The letter of transmittal stated in part:
Enclosed I send you for your information the statutes of the Central Planning Board with the request to support the office of the Central Planning Board in every possible way in its work, and to direct, more particularly, to your section chiefs and reporters to forward all information requested orally or by writing, in the shortest possible time. By this collaboration by your section chiefs and reporters, the building up of larger machinery in the framework of the Central Planning Board is to be avoided."
The International Military Tribunal found that the Central Planning Board: "had supreme authority for the scheduling of German production and the allocation and development of raw material."
It needs no emphasis chat the effective performance of these functions necessarily involved the Board in the requisitioning and distribution of labor, and the records of the Board which have been submitted leave no doubt that the Board exercised the authority conferred upon it in the field of labor. The International Military Tribunal in its opinion found that the Board requisitioned labor from Sauckel with full knowledge that the demands could be supplied only by foreign forced labor and that the Board determined the basic allocation of this labor within the German war economy.
In accessing the guilt of the defendant Funk, the Court said:
"In the fall of 1943, Funk was a member of the Central Planning Board which determined the total number of laborers needed for German industry, and required Sauckel to produce them, usually by deportation from 2449a occupied territories.
Funk did not appear to be particularly interested in this aspect of the forced labor program, and usually sent a deputy to attend the meetings, often SS Gen. Ohlendorf, the former Chief cf the SD inside cf Germany and the Commander of Einstzgruppo D. But Funk was aware that tic Board cf which he was a member was demanding the importation of slave laborers, and allocating them to the various industries under its control."
Bearing in mind the fact that Funk was a minor member cf the Board, now much greater is the responsibility of the defendant who was a dominant figure on the Board throughout its existence.
There is no need to review in historical detail the defendant's personal participation in the criminal activities cf the Board. A few references to the pattern for 1944 will suffice. The Tribunal will recall that Albert Spoor, the other dominant member of the Board, was ill during most of this period.
On January 1944, demands were made at a Hitler conference that Sauckel produce four million new workers from the occupied countries. The defendant was present at the conference, and at this meeting, Sauckel, in pledging himself to perform his recruitment tusks, indicated that the demands could be mot only by Himmler, and the promise of assistance was forthcoming from the Reich Fuehrer SS.
The allocation cf this labor to the various sectors of the German economy was determined by the Board at its 53rd meeting. The defendant was the presiding officer at this meeting. The chart compiled by Milch and found in his files shows his personal knowledge of the sources cf the labor being allocated.
Sauckel was, however, unable to satisfy completely these demands. He reported this inability at its 54th Meeting. This Meeting of the Board was presided over by the defendant, and the minutes which we have submitted show the subordinate position occupied by Sauckel with respect to the Board. The Tribunal will recall Sauckel's opening statement:
"Field Marshal, Gentlemen, it goes without saying that we shall satisfy as far as possible the demands agreed upon by the Central Planning Board." And then later on in the meeting:
"If I am to fulfill the demands which you present to me..."
We shall not review in detail the minutes of this meeting, but the Tribunal's attention is again directed to the fact that Sauckel was questioned closely by the defendant who suggested that the Wehrmacht be assigned to the task of assisting in the recruitment drive. The defendant suggested that French workers be coerced by a system of premediated starvation. In dealing with the problem of Italian laborers, the defendant suggested that only those who went to Germany or worked in protected factories be given food.
As a further moans of meeting the manpower shortage, consideration was given to possible measures for increasing the productive power of prisoners of war. Accordingly, on 5 March 1944, a conference was held at the Fuehrer Headquarters. It is evident from the minutes which have been submitted to the Tribunal that the defendant was in attendance. The Tribunal will recall that the decision was made to give the direction of the Stalags to the SS, in order to increase the production power of the prisoners. This was not to apply to the Americans or the English.
The Tribunal will take judicial notice of the methods of the SS.
2451a On 7 July 1944, Sauckel issued a report showing new manpower placed at the disposal of German war industry during the first half of 1944.
We shall not review in detail this report, but merely state that it is proof of the Board's directive to Sauckel.
This report, however, showed a deficit, and on 11 July 1944 a further conference was held to solve the question of how greater compulsion could be exerted on persons to work in Germany. The defendant has testified that he was in virtual retirement from production matters since late June 1944. Yet, the record of this conference shows that he was present. The result of this conference was the greater utilization of the Wehrmacht in the recruitment of forced labor. The directive of Field Marshall von Kluge, which has been submitted in evidence, makes specific reference to the r suits of this conference.
Here, in brief, we have the picture. The defendant and the Board of which he was a dominant member requisitioning forced labor from Sauckel, allocating this labor to the various sectors of the German war economy, and later improvising new and more brutal techniques of force and terror for the recruitment of new labor.
The defense, besides denying the power and authority of the Central Planning Board, has challenged the authenticity and accuracy of its transcripts. The Prosecution has been compelled to rely upon these minutes for much of its proof.
In t is connection, it might be said that these same transcripts constituted the basis for finding of fact by the International Military Tribunal. They are quoted in the decision of that Court.
The Statutes of the Central Planning Board, mentioned a few minutes ago, show the extreme care taken to insure the accuracy of the reporting these meetings, as well as action taken or ordered to be taken.
The Statutes of the Board provide in part:
"In order to have the conferences properly prepared and to have the execution of the decisions supervised, the Central Planning Board appoints an office. This office consists of the deputies appointed by each of three members of the Central Planning Board; one of these three deputies shall be appointed chief of the office." Then follows a handwritten marginal note which I shall omit.
"In accordance with the attached distribution of work the office appoints reporters. These reporters are at the disposal of all members of the Central Planning Board. The office appoints one reporter to keep the record."
And then, Tasks of the Office? The office prepares the meetings of the Central Planning Board in such a manner that the members of the Central planning Board have the agenda and the material of discussion 24 hours in advance. For this purpose the office conducts preliminary talks with the competent departments, etc.
On the strength of the record made by the reporter, the office sees to the execution of the decisions of the Central Planning Board by the competent agencies, and sees to it that the deadlines fixed are complied with.
The members of the office keep the members of the Central Planning Board informed between the sessions."
The minutes of these meetings which have been submitted to this Tribunal show that these proceedings were recorded and transcribed with characteristic German detail and accuracy. We need only refer to the charts and tables, and the remarks quoted in the transcripts. Of the 59 meetings fully covered by these official reports, 41 were prepared and signed by Ministerialrat Steffler -- who was personally responsible for the accuracy and completeness of these reports.
Without the Central Planning Board the slave labor program could not have functioned.
THE PRESIDENT: Shall we take a recess before reading some more?
MR. DENNEY: This might be a good time.
THE MARSHALL: The Tribunal is in recess fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHALL: Tribunal Number Two is again in session.
MR. DENNY: If it pleases your Honors--the Jaegerstab. Here we have tho defendant in immediate contact with the slave labor program at its peak. By tho testimony of tho defendant, it was he who conceived and instigated the formation of the Jaegerstab. Speer and the defendant constituted its loadership. Speer's participation was nominal and it was tho defendant who directed its activities and acted as its chairman. Speer was ill during part of tho Jaegerstab's existence and has stated to the Court that he did not preside at a meeting.
The Jaegerstab assumed control over fighter production when the exploitation of foreign forced labor in air armament had already reached unparralleled heights. On February 18, 1944, tho defendant had told his colleagues in tho Central Planning Board that "our best now engine is made 88% by Russian prisoners of war". On March 25, he told his engineers that seen the percentage of foreign personnel in tho aircraft industry would roach 90%. Reich Fuehrer of the SS Himmler, reporting to Goering on March 9, 1944, an the employment of concentration camp personnel in tho aircraft industry, stated that nearly 36,000 prisoners were employed and that an increase to 90,000 was expected. The formation of the Jaegerstab is partly explainable in terms of tho battle to increase the man power resources available for fighter production.
Tho Jaegerstab was assigned top priority. Projects for tho recruitment and commitment of manpower were discussed by tho Jaegerstab. The evidence presented before the Tribunal has shown that questions of manpower were time and tine again referred to tho defendant. No have soon him agreeing to use his prestige and influence upon Sauckel in efforts to obtain now workers for aircraft production. When manpower in sufficient numbers was not forthcoming through normal channels, tho Jaegerstab did not shrink from other methods of obtaining its labor. When necessary, tho Jaegerstab recruited its own labor, either directly or by engineering "snatching" expeditions for tho seizure of manpower arriving on transports from tho East.
The defendant's frank admission to his subordinates that "International Law cannot be observed here" characterizes best his own participation in the activities of the Jaegerstab. Where, as was the case with France, transfers of production facilities were concerned, the defendant advocated tho stripping of tho country and the deportation of its people as PW's. When tho discussion turned to PW's, tho defendant was quick to suggest their transfer to places under air attack. When the transportation of Italian civilian conscripts directly recruited by tho Jaegerstab for service in Gemany was in question, it was tho defendant who advocated tho shooting of these who attempted to escape.
The Jaegerstab was no more discussion group. As an agency with absolute authority over fighter production, the Jaegerstab acted by orders and directives. The Jaegerstab fixed hours of labor and conditions of work. It was tho Jaegerstab, for example, which established tho 72-hour work week in tho aircraft industry.
In addition to its jurisdiction over fighter production, the Jaegerstab was charged with the program for the decentralization of the German aircraft industry, both to above ground bombproof installations and to subterranean locations. Much of the labor employed in both chases of the project was concentration camp labor. The defendant must have known this fact.
One phase, the transfer to new installations under ground, was under the immediate supervision of SS Gruppenfuehrer Heinz Kammler. Kammler was a member of the Jaegerstab. Where, as was the case in some instances, labor was not forthcoming in sufficient quantity, Kammler informed the Jaegerstab of his intention to take large numbers of persons into protective custody for use on his projects. Members of the Jaegerstab knew that manpower shortages on the construction projects were at least in part due to the high death rate. The conditions of employment on the projects have not been substantially disputed. The Jaegerstab was well informed of these conditions. While on trips with the Jaegerstab, Kammler visited these projects and his fellow members of the Jaegerstab were well advised as to the manner in which workers employed on them were treated. Where it was necessary to hand thirty people merely as an example to others, Kammler reported this fact to the Jaegerstab.
A second phase of the program, the transfer of fighter production to bombproof factories above ground, was carried out for the Jaegerstab by Stobbe-Dethleffson and later Xavier Dorsch. While Stobbe-Dethleffson and Dorsch were immediately in charge, it was the Jaegerstab which received the funds and raw materials necessary for the carrying out of this project. When sufficient progress had not been made under Stobb-Detbleffson, the Jaegerstab demanded that Dorsch carry out this program. The defendant was a leader in the planning which preceded Borsch's appointment.
By the testimony of Dorsch, Milch was one of a small group present at Goering's at which details of the project were worked out, including the question of manpower. Dorsch was represented on the Jaegerstab by Schlempp, and later Knipping, deputies designated for this particular purpose.
Schlempp informed the Jaegerstab on the progress of the work, bot orally and in writing. Dorsch received manpower from the Jaegerstab, This was the immediate concern of Schmelter.
Early in April 1944 the defendant represented the Jaegerstab at conferences with Hitler where the decision was first taken to carry out deportations. Shortly thereafter, the defendant received written confirmation of the results of this conference, as did Himmler, who was to procure the workers. Progress reports were made and delivery dates agreed upon. Then came the disappointing news that the first transports arriving at Auschwitz consisted primarily of old men, women, and children. Later on there were reports as to the successful allocation of this personnel. The testimony of Dorsch shows that these Jews were used on the construction projects, that the conditions under which they lived were intolerable, and that the death rate on the project was excessive.
In closing this phase of the case, it is submitted that the defendant never resigned from the Jaegerstab. While it is true that the defendant at Goering's behest was removed from certain offices in the Air Ministry in the summer of 1944, he retained his membership in the Jaegerstab until its dissolution, the prosecution contends.
As Generalluftzeugmeister, the defendant had complete control over aircraft production. In this field his authority was unlimited. In particular it has been shown that the defendant requisitioned labor for the aircraft industry with knowledge of the brutal and inhumane techniques employed in recruiting those laborers and that he gave directives for the criminal treatment of these laborers at the centers of production.
There is evidence that the defendant presented the labor demands of the aircraft industry to Sauckel. The Tribunal will recall that in his affidavit Sauckel stated that it was the defendant who produced the manpower figures for aviation. In view of the position occupied by Sauckel in the slave labor program, this statement is of special importance.
The statement of Sauckel is in agreement with the statements of Hermann Goering, the defendant's superior in the Luftwaffe. In his inter rogation the former Reich Marshal stated that the defendant was in charge of the division for labor employment in the Air Ministry and that the industry demands for labor in air armament were made by the defendant.
Even the defendant's collaborator Albert Speer testified to the same effect when he stated:
"The requests cf the air armament industry for laborers were presented by Milch and he did not permit anyone to take this right away from him until March 1944."
The defendant as Generalluftzeugmeister was acquainted with the methods employed in recruiting this manpower. In fact, many of the practices indulged in by Sauckel were formulated at conferences at which the defendant was in attendance. The Tribunal will recall that the defendant was present at a conference in which Goering announced his plan to use the Luftwaffe in the recruitment drive to capture laborers in Holland. The Tribunal's attention is also drawn to the Generalluftzeugmeister meeting of 25 January 1944 in which methods for the more expeditious deportation of young Czechs for work in the Luftwaffe were discussed.
The defendant also knew that prisoners cf war and concentration camp personnel were included in the manpower he was requisitioning and distributing to the aircraft industry. We have seen him trying to increase their numbers in the industry under his control, and we have seen him ordering and abetting the inhumane treatment of this labor.
As chief of aircraft production, the defendant regulated the treatment of foreign forced labor in the German aircraft industry. The defendant fixed hours of labor and conditions of work and by directives to his subordinates set basic policies for the handling of this labor within the industry.
Where foreign workers refused to work the defendant ordered that they be shot. When these wretched slaves attempted to revolt, the defendant directed that some of their numbers be killed, regardless of personal guilt or innocence. In the case of prisoners of war who attempted to escape, the defendant ordered that they be shot.
When the "contracts" of workers under his control expired, the defendant ordered their compulsory extension, and when workers attempted to change jobs, he advocated that they be put in concentration camps.
In the case of Italians who refused to work, the defendant ordered that they be beaten end so informed his chief, Goering. And where French men refused to work in French factories under his control, the defendant stated that he would deport them by force and bring them to Germany or to the East. Similar policies were applied by the defendant in the case of Polish workers.
No more need he said about the Generalluftzeugmeister. The Tribunal has seen the documents detailing the minutes of their meetings. The documents dealing with this phase of the case are particularly revealing in showing the fanaticism of the defendant and the enthusiasm with which he recommended ruthless treatment of the hapless victims of German occupation policies.
We will now restate the pattern originally presented in terms of the proof brought forward at the trial in order to ascertain to what extent the defendant's culpability has been established with reference to the medical phase.
First, the body of the crime. The prosecution contends that in violation of the laws of war and all the laws of humanity criminal high altitude and freezing experiments were carried on by Luftwaffe physicians.
The testimony of Dr. Erich Hippke, the medical Inspector of the Luftwaffe, is of interest on this subject. Hippke stated that Dr. Rascher, a Luftwaffe physician at the time, came to Hippke with a proposal to use prisoners as high altitude experimental subjects in May 1941.
Hippke was in a receptive frame of mind for it was essential that the scope of these experiments he widened and new human subjects were needed. The researchers working on the tests had developed a certain immunity so that results of self-experimentation did not give a true picture of the reactions.
With the aid of Himmler and the SS the Luftwaffe was able to proceed with the experiments which were allegedly necessary in the interests of German military aviation medical knowledge.
But lest one be inclined to believe that these pressure experiments were considered as minor nuisances to the subjects concerned, with no real dangers, note the words of Dr. Hippke:
"I asked him," speaking of Rascher, "how he would be able to obtain such persons for experimentation, and he justified himself by saying that he had connections with the SS who had charge of such penal Prisoners. There were such penal prisoners in Dachau and he would be in a positron to obtain them for these purposes. I myself, because of my inner personal feelings on the matter, was very much against these experiments and could not make up my mind whether I should approve such experimentation."
From the very beginning of the plan to conduct these experiments Dr. Hippke had strong mental reservations concerning the moral principles involved in the task which the Luftwaffe doctors were about to undertake. During the coming year Hippke weighed the problem, and it was with sime misgiving that he finally allowed his doctors to begin the experiments, saying to then: "Please, children, go carefully."
But, tragically enough, his "children" did not go carefully. Instead, they ran amuck with their scientific apparatus and tests. The pressure experiments which were supposed to have been helpful to fliers of the Luftwaffe degenerated into so-called "X-experiments", which meant "execution" experiments.
Seventy to eighty persons were murdered during the spring and summer of 1942 when the pressure experiments were carried on at Dachau.
During the subsequent freezing experiments a comparable number of concentration camp inmates forfeited their lives to the sadistic Dr. Rascher and his Luftwaffe associates.
Dr. Romberg himself admits having seen three persons die in the low pressure chamber mud concedes that at least nine other deaths nay well have occurred when he was absent from his post at Dachau.
Wolfram Sievers, the manager of the Ahnenerbe, the SS Research Institute, witnessed the death of an experimental subject in the freezing tank.
There is adequate evidence that the low pressure and freezing experiments were carried out by Luftwaffe physicians for the benefit of the Luftwaffe. There has been no valid denial of the fact that the defendant was the Luftwaffe official responsible for the deaths and cruelties suffered in these twin torture chambers, the pressure chamber and the freezing tank.
Now, let us examine in more detail the second basic charge of the prosecution, viz., that the defendant was officially connected with these experiments which violated the laws of war and humanity.
We have the "Wolffy" letter of 20 May 1942 in which the defendant tells Obergruppenfuehrer Wolff of the SS that "the altitude experiments carried out by the SS and the Luftwaffe at Dachau have been finished." In this same letter Milch announces that experiments in connection with perils on the high seas would be important; that the necessary arrangements have been made and, since the low pressure chamber is no longer needed, it must be moved from Dachau. Thus the defendant has entered the picture and established his official correction with the high altitude experiments end the low temperature experiments, which proved to be considerable more then mere harmless chilling tests.
If, as the defendant contends, he was not officially responsible for these Luftwaffe medical experiments, then it should follow that other Persons connected with them would not take cognizance of the defendant in this matter. The contention is ridiculous.
The witness Wolff had the following to say regarding a meeting he had With Milch in August or September 1942:
"Thereafter, we had discussed our official questions. I inquired about how he was and if everything between the Luftwaffe end the SS was all right. During that occasion we also spoke about these experiments very shortly, if at all, and we spoke of the invaluable help which the SS was giving us by providing these voluntary inmates, which was helping us with our medical material and which could be used at the front."
It is to be noted that they talked about the experiments and Wolff asked how the Luftwaffe-SS relations were. It is submitted that this demonstrates that Wolff regarded the defendant as the top man in the Luftwaffe medical experiments program, as indeed he was.
Then there are the two letters addressed to Milch by Himmler and Wolff, substantially alike in content. Himmler's, dated November 1942, in which he cites the opposition that exists among "Christian medical circles" to conducting experiments on helpless, involuntary concentration camp inmates. He refers to the narrow-mindedness of such medical men, which "will take at least another ten years" to remove. But this narrowmindedness did not trouble the consciences of Himmler or the defendant Milch. Decidedly not. In the words of the Reich Fuehrer SS: "We two should not get angry about these difficulties."
The prosecution submits that Himmler would not have written a letter in this tenor unless he was certain that his good friend Milch would be in complete agreement with his views.
And how did Himmler regard Milch in connection with the experiments? As a casual on-looker, with a purely academic interest in the results obtained? No, Himmler knew that Milch possessed the overall command, the ultimate authority in the Luftwaffe; that the Inspector General of the Luftwaffe was the man to refer to whenever a question arose as to the disposition of the pressure chamber or the status of Dr. Rascher. Witness Himmler's request in his letter:
"I beg you to release Dr. Rascher, Stabsarzt in reserve, from the Air Force and to transfer him to me to the Waffen SS. I would then assume the sole responsibility for having these experiments made in this field and would out the results, which we in the SS need only for the frost injuries in the Last, entirely at the disposal of the Air Force."
The logical corollary to this statement is inescapable. If Rascher was not transferred to the SS and remained with the Air Force, the responsibility would not be Himmler's alone. And we must remember that Rascher did not leave his Luftwaffe post until the year 1943 after the experimental atrocities had been largely completed. Then where did this responsibility rest? Himmler had not doubts, it was on the shoulders of the defendant Nor did Karl WOLFF, HIMMLER's right hand man, have any doubts as to the responsible person in the Luftwaffe, with reference to the medical experiments.
He, too, wrote to MILCH requesting that RASCHER be released from the Luftwaffe and transferred to the SS. Here was a man, who, by his own testimony, "had a good comradely relationship" with the defendant. On the direct examination, WOLFE testified regarding his connection with MILCH:
"Q. In your position during the war did you have any official dealings with Mr. MILCH?
"A. Yes.
Q. In what connection?
A. During peacetime --that is, from 1933 on, until 1939 -there was a personal cooperation between MILCH and me. All difficulties between the Luftwaffe and the SS were handled at personal conferences in a very comradely way. This usage also took place during the war."
It is because of the situation above described, that the prosecution has called WOLFF the liaison man between HELLER and the SS on the one hand, and defendant and the Luftwaffe, on the other.
The testimony and affidavit of Walter NEFF, the Dachau prisoner who later became a Block Leader in Dachau, is of interest. This man saw RASCHER often. Was MILCH's name mentioned by RASCHER in connection with the medical experiments? It was. In his affidavit, which he did not repudiate when testifying before this Court, NEFF said:
"The name of Field Marshal MILCH was frequently mentioned in Dachau. Every time I asked Dr. ROMBERG how long the cars and the low pressure chambers would remain in Dachau, he assured me that MILCH would attend to everything. Dr. RASCHER said to me that he had communicated with MILCH personally and that the cars would remain in Dachau as long as he specified."
Dr. Siegfried RUFF, an important figure in the medical experiments program, head of the Research Section of the DVL, recognized the defendant MILCH as the supreme authority in the experimental program. In his affidavit RUFF said:
2464(a) "The entire medical research for aviation was under General Erich HIPPKE, in his capacity as Chief of the Medical Service until 1944 and subsequently under Prof.
Dr. SCHROEDER. As Chief of the Medical Service, General HIPPKE was immediately subordinate to Field Marshal MILCH ... The chain of command for these experiments was: MILCH - HIPPKE - RUFF - Romberg."
Again there is the chart drawn up by Dr. Oskar SCHROEDER, outlining the official Luftwaffe channels through which orders flowed from MILCH to HIPPKE, and from HIPPKE to the various doctors engaged in the actual process of experimentation SCHROEDER thus knew definitely that MILCH was the Luftwaffe Chief in the medical experiments program. He later succeeded HIPPKE as Medical Inspector. Consequently, his chart is entitled to material weight in the proof offered by the Prosecution.
Rudolf BRANDT adjutant to HIMMLER, often had occasion to deal with correspondence between the Luftwaffe and the SS, regarding the experiments. In referring to HIMMLER's request that MILCH order Dr. RASCHER to be transferred to the SS, BRANDT wrote a letter to Wolfram SIEVERS, of the Ahnenerbe Society, stating:
" I assume that the General Field Marshal will of himself give the necessary orders, and then confine himself to sending a brief answer to the Reich Fuehrer SS."
And SIEVERS writing to BRANDT about the use of the low pressure chamber says:
"The putting at our disposal of the low pressure chamber, however, will be possible then only if the Reich Fuehrer SS writes in per son to Field Marshal MILCH concerning this."
These two men, SIEVERS and BRANDT, were not informed of the course of the medical experiments nor of the competent personnel in the Luftwaffe and SS in t is matter. On the contrary, SIEVERS admitted witnessing the death of an experimental subject in the freezing tank, and the subsequent autopsy, while Rudolf BRANDT stated in his affidavit: