard Milch):
Your Honors, I ask permission to call the witness Walter Neff.
THE PRESIDENT: The Marshal will bring the witness Neff into the Court Room.
The witness will raise his right hand and repeat after me:
I swear by God, the Almighty and Qmniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath)
THE PRESIDENT: The witness may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. BERGOLD:
Q. Witness, can you speak slowly, and after my question make a small pause before you answer so that the interpreters can interpret my questions fully.
Witness, please state your first and last name.
A. Walter Neff.
Q. When were you born?
A. 22 February 1909; near Augsburg.
Q. What was your last position?
A. My last position was that of administrator of a factory in Dachau.
Q. Do you know Milch? That is, personally from the time before the catastrophe of 1945?
A. No, I do not know Milch personally: I did not know him personally during that time.
Q. Did you see him for the first time here in Nurnberg?
A. I had never seen him personally; I only read the name.
Q. In other words, you do not know him.
A. No.
Q. If I tell you that this gentleman here in the gray uniform, who sits across from you, is Milch, you still assert that you have not known him before 1945?
A. I cannot ever recall having seen this man.
Q. Witness on the 23rd of December, 1946, you delivered an affidavit; signed an affidavit for the Prosecution; do you recall that?
A. Yes.
Q. In this affidavit you said the following: Field Marshal Milch's name was frequently mentioned in Dachau; is that correct?
A. Yes, that is correct; Milch's name was mentioned by Drs. Romberg and Rascher many times.
Q. In what connection?
A. When the question of transporting the so-called low pressure chambers came up, Milch's name was mentioned in this connection.
Q. In what way did this take place, witness.
A. I had the impression that Dr. Romberg was not in agreement with the experiments Rascher was carrying out, and had the intention of taking the cars from the campus as soon as possible. Rascher strove toward the opposite; he wanted to keep the cars in the concentration camps as long as possible. To what extent Rascher succeeded in keeping them there, that I do not know in particular.
Q. In what way was Milch's name mentioned in that context?
A. Dr. Romberg said that he would turn to Milch in order to bring it about that the cars were taken away. Rascher also said he would turn to Milch and if that were to no avail he would turn to Himmler so that the cars stayed there.
Q. Was Dr. Hippke's name also mentioned in this context?
A. Now, after I hear the name here I do seem to recall having heard it, but I cannot, for sure, say in what connection, but I have heard the name.
Q. You further stated, "I am sure that Milch knew Dr. Rascher."
Is that correct; are you really sure of that, and on what ground are you sure of that; or was that merely a conjecture on your part?
A. So far as Dr. Rascher can be believed, Rascher must have been personally acquainted with Milch and in touch with him, for Rascher said that he would turn to Milch; and did once go away; whether or not he actually visited Milch at that time I do not know, nor do I know whether he visited Himmler.
Q. Did Rascher tell you that he knew Milch personally, or did he merely say he wanted to turn to Milch?
A. So fa.r as I recall, he simply said he would turn to Milch.
Q. Then, witness, presumably you cannot say for certain that he knew Milch personally; you can only say that from this statement of Rascher; you deduced that he knew him personally; is that correct?
A. That is correct; to be sure Rascher said that several times and said that he was going hither; then, after the cars stayed there longer than had been anticipated, I drew the conclusion that Rascher did know Milch.
Q. But that was merely a deduction on your part?
A. Yes.
Q. How was it that the cars stayed longer -- when they were to be taken away?
A. So far as I recall, they should have been taken away at the beginning of June. Then there was a delay, but I cannot tell precisely when they were taken away; it was, however, the middle of June.
Q. You just said "to the extent that Rascher could be believed." Did you ever have occasion to ascertain that Rascher did not always speak the truth?
A. No, Rascher often told un-truths, and it was very difficult to discriminate between what was the truth in what he said and what was a lie. It was his boast.
Q. What was the manner of speaking to say boast; the German word 'Renommieren' means to boast; renommieren, to exaggerate; is that the true way that I defined the word "Renommieren"?
DR. BERGOLD: Your Honor, I called the witness only for examination regarding his affidavit. I have no further questions once I have ascertained that his statement that Rascher certainly knew Milch was only a deduction on his part.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you wish to cross examine, Mr. Denney?
MR. DENNEY: No, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The Marshal may remove the witness.
DR. BERGOLD: I ask permission of the Court to call the witness Haertel?
THE PRESIDENT: The Marshal will bring the witness Haertel into the Courtroom.
BY JUDGE PHILLIPS:
Q. Witness, raise your right hand 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.)
Please be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. BERGOLD:
Q. Witness, please speak slowly so that the interpreters may keep up with you. Also, please leave a short pause between my questions and your answers so that the question may be interpreted to its conclusion.
Witness, please state your first and last name.
A. Walter Hertel, H-e-r-t-e-l
Q. Witness, when were you born?
A. 26 February 1898.
Q. What rank and office did you last have in the German Wehrmacht?
A. I was General Engineer of the Luftwaffe in Fieldmarshall's Milch's staff.
Q. Witness, do you recall, that roughly on the 11th of September, 1942, you were in the Reich Air Ministry and you saw there a medical film?
A. I did see a medical film, but I believe it was later than that. I cannot remember the date precisely.
Q. Do you know who attended the presentation of this film?
A. No, I do not know. In general, on certain days, irregularly, films were shown in secret. They were technical films in which I was interested. I saw this film by accident without knowing what sort of film it was going to be.
Q. Can you toll us what this film was about?
A. The film portrayed an experiment, or tried to portray, a condition in which the fighter pilots might attain great altitude, and when, at these heights, they were told to bail out.
In the low-pressure chamber, a man was brought to the corresponding altitude, and at this altitude, he had to take off his mask. Then he was brought back to ground level and was removed from the low-pressure chamber. The experimental person became unconscious when he removed his mask at that altitude, and remained so until the end, when he was taken from 944a the low-pressure chamber.
He manifested certain convulsions and cramps which, however, ceased shortly after that. Roughly, after 30 or 40 minutes, the experimental person was again entirely normal.
Q. Witness, can you recall whether the experimental person wore a special suit from which it might be concluded what sort of person he was?
A. It was said that these experimental persons were prisoners. At any rate, that is the way I recall it. They committed serious crimes for which they were condemned to death. This person could, by volunteering for this experiment, save his life.
Q. Witness, was this told to you by the people who presented this film?
A. Yes. It was at the conclusion of the film.
Q. Did you have the impression that this was a cruel experiment which caused human beings considerable pain or suffering?
A. No, because such experiments are necessary in aviation. It is necessary that these experiments be carried out in order to draw the correct conclusions regarding equipment. At least that is the way I see it.
Q. So far as you know, were such experiments tried out by German physicians and German personnel?
A. Experiments in the low-pressure chambers were carried on continually, particularly in order to ascertain the correct equipment for pilots and gain new experiences. I was also in the low-pressure chambers, and made such experiments myself.
Q. Did you have considerable pain on this occasion?
A. No.
Q. Did you, too, become unconscious?
A. No. I did not become unconscious at that time.
Q. Yes.
A. This was several years before the war. At that time we did not as cend to those altitudes.
Q. It was perfectly clear from these films that these experimental persons became unconscious after the mask was removed?
A. Yes.
Q. Witness, can you recall whether after the film was over, anyone stated 945a that more precise information on the film should not be given out because Milch was not present, or because the Reichfuehrer-SS had not previously given his permission?
A I do not recall that remark. In general, these films which were concerned first in line with technical experiments, were secret.
Q Was there considerable interest in your office about these human experiments?
A We were simply interested in the technical and motor experiments at these heights. I never saw experiments of this sort again.
Q Can you recall whether Milch was present at this presentation of the film?
A Milch was not present at this presentation.
Q Thank you. Come now to the general sphere of armaments. Witness, do you know from what date on, Milch was concerned with war armaments? Was that before or after Udet's death?
A In November, 1941, Fieldmarshall Milch took over the office of G.L. General Udet was immediately subordinate to Goering.
Q Can you tell me, roughly, when Milch ceased his activities as G.L.?
A He withdrew in part on the first of March, 1944, when the Jaegerstab was founded. He left it completely in June of 1944 when the Jaegerstab was reorganized and the entire armament was transferred to Speer's Ministry.
Q Do you wish then to characterize the Jaegerstab period as a transition period?
A Yes.
Q Can you tell me the reason why, in your opinion, this was a period of transition or a necessary period of transition?
In my opinion Speer's ministry withdrew one after the other consciously, one branch or another from the Luftwaffe, so that finally at the beginning of the year of 1944 the Luftwaffe was no longer in a position to fulfill its task, without considerable participation an the part of Speer's ministry. The main factor in the armament or the basis of it in the sphere of the manufacturers lay in the hands of the Speer ministry. In this way at the beginning of 1944, on the 1st of March 1944, the GL was obliged to surrender first his fighter production, and. since the fighter production was about eighty percent of the entire Luftwaffe armament at that time, finally in June 1944 the remaining twenty percent had to be turned over to Speer. This was regulated in June 1944 by an order of Hitler.
Q. Witness, with what you have just said, the facts apparently do not correspond; mainly, the fact that Milch was one of the chiefs of the Fighter Staffs; or was there another man who was practically the chief of the Fighter Staff?
A. According to the regulations Sauer and Milch were chairmen of the Fighter Staff. In practice, however, the chairmanship was carried out by Sauer.
Q. Is it correct when I assume that Sauer was at the leadership of the Fighter Staff?
A. Yes.
Q. Witness, what did Milch have to do with the Four Year plan?
A. I am not in a position to give detailed information on this question because I an not so familiar with the organization of the Four Year Plan as to enable me to deliver judgment on that. It is my opinion that Milch had nothing to do with the Four Year Plan.
Q. Were Sauckel and his officers subordinated to Milch?
A. No, Sauckel was immediate subordinate to Hitler and received from Hitler personally his orders.
Q. Is it true that perhaps Milch could exercise some influence on the execution of Sauckel's work. For instance, the recruitment, or transport, the recruitment or transport of foreign workers?
A. No, so far as I can see, there was no possibility of giving Sauckel any instructions. There was no influence to be exercised on him.
Q. Did Sauckel have instructions to report personally to Milch every month on his, namely, Sauckel's activities?
A. No, I know of no such reports.
Q. Could Milch give orders to the military or civilian authorities in the occupied territories?
A. In my opinion, no.
Q. Can you tell me in what way the aircraft industry recruited or received its workers?
A. The request of the aircraft factories or firms went on one hand to the work offices and on the other hand to armament inspectorate. The labor offices were completely under Sauckel and armament factories were completely under Speer.
Q. Did the GL, that is to say, Milch, have anything to do with the recruitment of concentration camp inmates for the aircraft armament or, who then did recruit them?
A. The GL had nothing to do with the request for concentration camp inmates as workers of the armament industry. Those workers were provided by Sauckel, or the labor offices, Whether those were Germans or foreigners, the concentration camp inmates were not within the power of the position which he held. He had nothing to do with that.
Q. Then at the time it was not within Milch's work of what decision to pass on all the individual firms?
A. No.
Q. Can you tell me what the functions of the Central. Planning were?
A. When in the course of our discussions at the GL there was mentioned the Central Planning. These discussions concerned themselves almost exclusively with raw materials. Workers questions were taken care of by Sauckel, who in his own sphere of activity did not want to be interfered with in any way.
Q. Within the framework of the GL there were technical conferences, were there not?
A. Yes.
Q. Within this framework was the request for workers discussed, or were only technical natters discussed?
A. In these conferences numerable requests for workers were discussed because on the basis of the requests of the General Staff which the GL received it was calculated how many workers were necessary in order to carry out a certain plan, or any specific plan. These questions were, of course, brought up in these conferences. The requests for workers went through normal channels. That is to say, when a firm received an order, it turned to the labor office or to the armament inspectorate and from there the request went along the above mentioned channels.
Q. In these meetings of GL were requests made for five workers, or did it only simply state one's needs in terns of how great it was?
A. The conferences were held as only to the number of workers needed. It was important, of course, to the GL to get as responsible German workers as possible, but how the work group was composed, with the different importances, so far as I know, was never discussed.
Q. Can you tell me whether during these conferences there was discussed the bringing in as many fine workers as possible so far as the slave labor was concerned?
A. The main direction taken in the work of the GL, according to Milch's orders, was that "finers" were to be used at home. No German worker was to be out of the country. In other words, in view of the fact that a man works best where he lives, the GL wanted to confine the work in foreign countries where there was a possibility of determining the place of work of the worker where they lived. For instance, in France there were plants with German orders and the plan was to employ the workers living near there. That their work as such was done in France in order to make use -- in order to keep the air fleet at top potential. That is to say, that this directive existed for the reason that, if possible, no foreign worker should be brought to Germany but to use them at home in their own country.
Q. Witness, what was the position of labor in the aircraft industry? Was it sufficient?
A. The work situation in the aircraft industry was always poor. The numbers of requests were never met.
Q. Now witness, Sauckel always mentioned very large numbers which he said he had put at the disposal of German industry. What can you say of this statement of Sauckel?
A. Sauckel's numbers were, in my opinion, and according to my observation, never correct. They were never reached. Those numbers that were announced were never obtained.