TEE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. MC MAHON: The exhibit which we were about to discuss was NO242, Exhibit No. 125, on page 196 of the English document book and page 207 of the German book. This affidavit is sworn to by Rudolf Brandt and concerns freezing experiments. It reads:
"I, Rudolf Emil Hermann Brandt, being duly sworn, depose and state:
"1. I am the same Rudolf Brandt who has heretofore sworn to an affidavit on the 30th day of August, 1946, concerning certain low pressure experiments performed on human beings at the Dachau Concentration Camp.
"2. For the same reason set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of my affidavit of 30 August 1946 I am able to make this statement concerning freezing experiments performed on human beings.
FREEZING EXPERIMENTS "3. In the late Spring of 1942 Field Marshal Milch of the Luftwaffe, in a letter to SS Obergruppenfuehrer Karl Wolff (Chief of the Personnel Staff of the Reichsfuehrer SS), authorized the freezing experiments on human beings; Oberstabsarzt A.G. Weltz was ordered to make these experiments and Rascher was to assist him.
Milch expressed his thanks to the SS for their cooperation with the Supreme Command of the Luftwaffe in conducting the low pressure experiments --"
I believe that should read "Of the Supreme Command of the Luftwaffe."
"--To the best of my recollection Rascher wrote Himmler a few weeks later to the effect that Generaloberstabsarzt Professor Dr. Hippke had requested freezing experiments to be carried out on concentration camp inmates at Dachau. Rascher requested that Himmler approve the pardon of several inmates at Dachau who had assisted him in performing autopsies on human guinea pigs who were killed during the course of the low pressure experiments.
4. The Luftwaffe was interested in having the cooling experiments conducted because of the fact that a number of German aviators were forced to parachute into "The North Sea, and consequently were so etimes subjected to extreme cold for extended periods of time. The purpose of the freezing experiments was to learn the most effective way of rewarming such aviators, thereby saving their lives.
5. The freezing experiments were begun in August 1942, and RASCHER sub mitted a preliminary report in September 1942. The test persons were partially submerged in ice water to lower their body temperature. This report stated that some of the experimental subjects were killed as a result of the experiments RASCHER attempted to revive the frozen subjects by rapid rewarming with hot water. He stated that rewarming by animal heat had not yet been utilized, but that he thought it would be too slow.
6. HIMMLER acknowledged receipt of this report late in September and ordered RASCHER to explore the effectiveness of rewarming by animal heat. A copy of this letter was sent to Sievers with a request for acknowledgment.
7. As a result of HIMMLER's request that animal warmth be used as one of the methods of rewarming in the course of the experiments, RASCHER made a request that a number of women be supplied for this purpose. I know that women were supplied to RASCHER, and that they were used to rewarm the experimental subjects who had been frozen.
8. In October 1942, RASCHER submitted the final report on the freezing experiments performed at Dachau. This report did not contain the results of a series of experiments with drugs and with animal body heat which were then still being conducted. It was also noted that the report did not contain the microscopic pathological examinations of the brain tissues of the deceased. This report was signed by Prof. Dr. E. Holzloehner, Dr. Sigmund RASCHER and Dr. E. Finke, Data was submitted concerning number of subjects who were frozen to death.
9. Himmler acknowledged receipt of this report; a copy of the letter being "sent to Karl Wolff. He stated that a copy of the report had been sent to field Marshall MILCH of the Luftwaffe, and went on to state that he expected reports regarding the use of animal heat in reviving the frozen subjects. He further asked RASCHER to submit the names of people who were opposed to experiments on human beings, and stated that such peoples were to be considered as traitors. Later on Himmler had a conference with Rascher concerning the experiments, and during November he visited Dachau in order to observe personally the experiments.
10. It should be noted that some jealousy arose among Rascher and his collaborators, as a result of the low pressure and freezing experiments. Sievers was of the opinion that Holzloehner was attempting to receive credit for the cold experiments, and that the same had been done by Dr. Ruff with regard to the low pressure experiments. For this reason, Sievers suggested to Himmler that it would be wise if Rascher were taken over entirely into the SS and away from the Luftwaffe, so that his work can be carried out under the sole auspices of the Personnel Staff of the Reichsfuehrer SS, and the Anhererbe Institute. As a result of this, Himmler wrote a letter to Field Marshall MILCH in November 1942, requesting that Rascher be discharged from the Luftwaffe and transferred to the Waffen SS. Himmler stated that he would assume sole responsibility for experimentation on human beings."
Now omitting paragraph 11, and reading at paragraph 13:
"13. Rascher had still not been released from the Luftwaffe as late as January 1943, and no answer had been received from MILCH in reply to the formal request made by Himmler in November 1942. Sievers was concerned about this delay because Rascher was planning to make certain experiments on the effect of dry-cold on human beings, and since it was thought that these could not be started prior to Rascher's transfer, Sievers was becoming concerned lost the transfer of delayed by the cold season. I know that Sievers was in touch with Wolff on several occasions, and urged him to expedite the transfer.
Wolff was serving as the liaison between Himmler and MILCH in this matter."
Now going to paragraph 18:
"18. The efforts to release Rascher from the Luftwaffe were intensified. Hippke had apparently heard the criticism of the SS that Rascher had not been given full cooperation by the Luftwaffe, and he defended himself against the accusation that ho had not enthusiastically reported the experiments performed on human beings. He indicated would be willing to approve of Rascher's release from the Luftwaffe if Rascher himself made the requests. Hippke pointed out that the difficulties about which there was some complaint were caused not because of any disapproval of experiments on human beings, but because of the personal vanities of the various doctors involved in that each one apparently wanted to take personal credit. Rascher himself was criticized in that respect.
19. Rascher defended himself in a latter to me against this slur of Hippke, and added that he had made further tests on the resuscitation of human beings who were frozen by dry-cold during a period of heavy frost.
The experimental subjects were kept naked outdoors for 14 hours at freezing temperatures. A complete report on this subject was sent to Himmler in April 1943. I acknowledged receipt of this report in a letter to Rascher, and according to orders advised to get in touch with Prof. Gebhardt at Hohenlychen, to whom Himmler had sent the aforesaid report. Rascher was also directed to send a copy of the report to Grawitz."
The signature to this affidavit should read "Rudolf Brandt" instead of "R. Rascher". It is dated the 9th September 1946.
For the purpose of the record, Your Honor, I wish to call your attention to the exhibit number of Document 343B-PS, which is Exhibit No. 117. Also in regard to Exhibit No. 101, which consisted cf documents NOKW 426, 450 and 452. These exhibits are now being submitted to the Secretary General as his Exhibit No. 112, NOKW 451.
THE PRESIDENT: Let's get these exhibit numbers straight on the NOKW.
MR. MCMAHON: 450.
THE PRESIDENT: 450 and 452.
MR. MCMAHON: They are correct.
THE PRESIDENT: 426 was given Exhibit No. 100, was it not?
MR. MCMAHON: I think they are all included as Exhibit No. 101. Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you tell me what is the number of -- exhibit number of 2428-PS?
MR.MCMAHON: That was Exhibit No. 100.
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: I have them as NOKW 246, 450 and 452 are all Exhibit No. 101.
MR. MCMAHON: That is right, Your Honor.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: And then 1581-PS is No. 102.
MR. MCMAHON: Yes, Your Honor. This, Your Honor, completes the presentation of evidence in the medical experiments case.
MR. DENNY: If Your Honor please, the Prosecution at this time would like to request a short adjournment in order that we may correct the record, and make sure nothing has been omitted which we would want to include. addition there is a possibility that we may have some more material to present to Your Honors, but I am not in a position to state now whether that material is forthcoming. I also understand Dr. Bergold also has an objection which he would like to make.
THE PRESIDENT: How long do you wish to stay to assure yourself that proofs are all in the record and complete, and in order to determine there may be more and further proof for the Prosecution?
MR. DENNEY: Certainly the balance of today should be sufficient on the first count; sofar as additional proof is concerned. Your Honor, I am not in a position to state. I don't know.
THE PRESIDENT: If you find you have further proof that should be submitted even after the defense opens, you may do so.
MR. DENREY: We would be perfectly willing to do that, Your Honor, if there is an agreement.
DR. BERGOLD: May it please the Tribunal, I must ask for a recess for the following reasons. The case of the defendant Milch, from the point of view of time, is particularly difficult because it is a question here of one defendant. To be sure, I have acted for the defendant since November, but as I stated earlier, I had not received the documentation for my defendant until the beginning of this case. The documentation from the Central Planning I did not receive until the prosecution began its case because they are in the possession of the Secretary General. The documents pertaining to the Central Planning that have so far been presented I have not been able to go through in detail. Only in the Information Center for the Defense are these to be found. They cannot be taken from that Center. I cannot give them to my secretary to be copied but must read them there. The office is closed at six o'clock.
Almost every day I have been here in the court house and in the court, and after the termination of the court I only had an hour to work on these things. There are enormous piles of books that I estimate to be about five volumes of files that I must go through. I have not had a chance to read the court record of the case regarding the Jaegerstab. None of the witnesses whom I have requested have I been able to speak to personally. Many of them are on their way to Nurnberg or are not here. Therefore, I state my convictions that I am doing everything I can, working from early in the morning until late at night, but so far I simply do not have the data at my disposal and because of the sessions here in court I have not had the time necessary. The witnesses have not yet come.
I believe I shall need at least a recess of two weeks to prepare myself. I grant that is quite a length of time but because of the extent and scope of this case it is really a very short time. I know that the prosecution has been working on this case for several months. I have seen the documentation and evidence. It is not possible for me to go through this vast material in just one or two days. I must read through all of the files precisely and I must be able to consult with my witnesses. I, therefore, request at least a period of recess of at least two weeks. I must also say that even then I am afraid I may have to ask for a further recess, but I shall do everything in my power to make that two weeks recess suffice.
Unfortunately, I can only work on this material during the office hours of the Information Center. After the office closes, I am not allowed to work there because it is not permitted for me to have access to these documents unless there is a guard there. That is my application.
THE PRESIDENT: In order to expedite the work of the court, Mr. Denny, would it not be possible for arrangements to be made for Dr. Bergold to have more access to the Information Center, that is, for longer hours in the evening? Could not the necessary guard be provided?
MR. DENNY: If Your Honor please, I an uninformed about the process in the Information Center. I can make inquiry and advise Your Honors.
THE PRESIDENT: That is under the jurisdiction of the Secretary General, is it?
MR DENNY: As I understand it, we have nothing to do with it directly.
THE PRESIDENT: Then that is the court's problem. It seems that we could direct the Secretary General to see to it that Dr. Bergold has access to the material in the Information Center, Defense Center, during the evening or outside of their regular hours. Would that assist you Dr. Bergold, if we did that?
DR. BERGOLD: Most certainly. But even then, because of the vast extent of the material and the number of witnesses, I shall still need two weeks. I shall, in addition, have to call further witnesses; namely, those who have given affidavits in the case of tho prosecution and whom I shall want to cross-examine. I am trying to do everything I can to see to it that I do not call witnesses who avail nothing in my case.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Dr. Bergold, during the 30-day period following the filing of the indictment and the actual beginning of the trial, did you not have an opportunity to examine tho documents that you now speak of?
DR. BERGOLD: No. Only after the first or second meeting, of the court, did I receive those documents. We started here in January and then I asked that the documents pertaining to the Central Planning be given to be and only then-a few days later--did I receive these documents on the Initiative of the Tribunal itself.
May it please the Tribunal, let me add one thing: in Court No. 1, in the first case, the defense had the documents only a week ahead of time, but since the trial had been going on since November or December, consequently the defense has had the material in its hands for quite a while; and if they since we have been in session only since January, is not unreasonable. We have had to leave our own rooms--the Information Center closes at six--at nine o'clock we have to leave our own offices. Moreover, I am only able to speak to my client only during the evening hours. Unfortunately, it is usually about six-thirty before he is accessible so that I spend most of my evening hours after six-thirty speaking to the defendant. That again takes me more time.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has determined to recess further proceedings until a week from next Monday. The Court will recess at this time and reconvene on January 27 at nine-thirty in the morning.
THE MARSHAL: This Tribunal is recessed until 0930 on the 27 January.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 27 January 1947 at 0930 hours.)
Official transcript of the American Military Tribunals Court, case No. 2, in the matter of the United States of America against Erhard Milch, defendant, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany on 27 January, 1947, 0930 - 0945. Justice TOMS, presiding.
THE MARSHALL: Military Tribunal No. 2 is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal. There will be order in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: The Marshal will ascertain whether the defendant, Erhard Milch, is present in Court.
THE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honors, the defendant is present in the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: Is counsel for the defendant, Dr. Bergold also present?
THE MARSHAL: Dr. Bergold is also present in the courtroom.
MR DENNEY: If Your Honors please, the prosecution is not prepared at this time to submit some additional evidence which we have, as it is not ready. As I understand it, Dr. Bergold was going to start today. In any event we are prepared to concede at this time with reference to tho application by tho defense for calling von Neurath as a witness. If Your Honors recall Dr. Bergold stated that he was calling this witness to show that the Soviet Union was not a participating member of the Geneva Convention. The Prosecution is willing to concede that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was not at any time a signatory of the Geneva Convention. However, we wish to direct the Court's attention to the fact that our contention is that the Geneva Convention was only an effort to codify tho already existing rules of land warfare. However, in making this concession we don't for a moment waive our contention that as prisoners of war, soldiers and officers of all nations are entitled to humane treatment, both under the rules of International Law, and under general Humanitarian principles, and that these rules apply whether or not some one has already signed as signatory of a particular pact, or articles of agreement at a convention which has been agreed to among other nations.
THE PRESIDENT: Any further evidence this Prosecution has to present will be documentary in form?
MR DENNEY: Yes, if Your Honors' please, so far as we know now, except by way of rebuttal we may have some witnesses.
THE PRESIDENT: Then tho Prosecution does not rest its case today?
MR DENNEY: No, sir. If Your Honor is agreeable we would rather not at this time. I think that was Your Honor's ruling Wednesday a week ago, at which time we adjourned, the understanding being that Dr. Bergold would start this morning.
THE PRESIDENT: Then you understand, Dr. Bergold, that the Prosecution reserves the right to present its further documentary evidence, and witnesses, , even after you enter into the defense case.
DR. BERGOLD: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that agreeable?
DR. BERGOLD: May it please the Tribunal, that is agreeable to me, under the condition that I can take issue also with the further evidence that is submitted after I have concluded or during the presentation of my case.
THE PRESIDENT: Of course, that is your right.
In view of the concession of the Prosecution of the fact that Russia did not sign the Geneva Convention agreement, do you waive the production of von Neurath as a witness?
DR. BERGOLD: May it please the Tribunal, I can nevertheless not do without this witness because there is a difference between my attitude on this man and that of the Prosecution. The prosecution can do without this witness on the ground that Russia did not sign the Geneva Convention. They do not, however, assert that Russia withdrew from this agreement. It seems to me that this is a very essential juridical difference, whether, on the one hand, a nation does not sign a pact or, on the other hand, withdraws from it, as the Soviet Union did from the pact that Czarist Russia had signed.
This withdrawal must have a juridical significance and is important for this reason; namely that the Prosecution says that the Geneva Convention was merely a codification of usages of war that already existed. If, then, a country withdraws from this codification of usages, the Prosecution must concede that the Soviet Union withdrew from the Geneva Convention after once having belonged to it.
MR. DENNEY: If Your Honors please, Dr. Bergold is now taking a different position from that which he had when we were discussing the witness von Neurath. Our position is the came as it was at that time and which I expressed this morning. Whether or not the soviet Union was a signatory and then withdrew, I don't know. I am willing to make the concession which we have made, and for the law on the point we rely on the decision of the International Military Tribunal, part of which has been read into the record and the balance of which we will present at the proper time.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, without trying to reach any implications, you are not prepared to concede that Russia withdrew from the Geneva Convention after having once subscribed to it?
MR. DENNEY: No; if your Honors please, I do not know the facts. I don't know if Russia did subscribe to it or not. I know that in the published edition that we have Russia does not appear as a signatory. There is nothing to indicate in the footnotes or any other printed material with reference to the Convention that she had been a signatory.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, without that concession, Dr. Bergold insists on his right to call a witness.
MR. DENNEY: That is, of course, for Your Honors to determine, and I certainly am not prepared to concede at this time that she was a signatory and then withdrew. I can not see that that makes any difference.
THE PRESIDENT: In view of Dr. Bergold's contention of the act of withdrawing from the Geneva Convention, which is claimed to have been a codification of already existing international legal principles, the Court will permit the production of the witness.
DR. BERGOLD: May it please the Tribunal, I undertake now to present the evidence for the Defense. The prosecution has painted the blackest possible picture of the man I am here to defend. It has pronounced a moral judgment on him, even for the period of his life, which, according to the Indictment, is not to be judged by this Tribunal.
Because of the great difference between the American and the German people I have no knowledge of whether such a method of prosecution is customary in the United States of America. The good principles of law which were practiced in Germany before 1933 provided that even the Counsel for the Prosecution should not reproach the defendant for anything that is not subject to examination by the Tribunal. The meaning of this is that the Defense Counsel also should be in a position to express his views with regard to these charges. This, according to my opinion, seems to be a fair principle.
Therefore, if it please the Tribunal, it shall be my aim in the course of my submission of evidence to prove by witnesses who have been approved and by the defendant himself that the charges made by the Prosecution are incorrect, and I shall aim to prove that also for such charges that are not contained in the Indictment.
Erhard Milch has never in his life been a traitor, as a person or in his profession, not even at the end of National Socialist rule when he himself was threatened in his life and in his honor. As a man of high intelligence and great talent or organization, he always tried to do his best for his people and for the world.
To say of him that ho misused his talent and devoted his life to a plan for conquest and enslavement of the world is to have a completely wrong conception of reality. He was never a militarist in the bad sense of the word, Never did he arm secretly before 1933 nor make use of the peaceful instrument of the commercial air fleet for any sinister purposes. He, the man who wanted to devote himself only to the tasks of peace, the man who in his capacity as Director of the German Lufthansa collaborated with many European air transport companies and who conceived this collaboration as almost a forerunner of a unified Europe, he, the man who in 1937 devoted all his efforts, together with a few wise and courageous statesmen, to the attempt to bring about a full understanding and a large scale collaboration between France, Belgium and Germany (unfortunately, the High Tribunal has not given me permission to furnish complete proof for this fact), he, Erhard Milch, truly never tried to enslave the world. If he had succeeded in his plans in 1937, then there would have be no 1938. And. all the more, there would not have been the horrible period of 1939 to 1945, the period in which the battle against intolerance became so hard and so complicated that we might think today that as in an Arabian tale, this spirit of intolerance has freed himself from the bottle and spread himself over so wide an area that, even today, it causes actions which one day must also be condemned by the just and the wise.
I shall prove that from the moment when this man tried, in 1937, to achieve his plans for peace he lost the confidence of his superiors. He never belonged to the intimate circle in which his superiors confided, even less so after 1937. They employed him unwillingly, and only because they believed that they could not spare him because of his ability. It is cheap and easy to say now that this man should have denied his superiors the benefit of his talents. We shall prove that he tried to do so. But who can dare to judge with certainty what goes on in the heart of such a man who is terribly aware of what dangers threatened his people --- once the fateful step of starting the war had been taken? Neither did he want this step nor could he prevent it.
Should he really have chosen the path of revolt, this man who was brought up in a world in which, for all ages, military obedience had been an inviolate law, this man who had a passionate love for his people? How many human beings, in all the countries, are capable of breaking the chains of their education and turn against the laws which have been inviolate for them ever since their childhood?
There is no punishable guilt, perhaps even no moral guilt in the fact that a man cannot free himself from the world of his education. Because it is the very essence of all education to give the man unbreakable laws and to create around him what philosophers call "the environment proper to his own nature." Therefore, he has not made himself guilty by doing what his education and the conceptions of his environment made him call his duty, in a war which he did not want, which he tried to prevent; and the stopping of which he advised again and again after it had started. This duty, he felt, was to do his work and to prevent the worst which he anticipated; namely, the terrible devastation of his fatherland and its complete and helpless collapse.
I shall prove that even after the war had broken out, as before, he always concerned himself with questions of defense only; that he wanted to strengthen the fighter force, a defensive weapon with which he wanted to prevent the doom of the German cities.
Perhaps, one day, the necessity for this doom will be judged differently. I shall prove that he condemned the attack against Soviet Russia as folly, and that he tried to prevent it. I shall show that in the spring of 1943 he submitted to Hitler detailed proposals for an immediate termination of the war and that he told him without reserve that the war was lost.
If it is true that from that moment onward he made efforts again and again to strengthen the fighter force, and that he took part in the creation of the Fighter Staff, who can reproach him with the intention to prolong the war if it will be proved that he knew that the enemy airforces would make a desert of Germany? Was it inhuman that he tried to prevent this total destruction even if the war was lost? He alone could not end the war. But he could try to prevent the inferno in Germany from becoming full reality. What true lover of his own country in any part of the world would not make the same attempt? Never can he be considered guilty on account of that, and even less so because of the fact that in other countries also voices have arisen and still arise which say that during the destruction of Germany many a thing has happened which was not always compatible with military necessity.
Despite the pains he took, his superiors mistrusted him so much that both Goering and Hitler contemplated to have him put out of the way.
I shall show that he never endorsed the theory of the superman and of the master race; that he always remained humane and that he intervened on behalf of friends under disregard of his own security. He never was cruel. If may be that some of the minutes carry wild speeches about him which must strike your Honors who come from a different world and are used to different customs -- as terrible and incomprehensible. I shall prove to you that in the barracks yards, which made the first impress on the sensitive mind of young Milch, wild expressions were quite common and that in German barracks yards bombastic expressions were considered normal and truly militaristic style. Nobody in Germany did at any time take those expressions at face value. For this human element in partic ular, the old saying holds true that dogs which bark do not bite.
This man, however, was all the more inclined to use these shocking expressions, because in a number of accidents he suffered severe concussions of the brain, as a result of which he was more susceptible to fits of anger than other people; all the more so, as he was overburdened with work and always frantic because time was too short. But witnesses will appear before this Tribunal who will confirm that no one in his surroundings took these fits of wrath, these crazy words, seriously; that these expressions never went further than the circle of his intimates, and that they were not brought into reality. His raving and yelling would make so little impression that when people around him noticed he was about to have another fit of rage, one would hear the familiar quotation: "In a moment somebody will be hanged again and then nothing happens."
I shall show that this man knew nothing at all of the many abominable happenings which occurred out in the country, sometimes committed by persons who were under his command, and that, for example, the connection with the experiments at Dachau were so remote and incidental that he could not even surmise what these men undertook to do. The sphere of his duties was so terrific, the burden of his work so great that he truly should have needed to be a superman if he were expected to have known all that which the Prosecution finds out today from records and from the examination of the offenders. It is appropriate to use a Latin quotation here with a little change: "Quod est in actis, non semper est in munde." Not everything that the investigating mind uncovers at a later date and inter-connects, was so in actual fact. The poet says "Easy for him to speak who speaks last." This man is charged with letting prisoners be a abused and killed. I shall prove that this was not so. I shall even prove that, for example, he did everything possible to protect so-called terror fliers from being lynched. He was a man who tried to attenuate verdicts pronounced by competent courts of justice, and who never favored death sentences.
The Prosecution charges him with the enslavement of the peoples of Europe.
I shall prove that he never aspired to enslavement; that information on deportations and shanghaiing never reached him; and that, on the contrary, information reached him which was bound to confuse his judgment and which permitted him to engage in deeds which now are being considered as wrong. Up to this day the opinion still prevails that everybody in Germany knew everything about all the cruelties. Slowly, however, the recognition comes through that this is not correct. In the "Neue Zeitung", the official organ of the Military Government, a German anti-Fascist by the name of Arnold Weiss Ruethel, whose book on the concentration camps is considered noteworthy by the newspapers -- published an article "On the Psychological Causes." There he states literally: "One would have termed anybody who informed the public of such happenings a scoundrel of a lunatic. This also explains why people who did not see these things with their own eyes and suffered from them day after day, even today, still refuse to believe that they actually happened. Yes, to me too it seems today often a dream and impossible, when thinking back I try to persuade myself that they really happened, the fearful excesses to which I was a witness during my five years in the concentration camp." Thus writes, be it noted, a man who suffered for years in a concentration camp himself. It has been proved again and again that the most painstaking secrecy was maintained regarding the atrocities. This is no hollow talk. This is the truth. The actual perpetrators disassembled, denied, lied, in a way that could not have been surpassed in cunning. The documents show you, Honorable Judges, that it was forbidden for Rascher to make reports without Himmler's authorization. Himmler wanted to draw the veil of secrecy over everything. But even with a Hitler, Sauckel, for example, soft-pedalled all his doings in the procuring of foreign workers. Regarding this, I will submit evidence.
I shall also show that the assignment of these workers was not a point in any program existing from the outset; that it was exclusively an emergency device which the exigencies of the war had forced upon Germany. So at least all this had to appear to him, the man who did not belong to the innermost circle. That he could not think otherwise will be demonstrated to the Court, to the Tribunal.
It is misleading when the honorable representatives of the Prosecution in his opening speech points out that this man had more to do with the use of forced labor than any other man in Germany. The International Military Tribunal, in its judgment on Speer, whose position as no one in this Courtroom can doubt, was far more powerful and significant than that of this man here, has stated (Page 16,614 of the German Record): "Speer's position was such that he did not have to deal directly with the atrocities and the carrying out of the forced labor program." On Page 16,598 of the German Record, the International Military Tribunal says: "It is nevertheless established beyond all doubt that Sauckel had the over-all responsibility for the slave labor program." I shall offer evidence that Sauckel actually also had the sole power over the manner in which the people were recruited and brought to Germany, and over the urgent work for which they were required.
The Prosecution submitted much evidence in Document Books No. I A and I B which contain the speeches and decrees of all possible persons and offices in Germany and in the territories formerly occupied. In my submission, however, it never proved that the defendant knew of all these things, much less that he had anything to do with them. I shall prove that he knew nothing of all this and that it was all so far remote from his sphere of action, that, logically speaking and considering his numerous tasks, he could not even know of them.
I ask permission to remark here that in cases of that kind it is perhaps after all not in keeping with the rules of true justice to charge one person with everything that happened somewhere and was committed by one person among a people of eighty million. In my opinion the concept of conspiracy is in such a case being inflated to the point of monstrosity. It was created for conditions of a narrower and smaller scope where it was within the framework of a man's possibilities to keep an over-all view of his associates and their deeds. But to extend the concept of conspiracy over an entire nation and, simultaneously, over numerous organizations with millions of members, that no longer can be commensurate with true justice.
