dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
MILCH: Yes, I do know, because Speer discussed with me in great detail the emergency measures to be taken, now that we were faced with imminent and inevitable collapse. He was of the opinion that first and foremost everything that was still possible should be done to help the German people to get through the very hard times which would follow the collapse. These first measures dealt with food supplies, salvage of food supplies, and transport for distribution. Secondly, he sought to avoid the destruction of the German factories still in our possession, which was in direct opposition to Hitler's "scorched earth" tactics. Thirdly, he discussed the switch-over frorh war to peacetime production of such factories as might still be standing. First of all, he had in mind agricultural machinery and spare parts, and banked upon the assumption that, if once the orders were placed, they would be carried out in spite of the upheaval -- for instance, even if some German factories passed into enemy hands, or when, the fighting having ceased, the government armament contracts would automatically fizzle out.
DR. FLACHSNER: Witness, we have now connected up an entire series of questions and I am most grateful to you. I should, however, like to ask you one more question: Could you give us any further details about the prevention of destruction?
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Flachsner, will you explain to me why this evidence that you are calling now is relevant and to what charge it is relevant?
DR. FLACHSNFR: Mr. President, the Defendant Speer is charged with participating in the conspiracy and in the common plan for waging aggressive warfare until 7 May 1945. If I can now prove that his activities, at least for some time before that date, were incompatible with such common plan, then this item of evidence would be relevant to the question whether this charge of the Indictment is justified or not.
THE PRESIDENT: All the evidence that you have been giving for the last 15 minutes was related to 1943 and 1944, and was related to conferences with reference to the erection of factories for the production of bombers and the fact that -- as far as I have understood it -- the fact that Speer was engaged more on attempting to feed the German people than on building armament factories. What that has to do with it, I have not any idea.
DR. FLACHSNER: The first point referred to Document 1584-PS, which the Prosecution submitted as incriminating my client. The document says that, at a conference on the Obersalzberg, the construction of certain factories was ordered, and that 100,000 Hungarian Jews were employed on this construction. The purpose of the interrogation of this witness was to establish that the Defendant Speer could not be held responsible for this construction, since Hitler had given the order for this work directly to somebody else, and to eliminate this particular point subm itted by the Prosecution in support of their charge. That was the purpose of the first question. The purpose of the second question, concerning the avoidance of destruction and the safeguarding of agricultural produce and the food supply of the German people, is connected with the accusation of participating in a conspiracy for the execution of a common plan; whereas all the activities, just confirmed by the witne5s, were to serve an entirely different aim and had just the opposite effect to the common plan alieged by the Prosecution. They did not serve the war effort but were directed towards peacetime economy.
THE PRESIDENT: There is no charge against Speer on the ground that he attempted to feed the German people during the war. The Prosecution have not laid that against him as a charge.
DR. FLACHSNER: Mr. President, I never said that the Prosecution had raised this charge against him. There must have been a mistake in the transmission. [Turning to the witness.] One last question, Witness. Can you tell us to what extent Speer informed the Fuehrer at a later date of the results of the heavy air raids on Hamburg and on other cities?
MILCH: He gave the Fuehrer the fullest information and repeatedly drew his attention to the difficulties.
DR. FLACHSNER: Thank you.
DR. ROBERT SERVATIUS (Counsel for Defendant Sauckel ): Witness, did the Central Planning Board also concern itself with labor problems?
MILCH: Yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were the manpower requirements established?
MILCH: They were established by the industries and reported through the labor exchanges. We also submitted figures on the shortages of manpower in the armament industry.
DR. SERVNITUS: May I interrupt you? What did you do, once the requirements were established? And what was the purpose of establishing them?
MILCH: They showed the shortages in manpower caused by the continual calling up of the workers for war service.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was this not done in order to bring in more workers?
MILCH: The request for more workers came from the factories. We supported the factories in their negotiations with Sauckel by telling him that such and such an industry had applied for so and so many workers. We also told him which of their figures were too high according to our calculations.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did the figures represent the total sum of the workers needed?
MILCH: No. It was a general figure according to the statistics supplied by Sauckel's labor exchanges.
DR. SERVATIUS: Who fixed the requirements, Sauckel or the applicants for labor?
MILCH: The factories did.
DR. SERVATFUS: What was the Central Planning Board's task in connection with labor problems?
MILCH: The Central Planning Board dealt with the distribution 6f raw materials. It also had to see that raw materials were made available ...
DR. SERVATIUS: My question concerns the workers and not raw materials.
MILCH: Please wait until I have finished what I want to say. You will then understand what I mean. The raw materials had to be produced and their production called for workers. For instance, in the mining industry and the aluminum factories ...
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, may I interrupt you? It is clear that workers are essential for production; but what I want to know is who made the request for labor, and who finally decided as to the numbers of workers required?
MILCH: The factories made the request and Sauckel decided on the figures. He placed at their disposal as many workers as he could get, but the numbers were always below the figure requested.
DR. SERVATIUS: In this connection did he have a free hand, or did the Fuehrer make the decisions?
MILCH: As far as I know, the Fuehrer intervened very frequently and Sauckel was often summoned to confer with Hitler.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were there not discussions at the Fuehrer's headquarters on all essential programs, especially those involving manpower?
MILCH: No, not all programs; but occasionally these matters were discussed. However, the discussions with the Fuehrer about labor problems were mostly very brief. He did not wish to discuss the wider issues of this matter.
DR. SERVATIUS: What had the Four Year Plan to do with the matter?
MILCH: The Four Year Plan, as far as I know, also dealt with these problems. But I rather think that in this respect it served as an auxiliary organization for Hitler, who did not wish to discuss these matters in detail.
DR. SERVATIUS: Do you know that according to decrees Sauckel had to subordinate himself to the Four Year Plan, that is, to Goering, and that he had to receive orders from him?
MILCH: I do not exactly know how matters stood.
DR. SERVATIUS: One more question. How did the workers, the foreign workers, behave? Were they willing and hard working?
MILCH: The majority were excellent workers.
DR. SERVATIUS: How do you account for that?
MILCH: In the first years these workers were pleased to be able to get work and food. We treated them well, as far as I can judge, and their rations were larger than those of the German population. They received extra rations on the same scale as the German workers for heavy and very heavy physical work, also for overtime. The French and Russian workers worked exceptionally well. I occasionally heard complaints about the Dutch workers.
DR. SERVATIUS: Are you familiar with Sauckel's regulations concerning the welfare of the foreign workers?
MILCH: I remember that on one occasion Sauckel spoke to us on this subject at the headquarters of the Central Planning Board.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did he show a humane or a severe attitude?
MILCH: His intentions were entirely humane. Sauckel had been set a very difficult task by Hitler. As far as I know, he had been a workingman himself and, as a seaman, had worked very hard in his time; consequently, he was kindly disposed towards workers.
DR. SERVATIUS: I have no further questions to ask the witness.
PROFESSOR DR. HERMANN JAHRREISS (Counsel for Defendant Jodl ): Witness, did you take part in the 1937 Wehrmacht maneuvers?
MILCH: In Mecklenburg, I believe.
DR. JAHRREISS: Yes, that is so. Do you remember if any foreign officers were present as guests?
MILCH: Yes. I know that a large British military mission was present and a general, who later was appointed Governor of Gibraltar.
DR. JAHRREISS: General Ironside?
MILCH: Yes, Ironside. I spoke to him personally and also welcomed some of the gentlemen of his staff. There were also Italian officers and officers from many other countries; at the moment I cannot say exactly what countries -- I have forgotten.
DR. JAHRREISS: Was there by any chance a French military mission as well?
MILCH: I think so, but I cannot say for certain -- I cannot remember so far back. But I did speak to General Ironside.
DR. JAHRREISS: Witness, do you know if at that time these foreign officers were also shown the most up-to-date German armament equipment?
MILCH: Yes.
DR. JAHRREISS: Was all the equipment demonstrated in action?
MILCH: Everything was demonstrated in action, with the exception of a new plane not yet in use; but even this was shown.
DR. JAHRREISS: Do you know if we, that is, Germany, also allowed foreign powers to inspect our air raid precautions equipment?
MILCH: Yes, on many occasions. A Mr. Fraser came to see me from England, together with Lord Trenchard. Mr. Fraser was interested in air raid precautions equipment, and was immediately shown the latest developments.
DR. JAHRREISS: When was that, please?
MILCH: I think it was in 1937 or 1938, but I will see if I can find the date. [Referring to his notes.] It was on 1 July 1937.
DR. JAHRREISS: Do you remember if anybody else came from England at a later date?
MILCH: It was later followed by a personal interchange between our services and the British. I myself, having brought them together, took no further part in the matter.
DR. JAHRREISS: Thank you. One more question. Do you remember the conflict which arose over the reoccupation of the Rhineland?
MILCH: Yes.
DR. JAHRREISS: You also know how great was the excitement it caused.
MILCH: Yes.
DR. JAHRREISS: Did the Luftwaffe also take part in the reoccupation of the Rhineland -- to be precise, on the left bank.of the Rhine?
MILCH: I cannot, at the moment, answer this question. The reoccupation of the Rhineland was so sudden that I was taken unawares while on leave. When I returned, the occupation was well under way. I know that Dusseldorf had been occupied and that the Luftwaffe had taken part. I myself went there a few days later.
DR. JAHRREISS: But that is on the right bank of the Rhine?
MILCH: That is on the right bank.
DR. JAHRREISS: Then you know nothing about the left bank of the Rhine?
MILCH: No, I cannot say anything about it at the moment. I do not believe there was an airfield there; anyhow, I cannot remember exactly.
DR. JAHRREISS: You say that the reoccupation of the Rhineland was very sudden. But had nothing been arranged beforehand by the Luftwaffe to provide for such an event?
MILCH: The decision was made when I was on leave and everything we had was naturally used for this purpose, but we did not have very much.
DR. JAHRREISS: Quite so, but let us get it quite clear. Was the Luftwaffe told to be ready for the first time while you were on leave?
MILCH: Yes, definitely; otherwise I would not have gone on leave.
DR. JAHRREISS: Whatwas the earliest date on which the Luftwaffe was given the alert before the reoccupation?
MILCH: It might have been a matter of 14, 15, or 16 days. That would be the maximum.
DR. JAHRREISS: Witness, on Friday you made a statement about the part played by the Luftwaffe in the military operations for the completion of the Anschluss policy in March 1938. On what day did the preparations begin?
MILCH: The preparations began less than 48 hours beforehand. That I know exactly.
DR. JAHRREISS: And when did you first learn that military preparations were to be made for the solution of this problem?
MILCH: About 36 hours before the march into Austria.
DR. JAHRREISS: Thank you.
DR. KURT KAUFFMANN (Counsel for Defendant Kaltenbrunner ): Witness, am I right in assuming that you were never in a position to issue orders to, that is, never had anything to do officially with either the Gestapo or with the concentration camps?
MILCH: No, I never had anything to do with them.
DR. KAUFFMANN: When did you first hear of the establishment of these camps?
MILCH: Through the general announcements in 1933 that concentration camps, or rather that one concentration camp had been established.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Did you, during the years which followed, receive more detailed information concerning further establishments of this kind?
MILCH: Until the war ended I had heard of Dachau and Oranienburg only. I knew nothing at all about any other concentration camps. At my own request and in the company of some high-ranking officers of the Luftwaffe, I inspected Dachau in 1935. 1 saw no other concentration camps, nor did I know anything about what happened in them.
DR. KAUFFMANN: During your inspection, what impression did you get of the establishment itself and the treatment of the internees, et cetera ?
MILCH: At that time there was so much talk about these camps, also in Germany in our officers circles, that I decided to judge for myself. Himmler gave his immediate consent to my request. At that time, I believe, Dachau was the only concentration camp in existence. There I found a very mixed assortment of inmates. One group consisted of major criminals, all habitual offenders; other groups consisted of people who repeatedly committed the same offense which were not crimes, but only offenses. There was another group of persons who had participated in the Rohm Putsch. One of the men I recognized as having seen before. He had been a high-ranking SA leader and was now an internee. The camp, run on military lines, was clean and properly organized. They had their own slaughterhouse and their own bakery. We insisted on having the food of the internees served to us. The food was good and one of the camp leaders explained that they fed the inmates very well as they were engaged on heavy work. All the inmates whom we approached explained the reason for their internment. For instance, one man told us that he had committed forgery 20 times; another, that he had committed assault and other offenses 18 times. There were many cases of this kind. I cannot, of course, say if we were shown everything in this large establishment.
DR.KAUFMANN: You have just mentioned that the question had been discussed in military circles, among the officers. Later, when you returned, did you convey your impressions of Dachau to anyone?
MILCH: I scarcely mentioned them to anybody, only if my more intimate comrades broached the subject. As I have said before, I did not go alone; there were several other gentlemen with me and, no doubt, they too must have had occasion to discuss this subject in smaller circles.
DR. KAUFMANN: Unheard of acts of cruelty were perpetrated in the concentration camps. Did you come to hear of them and, if so, when did you first hear of them?
MILCH: On the day on which I was captured it was revealed to me for the first time when internees from an auxiliary camp in the vicinity were led past the place where I was captured. This was the first time I saw it for myself. The rest I learned in captivity from the various documents which we were shown.
DR. KAUFMANN: Then it was completely unknown to you that more than 200 concentration camps existed in Germany and in the occupied territories.
MILCH: It was completely unknown to me. I have already mentioned the two camps whose existence was known to me.
DR. KAUFFMANN: It could be held against you that it must have been impossible not to know of these facts. Can you explain to us why it was not possible for you to obtain better information regarding existing conditions?
MILCH: Because,the people who knew about these conditions did not talk about them, and presumably were not allowed to talk about them. I understand this to be so from a document in the Indictment against the General Staff, in which Himmler -- also, erroneously considered as one of the high-ranking military leaders -- had issued an order to this effect. This document dealt with some conference or other of high-ranking police leaders under Himmler, in 1943, 1 believe.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Am I right in saying that any attempt to disclose conditions prevalent in the concentration camps was impossible unless the person in question was ready to risk his life?
MILCH: In the first place the large number of concentration camps was unknown to everybody, as it was unknown to me. Secondly, nobody knew what went on there. This knowledge was apparently confined to a very small circle of people who were in the secret. Further, the SD was very much feared by the entire population, not only by the lower classes. If anybody tried to gain access to these secrets he did so at the peril of his life. And again, how could the Germans know anything about these things, since they never saw them or heard about them? Nothing was said about them in the German press, no announcements were made on the German radio, and those who listened to foreign broadcasts exposed themselves to the heaviest penalties, generally it meant death. You could never be alone. You could depend upon it that if you yourself contravened that law, others would overhear and then denounce you. I know that in Germany a large number of people were condemned to death for listening to foreign broadcasts.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Did it ever come to your knowledge that there had been mass deportations of Jews to the Eastern territories? When did you first hear about it?
MILCH: I cannot give the exact date. Once, in some way or other, I can no longer remember how, the information did reach me that Jews had been settled in special ghetto towns in the East. I think it must have been in 1944 or thereabout, but I cannot guarantee that this date is exact.
DR.KAUFFMANN: You have just mentioned ghettos. Did you know that these mass deportations were, in effect, a preliminary step to mass extermination?
MILCH: No, we were never told.
DR. KAUFFMANN: May I ask you further if, in this connection, you had any idea about the existence of the Auschwitz extermination camp?
MILCH: No. I first heard of the name much later. I read it in the press after I was captured.
DR. KAUFFMANN: So-called Einsatzkommandos were employed in the East, where they carried out large-scale exterminations, also of Jews. Did you know that these Einsatzkommandos had been created by order of Adolf Hitler?
MILCH: No. The first I heard of these Einsatzkommandos was here in prison in Nuremberg.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Did you know that a special campaign was launched for the extermination of Jewish citizens in the southeastern provinces bf the Reich, which, according to the statement of the leader concerned, named Eichmann, caused the death of from 4 to 5 million Jews?
MILCH: No, I know nothing at all about it. This is the first time I have heard the name Eichmann mentioned.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Am I correct in stating that in Germany, under the regime of an absolute leader, any opposition to a supreme order would most probably have meant death?
MILCH: That has been proved in many hundreds of cases.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Am I also correct in stating that the peril would have been equally deadly even if the order had been opposed on legal and moral grounds?
MILCH: I believe that here, too, one would have had to be prepared to pay the penalty, and not only one's own, but the family's as well.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Thank you. I have no more questions to ask.
DR. WALTER SIEMERS (Counsel for Defendant Raeder ): Witness, I have only a short question to ask you. You told us, on Saturday or on Friday, that in 1937 you had discussions with an English mission. This mission was headed by Air Vice Marshal Courtney. I should like to know from you if, in the course of these discussions, it was agreed that the competent German and British authorities should exchange information concerning the establishment plans for their respective Air Forces?
MILCH: Your surmise is correct.
DR. SIEMERS: How was the agreement made?
MILCH: The agreement was drawn up in writing.
DR. SIEMERS: Had the British and German Air Forces establishment plans for each year?
MILCH: No. The plans covered several years.
DR. SIEMERS: How many years ahead were covered by the 1937 plan?
MILCH: I cannot tell you from memory. At that time it may possibly have covered 2 or 3 years.
DR. SIEMERS: That would have been from 1938 till 1940?
MILCH: Possibly 1937, 1938, 1939, 1940. 1 cannot say for certain. I have forgotten.
DR. SIEMERS: Had this plan a technical name? Was it called "Establishment Plan," or did it have some other name?
MILCH: I cannot remember now. We generally referred to it as the projected establishment plan.
DR. SIEMERS: On the English side, were the plans also drawn up to cover a definite period -- say 3 years?
MILCH: I believe the periods covered were very much the same. The system was more or less the same.
DR. SIEMERS: I thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the Prosecution now wish. to crossexamine? Mr. Justice Jackson, I am sorry to have called you up. Perhaps it would be convenient to adjourn for 10 minutes now. [A recess was taken.]
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Witness, you are a prisoner of war of the United States at the present time?
MILCH: No, I am not a prisoner of war of the United States. I was an English prisoner of war, and since I have been here I have been declared an internee. I do not know what that means. At any rate, it is not correct to apply it to a prisoner-of-war officer taken by the enemy during action before the end of hostilities.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You have been allowed to confer with counsel both while this Trial was in progress and ...
MILCH: I have been able to confer with some of the Counsel for the Defense, not with all of them. I assume that the other Defense Counsel did not desire it.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, you will save a great deal of time if you will answer my questions as briefly as possible and with "yes" or "no" where possible. You have been allowed to prepare, keep, and bring to the Court notes after your consultations with counsel?
MILCH: The notes which I had with me were made by me before I conferred with defendants' counsel.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You have made none of the notes since your consultations with counsel?
MILCH: I made one note for myself about one consultation. It was merely about a date which had been mentioned to me and which otherwise I could not have remembered.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And you occupied a very high position in the Qerman Air Force?
MILCH: I was Inspector General.