{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_54905/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_54905","id":"gutenberg_54905","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/54905","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Health & Medicine","Category: History - Modern (1750+)","Category: History - Warfare","Category: Law & Criminology","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Nuremberg Trial of Major German War Criminals, Nuremberg, Germany, 1945-1946","War crime trials -- Germany -- Nuremberg","World War II"],"text":"[Cover Illustration]\n\n\n\n\n TRIALS\n OF\n WAR CRIMINALS\n BEFORE THE\n NUERNBERG MILITARY TRIBUNALS\n UNDER\n CONTROL COUNCIL LAW No. 10\n\n\n [Illustration]\n\n\n VOLUME II\n\n\n NUERNBERG\n OCTOBER 1946-APRIL 1949\n\n For sale by the Superintendent of Documents,\n U.S. Government Printing Office\n Washington 25, D. C. \u2014 Price $2.75 (Buckram)\n\n\n\n\n CONTENTS\n\n\n _The Medical Case_\n\n (Introductory material and basic directives under which trials\n were conducted together with Chapters I-VIII-E of Medical Case\n are printed in Volume I.)\n\n Page\n VIII. Evidence and Arguments on Important Aspects of the Case\n (cont\u2019d) 1\n F. Necessity 1\n G. Subjection to Medical Experimentation as Substitute\n for Penalties 44\n H. Usefulness of the Experiments 61\n I. Medical Ethics 70\n 1. General Principles 70\n 2. German Medical Profession 86\n 3. Medical Experiments in other Countries 90\n IX. Ruling of the Tribunal on Count One of the Indictment 122\n X. Final Plea for Defendant Karl Brandt by Dr. Servatius 123\n XI. Final Statements of the Defendants, 19 July 1947 138\n XII. Judgment 171\n The Jurisdiction of the Tribunal 172\n The Charge 173\n Count One 173\n Count Two and Three 174\n Count Four 180\n The Proof as to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity 181\n Permissible Medical Experiments 181\n The Medical Service in Germany 184\n The Ahnenerbe Society 188\n Karl Brandt 189\n Handloser 198\n Rostock 208\n Schroeder 210\n Genzken 217\n Gebhardt 223\n Blome 228\n Rudolf Brandt 235\n Mrugowsky 241\n Poppendick 248\n Sievers 253\n Rose 264\n Ruff, Romberg, and Weltz 272\n Brack 277\n Becker-Freyseng 281\n Schaefer 285\n Hoven 286\n Beiglboeck 290\n Pokorny 292\n Oberheuser 294\n Fischer 296\n Sentences 298\n XIII. Petitions 301\n XIV. Affirmation of Sentences by the Military Governor of the\n United States Zone of Occupation 327\n XV. Order of the United States Supreme Court Denying Writ of\n Habeas Corpus 330\n Appendix 331\n Table of Comparative Ranks 331\n List of Witnesses in Case 1 332\n Index of Documents and Testimony 336\n\n _The Milch Case_\n\n Introduction 355\n Order Constituting Tribunal 357\n Members of Military Tribunal II 359\n Prosecution Counsel 359\n Defense Counsel 359\n I. Indictment 360\n II. Arraignment 365\n III. Opening Statements 366\n A. Opening Statement for the Prosecution 366\n B. Opening Statement for the Defense 377\n IV. Selections from the Documents and Testimony of Witnesses of\n Prosecution and Defense 385\n A. Slave Labor 385\n 1. General Slave Labor Program in Germany 385\n 2. The Central Planning Board 444\n 3. The Jaegerstab 524\n 4. Generalluftzeugmeister 596\n B. Medical Experiments 623\n C. Curriculum Vitae and Excerpts from the Testimony of\n the Defendant Milch 633\n V. Closing Statements 690\n A. Closing Statement of the Prosecution 690\n B. Closing Statement of the Defense 730\n VI. Final Statement of the Defendant, 25 March 1947 772\n VII. Judgment 773\n A. Opinion and Judgment of the United States Military\n Tribunal II 773\n B. Concurring Opinion by Judge Michael A. Musmanno 797\n C. Concurring Opinion by Judge Fitzroy D. Phillips 860\n VIII. Petitions 879\n A. Extract from Petition for Clemency to Military\n Governor of United States Zone of Occupation 879\n B. Petition to the Supreme Court of the United States\n for Writ of Habeas Corpus 883\n IX. Affirmation of Sentence by the Military Governor of the\n United States Zone of Occupation 887\n X. Order of the United States Supreme Court, 20 October 1947,\n Denying Writ of Habeas Corpus 888\n Appendix 889\n List of Witnesses in Case 2 889\n Index of Documents and Testimony 891\n\n\n\n\n VIII. EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS ON\n IMPORTANT ASPECTS OF THE CASE\u2014Continued\n\n\n F. Necessity\n\n a. Introduction\n\nThe defense generally argued that the medical experiments took place\nbecause of military necessity or the national emergency presented by\nwar. The defendant Sievers argued that his participation in various\nexperiments was a necessary part of his participation in a resistance\nmovement in Germany. The defendant Hoven argued that the concentration\ncamp inmates, who were killed by him or with his approval and knowledge,\nwere selected by the camp leadership which had been formed by the\npolitical inmates themselves. Hoven also argued that the inmates killed\nwere all dangerous criminals who collaborated voluntarily with the SS,\nand if they would not have been removed, the political inmates would\nhave been exterminated by these criminals and by the SS. He concluded\nthat it was therefore necessary, in order to prevent greater harm,\neither to kill these \u201cstool pigeons\u201d personally or to give his approval\nfor their extermination.\n\nOn the argument of military necessity and national emergency, extracts\nfrom the final plea for the defendant Gebhardt are included on pages 5\nto 12. On the general question of necessity, extracts are included from\nthe examination of the defendant Karl Brandt by Judge Sebring on pages\n29 to 30, and from the cross-examination of the prosecution\u2019s expert\nwitness, Dr. Andrew C. Ivy on pages 42 to 44. The prosecution discussed\nthe general question of necessity in its opening statement.\n\nThe argument of the defendant Sievers that his participation was\nnecessary in connection with resistance to the Nazi leadership appears\nin his final plea, an extract from which is given on pages 13 to 25.\nFrom the evidence supporting the claim of Sievers, extracts from the\ntestimony of defense witness Dr. Friedrich Hielscher are included on\npages 30 to 41. The prosecution\u2019s reply to Sievers\u2019 special defense was\nmade, in part, in the prosecution\u2019s closing statement, an extract of\nwhich appears on pages 4 to 5. The argument of the defendant Hoven that\nthe killing of concentration camp inmates, of which he was accused, was\njustifiable homicide appears in his final plea, an extract of which is\nset forth on pages 25 to 28. The prosecution\u2019s reply to this special\ndefense is set forth in the closing brief against the defendant Hoven,\nan extract of which will be found on pages 2 to 4.\n\n b. Selections from the Argumentation of the Prosecution\n\n _EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST DEFENDANT HOVEN_\n\n * * * * *\n\n(Hoven) tried to justify the killings [of concentration camp inmates] by\nstating that these inmates were informers, spies, and stool pigeons of\nthe SS and therefore had to be exterminated. He said that if they had\nbeen permitted to carry on with their activities, the illegal camp\nmanagement would have been wiped out and the criminal inmates in the\ncamp would have gained the upper hand. Hoven\u2019s attempt at justification\nfor the killing of inmates of concentration camps is, of course, no\ndefense. It may well be true that Hoven sympathized and even\ncollaborated with the illegal camp management. It may also be true that\nsome of his victims may have been killed by him on the basis of\nsuggestions put forward by this illegal camp management. But it goes\nwithout saying that these political prisoners, who instigated the murder\nof their opponents, were in no position to judge whether it was really\nnecessary to kill them for the sake of the camp community. They only\njudged this emergency from their own point of view, i.e., from the point\nof view of the benefit of themselves. Hoven himself had no judgment at\nall in this respect and simply made himself the willing and bought tool\nof a small clique in the camp, who undoubtedly often tried to eliminate\nnot only persons whose activities were considered detrimental to the\nwell-being of their fellow inmates, but also personal opponents and\nenemies. That Hoven was corrupted by the inmates and paid for his\nmurders is proved by the testimony of several witnesses.\n\nKogon testified:\n\n \u201cI can only conclude that both motives, the political motive and\n the motive of corruption, were active in the case of Dr. Hoven.\n _If Dr. Hoven expressed any desire\u2014and he expressed many\n desires\u2014then these wishes were always filled._\u201d (_Tr. p.\n 1213._)\n\n \u201c_He himself expressed many wishes constantly and all possible\n advantages were given him by such people whom he had saved._\u201d\n (_Tr. p. 1214._)\n\nKirchheimer testified to the same effect. (_Tr. p. 1346._) The defense\nwitness Pieck painted pictures for Hoven and his family, and the defense\nwitness Horn in his affidavit stated that Hoven was very corrupt. The\nprisoners knew it and they corrupted him in every possible manner and\nmade him gifts of furniture, underwear, and food. There were periods in\nwhich complete workshops were erected for Hoven in which thirty or more\ninmates were working.\n\nPieter Schalker testified before the Dutch Bureau for the Investigation\nof War Crimes in Amsterdam that Hoven played an exceptionally evil role\nand had innumerable deaths on his conscience owing to completely\ninadequate medical attention. In later years, when it became obvious\nthat Germany would be defeated, he changed his attitude towards the\ninmates. (_NO-1063, Pros. Ex. 328._) When Schalker was interrogated by\nthe commissioner of the Tribunal on the motion of defense counsel, he\namplified his statement by saying that Hoven stole the food which was\nfurnished for the experimental subjects in Block 46 and also obtained\nother items such as shoes, toys, and women\u2019s clothing.\n\nThe testimony of the affiant Ackermann, who was an inmate in the\npathological department under Hoven, proves that Hoven participated in\nthe customary brutal crimes in concentration camps. He said\u2014\n\n \u201cDr. Hoven stood once together with me at the window of the\n pathological section and pointed to a prisoner, not known to me,\n who crossed the place where the roll calls were held. Dr. Hoven\n said to me: \u2018I want to see the skull of this prisoner on my\n writing desk by tomorrow evening.\u2019 The prisoner was ordered to\n report to the medical section, after the physician had noted\n down the number of the prisoner. The corpse was delivered on the\n same day to the dissection room. The postmortem examination\n showed that the prisoner had been killed by injections. The\n skull was prepared as ordered and delivered to Dr. Hoven.\u201d\n (_NO-2631, Pros. Ex. 522._)\n\nHoven also approved the beating of concentration camp inmates.\n(_NO-2313, Pros. Ex. 523_; _NO-2312, Pros. Ex. 524._) One of these\ninmates died.\n\nOn 20 August 1942, Hoven suggested to the camp commander of Buchenwald\nthat the reporting of deaths of Russian political prisoners be\ndiscontinued in order to save paper. He said\u2014\n\n \u201cIt is requested that the question should be examined whether it\n is necessary to issue reports of the death of political\n Russians. According to a direction issued last week, an issue of\n only one form was required. This may effect a saving of paper,\n but as political Russians are for the greatest number among the\n dead prisoners at the present time, more time and paper could be\n saved if these death reports were dropped. Notifications of\n death could be made as before, as for the Russian prisoners of\n war.\u201d (_NO-2148, Pros. Ex. 570._)\n\nThe proof has shown that beside the sixty inmates who were admittedly\nkilled by him, Hoven participated in the killing of many other inmates\nof the Buchenwald concentration camp who suffered from malnutrition and\nexhaustion. He selected the victims for the transports who were later\nkilled in the Bernburg Euthanasia Station. His defense that all his\nactivities were done only for the benefit of the political inmates in\nthe concentration camp is clearly ridiculous and without foundation.\n\nIt is interesting to note that Hoven\u2019s defense that he killed for\nidealistic motives is the same he used in the proceedings against him in\n1944, only then his alleged idealistic motive was \u201cto prevent a scandal\nin the interest of the SS and the Wehrmacht.\u201d (_NO-2380, Pros. Ex. 527_;\nsee also, _NO-2366, Pros. Ex. 526_.)\n\n * * * * *\n\n _EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING STATEMENT OF THE\n PROSECUTION_[1]\n\n * * * * *\n\nIn Sievers we have an unresisting member of a so-called resistance\nmovement. He asks the Tribunal to free him from guilt for his bloody\ncrimes on the ground that he was really working as an anti-Nazi\nresistance agent. Nor was he a latecomer to the resistance movement;\naccording to him, he has been resisting since 1933. Yet in those 14\nyears, yes to this very day, he has not performed one overt act against\nthe men who ran the system he now professes to have always detested. He\njoined the Nazi Party as early as 1929 and the SS in 1935. He stayed\nwith Himmler\u2019s gang until the last days of the collapse. He came to\nNuernberg in 1946, not to give evidence of the horrible crimes of which\nhe had first-hand knowledge, but to testify in defense of the SS. During\nhis testimony before the International Military Tribunal, he\nconsistently denied any knowledge of, or connection with, crimes\ncommitted by the Ahnenerbe of the SS. It was left to the\ncross-examination of Mr. Elwyn Jones to prove him the murderer and\nperjurer that he is. Nor did he show any signs of resistance in this\ntrial except to the manifold crimes with which he is charged. Not one\nnew fact did he reveal to this Tribunal, although specifically asked to\ntell all he knew. If asked today, he will assure one and all that there\nis not a guilty man in the dock, and least of all himself. But, for\npurposes of argument, let us concede the truth of his many lies. It does\nnot harm our case. It is not the law that a resistance worker can commit\nno crime and, least of all, against the people he is supposed to be\nprotecting. It is not the law that an undercover agent, even an FBI\nagent, can join a gang of murderers, lay the plans with them, execute\nthe killings, share the loot, and go his merry way. Many are the\npolicemen who have been convicted for taking part in crimes they were\nentrusted to prevent. No, the sad thing is that this collector of living\nJews for transformation into skeletons has only one life with which to\npay for his many crimes.\n\n * * * * *\n\n c. Selections from the Argumentation of the Defense\n\n _EXTRACTS FROM THE FINAL PLEA FOR DEFENDANT\n GEBHARDT_[2]\n\n * * * * *\n\n _The State Emergency and War Emergency as Legal Excuse_\n\nThe evidence proved furthermore that the experiments to test the\neffectiveness of sulfanilamide were necessary to clarify a question\nwhich was not only of decisive importance for the individual soldier and\nthe troops at the front but above and beyond this care for the\nindividual, it was of vital importance for the fighting power of the\narmy, and thus for the whole fighting nation. All efforts to clarify\nthis question by studying the effect of casual wounds failed. Although\ndrugs of the sulfanilamide series\u2014the number of which amounts to\napproximately 3,000\u2014had been tested for more than 10 years, it was\nimpossible to form an even approximately correct idea of the most\nvaluable remedies. It was impossible to clarify this question in\npeacetime by the observation of many thousands of people with casual\nwounds and by circularized inquiries. Nor could a clear answer be found\nto this question of vital importance to many hundreds of thousands of\nsoldiers by observation of the wounded in field hospitals during the\nwar. In this argumentation it is impossible and also unnecessary to\nexamine details of the problem of wound infection and its control in\nmodern warfare. I may assume that the importance of this question is\nknown to the Tribunal and needs no further proof since this question not\nonly played a part in the German Army but was a matter of special\nresearch and measures in the armies all over the world.\n\nIn 1942 the conditions in the German Army and in the Medical Services of\nthe Wehrmacht became intensified only insofar as with the beginning of\nthe campaign against the Soviet Union new difficulties presented\nthemselves in this sphere, too. In the campaigns against Poland and\nFrance it had been possible to master the wound infections by the usual\nsurgical means, but the difficulties in the war against the USSR\nincreased beyond all measures. It is unnecessary to examine the reasons\nfor this more closely here. It is clear that they resulted from the\ngreat distances and poor traffic conditions, but they were also caused\nby climatic conditions prevailing there.\n\nThe fighting power of the German Army was so affected by the heavy\ncasualties that it was impossible to allocate a correspondingly large\nnumber of experienced surgeons to the main dressing stations in order to\ncontrol bacterial wound infection with surgical measures.\n\nDuring the presentation of evidence the difficult situation in which the\nGerman armies found themselves in the winter of 1941-42 on the Moscow\nfront and in the south around Rostov was repeatedly stressed. Here it\nwas demonstrated clearly that the German Wehrmacht, and with it the\nGerman people, were involved in a life and death struggle.\n\nThe leaders of the German Wehrmacht would have neglected their duty if\nconfronted with these facts, had they not attempted to solve, at any\nprice, the problem as to which chemical preparations were capable of\npreventing bacterial wound infection and, above all, gas gangrene, and\nalso whether effective means could be found at all. Whatever the answer\nto this question was, it had to be found as soon as possible in order to\navert an imminent danger and to throw light on a question which was\nimportant to the individual wounded soldier as well as to the striking\npower of the whole army. After the failure of all attempts to solve the\nproblem through clinical observation of incidental wounds and other\nmethods, and, in view of the particularly difficult situation and\nespecially of the time factor, there was nothing left but to decide the\nquestion through an experiment on human beings. The responsible leaders\nof the German Wehrmacht did not hesitate to draw the conclusions\nresulting from this situation, and the head of the German Reich, who was\nat the same time Commander in Chief of the German Wehrmacht, gave orders\nfor a final solution of this problem by way of large scale\nexperimentation.\n\nLet us examine the legal conclusions to be drawn from this situation as\nit existed in 1942 for the German Wehrmacht and therefore for the German\nstate\u2014in particular regarding the assumption of an existing national\nemergency.\n\nThe problem of emergency and the specific case of self-defense has been\nregulated in almost all criminal codes in a way applicable only to\nindividual cases. The individual is granted impunity under certain\nconditions when \u201cacting in an individual emergency arising for himself\nor others\u201d. The administration of justice and legal literature, however,\nrecognize that even the commonwealth, the \u201cstate,\u201d can find itself in an\nemergency, and that acts which are meant to and actually do contribute\nto overcome this emergency may be exempt from punishment.\n\n1. First of all, the question has been raised whether the conception of\nself-defense, conceived to cover individual cases, can be extended to\ninclude a state self-defense, meaning a self-defense for the benefit of\nthe state and the commonwealth. The answer to this question was a\nunanimous affirmative.\n\n2. The same reasoning, however, as applied to self-defense is also\napplicable to the conception of an emergency, as embodied, for example,\nin Section 54 of the German Penal Code and in almost all modern systems\nof penal law. These provisions, too, were originally conceived to cover\nindividual cases. But, using them as a starting point, legal literature\nand the administration of justice arrive at a recognition in principle\nof a national emergency with a corresponding effect. With regard to the\ndefinition of the concept of an emergency generally given in the penal\nlaws, the application of these provisions to the state, while justified\nin itself, can only be effected in principle.\n\nWhen the idea of an emergency is applied to the state and when the\nindividual is authorized to commit acts for the purpose of eliminating\nsuch a national emergency, here, as in the case of the ordinary\nemergency determined by individual conditions, the objective values must\nbe estimated. The necessary consequences of conceding such actions on\nthe part of the individual must be that not only is he absolved from\nguilt, but moreover his acts are \u201cjustified\u201d. In other words, the\nso-called national emergency, even though it is recognized only as an\nanalogous application of the ordinary concept of emergency in criminal\nlaw, is a legal excuse. But what does \u201capplication\u201d in principle to the\ncases of national emergency mean? Whether a national emergency is\n\u201cunprovoked\u201d or not, whether, for example, the war waged is a \u201cwar of\naggression\u201d can obviously be of no importance in this connection. The\nexistence of the emergency only is decisive. The vital interests of the\ncommonwealth and the state are substituted for the limitation of\nindividual interests. Summarizing, we can define the so-called national\nemergency as an emergency involving the vital interests of the state and\nthe general public which cannot be eliminated in any other way. As far\nas such emergency authorizes action, not only may a legal excuse be\nassumed but a true ground for justification exists.\n\nI shall examine later how far an erroneously assumed national emergency,\na so-called putative emergency, is possible and is to be considered as a\nlegal excuse. What consequences arise from this legal position in the\ncase of the defendant Karl Gebhardt?\n\n1. As proved by the evidence the general situation in the various\ntheaters of war in the year 1942 was such that it brought about an\n\u201cactual\u201d, that is, an immediately imminent danger to the vital interests\nof the state as the belligerent power and to the individuals affected by\nthe war. The conditions on the eastern front in the winter of 1941-42 as\nthey have been repeatedly described during the submission of evidence\ncreated a situation which endangered the existence of the state, through\nthe danger of wound infection and the threat to the survival of the\nwounded and the fighting strength of the troops arising therefrom.\n\nIt must be added that the past World War was fought not only with man\nand material but also with propaganda. In this connection I refer to the\nstatements of the defendant Gebhardt in the witness stand as far as they\nconcern information given to him by the Chief of Office V of the Reich\nSecurity Main Office, SS Gruppenfuehrer Nebe. This information shows\nthat at that particular time the enemy tried to undermine the fighting\nspirit of the German troops with pamphlets describing the organization\nand material of the German Wehrmacht Medical Service as backward, while\non the other hand praising certain remedies of the Allied Forces, for\ninstance penicillin, as \u201csecret miracle weapons\u201d.\n\n2. The assumption of a state of national emergency presupposes that the\naction forming the subject of the indictment was taken in order to\nremove the danger. By this is meant the objective purpose of the action,\nnot just the subjective purpose of the individual committing the action.\nThe question, therefore, is whether the sulfanilamide experiments were\nan objectively adequate means of averting the danger. This, however,\ndoes not mean that the preparations really were an adequate means of\nexpertly combatting the danger. According to the evidence there can be\nno doubt that these assumptions really did exist.\n\n3. Finally, there must not be \u201cany different way\u201d of eliminating the\nnational emergency. One must not misunderstand this requirement. Not\nevery different way, which could be pursued only by corresponding\nviolations, excludes an appeal to national emergency. The requirement\nmentioned does not mean that the way of salvation pursued must\nnecessarily be the only one possible. Of course, if the different\npossibilities of salvation constitute evils of different degrees, the\nlesser one is to be chosen. It must also be assumed that a certain\nproportion should be kept between the violation and the evil inherent in\nthe danger. In view of the fact, however, that in the present case many\ntens of thousands of wounded persons were in danger of death, this\nviewpoint does not present any difficulty here.\n\nAccording to the evidence there can be no doubt that a better way could\nnot have been chosen. On the contrary, it has been shown that in\npeacetime as well as in wartime everything was tried without success to\nclarify the problem of the efficacy of sulfanilamides. And the fact,\ntoo, that prisoners were chosen as experimental subjects who had been\nsentenced to death and were destined for execution, and to whom the\nprospect of pardon was held out and actually granted cannot be judged in\na negative sense. This fact cannot be used as an argument when examining\nthe legal viewpoint, because participation in these experiments meant\nthe only chance for the prisoners to escape imminent execution. In this\nconnection I refer to the explanations I have already given in\nconnection with the so-called probable consent.\n\n _Excuse_\n\nIn addition to the general national emergency discussed, the literature\nof international law recognizes also a special war emergency. According\nto this, \u201cin a state of self-defense and emergency, even such actions\nare permitted which violate the laws of warfare and therefore\ninternational law.\u201d But in the sense of international law the \u201cmilitary\nnecessity of war\u201d which by itself never justifies the violation of the\nlaws of warfare differs from self-defense and emergency. Emergency and\nnecessity of war, however, are different concepts. The emergency due to\nwhich the self-preservation and the self-development of the threatened\nnation are at stake justifies, according to general principles\nrecognized by the national laws of all civilized countries, the\nviolation of every international standard and thus also of the legal\nprinciples of the laws of warfare. When applying the concepts of\nself-defense and emergency as recognized by criminal and international\nlaw, the illegality of violations committed is excluded if the nation\nfound itself in a situation which could not be relieved by any other\nmeans.\n\nIn this connection the following must be pointed out:\n\n I have already explained that the experimental subjects, on whom\n the sulfanilamide experiments forming the subject of this case\n were performed, came under German jurisdiction, even if one\n holds the opinion that Poland\u2019s case was not one of genuine\n \u201cdebellatio\u201d but only of \u201cocupatio bellica\u201d.[3] However,\n whatever opinion one might hold with regard to this question,\n there can be no doubt that assuming an emergency according to\n international law, the performance of the experiments would have\n been justified even if at the time the experimental subjects had\n still been citizens of an enemy nation. Decisive for the\n regulation of the conditions of such persons according to\n international law are the \u201cRegulations Respecting the Laws and\n Customs of War on Land\u201d annexed to the Hague Convention, dated\n 18 October 1907. According to the above statements, however,\n even a violation of such special conventions, as contained for\n instance in the special prohibitions of Article 23, is justified\n during a genuine war emergency. The fact that the special\n conditions characterizing a real war emergency are existent\n invalidates the objection that citizens of another country\n should not have been used for the experiments.\n\n _The Evaluation of Conflicting Rights and_\n _Interests as Legal Excuse_\n\nAccording to well-considered opinions, we must start from the premise\nthat the defendants, both in principle and in procedure, are to be tried\naccording to German criminal law. They lived under it during the period\nin question and were subject thereto. For this reason I wish to approach\none more viewpoint which should be considered independently, and in\naddition to the legal excuses already mentioned, when judging the\nconduct of the defendants.\n\nFor many years the legal provisions for emergency cases have proved\ninadequate. For a long time an endeavor was made to fill the gaps with\ntheoretical explanations of a general nature, and finally the Reich\nSupreme Court handed down basic decisions expressly recognizing an\n\u201cextra legal emergency\u201d. The considerations on which they were based are\nknown as the \u201cobjective principle of the evaluation of conflicting\nrights and interests.\u201d In the legal administration of the Reich Supreme\nCourt and in further discussions this principle, to be sure, is combined\nwith subjective considerations of courses of action taken by the\nperpetrator in the line of duty. Therefore it is necessary to discuss\nboth considerations, that of evaluating conflicting rights and interests\nand that of compulsion by duty together, even if we must and shall keep\nthem distinctly separated for the time being.\n\nThe consideration of an evaluation of conflicting rights and interests\nas legal excuse is generally formulated as follows:\n\n \u201cWhoever violates or jeopardizes a legally protected right or\n interest of lesser value in order to save thereby a legally\n protected right or interest of greater value does not act in\n violation of the law.\u201d\n\nThe lesser value must yield to the greater one. The act, when regarded\nfrom this point of view, is justified, its unlawfulness\u2014and not merely\nthe guilt or the perpetrator\u2014is cancelled out.\n\nThis so-called principle of evaluating conflicting rights and interests\nis first of all a formal principle which establishes the precedence of\nthe more valuable right or interest as such. This formal evaluation\nprinciple requires on its part a further material evaluation of the\nrights or interests comparatively considered. This evaluation again\nrequires the adoption of the law and its purport to the general attitude\nof a civilization and, finally, to the conception of law itself.\n\nLet us examine the conclusions to be drawn from this legal situation in\nour case: Agreement and so-called likely agreement, just as well as a\nnational emergency and a war emergency, constitute special legal\njustifications, the recognition of which allows us to dispense with a\nrecourse to the general principle of evaluating conflicting rights and\ninterests. The latter retains its subsidiary importance. Furthermore,\nthose two special legal justifications refer in their purport to a fair\nand equitable way of thinking as well as to the proportional importance\nof various types of evils; thus they themselves include the conception\nof evaluating conflicting rights and values. For this reason, among\nothers, the following must be explained in detail at this point:\n\nA national emergency and a war emergency were unmistakably in existence\nin 1942. Every day the lives of thousands of wounded were endangered\nunless the threatening wound infection could be checked by the\napplication of proper remedies and the elimination of inadequate\nremedies. The danger was \u201cactual\u201d. Immediate help had to be provided.\nThe \u201cpublic interest\u201d demanded the experimental clarification of this\nquestion. The evidence has shown that the question could not be\nclarified by experiments on animals or by the observation of incidental\nwounds.\n\nThe last word on this question, however, is not said merely by reference\nto the public interest. Opposed to the public interest are the\nindividual interests. The saying \u201cnecessity knows no law\u201d cannot claim\nunlimited validity. But just as little can the infringement on\nindividual interests in order to save others be considered as \u201ccontrary\nto good morals\u201d. The evidence has shown that the members of the\nresistance movement of Camp Ravensbrueck who were condemned to death\ncould only escape imminent execution if they submitted to the\nexperiments which form the subject of this indictment. There is no need\nto examine here and now whether the experimental subjects did give their\nconsent or whether they presumably would have consented, if, from their\npersonal point of view and in the full knowledge of the situation, they\ncould have made a decision within the meaning of an objective judicial\nopinion based on probability. What really matters is the question of\nwhether after a just and fair evaluation of the interests of the general\npublic and the real interests of the experimental subjects, the\ndefendant could conclude that, all circumstances considered, the\nexecution of the experiments was justifiable. Without doubt this\nquestion can be answered in the affirmative. Quite apart from the\ninterest of the state in the execution of the experiments, participation\nin the experiments was in the real and well-considered interest of the\nexperimental subjects themselves, since this participation offered the\nonly possibility of saving their lives through an act of mercy.\n\n * * * * *\n\n _The Defendant\u2019s Erroneous Assumption of an Emergency_\n (_Putative Emergency_)\n\nI have already mentioned the circumstances which justify the assumption\nof a national emergency and a war emergency caused by the special\nconditions prevailing in 1942. If these conditions actually prevailed,\nthe illegality of the act and not only the guilt of the perpetrator\nwould be excluded for reasons previously enumerated. If the defendant\nhad erroneously assumed circumstances which if they really had existed\nwould have justified a national emergency and a war emergency, then,\naccording to the general principles already mentioned, the intent of the\ndefendant and thus his guilt would also be eliminated in this respect.\nThe evidence, especially the defendant\u2019s own statements on the witness\nstand, leaves no doubt that, when the experiments began in 1942, he had\nassumed the existence of such circumstances which were indeed the\nstarting point and motive for ordering and carrying out these\nexperiments.\n\n * * * * *\n\n _EXTRACT FROM THE FINAL PLEA FOR DEFENDANT\n SIEVERS_[4]\n\n * * * * *\n\nMay I remind you of the exciting part of my case in chief which dealt\nwith Sievers\u2019 participation in the resistance against the National\nSocialist government and administration. By putting forward his activity\nin a resistance movement, the defendant Sievers does not endeavor to\nobtain a mitigation of an eventual condemnation. In my opinion, this\nactivity must under all circumstances result in his acquittal, even\nthough, contrary to expectation the High Tribunal should tend towards\nthe opinion that Sievers had participated in the accused crimes.\n\nIn the first place it is my intention to discuss a series of legal\nquestions that have at all times been acknowledged in the criminal law\nof all civilized nations. It is not by any means the task of the High\nTribunal to apply any special article of law, but, from general legal\nand legal-philosophical principles, to lay down a rule finding and\ncreating a new law to meet a new situation. It need hardly be said that\nfirst and foremost I am supporting my own client. But in your verdict,\nyou, your Honors, are not judging only this defendant. Beyond this\nparticular case your verdict has a far more extensive, general, nay,\nworld-wide importance. For it is the first time that a tribunal of such\nimportance is to decide upon the actions of a member of a resistance\nmovement. Consequently, your judgment is a fundamental one and a\nsignpost for our time for many, many other defendants and accused men in\nthis connection who have stood before this Tribunal or will be brought\nbefore other courts. Your decision for all time extends to cover\nthousands and thousands of men who, at some time, may be put in the\nposition of opposing some criminal system of government by similar means\nas Sievers did. On this our globe there are still autocracies and\ntotalitarian dictatorships and it requires only little foresight to\nrealize that other dictatorships may involve other international\nentanglements and wars of the most horrible nature. Furthermore, in the\nfuture, mankind will again and again be in sore need of courageous men\nwho for the sake of their nation and for the welfare of mankind oppose\nthemselves to such dangerous doings. It is for such champions and for\nsuch groups of champions that your verdict will be a criterion and a\nsignpost. You are deciding in advance the future possibilities and the\nsphere of action of future resistance movements against criminal\ngovernments and their chiefs. You are offered the opportunity of\nchecking such movements by your verdict. But you are also able to give\nthem the safety necessary for their dangerous enterprise and the success\nof their proceedings. How and where would such helpers be found in\nfuture if, apart from the immediate peril, they have to reckon with the\nadditional danger of being called to account by the very people for whom\nthey risked their lives? And therefore, your Honors, with your verdict\nin the Sievers case you take upon you a responsibility before the whole\nworld and for all time to come, a responsibility as is seldom placed\nupon a tribunal. But on the other hand you can also say with pride that\nwith this judgment you render an immeasurable service to the world in\nits struggle for peace and justice.\n\nTherefore the reasons for your verdict in the Sievers case are so\nimmensely important, far more important than the trifling Sievers case\ncan be in the universal history of all times. I am forced to detail the\nparticulars of these problems.\n\nIt goes without saying that the member of a resistance movement can only\nrefer to his resistance, if this resistance is lawful. This will not\nalways be the case; for, political crime and similar actions committed\nfor political motives are crimes and will remain such. He who removes a\npolitical adversary only to take his position or to open the way for his\npartisans acts unlawfully and is liable to punishment. The situation,\nhowever, becomes different if not only a political discussion is\ninterrupted by murder, but where a tyrant whose government is inscribed\nwith bloody letters in the annals of mankind is at last felled to the\nground. In this case the perpetrator is supported by an acknowledged\nexcuse. This excuse is self-defense.\n\nAccording to the German Penal Code, Article 53, an action is not\npunishable if it is committed in self-defense. And self-defense is such\ndefense as is necessary to ward off from oneself or another person an\nimminent unlawful attack.\n\nThese principles are, however, not only German legal stipulations. They\nare legal values of all nations and all times. To a large extent they\ntally with human sentiments and are termed \u201cthe great law of defense.\u201d\nThey are already found in Roman law in the formulation \u201cvim vi expellere\n[repellere] licet\u201d\u2014force may be driven out by force\u2014and have been\nenthusiastically taken over by English common law and by American law,\nas stated by Wharton, \u201cCriminal Law\u201d, paragraph 613. They authorize\nevery individual to ward off injury from himself or another person with\nall necessary means at his command. From this point of view too the\nstruggle against a criminal government threatening the peace of the\nworld, preparing aggressive wars, ready without any purpose or need to\nplunge the whole world into immeasurable misery from sheer striving for\npower, from presumption and conceit; struggle and resistance against\nsuch a government and such guidance are lawful and permissible, no\nmatter by what means they may be carried on. Since the end of the war\neven, the opinion has been maintained more and more that such a struggle\nis not only lawful and permissible but is even the duty of every\nindividual. Is not the collective guilt of the whole German nation\nsubstantiated by the charge that it witnessed the doings of the Nazi\ngovernment without interfering at least with a secretly clenched fist in\nits pocket? Murder and manslaughter, bodily injury and restriction of\nliberty inflicted upon the potentates and responsible men of such a\nsystem are acts of self-defense for the benefit of peace and mankind.\nThey are lawful and exempt from punishment; they are a duty if there is\nno help possible in any other way.\n\nFrom times immemorial this question concerning the lawfulness and duty\nof committing political murder has engaged not only lawyers but also a\nlarge number of poets and philosophers. Friedrich von Schiller justified\nthe murder committed on Gessler as the last desperate attempt to escape\nslavery. Thus the juridical vindication of murdering a criminal tyrant\nis paralleled by its high moral estimation.\n\nBut it may happen that not only the real assailants come to grief. He\nwho has to ward off an attack may be forced to implicate a third person\nhitherto not involved. This case too is provided for in the German Penal\nCode and is termed \u201cnecessity\u201d. The regulation of Article 54 runs as\nfollows: \u201cNo punishable act has been committed when the\nact\u2014self-defense apart\u2014was committed in an emergency, which could be\nmet in no other way, to escape a present danger to the life or body of\nthe perpetrator or a relative of his.\u201d\n\nThe legal codes of all nations and all ages have been compelled to face\nthe problem of the conflict between two legal values which can only be\nsolved by hurting or even annihilating one of the two. Justice cannot\ninsist with utter consistency upon the individual respecting foreign\nrights and sacrificing his own at all costs and under any circumstances.\nA Frenchman says to this question: \u201cCette th\u00e9orie est admirable pour des\nsaints et pour des h\u00e9ros, mais elle n\u2019est point faite pour la vulgaire\nhumanit\u00e9\u201d\u2014\u201cThis theory is admirable for saints and heroes, but it is\nnot for common humanity\u201d\u2014[Pradier\u2014Fod\u00e9r\u00e9, vol. I, page 367, Trait\u00e9 du\ndroit international public europ\u00e9en et am\u00e9ricain.] \u201cQuod non est licitum\nin lege, necessitas facit licitum\u201d\u2014\u201cWhat is not permitted by law,\nnecessity makes permissible\u201d\u2014[says the Roman law], and the French\nlawyer Rossi says: \u201cL\u2019acte ne peut \u00eatre excusable lorsque l\u2019agent c\u00e8de \u00e0\nl\u2019instinct de sa propre conservation, lorsqu\u2019il se trouve en pr\u00e9sence\nd\u2019un peril imminent, lorsqu\u2019il s\u2019agit de la vie.\u201d\u2014\u201cThe act can be\nexcused only when the perpetrator yields to the instinct of\nself-preservation, when he finds himself faced with imminent danger,\nwhen life itself is at stake.\u201d\u2014An old German legal proverb runs:\n\u201cNecessity knows no law.\u201d Last but not least, American law deals with\nthis problem under the name \u201cnecessity\u201d (_Wharton, \u201cCriminal Law,\u201d par.\n642_), a literal translation of the German expression \u201cNot\u201d. So by\nvirtue of necessity a shipwrecked sailor may push his fellow-sufferer\nfrom the board which is too small to save both of them. If applied to\nresistance movements against criminal governments, these principles mean\nthat third persons hitherto unconcerned may also be involved, if there\nis no other alternative, if \u201cNot\u201d, \u201cnecessitas\u201d, \u201cnecessity\u201d requires it\nperemptorily and unavoidably.\n\nYou, your Honors, are called upon to bring the principles of\n\u201cself-defense\u201d and of \u201cnecessity\u201d, \u201cthis great law of defense\u201d to their\ncommon denominator, to apply them to the Sievers case and thus insert\nthem into the unwritten rules of the international relations of public\nand political law. The Anglo-Saxon legal way of thinking and the\nprinciples of natural law will give you valuable support in forming the\nverdict.\n\nNow I can turn to the specific case of Sievers.\n\nIn order to judge his actions the following questions are of a decisive\nimportance: Was there a German resistance movement at all? Did the\nHielscher group belong to this resistance movement? Was this group to be\ntaken seriously and what were its aims? Was Sievers a member of this\ngroup and what were his tasks? What was his attitude in performing these\ntasks? Were there also other possibilities for him? It has frequently\nbeen maintained that there was no German resistance movement. But _the\nGerman resistance existed_.\n\nI must, however, confess that the question \u201cWhere was this resistance?\u201d\nreadily suggests itself to such people as are not acquainted with the\ninternal conditions of Germany, above all during the war. I must also\ngrant the fact that scarcely more than Stauffenberg\u2019s plot with its\nstaggering consequences came before the public.\n\nHe who puts such a question completely misjudges the conditions under\nwhich the whole resistance movement had to work against the Nazi\nGovernment. He forgets that up to the fatal date of 20 July 1944, he had\nalso no idea of the group round Stauffenberg. I am therefore all the\nmore forced to give a concise exposition of the situation which in the\nThird Reich everybody opposing the Nazi Government had to face.\n\nFrom the very beginning it was the aim of the authoritarian government\nto get hold of every German man, every German woman, all children, and\nold men in order to bring them up in the spirit of the new method of\ngovernment. The totalitarian striving for power did not stop short at\npersonal freedom. It removed professional and economic organizations,\ncultural and social institutions, some of which were reestablished in\nanother form, subject to the control of the Nazi Government.\n\nIt was against this state of things that the struggle set in from the\nvery beginning. Nothing would be more wrong than to believe that this\nstruggle could be waged in the open street with large quantities of\npropaganda material, display of physical force, with fire arms, bombs,\nwar, and rumors of war. Even in the trade unions, the most consistent\nand resolute adversaries of the new government in 1933, such a method\nwas not possible. This government kept a tight rein over the whole\npublic apparatus controlling in an increasing degree the private spheres\nthrough the organizations of the SD, Gestapo, etc. The ambiguous\nstipulations of the law against malicious acts or insults to the state\nand party (Heimtueckegesetz) made possible the imprisonment of people\neven for accidental deprecatory remarks. Political discrimination and\nthe constant danger of being sent to a concentration camp were the\neffects of many innocent remarks. No newspaper could have been found to\nagitate against the oppressors. But if handbills were secretly\ndistributed the contents of which defamed the Nazi government, the whole\napparatus of the police, Gestapo, SD, etc., was set in motion. The\npossession of weapons was considered circumstantial evidence of\ntreasonable enterprises and meant capital punishment for the imprudent.\nIt must be added that there was a widely extended spy system sticking to\neverybody\u2019s heels. One had even to guard oneself against one\u2019s nearest\nrelations and children.\n\nThese few words concerning the internal situation of Germany were\nnecessary as an answer to the absurd question put in Stockholm to the\nwitness Hielscher: \u201cWhy did you not speak in the open market place\n[publicly]?\u201d (_Tr. p. 5935._)\n\nThe most obvious kind of opposition was offered by the two great\nChristian churches. How much and how often were the antichrist and his\nfalse prophets not preached against, how many clergymen of all\nconfessions were sent to prisons, penitentiaries, concentration camps,\nnay, to death? It is true, the churches could venture forth more openly\nthan other people. For they did not intend to participate in a\n_forcible_ removal of the system, in the killing of its leaders and\nrepresentatives, in the fight with arms. But the nonecclesiastical\nresistance groups had realized that the Nazi dictatorship could not be\noverthrown without violence; they were not subject to the\npolitical-philosophical impediments and restrictions of the churches,\nthey could not throw off the mask until the day of action had dawned. Up\nto that time they were condemned to be silent, they had to camouflage,\nacting on the old principle of all conspirators: \u201cNever speak of your\naim, but always think of it!\u201d If they had forgotten this principle,\nsooner or later unquestioningly they would have been betrayed by a spy\nand liquidated by the Gestapo. They would never have got as far as\naction. Did not the group round Stauffenberg act in this way too? Who\nknew of its existence before the bomb burst in Hitler\u2019s headquarters on\n20 July 1944? The same was the case with all the other resistance groups\nwhich unfortunately no longer had the possibility of acting and some of\nwhich were traced and secretly killed in spite of this.\n\nThe fact that all of them existed is proved, however, by the small\nnumber of publications: the pamphlets of Emil Henk, of Franklin L. Ford\nand other authors, and Neuhaeusler\u2019s book, \u201cCross and Swastika\u201d.\n\nBut downright classical witnesses are the numerous bloody victims whom\nthe People\u2019s Court of Justice [Volksgerichtshof] and the Gestapo had\nsent to the concentration camps and to death.\n\nOne of these groups was the group around Hielscher, a member of which\nwas the defendant Sievers.\n\n_There was a Hielscher group, it existed, it acted._ Hielscher himself\nis an unimpeachable witness of this. In connection with 20 July 1944, he\nwas imprisoned for three months and was to be hanged. Hielscher\u2019s\nillegal activity is sworn to by many other no less trustworthy\nwitnesses. As the first of them I mention the political emigrant Dr.\nBorkenau, who had been working against National Socialism at least since\n1928. He had known Hielscher since 1928. He speaks of his hostility to\nNational Socialism, of a \u201csharp attitude\u201d. At that time he frequently\nnegotiated and conspired with Hielscher, who set forth the methods of\nhis fight. During his emigration, Dr. Borkenau watched Hielscher\u2019s\nactivity from abroad and again and again he heard: \u201cHielscher keeps on\nfighting\u201d. If we are told so by an emigrant, we may well believe it.\nAnother witness who never lost connection with Hielscher was Dr. Topf,\nwho himself was an active member of the resistance movement. He too\ndescribed Hielscher as a violent antagonist of National Socialism,\nworking and struggling unswervingly. I refer to the many affidavits\nwhich I presented in this connection.\n\nIt does not speak against Hielscher\u2019s oppositional activity that he did\nnot stand out more in public. For him too, camouflaging up to the moment\nof decision was an imperative requirement, and Dr. Borkenau calls it a\ndownright masterpiece that he so eminently succeeded in doing so.\n\n _Sievers was a member of the Hielscher group_\n\nThere cannot be the least doubt of this fact. Apart from all the\ntestimony, the whole personality of my client excluded any Nazi\nattitude. His nature and his development necessarily made him a decisive\nadversary of Hitler\u2019s system of oppression, terror, and murder. Both his\norigin and the interests of his youth brought him into contact with\npeople who kept aloof as much as possible from the Nazi way of thinking.\nHe was the son of a director of ecclesiastical music; he pursued\nhistorical and religious studies. His nature led him to the Boy Scouts,\nin short to such interests as National Socialism calumniated with all\nits powers of ridicule and combated violently with stubborn dislike. All\nthose persons who either testified or in affidavits gave evidence about\nhis character describe him as follows: an upright man with lofty ideals\nof deeply rooted humanity and a strong sense of law and justice. If you\ncombine this picture of Sievers painted by notorious anti-Fascists with\nall the authenticated aid that Sievers bestowed on victims of Nazism, it\nis only a small step to the conviction that Sievers was also a member of\na resistance movement.\n\nPerhaps the prosecution may say: \u201cI do not believe all these stories,\nfor both Hielscher and Sievers did not achieve anything.\u201d\n\nThat would wrong Sievers to a high degree, your Honors! Other resistance\ngroups too had the misfortune that they had not more opportunity to act.\nThe witness Hielscher exposed very clearly the reasons why a standstill\nwas inevitable after the failure of the plot on 20 July 1944. As\nHielscher and his associates could no longer depend upon the army, they\nwere compelled to start again from the very beginning.\n\nWhat were the intentions and the mission of the defendant Sievers within\nthe Hielscher group? Hielscher himself answers that. Sievers\u2019 tasks were\nof two kinds: (1) Gathering news from the immediate proximity of Himmler\nas basis for the disposal of the resistance forces with regard to place,\ntime, and kind of action. (2) Sievers was not only a spy and a scout; at\nthe moment of action he was destined and ready to do away with Himmler.\nThese two tasks require a double legal examination: Were they in\nthemselves permissible, lawful, or even a duty? The answer to this\nquestion is to be found in the principles which I evolved in the idea of\nself-defense in the sphere of political struggle. What measures was he\nallowed to take? To what extent could he venture to advance into the\ndomain of criminality? To what extent could he involve uninitiated third\npersons in his plans, even actual victims of Nazism? The rules of\n\u201cnecessity\u201d lead the way for judging and solving this problem.\n\nIn taking up the first question I can be relatively brief. After all we\nknow today, it is an irrefutable fact that Hitler and his accomplices\nterrorized the German Nation and the whole world in a criminal way and\nwith criminal means, that from the beginning they were an immediate\nperil to peace and all civilization and that finally the worst\napprehensions turned to ghastly reality. Therefore the first\nprerequisite for the defense of \u201cnecessity\u201d is beyond all doubt a\npresent illegal attack on the highest goods of mankind. To put it in the\nwords of the German Penal Code that was the \u201cnecessity\u201d (\u201cnot\u201d) which\nwas to be warded off.\n\nBut we also know that this defense was not to be accomplished with the\nnormal means of a democratic parliamentary system. I described the truly\ndiabolical organization by which it had been rendered impossible to make\nuse of these means. Thence follows that the removal of Hitler and his\naccomplices was the only possible expedient to break and smash this\nsystem. Less hard and violent means were not available.\n\nAs a matter of course it follows that Hielscher\u2019s plan to do away with\nHimmler had become legal and compulsory for those in the position to\nexecute it. After the evidence of Hielscher and other trustworthy\nwitnesses, it cannot be denied that Sievers had been charged with this\ntask.\n\nIf it was justified to do away with Himmler, the accompanying and\npreparing scouting-activity was justified too.\n\nBefore answering the question to what extent Sievers could involve third\npersons, I have to sketch in a few lines the tactics of Hielscher and\nthe position of Sievers.\n\nIt was not in vain that Hielscher himself gave full particulars on this\nquestion. We also heard other witnesses, Dr. Borkenau, Dr. Topf. Sievers\nclearly outlined his tasks. All this evidence is in such unanimous\nagreement that no doubt of its truth could arise.\n\nHielscher was one of the first and few people who realized that the way\nto take measures against the system could be only from within the ranks\nof the party itself. He had gained the firm conviction that a prospect\nof success could be seen only by doing away with the heads of the Nazi\nGovernment and assuming the government from the top and that nothing,\nnothing at all, was to be anticipated from a revolution of the people\nfrom below. A revolution of such a kind would have been of no avail, as\nit would very quickly have been stifled in torrents of blood.\n\nThe knowledge of these facts required four groups of measures to be\ntaken, the particulars of which Hielscher detailed on 15 April:\n\n Preparation of the undertaking by a well-camouflaged\n organization of trusted men and spies within the ranks of the\n NSDAP, i.e., the Trojan Horse policy.\n\n Placing suitable courageous men in positions as near as possible\n to leading personages of Nazism, the most dangerous of whom was\n Himmler.\n\n Doing away with Himmler and other leaders of the Nazi Government\n upon a given cue.\n\n Taking over the government by an organization prepared in\n advance.\n\nIn spite of all liberty of action granted to the \u201cactivists\u201d of his\ngroup, Hielscher had realized that success could only be expected if\neverybody, in strict discipline, obeyed his orders only. This was the\nonly way for him to hold the reins and to give the cue at the right\nmoment. Here I must emphasize that within the scope of this\nindispensable discipline, Sievers in all details acted in complete\nunison with Hielscher, that in all important moments he described the\nreal state of affairs and asked for his instructions. In this way\nHielscher obtained ample information of everything enacted around\nSievers and of what Sievers did himself. Sievers was nothing but the\ntool in the hands of the leader of the movement. Therefore, your Honors,\nyour verdict affects Sievers\u2019 commissioner, Hielscher, in just the same\nway as Sievers himself. Hielscher is condemned together with Sievers, as\nhe is acquitted with Sievers. With the same courage of responsibility\nwith which he placed Sievers and other accomplices in most dangerous\npositions, Hielscher could declare at the end of his evidence that he\nnot only took but also _claimed_ the whole responsibility for all the\ndeeds with which his follower Sievers would be charged as a result in\nthis trial.\n\nHielscher sketches the task of Sievers as follows: In the belly of the\nTrojan horse, i.e., under the color of eager and enthusiastic\ncooperation his duty would be (_a_) to scout and to spy, (_b_) profiting\nby his influence, to place other persons in similar positions for the\nsame purposes, or in places where they would be given the possibility of\nworking undisturbed, (_c_) to back endangered members of the resistance\nmovement and if possible to rescue them, and finally (_d_) to do away\nwith Himmler at the moment of action.\n\nThis last item was the essential point of the task of my client. All the\nother tasks were inferior to this aim and assignment, they only served\nto prepare and support it. It is from this point of view that his whole\nconduct must be understood and all his acts judged.\n\nWhat did Sievers achieve in the sphere of this task?\n\nI cannot reiterate all the details that I set forth in the first part of\nmy plea. I came to the conclusion that Sievers did not make himself\nguilty of complicity or assistance in the facts charged in the\nindictment. If, however, you suppose with the prosecution that Sievers\nis to be found guilty of some of the counts of the indictment, it is my\ntask to justify this conduct before the forum of a concept of justice\ntranscending codified law, and to expound it to the Tribunal.\n\nHow did it come about that in 1942 Sievers remained in his position when\nthe Ahnenerbe came into contact with medical experiments which possibly\nmight assume a criminal character? We must not forget that Sievers was\nassigned the removal of Himmler and that in the Hielscher group he was\nthe only person who could have been entrusted with such a task. Properly\nspeaking, in Hielscher\u2019s group he had the key position; the success or\nfailure of the whole enterprise depended on him alone. For Himmler was\nthe most dangerous personality in the Nazi system, because in his\nquality of Chief of the Police and Commander of the Reserve Army all the\ninternal political armed forces were concentrated in his hand.\nConsequently he had the power of nipping in the bud every rebellion.\nHimmler was able to rule without Hitler, whereas Hitler could not rule\nwithout Himmler. The latter was to be done away with first. Should\nHimmler be overlooked or should he somehow succeed in escaping, the\nwhole enterprise would be endangered. Himmler\u2019s importance is therefore\nthe measure of the importance of Sievers, who had to be ready for the\ndecisive blow in Himmler\u2019s immediate proximity. To ask if this post\ncould be abandoned is to answer it in the negative.\n\nAs Sievers was fully conscious of the importance of such a decision, he\nbecame involved in the greatest internal conflict of his life. Of two\nevils, the worse had to be avoided and the smaller to be endured, or\nboth of them to be shunned.\n\nTo do the latter would certainly have been the most convenient solution.\nThat Sievers got into this conflict amply demonstrates his consciousness\nof responsibility, his love of justice and humanity. As to the struggle\nwith his soul, he certainly did not succeed in getting the better of\nhimself. Too many questions depended on his decision, not only for\nhimself but above all for the resistance movement as a whole. We must\ntry to look into the soul of a man, who, on the one hand, was exposed to\nthe pressure of an enormous aversion to the approaching threatening\nevents and, on the other hand, knew only too well that in his position\nhe could no longer fulfill his task if he obeyed his personal impulses.\nPerhaps it would have been possible for Sievers to leave his office\nwithout creating a great sensation and without considerable disadvantage\nfor himself. Could he not have retired to cooperate in some innocuous\nscientific research? But in doing so Sievers would have been a runaway,\na deserter. In his agony of soul, Sievers applied to Hielscher who after\nmature consideration and deliberation came to the decision: _Sievers\nwill stay!_\n\nFor the post in Himmler\u2019s proximity could not be renounced. If Sievers\nabandoned it, Hielscher would be under the necessity of entrusting him\nwith another position near Himmler or of replacing him by another member\nof the movement with the same task. Was this possible? Would he,\nremaining near Himmler, have not time and again come into the same\ndilemma? Was it possible to wait and see? Could it be expected that\nanother man would be more successful? Would not Sievers, in spite of all\ncircumspection, have raised suspicion in substantiating his withdrawal?\nFor to do so openly and with protest would have been downright madness.\nImagine only the danger he would have conjured up for himself and his\nassociates! What could his withdrawal have availed? One more question:\nif Sievers\u2019 withdrawal could have prevented the human experiments at\nall, that would have been only a partial success. For as to the aim in\nits totality, the removal of Himmler and the Nazi Government, nothing\nwould have been gained but a further delay of the decision or the\nimpossibility of achieving it because of the loss of the key position.\nAs still more victims of the Nazi Government would have been the result,\na partial success had to be sacrificed in favor of the great aim.\n\nIf you try to answer these questions there cannot be the least doubt\nthat the decision Hielscher arrived at was the only possibility.\n\nThat brings me to the last, to the most important point of my defense,\nto the question:\n\n \u201cHow was Sievers to act in his position?\u201d\n\nWithout any doubt, he was compelled to make certain concessions. He was\nforced to camouflage, i.e., to accommodate himself outwardly to his\nsurroundings which he was going to spy on and to remove. Every spy has\nto camouflage and I do not betray a secret in mentioning that in wartime\nmany a man donned the uniform of the enemy. It is generally known that\nin 1942 the French General Giraud performed his escape from German\ncaptivity in the uniform of a German general.\n\nWhen Sievers was a member of the party from 1929 to 1931, when later on\nhe joined the NSDAP and the SS again, when he filled higher positions in\nthese organizations, when he held the position of Reich Manager of the\nAhnenerbe and suffered himself to be promoted to a higher rank in the\nSS, without any doubt at all that was part of the camouflage measures\nwhich Hielscher, Dr. Borkenau, Dr. Topf, and other witnesses call the\nindispensable prerequisite, the compulsory mask for the tasks of the\ndefendant Sievers.\n\nNobody will pretend that these camouflages which were to render possible\na legally approved, nay, desirable aim, are in themselves punishable and\nillegal. Sievers\u2019 outward membership in the SS is therefore excused by\nits camouflage purpose. And it is equally unobjectionable that\noccasionally he played the part of a good Nazi. The duty of doing so had\nexpressly been urged upon him by Hielscher. The career of the organizer\nor an active member of a German underground movement would have found a\nsudden end if he had not behaved like a Nazi.\n\nAll the more seriously must I turn to the question of Sievers\u2019 consent\nto and further participation in the human experiments and the\nestablishment of the collection of skeletons, in which third persons\nsuffered bodily injury.\n\nHere the question is raised where are the bounds of necessity if it\ninvolves actions which in themselves are punishable facts. The answer to\nthis question is the essential point of the Sievers case.\n\nThe legal orders of the world set up the principle: \u201c_The legal values\ndamaged by the action committed under necessity, must not be of a\ndisproportionally greater value than the protected and rescued legal\nvalue._\u201d That is the principle of proportion concerning which Wharton\n[\u201cCriminal Law\u201d], paragraph 642, says, \u201cSacrifice of another\u2019s life,\nexcusable when necessary to save one\u2019s own.\u201d\n\nWhat were the competing legal values in the Sievers case?\n\nOn the one hand, there was the civilization of the world, the peace of\nthe earth, humanity, the lives and existence of millions of men\nthreatened and hurt by Hitler\u2019s criminal government. Such actions are\ncalled crimes against peace and humanity by the new international law\nwhich threatens them with the severest punishments. The Allied Nations\nconsidered these legal values worthy of their soldiers enthusiastically\ngoing to war and death for them.\n\nOn the other hand, you will find the lives of individuals, their bodily\nsafety, the respect and esteem of their personality, their liberty and\nthe free expression of their will, certainly legal values of no less\nhigh value. There may have been hundreds of victims. But it was a meager\nnumber in comparison with the multitudes that Hitler, Himmler, and their\naccomplices had already murdered and continued murdering.\n\nMy question runs: Which of the two contending legal values is more\nvaluable from the point of view of proportion?\n\nI am far from excusing the ghastly crimes that happened in the\nconcentration camps or even minimizing them, but with all my abhorrence\nfor them I cannot help answering: The protection of civilization and\nhumanity deserves preference over the life and health of individuals,\ndeplorable as the inevitable sacrifices may be. So finally it was\nnecessary, absolutely requisite, to put up with the violation of the\nless valuable legal values and to rescue the more precious, the whole.\nSievers\u2019 remaining at his post in the Ahnenerbe was absolutely necessary\nfor the removal of Himmler.\n\nOf course it would not be difficult to state _post festum_ that Sievers\ncould have acted differently, that he ought not have advanced thus far.\nBut up to now nobody has been able to tell us _how_ he should have\nacted. Even the public prosecutor did not try to make a concrete\nproposal.\n\n * * * * *\n\n _EXTRACT FROM THE FINAL PLEA FOR DEFENDANT\n HOVEN_[5]\n\n * * * * *\n\nIn two further parts of my closing brief I dealt with the killings which\nDr. Hoven either undertook himself or which were undertaken with his\nknowledge.\n\nIn part (b) of the closing brief, I stated that these killings had no\nconnection with the euthanasia plan.\n\nI further stated that it can be considered proved that Dr. Hoven killed\nonly two prisoners himself, and that about 50 or 60 prisoners were\nkilled by order of those responsible for the German and foreign\npolitical prisoners with the knowledge of Dr. Hoven.\n\nI have set forth a legal evaluation of these killings in a further\nparagraph under (e) of the closing brief.\n\nThe legal arguments as set forth in the closing brief are taken from the\nwork of the well-known American criminologist Wharton, _Criminal Law_.\nThe first part of this argument contains, under (e), the literal\nquotations from this book.\n\nAccording to common law, the killing of a man can be either murder,\nmanslaughter, excusable homicide, or justifiable homicide. Excusable\nhomicide and justifiable homicide are not punishable.\n\nThe present American law does not differentiate between justifiable\nhomicide and excusable homicide. I refer to my closing brief,\nparticularly to the statements of Wharton in his book _Criminal Law_,\n12th edition, volume I, 1932, pages 826 to 879. According to Wharton,\nexcuse and justification for a homicide are either repulsion of\nfelonious assault, or prevention of felony.\n\nThe right of self-defense, i.e., repulsion of felonious assault, is\nrestricted to a narrowly defined number of persons.\n\nOn the other hand, everybody is entitled to prevent a crime. I refer to\nthe details contained in my legal arguments of my closing brief.\n\nKilling a man to prevent a felonious crime requires the following\nconditions which are set forth in my closing brief:\n\n (1) The perpetrator must have the bona fide belief that the\n commission of a felonious crime is immediately impending. It is\n not a condition that such a crime would actually have been\n committed. The bona fide belief of the accused is quite\n sufficient. In this connection I refer to the legal arguments of\n the closing brief.\n\n (2) This belief of the accused must not be negligently adopted.\n\n (3) There must not be any other possibility of preventing a\n crime than the killing of a person. In other words\u2014the killing\n must be the only means available to prevent the crime.\n\nThe prosecution\u2019s assertion in its final plea, \u201cOne must not kill five\nto save five hundred\u201d, therefore, cannot be considered generally valid\neither from the point of view of German or American law.\n\nOn the basis of the statements of the prosecution, I have not been able\nto see clearly whether that sentence had reference only to the\njustification of experiments on human beings or else to the killings\nwhich were carried out by Dr. Hoven or with his knowledge.\n\nThe justification of the killings is materially distinguished from that\nof the experiments. Those spies, stool-pigeons, and traitors, for whose\nkilling Dr. Hoven accepted responsibility when in the witness stand, had\nplanned to commit serious crimes against their fellow prisoners.\nTherefore, if the three prerequisites which I mentioned are given, we\nare concerned with cases of justifiable or excusable homicide.\n\nIn my closing brief, I elaborately explained that these conditions\nexisted in the case of all the killings for which Dr. Hoven accepted the\nresponsibility.\n\nThe defendant Dr. Hoven had the conviction and good faith that the spies\nand traitors, who were killed by him or with his knowledge, were about\nto commit serious crimes, resulting in the death of numerous inmates of\nthe Buchenwald concentration camp. During his examination on the witness\nstand, Dr. Hoven gave a thorough description of this.\n\nThe decision on these killings was not reached by Dr. Hoven alone. Dr.\nHoven had no cause for that. It was not his life that was endangered by\nthose spies or traitors. It was, on the contrary, the committee of\npolitical German and foreign prisoners, many of whom are today holding\nhigh office in their countries. Those persons guaranteed to Dr. Hoven\nthat only such individuals would be killed who already had been active\nand would continue to be active as spies and as traitors. These\nstatements by Dr. Hoven were expressly confirmed by a number of\nwitnesses who were heard on this subject. These observations may be\nfound in the affidavits I submitted. Above all it has been proven that\nonly such people of whom Dr. Hoven held that conviction were done away\nwith. Dr. Hoven testified to that effect and it has been reaffirmed by\nthe witnesses Dorn, Dr. Kogon, Seegers, and Hummel.\n\nIn his interrogation of 23 October 1946, Dr. Hoven stated expressly that\nhe killed or knew only of the killings of such persons of whom he was\ncertain that their deaths were necessary to save the lives of a\nmultitude of political prisoners from the various countries. At that\nearly date he expressly emphasized that he refused to carry out any of\nthe killing orders of the Camp Commander Koch; the prisoners who were\ncovered by these orders were put into the hospital or hidden in some\nother way by Dr. Hoven.\n\nDr. Hoven had not negligently adopted the conviction that their killing\nwas essential for the salvation of huge numbers of prisoners.\n\nThis is proved first of all by the testimony of the witness Dorn, who\ngave many details as to the means and methods employed by Dr. Hoven and\nthe illegal camp administration in becoming convinced of the necessity\nfor the killings. Dr. Hoven supplemented those statements. Furthermore,\nthey were corroborated by the testimony of the witnesses Hummell, Dr.\nKogon, Seegers, Philipp Dirk, Baron von Pallandt, and van Eerde through\ntheir affidavits.\n\nActually, the prevention of the planned crimes, i.e., the mass murder of\na multitude of German and foreign political prisoners, could be\naccomplished only through the killing of the spies and traitors. There\nwas no other means. What should Dr. Hoven have done to prevent the\ncrimes planned by the spies and traitors? Those spies collaborated with\nthe SS camp commanders to carry out Himmler\u2019s program to destroy the\npolitical prisoners. To whom should Dr. Hoven have turned? Perhaps to\nthe SS camp commanders who worked with the spies and traitors? Or\nperhaps to the Gestapo or to the police who worked under Himmler\u2019s\norders?\n\nThere was no other way but the one which Dr. Hoven chose in order to\nprevent crimes. I showed that with details in my closing brief. There I\nassembled the testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution and defense\nwho were heard on this point.\n\nHere, I merely wish to stress the following statements by witnesses:\n\nIn this courtroom, Dr. Kogon, a convinced Christian and a deeply\nreligious man, said: \u201cThere was really no other possibility for the men\nof the illegal camp administration. I, as a convinced Christian, do not\ndeny those men the right to have killed people in an emergency who in\ncollaboration with the SS endangered the lives of individuals or of\nmany.\u201d\n\nThe witness Pieck stated: \u201cIt may be that the liquidation of many\npolitical prisoners and of SS spies employed in the camp may make Dr.\nHoven a murderer in the eyes of many; yet, for me and others who\nunderstood the real situation he was a soldier fighting on our side and\nrisking a great deal.\u201d\n\nPieck expressed the same opinion also in a letter to the Dutch Ministry\nof Justice, a letter that was co-signed by the City Council of Amsterdam\nand Mr. Droering, head of a department of the State Institute for War\nDocumentation in The Hague.\n\nPieck is one of the few who is best equipped to answer these questions,\nfor he belonged to the committee of German and foreign political\nprisoners which formed itself at Buchenwald.\n\nFather Katjetan, presently Supreme Abbot of one of the largest religious\norders in Czechoslovakia, a former prisoner of the concentration camp\nBuchenwald, declared, in the presence of witness Dr. Horn, that those\nkillings were an inevitable necessity for the preservation of the\ninmates who had been abandoned by justice in the camp.\n\nEven the prosecution witness Roemhild had to admit on the stand that it\nwould have been impossible to save 20,000 prisoners if those spies or\ntraitors whom Dr. Hoven killed or of whose killing he knew had remained\nalive.\n\nLet me ask in this connection: What would have happened if a man of\nKushnir Kushnarev\u2019s caliber had not been killed, and if the murder of\nthe Russian prisoners of war in the Buchenwald camp had been continued?\nWould Dr. Hoven not stand before this Tribunal even then? Then, would\nnot the same charge be made against Dr. Hoven as the one levelled\nagainst the Japanese Governor of the Philippines who was tried before an\nAmerican Military Court for not having prevented atrocities and abuses?\n\n * * * * *\n\n d. Evidence\n\n _Testimony_\n Page\n Extract from the testimony of defendant Karl Brandt 29\n Extracts from the testimony of defense witness Dr. Friedrich 30\n Hielscher\n Extract from the testimony of prosecution expert witness Dr. 42\n Andrew C. Ivy\n\n EXTRACT FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT KARL BRANDT[6]\n\n_EXAMINATION_\n\n * * * * *\n\nJUDGE SEBRING: Witness, this question of the necessity for an\nexperiment, is it your view that it is for the state to determine the\nextreme necessity for such an experiment and that thereafter those who\nserve the state are to be bound by that procedure? I think you can\nanswer that \u201cyes\u201d or \u201cno\u201d.\n\nDEFENDANT KARL BRANDT: This trial shows that it will be the task of the\nstate under all circumstances basically to clarify this question for the\nfuture.\n\nQ. Witness, as I understood your statements a moment ago, they were that\nthe physician, having once become the soldier, thereafter must\nsubordinate such medical-ethical views as he may have when they are in\nconflict with a military order from higher authority, is that true?\n\nA. I didn\u2019t want to express it in that form. I did not mean to say that\nthe physician, the moment he becomes a medical officer, should change\nhis basic attitude as a physician. Such an order can in the very same\nway be addressed to a physician who is not a soldier. I was referring to\nthe entire situation as it prevailed with us in Germany during the time\nof an authoritarian leadership. This authoritarian leadership interfered\nwith the personality and the personal feelings of the human being. The\nmoment an individuality is absorbed into the concept of a collective\nbody, every demand which is put to that individuality has to be absorbed\ninto the concept of a collective system. Therefore, the demands of\nsociety are placed above every individual human being as an entity, and\nthis entity, the human being, is completely used in the interests of\nthat society.\n\nThe difficult thing, and something which is hard to understand\nbasically, is that during our entire period, and Dr. Leibbrandt referred\nto that, everything was done in the interests of humanity so that the\nindividual person had no meaning whatsoever, and the farther the war\nprogressed, the stronger did this principal thought appear. This was\ndesignated in the end as \u201ctotal war,\u201d and in accordance with that, the\nleaders of the state gave orders quite generally and demanded that\norders be carried out. It was very tragic for a number of persons, not\nonly within the framework of these experiments, but also in other\nsituations that they had to work under such orders. Without considering\nthe entire situation as it prevailed in Germany, one cannot understand\nthe question of these particular experiments at all.\n\n * * * * *\n\n EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENSE WITNESS\n DR. FRIEDRICH HIELSCHER[7]\n\n_DIRECT EXAMINATION_\n\nDR. WEISGERBER: Witness, your name is Friedrich Hielscher?\n\nWITNESS HIELSCHER: Friedrich Hielscher.\n\nQ. You were born on 31 May 1902 in Plauen, and you are now living in\nMarburg, that is right?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. What is your profession?\n\nA. I am a scholar.\n\nQ. And since when have you taken an active part in politics?\n\nA. Since 1927.\n\nQ. Did you belong to a definite political ideology?\n\nA. No. I had a group of students to whom I expounded my historical and\nphilosophical theories and ideas.\n\nQ. How did it happen that you became an opponent of the NSDAP so early?\n\nA. From the information available to me I knew the personal inferiority\nof the National Socialist leaders. I could observe that they were\nconstantly lying and that what they really wanted was undesirable.\n\nQ. Did you believe, as early as 1928, that the NSDAP would come to\npower?\n\nA. No, not in 1928. In 1930, after the first election battle at which\nthe Party was victorious, I considered it possible. In 1931 I considered\nit probable. In 1932 I felt that it was certain.\n\nQ. Did you join any definite political party with the intention of\ncombating the NSDAP?\n\nA. No. I considered it impossible for any of the 33 German parties, with\ntheir bureaucratic methods, to be able to prevent a fascist\ndictatorship, or if it had come into existence, to overthrow it.\n\nQ. What methods did you think were the right ones?\n\nA. The fascist dictatorship is a mass machine in a technical age.\nTherefore it seemed to us to be out of the question, when confronting\nsuch a mass body, to act openly. It seemed impossible to carry out\npropaganda publicly. We were convinced that the only thing possible was\nto form very small cadres which would not be recognizable to an outsider\nand which at the proper time could be employed for a coup d\u2019etat.\n\nQ. Then that was more or less the method of the Trojan Horse?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Were you, in your ideas and in your efforts to combat this movement\nalone or did you have associates?\n\nA. First, a selected group of my students were willing to collaborate in\nthis illegal work; second, I knew quite a number of personages of\nvarious political backgrounds with whom I agreed that this regime would\nnot last.\n\nQ. That was before 1933?\n\nA. That was around 1933\u20141932-33.\n\nQ. Now came the 30th of January 1933, the so-called seizure of power,\nand now your real work began. How and when did you apply your method of\nthe Trojan Horse?\n\nA. This group of my students, who were willing to collaborate, I made\ninto an illegal organization, with dues, secrecy, and other necessary\nconditions, and I appointed people who were willing and suitable to get\ninto important Party positions.\n\nQ. When and how did you meet the defendant Wolfram Sievers?\n\nA. As far as I can recall, I met Sievers about 1929, on one of my\nhistorical-philosophical lecture trips. He was a Boy Scout at that time.\nHe spoke up during the discussion and we took a liking to each other.\n\nQ. Did Sievers show at that time that he was opposed to the NSDAP?\n\nA. That was a matter of course with the people with whom I had anything\nto do at all.\n\nQ. And did you consider him suitable to work in your circle?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. In 1929 Sievers joined the NSDAP. Was that done with your knowledge?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Did you advise him to do so or how did it come about? There had to be\nsome special reason, since you were both opponents of this political\nparty.\n\nA. That was the first time, aside from 1923, when the NSDAP was talked\nabout, and it was useful to know what was going on in this growing\nmachine\u2014were there any people of good will within the machine, what\nwere the leaders doing, what plans were being made, what organization\nwas being set up.\n\nQ. Then first of all you wanted to find out what intentions the NSDAP\nhad?\n\nA. Yes, and specifically in the youth work, because that had to be the\nmost important in the long run.\n\nQ. Now, in 1931 Sievers resigned from the NSDAP again; did he do that\nwith your knowledge?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. On your orders?\n\nA. Yes, one might say that. We discussed it, and I considered it the\nthing to do.\n\nQ. Now, why should he suddenly leave the Party since he had been sent\ninto the Party with the definite purpose of getting information?\n\nA. He had found out what he was to find out, the nature and the make-up,\nespecially of the youth organization. It was just as inferior as we had\nthought, and even at that time it was so corrupt that without any\nfurther plan\u2014and we had no plan at the time\u2014without any further plan\nit was not necessary to have him continue.\n\nQ. Now, in the year 1933, Sievers, as the Tribunal has already been\ntold, again joined the NSDAP; was this also done on your behalf?\n\nA. Yes. At that time we were already a thoroughly organized\norganization. We were already asking for volunteers, who were willing\nand who were capable of working up in the sense of the Trojan Horse.\nSievers seemed suitable, and he was willing.\n\nQ. Were you able to get him any position within the Party?\n\nA. No. I was not able to help him to obtain any position, and in the\nsecond place I had no intention of telling the individual persons whom I\ntrusted, in detail, what they were to do.\n\nQ. Then it was up to the skill of the individual to get into a position\nfrom which he would be able to carry out the assignment which you gave\nhim?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. And how did Sievers obtain this position?\n\nA. He got into this with Hermann Wirth in the Ahnenerbe.\n\nQ. Who was Hermann Wirth?\n\nA. Hermann Wirth was a rather crazy student of pre-history, who had\nexcellent material and terrible concepts.\n\nQ. Was Wirth already in contact with the Ahnenerbe at that time?\n\nA. As far as I know he was one of the founders.\n\nQ. Then, as you say, Sievers got in contact with Wirth, and through\nWirth he got into the Ahnenerbe?\n\nA. Yes. He was there from 1935 on as Reich Business Manager.\n\nQ. Now, did you give Sievers any specific assignment in the spirit of\nyour movement?\n\nA. As soon as it was clear that there was a possibility of exploiting\nHimmler\u2019s racial romancing and half-education, the assignment developed\nto gain Himmler\u2019s confidence with the aid of the Ahnenerbe and to get as\nclose to him as possible. We, that is my group, were among the people\nwho very early recognized the special personal danger of Himmler, and in\nthe second place from the beginning we had been determined that one day\nwe would have to overthrow the Party regime by force, and for that\npurpose one has to get as close as possible to the most dangerous man.\n\nQ. And what were the duties which Sievers had this time? When he first\nbelonged to the NSDAP, you said he was to get information about the\nintentions of the youth movement of the NSDAP.\n\nA. This time, of course, he had to get as many details as he could from\nthe office of the Reich Leader SS, and transmit them to us. We had to\nprotect people. We had to build up camouflage positions. We had to help\nthe other people and in turn to remain unrecognized.\n\nQ. And how did Sievers carry out these duties?\n\nA. Well, it will be best if I begin with myself. I myself was known and\nconsidered undesirable by the Party leadership.\n\nQ. You mean the NSDAP?\n\nA. Well, yes, of course. The Party leaders knew me and considered me\nundesirable. I had already been under arrest and had had my house\nsearched. I was watched by the Gestapo, and in order to build up my\norganization I needed to be able to travel anywhere without arousing\nsuspicion. Consequently, Sievers gave me a fake research assignment,\nwhich was to study Indo-Germanic culture, customs of the annual\nfestivals.\n\nQ. Sievers said during direct examination that he himself could not\nissue any research assignments; you said that you received a fake\nresearch assignment from him; wasn\u2019t this research assignment actually\nissued by the curator, Professor Wuest?\n\nA. Yes. If things were going well, and Wuest was in a good mood, or had\nbeen drinking with Sievers, it was possible to persuade him to do\nsomething, and so he succeeded in persuading Wuest that I was efficient\nfor this research assignment, and so I was given this assignment. And\nwhat concerned Indo-Germanic customs could be found anywhere. I was\ngiven a false pass as a section chief, though I was not a section chief,\nand was not a member of the SS nor the Ahnenerbe.\n\nQ. And with this pass you were able easily to get visas to go abroad?\n\nA. Not necessarily. I needed a little more for that purpose, but it was\neasier.\n\nQ. Then the actual purpose of this fake research assignment was that\nyou, who were a suspect, might appear in a more harmless light and would\nbe able to move rather freely and without supervision?\n\nA. Yes.\n\n * * * * *\n\nQ. What did Sievers do in order to further the activities of your\norganization?\n\nA. For instance, he took care of supplying all information which was of\nimportance. He told us what troops of the Waffen SS were in Germany\nduring the war. He gave us fake official trips and he worked out a plan\nfor an assassination, which was to be carried through by our group in\ncase the generals\u2019 plan did not come off. We all thought it was not safe\nto rely on the generals. In March 1944, Werner Haften told me by order\nof Stauffenberg that one would have to take into account the fact that\nthe generals would have to be moved into action by a certain\nassassination and everyone was to make his own preparations, in case he\nhad any, in such a manner as if he was the only one active. That was the\nsituation in March 1944. We worked out a substantial plan to remove, if\npossible, Himmler and Hitler simultaneously, but in case of doubt\nHimmler himself. We were of a completely different opinion there than\nthe other groups.\n\nQ. What concrete preliminary work was done for the assassination in your\ngroup?\n\nA. Sievers was the only one in our group who came into question\nregarding that assassination because he was the only one so close to\nHimmler. He was therefore assigned this task and we worked out this\nmatter as far as the detailed plan was concerned; all that was necessary\nnow was to press the button.\n\nQ. And for what period of time was this assassination intended?\n\nA. We started our preparations in the year 1943, and we could have\nstarted at the earliest at the end of 1943. Then we finally thought of\nthe middle of 1944 because Schulenburg and Luening told me that the\ngenerals would be ready around that time.\n\nQ. Well, an assassination is a matter for quick decision. Is it not\ntrue, therefore, that all these long preparations that you are telling\nus about are rather surprising?\n\nA. The following would have to be taken into consideration: Around\nHimmler and Hitler there was a strong guard, a strong ring of guards,\nthrough which none could get unless he was carefully searched and\nchecked. Secondly, and that I already emphasized, one did not have to be\nquite sure that the generals would carry out that assassination, but one\nhad to be sure that a sufficient number of generals were ready to remove\nthe National Socialist system immediately after the assassination, for\nthe elimination of just these two people would have no political purpose\nwhatsoever. We did not intend to carry out a Putsch but we intended to\nremove a political system, a political order, and for that reason we had\nto wait until the situation became right and the generals were ready.\n\nQ. Now, the question crops up whether these plans for the assassination\nof Hitler and Himmler were only in your fantasy, or the fantasy of your\ncollaborators, or was there any real basis or concrete preparation for\nsuch assassination?\n\nA. I already said that the preparations had been worked out in the\ndetailed technical points insofar as the location, the shooting, etc.,\nwere concerned.\n\nQ. And who would have assassinated Himmler and Hitler?\n\nA. Sievers was to do that and a few young men belonging to my\norganization.\n\nQ. And why was it in effect not carried out?\n\nA. After the Stauffenberg assassination had failed, the Wehrmacht\ncircles that came into question were eliminated by Himmler and therefore\nit was no longer possible to remove that system. The only consequence of\nany attempted assassination would have been\u2014since the foreign political\nsituation would not have changed\u2014that the people would have said again,\n\u201cThis is the stab in the back for the victorious front line.\u201d\n\nQ. What did Sievers do to further your activity in addition to what you\nhave already said?\n\nA. He, for instance, supported my representative, Arnold Deutelmoser,\nwhen he was put on the list of those who were to be removed under the\npretext of the assassination which took place in Munich at the\nBuergerbraeu. He also protected Bomas who was working in the\nNetherlands. He protected Dr. Schuettelkopf whom we had sent into the\nRSHA and it was possible for him in turn to send me to Sweden. He saved\nNiels Bor, Professor Seyb of Oslo University, and he saved a number of\nNorwegian students, etc.\n\nQ. Do you know that Sievers informed you about Himmler\u2019s double play in\nthe case of the minister Popitz, and that as a consequence he saved that\nentire group against measures by Himmler?\n\nA. Yes. The following thing happened. One day Sievers approached me and\nsaid that he had just heard Himmler ridicule in a close circle an\nattempt on the part of Popitz. He said that Minister Popitz with the\nmediation of the lawyer Lampe had approached Himmler and tried to\npersuade him to bring about a change of the National Socialist system,\nperhaps by removing Hitler. He said Himmler thought it was very funny\nthat these men had so little sense as to think of him in that\nconnection. Thank God one could enter negotiations with them because\ncertainly nobody in the country was behind these people, but it did seem\nthat these gentlemen had many foreign political relationships and it\nwould be advisable to find out what in effect was behind it all and to\nenter into negotiations with them. We were quite surprised about the\nnaive attitude shown by Himmler, and I sent Deutelmoser to Reichwein\nwhom I knew had connections with Popitz. In that way Popitz was warned.\nReichwein was so surprised and hardly wanted to believe the situation.\n\nI was asked to participate in a conference, and Reichwein after having\nconvinced himself that all of this was true promised to warn all of the\ngentlemen concerned in Berlin and then asked Deutelmoser, who was to go\nto Norway shortly thereafter to notify Reichwein\u2019s friend, Stelzer, the\npresent Minister President of Schleswig-Holstein, in order to see that\nhe, too, took the necessary precautionary measures. In this way we hoped\nthat a number of these people had actually been saved. Popitz, however,\nhimself was careless and was captured.\n\nQ. This conspiracy could not have been carried out unless you had the\nnecessary financial means at your disposal. How did you get these means?\n\nA. Everyone of our people, be it man or woman, had agreed to give up ten\npercent of their monthly income for that illegal work. Many gave a\nsubstantially larger sum.\n\nQ. How about Sievers?\n\nA. Sievers gave more than he had to.\n\nQ. Do you know the case of the three hundred Norwegian students who on\nthe basis of Sievers\u2019 intervention were released from the concentration\ncamp Buchenwald?\n\nA. Yes. Terboven, or some other official in Norway, disliked some\ndemonstration which occurred there, and as a result arrested three\nhundred students. Through some dark channels they were brought into the\nconcentration camp at Buchenwald. Sievers found out about that, and if I\nremember correctly, he was in a position to see to it that these\nstudents were released from the concentration camp, making use of\nHimmler\u2019s Nordic ideas to this end.\n\nQ. In that case you think that Sievers\u2019 activity was substantially\nimportant for your resistance movement?\n\nA. Yes. That was true of my organization, for he protected and covered\nme as its chief, and, secondly, as far as I know, he was the only man\nbelonging to any resistance movement who was as close as he to the Reich\nLeader SS. If any other group had brought any such information as he\ndid, I would have noticed that it could have only come from the same\nsource.\n\nQ. Witness, I shall have a document handed to you which was submitted by\nthe prosecution. This is Document NO-975, Prosecution Exhibit 479. It is\na letter sent by Sievers to Dr. Hirt. Would you please look at that\nletter?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. This letter contains a tone of voice which seems to indicate that he\ntried to cover Dr. Hirt\u2019s activity. Dr. Hirt was working in the\nAnatomical Institute of the Strasbourg University. I assume, for reasons\nwhich we shall mention later, that you know Hirt\u2019s name. How do you\nexplain that tone in this letter?\n\nA. I think that this is very proper and praiseworthy. I would have\nthought it very foolish of Sievers if he adopted any other tone in any\nof his official correspondence. It was his task to say \u201cyes\u201d but act in\na negative way. There couldn\u2019t have appeared any pretense of any\ndisapproval on his part. The more active one had to be in an\nanti-National Socialist way, the more one had to speak in favor of\nNational Socialism.\n\nQ. I shall now turn to another complex of questions. Sievers is indicted\nin this trial as having participated in a number of crimes. Did Sievers\nat any time tell you about the so-called research assignments of Dr.\nRascher and Dr. Hirt who was just mentioned? These were experiments\ncarried out in the concentration camps.\n\nA. Sievers, as far as I remember, came to me in the year 1942 and told\nme very excitedly that Himmler in his desire to extend the Ahnenerbe\nSociety had embarked on the thought of including experiments on human\nbeings in the work of the Ahnenerbe Society. He said that he did not\nsucceed in frustrating that. He said that he had no desire whatsoever to\nparticipate in these horrible acts and asked me what to do. At that time\nwe considered this horrible situation very thoroughly and thought of\nwhat we could do. It was quite clear to us what the SS intended here,\nand it was questionable whether responsibility could be assumed for any\nsuch acts, whether it would be advisable to be the instrument of Himmler\nif he embarked on any such acts, measures where human beings were\ndegraded to the level of insects.\n\nThe following considerations proved to be decisive for us: If Sievers\nleft, not one person, not one subject in these experiments would be\nsaved. If Sievers stayed there as a technical secretary, he could throw\nsand into that machinery and would, perhaps, be in a position to save\nsomebody. In addition, the entire plan and the entire overthrow of the\nParty stood or fell with Sievers staying at his post. The experiments on\nhuman beings were only part of this horrible Party system, and one had\nto concentrate on the decisive points in order finally to remove\neverything, and, as I have said before, there was no other way into the\nstaff of the Reich Leader SS. We therefore concluded that if Sievers\nresigned because of that, it was sure that he would be eliminated and\nprobably all the people he had ever entrusted with a research\nassignment, and everything that we had done so far would be lost if he\nleft, and if anyone was to be saved at all, he could only be saved by\nSievers remaining at his post.\n\nQ. If I have understood you correctly, Sievers at first wanted to resign\nfrom his position as Reich Business Manager of the Ahnenerbe?\n\nA. Yes. That is correct.\n\nQ. Did Sievers approve of these arguments which you and your friends put\nforward in favor of his staying with the Reich Leader SS as the Reich\nBusiness Manager of the Ahnenerbe? Did he do it immediately or only\nafter trying to persuade him for some time?\n\nA. This took a number of days, because Sievers, according to his nature,\nwas softer than many of us and did not want to agree with us. We finally\nhad to appeal to his sense of duty and persuade him that he had to do it\nand that it was the only way.\n\nQ. Among other matters, it was considered that by Sievers remaining at\nhis post, there would be a possibility of mitigating these horrible\nexperiments?\n\nA. The chance wasn\u2019t very great but we were convinced that this would be\nthe only way possible, if at all. Then it could only be done in that\nmanner. If I may say so, this was such a horrible situation that we\nalways had to come back to it and we were very lucky at least to have\nthe hope of saving a number of people. Other opponents of the SS system\nhave told me about similar dilemmas which were just as difficult, and\nwhere the alternative was yet more horrible, and where persons,\naccording to my belief and knowledge, acted correctly. If the Tribunal\nwould permit me I could relate a few almost incredible situations which\nwere even worse.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: In what connection are these narrations, Witness?\n\nWITNESS HIELSCHER: In connection with the question as to whether it was\nmorally justifiable to enable Sievers to remain at his post.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Such matters as that would not be material in\nthis inquiry.\n\n * * * * *\n\n_CROSS-EXAMINATION_\n\n * * * * *\n\nMR. HARDY: Now, what did Sievers ever tell you about the Sievers-Hirt\nskeleton collection? Did he ever tell you about that?\n\nWITNESS HIELSCHER: Yes. He told me that Himmler had ordered\u2014as far as I\nknow, it was in connection with Jewish commissars who were under this\nterrible execution order which was valid in the East\u2014that some of them\nwere to be selected and used for the skeleton collection. The order was\nfrom Himmler, as Sievers reported to me.\n\nQ. And did you know what they were going to do with these people?\n\nA. Yes. It was the same as in the experiments. There a danger of death\nwas a possibility; here it was certain.\n\nQ. You knew, of course, that they were going to stand these people up,\npick them out, select them according to size, take their anatomical\nmeasurements, then ship them to Natzweiler and at Natzweiler kill them,\nthen deflesh them, then send the skeletons to the Strasbourg University\nfor collection? And you knew that?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. A fine thing for a resistance man to be involved in, isn\u2019t it?\n\nA. The situation, as I have said repeatedly, was as follows: We made no\ndistinction in the real evaluation of the skeleton collection and other\nexperiments in which there was this so-called \u201cvolunteering\u201d and in\nwhich the result was the same\u2014in our eyes, they were the same thing. I\nshould like to emphasize one more thing. Does one have the moral right\nto tolerate a lesser evil in order to prevent a greater evil?\n\nQ. Just a moment. Now in connection with the skeleton collection, do you\nfurther know that they dispensed with the idea of taking Jewish\ncommissars but selected Jewish inmates of concentration camps?\n\nA. Yes. What particular persons were selected I do not know, of course,\nbut I knew that a number of Jews were to be gassed and were selected for\nthis anthropological collection. That was the same case as in the Ghetto\nof Lodz. The Jewish commander of the Ghetto\u2014that was Lieutenant\nRosenblatt\u2014after he had gained confidence in me because I had gone in\nwith a false pass, said personally to me: \u201cI was picked out by the SS.\nWhen a new group of Jews comes into this Ghetto of Lodz and crowds the\nGhetto, I have to select exactly the same number of Jews and I know that\nthey will be gassed. That is, I was selected by the SS to determine who\nis to be gassed. Now, I ask you in the name of God, Mr. Hielscher, you\nare a Christian, what am I to do? I had nothing to do with that. I have\nasked the Rabbis. I have asked the old people themselves, and we have\ncome to the conclusion that I must stay in this office. At least I can\ndetermine the persons\u2014I can at least select the oldest people who can\u2019t\nstand life in a ghetto and perhaps, in this way, perhaps I will be able\nto save the life of one person. These two old people that I am telling\nyou about were about seventy years old. There were five Christians among\nthe Jews. At least I was able to see that these two old people were\ngassed together. They asked me to tell their daughter that we were able\nto achieve at least that. Tell me, did I do right or not?\u201d That is still\nmore horrible because the man could not even reduce the number. I was\nashamed that the people who were in charge of this camp were called\nGermans. But I said: \u201cYou have acted right and you are justified in the\neyes of God.\u201d\n\nQ. Now, Dr. Hielscher, I assume that the defense counsel has shown you\nall the documents concerning the skeleton collection. Is that right?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. There won\u2019t be any need for me to go over them. You have stated in\nconnection with the one document that was presented to you today on the\nstand that this was a very praiseworthy act on the part of Sievers in a\nnegative way. Since you are familiar with all the skeleton collection\ndocuments\u2014I had intended to go into each one but I will just go into\nthat one. That is Document NO-088, Prosecution Exhibit 182. This is a\ndocument which was written by Sievers. You will see that his signature\nappears thereon. Do you recognize the signature at the bottom of the\nletter?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Well, Sievers here is proposing a way in which they can destroy the\nskeleton collection so that it will not be known to any one\u2014that is, to\nthe Allies when they overrun Strasbourg. And you will notice, two-thirds\nof the way through, the one paragraph that states: \u201cThe viscera could be\ndeclared as remnants of corpses apparently left in the anatomical\ninstitute by the French.\u201d You see that?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. \u201cIn order to be cremated.\u201d Now this is an idea of one Wolfram\nSievers, wherein he is suggesting that these, or the results of these\ncriminal activities be left so that they may, by the Allies, be blamed\non to the French, and bearing in mind, of course that the French, as\nwell as the United States, Great Britain, and other Allies were equally\nas interested as the resistance movements in defeating the Nazi regime,\nwere they not?\n\nA. I have already said that it was Sievers\u2019 duty to say \u201cyes\u201d and to act\nnegatively, but, of course, I did not praise this action, but I praised\nthe vocabulary, the formulation. He spoke like a Nazi. The concrete\nquestion in such a case was simply as follows: Can anyone be saved here\nor not? If no one can be saved, what can I do to keep up the appearance\nof a Nazi since I know that Obersturmbannfuehrer Neuhaus suspects that I\nhave some contact with the resistance movement? Sievers, since the 20th\nof July, or rather since my arrest, was constantly seeing to it that his\nactions looked like Nazi actions, insofar as no one was actually killed;\nthat was part of his duty, part of the mask without which the\norganization could not operate.\n\nQ. Yes. But from this letter does it not suggest that he was willing to\nallow an innocent Frenchman to answer for the crimes which flowed out of\nthis skeleton collection activity?\n\nA. If you show me\u2014\n\nQ. I have asked you\u2014does it not appear from this letter, this letter\nsigned by Sievers, that he was willing to allow a Frenchman to suffer\nfor the crimes committed during the course of the collection of these\nskeletons?\n\nA. Yes. The letter quite deliberately, I believe, creates this\nimpression. That was the purpose of it, like all such letters.\n\n * * * * *\n\n EXTRACT FROM THE TESTIMONY OF PROSECUTION EXPERT WITNESS\n DR. ANDREW C. IVY[8]\n\n_CROSS-EXAMINATION_\n\n * * * * *\n\nDR. SERVATIUS: Witness, take the following case. You are in a city in\nwhich the plague is raging. You, as a doctor, have a drug that you could\nuse to combat the plague. However, you must test it on somebody. The\ncommander, or let us say the mayor of the city, comes to you and says,\n\u201cHere is a criminal condemned to death. Save us by carrying out the\nexperiment on this man.\u201d Would you refuse to do so, or would you do it?\n\nWITNESS DR. IVY: I would refuse to do so, because I do not believe that\nduress of that sort warrants the breaking of ethical and moral\nprinciples. That is why the Hague Convention and Geneva Convention were\nformulated, to make war, a barbaric enterprise, a little more humane.\n\nQ. Do you believe that the population of a city would have any\nunderstanding for your action?\n\nA. They have understanding for the importance of the maintenance of the\nprinciples of medical ethics which apply over a long period of years,\nrather than a short period of years. Physicians and medical scientists\nshould do nothing with the idea of temporarily doing good which, when\ncarried out repeatedly over a period of time, would debase and\njeopardize a method for doing good. If a medical scientist breaks the\ncode of medical ethics and says, \u201cKill the person,\u201d in order to do what\nhe thinks may be good, in the course of time that will grow and will\ncause a loss of faith of the public in the medical profession, and hence\ndestroy the capacity of the medical profession to do its good for\nsociety. The reason that we must be very careful in the use of human\nbeings as subjects in medical experiments is in order not to debase and\njeopardize this method for doing great good by causing the public to\nreact against it.\n\nQ. Witness, do you not believe that your ideal attitude here is more or\nless that of a single person standing against the body of public\nopinion?\n\nA. No I do not. That is why I read out the principles of medical ethics\nyesterday, and that is why the American Medical Association has agreed\nessentially to those principles. That is why the principles, the ethical\nprinciples for the use of human beings in medical experiments, have been\nquite uniform throughout the world in the past.\n\nQ. Then you do not believe that the urgency, the necessity of this city\nwould make a revision of this attitude necessary?\n\nA. No, not if they were in danger of killing people in the course of\ntesting out the new drug or remedy. There is no justification in killing\nfive people in order to save the lives of five hundred.\n\nQ. Then you are of the opinion that the life of the one prisoner must be\npreserved even if the whole city perishes?\n\nA. In order to maintain intact the method of doing good, yes.\n\nQ. From the point of view of the politician, do you consider it good if\nhe allows the city to perish in the interests of preserving this\nprinciple and preserving the life of the one prisoner?\n\nA. The politician, unless he knows medicine and medical ethics, has no\nreason to make a decision on that point.\n\nQ. But as a politician he must make a decision about what is to happen.\nShall he coerce the doctor to carry out the experiment, or shall he\nprotect the doctor from the rage of the multitude?\n\nA. You can\u2019t answer that question. I should say this, that there is no\nstate of no politician under the sun that could force me to perform a\nmedical experiment which I thought was morally unjustified.\n\nQ. You then, despite the order, would not carry out the order, and would\nprefer to be executed as a martyr?\n\nA. That is correct, and I know there are thousands of people in the\nUnited States who would have to do likewise.\n\nQ. And do you not also believe that in thousands of cities the\npopulation would kill the doctor who found himself in that position?\n\nA. I do not believe so because they would not know. How would they know\nwhether the doctor had a drug that would or would not relieve? The\ndoctor would not know himself, because he would have to experiment\nfirst.\n\nQ. Witness, I put a hypothetical case to you. If we are to turn to\nreality other questions would arise. I simply want to hear now your\ngeneral attitude to this problem. You are then of the opinion that a\ndoctor should not carry out the order. Are you also of the opinion that\nthe politician should not give such an order?\n\nA. Yes. I believe he should not give such an order.\n\nQ. Is this not a purely political decision which must be left at the\ndiscretion of the political leader?\n\nA. Not necessarily. He should seek the best advice that he can obtain.\n\nQ. If he is informed that this one experiment on this one prisoner would\nsave the whole city, he may give the order despite the fact that the\ndoctor does not wish to carry it out, is that what you think?\n\nA. He could then give the order, but if the doctor still believed that\nit was contrary to his moral responsibilities, then the doctor should\nnot carry out the order.\n\nQ. That is another question, whether or not he carries it out, but in\nsuch cases you consider it is permissible to give that order, is that\nwhat I understood you to say?\n\nA. After he has obtained the best advice on the subject which he can\nobtain.\n\nQ. Then he can give the order. Yes or no?\n\nA. Yes.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n G. Subjection to Medical Experimentation as Substitute\n for Penalties\n\n a. Introduction\n\nSeveral of the defendants argued that medical experiments, alleged as\ncriminal, upon concentration camp inmates were justified because they\nwere a substitute for penalty or punishment previously imposed on the\nexperimental subjects. Counsel for the defendant Gebhardt argued that\nthe experimentation amounted to a complete pardon as sentences of death\nhad been imposed and hence that the experimentation, not always deadly,\nsaved human lives. The prosecution\u2019s argument on this point is\nillustrated by an extract from the closing statement, set forth on pages\n44 to 49. On this general question, selections have been taken from the\nclosing brief for the defendant Karl Brandt and from the final plea of\nthe defendant Gebhardt. These appear below on pages 49 to 56. The\nfollowing selections from the evidence appear in pages 56 to 61: extract\nfrom the direct examination of the defendant Mrugowsky;\ncross-examination of the prosecution\u2019s expert witness, Dr. Andrew C.\nIvy.\n\n b. Selection from the Argumentation of the Prosecution\n\n _EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING STATEMENT OF THE\n PROSECUTION_[9]\n\n * * * * *\n\nAnother of the rather common defenses urged by the defendants is that\nthe experimental subjects were criminals condemned to death who,\nprovided they survived the experiment, were rewarded by commutation of\ntheir sentence to life imprisonment in a concentration camp. For one who\nhas even the slightest knowledge of the conditions in concentration\ncamps and the life expectancy of an average inmate, this alleged defense\nassumes the aspect of a ghastly joke. We need only recall the remark\nmade by one of the women used by Rascher to reward his frozen victims in\nDachau, who when asked by him why she had volunteered for the camp\nbrothel, replied: \u201crather half a year in a brothel than half a year in a\nconcentration camp.\u201d But the defects in this spurious defense run much\ndeeper. Concentration camps were not ordinary penal institutions, such\nas are known in other countries, for the commitment of persons convicted\nof crimes by courts. The very purpose of concentration camps was the\noppression and persecution of persons who were considered undesirable by\nthe Nazi regime on racial, political, and religious grounds. Hundreds of\nthousands of victims were confined to concentration camps because they\nwere simply Jews, Slavs, or gypsies, Free Masons, Social Democrats, or\nCommunists. They were not tried for any offense and sentenced by a\ncourt, not even a Nazi court. They were imprisoned on the basis of\n\u201cprotective custody orders\u201d issued by the RSHA. Tens of thousands were\ncondemned to death on the single order of Himmler, who, as Gebhardt put\nit so well, \u201chad the power to execute thousands of people by a stroke of\nhis pen.\u201d (_Tr. p. 4025._) There were, indeed, a relatively small group\nof inmates who might be classed as ordinary criminals. These were men\nwho had served out their sentences in an ordinary prison and then were\ncommitted to concentration camps for still further detention. A\nmemorandum of 18 September 1942 by Thierack, the Minister of Justice,\nconcerning a conversation with Himmler, tells us the fate of those\nunfortunates:\n\n \u201cThe delivery of anti-social elements from the execution of\n their sentence to the Reich Leader SS to be worked to death.\n Persons under protective arrest, Jews, gypsies, Russians and\n Ukrainians, Poles with more than 3-year sentences, Czechs and\n Germans with more than 8-year sentences, according to the\n decision of the Reich Minister for Justice.\u201d (_654-PS, Pros. Ex.\n 562._)\n\nThe proof in this case has demonstrated beyond all doubt that so-called\ncriminals sentenced to death were very rarely used in any of the\nexperiments. True it is that Himmler said prisoners condemned to death\nshould be used in those high-altitude experiments where the\nlong-continued activity of the heart after death was observed by the\nexperimenters. He was generous enough to say that if such persons could\nbe brought back to life, then they were to be \u201cpardoned\u201d to\nconcentration camp for life. But even this unique amnesty had no\napplication to Russians and Poles, who were used exclusively in those\nexperiments.\n\nBut, assuming for the moment, that this alleged defense might have a\nmitigating effect under some circumstances, it certainly has no\napplication to this case. Be it noted that this is an affirmative\ndefense by way of avoidance or mitigation. There has been no proof\nwhatever that criminals sentenced to death by an ordinary court could\npossibly be executed in a concentration camp. Such matters were within\nthe jurisdiction of the Ministry of Justice, not Himmler and the SS. The\nexperimental subjects we are dealing with are those that Himmler could\ncondemn by a \u201cstroke of his pen.\u201d If the inmate used in the experiments\nwas condemned for merely being a Jew, Pole, or Russian, or, for example,\nhaving had sexual intercourse with a Jew, it does not answer the\ncriminal charge to say that the victim was doomed to die.\nExperimentation on such a person is to compound the crime of his initial\nunlawful detention as well as to commit the additional crime of murder\nor torture. As has been said by another tribunal, \u201cExculpation from the\ncharge of criminal homicide can possibly be based only upon bona fide\nproof that the subject had committed murder or any other legally\nrecognized capital offense; and, not even then, unless the sentencing\ntribunal with authority granted by the state in the constitution of the\ncourt declared that the execution would be accomplished by means of a\nlow-pressure chamber.\u201d[10]\n\nIn this connection, it might be noted that German law recognized only\nthree methods of execution, namely, by decapitation, hanging, and\nshooting. (_German Penal Code, Part I, Section 13; Reichsgesetzblatt\n[Reich Law Gazette], 1933, Part I, p. 151_; _Reichsgesetzblatt 1939,\nPart I, p. 1457_.) Moreover, there is no proof that any of the\nexperimental subjects had their death sentence commuted to any lesser\ndegree of punishment. Indeed, in the sulfanilamide crimes it was the\nexperiment _plus_ later execution for at least six of the subjects.\n\nSince the defendants Gebhardt, Fischer, and Oberheuser have put\nparticular stress on this alleged defense, I should like to make a few\nremarks in that connection, but it should be remembered that they apply\nwith equal force to most of the other defendants. Gebhardt, speaking for\nhis co-defendants Fischer and Oberheuser, took the position that the\nPolish women who had been used in the sulfanilamide experiments had been\ncondemned to death for participation in a resistance movement and that\nby undergoing the experiments voluntarily or otherwise, they were to\nhave their death sentences commuted to some lesser degree of punishment,\nprovided they survived the experiments. This was no bargain reached with\nthe experimental subjects; their wishes were not consulted in the\nmatter. It was, according to Gebhardt, left to the good faith of someone\nunnamed to see to it that the death sentences were not carried out on\nthe survivors of the experiments. Certainly Gebhardt, Fischer, and\nOberheuser assumed no responsibility or even interest in that regard.\n\nIt should be pointed out that the proof shows that the experimental\nsubjects who testified before this Tribunal were never so much as\nafforded trial; they had no opportunity to defend themselves against\nwhatever crimes they were said to have committed. They were simply\narrested and interrogated by the Gestapo in Poland and sent to the\nconcentration camp. They had never so much as been informed that they\nhad been _marked for_, not sentenced to, death. Article 30 of the\nRegulations Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, annexed to\nthe Hague Convention, specifically provides that even a spy \u201cshall not\nbe punished without previous trial\u201d.\n\nGebhardt would have the Tribunal believe that _but for_ the experiments\nall these Polish girls would be dead; that he preserved the evidence\nwhich was used against him. Nothing could be further from the truth.\nThere is no proof in the record that these women would have been\nexecuted if they had not undergone the experiments. The witness Maczka\nis living proof of the contrary. She was arrested for resistance\nactivities on 11 September 1941 and shipped to Ravensbrueck on 13\nSeptember. She was not an experimental subject yet she lives today.\nSubstantially all of the Polish experimental subjects arrived in\nRavensbrueck in September 1941. These girls had not been executed by\nAugust 1942 when the experiments began. There were some 700 Polish girls\nin that transport. There is no evidence that a substantial number were\never executed even though most of them were not experimented on.\n\nThe proof submitted by the prosecution has shown beyond controversy that\nthese Polish women _could not have been legally executed_. The right to\ngrant pardons in cases of death sentences was exclusively vested in\nHitler by a decree of 1 February 1935. On 2 May 1935, Hitler delegated\nthe right to make negative decisions on pardon applications to the Reich\nMinister of Justice. On 30 January 1940, Hitler delegated to the\nGovernor General for the occupied Polish territories the authority to\ngrant and deny pardons for the occupied Polish territories. By edict\ndated 8 March 1940, the Governor General of occupied Poland ordered\nthat\u2014\n\n \u201cThe execution of a death sentence promulgated by a regular\n court, a special court, or a police court martial, shall take\n place only when my decision has been issued not to make use of\n my right to pardon.\u201d (_NO-3073, Pros. Ex. 534._)\n\nThus, even though we assume _arguendo_, that the experimental subjects\nhad all committed substantial crimes, that they were all properly tried\nby a duly constituted court of law, and that they were legally sentenced\nto death, it is still clear from these decrees that these women could\nnot have been legally executed until such time as the Governor General\nof occupied Poland had decided in each case not to make use of his\npardon right. There has been no proof that the Governor General ever\nacted with respect to pardoning the Polish women used in the\nexperiments, or, for that matter, any substantial number of those not\nused in the experiments. The only reason these 700 Polish women were\ntransported from Warsaw and Lublin to Ravensbrueck, in the first place,\nwas because the Governor General had not approved their execution.\nOtherwise they would have been immediately executed in Poland. At the\nvery least, these women were entitled to remain unmolested so long as\nthe Governor General took no action. He may never have acted or, when he\ndid, he may have acted favorably on the pardon. Who is to say that the\nmajority of these 700 women did not live through the war even though\nthey did not undergo the experiments? Certainly it was incumbent on the\ndefense to prove the contrary by a preponderance of the evidence. This\nit did not do by any evidence.\n\nThe defendants Gebhardt, Fischer, and Oberheuser certainly cannot claim\nthat they believed in good faith that the Polish women could have been\nlegally executed. Even the camp doctor, Schiedlausky, knew that the\nGovernor General had to approve each execution. Moreover, the large\nnumber of 700 women being sentenced to death at this early stage of the\nwar was enough to put any reasonable person on notice that something was\nwrong.\n\nAdditionally, the uncontroverted evidence proves that survival of the\nexperiments was no guarantee whatever of avoiding execution in any\nevent. At least six of the experimental subjects were proved to have\nbeen executed after having survived the experiments. It was not a\nquestion of the experiment _or_ execution but rather the experiments\n_and_ execution. Indeed, in February 1945, an effort was made to execute\nall of the experimental subjects but, because of confusion in the camp\ndue to the war situation, the experimental subjects were able to obtain\ndifferent identification numbers and so avoid detection.\n\nBut even if one takes the case of the defense at its face value, the\nTribunal is in effect asked to rule that it is legal for military\ndoctors of a nation at war to experiment on political prisoners of an\noccupied country who are condemned to death, to experiment on them in\nsuch a way that they may suffer death, excrutiating pain, mutilation,\nand permanent disability, all this without their consent and in direct\naid of the military potential of their enemy. There would, of course, be\nno valid reason for limiting such a decision to civilian prisoners; the\nexperiments would certainly have been no worse had they been performed\non Polish or American prisoners of war. It is impossible to consider\nseriously this ghoulish ruling being sought for by the defense.\n\n c. Selections from the Argumentation of the Defense\n\n _EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF FOR DEFENDANT\n KARL BRANDT_\n\n * * * * *\n\n _The Medical Experiments as Substitute for Penalty_[11]\n\nThe indictment embraces certain medical experiments, which are called\nwar crimes and crimes against humanity. According to paragraphs 10 and\n15 of the indictment, these experiments are designated as crimes, as a\nviolation of the general principles of criminal law as evolved from the\npenal law of all civilized nations, as well as violations of the\nnational penal laws of the countries in which such crimes were\ncommitted. An indication of their punishable character was seen in the\nfact that the experiments were carried out _without the consent of the\npersons experimented upon_.\n\nWe must examine whether this _consent_ of the person subjected to\nexperiments is always necessary or whether it can be replaced _by an\norder of the state_ through the penal administration, and further, if\nthe same law applies to the execution of sentences on foreigners. If\nconsent to the human experiment by the person experimented on can be\nreplaced by an order of the state, then the person responsible for the\nexperiment cannot be punished in cases where the experiments were\ncarried out through the _official penal administration in accordance\nwith the order_.\n\nNo _legal regulations_ regarding the question of admissibility of\nmedical experiments in civilized countries are _known_. However, it is a\nfact that such experiments have been carried out to a greater or lesser\nextent within the memory of man in all countries and up till now have\nremained unopposed. But with the development of medical knowledge and\nmodern methods of research, experiments on human beings have increased\nconsiderably. Today, when research, to solve its problems and meet its\nchallenges, has advanced into the most widely differentiated spheres,\nthey are considered absolutely necessary. Accordingly, human experiments\nwill continue to increase with the progress of science and the _problem_\nthat this trial has raised will always be _urgent_.\n\nMoreover, reference is made to the opinion of the Washington anatomist,\nE. V. Cowdry, on the necessity of human experiments in cancer research\n(_Karl Brandt 50, Karl Brandt Ex. 56_), and the order for human\nexperiments on the part of the British Military Government for Professor\nMcCance in Wuppertal. The knowledge of such experiments on human beings\nwas, as literature shows, at first limited to medical specialist circles\nand the official authorities concerned. Only in recent times has _the\npublic_ been cautiously informed. (_Becker-Freyseng 60, Becker-Freyseng\nEx. 58._) Complete instruction of the public is only necessary so that,\nin case of an eventual discussion, sound judgment of the actions of the\nresearcher may be possible.\n\nReference is also made to the remarkable publication on the malaria\nexperiment on 800 prisoners in the United States, published in the\nwidely circulated periodical \u201cLife\u201d (_Karl Brandt 1, Karl Brandt Ex.\n1_). The number of the imprisoned persons to be experimented upon was\neven more than 2,000, according to the radio account submitted.\n\nRepeated reports on such experiments have so far been _received without\nopposition_ by specialist circles, the authorities, and also the general\npublic. From that can be gathered what in principle is considered\npermissible and right by competent authorities and the public. The\nexperiments actually carried out are a mirror of the existing laws and\none can by way of _legal sociological investigation find the norms of\nlaw_ that have validity. This is done where the law is not codified. In\nthe same manner, the International Military Tribunal has derived the\nexisting international law on the basis of its phenomena and the same\nprocedure leads to the determination of the common law. Inasmuch as\npositive regulations exist in the United States which are contradictory\nto the law derived from the phenomena, these legal regulations must be\nproduced or else the _conclusions_ that can be drawn from the\nexperiments must be regarded _in favor of the defendant_ as valid law\nand an expression of fundamental principles of punishment.\n\nThe defense has in the present situation only very limited literature at\nits disposal for the comprehension and explanation of these legally\nimportant facts of the case. However, the little that is available is\nalready so revealing that one must come to the conclusion that medical\nexperiments on human beings are not only admissible on principle, but in\naddition, that it also does _not_ violate _the basic principles of\ncriminal law_ of civilized nations to carry out _experiments on\nconvicts_.\n\nThe _question_ today is not whether experiments on human beings may be\ncarried out but only under what circumstances and _how_ these\nexperiments may be undertaken. Moreover, the prosecution itself has\ndeclared that human experiments are admissible on principle.\n\nIt is not intended here to go into the experiments which were made on\nthe healthy and the sick and _corpus vile_ at the _time_ when modern\nresearch was in _its infancy_ and without participation of government\nauthorities. Insight into those times can be obtained from the book by\nthe Russian physician _Wressajew_ \u201cConfession of a Physician\u201d (_Karl\nBrandt 48, Karl Brandt Ex. 55_), published about 1900. The book reveals\nsome of the experiments that were then known to medical experts and it\nfollows that the governments did not interfere but in the interest of\nmedical progress permitted such experiments without trying to protect\nthe individual as the person experimented upon. The states then either\n_considered_ such experiments _compatible with criminal law_, or they\nacquiesced in the camouflaging of the \u201cvoluntariness\u201d of the person\nexperimented upon which was customary in consideration of the law. No\ngovernmental intervention as the result of such medical experiments is\nknown.\n\nWith the development of health administrations, _governmental\nsupervision_ has been increasingly instituted in all countries and one\ncan consider all that was admitted in medical experiments with the\nconsent of the administration and without opposition as the _sediment of\nthe existing law_. This is true particularly of recent times where\ngovernmental direction is on the increase.\n\nParticular attention must be given here to the experiments in state\ninstitutes on convicts and those sentenced to death.\n\n * * * * *\n\n _EXTRACTS FROM THE FINAL PLEA FOR\n DEFENDANT GEBHARDT_[12]\n\n * * * * *\n\n _The Agreement by the Experimental Persons as Legal Justification_\n\nI shall now deal with the individual reasons for the exclusion of\ninjustice and guilt, which according to the result of the evidence\npreclude the culpability of the defendant\u2019s behavior. I am hereby taking\ninto consideration that the assumption of only one of the reasons for\nthe exclusion of punishment which we shall now deal with suffices to\njustify the defendant\u2019s behavior and to exonerate him of the offense in\nthe sense of a personal culpability because of his commission or\nomission. The individual reasons for the exclusion of culpability are\ndiscussed without taking into consideration whether the examination of\nany further similar reasons is superfluous, since the assumption of\nanother reason for the exclusion of culpability suffices to secure the\nintended success. Evidence has proved that the experiments for testing\nsulfanilamides were carried out, to begin with, on fifteen professional\nmale criminals who had been sentenced to death. Had they survived the\nexperiments, they would have been granted a pardon therefor. Considering\nthat this part of the experiment is not a subject of the indictment, I\nneed not go into detail about it.\n\nTo the second and third group (the sulfanilamide experiments) belonged\nas experimental subjects members of the Polish Resistance Movement, who,\nin view of their activity in this illegal movement, had been sentenced\nto death by German courts martial.\n\nIt is a principle of German criminal law that in any case the consent of\nthe offender precludes the illegality of the action. This principle is\nnot only found in German law but is an established part of practically\nall legal systems. Consequently, we have to examine the question whether\nthe experimental subjects gave their consent to the experiments. When\nexamining the question whether legally effective consent had been given,\nit will not matter so much whether the experimental subjects expressly\ndeclared their consent. However, if generally acknowledged principles\nare applied, one may presume that they expressed their consent in some\nobvious manner. It is clear that consent could also have been given\ntacitly and by conclusive action.\n\nHowever, it is true that all the female witnesses examined in court\ntestified that they did not give their consent to the experiments. The\nTribunal, in evaluating these facts, will have to take into\nconsideration that these witnesses were in a special position at that\ntime, as they also are today. It stands to reason that under these\ncircumstances many things may appear different to them today from the\nway they actually happened five years ago. It might be true that the\nexperimental subjects did not give their actual consent to these\nexperiments. It might even be true that they were not asked before the\nexperiments whether they consented to the experiments. Nevertheless this\nwould not exclude the possibility that, considering their position at\nthat time and being certain that they could not escape execution in any\nother way, they nevertheless did consent to the experiments, however\ntacitly. This supposition would coincide with the fact that, for\ninstance, none of the experimental subjects had ever made any complaint\nor mentioned to the defendant Fischer, who had regularly changed the\ndressings, that they did not consent to the experiments.\n\n _The Presumed Consent of the Experimental Subjects as\n Legal Justification_\n\nThe illegality of an action is excluded not only if the injured person\nagreed either actually or tacitly, but if there could have been a\npossible consent. These are the cases where the consent of the injured\nperson could be expected normally, but where for some reason or another\nsuch a consent was actually not given. Numerous attempts have been made\nin legal literature and also in judicial decisions to do justice to this\nsituation which so often occurs in practice. Not all of these theories\nneed to be discussed since the decisive points of view have by now been\nclarified. At first an attempt was made to settle this question by\napplying the law referring to unauthorized acting for and on behalf of\nanother person. Serious objections were raised against this transfer of\nconcepts of civil law to criminal law. The criminal idea of consent is\nto be extended instead to include so-called supposed consent. I\nunderstand this as an objective judicial judgment based on\nprobabilities, namely, that the person concerned would have given his\nconsent to the action from his personal point of view if he had fully\nknown and realized the situation. Wherever such a judgment could be\napplied, it should have the same effect as the judicial finding of an\nactual consent.\n\nHowever, other courts and scientists base their reason for justification\nupon \u201caction for the benefit of the injured person\u201d. If correctly\nviewed, no actual contradiction to an assumed comment could be seen\ntherein. On the contrary one may say perhaps that this could be\nconsidered as an independent argument for justification.\n\nIn modern literature and judicial practice, the tendency prevails to\ncombine the two last mentioned viewpoints by demanding them\ncumulatively. It is not comprehensible, however, why such simultaneous\nexistence of two arguments for justification should be required when\neach argument in itself is decisive.\n\nA well-known teacher of criminal law in Germany stated the following\nconception of this idea: \u201cShould the injured person not consent, the\naction in his behalf and for his benefit is to be considered lawful if\nhis consent could have been expected according to an objective judgment.\nThe primary justifying argument here is not that the injured person has\nwaived his right of decision, but that a positive action was performed\nfor his benefit.\u201d\n\nThe practical result, in spite of the theoretical objections raised\nagainst such a combination, could hardly be different. For the\n\u201cobjective judicial sentence based on probabilities,\u201d here applied for,\nwhich is decisive and upon which the so-called supposed consent would\nhave to be based, will regularly result from an action that under given\ncircumstances is performed for the \u201cbenefit of the injured person.\u201d\n\nApplying these general principles to the sulfanilamide experiments,\nthere can hardly be any doubt that the experimental subjects would have\nagreed if they had been fully aware of their position. The experimental\nsubjects had already been sentenced to death and their participation in\nthese experiments was the only possibility for them to avoid execution.\nIf the Tribunal now tries to assess the probability that the\nexperimental subjects would have agreed to submit to those experiments\nif they had had full knowledge of the position and the certainty of\ntheir eventual execution, there can in my opinion be very little doubt\nas to the result of this examination.\n\nNor can there be two opinions regarding the question whether, under\ncircumstances prevailing at that time, the utilization of the prisoners\nfor these experiments was \u201cin the interest of the wounded\u201d.\n\nThe evidence has shown that the other members of the Polish Resistance\nMovement, who were sentenced to death by court martial and who were in\nthe concentration camp at Ravensbrueck awaiting the confirmation of the\nverdict which was given by the Governor General of the occupied Polish\nterritory, were really shot only after a complicated and protracted\nprocedure. Their participation in these medical experiments was the only\nchance for them as condemned persons to save their lives. Their\nparticipation in these experiments was not only in their interest but it\nalso seems to be inconceivable that the prisoners, if they had been\nfully aware of their position and had known of the forthcoming\nexecution, would not have given their consent for the experiments.\n\n * * * * *\n\n _The Defendant\u2019s Erroneous Assumption of an Agreement by the\n Experimental Subjects_\n\nThe evidence has shown that the experimental subjects in Camp\nRavensbrueck were not selected by the defendant Karl Gebhardt nor by any\nof the other defendants, but that the selection was made by the\ncompetent agency within the Reich Security Main Office in Berlin or the\npolitical department of the Ravensbrueck concentration camp. During the\nconference at the beginning of July 1942, in which the conditions for\nthe experiments were agreed upon, it was expressly assured that the\nexperimental subjects were persons sentenced to death who were to be\npardoned if they survived the experiments.\n\nIn view of the fact that the defendant Gebhardt did not himself select\nthe experimental subjects and that, on the other hand, no complaints of\nany kind on the part of the experimental subjects were ever reported to\nhim,\u2014the defendant Fischer was not in a position to make any personal\nobservations along these lines either\u2014we now must examine the question\nof the legal position of the defendant Gebhardt if he erroneously\nassumed the consent of the experimental subjects.\n\nIn criminal law it is a generally recognized principle that there can be\nno question of intentional action if there existed an erroneous\nassumption of justificatory facts. This principle can also be found in\nArticle 59 of the German Penal Code.[13] But beyond that, this legal\nprinciple may be considered one of the principles which is generally\nvalid and which is derived from the general principles of the criminal\nlaw of all civilized nations, thus representing an inherent part of our\nmodern conception of criminal law. In application of this principle\u2014and\neven if the Court does not consider the consent of the experimental\nsubjects as proved and, therefore, does not provide the prerequisites\nfor a legal excuse for objective reasons\u2014we still cannot assume an\nintentional act on the part of the defendant Gebhardt if he acted under\nthe \u201cerroneous assumption of consent by the experimental subjects.\u201d\n\n _The Erroneous Assumption of Probable Agreement_\n\nThe same applies if the defendant Gebhardt erroneously assumed a\nprobable consent of the experimental subjects. We do not mean here an\nerroneous assumption with regard to the legal suppositions of such a\none, but the erroneous assumption of such facts, which, had they\nexisted, would have induced the Tribunal to recognize the \u201cprobable\nconsent.\u201d I am referring here to my argumentation for the legal excuse\nrepresented by the \u201cprobable consent,\u201d which I understand as \u201can\nobjective opinion concerning the law, based on probability and according\nto which the person concerned would have consented to the act from his\nown personal standpoint, if he had been fully aware of the\ncircumstances.\u201d Provided that the defendant Dr. Gebhardt assumed the\nexistence of such circumstances which seems certain according to the\nevidence, and even if he did so erroneously, the intent and thus the\ncrime in this case would also be excluded according to the generally\nacknowledged principle.\n\n * * * * *\n\n d. Evidence\n\n _Testimony_\n Page\n Extract from the testimony of defendant Mrugowsky 56\n Extract from the testimony of prosecution expert witness Dr. 60\n Andrew C. Ivy\n\n EXTRACT FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT MRUGOWSKY[14]\n\n_DIRECT EXAMINATION_\n\n * * * * *\n\nDR. FLEMMING: You know that General Taylor, in his opening speech, said\nthat this experiment with aconitine had not been conducted in order to\nfind an antidote to aconitine but in order to ascertain how long it\ntakes to kill a human being in this manner. Please tell the Tribunal\nwhether this concerned an experiment.\n\nDEFENDANT MRUGOWSKY: This was not an experiment in the actual sense of\nthe word. It was the legal execution of five thieves, and some special\nfacts were to be ascertained during this execution. The details were as\nfollows: One day the chemist of the Reich Criminal Police Office, Dr.\nWittmann, came to me. He asked me to attend an execution as the official\ndoctor. As the reason for this request he added that in the General\nGovernment in Poland a high official had been injured when he was\nattacked with a revolver; that the bullet had inflicted only a harmless\nflesh wound, but nevertheless the person had died after a few hours with\nsymptoms of poisoning. The person who had attacked him had been\narrested, and the rest of the ammunition was a hollow ball which\ncontained a crystallized poison. The Chemical Institute of the Reich\nCriminal Police Office tested this and found that it was aconitine. The\nammunition was of Russian origin. There is no aconitine in Germany; it\nis imported. The question was whether this was the first case of the\nbeginning of poison warfare against Germany. We had been expecting such\na method of warfare for some time. For that reason there was not only\ncriminal interest in clearing up this case but a general interest of the\ngreatest importance. This ammunition was to be tested on five thieves\nwho were to be executed anyhow, and it was to be seen whether this\ncrystallized poison contained another poison which had not been found in\nthe chemical tests. The remainder of the original Russian ammunition was\nto be used, and also German ammunition which had been made in imitation\nof the Russian. At the same time\u2014and this was the main purpose of the\nexperiment\u2014it was to be discovered how much time would elapse between\nthe injury and the appearance of the symptoms of poisoning, in order, if\nnecessary, to be able to use an antidote. This question was of such\ngreat importance because an antidote to aconitine is hardly known, and\nif this had actually been the beginning of poison warfare, then efforts\nwould have to be made immediately to find an antidote. Therefore, the\nhead of the Reich Criminal Police Office asked me, and the Chief of the\nCriminal Technical Office also asked me, to participate in the execution\nmyself, although that was not actually my work; but Dr. Wittmann said he\ndid not know of any toxicologist except one in Berlin; they had all been\ndrafted, and as a bacteriologist I had a certain amount of experience in\nsymptoms of poisoning connected with bacteria and, therefore, he asked\nme to take over this job. I was rather unwilling to do so. I pointed out\nto Dr. Wittmann that the regular police in Vienna had a pharmacologist\nwho was very experienced and I suggested that he should be called upon;\nbut this was not done because of the poor communications resulting from\nthe air warfare. Since, on the other hand, this question was doubtless\nof great significance and should not be postponed, I finally declared\nmyself willing to fulfill this request. In accordance with the purpose\nof this job, I made not only the usual report, but a rather more\ndetailed report on the symptoms of poisoning. There is the report which\nwe have here in this prosecution document.\n\nQ. You have said that this ammunition which was captured was of Russian\nproduction. How can that be proved?\n\nA. The prosecution itself proved that. To this Document NO-201,\nProsecution Exhibit 290, some files were attached which were not\nincluded in my report. There are three drawings of cross-sections of\nthese bullets which were made and handed in to the Institute. The\nheading is \u201cPoison bullet from a Russian pistol, calibre 7.65\u201d and\ndetails about the construction of this bullet.\n\nQ. You say that this photostatic copy of the drawings of the bullet was\nnot part of your report. How is that shown? Will you compare the stamps\nin the diary?\n\nA. The report which I handed in is dated 12 September 1944, and then the\nnext day it was received by the Criminal Technical Office, and the\nreceipt stamp carried the number \u201cSecret 53\u201d. The drawings, however,\nhave a different secret journal number, that is, 15-1944. If the number\nG-53 was in September then, if the distribution of letters received is\nassumed to be even throughout the year, I should assume that the Reich\nCriminal Police Office received these drawings in March of the same\nyear. At that time I did not know anything about this attack, and the\nexperiment had not been started yet. Nor did I know any details about\nthe possibility of such poison warfare.\n\nQ. Who was present at the execution?\n\nA. Dr. Ding, who happened to be in Berlin and whom I took with me in\norder to support my observations; it was he who conducted the actual\nmedical examination. I, myself, merely ascertained the occurrence of\ndeath. Also Dr. Wittmann, representing the Criminal Technical Institute;\nalso a representative of the camp commandant, I believe the adjutant;\nand an Untersturmfuehrer who performed the execution, that is, actually\nshot the people. It is possible that there were others whom I do not\nremember and whose names I do not know.\n\nQ. Did you investigate in any way who these people were who were\nexecuted, and by what court they had been condemned to death?\n\nA. I talked with the people; they understood German; they were\napparently Germans. I considered them ethnic Germans [Volksdeutsche] of\nwhom we had large numbers in Germany at that time. On the other hand, I\nknew that in concentration camps executions were carried out, and I had\nbeen told that this was an official matter and that there had to be an\nofficial representative of the camp commandant present. The fact that\nsuch a representative was present at this execution was sufficient for\nme to assume that the matter actually was official and, on the other\nhand, I had no opportunity to be informed of the sentence or anything\nlike that.\n\nQ. Then you did not see the death sentence order before it was carried\nout?\n\nA. No. I did not have the opportunity because the doctor is merely\ncalled in to an execution to ascertain when death occurs, but I am\nconvinced that it was not my duty to examine the sentence order, for I\nhad nothing to do with the actual execution. The order was given by the\nrepresentative of the camp commandant; someone who was attached to the\ncommandant\u2019s office actually shot the people, and I was merely there to\nascertain when death occurred and to note the symptoms of poisoning, but\nDr. Ding did the latter for me. The official information from a high\nauthority was sufficient proof to me for the legality of the execution.\n\nQ. In the case of two of the five thieves, the poison had no effect. You\nsaw the suffering of the other three from the poison; why did you not\nshorten this suffering?\n\nA. The sight of this execution was one of the most horrible experiences\nof my life. On the other hand, I could not shorten the symptoms for in\nthe first place there was no antidote against aconitine available. If it\nis in the circulation, then there is no possibility of removing it. In\nthe second place, it was the express purpose to find out how long the\nsymptoms of poisoning last in order in later cases to be able to use an\nantidote, which it was hoped would soon be discovered.\n\nQ. Did you know that executions in Germany can only be carried out by\nshooting, by hanging, or by beheading, and did you not have any\nmisgivings when this execution was carried out in a different way?\n\nA. I am not a jurist; I do not know the methods of execution. On the\nother hand, I have already said that in my opinion the state itself has\nthe right to determine the method of death for its citizens in wartime\nand doubtless has the right to determine the method of an execution.\nHere the suspicion had arisen that poison war was beginning against\nGermany. This seemed to be supported by the finding of poison Russian\nammunition. Since the investigations were carried out by the highest\nauthorities in the Reich, I had no doubt about the juridicial\nadmissibility upon which I, as a doctor, had no influence.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Witness, were each of these men struck by more\nthan one bullet or only by one bullet each?\n\nDEFENDANT MRUGOWSKY: Each one was shot only once in the thigh; two of\nthese five persons were immediately killed by another shot, because the\nfirst shot of the poison ammunition had hit the artery in the thigh and\ntheir suffering was immediately stopped; but the others had only flesh\nwounds and after a certain period of time, symptoms of poisoning\nappeared; that was three people.\n\nDR. FLEMMING: Did you have anything else to do with the previous history\nof this execution?\n\nMRUGOWSKY: No.\n\n * * * * *\n\n EXTRACT FROM THE TESTIMONY OF PROSECUTION EXPERT WITNESS\n DR. ANDREW C. IVY[15]\n\n_CROSS-EXAMINATION_\n\n * * * * *\n\nDR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, I should like to ask your permission to\nput to the witness a small newspaper notice from the newspaper \u201cThe\nPeople\u201d of 3 March 1946. This is an English newspaper. Regarding the\ndefendants before the IMT, the following was stated: \u201cThe opinion of\nsome people is that they should be condemned very soon.\u201d Then it says:\n\u201cOthers believe that they should be made to expiate their crimes by\nhelping to cure cancer, leprosy, and tuberculosis as experimental\nsubjects.\u201d\n\nIs the thought of atonement contained therein?\n\nWITNESS DR. IVY: Yes, but it is expressed in a hysterical manner.\n\nQ. Yes. I agree with you.\n\nWitness, do you believe that if a person does not volunteer for an\nexperiment, the state can order such atonement?\n\nA. No.\n\nQ. Do you not believe that you can expect something of a prisoner that\ngoes beyond his actual sentence if at the same time people outside\nprison are subject to such burdens?\n\nA. No. Those ideas were given up many years ago in the science and study\nof penology. The primary objective of penology today is reformative, not\npunitive, not expiative.\n\nQ. Witness, is that the recognized theory of penology throughout the\nwhole world today?\n\nA. It may not be the recognized theory throughout the whole world today,\nbut it is the prevailing theory in the United States. There is one other\naspect that is quite large and essential, and that is the protective\naspect of imprisonment to protect society from a habitual criminal.\n\nQ. Witness, if a soldier at the front is exposed to an epidemic and can\nbe almost certain that he will catch typhus and deserts and hides behind\nthe protecting walls of a prison, would you not consider it justifiable\nif he is persuaded to volunteer for an experiment that concerns itself\nwith typhus?\n\nA. Will you read the question again?\n\nQ. If a soldier deserts from the front where typhus is raging for fear\nthat he too will contract typhus and prefers to be imprisoned in order\nthus to save himself, do you think it is right for him to be persuaded\nwhile he is serving his sentence to subject himself to a typhus\nexperiment?\n\nA. As a volunteer? Yes.\n\nQ. I see. And would you not take a step further, if this prisoner says,\n\u201cNo, I refuse, because if I do this there wouldn\u2019t have been any point\nin my deserting; I deserted in order to save myself. My buddies may die\nbut I would just prefer not to.\u201d\n\nA. The answer to that question is no.\n\nQ. Don\u2019t you admit that one can hold a different view in this matter?\n\nA. Yes, but I don\u2019t believe it could be justified.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n H. Usefulness of the Experiments\n\n a. Introduction\n\nBoth by testimony and argument the defense claimed that the medical\nexperiments had generally been useful in furthering medical science,\nthat in some cases the experiments alleged as criminal had increased the\nspeed of the progress of medical science, and that in some cases there\nwas no other alternative for the development of medical science except\nto conduct experiments on human beings. The prosecution, in addition to\narguing that voluntary participation by the subject of experimentation\nwas a prerequisite of legal experiments, argued that the experiments\nturned out to be entirely useless for medical science and human\nprogress, and that in some cases it was doubtful if considerations of\nmedical science played any controlling role in the decision to conduct\nthe experiments.\n\nSelections from the defense argumentation have been made from the final\npleas for the defendants Becker-Freyseng and Beiglboeck. Extracts from\nthese final pleas appear below on pages 62 to 64. A part of the opening\nstatement of the prosecution (vol. I, p. 37 ff.) was devoted to this\ntopic. Defense evidence on the usefulness of the experiments has been\nselected from the direct examination of the defendants Mrugowsky and\nRose. Extracts from their testimony appear below on pages 66 to 70.\n\n\n b. Selections from the Argumentation of the Defense\n\n _EXTRACT FROM THE FINAL PLEA FOR\n DEFENDANT BECKER-FREYSENG_[16]\n\n * * * * *\n\nAt the moment I consider one factor above all to be material. It is the\nfollowing question: Was everything done, when the sea-water experiments\nwere being planned, to furnish all data required for establishing the\nnecessity of the experiments? And I think I can definitely answer this\nquestion in the affirmative.\n\nThe defense has proved the high sense of responsibility applied to the\ninquiry on the necessity of the sea-water experiments. Scientists of\ninternational reputation, like Professor Dr. Eppinger and Professor\nHeubner, were consulted, and they definitely answered this question in\nthe affirmative. More cannot be expected or demanded in the way of a\nsense of responsibility. In my opinion, the mere fact that these\nscientists were asked their opinion on the issue in question shows that\neverything was done on the part of the Chief of the Medical Service of\nthe Luftwaffe and his office to reach the right decision in this\nquestion.\n\nWith regard to the purely objective judgment of the sea-water\nexperiments and their necessity, I should like to refer to the\nstatements made in my closing brief for Dr. Becker-Freyseng.\n\nAt this point, I should, however, like to add the following: The\nprosecution has tried to make out that it was the purpose of these\nsea-water experiments to decide whether Berkatit removes the salt from\nsea water. This contention of the prosecution has in no way been proved.\nI must stress here again, most emphatically, that this was never the\npurpose of the sea-water experiments.\n\nAll people concerned realized that Berkatit does not remove the salt\nfrom sea water. The question which was to be clarified and which\nnecessitated the experiments was rather the following: Under the action\nof the vitamins contained in Berkatit, will the kidneys be capable of\nproducing a urine with a higher sodium chloride concentration than is\nnormally the case? Dr. Eppinger answered this question neither in the\naffirmative nor in the negative; he stated that this question could be\ndecided only by experiment.\n\nIn addition there was another question to be decided, as to whether in\ncase of shipwreck it would be more desirable to endure thirst, or\nwhether marooned fliers should be advised to drink small quantities of\nsalt water. In 1942-1944 this question was also raised in the United\nStates and England and there, too, human experiments were carried out.\nBut all these individual questions were only part of the great issue of\nhow shipwrecked persons could be helped to escape the agony and danger\nof dying from thirst. These issues were the basis for the experiments\nconducted in 1944. In my opinion it is not admissible to construe\narbitrarily another issue today and to contend on the basis of such\nissue, which never existed, that these experiments were not necessary.\nThese medical issues alone necessitated the experiments. There were\nother issues too, to which I want to make short reference.\n\nUntil 1944 the world lacked an agent to make sea water drinkable. Such\nan agent was an absolute necessity. Nobody denied even then that\nWofatit, developed by the defendant Schaefer, would have been an ideal\nagent for this purpose. It was, however, equally clear that this agent\ncould only be manufactured by withdrawing the necessary raw material,\nnamely silver, from other war-essential uses.\n\nFurthermore, it was not denied that Berkatit did not require critical\nraw materials in the same measure. Another circumstance to be considered\nwas that Berkatit could have been produced in existing plants, whereas\nit would have been necessary to erect new plants for the production of\nWofatit. Accordingly, these technical reasons favored the introduction\nof Berkatit. It can hardly be denied that it was necessary for a medical\nofficer conscious of his responsibilities in war to consider these\nreasons when reaching a decision. Incidentally, the expert of the\nprosecution, Professor Ivy, also stated that these reasons were\ndefinitely worthy of consideration.\n\nAccordingly it had to be clarified, whether Berkatit could not, after\nall, be introduced for distribution to persons facing the risk of\nshipwreck, and the inquiry into this question was all the more necessary\nas, according to the opinion of Professor Eppinger and Professor\nHeubner, Berkatit apparently contained vitamins which eliminated the\nrisks incurred by human beings when drinking sea water. Whether the\nopinion of the experts, Heubner and Eppinger, was right or not, could,\nat that time as today, only be established by experiment.\n\nHence if the defendant Dr. Becker-Freyseng, who examined all these\nfactors and applied all precautions possible, became convinced in 1944\nthat the experiments could not be avoided, and if, from this viewpoint,\nin his official capacity as a consultant (Referent) he reported to his\nhighest authority at that time, Professor Dr. Schroeder, that he\nconsidered the experiments necessary, then, in my opinion, he can in no\nway be charged under criminal law on that account.\n\nTherefore, in my opinion, it has been proved that Dr. Becker-Freyseng\nconsidered these experiments necessary and that he was entitled to\nconsider them necessary. And this question alone can be made the basis\nfor an inquiry into his guilt under criminal law.\n\nWith regard to this point, I would like in conclusion to refer to the\ntestimony of Professor Dr. Vollhardt. This world-famous physician, this\nresearch scientist, recognized as such in international circles, upon\nwhom, only a few weeks ago, on the occasion of his 75th birthday, the\nhighest German decoration of science was bestowed, namely the Goethe\nMedal for Art and Science, a ceremony in which nearly all European\ncountries, also America, joined, stated before this high Tribunal, and I\nquote:\n\n \u201cI regarded it as sign of a sense of responsibility that in view\n of the increasing number of flying accidents, the sea-emergency\n question was taken up and these experiments were launched.\u201d\n\nInsofar, I consider it proved that the planning of these experiments was\nin no way objectionable.\n\n * * * * *\n\n _EXTRACT FROM THE FINAL PLEA FOR\n DEFENDANT BEIGLBOECK_[17]\n\n * * * * *\n\nEven medical science on both sides had to assist warfare. I have before\nme the index of the best known scientific English periodicals from the\nwar period, \u201cThe Lancet\u201d and \u201cNature\u201d. Now, after the war, General T. J.\nBetts of the United States War Department and Professor W. T. Sinsteat\nof the British Supply Office declared that the captured German\nscientific results accomplished during the war were of the greatest use\nfor the economic progress of British and American industry. Even the\nterrible freezing experiments of Dr. Rascher proved to be of greatest\nuse for America in the war against Japan. (_Becker-Freyseng 31,\nBecker-Freyseng Ex. 18._)\n\n\n\n\n c. Evidence\n\n _Defense Documents_\n\n Doc. No. Def. Ex. No. Description of Document Page\n Becker-Freyseng Becker-Freyseng Extracts from Harper\u2019s 65\n 31 Ex. 18 Magazine entitled \u201cSecrets\n by the Thousand\u201d by C.\n Lester Walker.\n\n _Testimony_\n\n Extract from the testimony of defendant Mrugowsky 66\n Extracts from the testimony of defendant Rose 69\n\n\n BECKER-FREYSENG DOCUMENT 31\n BECKER-FREYSENG DEFENSE EXHIBIT 18\n\nEXTRACTS FROM HARPER\u2019S MAGAZINE ENTITLED \u201cSECRETS BY THE THOUSAND\u201d BY C.\n LESTER WALKER\n\nSomeone wrote to Wright Field recently saying he understood this country\nhad got together quite a collection of enemy war secrets, that many were\nnow on public sale, and could he, please, be sent everything on German\njet engines. The Air Documents Division of the Army Air Force answered:\n\u201cSorry\u2014but that would be fifty tons.\u201d\n\nMoreover, that fifty tons was just a small portion of what is today\nundoubtedly the biggest collection of captured enemy war secrets ever\nassembled. If you always thought of war secrets\u2014as who hasn\u2019t\u2014as\ncoming in sixes and sevens, as a few items of information readily handed\non to the properly interested authorities, it may interest you to learn\nthat the war secrets in this collection run into the thousands, that the\nmass of documents is mountainous, and that there has never before been\nanything quite comparable to it.\n\n * * * * *\n\nOne Washington official has called it \u201cthe greatest single source of\nthis type of material in the world\u2014the first orderly exploitation of an\nentire country\u2019s brainpower\u201d.\n\nHow the collection came to be goes back, for beginnings, to one day in\n1944 when the Allied Combined Chiefs of Staff set in motion a colossal\nsearch for war secrets in occupied German territory. They created a\ngroup of military-civilian teams, termed the Joint Intelligence\nObjectives Committee, which was to follow the invading armies into\nGermany and uncover all her military, scientific, and industrial secrets\nfor early use against Japan. These teams worked against time to get the\nmost vital information before it was destroyed, and in getting it\nperformed prodigies of ingenuity and tenacity.\n\n * * * * *\n\n III\n\nIn matters of food, medicine, and branches of the military art, the\nfinds of the search teams were no less impressive. And in aeronautics\nand guided missiles they proved to be downright alarming.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u201cAs for medical secrets in this collection\u201d, one Army surgeon has\nremarked, \u201csome of them will save American medicine years of research;\nsome of them are revolutionary\u2014like, for instance, the German technique\nof treatment after prolonged and usually fatal exposure to cold.\u201d\n\nThis discovery\u2014revealed to us by Major Alexander\u2019s search already\nmentioned\u2014reversed everything medical science thought about the\nsubject. In every one of the dread experiments the subjects were most\nsuccessfully revived, both temporarily and permanently, by immediate\nimmersion in hot water. In two cases of complete standstill of heart and\ncessation of respiration, a hot bath at 122\u00b0 brought both subjects back\nto life. Before our war with Japan ended, this method was adopted as the\ntreatment for use by all American Air-Sea Rescue Services, and it is\ngenerally accepted by medicine today.\n\n EXTRACT FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT MRUGOWSKY[18]\n\n_DIRECT EXAMINATION_\n\n * * * * *\n\nDR. FLEMMING: I further submit an excerpt from the testimony of\nGeneralarzt Dr. Schreiber which he made on 26 August 1946 before the\nInternational Military Tribunal. This can be found in the transcript of\nthe International Military Tribunal for that date. This is Mrugowsky\nDocument 27. I offer it as Mrugowsky Exhibit 45. Answering the question,\n\u201cWhat scientific value did the experiments [typhus experiments in\nBuchenwald] of the specialist Ding have\u201d? Generalarzt Dr. Schreiber\nanswered, \u201cIn my opinion they had no scientific value at all because\nduring the war we had already gained much experience and collected a\ngreat deal of data in this field. We were thoroughly acquainted with the\ncomposition and qualities of our vaccine and no such tests were required\nany longer. Many of the vaccines examined by Ding were not used any more\nat all and were rejected.\u201d\n\nWould you define your position to that statement?\n\nDEFENDANT MRUGOWSKY: I do not know how Schreiber could have expressed\nthat opinion, nor do I know whether he is in possession of full\nknowledge of the results of this work. I never discussed this question\nwith him and I therefore cannot examine it. This much is clear, however,\nthat Schreiber is speaking of a later period of time, for the vaccines\nthat were no longer produced were not produced because the experiments\nof Ding had proved their inferiority. The epidemiological examination of\nthe various vaccines during the war only originates from a later period,\nin particular the years 1943 and 1944. The exploitation of these\nexperiences only originates from the last years of the war and it is,\ntherefore, my opinion that this testimony of Schreiber is incorrect.\n\nQ. I am interrupting you and I shall have Handloser Exhibit 14 shown to\nyou. We are here concerned with an excerpt of a scientific thesis by\nGeheimrat Otto. Do you know Geheimrat Otto?\n\nA. Yes, I know Geheimrat Otto. He is probably the best typhus expert not\nonly in Germany but in Europe, who has dealt with typhus all his life.\n\nQ. From this excerpt you will see that Geheimrat Otto says, still in\n1943:\n\n \u201cWhile the efficacy of lice vaccines has already been tested on\n a large scale in Poland, Ethiopia, and China, and the vaccine\n has proved its value, it is still necessary to gather\n large-scale practical experiences with lung and vitelline\n membrane vaccines. In animal experiments they have proved of\n equal value with the former.\u201d\n\n Would you say something on that?\n\nA. Professor Otto says here that even in the year 1943 the vitelline\nmembrane vaccine and the vaccines from lungs of animals were not\nsufficiently known. That confirms what I have just testified and that is\nin answer to Dr. Schreiber\u2019s statement.\n\nQ. The witness Bernhard Schmidt, who was interrogated here, stated that\nhuman experiments were superfluous for the purpose of testing vaccines\nand that the value of the individual typhus vaccines could have been\nascertained in an epidemiological way. What is your opinion in that\nconnection?\n\nA. This is my opinion also. It is my opinion that these tests could have\nbeen carried out in an epidemiological manner. I represented that point\nof view before Grawitz and Himmler from the very beginning.\n\nQ. You stated yesterday that to test this matter in an epidemiological\nway, a large number of persons would have had to be vaccinated and\ncompared with a large number of persons who were not vaccinated. Would\nsuch a long experiment have been possible considering the circumstances\nprevailing during the war?\n\nA. Such a test would have been possible. It was actually introduced by\nme within the framework of the ministry. It is a matter of course,\nhowever, that the results can only be collected at a very late date and\ncan only be exploited at a much later date. In the case of the entire\nexperiment we were concerned with bridging over this space of time.\n\nQ. In carrying out this examination one could have found that one\nvaccine has only a very small effectiveness, as was actually found out\nin the case of the Behring vaccine. In that case would you say that the\nmortality of persons vaccinated with the inferior vaccine would have\nbeen much greater than the entire amount of fatalities as they occurred\nin Buchenwald? You know that the statement regarding the fatality\nfigures fluctuated between 100 and 120.\n\nA. That could be assumed to be the case with certainty. A comparison is\nthe manner in which all tests are carried out in this field. I shall\ngive you a few examples for that. When Emil von Behring in the year 1890\ndiscovered the diphtheria serum, it was at first used by a physician of\nthe Berlin Charit\u00e9 in the case of diphtheria-infected children. He\ntreated about 1,200 children suffering from diphtheria with that serum.\nHe registered a mortality rate in the case of these children, in spite\nof the treatment, of approximately 22 percent. Just as many children did\nnot receive the serum but were treated in a different manner. In this\ngroup the mortality rate was double, approximately 44 percent. These 240\nor 250 children who died, and who were in that control group could\ncertainly have been saved if they had been given the blessing of that\ndiphtheria serum. But that was in reality the purpose of that test and\none had to take into account that a larger ratio of fatalities would\nresult in the group to be compared and that then the value of the serum\nwould be recognized.\n\nQ. I think that this example will suffice. In that case you are really\nadmitting that an objection against experiments in Buchenwald could not\nbe justified?\n\nA. During the war I did not work on any disease as ardently as on\ntyphus. I treated thousands of patients who fell ill with typhus and\nexamined them. I believe that in the case of such an experience one\ngains some knowledge of the disease. I often considered that question\nand I hold the opinion that my objection at the time was perhaps not\njustified by events. On the other hand, it is my opinion that in the\ncase of every task one has to keep the question in mind whether one is\nin a position to execute that task. I must admit even today that in\nspite of the success of the experiments, which cannot be denied, I would\nact similarly in yet another position and would assume the same attitude\nas I assumed at that time. Even today I would not be prepared to carry\nout any such experiments personally or have them carried out upon my\nresponsibility, although success undoubtedly would come about.\n\n\n EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT ROSE[19]\n\n_DIRECT EXAMINATION_\n\n * * * * *\n\nDR. FRITZ: What do you know about the reasons for this protest (against\nexperiments) being ignored and the typhus experiments being carried out\nin spite of it?\n\n * * * * *\n\nDEFENDANT ROSE: The Buchenwald experiments (with typhus vaccine) had\nfour main results. First of all, they showed that belief in the\nprotective effect of Weigl vaccine was a mistake, although this belief\nseemed to be based on long observation. Secondly, they showed that the\nuseful vaccines did not protect against infection, but almost certainly\nprevented death, under the conditions of the Buchenwald experiments.\nThirdly, they showed that the objections of the biological experts to\nthe vitelline membrane vaccines and to the lice vaccines were\nunjustified, and that vitelline membrane, rabbit lungs, and lice\nintestines were of equal value. We learned this only through the\nBuchenwald experiments. This left the way open to mass production of\ntyphus vaccines.\n\nThe Buchenwald experiments showed in time that several vaccines were\nuseless. First, the process according to Otto and Wohlrab, the process\naccording to Cox, the process of Rickettsia Prowazeki and Rickettsia\nmurina, that is, vaccine from egg cultures; secondly, the vaccines of\nthe Behring works which were produced according to the Otto process, but\nwith other concentrations; finally the Ipsen vaccines from mouse liver.\nThe vaccines of the Behring works were in actual use at that time in\nthousands of doses. They always represented a danger to health. Without\nthese experiments the vaccines, which were recognized as useless, would\nhave been produced in large quantities because they all had one thing in\ncommon: their technical production was much simpler and cheaper than\nthat of the useful vaccines. In any case, one thing is certain, that the\nvictims of this Buchenwald typhus test did not suffer in vain and did\nnot die in vain. There was only one choice, the sacrifice of human\nlives, of persons determined for that purpose, or to let things run\ntheir course, to endanger the lives of innumerable human beings who\nwould be selected not by the Reich Criminal Police Office but by blind\nfate.\n\nHow many people were sacrificed we cannot figure out today; how many\npeople were saved by these experiments we, of course, cannot prove. The\nindividual who owes his life to these experiments does not know it, and\nhe perhaps is one of the accusers of the doctors who assumed this\ndifficult task.\n\n\n I. Medical Ethics\n\n\n 1. GENERAL PRINCIPLES\n\n a. Introduction\n\nIn a case involving the charge that human beings were subjected to\nmedical experiments of many kinds under varying circumstances, it was\ninevitable that questions of medical ethics became a part of the proof\nand the argumentation.\n\nThe prosecution\u2019s rejoinder to the statement of the defendant Rose\nappears on page 71. As illustrations of the defense position on medical\nethics, extracts have been taken from the final pleas for the defendants\nGebhardt and Beiglboeck. These appear on pages 71 to 77. Considerable\ntestimony was given on this question by defendants and by expert\nwitnesses, and appears on pages 77 to 86. Selections from this testimony\nhave been taken from the direct examination of the defendant Rose, the\ncross-examination of the prosecution witness Professor Werner\nLeibbrandt, and from the direct examination of the prosecution witness\nDr. Andrew C. Ivy.\n\nThe judgment of the Tribunal deals at some length with the medical\nethics applicable to experimentation on human beings (p. 181 ff.).\n\n b. Selection from the Argumentation of the Prosecution\n\n _EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING STATEMENT\n OF THE PROSECUTION_[20]\n\n * * * * *\n\nIn view of the clear and unequivocal proof of the defendant Rose\u2019s\nparticipation in the typhus murders of Buchenwald he can only plead that\nhe didn\u2019t enjoy doing what he did, that he objected to the experiments\nat the Third Meeting of the Consulting Physicians of the Wehrmacht in\nMay 1943. But this is his condemnation, not his salvation. In March 1942\nhe was in Buchenwald and saw what was being done. In May of the same\nyear he asked Mrugowsky to test a vaccine for him in those experiments.\nFour inmates were killed as a result. In May 1943, he objected to the\nexperiments in what he describes as strong terms. But in December, he\nwas again instigating still another experiment which resulted in the\nmurder of six men. He is a living example of a man who could have\nabstained from participating in these crimes without threat of harm to\nhis person or position by any agency of the Nazi Government. He was not\narrested and tried by the SS because of his objection. He was not\ncommitted to a concentration camp. In spite of that, he voluntarily\nparticipated in these same crimes to which he said he objected. With his\nknowledge, prestige, and position, he is even more culpable than the\nmiserable and inexperienced Ding who actually performed the experiments\nin the murder wards of Buchenwald.\n\n * * * * *\n\n c. Selections from the Argumentation of the Defense\n\n _EXTRACT FROM THE FINAL PLEA FOR\n DEFENDANT GEBHARDT_[21]\n\n * * * * *\n\n _The Principles of Medical Ethics and the Applicable Law_\n\nDuring the hearing of evidence, views were repeatedly given on the\nquestion of which principles of medical ethics are to be considered when\nperforming experiments on human beings. In my opening statement before\nthe evidence was submitted I pointed out that in the case of these\ndefendants there is no reason to examine fundamental questions of\nmedical ethics in these proceedings. Law and ethics are measured by\ndifferent standards which sometimes contradict each other. The same\napplies to the principles of general ethics as well as to those of a\nparticular profession. A deed offending the recognized principles of\nmedical ethics does not necessarily constitute a crime. Only the cogent\nprecepts of the law can be used as the basis for a verdict, and not the\nunwritten regulations and convictions existing inside a profession.\n\nHowever, it cannot be concluded from this that the principles of medical\nethics and their practical application were of no importance at all in\nthese proceedings. These principles cannot, of course, be applied\ndirectly. At the same time there is no doubt that the principles of\nmedical ethics and above all their practical application in recent\ndecades can play an indirect part insofar as they have to be taken into\nconsideration when interpreting the law. However, evidence has now\nproved that in recent decades and even earlier, numerous experiments\nwere carried out on human beings, and, moreover, on persons who did not\nvolunteer for such purpose. In this respect I refer to the statements of\nthe expert Professor Dr. Leibbrandt, witness for the prosecution. I\nfurthermore refer to the extensive evidence submitted by the prosecution\non this question from which it appears that in numerous cases\nexperiments were carried out on human beings, of the nature and degree\nof danger of which they could not have been aware and to which they\nwould never have agreed voluntarily. The only conclusion which can be\ndrawn from these facts is that during recent decades views on this\nquestion have changed in the same way as the relations between the\nindividual and the community in general have changed. In this connection\nI need not give the detailed reasons which led to this development. It\nis a fact that, at least in Europe, the state and the community have\ntaken a different attitude toward the individual. However differently\none may write about the change in these relations in detail, one thing\nis certain, namely, that the state has more and more taken possession of\nthe individual and limited his personal freedom. This is evidently one\nof the accompanying facts of technics and the modern mass-state. It must\nbe added that the development of medicine in the course of the last\ndecades has led to discriminating formulations of questions which can no\nlonger be solved by means of the laboratory and animal experiments.\n\nThe evidence has shown that not only in Germany and perhaps not even\nprimarily in this country, the reorganization of the relationship\nbetween community and individual has resulted in new methods in the\nsphere of medical science. In nearly all countries experiments have been\nperformed on human beings under conditions which entirely exclude\nvolunteering in a legal sense.\n\nImmediate consequences arise for the interpretation of the law from this\nchange of medical views and above all from the change in medical\npractice, since the essence of the law is universal and abstract and\nnaturally does not state the limits and the conditions under which\nexperiments on human beings are permissible and the borderline of the\ncriminality of such an experiment. The real practice regarding this\nquestion is all the more important for the interpretation of the law\nsince almost every law, including Control Council Law No. 10, contains\nstandard rudiments of case facts, which means that determination in a\nparticular case can only be the outcome of a judicial judgment. No\nspecial proof is needed to show that the question when and within what\nlimits medical experiments are admissible calls for a judicial judgment,\nand that this cannot be established without taking practical experience\ninto consideration, not only in Germany but also outside Germany. The\nstandard rudiments of case facts are part of the legal facts and deal\nwith illegality as characteristic of the punishable act. Actual medical\npractice inside and outside Germany, however, has not only to be\nconsidered when examining the question as to whether the actions\nconstituting the subject of the indictment are illegal, but above all it\nis fundamentally important when answering the further question as to\nwhether the actions constituting the subject of this procedure\nconstitute a criminal offense. In view of the fact that a criminal\noffense is not likely to be a permanent psychological fact but a\nstandard computed fact in the sense of a personal reproach, the Court\nfor this reason also will not overlook the fact that particularly during\nthe last years, even outside Germany, medical experiments were performed\non human beings who undoubtedly did not volunteer for these experiments.\nThe unity of law and the indivisibility of its basic idea exclude\njudging one and the same fact simultaneously according to different\nlegal principles and standards.\n\nI shall comment later on the question of whether the defendants in the\nperformance of the experiments which constitute the indictment acted\nprimarily in their capacity as physicians, or whether their conduct\u2014if\na just decision is to be rendered\u2014must no longer be regarded from the\nviewpoint of war service as medically trained research scientists.\n\n * * * * *\n\n _EXTRACT FROM THE FINAL PLEA FOR\n DEFENDANT BEIGLBOECK_[22]\n\n * * * * *\n\nIf one confronts the doctor with that type of scientist who, with the\ntest tube in his laboratory, with the syringe or the surgical knife in\nhis hand, steps on animal and human corpses, in order so fanatically to\nsatisfy his scientific instinct, then we very decidedly object to such a\nscientist. We have found this type in the documents of this trial in the\nperson of Dr. Rascher, whose name casts a dark shadow over the\nproceedings. Dr. Leibbrandt, the protector of medical ethics, would\ntherefore have rendered a good service to German science if, in his\ncapacity as a psychiatrist, we had pointed out that Rascher, this sadist\nand psychopathist, had nothing whatsoever to do with real science.\n\nIt is my duty as a defense counsel to emphasize energetically that it is\nnot permissible to construct from local coincidences any connection\nbetween my client and Rascher and his system.\n\nThe scientific research worker sees his task in the discovery of the\nunknown in order to equip the doctor with new weapons in his fight for\nhuman life. I briefly want to demonstrate with two examples why the\nmodern medical profession cannot renounce the scientific research work\nthat was impossible without great efforts and sacrifices (1) giving a\nbrief description of the development of modern surgery; (2) mentioning\nthe school to which the defendant Beiglboeck belonged as a pupil and a\nteacher. I do not give this second example in order to glorify my\ncountry, but because the particular influence of its teachers is\ndecisive for the spiritual standard of the personality.\n\nAt the beginning of modern surgery stands that mighty figure of English\nsurgery, Joseph Lister, whose great idea it was that the surgeon should\nnot fight the inflammation of the wound but should prevent its cause,\ni.e., germs entering externally.\n\nThanks to bacteriology, anti-sepsis was changed into asepsis.\n\nOver the entrance gate of the General Hospital in Vienna we read the\nwords \u201cSaluti et solatio aegrorum\u2014Dedicated to the health and\nconsolation of the sick.\u201d These words not only demand the highest\naccomplishment of the doctor\u2019s duties but are the motive for the most\nsuccessful work in the large field of medical research. Theory and\npractice joined together in order to become a piece of living humanity.\nI would go beyond the limits of my task if I mentioned all the names\nthat spread the glory of Vienna University throughout the world. But\ntheir penetration into the world of the unknown was always a hazardous\nenterprise which demanded courage and sacrifice.\n\nI want to quote the words of one of the great doctors, Professor\nWagner-Jauregg, who says in his book \u201cFever and Infection Therapy\u201d,\n\n \u201cThe vaccination against malaria was certainly a risk, the\n outcome of which could not be foreseen. It was dangerous for the\n patient himself and this to a much higher degree than the\n treatment with tuberculin and other vaccines, and it also was a\n danger for the surroundings and even for the community.\u201d\n\nAnd, on page 136, it states \u201cThree patients died after having been\nvaccinated with blood infected with malaria tropica and not with malaria\ntertiana\u201d; and \u201cThe tragic outcome of this experiment was discouraging,\nand only a year later could the author decide to proceed with the\nmalaria vaccinations * * *.\u201d\n\nNobody talks of these victims today, but Wagner-Jauregg\u2019s revolutionary\ndiscovery is known and adopted throughout the world and has become the\ncommon property of all peoples for the benefit of suffering mankind.\n\nThese doctors who knew that the fight against disease and death was a\nthorny path were all more than ready to sacrifice their own lives.\n\nThe real scientist and the real doctor, therefore, do not oppose each\nother. However, the scientist must not forget that nature is the\nexpression of the divine will and that only this cognition can save him\nfrom the \u201chybris\u201d, the boundlessness which for the Greek tragedians was\nthe greatest vice of mankind.\n\nAbove all, the words of the greatest German physician, Theophrastus\nBombastus von Hohenheim, called Paracelsus, must be applied to both\nscientist and doctor \u201cThe doctor grows with his heart, he comes from God\nand is enlightened by Nature\u2014the best of all drugs is Love.\u201d\n\nMy learned colleagues have compiled a long list of documents on human\nexperiments especially from the Western democracies. It would be unjust,\nhowever, to conceal the enormous benefit of the human experiment. The\nfact that Paul Ehrlich dared to release his drug \u201cSalvarsan\u201d before it\nhad been sufficiently tested saved thousands from the dangerous\nconsequences of one of the worst epidemics. The fact that Strong took\nthe responsibility upon himself to perform the probably very dangerous\nexperiment with plague bacilli made it possible to vaccinate thousands\nof persons and to save them from almost certain death. The fact that\nStrong was in a position to prove that beri-beri was a disease caused by\na deficiency, and that Goldberger proved the same for pellagra, made it\npossible to fight this deficiency and to liberate entire countries from\none of their worst diseases.\n\nWith regard to the criminal law, however, and the judgment of crimes\nagainst humanity, it is the decisive result that in other countries,\ntoo, under their own generally prevailing medical and ethical\nconvictions, doctors carried out similar or the same experiments for the\nbenefit of scientific research or in consideration of a crisis in their\ncountry.\n\nWhen I said that the surroundings had an influence on the doctor\u2019s\nattitude, I did not mean the second determining factor of our\nindividuality, the material influence on the organism which might modify\nor mitigate the influence of the actual conditions at the time upon the\ndecisions of a physician.\n\nConcentration camp, militarism, and peoples\u2019 court\u2014three important\npillars of the Third Reich\u2014they have collapsed. They are not to be\nforgotten, however, when examining the guilt of the individual. Every\nGerman had to fear them in one form or another. And then came the war.\nWar was once called \u201cthe steel bath of the peoples\u201d. Heraklit called it\n\u201cthe father of all things\u201d. I can only repeat the judgment of the IMT\nthat \u201cwar is the evil itself.\u201d This is true to the highest degree for\nthe last war. It was a total, a terrible war. Even medical science on\nboth sides had to assist warfare. I have before me the index of the best\nknown scientific English periodicals from the war period, \u201cLancet\u201d and\n\u201cNature\u201d. Now, after the war, General T. J. Betts of the United States\nWar Department and Professor W. T. Sinsteat of the British Supply Office\nhave declared that the captured German scientific accomplishments during\nthe war were of the greatest use for the economic progress of British\nand American industry. Even the terrible freezing experiments of Dr.\nRascher proved to be of the greatest use for America in the war against\nJapan. (_Becker-Freyseng 31, Becker-Freyseng Ex. 18._) And what about us\nsoldiers? We stood in the air-raid shelters, the Socialist beside the\nParty member. We did not complain. We saw villages go up in flames,\ninnocent women and children become the victims of air raids. We saw our\ncountry, the Fatherland, in distress, and, even if we hated Hitler and\nhis followers like the plague, we believed that we had to fulfill our\nduty to our country to the bitter end. One cannot explain these things,\nthey have to be experienced. In such times a doctor is placed\nunwillingly between Scylla and Charybdis, between his concept of his\nprofession and his duty as a soldier. It is easy today to say with\npathos from an academic chair \u201c_numquam nocere!_\u201d A man does not say\nnow, \u201cI was a member of the resistance. Day in and day out I was trying\nto help persons who were racially and politically persecuted.\u201d He says,\n\u201cThen, like everyone else, I merely did my duty.\u201d\n\nAbraham Lincoln, one of the greatest Americans, said in a speech before\nthe American Congress in 1862, \u201cThe dogmas of the quiet past are\ninadequate to the stormy present. * * * In the face of new events we\nmust think and act in a new way.\u201d\n\nWith this I intend to conclude my statements about medical ethics and to\nrepeat the words which Liek wrote at the end of his book, \u201cThe Doctor\nand His Mission\u201d, \u201cIf we want to abolish undesirable conditions in\nmedicine, we must follow our conscience\u2014to help and to heal, that is,\ntoday as always, the mission of the doctor.\u201d\n\n * * * * *\n\n d. Evidence\n\n _Testimony_\n Page\n Extracts from the testimony of defendant Rose 77\n Extracts from the testimony of prosecution witness Professor 80\n Werner Leibbrand\n Extracts from the testimony of prosecution expert witness Dr. 82\n Andrew C. Ivy\n\n\n EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT ROSE[23]\n\n_DIRECT EXAMINATION_\n\n * * * * *\n\nDR. FRITZ: You heard the lecture which Dr. Ding gave on his experiments\nat the Third Conference of Consulting Physicians in the Section for\nHygiene and Tropical Hygiene?\n\nDEFENDANT ROSE: Yes. That was the time when I protested openly against\nthis whole method.\n\nQ. Well, what happened?\n\nA. Dr. Ding gave his lecture in a camouflaged form as in his article for\nthe Journal of Hygiene and Infectious Diseases. Therefore, the\nunsuspecting listener could not tell that it was about experiments on\nhuman beings.\n\nWhen the discussion began, I commented on the results of these\nexperiments. That part of my statement is contained in the record of the\nconference. It is Document Rose 38, which has already been submitted.\n(_Rose 38, Rose Ex. 10._) I do not intend to read these remarks, I\nsimply want to point out that one can find there what I said about the\ntechnical aspect of the experiments and about the results.\n\nThen I spoke of the ethical side of the whole thing and this part of my\nstatement has been stricken from the record. I cannot, of course,\nreproduce today the exact wording but only the sense of what I said. I\nsaid more or less as follows: As important and as basic as the results\nmay have been, they were nevertheless achieved at the cost of a number\nof human lives. We as hygienists should object against a life and death\nexperiment being performed as the prerequisite for the introduction of a\nvaccine. So far, the customary procedure had been the testing with\nanimal experiments and subsequent determination of tolerance by human\nbeings and epidemiological exploitation. This procedure had proved its\nvalue. We had to stick to it and we couldn\u2019t let other political and\nstate authorities force us to conduct human experiments. I spoke much\nlonger at the time. I spoke for at least ten minutes. Ding replied that\nhe could pacify my conscience. The experimental subjects had been\ncriminals condemned to death. My answer was: I knew that myself. I was\nnot interested in the individuals concerned but in the principle of\nhuman experiments in testing vaccines. At this comment Professor\nSchreiber interrupted the discussion. He said he protested against my\ncriticism and if we wanted to discuss basic ethical questions we could\ndo that during the recess. He would have this part of the discussion\nstricken from the record and that was done. After the meeting various\nparticipants came to me and we discussed the whole matter. Some agreed\nwith me; others were convinced that in such an important question human\nexperiments were justified. Of course, those people who [_sic_] believed\nDing\u2019s assurance that the subjects were criminals condemned to death. I\nno longer remember the individual men with whom I talked during the\nrecess and I don\u2019t know who was in favor and who was against it. The\nonly one I remember is Professor Mrugowsky because he spoke as an SS\nmember and the experiments had been conducted by an SS doctor, and\nbecause I thought that Mrugowsky was Ding\u2019s superior in every way. Of\ncourse, I remember that Mrugowsky of all people came and said that, in\nprinciple, he agreed with me, and that he had expressed similar\nmisgivings to Grawitz and that Grawitz had rejected his misgivings. Then\nI also learned from Mrugowsky that Himmler was behind all these\nexperiments.\n\n * * * * *\n\nDR. FRITZ: Did you later discuss the matter of experiments on human\nbeings before a large group of people?\n\nDEFENDANT ROSE: Yes. That happened once again before a large number of\npeople, but it was not about typhus experiments. It must have been about\nOctober 1944. The question at hand then was grippe. There was a meeting,\na rather large meeting at which grippe vaccine was discussed. A number\nof people reported on the vaccines which they had developed in the\nlaboratory. Among others, Professor Herzberg reported on a vaccine made\nfrom dead grippe virus, and Professor Haagen on a vaccine made from\nliving avirulent grippe virus, which he had already tested on personnel\nat the Strasbourg clinic. Someone in the meeting, I don\u2019t remember who,\nsuggested that the Haagen tests had been insufficient, and that this\nvaccine should be tested on a larger number of persons. There was no\nmention of concentration camps then but of student companies. I had\nconsiderable misgivings about such experimental vaccination and\nexpressed them. I said that I considered the experimental basis\ninadequate for these vaccines to be used on human beings. I was not\nconvinced that the virus had been sufficiently attenuated. There was a\ndanger that the vaccine would lead to infection, and one could not take\nthat responsibility on one\u2019s self. It was first of all intended to\nobserve the effectiveness of the protection by determining whether\npeople fell ill of grippe in natural ways after being vaccinated. Then\nsomeone else made the suggestion that this would take too long, and we\ndid not know whether there would be an influenza epidemic during that\ntime, and that therefore after the vaccines the subject should be\ninfected with a virulent virus. Since I had already expressed objections\nto the vaccination, I opposed this proposal even more strongly, and the\nresult of this discussion was that infections were not carried out, but\nit was decided to carry out the vaccination. Whether these vaccinations\nwere carried out or not, I do not know. At any rate I read no order to\nthe effect that anyone should perform the vaccinations nor did I ever\nread a report that the vaccinations were carried out. Only later on in\nimprisonment did I hear that similar experiments, such as were then\ndiscussed, and of which I disapproved, were carried out by the British\nMedical Service on German PW\u2019s. Genzken probably participated personally\nin this, but I had heard about this before in the internment hospital\nKarlsruhe where there were people who had experienced these\nvaccinations.\n\n * * * * *\n\n EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF PROSECUTION WITNESS\n PROFESSOR WERNER LEIBBRANDT[24]\n\n * * * * *\n\n_CROSS-EXAMINATION_\n\nDR. SERVATIUS: Witness, you stated that the performance of experiments\non human beings, as is the subject of the indictment here, can be\nascribed to biological thought. What do you mean by biological thought?\n\nWITNESS LEIBBRANDT: By biological thought I mean the attitude of a\nphysician who does not take the subject into consideration at all, but\nfor whom the patient has become a mere object, so that the human\nrelationship no longer exists, and a man becomes a mere object like a\nmail package.\n\nQ. You spoke of thinking as a biologist. Do I understand that you see\ntherein an action belonging to biological thought?\n\nA. An exaggeration of the purely mechanical or biological point of view,\nbecause the physician is not merely a biologist, he is also a biologist.\nPrimarily, however, a physician is a man who assists the human being and\nnot a scientific judge of biological events.\n\nQ. Could there not be other causes for the experiments, such as a\ncollective state thinking?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Witness, you used the expression \u201cdemoniac order\u201d. What do you mean\nby that?\n\nA. By demoniac order I mean the following: If I define as a basis for\nmedical activity merely the maintenance and safeguarding of the\nsubstance of the nation according to blood, the result is that\neverything which falls outside this pretense has to be cleared away.\nThat is a mild expression of what actually happened, namely,\nextermination.\n\nQ. Then your demoniac order only refers to the blood aspect. Could it\nnot be applied to the purely state collective aspect as well?\n\nA. Could you give an example so that I can understand it better?\n\nQ. I mean that experiments were undertaken and that the voluntary act of\nthe individual is replaced by the act of the state, namely, by the\nvoluntary approval given by the state.\n\nA. Between the collective idea and the state order on the one hand and\nthe medical individual on the other, there stands something rather\nimportant\u2014the human conscience.\n\n * * * * *\n\nQ. Professor, if all these experiments were actually conducted, and also\nas you said this morning and as Moll\u2019s book shows, Moll alone published\napproximately six hundred works about thousands of such experiments (on\nhuman beings), must one not say that wide circles of medical men judge\nthe question of experiments on human beings under certain conditions\ndifferently from you\u2014from an ethical point of view?\n\nA. That I cannot say, because even Moll writes at the end of this work\nthat it is part of a physician\u2019s morals to restrain his urge for natural\nresearch in favor of the basic medical attitude as laid down in the oath\nof Hippocrates, namely, to cause no arbitrary harm to his patient.\n\nQ. But in your opinion, Professor, how should a doctor work in the\ninterest of suffering humanity in cases where, as you have just said,\nthere is no possibility of experiments on animals?\n\nA. The concept of humanity is a very dangerous concept. It is most\ndangerous of all for the physician. For the physician, the individual\nstands above all humanity and the individual unfortunately has sunk very\nlow in these last few years.\n\nQ. I believe that you have not quite answered my question. I asked: How\ndo you think the doctor should solve certain questions even in the\ninterest of the individual\u2014questions which cannot be tested with animal\nexperiments and test tubes, as is the case with malaria for instance.\nThis is a problem which must be cleared up if he is to help his\nsuffering patients.\n\nA. That is naturally a very difficult question. But in the end the main\nthing will always be that a risk must have certain limits.\n\nQ. Thank you. Now I come to another point. This morning, Professor, you\nexpressed disapproval about a book which the defendant Mrugowsky wrote\non medical ethics. May I ask, have you read this book?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Do you know Mrugowsky personally?\n\nA. No.\n\nQ. Then you do not know his ethical point of view?\n\nA. I said that it was quite an ironical joke of world history for\nsomeone to quote the high medical ethics of Hufeland in the form of\nexcerpts from his writings, as far as I remember, with a few connecting\nwords and to combine these quotations in a modest little volume, while\non the other hand we now know how it was entangled organizationally with\nthe deeds under discussion here. I am only speaking about the\nentanglement and not about the objective guilt which has not yet been\nproved.\n\nQ. And from where else do you infer Mrugowsky\u2019s entanglement with the\nfacts under discussion here, apart from the fact that he is one of the\ndefendants indicted?\n\nA. After all, he was the Chief of the SS Hygienic System, and the\nmedical principles of an ethical nature personified by the SS have\nbecome clear to me during the last few years. There seems to me to be a\nlarge gap between these two things, between these deeds of SS medical\nethics and the ethics of Hufeland. I might perhaps understand how a man\nlike Mr. Haubhold could be enthusiastic about a one-sided interpretation\nof political medicine by Josef Peter Frank in the 18th century. But I\ncannot understand how the SS ethics can be connected up with the honest\nethics of Christian Hufeland.\n\nQ. Professor, you just told us you do not know Mrugowsky at all?\n\nA. No.\n\nQ. Then how can you express a judgment on his personal ethical attitude?\nYou are merely judging from the fact that he belonged to the SS. Before\nyou express such an opinion as you are doing, before you talk about a\njoke of world history, must you not first know the personal attitude of\nthe person you are criticizing, and is it not quite possible that his\npersonal attitude was such as is expressed in this book?\n\nA. I don\u2019t believe that one can hold a leading position in the SS and\nthen talk about such personal ethics, unless, of course, in ethical\nquestions one does what is called double bookkeeping.\n\nQ. But you admit that all your criticism is pure assumption, in no way\nbased on personal knowledge of the person criticized?\n\nA. I do not know Mr. Mrugowsky.\n\nQ. Thank you. I have no more questions.\n\n EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF PROSECUTION EXPERT\n WITNESS DR. ANDREW C. IVY[25]\n\n_DIRECT EXAMINATION_\n\n * * * * *\n\nMR. HARDY: Now, Professor Ivy, before adjournment you were beginning to\ndiscuss medical ethics in the United States.\n\n * * * * *\n\nDo you have there also the principles and rules as set forth by the\nAmerican Medical Association to be followed?\n\nWITNESS DR. IVY: Yes.\n\nQ. What was the basis on which the American Medical Association adopted\nthose rules?\n\nA. I submitted to them a report of certain experiments which had been\nperformed on human subjects along with my conclusions as to what the\nprinciples of ethics should be for use of human beings as subjects in\nmedical experiments. I asked the association to give me a statement\nregarding the principles of medical ethics and what the American Medical\nAssociation had to say regarding the use of human beings as subjects in\nmedical experiments.\n\nQ. Would you kindly pass up to me that ruling of the principles put out\nby the American Medical Association? This apparently isn\u2019t what I am\nreferring to, Doctor. Do you have a publication which is published by\nthe American Medical Association entitled \u201cPrinciples of Ethics\nConcerning Experimentation on Human Beings\u201d?\n\nA. Not with me here.\n\nQ. Well now, you have, first of all, a basic requirement for\nexperimentation on human beings, \u201c(1) the voluntary consent of the\nindividual upon whom the experiment is to be performed must be\nobtained.\u201d\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. \u201c(2) The danger of each experiment must be previously investigated by\nanimal experimentation,\u201d and \u201c(3) the experiment must be performed under\nproper medical protection and management.\u201d\n\nNow, does that purport to be the principles upon which all physicians\nand scientists guide themselves before they resort to medical\nexperimentation on human beings in the United States?\n\nA. Yes. They represent the basic principles approved by the American\nMedical Association for the use of human beings as subjects in medical\nexperiments.\n\nJUDGE SEBRING: How do the principles which you have just enunciated\ncomport with the principles of the medical profession over the civilized\nworld generally?\n\nA. They are identical, according to my information. It was with that\nidea in mind that I cited the principles which were mentioned in this\ncircular letter from the Reich Minister of the Interior dated 28\nFebruary 1931 to indicate that the ethical principles for the use of\nhuman beings as subjects in medical experiments in Germany in 1931 were\nsimilar to those which I have enunciated and which have been approved by\nthe House of Delegates of the American Medical Association.\n\nMR. HARDY: Is it possible that in some field of scientific research\ninvestigation by animal experimentation would be inadequate?\n\nA. Will you repeat that question? I did not get it.\n\nQ. Is it possible in some fields of medical research that\nexperimentation or investigation on animals would be inadequate?\n\nA. Yes. The experiment on trench fever is a very good example.\n\nQ. How would you investigate the danger of the experiment prior to\nresorting to the use of human beings?\n\nA. The hazard would have to be determined by a careful study of the\nnatural history of the disease.\n\nQ. Does malaria also fall into that category?\n\nA. We can use animals to some extent in malarial studies, canaries and\nducks, for example, develop malaria; and in research designed to\ndiscover a better drug for the treatment of malaria we can use Avian\nMalaria as a sort of screen method to detect which compounds might be\nemployed with some assurance and might be effective in human malaria. In\nthat way we decrease the random and unnecessary experimentation on man.\n\nQ. To your knowledge have any experiments been conducted in the United\nStates wherein these requirements which you set forth were not met?\n\nA. Not to my knowledge.\n\nMR. HARDY: Your Honor, I have no further questions concerning medical\nethics to put to Dr. Ivy; however, I do have one question concerning the\nhigh-altitude experiments which I wish to go back to at the conclusion\nof that complex, in high altitude, and I will have completed my direct\nexamination.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: The Tribunal has no questions of the witness. Do\nI understand that you have completed your examination of the witness?\n\nMR. HARDY: No. I have not; I have a further question to put to him, but\nI was going to leave the case of medical ethics.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: We have no questions on that subject; you may\nproceed.\n\nMR. HARDY: Dr. Ivy, in medical science and research is the use of human\nsubjects necessary?\n\nWITNESS DR. IVY: Yes, in a number of instances.\n\nQ. Is it frequently necessary and does it perform great good to\nhumanity?\n\nA. Yes. That is right.\n\nQ. Do you have an opinion that the state, for instance, the United\nStates of America, could assume the responsibility of a physician to his\npatient or experimental subject, or is that responsibility solely the\nmoral responsibility of the physician or scientist?\n\nA. I do not believe the state can assume the moral responsibility that a\nphysician has for his patient or experimental subject.\n\nDR. SEIDL: I object to this question in that it is a purely legal\nquestion which the Court has to answer.\n\nDR. SAUTER (for the defendants Ruff and Romberg): If I am not mistaken,\na document was read this morning which said that the state assumes the\nresponsibility. I believe that I am not mistaken in this. I also want to\npoint out something else, gentlemen, in order to supplement what Dr.\nSeidl just said.\n\nThe question asked here is always what the opinion of the medical\nprofession in America is. For us in this trial, in the evaluation of\nGerman defendants, that is not decisive. In my opinion the decisive\nquestion is for example, in 1942, when the altitude experiments were\nundertaken at Dachau, what the attitude of the medical profession in\nGermany was. From my point of view as a defense counsel I do not object\nif the prosecution asks Professor Ivy what the attitude or opinion of\nthe medical profession in Germany was in 1942. If he can answer that\nquestion, all right, let him answer it, but we are not interested in\nfinding out what the ethical attitude of the medical profession in the\nUnited States was. In my opinion a German physician who in Germany\nperformed experiments on Germans cannot be judged exclusively according\nto an American medical opinion, which moreover dates from the year 1945\nand was coded in the years 1945 and 1946 for future use; it can also\nhave no retroactive force.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: The first objection imposed by Dr. Seidl might be\npertinent if the question of legality was concerned, a legal\nresponsibility, that would be a question for a court. The question of\nmoral responsibility is a proper subject to inquire of the witness.\n\nAs to Dr. Sauter\u2019s objection, the opinion of the witness as to medical\nsentiment in America may be received. The counsel\u2019s objection goes to\nits weight rather than to admissibility. The witness could be asked if\nhe is aware of the sentiment in America in 1942 and whether it is\ndifferent from this of the present day or whether it does not differ.\nThe witness may also be asked whether he is aware of the opinion as to\nmedical ethics in other countries or throughout the civilized world. But\nthe objections are both overruled.\n\nMR. HARDY: It is your opinion, then, that the state cannot assume the\nmoral responsibility of a physician to his patient or experimental\nsubject?\n\nWITNESS DR. IVY: That is my opinion.\n\nQ. On what do you base your opinion? What is the reason for that\nopinion?\n\nA. I base that opinion on the principles of ethics and morals contained\nin the oath of Hippocrates. I think it should be obvious that a state\ncannot follow a physician around in his daily administration to see that\nthe moral responsibility inherent therein is properly carried out. This\nmoral responsibility that controls or should control the conduct of a\nphysician should be inculcated into the minds of physicians just as\nmoral responsibility of other sorts, and those principles are clearly\ndepicted or enunciated in the oath of Hippocrates with which every\nphysician should be acquainted.\n\nQ. Is the oath of Hippocrates the Golden Rule in the United States and\nto your knowledge throughout the world?\n\nA. According to my knowledge it represents the Golden Rule of the\nmedical profession. It states how one doctor would like to be treated by\nanother doctor in case he were ill. And in that way how a doctor should\ntreat his patient or experimental subjects. He should treat them as\nthough he were serving as a subject.\n\nQ. Several of the defendants have pointed out in this case that the oath\nof Hippocrates is obsolete today. Do you follow that opinion?\n\nA. I do not. The moral imperative of the oath of Hippocrates I believe\nis necessary for the survival of the scientific and technical philosophy\nof medicine.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n 2. GERMAN MEDICAL PROFESSION\n\n a. Introduction\n\nThe position of the German medical profession under the Hitler regime\nwas the subject of argument by both prosecution and defense. The\nprosecution discussed the matter in the early part of its opening\nstatement (vol. I, p. 29 ff.). Selections from the argumentation of the\ndefense on this point have been taken from the final plea for the\ndefendant Blome and from the closing brief for the defendant Rostock.\nThese appear on pages 86 to 90.\n\n b. Selections from the Argumentation of the Defense\n\n _EXTRACT FROM THE FINAL PLEA FOR\n DEFENDANT BLOME_[26]\n\n * * * * *\n\nFurthermore, I have another matter at heart, especially in my capacity\nas defense counsel for this defendant: Blome was Deputy Reich\nPhysicians\u2019 Leader; he will, therefore, to a certain degree, easily be\nregarded as the representative of the German medical profession during\nthe Hitler regime. Now, there is great danger that the entire German\nmedical profession will be identified with its former leader, Dr. Conti,\nand with the crimes he was charged with during this trial; the German\nmedical profession fears that those crimes which, _in fact_, were\ncommitted by _individual_ doctors, who may have been rightly charged,\nare to be taken as typical of the entire medical profession. Indeed,\nduring the last months we could hear in the press and on the radio that\nthe entire medical profession was here in the prisoners\u2019 dock;\nunfortunately, by thus generalizing, the matter was presented as though\nthe entire medical profession was corrupt and that the majority of\nGerman physicians had committed such crimes or at least approved them,\nas stated here in the indictment at the trial. This conception is wrong\nand unjust. The German medical profession numbered about 80,000 members\nand if we add the Wehrmacht physicians and the official physicians, one\narrives at about 100,000 physicians. Now let us compare with this total\nnumber the small number of physicians and researchers here in the dock.\nThere are altogether 20 men. Of what importance is such an insignificant\nnumber for the judging of the entire profession? If out of 5,000 German\nphysicians one single person committed a crime, it is impossible to draw\na conclusion from these few exceptions regarding the behavior and morals\nof the whole class. And even if we suppose that perhaps another few\nhundred physicians and researchers not here in the dock had taken part\nin the \u201cexperiments on human beings\u201d and in the \u201ceuthanasia action\u201d, the\nnumber of guilty persons in comparison with the total number of the\nentire profession is still too small to entitle one to consider the\nentire profession as criminal, and morally inferior because some\nindividuals committed a wrong.\n\nThere is yet another point of view. It stands to reason that not all\nexperiments on human beings can be excused and justified, not even\nduring a time of total warfare and under a dictatorship, and no decent\nperson would ever think of excusing the way and manner in which the\nHitler State carried out the \u201cEuthanasia Program.\u201d However, it is an\nincontestable fact that large-scale experiments on human beings cannot\naltogether be avoided and are, in fact, carried out throughout the whole\nworld, and that there are different viewpoints concerning the problem of\neuthanasia, even to a limited extent in the circles of conscientious\nphysicians when this is carried out on a proper legal basis, and when,\nin addition, full precautions are taken to prevent abuses. It must not\nbe overlooked that the deterioration of the medical profession claimed\nin connection with this trial is connected exclusively with the problem\nof experiments on human beings and with euthanasia, but that no\naccusations are made against the professional practice of the German\nphysicians in any other respects; there are especially no accusations\nreferring to the relationship between the sick patient and the physician\nwhom he had chosen as a helper and confidant to restore his health. This\nconfidence in the attending physician felt by the patient has remained\ncompletely untouched by this trial.\n\nWe Germans have our own opinion about our physicians, we know their\nconscientiousness and willingness to render help; especially during the\nwar we have been able to observe and appreciate their readiness to\nsacrifice themselves; we know that the good qualities that made the\nGerman physicians and researchers a model in former decades were not\nlost during Hitler\u2019s time, and it would be a pity if the abuses, which\nhave been revealed and proved by this trial, should serve to undermine\nthe confidence of the German people in their physicians and expose them\nto the contempt of all civilized nations.\n\nIndividual researchers, who out of ambition or a passion for research\ndid not value a human being\u2019s life more than that of a rabbit, should\nnot be considered representative of the German physicians\u2019 profession,\nnor should those physicians of the concentration camps, who for lack of\na conscience or for some other wicked reason gave fatal injections to\nprisoners or tortured them to death, be regarded as representative of\nthe German medical profession. No. Representative of a model German\nphysician during Hitler\u2019s time, too, is the non-political, practicing\nphysician, who, even if he did perhaps formally belong to the Party,\nstrongly opposed from the bottom of his heart all kinds of violence and\nintolerance, who is closely bound to his nation and its needs, the\npracticing physician who cared for his patients in the most devoted\nmanner day after day and night after night during the time of total war\nand fearful bombardments, which is especially hard for a physician; or\nwho as military physician served at the front far from home, from his\npractice, from his family, fairly sharing all the hardships, dangers,\nand privations with his soldiers. And the surgeon who, as director of\nhis clinic, operated and cured and helped from morning till night\nwherever he could help without having time to breathe, let alone to take\npart in political activity, he also is representative of the model\nGerman physician during Hitler\u2019s time too.\n\nI do not know what verdict you will arrive at respecting one or the\nother of these defendants; but, as defense counsel of the former Deputy\nReich Physicians\u2019 Leader, I beg you to make it clear by your verdict\nthat in judging the defendant, if you must condemn him, you do not\ncondemn and defame the entire German medical profession, but that the\nabuses which were committed were individual acts such as, perhaps,\nhappened in all professions during Hitler\u2019s time without necessitating a\ncondemnation of the entire profession. These were individual acts\narising perhaps partly from personal criminal tendencies of individual\nfanatics, partly from being connected with the excesses of a total war\nin a dictatorship of unscrupulous violence.\n\nIf beside the 23 defendants there is a 24th sitting in the dock,\ninvisible to our eye, he is not of the German medical profession but the\nSS spirit of Himmler and of a dozen other murderers of millions of\npeople. This spirit might have led a fanatic to forget his professional\nethics and to commit crimes. But the entire medical profession remained\nsound and conscious of its duty.\n\nMay your verdict not completely rob the German people of their\nconfidence in their physicians but restore it to them, and I have no\ndoubt that after the present crisis has been overcome and in more normal\ncircumstances, the German medical profession will prove to its people\nthat as a body it never forgot nor will ever forget the professional\nethical commandments of the Hippocratic oath.\n\n * * * * *\n\n _EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF FOR\n DEFENDANT ROSTOCK_\n\n _Introduction_\n\nMr. President, your Honors:\n\nThe great English historian and sociologist, Thomas Carlyle, once said,\n\u201cYour life, and were you the humblest of human beings, is not a wild\ndream but a lofty fact.\u201d I do not want to speak to you in this courtroom\nwithout first recalling this saying and thereby seeing before my eyes\nthe picture of the great number of our fellow human beings whose lives\nhave really become a wild dream. The fact on which this trial is based,\nthat defenseless human beings were used by doctors of my country for\nexperiments and in part died after suffering tortures, cannot be denied.\nI, myself, would doubt the clarity of my judgment as a German jurist if\nI did not realize that general human rights, such as the fundamental\nstandards anchored in all civilized nations, have been violated thereby.\nMedical science should bring help and healing to suffering humanity. I\nam proud to state that it was German doctors who, in the last century,\nsaved millions of human beings from the most serious and fatal diseases\nby their research. Let me remind you only of names such as Robert Koch,\nEmil von Behring, Paul Ehrlich, Theodor Billroth, and August Bier, or\nmedicines such as Germanin, atabrine, Salvarsan, diphtheria serum,\ntetanus serum, and many others. If it were possible to achieve such\ndecisive results in any other way, this would only confirm the actual\ntruth, that no one, no matter how highly placed and no matter how\nimportant his aims, has the right to lower other human beings to the\nlevel of guinea pigs by force. How could a man venture to dispose in\nthat way of the life and health of his fellow men, be they ever so\nhumble? It seems to me that this involves a fundamental contradiction to\nthe duty of the doctor, a violation of the dignity of the individual,\nand a presumption which cannot remain without horrible results. There\nmay be doubtful cases, there may be borderline cases, but the solution\nof these questions can be based on only one principle, which is that all\ncreatures in human form have an equal right to life and health. Humanity\nwould be in a sad state if again and again there were not volunteers\nfrom the ranks of physicians and laymen who made themselves available\nfor experiments, conscious of their contribution toward saving and\nhealing other human beings. But how can a man dare simply to designate\nothers to suffer and die, when they, too, like to live and be free from\nwant and fear, just like he himself? * * *\n\n\n 3. MEDICAL EXPERIMENTS IN OTHER COUNTRIES\n\n a. Introduction\n\nThe practice of medical experimentation upon human beings in other\ncountries was brought out by the defense in an effort to show that the\nmedical experimentation in which these defendants engaged was not\ncriminal. Extracts from the argumentation of the defense have been\nselected from the closing briefs for the defendants Karl Brandt and\nRuff. These appear below on pages 90 to 93. From the evidence on this\nquestion, the following appear below on pages 95 to 121: Selections from\ndefense documents, followed by extracts from the cross-examination of\none of the prosecution\u2019s expert witnesses Dr. Andrew C. Ivy and an\nextract from the cross-examination of the defendant Rose.\n\n b. Selections from the Argumentation of the Defense\n\n _EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF FOR\n DEFENDANT KARL BRANDT_\n\n * * * * *\n\nReference has furthermore been made to the _extraordinarily large number\nof persons_ available _for experiments_. With regard to the experiments\nmade and on the basis of the evidence of this trial, experiments on a\nlarge scale have been made only in rare cases, and these may be compared\nin size with experiments on a large scale outside of Germany, as they\nwere made even in peacetime; reference is made once more to the malaria\nexperiment. (_Karl Brandt 1, Karl Brandt Ex. 1._)\n\nIf one considers the _number of persons sentenced to death_ who were\nsubjected to experiments, the number is comparable to those eleven\ncondemned persons for the poison experiment in Manila. (_Becker-Freyseng\n60a, Becker-Freyseng Ex. 59._)\n\nOne should compare, among others, the plague experiments by Strong in\n1912 on 900 convicts, including an experiment on 42 persons some of whom\nwere persons sentenced to death, and the typhus experiments by Hamdi on\n153 persons. (_Becker-Freyseng 60a, Becker-Freyseng Ex. 59._)\n\nIf the number of condemned persons used for experiments in these\nproceedings appears high, it should be taken into consideration that the\nnumber of persons sentenced to death under the laws of war is also\nunusually high. For the protection of the country, criminal laws are,\nduring wartime, applied more rigorously in all countries in order to\nguarantee safety at home during the absence of the male population at\nthe front. The number of ordinary criminals who have been punished on\naccount of acts committed by taking advantage of war conditions, and\nespecially of the blackout, is already unusually high; it is, therefore,\nnot even necessary to include herein the persons sentenced for political\ncrimes.\n\nIn this connection the viewpoint of the _English scholar Mellenby_ of\nthe London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine deserves special\nconsideration. (_Becker-Freyseng 60, Becker-Freyseng Ex. 58._) In the\nwell-known medical journal \u201cThe Lancet\u201d of 1 December 1946, this doctor\nquotes particularly the _political conditions_ in Germany as decisive\nand as an excuse for the accused persons. One may not, therefore,\nsubsequently refer to the general conditions in Germany during the war\nyears in order to judge the _acts committed during this time_ more\nseverely.\n\nThe number of human guinea pigs used in the experiments alleged by the\nprosecution is about 2,000. The number of human guinea pigs known to the\ndefense from published data amounts to more than 11,000 persons. If\namong those, minor experiments are also to be found, it may be supposed\nthat the experiments published contain only the material fit to be known\nto the public. Publications show the results but not the sacrifices and\nundesirable incidents. That which the defense can present is not the\nresult of an exhausting criminal investigation.\n\nLooking at only these experiments which were considered fit for\npublication, one cannot possibly come to the conclusion that they were\nmade only with volunteers. I refer in this connection to the compilation\nof experiments in Document Karl Brandt 117, Karl Brandt Exhibit 103,\nnamely 32 experiments on at least 1,580 persons: they are experiments on\npersons sentenced to death, prisoners and soldiers, women and girls; the\nexperiments are often carried out in such a way that it cannot be\npresumed the subjects volunteered.\n\nVoluntary service of the human guinea pigs has not been claimed either;\nonly in two cases has it specifically been pointed out. The volunteers\nin one of these experiments were medical students. Outstanding in this\ndocument are 13 experiments with at least 223 children. One cannot\nassume that the parents had given their consent. In this connection\nreference is made to Document Karl Brandt 93, Karl Brandt Exhibit 29,\nregarding the experiments of Professor McCance.\n\n _EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF FOR\n DEFENDANT RUFF_\n\n * * * * *\n\nExperiments which time and again have been described in international\nliterature without meeting any opposition do not constitute a crime from\nthe medical point of view. For nowhere did a plaintiff arise from the\nside of the responsible professional organization, or from that of the\nadministration of justice, to denounce as criminal the experiments\ndescribed in literature. On the contrary, the authors of those reports\non their human experiments gained general recognition and fame; they\nwere awarded the highest honors; they gained historical importance. And\nin spite of all this, are they supposed to have been criminals? No! In\nview of the complete lack of _written_ legal norms, the physician, who\ngenerally knows only little about the law, has to rely on and refer to\nthe admissibility of what is generally recognized to be admissible all\nover the world.\n\nThe defense is convinced that the Tribunal, when deciding this problem\nwithout prejudice, will first study the many experiments performed all\nover the world on healthy and sick persons, on prisoners and free\npeople, on criminals and on the poor, even on children and mentally ill\npersons, in order to see how the medical profession in its international\ntotality answers the question of the admissibility of human experiments,\nnot only in theory but also in practice.\n\nIt is psychologically understandable that German research workers today\nwill, if possible, have nothing to do with human experiments and will\ntry to avoid them, or would like to describe them as inadmissible even\nif before 1933 they were perhaps of the opposite opinion. However,\nexperiments performed in 1905-1912 by a highly respected American in\nAsia for the fight against the plague, which made him famous all over\nthe world, cannot and ought not to be labelled as criminal because a\nBlome is supposed to have performed the same experiments during the\nHitler period (which, in fact, however, were not performed at all); and\nexperiments for which, before 1933, a foreign research worker, the\nEnglishman Ross, was awarded the Nobel prize for his malaria\nexperiments, do not deserve to be condemned only because a German\nphysician performed similar experiments during the Hitler regime. One\nshould not say that experiments, where different diseases or different\ndrugs from those referred to in this trial were dealt with, have no\nconnection with the charges of this indictment because of this\ndifference and that, therefore, they are of no importance as evidence.\nIn the foreground there stands the basic question as to the conditions\nunder which such experiments are permissible; whether they refer to\nplague or typhus, to tuberculosis or jaundice, is a secondary question\nwhich concerns the medical expert more than the jurist.\n\nDecisive for this trial is the question whether the conditions under\nwhich experiments were performed by the defendants were those\ninternationally recognized as for the experiments which were performed\nby foreign research workers with the approval of all civilized humanity.\n\nIf one wants to arrive at a just and satisfactory decision, one must\ndisregard the fact that here German research workers are accused. On the\ncontrary, one has to strive toward obtaining an international basis to\nrepresent the present international opinion on human experiments, one\nwhich for decades, if not for centuries, will form the criterion for the\npermissibility of human experiments. We, as jurists, can only render a\nservice to the development of medical science and therewith to humanity\nif we endeavor to establish an incontrovertibly clear view of today\u2019s\ninternational opinion on human experiments, whether these experiments\nwere performed by Germans or by foreigners.\n\n\n\n\n c. Evidence\n\n _Defense Documents_\n\n Doc. No. Def. Ex. No. Description of Document Page\n Karl Brandt 1 Karl Brandt Ex. 1 Extract from \u201cLife\u201d 95\n Magazine concerning\n malaria experiments on\n convicts in U. S.\n penitentiaries.\n\n Becker-Freyseng Becker-Freyseng Statement of Professor 95\n 60 Ex. 58 Dr. Hans Luxenburger and\n Dr. Hans Halbach\n concerning the report on\n experiments on human\n beings in world\n literature\n (Becker-Freyseng 60a,\n Becker-Freyseng Ex. 59).\n\n Becker-Freyseng Becker-Freyseng Extracts from report on 96\n 60a Ex. 59 experiments on human\n beings in world\n literature; excerpts from\n various newspapers and\n medical weeklies.\n\n Karl Brandt 117 Karl Brandt Excerpts from the 103\n Ex. 103 dissertation \u201cInfection\n Experiments on Human\n Beings\u201d by Alfred\n Heilbrunn of the Hygiene\n Institute of the\n Wuerzburg University,\n 1937, concerning\n experiments on human\n beings in other\n countries.\n\n _Testimony_\n\n Extracts from the testimony of prosecution expert witness Dr. 110\n Andrew C. Ivy.\n Extract from the testimony of defendant Rose 118\n\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT KARL BRANDT 1\n KARL BRANDT DEFENSE EXHIBIT 1\n\nEXTRACT FROM \u201cLIFE\u201d MAGAZINE CONCERNING MALARIA EXPERIMENTS ON CONVICTS\n IN UNITED STATES PENITENTIARIES\n\n_Extract from \u201cLife\u201d, Vol. 18, Nr. 23 of June 4, 1945_\n\n _Prison Malaria_\n\nConvicts expose themselves to disease so doctors can study it.\n\nIn three United States penitentiaries men who have been imprisoned as\nenemies of society are now helping science fight another enemy of\nsociety. At the United States Penitentiary in Atlanta, the Illinois\nState Penitentiary, and New Jersey State Reformatory some 800 convicts\nvolunteered to be infected with malaria so medical men can study the\ndisease. The experimenters, who are directed by the Office of Scientific\nResearch and Development, have found prison life ideal for controlled\nlaboratory work with humans. Their subjects all eat the same food, sleep\nthe same hours, and are never far away. The prisoners are not pardoned\nor paroled for submitting to infection.\n\nPrison malaria experiments underline the fact that malaria is still a\nvery serious medical problem. In the United States there are 1,000,000\ncases a year. The existing drugs (mainly quinine and atabrine) control\nmalaria but cannot keep it from recurring long after the original\ninfection. The goal of malaria research is to find a new drug which will\ncure the disease permanently.\n\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT BECKER-FREYSENG 60\n BECKER-FREYSENG DEFENSE EXHIBIT 58\n\n STATEMENT OF PROFESSOR DR. HANS LUXENBURGER AND DR. HANS HALBACH\nCONCERNING THE REPORT ON EXPERIMENTS ON HUMAN BEINGS IN WORLD LITERATURE\n (SEE ALSO BECKER-FREYSENG 60a, BECKER-FREYSENG EX. 59)\n\n _Experiments on Human Beings as Viewed in World Literature_\n\nI, Professor Dr. med. Hans Luxenburger, specialist in nervous diseases,\nresident at 35, Liebigstrasse, Munich, and I, Dr. ing. and Dr. med.\nErich Hans Halbach, physician, of Prien-Chiemsee, have first been\nadvised that we shall render ourselves liable to punishment if we give a\nfalse affidavit. We declare under oath that we have ascertained the\ncorrectness of the enclosed excerpts of scientific works and books, that\nis to say, with respect to the excerpts bearing the following numbers:\n1, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26,\n27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 44, 46, 47,\n48, 54 * * * by comparison with the original; with respect to the\nnumbers 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 19, 41, 43, 45, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53 by\ncertified photostatic copies, copies, translations or excerpts submitted\nto us by attorney at law Dr. Edmund Tipp.\n\nWe made the report \u201cExperiments on Human Beings as Viewed in World\nLiterature\u201d to the best of our knowledge for presentation as evidence\nbefore the American Military Tribunal I in the Palace of Justice,\nNuernberg, Germany.\n\nMunich, 14 April 1947\n\n [Signed] Prof. Dr. Hans Luxenburger\n Dr. Hans Halbach\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT BECKER-FREYSENG 60a\n BECKER-FREYSENG DEFENSE EXHIBIT 59\n\nEXTRACTS FROM REPORT ON EXPERIMENTS ON HUMAN BEINGS IN WORLD LITERATURE;\n EXCERPTS FROM VARIOUS NEWSPAPERS AND MEDICAL WEEKLIES\n\n _Excerpt from the Certified Translation_\n\n_Author_: Ladell, W.S.S. (Med. Research Committee).\n_Title_: Effects after Taking Small Quantities of Sea-Water. An\n experimental study. (From the research staff, National Hospital, Queen\n Square).\n_Quotation_: The Lancet No. 6267 (October 1943) page 441.\n_Purpose_: Contribution to the physiology of persons who received the\n same food and drinking water as shipwrecked persons in lifeboats.\n Studies regarding the effect of the drinking of sea water on the\n chloride balance, urea excretion, urine amount, and loss of body weight\n of shipwrecked persons.\n\n_Procedure_:\n\n 1. Three experimental persons, after one day without water, drank\n 240 cc. fresh water and 180 cc. sodium chloride 3.5 percent solution\n daily for 4\u00bd days.\n 2. Ten experimental persons, after one day without water, drank\n 540 cc. fresh water and 180 cc. sea water daily for 5 days; the\n following 4 days, 5 of these experimental persons drank 60 cc. fresh\n water daily, the following 4 days the other 5 experimental persons\n drank 60 cc. fresh water and 180 cc. sea water daily.\n 3. Eleven experimental persons, after one day without water, drank\n 540 cc. fresh water daily for 5 days; 6 of these experimental persons\n received 60 cc. water and 180 cc. sea water daily for the following 4\n days.\n 4. Two experimental persons, after one day without water, drank\n 370 cc. fresh water each for 2 days, for the following 3 days daily\n 240 cc. fresh water each, plus 400 cc. sea water, the next 36 hours\n only 600 cc. sea water.\n All experimental persons moreover took only sea-rescue emergency\n rations in limited quantities, with 1 gr. sodium chloride at the\n most.\n_Experimental persons_: 17 experimental persons from a naval hospital\n submitted \u201cvoluntarily to the severe experimental conditions\u201d, without\n physical injury.\n\n _Excerpt from Certified Report 19_\n\n_Author_: Cameron and Karunaratne.\n_Quotation_: Journal of Pathology and Bacteriology 42, 13 (1936).\n_Purpose_: Studies of the poisonous effect of carbontetrachloride on\n human beings (report).\n_Experiment_: Carbontetrachloride is administered to healthy criminals\n before their execution. The effect of the poison on the liver is\n determined by way of an autopsy. (Therapeutical normal doses 3.0 cc.:\n maximum dose 5.0 cc.)\n\n 2 test persons receive twice 6 cc. (Nichols and Hampton)\n 3 test persons receive twice 4 cc. (Docherty and Nichols)\n 2 test persons receive twice 5 cc.^{*} (Docherty and Burgess)\n 1 test person receive twice 5 and 3 cc.^{*} (Docherty and Burgess)\n 3 test persons receive twice 10 cc. (Leach, Haughwout and Ash)\n ^{*} with subsequent laxative.\n\n_Result_: In some cases changes in the liver, in others none.\n_Test persons_: 11 criminals sentenced to death.\n\n _Excerpt from Original 20_\n\n _Author_: Lt. Col. Kendall, A.E., Lt. Col. Dickinson, S.P., Lt. Col.\n Forrester, J.S.\n _Title_: The Treatment of Bacillary Dysentery in Chinese Soldiers with\n Sulfaguanidine and Sulfadiazine.\n _Quotation_: American Journal of Medical Science 211,103 (January,\n 1946).\n _Purpose_: Page 103: \u201cThe opportunity to make controlled observations of\n the efficacy of sulfaguanidine and sulfadiazine in the treatment of\n acute bacillary dysentery has recently presented itself to us. In an\n Army general hospital in northeastern India caring for Chinese and\n American troops, we have observed many hundreds of cases within the\n past year. It early became apparent that we were dealing with a\n relatively benign form of the disease with a uniformly favorable\n outcome. Under these circumstances, it seemed both justifiable and\n important to utilize the opportunity to determine to what extent\n sulfonamide therapy shortened the course of the disease or otherwise\n favorably influenced its course.\u201d\n _Experiment_: \u201cThe present communication describes the results of such\n an investigation, carried out in the 7-month period from June through\n December 1943, in which the results of treatment were compared in 334\n Chinese patients with bacillary dysentery, one-third received\n sulfaguanidine and one-third, sulfadiazine.\u201d\n _Results_: Page 109: \u201cNeither drug shortened the course of the disease,\n ameliorated the symptoms, nor altered the eventual outcome.\u201d\n _Test persons_: 334 Chinese soldiers patients.\n\n _Excerpt from the Original Report No. 23_\n\n _Author_: See below.\n _Title_: Trench Fever Report of Commission Medical Research Committee,\n American Red Cross, University Press 1918. Trench Fever, Bruce, Final\n Report of the War Trench Fever Investigation Committee, Journal of\n Hygiene 1921, page 258.\n _Quotation_: Reference in Kolle-Kraus-Uhlenhut, Manual of Pathogenic\n Micro-organisms. VIII/1, 1302, (1930).\n _Purpose_: \u201cThe American Commission (President: Strong, Members: Swift,\n Ople, McNeal, Beetjew, Pappenheimer, Peacoc, Rapport) interpreted its\n task in a preponderantly practical way, trying to clarify the methods\n of transmission and to safeguard the troops from infection. The\n English Commission (President: Bruce. Members: Harvey, Bacot, Byam,\n Trench, Arkwright, Fletcher, Hird, Plimmer) set itself the task of\n investigating the disease completely and thoroughly, particularly also\n the causative agent.\u201d\n _Experiment_: \u201cThe experiments of the English-American Commissions,\n those of transmitting Quintana with the entire blood were largely\n positive, and the intravenous injection showed better results than the\n intramuscular and particularly the subcutaneous.\n \u201cExperiments for the transmission of lice were carried out by the\n English and American Commissions on the two bases: The bite of lice\n and the rubbing in of infected lice secretion.\u201d\n The first announcement of the American Commission on successful\n transmission of lice came on 14 February 1918; the first successful\n experiment on the transmission of lice of the English Commission on 9\n March.\n\n _Transmission Experiments_:\n\n with Plasma positive in 7 cases\n with Serum negative\n with red blood corpuscles positive 3 times in 4 experiments\n with blood from skin which has negative\n been scratched\n\n _Infection_:\n\n with secretion of lice positive\n with sputum and saliva positive once in 4 experiments\n with urine of patients rubbed into positive 5 times in 8 experiments\n the skin\n through the conjunctiva positive\n through the urethra not successful\n through the mouth not successful\n through food and drink not successful\n\n _Experimental persons_: Approximately at least 100\n _Result_: Clarification of the etiology and the methods of transmission.\n\n _Excerpts from the Original Report No. 25_\n\n _Author_: Hamdi.\n _Title_: Results of Immunization Tests against Typhus.\n _Quotation_: Journal for Hygiene 1916, 82. Quoted in\n Kolle-Kraus-Uhlenhut, Manual of Pathogenic Micro-organisms VIII/2,\n 1204 (1930).\n _Purpose_: See title.\n _Experiment_: \u201cBy means of virulent blood of patients, Hamdi was in a\n position to check on a large number of persons who had been treated\n before partly with the blood of patients (80), partly with the blood\n of reconvalescents (54), partly with a mixture of both blood types\n (19) * * *. Upon the infection with the blood of patients, none of the\n thrice protectively vaccinated persons became ill, two out of seven\n persons who had been protectively vaccinated only twice became ill.\u201d\n _Experimental persons_: \u201cIn the first place, these experiments concerned\n persons who had been sentenced to death for crimes,\u201d\n \u201c* * * large number * * *.\u201d\n _Result_: Effectiveness of protective vaccination was proved.\n\n _Excerpt from Original Report No. 26_\n\n _Author_: Doerr, R.\n _Title_: Pappataci Fever and Dengue.\n _Quotation_: Kolle-Kraus-Uhlenhut, Manual of Pathogenic Micro-organisms\n VIII/1, 501 et seq. (1930).\n _Purpose_: Research in Etiology and Transmission of Pappataci Fever.\n _Experiment_: II. Pappataci Fever. Page 508: \u201cThe organism circulates in\n the blood of the patients during the first 24 hours after the\n beginning of the fever. Its presence is betrayed only from the\n pathogenicity (infectivity) of the blood for healthy and receptive\n (not immune) human beings. If such an individual were to be injected\n with the blood of a subcutaneously feverish person he would fall ill *\n * * of a fever attack typical in every respect. This experiment was at\n first successfully performed by Doerr (1908), later by Doerr and Russ\n in the Hercegovina, by Birt in Malta, by Tedeschi and Napolitani in\n Italy, by Lepine (Three Days Fever in Syria, Bull. Soc. path. exot.\n _20_, 251, 1927) in Syria. The experiment was repeated by Kligler and\n Ashner in Palestine and furnished positive results in about 35 single\n experiments. In this connection it must be considered that, almost\n without exception, the inoculated persons lived in areas free from\n epidemics and phlebotomus so that an accidental natural infection was\n out of the question from the beginning.\u201d\n Page 513: \u201cBut Whittingham and Rook brought infected phlebotomus\n from Malta to England. They succeeded in breeding imagines from the\n eggs of flies laid in England and infecting human beings by the bites\n of these flies, that is producing fever attacks. In this way, the\n question of where the virus of the Pappataci fever remains over the\n winter would apparently be answered.\u201d\n\n _Experimental persons_: About 35.\n _Result_: Determination and confirmation of the etiology and the method\n of transmission.\n\n _Report After the Original No. 33_\n\n _Author_: Goldberger, Joseph (USA Public Health Service 1914).\n _Quoted from_: Bernhard Jaffe, Scientists in America, Overseas Edition\n Incorporated, New York 1944, page 401 et seq.\n _Purpose_: Proof that pellagra is a deficiency disease.\n _Experiment_: One-sided deficiency diet (restricted in quality) which\n caused 7 severe cases of pellagra.\n _Experimental persons_: 12 voluntary prisoners of the Rankin-Prison-Farm\n to whom their freedom was promised after survival of the experiment,\n with the agreement of the governor of the state. All survived and were\n set free.\n\n _Excerpt from Original 44_\n\n _Author_: Fraenkel, E.\n _Title_: Report on Infectious Colpitis Epidemica Observed in Children.\n _Quoted from_: Arch. Path. Anath. a. Physiol. (Virchow) _99_, 251\n (1885).\n _Purpose_: Page 263: Confirmation of the suspicion of an \u201cinfection of\n the conjunctiva caused by vaginal secretion.\u201d Animal tests showed\n negative results.\n _Experiment_: Page 263: \u201cBy chance I had the possibility to inoculate\n the vaginal secretion (of sick women) into the conjunctiva of 3\n children patients who were in the final stage of the disease (two were\n suffering from atrophia infantum, the third from cheesy pneumonia) * *\n *.\u201d\n Page 264: \u201cThe two pus-producing patients had suffered for\n several weeks from their colpitis.\u201d\n _Result_: 2 children died\u20141\u00bd and 2 days after the inoculation without\n showing any reactions. The third child contracted conjunctivitis,\n which healed after treatment, and died on the 10th day.\n _Experimental subjects_: 3 moribund children.\n\n _Excerpt from Original 48_\n\n _Author_: Current Comment. Summary of a study taken from Epidemiology\n Unit No. 50.\n _Title_: Cholera Studies in Calcutta.\n _Quotation_: Journal of the American Medical Association _130_, 790\n (1946).\n _Aim_: Page 790: \u201c* * * control experiment on the treatment of cholera *\n * *.\u201d\n _Experiment_: Page 790: \u201c* * * in a highly endemic or epidemic area of\n India, patients were taken in rotation as they were admitted to the\n hospital and assigned to the following group according to the\n treatment given:\n A, sulfaguanidine;\n B, control;\n C, sulfadiacine;\n D, penicillin; and\n E, sulfadiacine and penicillin combined.\n\n All patients received supportive treatment in the form of i.v.\n hypertonic and isotonic solution of sodium chloride and oral\n stimulants as indicated of offset dehydration, emaciation, and\n circulatory failure.\u201d\n\n _Result_: Page 791:\n\n 1. Patient treated with plasma in addition to chemo-therapy:\n death rate: zero.\n 2. Patients receiving chemo-therapy alone: death rate 1.1\n percent.\n 3. Control group consisting of all patients who had not received\n treatment or who had insufficient treatment or only supportive\n treatment: death rate 38.3 percent.\n \u201cThe dramatic effect of plasma is still more evident if the shock\n or collapse cases are segregated and tabulated. There were, in all,\n 78 severely ill patients in that group. The results in the group\n showed a mortality rate of 95.8 percent for the control group, 15.8\n percent for the chemo-therapy, and no mortality in the group treated\n with plasma plus chemo-therapy.\u201d\n\n _Experimental subjects_:\n\n No numbers given, presumably several hundred, nonvoluntary as\n clinical serial tests.\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT KARL BRANDT 117\n KARL BRANDT DEFENSE EXHIBIT 103\n\n EXCERPTS FROM THE DISSERTATION \u201cINFECTION EXPERIMENTS ON HUMAN BEINGS\u201d\n BY ALFRED HEILBRUNN OF THE HYGIENE INSTITUTE OF THE WUERZBURG\n UNIVERSITY, 1937, CONCERNING EXPERIMENTS ON HUMAN BEINGS IN OTHER\n COUNTRIES\n\n _Excerpt from \u201cInfection Experiment on Human Beings\u201d_\n\nInaugural Dissertation for the Attainment of the Degree of a Doctor of\nMedicine at the Friedrich-Wilhelm University of Berlin;\n\n submitted by: Alfred Heilbrunn,\n Hofgeismar (Hesse Nassau) 1937\n\nFrom the Hygiene Institute of Wuerzburg University. (Dean: Professor M.\nKnorr)\n\nPrinted by: F. W. Gadow and Son, Hildburghausen.\n\n(The pamphlet is in the library of the Erlangen University.)\n\n * * * * *\n\n _MALARIA_\n\nInfection experiments with malaria take up much space in literature. The\ndesire to acquire an exact knowledge of this disease, so important to\nvarious countries, makes this fact appear quite understandable.\nTherefore, numerous experiments on human beings were carried out even\nbefore the discovery of the plasmodium malariae and without knowledge of\nthe transmission by anopheles. In the following enumeration, these\nexperiments will be quoted chronologically, thus giving a picture of how\nthe knowledge of the etiology, the infectiousness and the transmission\nof malaria, was discovered through infection experiments on human\nbeings.\n\n1. (LV 7) * * * SALISBURY (quoted from Mannaberg: Malaria Diseases,\nVienna 1899. Nothnagel, Special Pathology and Therapy II 2.) * * *\nExperiment: * * * Two * * * men * * * after 12 and 14 days, fell ill\nwith typical tertiana. The same experiment in a second case again turned\nout a positive result.\n\n2. (LV 8) * * * DOCHMANN (Dochmann: The Doctrine of febris intermittens.\nSt. Petersburg Medical Journal. No. 20, quoted from Virchow-Hirsch 1880)\n* * *. His experiments * * *. 1st experiment: He inoculated * * * a\nhealthy 30-year-old man subcutaneously with * * * feverish chills.\n\n * * * * *\n\n 2d experiment: * * * Inoculation of three men * * *\n\n 1st man: * * * fever\n\n 2d man: Only passing indisposition.\n\n 3d man: Stayed completely well.\n\n 3d experiment: Inoculation of a woman * * *\n\n * * * shivering fits, fever, * * *\n\n3. (LV 9) * * * GERHARD (Gerhard: quoted from Olpp: Famous Tropical\nPhysicians Publ. Quello, Tuebingen) * * * transmitted * * * malaria from\na sick person to a healthy one through subcutaneous blood injections.\n\n * * * * *\n\n4. (LV 10) * * * MARCHIAFAVA and CELLI (Marchiafava and Celli: New\nResearch on Malaria Infection, Progress of Medicine, 1885, 787, 795) * *\n* Five experiments were carried out on patients suffering from nervous\ndisorders.\n\n1. Experiment: Experimental subject a 17-year-old man with myelitis\ntransversa * * *\n\n * * * progress of fever\n\n * * * spasm * * *\n\n * * * swelling of the spleen * * *\n\nAn examination of the blood gave an excellent confirmation of the\nmalaria nature of the fever attacks * * *\n\n2. Experiment: Experimental subject a 68-year-old man with hemichorea.\n\n * * * * *\n\n Characteristic attack of malaria, * * * moderate spleen tumor.\n\n3. Experiment: Experimental subject a 32-year-old man with multiple\nsclerosis.\n\n * * * * *\n\n * * * characteristic attacks, spleen tumor.\n\n * * * * *\n\n4. Experiment: Experimental subject a 47-year-old man with multiple\nsclerosis.\n\n * * * * *\n\n No pathological manifestations in the blood picture.\n\n5. Experiment: Experimental subject a 23-year-old man with poliomyelit.\nant.\n\n * * * * *\n\n * * * fever * * *\n\nThese experiments showed that\u2014\n\n (1) in the blood of malaria patients, corpuscles were often\n found in the interior of the red blood corpuscles in amoeboic\n movement and susceptible to coloring with aniline.\n\n (2) the disease is transmissible, and that the same amoeboic\n formations were found in the blood of the experimental subjects\n as in the blood of the donors. The scientists carried on the\n work on the basis of these results and came to the conclusion\n that these amoeboic corpuscles were the morbific agents of\n malaria. In order to be quite sure they made another inoculation\n experiment.\n\n Experimental subject was a 43-year-old man with paralysis\n agitans.\n\n * * * * *\n\n * * * continual subnormal temperature accompanied by bad general\n condition . . .\n\n * * * plasmodia moving in the blood * * *\n\n5. (LV 11) The experiments of MARCHIAFAVA and CELLI are confirmed by a\nwhole series of other Italian authors. I found the experiments in the\nbook of MANNABERG (page 7) in the form of tables and reproduce them here\nin the same way. (vide pages 10-13) * * *\n\n (LV 12) CELLI (Celli: quoted from Mannaberg (7)) had several\n persons in the Roman hospital S. Spirito drink water from the\n Pontinc Marshes and from the marshes near Rome and found that\n these persons did not contract malaria.\n\n (LV. 13) BRANCALEONE (Brancaleone: quoted from Mannaberg (7))\n repeated the same experiment in Sicily with the same negative\n result.\n\n (LV. 14) ZERI (Zeri: quoted from Mannaberg (7)) had 9 persons,\n for a period of 5-20 days, drink 1.5 litres of water each (in\n toto 10-60 l.) from a malaria district; he let 16 persons inhale\n the same water when sprayed. He administered it to 5 persons per\n rectum: none of the experimental persons got malaria. Also\n SALOMONE MARIO (LV. 15: Mario quoted from Mannaberg (7))\n registered the same negative result.\n\n * * * * *\n\n No results were found in support of the water theory. It only\n remained to examine whether mosquitoes transmitted malaria\n through their sting.\n\n6. (LV. 18) * * * BASTIANIELI (vide Mannaberg (7)) * * * To imitate the\nsting of the mosquito he did nothing but insert the point of the Pravaz\nsyringe, moistened with malaria blood, under the skin. That sufficed in\nsome cases to produce a severe case of malaria.\n\n * * * * *\n\n7. (LV. 20) * * * 1895 ROSS (Ross, page 9) let 4 mosquitoes of the\nspecies anopheles suck themselves full on the Indian Abdul Radir who had\nnumerous crescent-shaped formations in his blood, and on 25 May he let\nthe twenty-year-old Lutschmann, who was stated never to have been sick\nbefore, be stung by them. On 5 June the latter contracted fever which\nlasted for 3 days.\n\n * * * * *\n\n8. (LV. 23) In 1917 WAGNER-JAUREGG (Wagner-Jauregg: Psych. neurol.\nweekly 1918) introduced artificial malaria infection to cure progressive\nparalysis. Following this, now experiments were initiated.\n\n * * * * *\n\n9. (LV. 25) F. MUEHLENS and W. KIRSCHBAUM (Muehlens and Kirschbaum:\nFurther Parasitological Observations on Artificial Malaria Infection of\nParalytics. Archives for Ship and Tropical Hygiene 1924, Vol. 28, No. 4,\npage 131) in 1924 report on artificial malaria infection for the\ntreatment of paralysis.\n\n * * * * *\n\n _DIPHTHERIA_\n\n * * * * *\n\nDespite the Behring therapeutic serum and the protective vaccine\ndeveloped by Behring, the field of diphtheria immunity has always\ninterested various research experts. Their efforts were all directed\ntoward developing safe, _active_ immunity.\n\n48. (LV. 137) As early as 1902 DZIERGOWSKY (Dziergowsky, quoted from\nSeeligmann and Happe: The Position of the Active Protective Vaccine\nagainst Diphtheria. Result of Hygiene 11, 1930) reported on several\nexperiments to protect human beings against diphtheria by a number of\nsubcutaneous injections with a gradually increasing dose of\nDiphtheria-Toxin.\n\n * * * * *\n\n49. (LV. 138) BLUMENAU (Blumenau, page 137) worked on this principle in\n1909. He soaked cotton wads in undiluted toxin and placed them\nalternately in the right and then in the left nostril of children from\n3-12 years of age. He attained an antitoxin titer increase of up to 10\nA.E. per ccm. of serum.\n\n50. (LV. 139) BANDI and GAGNONI worked with killed bacteria (Bandi and\nGagnoni, page 137). They injected measles convalescents with a 4-day-old\ncrush of diphtheria bacilli cultures on agar which had been killed at\n55\u00b0 Centigrade * * *.\n\n51. (LV. 141) BOEHME and RIEBOLD (Boehme and Riebold, One Way of Active\nImmunization against Diphtheria, Munich Medical Weekly 1924, 232) were\nthe first to use living diphtheria bacilli for vaccination of human\nbeings. After extensive experiments on guinea pigs, they proceeded to\nexperiment on human beings. They used a diphtheria lymph, which they\nnamed Diphcutan, a mixture of living, highly toxic diphtheria bacilli\ncultures in N_{a}C1. Sixty-two persons were vaccinated with this lymph\nwith 10-20 scratches each on the upper arm. Those vaccinated were\u2014\n\n 22 children from 1\u00bd-5 years of age,\n 11 children from 6-10 years of age,\n 17 children from 10-15 years of age,\n 2 youths from 15-20 years of age, and\n 9 adults from 20-50 years of age.\n\n * * * * *\n\n52. (LV. 142) EBERHARD (Eberhard, Contributions toward active\nImmunization against Diphtheria. Hygiene Journal 105, page 614) tested 4\ndifferent vaccines produced by the Marburger Behringwerke for their\nsuitability for immunization of humans and for use in public vaccination\nstations.\n\n * * * * *\n\n53. (LV. 143) BAYER used the lymph suggested by BOEHME and RIEBOLD\n(Bayer, On active Immunization against Diphtheria. Yearbook of Infant\nTherapeutics 1925, 273) and vaccinated 87 children with it * * *.\n\n54. (LV. 144) MUELLER and MEYER (Mueller and Meyer, Diagnosis and\nImmunization of children threatened with Diphtheria. Journal of Infant\nTherapeutics 39, 405, 1925). They also checked the experiments by BOEHME\nand RIEBOLD with the same methods, vaccinated 53 children who had shown\na positive reaction to the SCHICK test.\n\n * * * * *\n\n _TYPHUS_\n\n55. (LV. 149) REITANO (Reitano, quoted from Rontal, Journal of\nBacteriology 1933 III, page 112) vaccinated human beings with virus\ncontained in dog ticks and produced typhus.\n\n56. (LV. 150) One immunization experiment dating from the World War cost\nthe lives of 50 Turkish soldiers. In the year 1915 immunization\nexperiments against typhus were to be carried out in the hospitals of\nthe 3d Turkish Army with inactivated blood from a diseased person. The\ndoctor concerned took the blood from typhus convalescents and injected\nit, as HAMDI (Hamdi, On the Results of Immunization Experiments against\nTyphus-Exanthem. Hygiene Journal, 1916, 235) reports without having\ninactivated it, into 120 soldiers. Each received 5 ccm. subcutaneously.\nOne soldier died after 14 days, others contracted typhus which, however,\nprogressed in a satisfactory manner. After this the doctor vaccinated\nanother 310 soldiers in the same way. Of these, 174 became ill and 49\ndied. On the average the incubation period was 12 days.\n\n * * * * *\n\n _PLAGUE_\n\n62. (LV. 165) * * * BULARD (A. F. Bulard, De Moru, The Oriental Plague,\nParis 1839) * * *\n\n * * * * *\n\nExperiments continued to be carried out on condemned persons. On 17\nAugust at 8 o\u2019clock in the morning, 18-year-old Ibrahim Hassan, who had\nbeen condemned to death, was dressed in the shirt, underwear, and jacket\nof a person seriously ill with the plague. Immediately after this he was\nplaced in the bed of one of the patients which was still warm from the\npatient\u2019s fever. Until 21 August there was no sign that even the\nslightest infection had taken place. No symptoms of the disease had\ndeveloped. On the evening of the same day, however, he complained of a\nslight headache, loss of energy started, the blood circulation\naccelerated * * *\n\nA Plague Bubo developed in the left groin * * * 25 August: Further\nvomiting of dark green matter. The tongue is dry and has a slightly\nbrackish appearance. The pulse is light and quick. Respiration is jerky,\nthe features are distorted. In the night death occurs.\n\nOn 7 August at 8 o\u2019clock in the evening, Mohammed Ben Ali who has been\ncondemned to death was dressed in the shirt, underwear, and jacket of a\nperson seriously ill with the plague. Immediately thereafter he was\nplaced in the patient\u2019s bed. Until the 22d no symptoms of disease. On\nthe morning of the 23d severe outbreak of the disease. Tottering gait,\nthen walking impossible. Extreme loss of energy, appearance of being\nseriously ill * * *\n\n * * * * *\n\nOn 18 August we inoculated a person condemned to death with blood\nthrough 4 vaccinational cuts in the fold of the right arm. This blood\nwas taken from a head vein of a plague patient who had been ill for 2\ndays * * *\n\nOn 22 and 30 August a second person, condemned to death, with a\nplethoric constitution and of strong build was inoculated with blood.\nThe first time in a fold of the left arm and in the right groin area,\nthe second time in the opposite positions. On the area of the\nvaccination only the natural reddening and infections caused by the\nvaccination instrument appeared, nothing else.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u201cA third person condemned to death was inoculated with the fluid taken\nfrom a Plague Bubo in the groin and in the shoulder. This same person\nhad dressed in the clothes of a plague patient 20 days previously and\nhad contracted the plague with all its severe symptoms. The skin and\ntissue of this experimental subject remained refractory towards any\nabsorption of the poison. Even when the inoculation with blood was\nrepeated 8 days later, no disease resulted.\u201d\n\n * * * * *\n\n _SMALLPOX_\n\nIn 1791, the teacher Plett of Holstein successfully vaccinated three of\nhis landlord\u2019s children in Starkendorf near Kiel. Later on when an\nepidemic occurred they did not contract the disease, while their\nbrothers and sisters which had not been vaccinated fell sick.\n\n81. (LV. 220) JENNER started from these premises. (Jenner, quoted from\nPaschen, K.Kr.U., Manual on pathological micro-organisms, T. VIII, 1,\nP821). In his first test, he inoculated with variola 16 persons who had\nsuffered from cowpox previously. They did not fall sick.\n\nIn 1796, a milkmaid who suffered from a finger injury contracted an\ninfection when milking a cow sick with cowpox. She developed a case of\ncowpox. With the contents of one pustule, Jenner vaccinated a boy. The\nboy developed typical vaccine pustules at the vaccination area of his\narm. Two weeks later, Jenner carefully inoculated the boy on both arms\nwith new pustule matter. No sickness ensued, and a second inoculation\nalso was negative. Thus, clear proof was furnished that cowpox\ntransmitted to human beings possessed the same protective value as that\nproduced in animals.\n\nHowever, another epidemic was necessary before Jenner\u2019s success was\nrecognized. In this instance he inoculated 6 children directly from the\ncow. They developed a slight infection, and a subsequent inoculation\nfailed.\n\nThe success of Jenner\u2019s experimental infections on human beings have\nresulted in a blessing for all mankind inasmuch as his fundamental\nexperiments on human beings have caused the extermination of variola in\nall countries that have compulsory vaccination.\n\n EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF PROSECUTION EXPERT\n WITNESS DR. ANDREW C. IVY[27]\n\n * * * * *\n\n_CROSS-EXAMINATION_\n\nDR. SAUTER: Witness, you are an expert in the field of aviation\nmedicine?\n\nWITNESS DR. IVY: Yes.\n\nQ. May I ask you what fields within aviation medicine you have worked on\nspecifically, because my clients, who are recognized specialists in this\nfield, attach importance to ascertaining precisely what fields you have\nworked in particularly?\n\nA. I have worked particularly in the field of decompression or pressure\ndrop sickness, and I have also worked in the field of anoxia or exposure\nto altitude repeatedly at a level of 18,000 feet to ascertain if that\nhas any effect in the causation of pilots\u2019 fatigue.\n\nQ. At what time did you specifically concern yourself with the fields\nyou have just named? Was that before the Second World War, during the\nSecond World War, or was it earlier than that?\n\nA. My interest in these fields of aviation medicine, including free fall\nwhich I did not mention, started in 1939.\n\nQ. Regarding your specific work in this field, Witness, you have also\nissued publications. I believe you spoke of two publications. Did I\nunderstand you correctly, or were there more?\n\nA. There were two in the field of decompression sickness. There was one\npublication in the field of the effects of repeated exposure to a mild\ndegree of oxygen lack. My other work has not yet been published but was\nsubmitted in the form of reports to the Committee on Aviation Medicine\nof the National Research Council of the United States.\n\nQ. When were these two papers published of which you just told us; when,\nand were they printed by a publishing house? Did they appear in a\njournal or a periodical?\n\nA. One appears in the Journal of Aviation Medicine either in September\nor October of 1946. The other appears in the Journal of the American\nMedical Association in either December or January 1946 or 1947. The\npublication on the effect of repeated exposure to mild degrees of oxygen\nlack at altitude appears in the quarterly bulletin of Northwestern\nUniversity Medical School and part of the work, insofar as its effect on\nthe elimination of the basis in the urine is concerned, appeared in the\nJournal of Biological Chemistry around 1944 or 1945, I am not sure of\nthat date.\n\nQ. Theretofore, Witness, you had thus made no publication in the field\nof aviation medicine before the papers of which you just gave the dates\nof publication?\n\nA. The question is not clear.\n\nQ. You just gave us the titles of the publications you have published\nand when; now I ask whether before the dates you just gave, you did not\nhave any publications in the field of aviation medicine?\n\nA. No. My first research started in 1939.\n\nQ. You, yourself, have carried out experiments too; is that not so?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. With human experimental subjects, of course?\n\nA. Yes, and on myself.\n\nQ. And with a low pressure chamber?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Were these frequent experiments, or were the experiments in which\nyou, yourself, took part only infrequent in number?\n\nA. The experiments in which I took part were infrequent in number\ncompared to the total number of experiments which I performed.\n\nQ. Did you take part in these experiments as the director of the\nexperiments, as the person responsible, or were you usually the\nexperimental subject yourself?\n\nA. I served in both capacities. For example, I have frequently gone to\nthe altitude of 40,000 feet to study the symptoms of bends with an\nintermediate pressure device, which we produced in our laboratory. I\nhave been to 47,500 feet on three or four occasions, on one occasion at\n52,000 feet for half an hour. I have frequently been to 18,000 feet\nwithout supplemental oxygen in order to study the effect of the degree\nof oxygen lack present there for my ability to perform psycho-motor\ntests.\n\nQ. Can you tell us approximately during what year you began these\nexperiments of your own?\n\nA. In 1939.\n\nQ. 1939; did you at this time carry out explosive decompression\nexperiments too? Witness, one moment please, the English for that is\n\u201cexplosive decompression.\u201d That is thus the experiment in which one\nascends slowly to a certain height, let us say 8,000 meters, and then\nall at once suddenly one is brought up to a height of 15,000 meters;\nthat is, first slowly up to 8,000 and then suddenly to, let us say,\n15,000\u2014that is what I understand under the term \u201cexplosive\ndecompression\u201d experiment, and my question is: whether you also carried\nout such experiments and if so when and to what extent?\n\nA. I carried out over one hundred experiments on explosive decompression\nin various laboratories on animals, the rabbit, the dog, the pig, and\nthe monkey. I did not serve as a subject myself in experiments on\nexplosive decompression, but a student who was trained with me in\nphysiology, Dr. J. J. Smith, did the first experiments on explosive\ndecompression in which human subjects were used, at Wright Field. I am\nfamiliar with the work which Dr. Hitchcock did on this subject at Ohio\nState University in which he studied some one hundred students under\nconditions of explosive decompression.\n\nQ. To what altitude, Witness; to what maximum altitude did you carry\nyour own explosive decompression experiments?\n\nA. In animals it was up to 50,000 feet; in the case of human subjects,\nthe maximum was 47,500 with pressure breathing equipment.\n\nQ. This altitude you reached in your own experiments. Now, Doctor, it\nwould interest me to know to what maximum altitude have any experiments\nin explosive decompression been carried in America; what do you know\nabout this maximum altitude?\n\nA. I believe that 47,500 or slightly above is the maximum.\n\nQ. Witness, do you know the German Physiologist Dr. Rein; Professor\nRein, do you know his name; R-e-i-n from Goettingen?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. At the moment he is the Ordinarius for Physiology at Goettingen, he\nis a rector at the university and a member of the Scientific Advisory\nCommittee for the British Zone. On the basis of your own knowledge, do\nyou consider Professor Rein an authoritative scientist in the field of\nphysiology and aviation medicine?\n\nA. I consider him an authoritative physiologist, I am not acquainted\nwith his work in the field of aviation medicine.\n\nQ. Mr. President, I previously put in evidence\u2014I want to recall that\nnow\u2014an expert opinion from this Dr. Rein regarding Dr. Ruff. (_Ruff 5,\nRuff Ex. 3._) This expert testimony is from Professor Rein.\n\nIn your own experiments, Witness, you also used conscientious objectors,\nis that not so? Did I understand you correctly?\n\nA. Yes, in some of the experiments.\n\nQ. Will you tell us why you used conscientious objectors? Were they\nparticularly adapted for these experiments; or what was the reason for\nyou, as one conducting experiments, to use especially conscientious\nobjectors?\n\nA. It was their duty, their volunteer duty to render public service.\nThey had nothing else to do but to render public service. In the\nexperiments in which we used the conscientious objectors, they could\ndevote their full attention to the experiments. Many of the subjects,\nwhich I have used, have been medical students or dental students, who\nbesides serving as subjects had to attend their studies in schools. In\nthe experiments we did on the conscientious objectors, they could not\nattend school at the same time and carry on or perform all the tests\nthey were supposed to perform. For example, we used a group of\nconscientious objectors for repeated exposure to an altitude of 18,000\nfeet without the administration of supplemental oxygen. These tests\ninvolved the following of a strict diet, they involved the performance\nof work tests and psycho-motor tests, which required several hours every\nday to perform. Another group of conscientious objectors that I used\nwere used for vitamin studies in relation to fatigue.\n\nThese conscientious objectors had to do a great deal of carefully\nmeasured work during the day as well as to perform psycho-motor tests so\nmedical students or dental students could not be used. We had to have\nsubjects who could spend their full time on the experiments.[28]\n\n * * * * *\n\nQ. Witness, from the answers that you have given so far, I am still not\nclear in my mind precisely why you hit upon conscientious objectors in\nparticular as the experimental subjects. You said there were two groups\nof them: some were in prison and some had to perform public service.\nFrom the latter group you took your experimental subjects, but please\ngive me a clear answer to the question: Why did you specifically use\nsuch conscientious objectors for your altitude experiments?\n\nA. They could devote full time to the experimental requirements. They\ndid not have to do any other work as was the case of medical students or\ndental students, the only other type of subjects that I had available to\nme.\n\nQ. Doctor, these persons were obliged to perform public service. If\nthese conscientious objectors had not been there or if they had been\nused for public service, then you would not have had any experimental\nsubjects. There must be a specific reason why you specifically used\nconscientious objectors and I ask you, please, to tell me that reason.\n\nA. Well, we could not have done the experiments unless the conscientious\nobjectors had been available. That is the answer to your question.\n\nQ. Could you not have used prisoners, even conscientious objectors who\nrefused to do public service and were therefore in prison without doing\nany work? Could you not have used them?\n\nA. Well, that would have meant that I and my assistants would have to go\nto the prison which was quite a distance away. The conscientious\nobjectors could come to us at the university where they could live in\nthe university dormitory or in the university hospital.\n\nQ. Doctor, if your experiments were really important\u2014perhaps important\nin view of the state of war\u2014then it is difficult to understand why the\nexperiments could not have been carried out in a prison, let us say.\nOther experiments have been carried out in prisons to a large extent,\nand on another occasion. Doctor, you told us that you simply had to get\nin touch with the prisoners; you simply wrote them a letter or you put\nup a notice on the bulletin board and then, to a certain extent, you had\nprisoners available. Can you give me no other information as to why you\nused specifically and only conscientious objectors?\n\nA. No. If it had been convenient and necessary for me to use prisoners,\nI believe that we could have had prisoner volunteers for this work.\n\nQ. Witness, were you ever in a penitentiary as a visitor?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Did you see there how the criminals condemned to death were housed?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Are they completely at liberty there or are the criminals condemned\nto death locked up in their cells?\n\nA. They were locked up in their cells.\n\nQ. Now, can you please tell us how a criminal condemned to death is to\nsee the notice that you would put on the bulletin board? You told us\ntoday that it was very simple\u2014you simply put a notice on the bulletin\nboard\u2014and for hours now I have been trying to figure out how a criminal\ncondemned to death, who is locked up in his cell, is going to see that\nnotice on the bulletin board.\n\nA. While these prisoners are taken out for their meals, they can pass by\na bulletin board, or a piece of paper with the statement on it which I\nread can be placed in their cells for reading or, as a large group in\nthe dining room, the statement can be read to them.\n\nQ. Are criminals condemned to death together at meals in America? So far\nas I know, there too the criminal condemned to death is given his food\nthrough an opening in the cell door; he cannot eat in a common mess\nhall.\n\nA. Yes. But you must recall that I did not specify that the criminals\nwhich were used for malaria experiments were prisoners condemned to\ndeath; neither did I specify that if I were to go to a penitentiary to\nsee if I could get volunteers for a nutrition experiment that I should\nselect prisoners condemned to death.\n\nQ. If you are speaking here of condemned criminals as experimental\nsubjects, are you speaking of criminals condemned to death or just of\ncriminals who have just received some sentence or other?\n\nA. I have not used prisoners or criminals condemned to death. You have\nbeen using that statement. I have used prisoners.\n\nQ. You spoke only of prisoners then?\n\nA. That is correct.\n\nQ. Are those prisoners in pre-trial imprisonment who have not yet been\nput on trial or are those prisoners who have already received some\nsentence?\n\nA. Prisoners who have already received some sentence.\n\nQ. In other words, prisoners who have been condemned or sentenced?\n\nA. But not necessarily to death.\n\nQ. Yes, other sentences, aside from the death sentence, included. Did\nyou as a scientist interest yourself in the question of why a person was\nsentenced, for what crimes he was sentenced?\n\nA. No, I did not.\n\nQ. Did you at least concern yourself with the question whether the man\nwas condemned, was sentenced by a regular court or a court martial, or\nan extraordinary court?\n\nA. None of these prisoners would have been sentenced by a court martial;\nthey would have been sentenced by an ordinary civilian court.\n\nQ. How do you know? Did you see the personal files of these prisoners or\ndid you see the opinions and sentences on the basis of which the\nprisoner had been incarcerated?\n\nA. Only on the basis of the type of prisoner that would be incarcerated\nin a certain penitentiary.\n\nQ. How do you, as a doctor, know exactly what sort of prisoner is\nincarcerated in this penitentiary and what sort of prisoner is\nincarcerated in another prison? How do you know that?\n\nA. That\u2019s a matter of common knowledge to one who reads the newspapers,\nthe press, and who is generally informed on such matters. In a Federal\npenitentiary then you might have prisoners who have been incarcerated\nbecause of court martial.\n\nQ. Are inmates of Federal penitentiaries used for experiments too, as\nfar as you know?\n\nA. Yes. They may be.\n\nQ. In other words, political prisoners too, that is, prisoners who were\ncondemned by a court martial or by another court?\n\nA. We have no political prisoners in the United States.\n\nQ. Are not prisoners condemned for high treason or treason and the like?\nThose are political crimes.\n\nA. Not to my knowledge.\n\nQ. For conspiring with the enemy during the war; such cases have not\nonly arisen but they have also been punished, and you must know that\nfrom reading your newspaper, Professor; those are political prisoners.\nDo you not have those in America?\n\nA. Not to my knowledge.\n\nQ. Doctor, if I understood you correctly, you stated this morning that a\nmedical experiment with fatal consequences is to be designated either as\nan execution or as a murder; is that what you said?\n\nA. I did not say that.\n\nQ. What did you say then?\n\nA. It was more or less as I quoted it, as I remember, I said that under\nthe circumstances which surrounded the first death in high-altitude\nexperiments at Dachau, which Dr. Romberg is alleged to have witnessed,\nDr. Rascher killed the subject; that the death could be viewed only as\nan execution or as a murder; and if the subject were a volunteer, then\nhis death could not be viewed as an execution.\n\nQ. Witness, in your opinion, is there a difference whether the\nexperiments are to be traced back to the initiative of the experimenter\nhimself, or whether they are ordered by some authoritative office of the\nstate which also assumes the responsibility for them?\n\nA. Yes. There is a difference, but that difference does not pertain, in\nmy opinion, to the moral responsibilities of the investigator toward his\nexperimental subject.\n\nQ. I cannot understand that, Doctor. I can imagine that the state gives\nan experimenter the order, particularly during wartime, to carry out\ncertain experiments, and that in peacetime, on his own initiative, the\nresearcher would not carry out such experiments unless he was ordered to\nby the state. You must recognize this difference yourself.\n\nA. That does not carry over to the moral responsibility of the\nindividual to his experimental subject. I do not believe that the state\ncan assume the responsibility of ordering a scientist to kill people in\norder to obtain knowledge.\n\nQ. Witness, that is not the question. I am not interested in whether the\nstate can order some one to murder; I am interested in the question\nwhether, in your opinion, the state can order, let us say dangerous\nexperiments, experiments in which perhaps fatalities may occur. In\nAmerica, too, deaths occurred several times in experiments; what is your\nview on this?\n\nA. The state, as far as I know, in the United States of America has\nnever ordered scientists to perform any experiment where death is likely\nto occur.\n\nQ. Doctor, I did not say where death was probable, I said where death is\npossible, and I ask you to answer the question I put to you. If deaths\nare probable, then you are correct, then it is murder. If deaths are\npossible, then I want to know what you say to that. And, let me remind\nyou, Doctor, that even in the American Air Force deaths did occur; in\nother words, death was possible.\n\nA. Yes, I agree that it is possible for deaths to occur accidentally in\nexperiments which are hazardous. As I said in my testimony under such\nconditions when they do occur, their cause is investigated very\nthoroughly as well as the circumstances surrounding the death.\n\n * * * * *\n\nQ. Witness, you spoke yesterday of a number of experiments carried out\nin the United States and in other countries outside of Germany. For\nexample, pellagra, swamp fever, beri-beri, plague, etc. Now, I should\nlike to have a very clear answer from you to the following question. In\nthese experiments which you heard of partly from persons involved in\nthem and partly from international literature, did deaths occur during\nthe experiments and as a result of the experiments or not? Professor, I\nask you this question because you said yesterday that you examined all\ninternational literature concerning this question and, therefore, have a\ncertain specialized knowledge on this question.\n\nA. I also said that when one reviews the literature, he cannot be sure\nthat he has done a complete or perfect job.\n\nSo far as the reports I have read and presented yesterday are concerned,\nthere were no deaths in trench fever. There were no deaths mentioned, to\nmy knowledge, in the article on pellagra. There were no deaths\nmentioned, to my knowledge, in the article on beri-beri, and there were\nno deaths in the article, according to my knowledge, in Colonel Strong\u2019s\narticle on plague. I would not testify that I have read all the articles\nin the medical literature involving the use of human beings as subjects\nin medical experiments.\n\nQ. And, in the literature which you have read, Witness, there was not a\nsingle case where deaths occurred? Did I understand you correctly?\n\nA. Yes. In the yellow fever experiments I indicated that Dr. Carroll and\nDr. Lazare died.\n\nQ. That is the only case you know of?\n\nA. That\u2019s all that I know of.\n\n * * * * *\n\n EXTRACT FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT ROSE[29]\n\n_CROSS-EXAMINATION_\n\n * * * * *\n\nMR. MCHANEY: Now, would the extreme necessity for the large scale\nproduction of typhus vaccines and the resultant experiments on human\nbeings in concentration camps have arisen had not Germany been engaged\nin a war?\n\nDEFENDANT ROSE: That question cannot simply be answered with \u201cyes\u201d or\n\u201cno\u201d. It is, on the whole, not very probable that without the war,\ntyphus would have broken out in the German camps, but it is not\naltogether beyond the bounds of possibility because in times of peace\ntoo typhus has broken out in individual cases from time to time. The\nprimary danger in the camps is the louse danger, and infection by lice\nalso occurs in times of peace. If typhus breaks out in a camp that is\ninfected with lice, a typhus epidemic can arise in peacetime too, of\ncourse.\n\nQ. But Germany had never experienced any difficulty with typhus before\nthe war. Isn\u2019t that right?\n\nA. Not for many decades, no.\n\nQ. You stated that nine hundred persons were used in Dr. Strong\u2019s plague\nexperiments?\n\nA. Yes, I know that number from the literature on the subject.\n\nQ. What is the usual mortality in plague?\n\nA. That depends on whether it is bubonic plague or lung pest. In one,\nnamely, bubonic plague, the mortality can be as high as sixty or seventy\npercent. It also can be lower. In lung pest, the mortality is just about\none hundred.\n\nQ. How many people died in Dr. Strong\u2019s plague experiments?\n\nA. According to what his reports say, none of them died, but this result\ncould not have been anticipated because this was the first time that\nanyone had attempted to inoculate living plague virus into human beings,\nand Strong said in his first publication in 1905 that he himself was\nsurprised that no unpleasant incidents occurred and that there was only\nsevere fever reaction. That despite this unexpectedly favorable outcome\nof Strong\u2019s experiments the specialists had considerable misgivings\nabout this procedure can be seen first of all from publications where\nthat is explicitly stated; for example, two Englishmen say that,\ncontrary to expectations, these experiments went off well but\nnevertheless this process cannot be used for general vaccination because\nthere is always the danger that, through some unexpected event, this\nstrain again becomes virulent. Moreover, from other works that Strong\nlater published it can be seen that guinea pigs and monkeys that he\nvaccinated with this vaccine died not of the plague, but of the toxic\naffects of the vaccine. All these difficulties are the reason why this\nenormously important discovery which Koller and Otto made in 1903, and\nStrong in 1905, has only been generally applied, for all practical\npurposes, since 1926. That is an indication of the care and fear with\nwhich this whole matter was first approached, and Strong could not know\nahead of time that his experiments would turn out well. I described here\nthe enormous concern that Strong felt during all these months regarding\nthe fact that that might happen which every specialist feared, viz.,\nthat the virus would become virulent again. That is an enormous\nresponsibility.\n\nQ. Be that as it may, nobody died. That is a fact, isn\u2019t it?\n\nA. If anyone did die, the publications say nothing about it. There were\ndeaths only among the monkeys and guinea pigs that are mentioned in the\npublication. If human beings died, there is no mention in the\npublication. It is generally known that if there are serious accidents\nin such experiments as this, they are only most reluctantly made public.\n\nQ. Now, Professor, I have no wish to limit you but, as I understand it,\nyou have explained these things in considerable detail during the four\ndays in which you have already testified. If you can give a short answer\nto my question that is all I want. If I want any further explanation\nI\u2019ll ask you for it.\n\nNow, what is the normal death rate in beri-beri?\n\nA. That depends on the medical care given. If the care is good, the\nmortality is zero, and if they have no medical care at all, then a lot\nof them die.\n\nQ. Sixty to eighty percent would probably die if they were not treated.\nIs that right?\n\nA. Beri-beri lasts for many, many months before a person dies, and\nusually one does not die of beri-beri in sixty days\u2014that would be a\nsevere case.\n\nQ. How many people did Strong use in his beri-beri experiments? Is\ntwenty-nine all you know about?\n\nA. So far as I know from the literature, the number was twenty-nine.\n\nQ. Well, it says in the literature that he used only twenty-nine. Is\nthat right?\n\nA. So far as I know, yes.\n\nQ. And one of those died?\n\nA. According to what the literature says, one of them died.\n\nQ. What is the mortality in typhus?\n\nA. That varies enormously. It depends on the epidemic. In some epidemics\nthe mortality is five percent. In general, you count on a mortality of\ntwenty percent. In the Serb-Albanian epidemic in 1915, there was a\nmortality of seventy percent, but that mortality rate is so\nextraordinarily high that it is generally assumed that probably, in\nreality, there were more cases of typhus than were actually reported.\n\nQ. Well, we could take roughly five to thirty percent as the mortality.\nIs that right?\n\nA. Yes. That is what the textbooks generally say.\n\nQ. What was the mortality in the Buchenwald experiments, Professor?\n\nA. In the controlled cases in the experiments that I knew of, the\nmortality rate was thirty percent.\n\nQ. Among the controls, you figured thirty percent?\n\nA. Yes. There were ten control persons in the first group of\nexperiments, and of them, three died.\n\nQ. Three died? Well, but I assume that you have read through the Ding\ndiary and let us assume for the moment that it is correct. Didn\u2019t you\nsay that they also used control persons in the four or five other series\nof experiments?\n\nA. In the controlled cases where they were testing the vaccine, the\ngeneral mortality rate was thirty percent. But then there were these\ntherapeutic experiments in which, according to the diary, blood\ninfections were undertaken and, in this case, the diary does mention an\nunusually high mortality rate.\n\nQ. Well, Professor, for your information, we have figured out five\ncontrol series in the Ding diary, and I mean by controls those that were\nnot treated with anything. The mortality ranges between fifty-four to\none hundred percent and averaged eighty-one percent. Do you accept those\nfigures as correct? I mean, do you think that\u2019s right?\n\nQ. No. That does not correspond with the impression I got from the\nnumbers in the diary, but I did not calculate it so precisely as all\nthat. I looked at the individual experiments and it is true that, for\ninstance, in these therapeutic experiments, Ding\u2019s work mentions a\nmortality of something like fifty to fifty-five percent, and then there\nis one series that deals with blood infection where of twenty people, I\nbelieve nineteen died.\n\nQ. Let me put it to you, Professor, is it not a fact that they were not\ndealing with epidemic typhus in Buchenwald, but with a super-typhus,\ndeveloped from man to man passage, which was much more virulent and much\nmore deadly than any typhus you could expect in an epidemic?\n\nA. That I cannot judge because I have no knowledge of the work done in\nBuchenwald and can only refer to what Ding\u2019s diary says, which I regard\nas unreliable.\n\nQ. Well, if you regard it as reliable, Doctor, and if you figure out the\ndeaths among the untreated control persons and find a mortality which\naveraged eighty-one percent, will you not, as a scientist and an expert\non tropical diseases, concede that they had developed a highly virulent,\nsomething we might call a super-typhus, in Buchenwald? Isn\u2019t that right,\nProfessor?\n\nA. As a scientist, I am accustomed to state my opinion on the basis of\nreliable documentation and not on the basis of such falsifications which\nare produced for a special purpose.\n\nQ. I can appreciate that you do not regard the document as reliable,\nProfessor, but we will investigate that a little later.\n\n * * * * *\n\n-----\n\n[1] Closing statement is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 14 July\n1947, pp. 10718-10796.\n\n[2] Final plea is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 15 July 1947, pp.\n10874-10911.\n\n[3] See section on Status of Occupied Poland under International Law,\nvol. I, pp. 974-979.\n\n[4] Final plea is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 16 July 1947, pp.\n11020-11048.\n\n[5] Final plea is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 18 July 1947, pp.\n11268-11288.\n\n[6] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 3, 4, 5,\n6, 7 Feb. \u201947, pp. 2301-2661.\n\n[7] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 15, 16\nApr. 1947, pp. 5926-5994.\n\n[8] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 12, 13,\n14 June 1947, pp. 9029-9824.\n\n[9] Closing statement is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 14 July\n47, pp. 10718-10796.\n\n[10] United States _vs._ Erhard Milch. Concurring Opinion of Judge\nMusmanno, vol. II, sec. VII, B.\n\n[11] See also excerpts from the closing brief for the defendant Karl\nBrandt (Section VIII E, vol. I, pp. 983-990).\n\n[12] Final plea is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 15 July 47, pp.\n10874-10911.\n\n[13] Art. 59 of the German Penal Code reads:\n\n \u201cIf a person in committing an offense did not know of the\n existence of circumstances [Tatumstaende] constituting the\n factual elements of the offense as determined by statute\n [gesetzlicher Tatbestand] or increasing the punishment, then\n these circumstances may not be charged against him.\n\n \u201cIn punishing an offense committed through negligence, this\n provision applies only insofar as the lack of knowledge does not\n in itself constitute negligence for which the offender is\n responsible.\u201d\n\n[14] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 26, 27,\n28, 31 March, 1, 2, 3 Apr. 47, pp. 5000-5244, 5334-5464.\n\n[15] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 12, 13,\n14, 16 June 47, pp. 9029-9324.\n\n[16] Final plea is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 18 July 47, pp.\n11289-11309.\n\n[17] Final plea is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 17 July 47, pp.\n11128-11152.\n\n[18] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 26, 27,\n28, 31 March, 1, 2, 3 Apr. 47, pp. 5000-5244, 5334-5464.\n\n[19] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 18, 21,\n22, 23, 24, 25 April 47, pp. 6081-6484.\n\n[20] Closing statement is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 14 July\n1947, pp. 10718-10796.\n\n[21] Final plea is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 15 July 47, pp.\n10874-10911.\n\n[22] Final plea is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 17 July 47, pp.\n11128-11152.\n\n[23] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 18, 21,\n22, 23, 24, 25 April 1947, pp. 6081-6484.\n\n[24] Professor of History of Medicine at Erlangen University.\n\nComplete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 27 Jan. 1947,\npp. 1961-2028.\n\n[25] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 12, 13,\n14 June 1947, pp. 9029-9324.\n\n[26] Final plea is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 16 July 47, pp.\n10972-10994.\n\n[27] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 12, 13,\n14, 16 June 47, pp. 9029-9324.\n\n[28] To the question of conscientious objection in the United States,\nsee Section VIII E\u2014Voluntary Participation of Experimental Subjects,\ncross-examination of Dr. Ivy (vol. I, p. 944 ff.).\n\n[29] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 18, 21,\n22, 23, 24, 25 April 47, pp. 6081-6484.\n\n\n\n\n IX. RULING OF THE TRIBUNAL ON COUNT\n ONE OF THE INDICTMENT[30]\n\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: The Secretary General will note for the record\nthe presence of all the defendants in Court.\n\nThe Tribunal will now announce its ruling on the motion of certain\ndefendants against Count I in the indictment concerning the charge of\nconspiracy.\n\n _MILITARY TRIBUNAL I_\n\nCount I of the indictment in this case charges that the defendants,\nacting pursuant to a common design, unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly\ndid conspire and agree together to commit war crimes and crimes against\nhumanity as defined in Control Council Law No. 10, Article 2. It is\ncharged that the alleged crime was committed between September 1939 and\nApril 1945.\n\nIt is the ruling of this Tribunal that neither the Charter of the\nInternational Military Tribunal nor Control Council Law No. 10 has\ndefined conspiracy to commit a war crime or crime against humanity as a\nseparate substantive crime; therefore, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction\nto try any defendant upon a charge of conspiracy considered as a\nseparate substantive offense.\n\nCount I of the indictment, in addition to the separate charge of\nconspiracy, also alleges unlawful participation in the formulation and\nexecution of plans to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity\nwhich actually involved the commission of such crimes. We, therefore,\ncannot properly strike the whole of Count I from the indictment, but\ninsofar as Count I charges the commission of the alleged crime of\nconspiracy as a separate substantive offense, distinct from any war\ncrime or crime against humanity, the Tribunal will disregard that\ncharge.\n\nThis ruling must not be construed as limiting the force or effect of\nArticle 2, paragraph 2 of Control Council Law No. 10, or as denying to\neither prosecution or defense the right to offer in evidence any facts\nor circumstances, occurring either before or after September 1939, if\nsuch facts or circumstances tend to prove or to disprove the commission\nby any defendant of war crimes or crimes against humanity as defined in\nControl Council Law No. 10.\n\n-----\n\n[30] Tr. pp. 10717-10718, 14 July 47.\n\n\n\n\n X. FINAL PLEA FOR DEFENDANT KARL BRANDT[31]\n BY DR. SERVATIUS\n\n\n Mr. President, your Honors:\n\nI cannot comment on all the questions which the prosecution brought up\nthis morning. I must limit myself to a few things and can refer to my\nclosing brief where I have gone into considerable detail on all these\nquestions.\n\nThis morning I heard the detailed legal arguments advanced by the\nprosecutor. I have commented particularly on these legal questions in my\nclosing brief, and I will now merely make a few brief comments.\n\nThe prosecution assumes that Law No. 10 is an independent law. This is\nnot correct, for it designates itself explicitly as a law for the\nexecution of the London Charter and declares that Charter to be an\nintegral part of the law.\n\nNow, the sole purpose of the London Charter is to punish disturbances of\ninternational legal relations, and not what has happened or is happening\nsomewhere within an individual state. Any other interpretation would put\nan end to the conception of sovereignty, and it would give right of\nintervention into the affairs of other states.\n\nIn the trial before Tribunal III, Case No. 3, against Flick et al.,[32]\nGeneral Taylor referred to an alleged right of intervention, quoting a\nconsiderable amount of literature with regard to this right of\nintervention into the internal affairs of another country.\n\nI have ventured to refer to the position taken concerning this by one of\nthe four signatory powers of the London Charter, a signatory power which\nwas itself the victim of intervention in the name of civilization, the\nSoviet Union. I have attached the said literature to part I of my\nclosing brief.\n\nThe Soviet Union drew a clear inference from the intervention to which\nit had been exposed by the Entente at the end of the First World War and\nobtained an alteration in the text of the London Charter, under which\nintervention would have been possible, by insisting that the text, which\nwas ambiguous in consequence of the punctuation, be altered by the\ninsertion of a comma. This comma was so important that the\nrepresentatives of the four signatory powers met on purpose to discuss\nit.\n\nIt results therefrom that the internal affairs of a country cannot be\naffected by the London Charter and, consequently, by Law No. 10.\nPunishment by this Tribunal of acts committed by Germans against Germans\nis therefore inadmissible.\n\nThe prosecution further discussed at length this morning another\nquestion, that is the question of conspiracy. I have also commented on\nthat in my closing brief. I will merely make a brief reply here to the\nprosecution.\n\nThe point of view of the defense, that a charge of conspiracy as an\nindependent offense is inadmissible, was confirmed by the Tribunal\u2019s\ndecision of today. In that way the leak in the dike, so to speak, was\nstopped, and one cannot let the ocean pour into the land from the other\nside by declaring the conception of conspiracy admissible under common\nlaw.\n\nThe conception of conspiracy is really only a technical expedient of the\njurists. Its purpose is to effect, beyond the number of accomplices in\nthe true sense of the word, other persons who are considered deserving\nof punishment, but who cannot be proved guilty of complicity.\n\nThis may be done where the law against conspiracy is common law. If,\nhowever, this law is introduced in Germany after the event and applied\nto facts which have occurred in the past, this would mean that by a\ndetour of the law of procedure new conceptions of offense would be\nintroduced into material law. This would amount to an _ex post facto_\nlaw and is, therefore, illegal according to legal principles generally\nrecognized.\n\nThe purpose of enlarging the circle of participants cannot be attained\nunder Law No. 10 by breaking up the conception of conspiracy into its\ncomponent parts and introducing forms of complicity hitherto unknown in\nGermany.\n\nNow, I shall read my statement proper:\n\nIn the closing statement against the defendant Karl Brandt the\nprosecution discussed very little the counter-evidence brought forward\nby the defense in the course of the proceedings. They relied to a large\nextent on evidence already advanced in the indictment.\n\nThe affidavits of the defendants themselves play a special part in\nsupport of the prosecution. For the defendant Karl Brandt they are\nimportant with respect to his position and consequent knowledge of the\nevent referred to in the indictment.\n\nIf these affidavits contain imputations they can only be used, according\nto the Tribunal\u2019s statement, against the affiants themselves. As far as\nthey involve the defendant Karl Brandt, however, they have been\nclarified in respect to the decisive issues. But in spite of this\ncorrection the first statements may prejudice credibility unless good\nreasons justify such correction.\n\nHere the result of interrogations made in the initial proceedings is in\ncontradiction to the evidence given before the Tribunal. On the basis of\npractical experience, German law considers as valid evidence only the\nresult of an interrogation made by a judge. The reason is the lack of\nimpartiality which may be found, quite naturally, in the case of an\ninterrogating official who is to conduct the prosecution. The capacity\nof the interrogator to elicit the truth impartially depends on his\ncharacter, his training, and his professional experience.\n\nThe qualification of the interrogators has been attacked here by the\ndefense, but the prosecution has made no effort to substantiate it.\n\nIn order to form a judgment it is also important to know the general\nlines on which the prosecution carries out its interrogations. Under\nGerman law the prosecutor also has to ascertain and put forward\nexculpating material when investigating a case personally or through\nassistants. As to American procedure, Justice Jackson clearly rejected\nthis principle during the trial before the International Military\nTribunal and said he could never serve two masters.\n\nThis critical view of the affidavits is confirmed by their contents,\nwhich frequently show the struggle between the interrogator and the\ninterrogated person. He is no classical witness who says, \u201cI believe,\u201d\n\u201cI presume,\u201d \u201cas far as I remember,\u201d and so on, for he shows thereby\nthat he can give no positive information. And such testimony becomes\ncompletely worthless if conclusions are drawn in the form of, \u201cIt would\nhave been impossible for him,\u201d \u201che might have known,\u201d \u201cperhaps he was\nthe highest authority,\u201d and so forth.\n\nNot only individual words thus demonstrated that the testimony is\ncomposed of conclusions, but whole parts of the reports show the same\ncharacter.\n\nIn view of all this, the defendants\u2019 contentions are to be believed,\nthat they raised objections but succumbed to the weight of the prepared\nrecord presented to them and signed, trusting that they would have an\nopportunity later to clarify deficiencies and to state their true\nopinion.\n\nThis criticism of the defendants\u2019 affidavits is also called for in the\ncase of the affidavits given by the witnesses for the prosecution. Facts\nare recorded therein which the witnesses did not know themselves, but\nwhich they had only heard about, and which they presumed after having\nbeen made to believe them by persuasion. The individual cases in which\nobjections are to be raised on these lines have been dealt with in the\nclosing brief.\n\nThe charges advanced against the defendant Karl Brandt include medical\nexperiments on human beings and euthanasia. In both cases the defendant\nis charged with having committed crimes against humanity.\n\nThe press comments on the proceedings, anticipating the sentence and\npublishing articles about base characters and depravity. Pamphlets with\nstriking titles appear.\n\nOn the other hand the Tribunal will make itself acquainted with the\nliterature collected by the defense as evidence. If one reads this\nliterature one loses one\u2019s self-confidence and cannot conclude without\nadmitting that these are problems which persons not considered criminals\ntried to solve before the defendants. These are problems of the\ncommunity. The individual may make suggestions for their solution, but\nthe decision is the task of the community and therefore of the state.\nThe question is how great a sacrifice may the state demand in the\ninterest of the community? This decision is for the state alone.\n\nHow the state decides depends on its free discretion, and finds its\nlimit only in the rebellion of its citizens. In obeying the orders of\nhis state, the defendant Karl Brandt did no wrong. If sentence is passed\nagainst him, it would be a political sentence against the state and the\nideology it represents.\n\nOne can condemn the defendant Karl Brandt only by imposing on him the\nduty of rebellion and the duty of having a different ideology to his\nenvironment.\n\nIt is contended that the state finds its limits in the eternal basic\nelements of law, which are said to be so clear that anyone could discern\ntheir violation as a crime, and that loyalty to the state beyond these\nlimits is therefore a crime. One forgets that eternal law, the law of\nnature, is but a guiding principle for the state and the legislator and\nnot a counter-code of law which the subject might use as a support\nagainst the state. It is emphasized that no other state had made such\ndecisions up to now. This is true only to a certain extent. It is no\nproof, however, that such decisions were not necessary and admissible\nnow. There is no prohibition against daring to progress.\n\nThe progress of medical science opened up the problem of experiments on\nhuman beings already in the past century, and eventually made it ripe\nfor decision. It is not the first time that a state has adopted a\ncertain attitude with regard to euthanasia with a change of ideology.\n\nOnly the statesmen decide what is to be done in the interests of the\ncommunity, and they have never hesitated to issue such a decision\nwhenever they deemed it necessary in the interest of their people.\nThereupon their rules and orders were carried through under the\nauthority of the state, which is the basis of society.\n\nInquisition, witch trials, and revolutionary tribunals have existed in\nthe name of the state and eternal justice, and the executive\nparticipants did not consider themselves criminals but servants of their\ncommunity. They would have been killed if they had stood up against what\nwas believed to be newly discovered eternal justice. What is the subject\nto do if the orders of the state exceed the customary limits which the\nindividual himself took for inviolable according to tradition.\n\nWhat did the airman think who dropped the first atomic bomb on\nHiroshima? Did he consider himself a criminal? What did the statesmen\nthink who ordered this atomic bomb to be used. We know from the history\nof this event that the motive was patriotism, based on the harsh\nnecessity of sacrificing hundreds of thousands to save their own\nsoldiers\u2019 lives. This motive was stronger than the prohibition of the\nHague Convention, under which belligerents have no unlimited right in\nthe choice of methods for inflicting damage on the enemy.\n\n\u201cMy cause is just and my quarrel honorable,\u201d says the king. And\nShakespeare\u2019s soldier answers him: \u201cThat\u2019s more than we know.\u201d Another\nsoldier adds: \u201cAy, or more than we should seek after; for we know enough\nif we know we are the king\u2019s subjects; if his cause be wrong, our\nobedience to the king wipes the crime out of us.\u201d\n\nIt is the hard necessity of the state on which the defense for Karl\nBrandt is based against the charge of having performed criminal\nexperiments on human beings.\n\nHere also\u2014in addition to the care for the population\u2014the lives of\nsoldiers were at stake, soldiers who had to be protected from death and\nepidemics. In Professor Bickenbach\u2019s experiment, the issue was the lives\nof women and children who without 45 million gas masks would have been\nas unprotected against the expected gas attack as the Japanese were\nagainst the atomic bomb. Biological warfare was imminent, even praised\nabroad as cheaper and more effective than the atomic bomb.\n\nIs it really against the law and all political morals if the state in\nsuch a situation provides for the expected emergency and orders the\nnecessary medical experiments to be performed on its own citizens? As\napplied to foreigners such procedure is limited in principle. In my\nclosing brief I have discussed the exceptions.\n\nWhat is to be done is decided not by the physician but by the political\nleader. Even the expert Dr. Ivy had to grant him the fundamental\nauthority.\n\nThe question is why, with the legal position so clear, a man like Keitel\nrefused to have such experiments carried out in the Wehrmacht, and why\nsome of the defendants themselves try to disprove any connection with\nthe experiments. The answer is that a measure may be as unavoidable as\nwar and yet be abhorred in the same way.\n\nUnlike Professor Ivy, these men certainly considered these experiments\nan evil, and their desire was not to become involved in them personally,\nif possible, and not to allow troops to participate in them who should\nnot be burdened with such questions and who had no insight into the\nnecessity of the measures to be taken. In spite of everything, Germany\nwas not yet so \u201ccommunized\u201d that all private feelings in the individual\nhad disappeared.\n\nThe prosecution opposes to this necessity the condition of absolute\nvoluntariness.\n\nIt was a surprise to hear from the expert Professor Ivy that in the\npenitentiaries many hundreds of volunteers were pressing for admission\nto experiments, and that more volunteered than could be used. I do not\nwant to dispose of this phenomenon with irony and sarcasm. There may be\npeople who realize that the community has the right to ask them for a\nsacrifice. Their feeling of justice may tell them that insistence on\nhumanity has its limits. If humanity means the appeal to the strong not\nto forget the weak in the abundance of might and wealth, the weak should\nalso make their contribution when all are in need.\n\nBut what if in the emergency of war the convicts, and those declared to\nbe unworthy to serve in the armed forces, refuse to accept such a\nsacrifice voluntarily, and only prove an asocial burden to state and\ncommunity and bring about the downfall of the community? Is not\ncompulsion by the state then admissible as an additional expiation?\n\nThe prosecution says \u201cNo\u201d. According to this human rights demand the\ndownfall of human beings.\n\nBut there is a mixture of voluntariness and compulsory expiation,\n\u201cpurchased voluntariness.\u201d Here the experimental subject does not make a\nsacrifice out of conviction for the good of the community but for his\nown good. The subject gives his consent because he is to receive money,\ncigarettes, a mitigation of punishment, etc. There may be isolated cases\nof this nature where the person is really a volunteer, but as a rule it\nis not so.\n\nIf one compares the actual risk with the advantage granted, one cannot\nadmit the consent of these \u201cvoluntary prisoners\u201d as legal, in spite of\nall the protective forms they have to sign, for these can only have been\nobtained by taking advantage of inexperience, imprudence, or distress.\n\nLooking through medical literature, one cannot escape the growing\nconviction that the word \u201cvolunteer\u201d, where it appears at all, is used\nonly as a word of protection and camouflage; it is hardly ever missing\nsince the struggle over this problem became acute.\n\nI will touch only briefly on what I have explained in detail in my\nclosing brief. No one will contend that human beings really allowed\nthemselves to be infected voluntarily with venereal disease; this has\nnowhere been stated explicitly in literature. Cholera and plague are\nalso not minor inconveniences one is likely to undergo voluntarily for a\ntrifle in the interest of science. Above all, it is not customary to\nhand over children for experimental purposes, and I cannot believe that\nin the 13 experiments carried out on a total of 223 children, as stated\nin Document Karl Brandt 117, Karl Brandt Exhibit 103, the mothers gave\ntheir consent. Would not the mothers have deserved the praise of the\nscientist for the sacrifice they trustfully made in the interest of\nscience, praise which is otherwise liberally granted to real volunteers\nin reports on experiments?\n\nIs it not likely to have been similar to the experiments carried out by\nProfessor McCance? (_Karl Brandt 93, Karl Brandt Ex. 29._) The German\nauthorities who condemn the defendants in a particularly violent form\nhave no objection to raise here against the order to hand over weakling\nchildren to a research commission for experimental purposes. The\nquestionnaires which the Tribunal approved for me in order to get\nfurther information about this matter have not been answered as the\nhigher authorities did not give permission for such statements to be\nmade. This silence says enough; it is proof of what is supposed to be\nlegal today in the line of \u201cvoluntariness\u201d.\n\nIt is repeatedly shown that the experiments for which no consent was\ngiven were permitted with the full knowledge of the government\nauthorities. It is further shown that these experiments were published\nin professional literature without meeting any objection, and that they\nwere even accepted by the public without concern as a normal phenomenon\nwhen reports about them appeared in popular magazines.\n\nThis happens at a time when the same press is stigmatizing as crimes\nagainst humanity the German experiments which were necessary in the\ninterests of the state. Voluntariness is a fiction; the emergency of the\nstate hard reality.\n\nIn all countries experiments on human beings have been performed by\ndoctors, certainly not because they took pleasure in killing or\ntormenting, but only at the instigation and under the protection of\ntheir state, and in accordance with their own conviction of the\nnecessity for these experiments in the struggle for the existence of the\npeople.\n\nThe German doctor who acted in conformity with the German regulations\ncan no more be punished than the American doctor who complied with the\nrequests of his state in the way which is customary there.\n\nJustice is indivisible.\n\nTo what extent is the defendant Karl Brandt implicated in the medical\nexperiments?\n\nThe prosecution says he is implicated in almost all the experiments and\nrefers to his position and his connections. They state that he was the\nhighest Reich authority in the medical spheres; there, however, they are\nmisled by an error in translation, for Karl Brandt only had the powers,\nregulated in a general way, of an \u201cOberste Reichsbehoerde\u201d [Supreme\nReich Authority], and the practice of those powers was restricted to\nspecial cases.\n\nThis is apparent from the three known decrees and from the explanation\nthereof given by witnesses. Moreover, Karl Brandt was not given these\nfunctions until 1944 when these experiments were practically finished,\nas is shown by the time schedule submitted to the Tribunal for\ncomparison.\n\nIt has been proved that the defendant Karl Brandt himself, in a\nbroadcast, publicly called his position as Reich Commissioner a\n\u201cDifferential\u201d. In fact, Karl Brandt\u2019s task was not to order but to\nadjust; it was a task designed to fit his character.\n\nWe have also learned from the presentation of evidence that the\ndefendant Karl Brandt did not have the machinery at his disposal for\nissuing orders which was necessary for a supreme Reich authority; he\nlacked the staff and the means. No one who is acquainted with a\ngovernment administration will think it possible that, under these\ncircumstances, the defendant Karl Brandt might have been able to enforce\nhis point of view against the resistance of the old agencies; no one\nwill even think it probable that anything would have been done to\nfacilitate such an attempt by the \u201cnew master\u201d.\n\nConsequently, Karl Brandt\u2019s position was not such as to justify the\nconclusion drawn by the prosecution as to his general knowledge. There\nwas no official channel by which everything was bound to come to his\nknowledge, for he was not the superior of other authorities.\n\nIt is true that the defendant Karl Brandt was supposed to be informed\nabout fundamental matters, that he had the right to intervene, and so\non. But these were only possibilities, not in conformity with conditions\nin practice. We have seen that Conti opposed him and that Himmler\nprohibited direct contact with Karl Brandt within his sphere.\n\nTherefore Karl Brandt can be brought into connection only with the\nevents in which he participated directly.\n\nHere it is first of all striking that the defendant Karl Brandt, who is\nsupposed to have been the highest authority, appears only very rarely.\n\nThere are three so-called troop experiments: the testing of drinking\nwater, concentrated food, and an ointment for burns.\n\nFurther, three medical experiments are connected with the defendant Karl\nBrandt. The hepatitis experiments, which he is said to have suggested,\nwere not carried out. While that research was continued during the\nfollowing years, Karl Brandt, who is said to have sponsored it\nparticularly, is mentioned by none of the numerous witnesses and\nexperts, and his name is not mentioned in any document. Is it not,\ntherefore, a plausible explanation that Grawitz confused the names?\n\nThe second case is the request to hand over 10 prisoners for two days\nfor an experiment not named. This cannot refer to a real medical\nexperiment, for such an experiment cannot be carried out in such a short\ntime with the necessary tests and observations. The speedy return of the\nexperimental subjects indicates that the experiment was not dangerous.\n\nFinally, the defendant Karl Brandt is connected with the phosgene\nexperiments by Bickenbach, which caused the death of four Germans\nsentenced to death. But precisely here Bickenbach\u2019s affidavit shows that\nthe defendant Karl Brandt was outside the whole framework of the\nexperiment in Himmler\u2019s sphere, and that he was merely approached to\nmediate. The order came from Himmler. The experiments must have seemed\ninnocuous to the defendant Karl Brandt since Bickenbach wanted to carry\nthem out on himself.\n\nOn the other hand, there was the state emergency and the enormous\nimportance of the discovery that the taking of a few urotropin tablets\nmight give the ardently desired protection to all against the expected\ngas attack and, as the result of the experiment shows, actually did so.\n\nNow the prosecution endeavors to establish a connection of Karl Brandt\nwith the other experiments via the Reich Research Council. It is true\nthat one can establish such a connection theoretically on paper, but the\nlinks of the chain break when one examines them closely. Only the head\nof the specialized department decided on the so-called research\nassignments, and he only investigated whether the aim was necessary for\nwar, not how the experiment was to be carried out. He could not inform\nothers of matters about which he did not know himself.\n\nThe defendant Karl Brandt is further charged with not having protested\nin one case when he heard about deaths caused by experiments on persons\nsentenced to death in the well-known lecture on sulfanilamide. I must\npoint out that even if this experiment had been inadmissible, silence\nwould not be a crime, for assent after the act is without importance in\ncriminal law, and one can only be connected with plans and enterprises\nas long as they have not been concluded.\n\nNow the prosecution has introduced in its closing brief a new charge\nholding the defendant Karl Brandt responsible for negligence. In this\nrespect I should like to point out that no indictment for negligence has\nbeen brought in, and that the concept of crime against humanity\ncommitted by negligence cannot exist.\n\nTherefore, it will be sufficient to emphasize that the alleged\nnegligence depends on the existence of a duty of supervision and the\nright to give orders through other agencies. In every state the spheres\nof competence are separated, and it is not possible for everyone to\ninterfere in everything on the basis that everyone is responsible for\neverything.\n\nThe prosecution says that the defendant Karl Brandt ought to have used\nhis influence and availed himself of his intimate relations with Hitler\nto stop the experiments. Even presuming that he was aware of the facts\nas crimes, his guilt would not be of a legal, but only of a political or\nmoral nature. Until now nobody has been held criminally responsible for\nthe conduct of a superior or a friend; the question of criminal law,\nhowever, is the only one the Tribunal has to consider. As a matter of\nfact this close relationship did not exist. The defendant Karl Brandt\nwas the surgeon who had to be in attendance on Hitler; Dr. Morell, the\nlatter\u2019s personal physician, soon tried to undermine the confidence\nplaced in Karl Brandt so that he was given commissions which removed him\nfurther and further from the sphere of his medical activity.\n\nThe alleged intimate relations were eventually crowned by the dictation\nof a death sentence against Karl Brandt without his having been granted\neven a hearing on the charges advanced against him.\n\nIf one sums up everything relating to the medical experiments and\nfollows to a large extent the charges of the prosecution, it is an\nestablished fact that it is not shown that the defendant Karl Brandt\nparticipated in any way in experiments on prisoners of war and\nforeigners, or that he was cognizant of them. Therefore, no war crime or\ncrime against humanity has been committed, and consequently punishment\nunder Law No. 10 is excluded. I refer in this connection to the legal\narguments in my closing brief.\n\nThe second problem is euthanasia.\n\nThe authorization of 1 September 1939 was issued before the period of\nthe medical experiments, at a time when the defendant Karl Brandt was\nstill closely attached to the Fuehrer\u2019s headquarters and to Hitler as an\naccompanying physician.\n\nIn my closing brief I have explained in detail that the defendant Karl\nBrandt did not participate in the Action 14 f 13, with the \u201cspecial\ntreatment\u201d of prisoners in concentration camps, occurrences which were\ngiven the name of euthanasia only here in the trial.\n\nNeither did the defendant Karl Brandt take any part in the extermination\nof Jews in Auschwitz, which again has nothing in common with the idea of\neuthanasia.\n\nI have further shown that the so-called \u201cwild euthanasia\u201d, which was\ncarried out simultaneously with and immediately after legal euthanasia,\nwas not instigated by Karl Brandt. The stopping of euthanasia in August\n1941 has been proved, and therefore that was the end of the defendant\nKarl Brandt\u2019s duties; for what would have been the meaning of this\ncessation if, after it, increased activity was to set in? The contacts\nof Karl Brandt after the cessation have been clarified as being the\nconsequence of his activities connected with evacuation for air\nprotection. Where the name of the defendant Karl Brandt is mentioned\notherwise, it obviously serves only as means of information for\nuninformed people who never saw or heard anything of him themselves.\n\nI shall deal here with euthanasia only to the extent that it is\nofficially dealt with under the ordinance of 1 September 1939.\nConcerning the \u201cReich committee\u201d, I refer to my closing brief.\n\nThe presentation of evidence has established that the defendant Karl\nBrandt actually had no \u201cadministrative and medical office\u201d from which\nthe whole organization might have been administered. On the contrary, it\nis a fact that Bouhler declared himself solely responsible for the\nprocedure; this is testified to by unequivocal documents.\n\nNor has any regulation or instruction become known which was issued by\nKarl Brandt. Not a single document was signed by him. He made no\nspeeches and conducted no discussions.\n\nBut what did he do and what was his duty?\n\nHis duty was not to carry out euthanasia; he was only to be informed in\nspecial cases in order to be able to report to Hitler. This was in\nconformity with the existing conditions\u2014his presence at and\nsimultaneous attachment to the Fuehrer\u2019s headquarters, and to Hitler.\n\nOnly once was Karl Brandt seen active, and that is in the negotiations\nwith Pastor von Bodelschwingh, which led to the result, amazing for us,\nthat the defendant Karl Brandt won Bodelschwingh\u2019s sympathy, and after\nthe collapse the latter said in a radio interview that Brandt was an\nidealist but not a criminal.\n\nBut the defendant Karl Brandt took note of interrogation forms, he\ninspected a registrar\u2019s office, and he co-signed the authority for\nphysicians to execute euthanasia.\n\nWhat could the defendant Karl Brandt learn from the forms?\n\nThe prosecution thinks that Jews and foreigners were to be affected in\nthe first instance. The affidavit by the director of the Jewish lunatic\nasylum, in which all the insane Jews of Germany were concentrated,\nproves that this was not the case.\n\nThe prosecution says that all persons unfit for work were to be killed\nas \u201cuseless eaters\u201d. But it is a fact that even work-houses were\nrequested to give information only about cases of really grave insanity.\n\nWhat did the defendant Karl Brandt know about the procedure?\n\nHe knew that the authorization which was issued was not an order given\nto the doctor, but only conferred on him the right to act on his own\nresponsibility after the most careful consideration of the patient\u2019s\ncondition. This was a clause inserted in the ordinance of 1 September\n1939 on Karl Brandt\u2019s initiative.\n\nThe defendant Karl Brandt knew that the specialists, whom he did not\nknow, were chosen by the Ministry of the Interior, and that the experts\nwere eminent men in their special spheres.\n\nThe defendant Karl Brandt also knew that the authorities concerned saw\nno reason to object to the execution of the measure, and that even the\nchief jurists of the Reich declared the legal foundations to be\nirreproachable, after having been informed of the facts.\n\nWithin this framework the defendant Karl Brandt approved of official\neuthanasia and supported it.\n\nBut the prosecution even calls euthanasia a thousand-fold murder. In\ntheir opinion there was no formal law, and it is alleged that the expert\nDr. Lammers confirmed this.\n\nYes, but he also stated that even an informal ordinance was valid. Even\nan order issued by the Fuehrer had the force of law, as can be clearly\nseen from the indisputable effects of such orders, in particular in\nrelation to foreigners.\n\nBut for the defendant Karl Brandt it is of no importance whether the\nordinance of 1 September 1939 was actually valid or not; the only\nimportant thing is that he had reason to believe it was valid and that\nhe could rely on this opinion.\n\nGerman courts have already dealt with cases of the practice of\neuthanasia; but these cases occurred after the official procedure had\nbeen stopped, as at Hadamar, or after persons had been killed who could\nnever have come under the powers conferred by the ordinance, or other\ncrimes were committed.\n\nIt should be observed that these sentences always confirm the base\nmotives of the offenders. On the other hand, these courts were concerned\nwith the question of public law only to the extent that they confirm\nthat no formal law was available. In one case the court restricted\nitself to information given by a member of the prosecution staff in the\ntrial before the International Military Tribunal.\n\nThe real objections to euthanasia are not based on a formal point of\nview, but rather on the same reasons which are advanced against the\nadmissibility of the medical experiments.\n\nEven an insane person of the lowest grade may not be killed it is said.\nNo human being may presume to kill another human being.\n\nBut the right to kill in war is accepted in international law, and\npublic law allows the suppression of a revolt by violence.\n\nWhat prevents the state from ordering killing in the sphere of\neuthanasia too?\n\nThe answer is that there is no motive which might justify an action of\nthis kind.\n\nThe economic motive of eliminating \u201cuseless eaters\u201d is certainly not\nsufficient for such measures. Such a motive was never upheld by the\ndefendant Karl Brandt; it was apparently mentioned by others as an\naccompanying contingency and later taken up by counter propaganda.\n\nThe defendant Karl Brandt considered the motive of pity for the patient\nto be the decisive one. This motive is tacitly accepted for euthanasia\non the deathbed, and doctors in all countries increasingly acknowledge\nit.\n\nIn former times the courts were repeatedly concerned with killings\ncommitted out of pity, and in sensational trials, juries found offenders\nnot guilty who freed their nearest relatives from the torment of life.\n\nWho would not have the desire to die while in good health rather than to\nbe forced by all the resources of medical science to continue life\ndegraded to an animal\u2019s existence! Only misguided civilization keeps\nsuch beings alive; in the normal struggle for existence Nature is more\ncharitable.\n\nBut the legislator has hitherto refrained from giving authority to kill\nin such cases. But he can solve the problem if he wants to. The reasons\nfor his restraint are exactly those which led in this case to the\ndisguising of those measures and to the secrecy observed. There is the\nfear of base intrigues concerning inheritance, the mental burden of the\nrelatives, and so on. The individual does not want to bear this burden,\nnor is he able to do so. It can be taken over only by the state, which\nis independent of the desires of those concerned.\n\nThat such is the will of the great majority of those who really come\ninto touch with these problems was shown by the result of the inquiry\nconducted by Professor Meltzer, which has been offered in evidence. It\nwas carried out by him many years ago in order to obtain an argument\nagainst euthanasia and its principal supporters, Binding and Hoche. He\nobtained the reverse of what he had himself expected as an expert.\n\nBut I see a third motive which unconsciously plays an important part; it\nis the idea of sacrifice.\n\nA lunatic may cause the mental and economic decay of a family and also\nruin it morally.\n\nIf healthy human beings make great sacrifices for the community and lay\ndown their lives by order of the state, the insane person, if he could\narouse himself mentally and make a decision, would choose a similar\nsacrifice for himself.\n\nWhy should not the state be allowed to enact this sacrifice in his case\nand impose on him what he would want to do himself?\n\nIs the state to be forbidden to carry out such euthanasia until the\nwhole world is a hospital, while the creatures of nature keep\nunblemished through what is believed to be the brutality of Nature?\n\nThe decision as to whether such an order given by the state is\nadmissible or not depends on the conception of the social life of\nmankind and is, therefore, a political decision.\n\nNeither the defendant Karl Brandt nor anyone else who participated in\nlegalized euthanasia would ever have killed a human being on his own\nauthority, and in the German sentences passed the blameless former life\nof the persons stigmatized as mass-murderers is always emphasized.\n\nThis is a warning to be cautious. Did they really commit brutalities, or\nwere they sentenced only because they were not in a position to swim\nagainst the tide of times and to oppose it with their own judgment?\n\nA Christian believing in dogma will turn away in pity from this way of\nthinking. But if the order to use euthanasia to the desired limited\nextent was really in such contradiction to the commandment of God that\neveryone could realize it, then it is incomprehensible why Hitler, who\nnever withdrew from the church, was not excommunicated.\n\nThis must remove the burden of guilt which one now wants to pile up.\nThen humanity would have clearly realized at the time that in this\ndevilish struggle man cannot prevail for God stands for Justice.\n\nIf there are offenders there are many co-offenders, and one understands\nPastor Niemoeller saying: \u201cWe are all guilty.\u201d\n\nThis is a moral or a political guilt, but cannot be shifted to a single\nperson as criminal guilt.\n\nI have thus shown the fundamental lines along which the actions of the\ndefendant Karl Brandt have to be judged.\n\nThe primary consideration for the judgment of this Tribunal is that no\nprisoners of war or foreigners were submitted to euthanasia with the\nknowledge or the desire of the defendant Karl Brandt.\n\nThus the defendant Karl Brandt cannot be punished under Law No. 10 on\nthis count either. What happened between Germans is not subject to the\ndecision of this Tribunal.\n\nFinally, the defendant Karl Brandt is also charged with having been a\nmember of the SS, an organization which has been declared criminal.\nEvidence to show that the defendant Karl Brandt knew of a criminal aim\nof this organization and approved of it must be brought by the\nprosecution. A reference to the general assertions in these proceedings\nis not sufficient proof, for precisely here the prosecution cannot\nprevail with their assertions in regard to Karl Brandt.\n\nAs to the details, I refer to the statements made in my closing brief.\n\nThe fact that the defendant Karl Brandt was the only member of the SS\nwho at the same time retained his position as a medical officer in the\narmy shows that his honorary rank in the SS was really only a formality,\nand that he was no true member of this organization.\n\nWhen the defendant Karl Brandt testified here that he wore the uniform\nof the SS with pride, this only shows that he, like the majority of the\nSS men, knew nothing about the criminal aims. In judging the\norganization of the SS, the International Military Tribunal was aware\nonly of a small part of the whole, looking, so to speak, through a\nkeyhole into a dark corner.\n\nNor could the defendant Karl Brandt have any personal knowledge of\nHimmler\u2019s secrets, for Himmler rejected him personally, as is shown by a\nnumber of affidavits. Since the defendant Karl Brandt could not obtain\ninformation even in his own sphere of medicine, how is he to have\nobtained knowledge of other matters?\n\nI do not want to repeat the affidavits which give information about the\nbasic attitude of the defendant Karl Brandt and show that he adopted an\nattitude which was incompatible with the mentality supposed to be\ntypical of the SS. In this connection I merely refer to the statements\nmade by Pastor Bodelschwingh, Dr. Gerstenmaier, Meyer-Bockhoff, Philipp\nPrince of Hesse, and others.\n\nIf I, as the defense counsel, consider Karl Brandt\u2019s conduct as a whole\nand see the wounds he has received in the struggle of life, I must\nacknowledge that he is a man and not a criminal.\n\nFor the Tribunal\u2019s decision, however, the only conclusive fact is that\nthe defendant Karl Brandt did not disturb the circle of international\nlaw, for he committed no war crimes and consequently no crimes against\nhumanity. I, therefore, ask that defendant Karl Brandt be acquitted.\n\n-----\n\n[31] Final plea is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 14 July 47, pp.\n10797-10817.\n\n[32] United States _vs._ Friedrich Flick et al. See vol. VI.\n\n\n\n\n XI. FINAL STATEMENTS OF THE DEFENDANTS,\n 19 JULY 1947\n\n\n A. Final Statement of Defendant Karl Brandt[33]\n\nThere is a word which seems so simple\u2014order; and how colossal are its\nimplications. How immeasurable are the conflicts which hide behind the\nword obey. Both affected me, obey and order, and both imply\nresponsibility. I am a doctor and on my conscience lies the\nresponsibility of being responsible for men and for life. Quite\ndispassionately the prosecution has brought the charge of crime and\nmurder and they have raised the question of my guilt. It would have no\nweight if friends and patients were to shield me and speak well of me,\nsaying I had helped and I had healed. There would be many examples of my\nactions during danger and my readiness to help. All that is now useless.\nAs far as I am concerned I shall not evade these charges. But the\nattempt to vindicate myself as a man is my duty towards all who believe\nin me personally, who trusted in me and who relied upon me as a man as\nwell as a doctor and a superior.\n\nNo matter how I was faced with the problem, I have never regarded human\nexperiments as a matter of course, not even when no danger was entailed.\nBut I affirm the necessity for them on grounds of reason. I know that\nopposition will arise. I know things that disturb the conscience of a\nmedical man, and I know the inner distress that afflicts one when ethics\nof every form are decided by an order or obedience.\n\nIt is immaterial for the experiment whether it is done with or against\nthe will of the person concerned. For the individual the event seems\nsenseless, just as senseless as my actions as a doctor seem when\nisolated. The sense lies much deeper than that. Can I, as an individual,\ndetach myself from the community? Can I remain outside and do without\nit? Could I, as a part of this community, evade it by saying I want to\nlive in this community, but I don\u2019t want to make any sacrifices for it,\neither of body or soul? I want to keep a clear conscience. Let them see\nhow they can get along. And yet we, that community and I, are somehow\nidentical.\n\nThus I must suffer these contradictions and bear the consequences, even\nif they remain incomprehensible. I must bear them as my lot in life,\nwhich allocates to me its tasks. The meaning is the motive\u2014devotion to\nthe community. If on its account I am guilty, then on its account I will\nbe answerable.\n\nThere was war. In war, efforts are all alike. Its sacrifices affect us\nall. They were incumbent upon me. But are those sacrifices my crime? Did\nI tread on the precepts of humanity and despise them? Did I pass over\nhuman beings and their lives as if they were nothing? Men will point at\nme and cry \u201ceuthanasia\u201d, and falsely, \u201cthe useless\u201d, \u201cthe incapable\u201d,\n\u201cthe worthless\u201d. But what actually happened? Did not Pastor\nBodelschwingh, in the middle of his work at Bethel last year, say that I\nwas an idealist and not a criminal? How could he say that?\n\nHere I am, subject of the most frightful charges, as if I had not only\nbeen a doctor, but also a man without heart or conscience. Do you think\nthat it was a pleasure to me to receive the order to permit euthanasia?\nFor 15 years I had toiled at the sickbed and every patient was to me\nlike a brother. I worried about every sick child as if it had been my\nown. My personal lot was a heavy one. Is that guilt?\n\nWas it not my first thought to limit the scope of euthanasia? Did I not,\nthe moment I was included, try to find a limit and demand a most\nsearching report on the incurables? Were not the appointed professors of\nthe universities there? Who could there be who was better qualified? But\nI do not want to speak of these questions and of their execution. I am\ndefending myself against the charge of inhuman conduct and base\nintentions. In the face of these charges I fight for my right to humane\ntreatment! I know how complicated this problem is. With the utmost\nfervor I have tortured myself again and again, but no philosophy or\nother wisdom helped me here. There was the decree and on it there was my\nname. It is no good saying that I could have feigned sickness. I do not\nlive this life of mine in order to evade fate if I meet it. And thus I\nassented to euthanasia. I fully realize the problem; it is as old as\nmankind, but it is not a crime against man nor against humanity. It is\npity for the incurable, literally. Here I cannot believe like a\nclergyman or think as a jurist. I am a doctor and I see the law of\nnature as being the law of reason. In my heart there is love of mankind,\nand so it is in my conscience. That is why I am a doctor!\n\nWhen I talked at the time to Pastor Bodelschwingh, the only serious\nadmonisher I knew personally, it seemed at first as if our thoughts were\nfar apart; but the longer we talked and the more we came into the open,\nthe closer and the greater became our mutual understanding. At that time\nwe were not concerned with words. It was a struggle and a search far\nbeyond the human sphere. When the old Pastor Bodelschwingh left me after\nmany hours and we shook hands, his last words were: \u201cThat was the\nhardest struggle of my life.\u201d For him as well as for me that struggle\nremained; and the problem remained too.\n\nIf I were to say today that I wish this problem had never come upon me\nwith its convulsive drama, that would be nothing but superficiality in\norder to make me feel more comfortable in myself. But I am living in\nthese times and I see that they are full of antitheses. Somewhere we all\nmust make a stand. I am fully conscious that when I said \u201cYes\u201d to\neuthanasia I did so with the deepest conviction, just as it is my\nconviction today, that it was right. Death can mean deliverance. Death\nis life\u2014just as much as birth. It was never meant to be murder. I bear\na burden, but it is not the burden of crime. I bear this burden of mine,\nthough with a heavy heart, as my responsibility. I stand before it, and\nbefore my conscience, as a man and as a doctor.\n\n B. Final Statement of Defendant Handloser[34]\n\nDuring my first interrogations here in Nuernberg, in August 1946, the\ninterrogator declared to me:\n\nFirst, you have been the Chief of the Army Medical Service. Whether or\nnot you knew of inadmissible experiments does not matter here. As the\nChief, you are responsible for everything.\n\nSecondly, do not make the excuse that among other nations the same or\nsimilar things have happened. We are not concerned with that here. The\nGermans are under indictment, not the others.\n\nThirdly, do not appeal to your witnesses. They, of course, will testify\nin your favor. We have our witnesses, and we rely upon them.\n\nThose were the guiding principles of the prosecution up to the last day\nof these proceedings. They have remained incomprehensible to me, because\nI always believed a criminal to be a man who did wrong, and because I\nwas of the opinion that even the prosecution endeavored to be objective,\nat least after the end of the presentation of evidence. The final plea\nby the prosecution, however, has shown me that I made a mistake. The\nspeech by the prosecution did not take into account the material\nsubmitted in evidence, but it was a summarized repetition of one-sided\nstatements by the prosecution without taking into account that which was\nsubmitted in the course of the presentation of evidence in my case.\n\nI am quite convinced that the high Tribunal has gained a true impression\nof my activity and of my attitude. Just as I have tried throughout my\nentire life to fulfill the tasks allotted to me by fate according to the\nbest of my capacity and in the full knowledge of my responsibility, so\nhave I also tried to stand this most serious task before this Court with\nthe aid of the strongest weapon which I possess\u2014that is the truth.\n\nIf there is anything which could console me for the mental suffering of\nthe last months, it is the consciousness of knowing that before this\nCourt, before the German people, and before the people of the world, it\nhas been made clear that the serious general charges of the prosecution\nagainst the Medical Corps of the German Armed Forces have been proved to\nbe without any foundation.\n\nIt can be seen how unjust these charges were by the fact that no charges\nhave been raised or any proceedings initiated against a single leading\ndoctor of the German Armed Forces in combat or at home. As the last\nMedical Inspector of the Army, and as Chief of the Medical Service of\nthe Armed Forces of Germany, I think with pride of all the medical\nofficers to whose untiring devotion countless wounded and sick patients\nof this dreadful war owe their lives and cure and their possibilities of\nexistence. Never and nowhere were the losses of an army medical corps\ngreater than those among the medical officers of the German Armed Forces\nin carrying out their duties.\n\nMore than 150 years ago, the motto and guiding principle created for\nGerman military doctors and their successors was \u201cScientiae, Humanitati,\nPatriae\u201d (For Science, Humanity, and Fatherland). Like the medical\nofficers in their entirety I also have remained true to that guiding\nprinciple in thought and in deed. Realizing the outcome of the events of\nthese recent times, may the joint endeavors of all the nations succeed\nin avoiding in future the immeasurable misfortune of war, the dreadful\nside of which nobody knows better than the military doctor.\n\n C. Final Statement of Defendant Rostock[35]\n\nI have nothing to add to the pertinent statements by my defense counsel,\nDr. Pribilla, regarding the individual points of the indictment in this\ntrial; but with regard to the general position of German medical science\nduring this war, there are a few words, which I would like to say from\nthis dock.\n\nDuring my direct examination I have already stated why I, as the Chief\nof the so-called \u201cScience and Research\u201d department undertook to work for\nmedical science as late as 1943 and 1944. At that time the problem was\nto avoid, or at least to minimize, the great and acute danger of\nteaching and research, and with that Germany\u2019s universities, becoming\ncompletely destroyed. When this had been prevented at the very last\nmoment, there arose the task and the duty of improving the means and the\npossibilities of basic research which had been more and more restricted\nin the course of the war, and through dwindling resources research in\nGermany would have come to a standstill. Due to the chaotic development\nof the last year of the war, success was comparatively small. There\nwere, however, some results and there were a few things which were saved\nafter the end of the war.\n\nToday through the evidence produced in this trial, I know the reasons\nwhich paralyzed the work at the time. It was the striving for power on\nthe part of certain organizations which used the effective support of\ncertain executive departments of the Third Reich who held unrestricted\npower. It was the principle of totalitarianism which these organizations\nfollowed particularly in the case of what they called the \u201cuniversity\nscience\u201d. It was there, however, that we had founded the tradition of\nGerman science recognized the world over. In contrast to that, their\naim, as shown in some of the testimonies given in this trial and some of\nthe documents submitted, was to found a \u201cpolitically directed science\u201d\nof their own. That was the reason why my personal efforts and those of\nthe health and medical services, which I have referred to in this trial,\ndid not achieve complete success. Today, at the end of this trial, that\nis now clear to me. At that time, in the year 1944, we did not know of\nthis masterly camouflaged and, therefore, so very dangerous opponent to\nthat branch of science with which I myself had grown up.\n\nThroughout my life I have never worked for one form of a state or\nanother, or for any political party in Germany, but simply and solely\nfor my patients and for medical science.\n\n D. Final Statement of Defendant Schroeder[36]\n\nIt is very difficult for a defendant to find the right final words here.\nIn methodical, detailed work throughout the last months, the defense has\ntried to rebut the charges of the prosecution.\n\nWhen now the prosecution states in its final plea that details do not\nmatter so much, but that the entire complex of questions has to be\nconsidered as a whole, that one has to look at matters as at a bundle of\nsticks, not as individual branches and twigs of the bundle. If,\nfurthermore, the prosecution refers to a sentence pronounced in the Far\nEast by an American Military Court, by which a Japanese general and\nmilitary commander was sentenced only because, as a commander, he bore\nthe responsibility for all the acts of his troops, regardless of whether\nhe ordered them, knew of them, approved of them, or did not even know of\nthem\u2014if, gentlemen of the Tribunal, these principles are decisive for\nproceedings, then I have to ask, why bother at all to start proceedings\nof that kind, to prepare them, and to carry them out? Those decisions\ncould be made much more quickly.\n\nWhat can I, as a defendant, bring against these arguments? That can be\nsaid in a few words: myself, my work, my acts as a doctor and a soldier\nin 35 years of service. Not the craving for glory and honor was the\npurport of my life\u2019s work, but the firm intention to put my entire\ncapacity, my full knowledge, into the service of my beloved Fatherland;\nto help the soldier, as a physician, to heal the wounds caused by\nwartime and peacetime service, both as a physician for the individual,\nas well as a medical officer for the mass of troops which were in my\ncare.\n\nThat was the aim and object of my work. I do not believe that I have\ndeviated from that path. My eyes always looked towards the final goal:\nto help and to heal.\n\n E. Final Statement of Defendant Genzken[37]\n\nDuring my testimony I stated before the Tribunal that I took no part in\nthe types of experiments of which I am accused. I have nothing to add to\nwhat my defense counsel Dr. Merkel has said. I have striven to lead a\ndecent life as a doctor and as a soldier. If my fatherly concern for my\n2,500 doctors and 30,000 men of the Medical Service of the Waffen SS was\nmentioned here in this courtroom, it is nevertheless my duty to speak\nfrom this place on behalf of those men who, in the majority, were decent\nand brave doctors and medical attendants. I am proud to have been their\nleader, a leader of those who sacrificed their lives and blood with\nunceasing fervor to help me in building up the organization of the\nMedical Service of the Waffen SS, and to overcome the tremendous losses\namong the ranks of our comrades at the front.\n\nThe soldiers of the Waffen SS have proved to history\u2014in the focal\npoints of uncounted battles during an uneven struggle\u2014that they could\nrank among the finest troops on this earth as far as training,\nefficiency, readiness of sacrifice, soldierly valor, and contempt of\ndeath were concerned. Actions of modern warfare have presented to some\nextent a picture of murder and horror on both sides. Who dares to raise\nhis head before God and gainsay that?\n\nThe men of the Waffen SS went as vanquished into captivity, out of\nunimaginable physical and mental war distress. That captivity was not\nfree of bloodshed, ill-treatment and degradation of various kinds. To\nthe men of the Waffen SS there was added to the weight of such captivity\nthe frightful realization of the fact that their supreme commander,\nHimmler, had misused their cloak of honor and deceived them, that they\nhad been cheated and then deserted by him. These decent men of the front\nWaffen SS certainly did not deserve that fate, the fate of being branded\nas members of a criminal organization.\n\nMy request and my wish is that our former opponents should realize the\nhonest idealism of these victims, do justice to it, and give them back\nbelief in justice.\n\n F. Final Statement of Defendant Gebhardt[38]\n\nI wish to thank the high Tribunal for having granted me an opportunity,\nin the witness box, to describe my personal position in 1942 in such\ndetail.\n\nThe historical situation at that time placed me in a totalitarian state\nwhich, in turn, placed itself between the individual and the universe.\nVirtues in the service of the state were paramount virtues. Beyond that\nI do not know anywhere where the intellect was not debased as a tool for\nwar. Everywhere, in some way values and solutions were put into the\nservice of the war. And here again, in the intellectual field, the first\nstep is the decisive one. I may be permitted to recall that in the war\nof nerves, it was propaganda with and for \u201cmedical preparations\u201d which\ncaused the first step, the order to examine the question of\nsulfanilamides.\n\nIn my final statement today may I be permitted to describe my entire\nattitude. In doing so, I may perhaps utilize the most important of the\nfour American freedoms, that is to say the freedom of speech, until the\nvery end in such a way that I will refrain from any denunciation or from\nincriminating others.\n\nWithout exaggerating the importance of my own person, a physician can\nonly be measured according to his conception of medical science.\nBasically, I was neither a cold technical specialist nor a pure\nscientist. I believe that I have always tried, for example when carrying\nout surgical experiments, to see every disease as a human condition of\nsuffering. I did not look on my task as something to serve my own\nadvantage, or as a cheap gesture of theoretical pity, but as a personal\nactive support to the trembling existence of the suffering patient. My\ngoal as a physician was not so much purely technical therapy for the\nindividual patient, as therapeutical care for the particularly\nunderprivileged group of the poor, the children, the cripples, the\nneurotics.\n\nI am anxious that it should be believed that it was not due to moral\nbaseness nor to the selfish arrogance of the scientist that I came into\ncontact with experiments on human beings. On the contrary, during the\nentire period in question I had experiments in my field of research\ncarried out on animals. It was only because I was the competent\nresponsible surgical expert that I was informed about the imminent\nexperiments on human beings in my field of surgery, which had been\nordered by the state authorities. After the order had been given, it was\nno longer a question of stopping these experiments, but the problem was\nthe method of their execution.\n\nMy problems as an expert consisted of the following: For one, the\nexperiments that had been ordered had to be of practical scientific\nvalue, for the purpose of testing immunization to protect thousands of\ninjured and sick. On the other hand, I considered humane safety measures\nfor the experimental subjects most important. The main point for me was\nnever the purpose and the object of the experiments, but the manner in\nwhich they were carried out. To realize that in a humane way I did not\nremain aloof and restrict myself to theoretical instruction in the field\nof surgery, but I myself took part, with my clinic and with all its\nsafety measures.\n\nI hope that this will show that in carrying out experiments I tried with\nthe best of intentions to act primarily in the interest of the\nexperimental subjects. We did not take advantage of the unlimited\nopportunities given us by Himmler, that is to say, the surgical\nexperiments were not followed by others. I believe that as far as was\npossible at that chaotic period I fulfilled my duty as an expert,\nbecause these experiments did not increase in the field of surgery in\nspite of the crescendo of the catastrophic policy. My desire was to help\nand not to give a bad example.\n\nIn seeing my responsibility in this way I, of course, made a decision\nfor myself. I hope that hitherto I have always faced criticism, even\nfrom foreign countries, without any secrecy, but also without any\nfeeling of guilt for my activities as an expert.\n\nThrough these activities, however, as a military physician, not through\nmy own initiative, I was brought into contact with concentration camps.\nI can understand how heavily that deadly shadow must lie upon anyone who\nwas ever active there. In the ghostly phenomenon of that sphere, which\nat that time was unknown to me as well, we can now in retrospect begin\nto realize the frightfulness of the negative ideology of extermination\nbecoming combined secretly with the negative selection of the guards.\nOnly from the documents of the international trial have we been able to\nsee definitely that of the 35,000 guard troops, only 6,000 were SS men\nwho were unfit for combat. The rest were scum, conscripts, foreigners,\netc., who with the greatest injustice and to our bitter shame were given\nthe same Waffen SS uniform as we wore at the front. As head of a\nwell-known clinic, known for its measures of safety, in the interest of\nthe experimental subjects, within the framework of my duty as an expert\nas I saw it, I got in touch with concentration camp doctors. As far as\nit was at all possible I tried to exclude that atmosphere from my sphere\nof work. That my counter-actions went beyond purely clinical safety\nmeasures for the experimental subjects may, I think, be seen from the\nfollowing fact: Of the several thousand foreign inmates of this\nconcentration camp\u2014among whom, as we were told here, there were at\nleast seven hundred Polish women\u2014only 200 were turned over to the Red\nCross at the end of the war. Of these two-hundred, however, sixty were\nmy experimental subjects, as was proved.\n\nJust as I have tried to clarify my actions as a doctor and to explain my\ngood intentions and possibilities for influence, so my final thought\nshould be devoted to self-criticism, above all as regards on my moral\nobligation.\n\nIn a parody on the words of Heinrich Heine we see today that: \u201cJust to\nhave been an SS man is fate in itself\u201d. Although I believe and hope that\nin that terrible confusion between the decent Waffen SS and the\nexecutive organization, I did my duty as a specialist, an officer, and a\nhuman being, I still feel bound to make every form of reparation for\nthis confusion. My possibilities for doing that of course are limited.\n\nWithout seeking sensation I offered to undergo an experiment on myself\nas proved, and that without any surgical safety measures, as soon as the\nfirst opportunity arose. My responsibility for the execution of the\nexperiments carried out with good intention, and especially for those\nwho were my subordinates, I have emphasized. I have a further criticism\nand responsibility, which I spoke of not only now in the dim light of my\nown defense but already in May 1945 on the day when Himmler released us\nfrom our oath and from our orders, and he himself left his post without\nreserve. It was my endeavor with others to prevent any illegal\ncontinuation of an SS conception, and for that purpose to take the\nburden off the shoulders of our credulous youth by making the SS\ngenerals responsible.\n\nToday as a private individual I can only repeat what I am ready to do,\nat least as far as my former professional standing is concerned.\n\nWhere, in spite of my earnest endeavors, reproach and guilt seem to\ncloud the picture in the sphere for which I was responsible, may the\nconsequences affect me in such a way that I may make the path easier for\nthe younger men who, believing in me, also joined the SS as surgeons. I\nbelieve that this pile of rubble, Germany, with its wasted biological\nmaterial, cannot afford to let these fine young doctors perish in camps\nand in other inactivity. Also I know every measure which would make the\nwork easier for the old German universities and their respected\nteachers.\n\nI have summarized my point of view in order to help avoid possible\nmistakes. From unwholesome social conditions it is a pathological and\ndeceptive escape, then as well as today\u2014here and everywhere, to unite\nand combine spiritual with economic and political concepts. It is a\ndisastrous error to confuse the organized unanimity of voices with\nharmony. Destructive criticism only brings intolerant lack of\ncooperation, which interrupts all cohesion. The private as well as the\npublic conscience cannot be subjugated to any official virtue, nor to\nany temporal moral principles. It can only find its place within a\nGod-given order.\n\nIn the spirit of \u201cearthly constructive pessimism\u201d, as I wrote before the\nwar, in this alone consideration for the painful reality of this social\ncatastrophe seems to be found.\n\nMy last sentence is to express our personal gratitude to Dr. Seidl who\nhas stood by the side of my colleagues and myself so conscientiously and\nwith such human kindness.\n\n G. Final Statement of Defendant Blome[39]\n\nI have testified quite openly before this high Tribunal that\nparticularly up to the outbreak of war I was a confirmed National\nSocialist and follower. I have also explained why I became a Party\nmember in 1931, and that because political conditions in Germany at the\ntime were moving with giant strides towards a final conflict between\nCommunism and National Socialism, as a result of the economic chaos and\nthe impotence of the German governments after 1919. I have said that I\njoined the National Socialist Party because I rejected the dictatorial\nform of the Communist system. In my book \u201cThe Doctor in the Struggle\u201d,\nwhich was put to me by the prosecution here in cross-examination, I also\nexplained why I went over to National Socialism. This book, however,\nwhich was published in 1941, at the time of Germany\u2019s greatest\nvictories, clearly shows my repudiation of the Second World War, to\nwhich I do not refer with a single word, not even a hint, although my\nexperience in the First World War takes up considerable space in this\nbook.\n\nAfter the First World War, Germany was in great difficulties. The\nsituation became progressively worse and more unbearable, when at the\nturn of the thirties the economic crisis spread throughout the world and\neven seized hold of the United States. At that time I realized that in\nsuch hard times a nation which is drifting toward despair seeks a leader\nand follows him in blind confidence as soon as he can show great\nsuccesses.\n\nThat in the case of Hitler these were only sham successes or temporary\nsuccesses the German people realized only gradually, only step by step,\nand only at a time when it was too late to shake off the dictatorship\nagain by their own strength. For years the German people were deceived\nby the leaders as to the true situation. With deliberately lying\npropaganda, Hitler\u2019s governmental system until the last moment kept\nproclaiming final victory to the German people, even in the winter of\n1944, and even in the spring of 1945, when the Reich cabinet and the\nParty leaders long knew that a terrible collapse was imminent. This\ngovernmental system thus irresponsibly imposed on the exhausted body of\nthe German nation still further useless losses of life and property.\n\nSince the collapse, particularly since the International War Crimes\nTrial at Nuernberg, we see clearly that this frivolous method of\nbetrayal of their own people was a fitting part of the systematical\nmurder of foreign peoples and races by the millions.\n\nI believe that there is no other example in history of the boundless\nconfidence of a people in their leader being so boundlessly misused and\ndisappointed.\n\nThe German people were blinded in their faith in their Fuehrer, in a\nleader who constantly pretended to them and the world a love of peace, a\nhumane character, a selfless care for the people. Thus the German people\nbecame the victim of a political gambler. His unrestrained supreme power\napparently knew only the choice between ruling and destroying. Hitler\u2019s\nambition, as I know and judge it today, had only one aim: _At any price_\nto go down in history as a great man. Hitler achieved this goal 100\npercent. He went down in history as one of the greatest tyrants of all\ntime, tremendous in his mania for ruling, tremendous in his brutality in\nthe achievement of his ends, not hesitating even at the murder of his\nbest friends, his oldest followers, if they were in his way.\n\nRelying upon the blind confidence of his deceived people, Hitler created\na system in which all individualism, all sentiment of freedom, all\npersonal opinion of the citizens was nipped in the bud and turned into\nslavery.\n\nHe succeeded in this with the aid of a very small circle of closest\nassociates, who had fallen under his hypnotic influence, in part perhaps\nthemselves deceived by this man, but who became willing tools in his\nhand for the enslavement of the German people and the decimation of\nwhole nations.\n\nUnder the fatal influence of a clever, deliberately lying propaganda,\nagainst which even other countries were as good as powerless, the German\npeople and the German doctor, too, believed that they were following an\nhonorable leader and serving a good cause; they all considered it the\nhighest moral duty not to desert the Fatherland in times of emergency\nand particularly in wartime, but to do their duty to the very extreme,\nespecially since in this war the life or death of the nation was at\nissue.\n\nDuring the times of total warfare, the times of air raids, hunger, and\nthe danger of epidemics, working conditions for the German doctor were\nterribly hard; so difficult that today one can hardly imagine what\nGerman doctors accomplished in those days for friend and foe alike.\nWhether we twenty doctors here in this dock are accused justly or\nunjustly, it is a great injustice in any case to defame German doctors\nin general in public, as is constantly being done. As former Deputy\nReich Physicians\u2019 Leader I know conditions in the German medical\nprofession during the Hitler period, and I must say even today that in\nits _totality_ the German medical profession was efficient, decent,\nindustrious, and humane. Their willingness to work under the most\ndifficult conditions that one can imagine, their unselfishness to the\nutmost, their courage and their helpfulness were exemplary. Beyond all\npraise were in particular the numerous old doctors who were already\nliving in retirement and who, in spite of their great age, returned to\nthe service of the sick, and those innumerable women doctors who,\nmarried, and often the mothers of many children, deserted their\nhousehold duties for the difficult work of medical practice during\nwartime.\n\nThe whole German people knew this, in whose midst and under whose eyes\nthe German medical professions spent the years of distress and fright,\nand who, therefore, will continue to place unlimited confidence in\nGerman doctors.\n\nOf myself I can say that I have always, particularly during the Hitler\nperiod, devoted all my efforts to keeping the medical profession at a\nhigh scientific and ethical level and to developing it. And I found in\nthis effort the full support of all German doctors, including the most\nfamous scientists and chief physicians of medical institutions.\nWell-known scholars throughout the world supported this work, which was\n_above_ [unintelligible] parties and enjoyed an international\nreputation.\n\nBut in the course of this trial it has become clearer to me day by day\njust how criminal the Hitler system was, to which I sacrificed in good\nfaith many years of my life, and I am so deeply moved inside me that I\nmust confess to myself: For years I held a responsible position in a\nsystem which today I must curse just as much as I curse all those who\nforced upon the German people such a tyranny of crime and debasement of\nman.\n\nIt was my mistake that I stayed in the post where fate had placed me and\nin which I had hoped to be able to do good for our people and my\nprofession. It would often have been simpler to give up this post when I\nbegan to realize, step by step, the depravity of the Third Reich. If I\ndid not do so, but stayed at my post until the bitter end, I did this\nbecause I considered it my duty, especially in the hard times of total\nwar, and because again and again I succeeded either in protecting the\nmedical profession from harm or in preventing crimes against humanity.\nEven today I would have to consider it cowardice if I had left my post\nin 1941 or 1942 only to bring myself to safety or to evade threatened\nresponsibility.\n\nI feel myself free of the guilt of ever having committed or furthered\ncrimes against humanity.\n\n H. Final Statement of Defendant Mrugowsky[40]\n\nMy attorney and I made every effort during my examination on the witness\nstand and by means of the considerable evidence which we submitted to\nrefute the charges which have been raised against me, just as much as we\ntried to assist in ascertaining the truth.\n\nThe outcome of the trial and the evidence against me is in the hands of\nthe Tribunal and the closing brief, and in the reply to comprehensive\ndocumentation of the prosecution. I am firmly confident on the basis of\nthis trial that this high Tribunal will examine the evidence objectively\nand carefully. Thus in my final speech I merely would like to draw your\nattention to the fact that my life in its entirety was solely devoted to\nmy profession and my science. It was my aim, not by any means to\nrepresent some political ideology, but to go to the university and to\nreach the position of a free and independent doctor and scientist.\n\nThe prosecution has charged us, the defendants, with destructive\ntendencies which were supposed to have been the causes of our actions. I\nknow that I am free of such tendencies. They never occurred to my\ncollaborators and myself at any time. In the Waffen SS too, the troops\nof which were among the bravest divisions of the German Armed Forces,\nsuch tendencies never played a part.\n\nAs far as my own concepts of the ethical duties of the doctor are\nconcerned, they are contained in my book regarding medical ethics, and I\nbelieve always to have acted according to the principles of that book\nand lived according to them. My life, my actions, and my aims were\nclean. That is why now that at the end of this trial I can declare\nmyself free of personal guilt.\n\n I. Final Statement of Rudolf Brandt[41]\n\nNow, after this trial has reached its final stage, my conscience is\nconfronted with the question of whether I consider myself guilty or\ninnocent. My responsibility, in my opinion, is to be tested by a\nthreefold question:\n\n First, did I participate in the experiments directly and\n actively?\n\n Second, did I at least have any knowledge of the criminal\n character of the experiments on human beings?\n\n Third, what, if I had known, could have been my attitude towards\n Himmler?\n\nWhat my basic opinion is of crimes against humanity I did not only\ndeclare myself on the witness stand but this has also been testified to\nby a very competent foreign witness, a Swedish medical counsellor, Felix\nKoersten.\n\nBefore this Tribunal and in the full knowledge of what I say I confess\nthat I abhor\u2014and did abhor\u2014any crime against humanity in the years\npast and during my activity as a so-called personal Referent of Himmler.\nBut I also frankly declare that perhaps during the course of these last\nyears my way of thinking was not always in my conscious mind as it is\ntoday. But I never participated in a crime against humanity knowingly,\nintentionally, or with premeditation when passing on the letters,\norders, etc., which Himmler issued to third persons, and the result of\nwhich was the commission of cruelties on human beings.\n\nI am confident that from the evidence and from the content of the\nvarious defense affidavits the Tribunal will be convinced that in truth\nmy real sphere of power did in no way correspond to the face value of my\nofficial position. My real sphere of power was extremely small. It did\nnot exceed that of a well-paid stenographer in the office of an\ninfluential man in Germany. If the Tribunal were to start from this\nfact, it would approach reality much closer than the prosecution did in\nits indictment.\n\nI got into contact with Himmler when I was a young, immature man who\ncame from a family in modest circumstances. Nothing else but my ability\nas a stenographer, which I had obtained through my industry, was the\nreason for that, and this was my position until the last days of the\nGerman collapse, in spite of promotions in rank. At that time I was only\ntoo glad to get that job because it enabled me to support my parents\nfinancially.\n\nWhen I started work with Himmler, I got, without intermediate stages,\ninto an agency, the chief of which was to combine, among other\nfunctions, the highest executive powers in his hands a short time\nafterwards.\n\nI am convinced that I would not sit here under a grave indictment if I\nhad had the opportunity to continue my education, if I had made a start\nin a subordinate agency, and had risen little by little into a higher\nposition. Unfortunately, I have always been a lone wolf as long as I\nlived, and I never was fortunate enough to have an older friend who\ncould have corrected my political inexperience and my gullibility.\n\nIf, however, through all those years, I represented Himmler\u2019s ideology,\nI did so only because I did not know the criminal part of Himmler\u2019s\ncharacter. Since I lived, so to speak, divorced from the world around me\nand was only devoted to my more than plentiful work, I only learned\nafter the collapse what stupendous crimes are to be booked on Himmler\u2019s\naccount.\n\nThe evidence has shown that I neither knew a concentration camp nor had\nanything to do with concentration camps in my official capacity; nor had\nany influence on the system of the concentration camps, their\nadministration and management, nor on the treatment of prisoners. For\nthis reason I didn\u2019t know the measure of the tragedies which were\nenacted there.\n\nThose matters, into which I had sufficient insight during my restless\ndaily activities to permit me to distinguish between good and evil, were\non a plane where they need not shun the light of sun.\n\nI do not deny that some of the documents submitted here by the\nprosecution went through my hands, but I do deny\u2014and I pray the\nTribunal may believe me\u2014that I knew the contents of the documents\nparticularly the reports and therefore the essential core of the human\nexperiments.\n\nI know that appearances are against me. Only these external appearances\nled the prosecution to indict me in this trial and to pass their comment\non me during their closing speech, without penetrating to the bottom of\nmatters. This way they arrived at a completely wrong appraisal which\ndoes not correspond to the facts and overrates my position and my\nactivities.\n\nThese appearances which speak against me will be dispelled as soon as my\nreal position will be considered in which I found myself as\n[administrative officer] so-called personal Referent of Himmler for many\nyears. On the witness stand I testified to the truth, which has been\nconfirmed by witnesses who knew the real facts from their own\nexperience.\n\nIt does not run counter to experience that among thousands of incoming\nand outgoing items of mail\u2014that is, hundreds of thousands during the\ncourse of the years\u2014there should be an insignificantly small number of\ndocuments which a personal Referent on the orders of his chief, passes\non to third persons without knowing their contents more closely, the\nmore so if they concern matters which have nothing to do with the normal\nduties of the personal Referent.\n\nI believe that an American tribunal will know how to appraise the\nforegoing, though I am rather afraid that the situation as it existed in\nGermany during the years before the collapse and prevailed in high\ngovernment agencies will never really be brought home to American\njudges.\n\nTherefore, I refuse to discuss again my position at that time and the\nignorance of criminal experiments on human beings which was the\nconsequence thereof. In this respect I agree with my defense counsel.\nNeither need I fear Professor Ivy\u2019s statement who declared that even a\nlayman must have been outraged by reading the reports of Rascher,\nbecause the fact that the layman should have read the passages of the\nreports wherefrom the obvious violation of human dignity is evident was,\nas a matter of fact, the natural prerequisite for Professor Ivy\u2019s\nopinion, and that prerequisite did not exist in my case.\n\nIn accordance with the truth I repeat what I have said in the witness\nstand, that I had a general knowledge of experiments on human beings, I\ncan no longer say when and on what particular opportunity I gained that\nknowledge. But this fact alone does not deserve death, because I never\nhad the feeling that I had participated in such crimes by my activity in\nthe personal Referat [administrative office].\n\nSuch a knowing participation demands that the personal Referent knows\nthe contents and the import of Himmler\u2019s letters, orders, etc., and\npasses them on in spite of this knowledge of the contents and their\nimport. I just said that appearances are against me, but I believe I did\nprove that I did not possess that knowledge. I pray the Tribunal to\nfollow the line of this evidence and, I think, this is not asking too\nmuch since the experience of everyday life speaks in my favor.\n\nThe various affidavits which I have submitted and which were the subject\nof excited argument have found their explanation. In some points I have\nerred and I have tried to correct my errors. I did not want to speak an\nuntruth knowingly which might be detrimental or unfavorable to a third\nperson. I ask the Tribunal not to forget that I was in a very low\ngeneral condition when I signed these affidavits. Only a few months\npreviously I weighed only forty-four kilograms; consequently my mental\npower was reduced to a minimum.\n\nDuring my activities which stretched over many years I exclusively acted\non the express orders of Himmler without ever making a decision on my\nown initiative. I may take it that this fact has fully been proved.\n\nThe question what attitude I should have assumed had I known the details\nof inhuman experiments I can only answer in a hypothetical way. Had I\nhad an approximate knowledge, as I have it today, I would have struggled\nagainst passing on such an order by virtue of my general view on\nquestions of humanity. Since, however, I did not have that knowledge it\ncould not come to any opposition on my part. I ask that consideration be\ngiven to the fact that during all those years, I regarded matters which\nwere in my field from my own point of view, and tried to live up to my\nown ideals. I saw my duty in carrying out my task faithfully and in the\nconduct of a clean, personal life. I always strove not to cause any\ndamage to any human being, but to understand the situation of any person\nin need of help, and then to help him as I myself would have wished to\nbe helped or treated had I been in his position. I remind you of the\nstatement of the witness Meiner, on 21 March 1947.\n\nThe fact that my signatures are on the documents which have been\nsubmitted by the prosecution has moved me deeply because my entire view\nof humanity and the principles of humanity is quite opposed to that.\nWhat I understand by humanity, also begins to apply to the small details\nof life also for me.\n\nIn spite of my good intentions, and this I say in answer to a question\nput in the beginning\u2014in spite of my good intentions I was drawn into a\nguilt, I see it as a guilt into which human beings can be involved by\ntragic circumstances without any intention on their part. But the\nrecognition of this guilt was sufficient to shake severely my mental and\nmoral balance.\n\n J. Final Statement of Defendant Poppendick[42]\n\nI joined the SS at a time not to commit crimes, but because a number of\nmy friends whom I knew to be idealists were members of the SS. Their\nmembership caused me to join. That I thereby became a member of a\ncriminal organization was unimaginable for me at that time, just as it\nis incomprehensible for me today.\n\nMy activity in the Main Race and Settlement Office was devoted to the\nproblem of the family, an activity which in view of the destructive\ntendencies during the period of the First World War seemed important to\nme. If my expectations as a physician were disappointed in more than one\npoint, at least I considered myself justified to hope that in the end\nthis activity would have positive results. The intentions were always\ntoward a constructive policy for the good of the family. Never did I\nhave anything to do with negative population policies, such as the\nsterilization program of the state. The assertion of the prosecution\nthat positive and negative population policies belong together as the\ntwo sides of one and the same program, is erroneous.\n\nThen there were purely organizational reasons which brought about my\ndirect subordination under the office of that man whose name today has\nsuch an inhuman sound\u2014I mean Grawitz. The impression which the\nprosecution has rendered of my activity and position in Grawitz\u2019 office\nis not in accordance with the facts, in spite of some features which\nseem to support the assertions made by the prosecution.\n\nAs for medical experiments on inmates\u2014experiments on human beings were\nnothing surprising to me, nor anything new. I knew that experiments were\ncarried out in clinics. I knew that the modern achievements of medical\nscience had not been brought about without sacrifices. However, I do not\nrecall that in experiments in clinics the voluntariness of the person to\nbe experimented on was an absolute requirement, which now seems to be\ntaken as a matter of fact, according to the discussions in this trial. I\nknew furthermore, that some scientific problems can only be solved by\nexperiments in series with conditions remaining constant, and that\ntherefore soldiers and particularly soldiers in camps are used for\nexperiments in all countries. Under these circumstances it did not\nappear surprising to me that during the war, scientists also carried out\nexperiments in series in concentration camps. I did not have the least\ncause to assume that these scientists in the camps would go beyond the\nscope of that which otherwise everywhere in the world of science was\ncustomary. What I knew about medical experiments in the SS was, in my\nopinion, as little connected with criminal matters as those experiments\nof which I knew from my clinical experience before 1933.\n\nIn March of this year a young doctor, Dr. Mitscherlich, in a very\none-sided way, published material for an indictment under the already\nprejudiced title, \u201cThe Dictates of Contempt for Human Life\u201d. Of the\nproblematic there was little in this book. The basis for a judgment and\na conviction were clearly given. During the very last days, however, the\nchief of Dr. Mitscherlich, a well-known Professor from Heidelberg,\nWeizsaecker, published a study on the fundamental questions belonging to\nthis subject under the title \u201cEuthanasia and Experiments on Human\nBeings\u201d, which he submitted to the defendants. But here now fortunately\nwe find an entirely different language. The problem itself becomes\nobvious. If one reads this booklet then the extent of the problem with\nits complications becomes clear.\n\nThe oath of Hippocrates, according to Weizsaecker, has nothing to do\nwith the problem. Weizsaecker applies entirely different ethical norms.\nRightly, medicine of today as a whole is studied, not only the German\nmedicine under Hitler. It shows that experts who consider themselves\ncompetent even today are only in the middle of their endeavor to clarify\nthe problems at the basis, that being the first requirement for their\nsolution.\n\nBefore this trial all of these matters were no problems for me. I did\nnot know of any transgressions. Moreover, I was always convinced that\nanything which came to my knowledge about experiments on human beings in\nclinics of the state before 1933, and within the scope of the SS in\nlater years, were conscientious efforts of serious scientists to the\ngood of mankind.\n\nThe ethical foundation of these matters also seemed to be there until\nthis trial. Therefore, after sincere examination of my conscience, I\ncannot find any feelings of guilt and expect with a clear and peaceful\nconscience the verdict of the Tribunal.\n\n K. Final Statement of Defendant Sievers[43]\n\nYour Honors, in his opening plea, my defense counsel already stated\nquite openly and frankly that all events were going to be presented with\nwhich I was in any way connected, and in this hour which is so important\nto me, I can state to the best of my conscience that when I furnished my\ndefense counsel with information, and during my own examination on the\nwitness stand, I always spoke the full truth.\n\nI have, in fact, had the satisfaction to hear my testimony confirmed by\na witness for the prosecution. During my examination as a witness on the\nstand, I said quite truthfully that the experimental subjects to whom I\nhad talked in connection with the last experiment in Natzweiler had\nconfirmed to me that they were voluntary subjects. Witness Nales,\nwitness for the prosecution, confirmed my testimony during his\nexamination on the 30th of June in this courtroom.\n\nWith regard to the charge of participation in the malaria experiments, I\nhave stated that I had nothing to do with malaria experiments. Witness\nVieweg, called by the prosecution, confirmed this testimony of mine, as\nalso did witness Stoehr.\n\nI testified that the two experimented subjects whom I met in connection\nwith the altitude experiments, in reply to a question by me, confirmed\nspecifically that they had volunteered. Witness Neff of the prosecution\nconfirmed this voluntary status of the witnesses. Likewise Dr. Romberg\nduring his direct examination stated on the strength of his own\nknowledge that my testimony was correct. The only experimental subject\nwhom I met in connection with the typhus experiments upon my definite\nquestion regarding the voluntariness of his testimony, confirmed that\nthis was so. My testimony was also confirmed through the affidavit of a\nformer prisoner, and witness, Grunzenhuber, contained in my second\ndocument book.\n\nThe prosecution believed that they had to charge me with having placed\nmyself at the disposal of the IMT on the behalf of the SS. This was\nrather a peculiar statement considering my own defense in this trial. I\nexplained when I was on the stand that without my own initiative, in\nfact against my own will, the defense counsel for the SS called me in\norder to use me as a witness. Attorney Pelckmann, then defense counsel\nof the SS, has confirmed the correctness of my statements in an\naffidavit. According to that, I immediately informed Pelckmann at the\ntime in writing regarding my former membership in the resistance\nmovement against the National Socialist regime and told him I was not a\nsuitable witness. At the same time I presented attorney Pelckmann with a\ncopy of my letter, in which I placed myself at the disposal of the\nInternational Military Tribunal as a witness as early as 20 December\n1945, as the IMT record shows. I have stated my regrets on this same\nwitness stand, that my preparedness to aid justice and to help in\nprosecuting past crimes was not accepted and that considerable evidence\nwas thus destroyed.\n\nAs early as August last year, I furnished the prosecution with a report\nabout my activities in the resistance movement, indicating again my\nwillingness. This was passed over, however, when I stated that I was not\nprepared to sign affidavits which were not completely true. I openly and\nfrankly stated at that point that I did not understand this action. I\nhad to do this, and I could do it because I had been looking for truth\nand right at the risk of my life, undaunted, even during the time of\ntyranny. Was one now to be a collaborator in methods which I thought had\npassed with the National Socialist regime; and which, as remains my firm\nconviction, would never lead to a true pacification of this world such\nas we all desire? I am mentioning this with regret and only because I\nhave always claimed that I myself, and my statements, in responsible\nsituations, deserve to be believed. The prosecution did not only feel in\na position to doubt my credibility, but they even consented to call me a\nliar during their argument, against their better knowledge and their\nbetter conscience. Consequently, I had to draw your attention to the\ntestimony of various witnesses which confirmed, in full, my testimony on\nthe stand in these complicated matters. I can truly be satisfied that it\nwas not up to me, but to the prosecution\u2019s own witnesses, to contradict\nthe incorrect statements made against me. History will honor such\naction, and judge the persistent attempt to stick to preconceived ideas.\nThere is no blessing connected with it. I am only sorry for those who\nare misguided by false ideas. My firm conviction that this high Tribunal\nwill fully believe my testimony during my defense is based on these\nfacts.\n\nIn this connection, with reference to the experiences which I have just\ndescribed, I am forced to say how on the other hand it calmed and\nstrengthened me, and gave me confidence to see with what wisdom, calm,\nand patience this high Tribunal stood above matters and disclosed a\nconduct of trial in which one could feel sheltered; all my friends, who\nfought in the secret resistance movement with me and repeatedly attended\nthis trial in the audience, share these sentiments with me.\n\nI have explained to you, your Honors, for what reasons I was in\nimmediate, direct contact with the NSDAP and the SS. I have told you how\nI always tried to prevent the Ahnenerbe from becoming involved in\nmedical research. This attempt failed, due to the ambitious attitude of\nHimmler. Only on the strength of my own feelings had I to find an\nattitude with regard to this new question of experiments on human\nbeings. I did not approve of them, and I attempted to take the\nconsequence, which could only be that I immediately resigned from my\npost as the Reich manager of the Ahnenerbe. I think the testimony of the\nwitness Hielscher, in this stand, and the affidavits from witness\nDeutelmoser, witness Dellmann, witness Schmitz, and others prove beyond\ndoubt that I had the true intention of resigning from the Ahnenerbe. And\nthese witnesses have also clearly testified why I didn\u2019t do so, not\nbecause of personal ambition, not for reasons of comfort, or for what\nother low reasons might be attributed to me in this point. It was due to\nthe persistent urging on the part of my political friends that I\nremained, in order to serve further the task which had taken me to the\nNSDAP and the SS. Inwardly I rejected contact with human experiments\neven as I refused to be a follower of the NSDAP and of the ideology they\nrepresented. Outwardly, I had to live up to the name of a National\nSocialist if I was to hold on to the political ideal to which I had\ndevoted myself since 1929 and not endanger it. In his affidavit, witness\nNiebhausen, who was the most important member in the circle of the\nsecret German resistance, and who has acted on behalf of Dr. Kempner\ntoo, and who is obviously a personality beyond reproach, says that his\nillegal activity which continued for five years would have been quite\nimpossible without my assistance. I do not, indeed, know what the\nprosecution is prepared to recognize as being a resistance against the\nNazi regime, if not even such activities as these. It is not necessary\nto relate again all the details which have been testified to in this\ncourtroom.\n\nThat in true recognition of the consequences which might be daily\nexpected for myself and my family I devoted myself to resistance,\ncontinued in it undaunted, and never abandoned it, is now the only\nreason why I find myself in this dock. For that reason, I look forward\nto the judgment of this Tribunal with confidence, due to my conviction\nthat I have lived for a good cause and acted on it, on behalf of\nsomething which\u2014then as today\u2014filled me with true belief.\n\n L. Final Statement of Defendant Rose[44]\n\nMr. President, may it please the Tribunal, the scientists who are among\nthe defendants in this trial are confronted with a principal difficulty,\nthe fact that purely scientific questions have been made political,\nideological questions by the prosecution. In the opening speech by the\nChief of Counsel, General Taylor, the political and ideological nature\nof the indictment has been expressed as clearly as possible.\n\nA subject of the personal charges against myself is my attitude toward\nexperiments on human beings ordered by the state and carried out by\nother German scientists in the field of typhus and malaria. Works of\nthat nature have nothing to do with politics or with ideology, but they\nserve the good of humanity, and the same problems and necessities can be\nseen independently of any political ideology everywhere, where the same\ndangers of epidemics have to be combated.\n\nJust as Claus Schilling, in his malaria research, had to make\nexperiments with human beings, before him and after him malaria\nscientists of various nations had to carry out experiments on human\nbeings. Just as Haagen, on his own initiative, but with the approval of\ncompetent authorities of the state, tested the value of a new, living\ntyphus vaccine, before him that was done in the course of fighting\nplague by your great compatriot, Richard B. Strong, when he experimented\non natives of the Philippines, who were not American citizens, with the\napproval of your government.\n\nJust as Dr. Ding, on the instruction of the highest and decisive\nauthorities of the German civilian health administration, tested the\nvalue of the typhus vaccine on humans in times of greatest typhus\ndanger, others have done so before him in less pressing emergencies,\nsometimes in agreement with, sometimes upon the instruction of their\ngovernments.\n\nFrom the witness stand I testified about the actual role which I played\nin regard to the charges of human experiments with malaria and typhus.\nAnd I have explained from the witness stand the legal evaluation of my\nactions, and they have been submitted to you by my defense counsel, Dr.\nFritz. I need not add anything to it. But, as a matter of principle, I\nstated my attitude towards the experiments on human beings in medical\nresearch, not first of all in this courtroom, but also when the National\nSocialist German Government was at the height of its limitless power. At\nthat time I was cut short by a man, Professor Schreiber, who about a\nyear ago in this very courtroom, claimed to be a defender of medical\nethics.\n\nThe fact is undoubted that human experiments, which were exactly the\nsame as those, the participation in which I am unjustly charged with,\nhave been carried out in other countries, above all, in the United\nStates which has indicted me. That has led the prosecution to place the\ncenter of gravity of its charges upon the outside conditions of the\npersons put at my disposal for experiments by the German authorities. In\nthat connection the question of whether they were voluntary was put into\nthe foreground. I shall not discuss the question as to what extent the\ndoctor who is charged with the experiments is responsible for these\nexternal, formal questions, at least a doctor who was so far removed\nfrom the experiments themselves as I was. But in connection with the\nprincipal question of subjects being volunteers, I have to make a few\nstatements. A trial of this kind presents probably the most unsuitable\natmosphere to discuss questions of medical ethics. But since these\nquestions have been raised here, they have to be answered. Everyone who,\nas a scientist, has an insight into the history of dangerous medical\nexperiments, knows with certainty the following fact. Aside from the\nself-experiments of doctors, which represent a very small minority of\nsuch experiments, the extent to which subjects are volunteers is often\ndeceptive. At the very best they amount to self-deceit on the part of\nthe physician who conducts the experiment, but very frequently to a\ndeliberate misleading of the public. In the majority of such cases, if\nwe ethically examine facts, we find an exploitation of the ignorance,\nthe frivolity, the economic distress, or other emergency on the part of\nthe experimental subjects. I may only refer to the example which was\npresented to the Tribunal by Dr. Ivy when he presented the forms for the\nAmerican malaria experiments.\n\nYou yourselves, gentlemen of the Tribunal, are in a position to examine\nwhether, on the basis of the information contained in these forms,\nindividuals of the average education of an inmate of a prison can form a\nsufficiently clear opinion of the risks of an experiment made with\npernicious malaria. These facts will be confirmed by any sincere and\ndecent scientist in a personal conversation, though he would not like to\nmake such a statement in public. That I myself am, on principle, an\nopponent of the idea of dangerous experiments on human beings is known\nto you gentlemen of the Tribunal.\n\nThe state, however, or any human community which, in the interest of the\nwell-being of the entire community, did not want to forego the\nexperiments on human beings, only bases itself on ethical principles as\nlong as it openly assumes the full responsibility which arises\ntherefrom, and imposes sacrifices on enemies of society to atone for\ntheir crimes and does not choose the method of apparent voluntary\nsubmission, which imposes the risk of the experiment on the experimental\nsubjects, who are not in a position to foresee the possible\nconsequences.\n\nThe prosecutor in his plea criticized the preponderance of affidavits\nduring the presentation of evidence on the part of the defense. The\ndifficulties which exist for a defendant in prison in the Germany of\ntoday to acquire other documents are almost prohibitive. In order to\ngive a few examples: When the malaria experiments of Schilling were\ndiscussed, the prosecution, among other material, submitted to the\nTribunal an excerpt from the well-known Dachau sentence concerning the\nstatements contained therein about the number of victims in these\nexperiments. I have stated in the witness box that I would rather sit\nhere as a defendant than put my signature on the opinion which would\nconfirm these statements. How right I was in making that statement can\nbe seen from a letter by Professor Allenby of the University of London\nwhich, unfortunately, has only now been received by my defense counsel,\nin which he termed the statement that 300 experimental subjects had\ndied, a grotesque untruth. My defense counsel in his final plea has\nquoted the passage of that letter.\n\nThe prosecution at that time when the excerpt of the Dachau sentence was\nsubmitted, promised that the entire files of the Dachau trial would be\nput at our disposal. Unfortunately, all my efforts to gain an insight in\nthese files have been in vain.\n\nWhen State Secretary Dr. Conti during the war was toying with the idea\nto commission Professor Schilling, who was at that time in Italy, with\nmalaria research in Germany, I, at that time, Chief of the Tropical\nMedical Department of the Robert Koch Institute, was first of all\nassigned by the Reich Ministry of the Interior to give an opinion. In\nthis opinion, for reasons which I have explained in the witness box, I\nrejected Schilling\u2019s plan. Had one followed my advice, the experiments\nby Schilling in Dachau would never have taken place. In the course of\nthese proceedings I made all efforts to come into the possession of that\nopinion but in this case also I was unsuccessful, although that opinion\nin two copies is in the hands of the military government, possibly even\nin this building.\n\nAlso, in vain, I attempted to get the file note, so important for my\ndefense, which I dictated to the witness Block about my conferences with\nState Secretary Conti and President Gildemeister, after I had gained\nknowledge about the conduct of the typhus experiments in Buchenwald.\nWhat little correspondence I had with Professor Haagen is apparently\nentirely in the hands of the prosecution. In spite of that, it has been\nsubmitted only in part to you. That fact offered an opportunity to the\nprosecution to interpret passages taken out of the context incorrectly.\nUnfortunately, I have no opportunity to force anyone to submit the\nmissing documents which would clarify matters in my favor.\n\nTo evaluate the work of Haagen, and my defense counsel has pointed that\nout already, the statement of an unbiased expert would have been of\ndecisive importance. Therefore, I can only regret that the interrogation\nof the Frenchman Georges Blanc for whom I applied and who has the best\nknowledge in this field, did not take place, although he had volunteered\nto appear before this Tribunal as an expert.\n\nProfessor Lecrout, Director of the Institute Pasteur in Paris, was\nfrequently in Nuernberg during this trial. After an interview, the\nprosecution refrained from calling him as an expert witness to clarify\nsome difficult questions resulting from the work of Haagen. I ask the\nhigh Tribunal to draw its conclusions from these facts and to assure\nthat the lack of these pieces of evidence should not result in a damage\nto my interests.\n\nProsecutor McHaney has explained in his plea that one still had to find\nthat doctor among the defendants who would have subjected himself to\nsuch experiments as are covered by the indictment here. I do not feel\nthat that concerns me. Not only from the statement which I have made\nhere before you but also from my case history, which was available to\nthe authorities of the prison long before indictment, it can be seen\nthat not only did I repeatedly offer myself as an experimental subject\nto test vaccines but that frequently in my official capacity and in my\nresearch work I gave myself injections with cholera, typhus, malaria and\nhepatitis epidemica and that I am still suffering from the consequences.\n\nFinally, Prosecutor McHaney has asserted in his plea that all of those\nindicted here are guilty of murder, and that includes me too. If the\nTribunal were to look at the present problem from this point of view, I\nwould regret having said a single word in my defense. However, if you\nbelieve me, that in all actions of mine which have been discussed here,\nI was only moved by sincere devotion to duty, then I put my fate with\nconfidence into your hands.\n\n M. Final Statement of Defendant Ruff[45]\n\nMay it please the Tribunal: As far as the written and oral statements of\nmy defense counsel are concerned which deal with the points of the\nindictment, and as far as my activities as a doctor and scientist are\nconcerned, I have nothing or hardly anything to add. I can only repeat\ntoday what I said at the end of my examination when I was on the stand.\nAfter detailed inquiry into my conscience, I still today hold the belief\nthat I never sinned against my duty as a man and as a doctor.\n\n N. Final Statement of Defendant Brack[46]\n\nYour Honor, I cannot be described as one of the earliest followers of\nHitler. In 1929, I joined the NSDAP when more than six million German\nvoters were already backing Hitler. His later successes during the years\nof peaceful reconstruction consolidated my conviction that he had\nforever liberated Germany from the misery in which it seemed to have\nfallen. For all those years I had no reason to have any misgivings with\nregard to Hitler\u2019s personality. Therefore I also believed in the\nlegality of the euthanasia decree as it emanated directly from the head\nof the state. The state officials and doctors, competent for me at that\ntime, told me that euthanasia had always been an endeavor of mankind and\nwas morally as well as medically justified. Therefore, I never doubted\nthe legal character of the euthanasia decree.\n\nIn this connection, however, I was assigned duties, the extent and\nimportance of which I could not foresee. Neither my training nor my\nqualifications sufficed for this task. Nobody can deny, however, my good\nfaith in its justification. I frankly admitted what I did in the\nframework of the euthanasia measures and tried to prove that my\ncollaboration was merely of a subordinate nature and exclusively\ndirected by human aspects. I cannot be made responsible for later\nactions carried out by other offices and without my knowledge. These\nwere the measures which I deeply regretted, in which the prohibition of\nthe inclusion of foreign nationals and Jews was infringed.\n\nThrough my activity in the Fuehrer\u2019s Chancellery, I early became\nacquainted with the Gestapo terror. The testimonies of my witnesses\nprove how I fought against them and the concentration camp system. I did\nso because I felt that I was obliged to help those who suffered from\narbitrariness and oppression. I did not do it because I already\nrecognized in it at that time symptoms of a leadership that always and\nonly knew arbitrariness and oppression.\n\nBut this is particularly the reason why I was so shocked about the\nmisuse of some of the euthanasia institutions for the Action 14 f 13;\nthis action affected particularly those persons whose detention I\nconsidered unjust, and which I therefore opposed. It was only in this\ncourtroom, however, that I learned of this action.\n\nThat I did not hate the Jews has been proved by numerous documents.\nWithout hatred of the Jews, however, participation in the extermination\nof Jews is unthinkable. The measures of suppression to which the Jews\nwere subjected forced me to give them the same assistance within my\ncompetence as I accorded to the political persecutees. Thus during the\ncourse of the years I helped hundreds of thousands of persons by my\nactivity. Thus only could the sterilization suggestions come into\nexistence. They were nothing but an attempt to prevent the extermination\nof innumerable Jews.\n\nIn spite of all the efforts of my defense counsel, it was impossible to\nprocure the witnesses who could testify to this effect. They preferred\nto evade their responsibility of serving the truth. I am utterly alone.\nI must leave it to this high Tribunal to ascertain on the basis of the\npresented expert scientific opinions that all my proposals were actually\nso formulated as to show my convictions of their harmlessness, and the\nimpossibility of realizing them.\n\nI must also leave it to the Tribunal to judge whether a man who intended\nthe extermination of the Jews would apply for service with the army,\njust at the moment when the aim which he is alleged to have pursued was\nachieved, and the extermination measures had started. Or does it not\nappear paradoxical to assume that one and the same man should give his\napproval of the extermination of the Jews, and in fact aid such a\nprogram, and, at the same time, save Jews he has never known, such as\nGeorgii, Passow, Meyer, Warburg, and others, from these measures?\n\nI can only emphasize that particularly the sterilization suggestions to\nHimmler appeared to me to be the last possibility to take any action to\nsave Jewry. Had I been indifferent to the Jewish fate, I would not be\naccused today. But I also tried in this respect, as was my habit, to\ngive assistance and I am still convinced, that it had at least delaying,\nif not preventative effect. It is certain that many Jews were in this\nway saved from destruction. The realization that such proposals should\nnever have been made by me on the strength of my medical knowledge, my\ncapacities, or my position at the time, even to the best of my\nintention, is something I could not reach until this trial was in\nprogress. My good intention, which was the basis of these proposals, and\nmy good will to help by means of them cannot be denied by anybody, and\ncan in no event be understood as my conscious cooperation in the\nextermination of the Jews.\n\n O. Final Statement of Defendant Romberg[47]\n\nIn the course of this trial, I have had full opportunity to speak in my\ndefense. With special gratitude we realize the great opportunity offered\nto us, of which we took advantage, which was given by the possibility of\nindividually questioning Professor Ivy in this trial. I have seen how\nthe Tribunal itself, by a precise questioning, clarified the facts, and\nto the statements made by my defense counsel I have nothing to add,\nbecause they are the truth.\n\n P. Final Statement of Defendant Becker-Freyseng[48]\n\nMr. President, Gentlemen of the Tribunal: I also was given opportunity\nto submit all the statements and the evidence required to refute the\ncharges of the indictment. For that I have to thank the Tribunal and my\ndefense counsel, Dr. Tipp. But I have nothing to add to it. For all the\nirrelevant, spiteful talk with which outside circles believed they had\nto twist around the objectivity of these proceedings like thorn bushes,\nthe verdict of this Tribunal must be and will be the appropriate answer.\nI look forward to it with the firm conviction that I never failed in my\nduty to mankind as a physician and scientist, and as a soldier to my\nFatherland.\n\n Q. Final Statement of Defendant Weltz[49]\n\nI have nothing to add to the statement made by my defense counsel. I\nthank Dr. Wille for his efforts made in my defense.\n\n R. Final Statement of Defendant Schaefer[50]\n\nMay it please the Tribunal, since I consider myself entirely innocent, I\nhave nothing more to add. I ask to be acquitted, if possible, even\nbefore the verdict.\n\n S. Final Statement of Defendant Hoven[51]\n\nI have nothing to add to Dr. Gawlik\u2019s plea of yesterday. I would at this\npoint like to thank my defense counsel for the considerable help he has\ngiven me.\n\n T. Final Statement of Defendant Beiglboeck[52]\n\nMay it please the Tribunal, the experiments which I conducted, I did not\ncarry out on my own initiative, neither according to the plans of my\nown, nor spontaneously. The medical part was played with the knowledge\nand approval of my clinical teacher, and civilian superior for more than\nten years, I was a disciple of Eppinger. During those ten years I had\ncome to know and respect his ways of thought and his superior knowledge.\nMy relations to him were based on deep personal gratitude and\nawe-inspired devotion. If there was anything which he considered right\nand important, then for psychological reasons alone, it would have been\ndifficult for me to believe the contrary.\n\nThe experiments were to solve the problem of saving human life and that\nhad to be approved. It was a military order which compelled me to carry\nthem out in the atmosphere of a concentration camp. I struggled against\nit, and was inwardly opposed to it, and tried to avoid the task, but I\nwas not successful. So I had to carry it out.\n\nMay it please the Tribunal, in your evaluation of this fact, please do\nnot fail to consider that this did not happen in times of peace, nor in\na country which granted its citizens individual freedom of decision in\nall matters, personal and professional, but during the bitter days of a\nmost horrible war. What I carried out, I did in accordance with a plan\npreviously determined and specified. I did not overstep the limits of my\ntask. I had to require of my experimental subjects to undergo hardships;\nthey suffered from thirst with all of its unpleasant sensations, with\nits physical and mental characteristics. It was in the nature of the\nexperiments, and this could not be avoided. I did not, however, do this\nwithout first informing myself by an experiment on my own system of what\nI expected them to undergo, nor did I expect it of anyone else, unless I\nwas firmly convinced that he undertook it voluntarily. It is not true to\nsay that I might have forced anybody to do it, neither psychologically,\nby reprisals, nor by threat, nor by force of arms. Many eyewitnesses\nhave agreed that my conduct was never brutal or inhuman towards any of\nthe experimental subjects under my care. Among these witnesses are even\nsome who were brought here to testify against me.\n\nAt last, in the final stage of this trial, one experimental subject\ncould be found who thought it appropriate to introduce a dramatic note\nin an atmosphere artificially created. You will decide how much\ncredibility you will attribute to this witness. Based on a layman\u2019s\nmisinterpretation of nondangerous, indeed harmless medical procedures,\ncombined with the uncertain recollection emotionally presented by more\nor less distorting and misconstruing my motives, the attempt was made to\nlend an impression to my experiments and to my own personality.\n\nIn contradiction to that, a few others who came from the concentration\ncamp and who loved the truth have painted another picture which reveals\nthat my behavior in the medical sense, as well as from the human point\nof view, was correct, to say the least. By my experiments, no human life\nwas sacrificed, nor did they result in any lasting damage to their\nhealth. I also believe, I have proved that I intervened for the inmates,\nas far as that was within my power and that I did not consider my\nexperimental subjects as individuals of an inferior type whom I could\nwell afford to ill-treat, for ideological reasons, as has been charged.\n\nFor over 15 years as a physician, I always felt the strongest\nresponsibility for those entrusted to my care. Thousands who were my\npatients will confirm it. My assistants and colleagues have testified to\nit. I was never directed by any sentiment other than that of a human\nbeing and of a physician. The experiments as they were actually\nconducted never went beyond what can be justified by the physician. I\nconsider myself free of guilt as a physician and as a human being.\n\n U. Final Statement of Defendant Pokorny[53]\n\nYour Honors, during this trial I have often asked myself what I should\nhave done at the time in order to record my true motive for the letter I\nhad written to Himmler. But I believe that at the time when I dispatched\nthis letter, I could not do anything else but to talk to the people in\nwhom I had confidence and who I knew would not betray me, and confide in\nthem my true reasons.\n\nIf today, this letter, which is against me, may seem objective, then\nthis is a fact with which I must bear, although to the end I must say in\ncorrespondence with the truth that selfish reasons were not the cause of\nmy writing this letter, but that letter was written because at the time\nI had heard facts about Himmler\u2019s plans, and, because at that time in my\nposition, standing lonely and slandered because of my family\nimplications in a small town in Czechoslovakia, I felt that I was able\nto take the action described.\n\nI retain the hope that you, my judges, will draw your conclusions from\nmy conduct and the situation in which I found myself at the time, and\nwill come to the conviction that the true motive was a different one\nthan that which is objectively shown by this letter, and that you will\nnot sentence me but will believe me in what I have not only told you, my\njudges, but others previously during my interrogations and what I have\ntold my friends, at a time when this present situation had not arisen,\nin order to clarify my motives as being true.\n\nWith this hope I am looking forward to your judgment, and in that\nconnection I am thinking of my children who, for years now, have lived\nunder the protection of an allied power, and who will not believe that\ntheir father, after everything that he has suffered, could possibly have\nacted as an enemy to human rights.\n\n V. Final Statement of Defendant Oberheuser[54]\n\nI have nothing to add to the statements I have made from the witness box\nunder oath. In administering therapeutical care, following established\nmedical principles, as a woman in a difficult position, I did the best I\ncould. Moreover, I fully agree with the statements made by my defense\ncounsel and will refrain, at this late stage of the trial, from making\nany further statements.\n\n W. Final Statement of Defendant Fischer[55]\n\nYour Honors, when this war began I was a young doctor, 27 years of age.\nMy attitude towards my people and my Fatherland took me to the front\nline as an army doctor. I there joined an armored division, where I\nremained until I was incapacitated due to the loss of an arm. For only a\nvery brief period, during these years of war, I worked as a medical\nofficer in a military hospital back home. There too, my conception of my\nduties was directed by the wish to serve my country. During this time of\nmy work at home, I received the order, the execution of which made me a\nsubject of the indictment of this trial.\n\nThe order for my participation in the experiments originated from my\nhighest medical and military superior and was passed on to me, as the\nassistant and first lieutenant, through Professor Gebhardt. Professor\nGebhardt was the famous surgeon and much honored creator of Hohenlychen.\nHe was a scientific authority whom I looked up to with reverence and\nconfidence. As a general of the Waffen SS he was my unconditional\nmilitary superior. I believed him, that I had been earmarked by him to\nassist in the solution of an urgent medical problem which was to bring\nhelp and salvation to hundreds of thousands of wounded soldiers, and\nwhich was to be a cure for them; and I believed that this problem would\nmean a question of life and death to my people who were fighting for\ntheir existence. I believed unconditionally that this order had come to\nme from the head of the state, and that its execution was a necessity\nfor the state. I considered myself first as bound by this order, as were\nthe thousands of soldiers whom I had seen walk to their deaths during my\nyears at the front, following an order by the state. This moving\nimpression from the front bound me doubly, particularly since I had had\nthe privilege during that time of working in a hospital at home. I\nconsidered myself, particularly at home, doubly bound like every soldier\nat the front to obey the order of my Fatherland unconditionally.\n\nWhat this order demanded from me had been introduced as a method of\nmodern medicine in all civilized countries. I was only concerned in the\nclinical part of it, and that was taking place just as a course of\ntreatment in the institute of Hohenlychen, or any other clinic. What I\ndid was what was ordered, and I did nothing beyond that order. I\nbelieved that I, as a simple citizen, did not have the right to\ncriticize the measures of the state, particularly not at a time in which\nmy country was engaged in a struggle for life and death.\n\nI hope that through my unconditional service at the front and through my\ntwo wounds, I have shown that I did not only expect others to make\nsacrifices at this time, but that I was prepared at any time to\nsacrifice myself with my life and my health. Within the scope of the\norder given to me I did what I could, in my limited position as an\nassistant doctor, for the life of the experimental subjects and for an\nexact and proper clinical development of the experiment. I never could\nexpect and foresee that deaths would occur. When such fatalities did\noccur, contrary to all expectation, I was as shaken by that event as I\nwas by the death of a patient in our clinic. After that, the experiments\nwere immediately discontinued, and I went back to the front.\n\nTogether with Professor Gebhardt, I reported about these experiments to\nthe German public. Like many other Germans, there are many things which,\nin retrospect, I see more clearly today and in another light than in the\npast years. In my young life I have tried to be a faithful son of my\npeople, and that brought me into this present miserable position. I only\nwanted what was good. In my life I have never followed egotistical aims,\nand I was never motivated by base instincts. For that reason, I feel\nfree of any guilt inside me. I have acted as a soldier, and as a soldier\nI am ready to bear the consequences. However, that I was born a German,\nthat is something about which I do not want to complain.\n\n-----\n\n[33] Tr. pp. 11311-11314.\n\n[34] Tr. pp. 11315-11316.\n\n[35] Tr. pp. 11316-11317.\n\n[36] Tr. p. 11318.\n\n[37] Tr. pp. 11318-11319.\n\n[38] Tr. pp. 11319-11324.\n\n[39] Tr. pp. 11325-11328.\n\n[40] Tr. pp. 11328-11329.\n\n[41] Tr. pp. 11330-11335.\n\n[42] Tr. pp. 11335-11338.\n\n[43] Tr. pp. 11338-11342.\n\n[44] Tr. pp. 11342-11347.\n\n[45] Tr. pp. 11347-11348.\n\n[46] Tr. pp. 11348-11351.\n\n[47] Tr. p. 11351.\n\n[48] Tr. p. 11352.\n\n[49] Tr. p. 11352.\n\n[50] Tr. p. 11352.\n\n[51] Tr. p. 11352.\n\n[52] Tr. pp. 11352-11355.\n\n[53] Tr. pp. 11355-11356.\n\n[54] Tr. p. 11356.\n\n[55] Tr. pp. 11356-11358.\n\n\n\n\n XII. JUDGMENT\n\n\nMilitary Tribunal I was established on 25 October 1946 under General\nOrders No. 68 issued by command of the United States Military Government\nfor Germany. It was the first of several military tribunals constituted\nin the United States Zone of Occupation pursuant to Military Government\nOrdinance No. 7, for the trial of offenses recognized as crimes by Law\nNo. 10 of the Control Council for Germany.\n\nBy the terms of the order which established the Tribunal and designated\nthe undersigned as members thereof, Military Tribunal I was ordered to\nconvene at Nuernberg, Germany, to hear such cases as might be filed by\nthe Chief of Counsel for War Crimes or his duly designated\nrepresentative.\n\nOn 25 October 1946 the Chief of Counsel for War Crimes lodged an\nindictment against the defendants named in the caption above in the\nOffice of the Secretary General of Military Tribunal at the Palace of\nJustice, Nuernberg, Germany. A copy of the indictment in the German\nlanguage was served on each defendant on 5 November 1946. Military\nTribunal I arraigned the defendants on 21 November 1946, each defendant\nentering a plea of \u201cnot guilty\u201d to all the charges preferred against\nhim.\n\nThe presentation of evidence to sustain the charges contained in the\nindictment was begun by the prosecution on 9 December 1946. At the\nconclusion of the prosecution\u2019s case in chief the defendants began the\npresentation of their evidence. All evidence in the case was concluded\non 3 July 1947. During the week beginning 14 July 1947 the Tribunal\nheard arguments by counsel for the prosecution and defense. The personal\nstatements of the defendants were heard on 19 July 1947 on which date\nthe case was finally concluded.\n\nThe trial was conducted in two languages\u2014English and German. It\nconsumed 139 trial days, including 6 days allocated for final arguments\nand the personal statements of the defendants. During the 133 trial days\nused for the presentation of evidence 32 witnesses gave oral evidence\nfor the prosecution and 53 witnesses, including the 23 defendants, gave\noral evidence for the defense. In addition, the prosecution put in\nevidence as exhibits a total of 570 affidavits, reports, and documents;\nthe defense put in a total number of 901\u2014making a grand total of 1,471\ndocuments received in evidence.\n\nCopies of all exhibits tendered by the prosecution in their case in\nchief were furnished in the German language to the defendants prior to\nthe time of the reception of the exhibits in evidence.\n\nEach defendant was represented at the arraignment and trial by counsel\nof his own selection.\n\nWhenever possible, all applications by defense counsel for the procuring\nof the personal attendance of persons who made affidavits in behalf of\nthe prosecution were granted and the persons brought to Nuernberg for\ninterrogation or cross-examination by defense counsel. Throughout the\ntrial great latitude in presenting evidence was allowed defense counsel,\neven to the point at times of receiving in evidence certain matters of\nbut scant probative value.\n\nAll of these steps were taken by the Tribunal in order to allow each\ndefendant to present his defense completely, in accordance with the\nspirit and intent of Military Government Ordinance No. 7 which provides\nthat a defendant shall have the right to be represented by counsel, to\ncross-examine prosecution witnesses, and to offer in the case all\nevidence deemed to have probative value.\n\nThe evidence has now been submitted, final arguments of counsel have\nbeen concluded, and the Tribunal has heard personal statements from each\nof the defendants. All that remains to be accomplished in the case is\nthe rendition of judgment and the imposition of sentence.\n\n\n THE JURISDICTION OF THE TRIBUNAL\n\nThe jurisdiction and powers of this Tribunal are fixed and determined by\nLaw No. 10 of the Control Council for Germany. The pertinent portions of\nthe Law with which we are concerned provide as follows:\n\n ARTICLE II\n\n \u201c1. Each of the following acts is recognized as a crime:\n\n * * * * *\n\n \u201c(_b_) _War Crimes._ Atrocities or offenses against persons or\n property constituting violations of the laws or customs of war,\n including but not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or\n deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose, of civilian\n population from occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of\n prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages,\n plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of\n cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by\n military necessity.\n\n \u201c(_c_) _Crimes against Humanity._ Atrocities and offenses,\n including but not limited to murder, extermination, enslavement,\n deportation, imprisonment, torture, rape, or other inhumane acts\n committed against any civilian population, or persecutions on\n political, racial or religious grounds whether or not in\n violation of the domestic laws of the country where perpetrated.\n\n \u201c(_d_) Membership in categories of a criminal group or\n organization declared criminal by the International Military\n Tribunal.\n\n \u201c2. Any person without regard to nationality or the capacity in\n which he acted is deemed to have committed a crime as defined in\n * * * this Article, if he (_a_) was a principal or (_b_) was an\n accessory to the commission of any such crime or ordered or\n abetted the same or (_c_) took a consenting part therein or\n (_d_) was connected with plans or enterprises involving its\n commission or (_e_) was a member of any organization or group\n connected with the commission of any such crime * * *.\n\n * * * * *\n\n \u201c4. (_a_) The official position of any person, whether as Head\n of State or as a responsible official in a Government\n Department, does not free him from responsibility for a crime or\n entitle him to mitigation of punishment.\n\n (_b_) The fact that any person acted pursuant to the order of\n his Government or of a superior does not free him from\n responsibility for a crime, but may be considered in\n mitigation.\u201d\n\nThe indictment in the case at bar is filed pursuant to these provisions.\n\n\n THE CHARGE\n\nThe indictment is framed in four counts.\n\nCOUNT ONE\u2014_The Common Design or Conspiracy._ The first count of the\nindictment charges that the defendants, acting pursuant to a common\ndesign, unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly did conspire and agree\ntogether to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity, as defined in\nControl Council Law No. 10.\n\nDuring the course of the trial the defendants challenged the first count\nof the indictment, alleging as grounds for their motion the fact that\nunder the basic law the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to try the\ncrime of conspiracy considered as a separate substantive offense. The\nmotion was set down for argument and duly argued by counsel for the\nprosecution and the defense. Thereafter, in one of its trial sessions\nthe Tribunal granted the motion. That this judgment may be complete, the\nruling made at that time is incorporated in this judgment. The order\nwhich was entered on the motion is as follows:\n\n \u201cIt is the ruling of this Tribunal that neither the Charter of\n the International Military Tribunal nor Control Council Law No.\n 10 has defined conspiracy to commit a war crime or crime against\n humanity as a separate substantive crime; therefore, this\n Tribunal has no jurisdiction to try any defendant upon a charge\n of conspiracy considered as a separate substantive offense.\n\n \u201cCount I of the indictment, in addition to the separate charge\n of conspiracy, also alleges unlawful participation in the\n formulation and execution of plans to commit war crimes and\n crimes against humanity which actually involved the commission\n of such crimes. We, therefore, cannot properly strike the whole\n of count I from the indictment, but, insofar as count I charges\n the commission of the alleged crime of conspiracy as a separate\n substantive offense, distinct from any war crime or crime\n against humanity, the Tribunal will disregard that charge.\n\n \u201cThis ruling must not be construed as limiting the force or\n effect of Article 2, paragraph 2 of Control Council Law No. 10,\n or as denying to either prosecution or defense the right to\n offer in evidence any facts or circumstances occurring either\n before or after September 1939, if such facts or circumstances\n tend to prove or to disprove the commission by any defendant of\n war crimes or crimes against humanity as defined in Control\n Council Law No. 10.\u201d\n\nCOUNTS TWO AND THREE\u2014_War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity._ The\nsecond and third counts of the indictment charge the commission of war\ncrimes and crimes against humanity. The counts are identical in content,\nexcept for the fact that in count two the acts which are made the basis\nfor the charges are alleged to have been committed on \u201ccivilians and\nmembers of the armed forces [of nations] then at war with the German\nReich [* * *] in the exercise of belligerent control\u201d, whereas in count\nthree the criminal acts are alleged to have been committed against\n\u201cGerman civilians and nationals of other countries.\u201d With this\ndistinction observed, both counts will be treated as one and discussed\ntogether.\n\nCounts two and three allege, in substance, that between September 1939\nand April 1945 all of the defendants \u201cwere principals in, accessories\nto, ordered, abetted, took a consenting part in, and were connected with\nplans and enterprises involving medical experiments without the\nsubjects\u2019 consent * * * in the course of which experiments the\ndefendants committed murders, brutalities, cruelties, tortures,\natrocities, and other inhuman acts.\u201d It is averred that \u201csuch\nexperiments included, but were not limited to\u201d the following:\n\n \u201c(_A_) _High-Altitude Experiments._ From about March 1942 to\n about August 1942 experiments were conducted at the Dachau\n concentration camp, for the benefit of the German Air Force, to\n investigate the limits of human endurance and existence at\n extremely high altitudes. The experiments were carried out in a\n low-pressure chamber in which the atmospheric conditions and\n pressures prevailing at high altitude (up to 68,000 feet) could\n be duplicated. The experimental subjects were placed in the\n low-pressure chamber and thereafter the simulated altitude\n therein was raised. Many victims died as a result of these\n experiments and others suffered grave injury, torture, and\n ill-treatment. The defendants Karl Brandt, Handloser, Schroeder,\n Gebhardt, Rudolf Brandt, Mrugowsky, Poppendick, Sievers, Ruff,\n Romberg, Becker-Freyseng, and Weltz are charged with special\n responsibility for and participation in these crimes.\n\n \u201c(_B_) _Freezing Experiments._ From about August 1942 to about\n May 1943 experiments were conducted at the Dachau concentration\n camp, primarily for the benefit of the German Air Force, to\n investigate the most effective means of treating persons who had\n been severely chilled or frozen. In one series of experiments\n the subjects were forced to remain in a tank of ice water for\n periods up to 3 hours. Extreme rigor developed in a short time.\n Numerous victims died in the course of these experiments. After\n the survivors were severely chilled, re-warming was attempted by\n various means. In another series of experiments, the subjects\n were kept naked outdoors for many hours at temperatures below\n freezing. * * * The defendants Karl Brandt, Handloser,\n Schroeder, Gebhardt, Rudolf Brandt, Mrugowsky, Poppendick,\n Sievers, Becker-Freyseng, and Weltz are charged with special\n responsibility for and participation in these crimes.\n\n \u201c(_C_) _Malaria Experiments._ From about February 1942 to about\n April 1945 experiments were conducted at the Dachau\n concentration camp in order to investigate immunization for and\n treatment of malaria. Healthy concentration camp inmates were\n infected by mosquitoes or by injections of extracts of the\n mucous glands of mosquitoes. After having contracted malaria the\n subjects were treated with various drugs to test their relative\n efficacy. Over 1,000 involuntary subjects were used in these\n experiments. Many of the victims died and others suffered severe\n pain and permanent disability. The defendants Karl Brandt,\n Handloser, Rostock, Gebhardt, Blome, Rudolf Brandt, Mrugowsky,\n Poppendick, and Sievers are charged with special responsibility\n for and participation in these crimes.\n\n \u201c(_D_) _Lost (Mustard) Gas Experiments._ At various times\n between September 1939 and April 1945 experiments were conducted\n at Sachsenhausen, Natzweiler, and other concentration camps for\n the benefit of the German Armed Forces to investigate the most\n effective treatment of wounds caused by Lost gas. Lost is a\n poison gas which is commonly known as mustard gas. Wounds\n deliberately inflicted on the subjects were infected with Lost.\n Some of the subjects died as a result of these experiments and\n others suffered intense pain and injury. The defendants Karl\n Brandt, Handloser, Blome, Rostock, Gebhardt, Rudolf Brandt, and\n Sievers are charged with special responsibility for and\n participation in these crimes.\n\n \u201c(_E_) _Sulfanilamide Experiments._ From about July 1942 to\n about September 1943 experiments to investigate the\n effectiveness of sulfanilamide were conducted at the\n Ravensbrueck concentration camp for the benefit of the German\n Armed Forces. Wounds deliberately inflicted on the experimental\n subjects were infected with bacteria such as streptococcus, gas\n gangrene, and tetanus. Circulation of blood was interrupted by\n tying off blood vessels at both ends of the wound to create a\n condition similar to that of a battlefield wound. Infection was\n aggravated by forcing wood shavings and ground glass into the\n wounds. The infection was treated with sulfanilamide and other\n drugs to determine their effectiveness. Some subjects died as a\n result of these experiments and others suffered serious injury\n and intense agony. The defendants Karl Brandt, Handloser,\n Rostock, Schroeder, Genzken, Gebhardt, Blome, Rudolf Brandt,\n Mrugowsky, Poppendick, Becker-Freyseng, Oberheuser, and Fischer\n are charged with special responsibility for and participation in\n these crimes.\n\n \u201c(_F_) _Bone, Muscle, and Nerve Regeneration and Bone\n Transplantation Experiments._ From about September 1942 to about\n December 1943 experiments were conducted at the Ravensbrueck\n concentration camp, for the benefit of the German Armed Forces,\n to study bone, muscle, and nerve regeneration, and bone\n transplantation from one person to another. Sections of bones,\n muscles, and nerves were removed from the subjects. As a result\n of these operations, many victims suffered intense agony,\n mutilation, and permanent disability. The defendants Karl\n Brandt, Handloser, Rostock, Gebhardt, Rudolf Brandt, Oberheuser,\n and Fischer are charged with special responsibility for and\n participation in these crimes.\n\n \u201c(_G_) _Sea-Water Experiments._ From about July 1944 to about\n September 1944 experiments were conducted at the Dachau\n Concentration camp, for the benefit of the German Air Force and\n Navy, to study various methods of making sea water drinkable.\n The subjects were deprived of all food and given only chemically\n processed sea water. Such experiments caused great pain and\n suffering and resulted in serious bodily injury to the victims.\n The defendants Karl Brandt, Handloser, Rostock, Schroeder,\n Gebhardt, Rudolf Brandt, Mrugowsky, Poppendick, Sievers,\n Becker-Freyseng, Schaefer, and Beiglboeck are charged with\n special responsibility for and participation in these crimes.\n\n \u201c(_H_) _Epidemic Jaundice Experiments._ From about June 1943 to\n about January 1945 experiments were conducted at the\n Sachsenhausen and Natzweiler concentration camps, for the\n benefit of the German Armed Forces, to investigate the causes\n of, and inoculations against, epidemic jaundice. Experimental\n subjects were deliberately infected with epidemic jaundice, some\n of whom died as a result, and others were caused great pain and\n suffering. The defendants Karl Brandt, Handloser, Rostock,\n Schroeder, Gebhardt, Rudolf Brandt, Mrugowsky, Poppendick,\n Sievers, Rose, and Becker-Freyseng are charged with special\n responsibility for and participation in these crimes.\n\n \u201c(_I_) _Sterilization Experiments._ From about March 1941 to\n about January 1945 sterilization experiments were conducted at\n the Auschwitz and Ravensbrueck concentration camps, and other\n places. The purpose of these experiments was to develop a method\n of sterilization which would be suitable for sterilizing\n millions of people with a minimum of time and effort. These\n experiments were conducted by means of X-ray, surgery, and\n various drugs. Thousands of victims were sterilized and thereby\n suffered great mental and physical anguish. The defendants Karl\n Brandt, Gebhardt, Rudolf Brandt, Mrugowsky, Poppendick, Brack,\n Pokorny, and Oberheuser are charged with special responsibility\n for and participation in these crimes.\n\n \u201c(_J_) _Spotted Fever (Fleckfieber)[56] Experiments._ From about\n December 1941 to about February 1945 experiments were conducted\n at the Buchenwald and Natzweiler concentration camps, for the\n benefit of the German Armed Forces, to investigate the\n effectiveness of spotted fever and other vaccines. At\n Buchenwald, numerous healthy inmates were deliberately infected\n with spotted fever virus in order to keep the virus alive; over\n 90 percent of the victims died as a result. Other healthy\n inmates were used to determine the effectiveness of different\n spotted fever vaccines and of various chemical substances. In\n the course of these experiments 75 percent of the selected\n number of inmates were vaccinated with one of the vaccines or\n nourished with one of the chemical substances and, after a\n period of 3 to 4 weeks, were infected with spotted fever germs.\n The remaining 25 percent were infected without any previous\n protection in order to compare the effectiveness of the vaccines\n and the chemical substances. As a result, hundreds of the\n persons experimented upon died. Experiments with yellow fever,\n smallpox, typhus, paratyphus A and B, cholera, and diphtheria\n were also conducted. Similar experiments with like results were\n conducted at Natzweiler concentration camp. The defendants Karl\n Brandt, Handloser, Rostock, Schroeder, Genzken, Gebhardt, Rudolf\n Brandt, Mrugowsky, Poppendick, Sievers, Rose, Becker-Freyseng,\n and Hoven are charged with special responsibility for and\n participation in these crimes.\n\n \u201c(_K_) _Experiments with Poison._ In or about December 1943 and\n in or about October 1944 experiments were conducted at the\n Buchenwald concentration camp to investigate the effect of\n various poisons upon human beings. The poisons were secretly\n administered to experimental subjects in their food. The victims\n died as a result of the poison or were killed immediately in\n order to permit autopsies. In or about September 1944\n experimental subjects were shot with poison bullets and suffered\n torture and death. The defendants Genzken, Gebhardt, Mrugowsky,\n and Poppendick are charged with special responsibility for and\n participation in these crimes.\n\n \u201c(_L_) _Incendiary Bomb Experiments._ From about November 1943\n to about January 1944 experiments were conducted at the\n Buchenwald concentration camp to test the effect of various\n pharmaceutical preparations on phosphorus burns. These burns\n were inflicted on experimental subjects with phosphorus matter\n taken from incendiary bombs, and caused severe pain, suffering,\n and serious bodily injury. The defendants Genzken, Gebhardt,\n Mrugowsky, and Poppendick are charged with special\n responsibility for and participation in these crimes.\u201d\n\nIn addition to the medical experiments, the nature and purpose of which\nhave been outlined as alleged, certain of the defendants are charged\nwith criminal activities involving murder, torture, and ill-treatment of\nnon-German nationals as follows:\n\n \u201c7. Between June 1943 and September 1944 the defendants Rudolf\n Brandt and Sievers * * * were principals in, accessories to,\n ordered, abetted, took a consenting part in, and were connected\n with plans and enterprises involving the murder of civilians and\n members of the armed forces of nations then at war with the\n German Reich and who were in the custody of the German Reich in\n exercise of belligerent control. One hundred twelve Jews were\n selected for the purpose of completing a skeleton collection for\n the Reich University of Strasbourg. Their photographs and\n anthropological measurements were taken. Then they were killed.\n Thereafter, comparison tests, anatomical research, studies\n regarding race, pathological features of the body, form and size\n of the brain, and other tests were made. The bodies were sent to\n Strasbourg and defleshed.\n\n \u201c8. Between May 1942 and January 1944[57] the defendants Blome\n and Rudolf Brandt * * * were principals in, accessories to,\n ordered, abetted, took a consenting part in, and were connected\n with plans and enterprises involving the murder and mistreatment\n of tens of thousands of Polish nationals who were civilians and\n members of the armed forces of a nation then at war with the\n German Reich and who were in the custody of the German Reich in\n exercise of belligerent control. These people were alleged to be\n infected with incurable tuberculosis. On the ground of insuring\n the health and welfare of Germans in Poland, many tubercular\n Poles were ruthlessly exterminated while others were isolated in\n death camps with inadequate medical facilities.\n\n \u201c9. Between September 1939 and April 1945 the defendants Karl\n Brandt, Blome, Brack, and Hoven * * * were principals in,\n accessories to, ordered, abetted, took a consenting part in, and\n were connected with plans and enterprises involving the\n execution of the so-called \u2018euthanasia\u2019 program of the German\n Reich in the course of which the defendants herein murdered\n hundreds of thousands of human beings, including nationals of\n German-occupied countries. This program involved the systematic\n and secret execution of the aged, insane, incurably ill, of\n deformed children, and other persons, by gas, lethal injections,\n and divers other means in nursing homes, hospitals, and asylums.\n Such persons were regarded as \u2018useless eaters\u2019 and a burden to\n the German war machine. The relatives of these victims were\n informed that they died from natural causes, such as heart\n failure. German doctors involved in the \u2018euthanasia\u2019 program\n were also sent to the eastern occupied countries to assist in\n the mass extermination of Jews.\u201d\n\nCounts two and three of the indictment conclude with the averment that\nthe crimes and atrocities which have been delineated \u201cconstitute\nviolations of international conventions * * *, the laws and customs of\nwar, the general principles of criminal law as derived from the criminal\nlaws of all civilized nations, the internal penal laws of the countries\nin which such crimes were committed, and of Article II of Control\nCouncil Law No. 10.\u201d\n\nCOUNT FOUR\u2014_Membership in Criminal Organization_: The fourth count of\nthe indictment alleges that the defendants Karl Brandt, Genzken,\nGebhardt, Rudolf Brandt, Mrugowsky, Poppendick, Sievers, Brack, Hoven,\nand Fischer are guilty of membership in an organization declared to be\ncriminal by the International Military Tribunal, in that each of these\nnamed defendants was a member of the SCHUTZSTAFFELN DER NATIONAL\nSOZIALISTISCHEN DEUTSCHEN ARBEITERPARTEI (commonly known as the SS)\nafter 1 September 1939, in violation of paragraph 1 (_d_) Article II of\nControl Council Law No. 10.\n\nBefore turning our attention to the evidence in the case we shall state\nthe law announced by the International Military Tribunal with reference\nto membership in an organization declared criminal by the Tribunal:\n\n \u201cIn dealing with the SS the Tribunal includes all persons who\n had been officially accepted as members of the SS including the\n members of the Allgemeine SS, members of the Waffen SS, members\n of the SS Totenkopf Verbaende, and the members of any of the\n different police forces who were members of the SS. The Tribunal\n does not include the so-called riding units * * *.\n\n \u201cThe Tribunal declares to be criminal within the meaning of the\n Charter the group composed of those persons who had been\n officially accepted as members of the SS as enumerated in the\n preceding paragraph who became or remained members of the\n organization with knowledge that it was being used for the\n commission of acts declared criminal by Article 6 of the\n Charter, or who were personally implicated as members of the\n organization in the commission of such crimes, excluding,\n however, those who were drafted into membership by the State in\n such a way as to give them no choice in the matter, and who had\n committed no such crimes. The basis of this finding is the\n participation of the organization in war crimes and crimes\n against humanity connected with the war; this group declared\n criminal cannot include, therefore, persons who had ceased to\n belong to the organizations enumerated in the preceding\n paragraph prior to 1 September 1939.\u201d\n\n\n THE PROOF AS TO WAR CRIMES AND CRIMES\n AGAINST HUMANITY\n\nJudged by any standard of proof the record clearly shows the commission\nof war crimes and crimes against humanity substantially as alleged in\ncounts two and three of the indictment. Beginning with the outbreak of\nWorld War II criminal medical experiments on non-German nationals, both\nprisoners of war and civilians, including Jews and \u201casocial\u201d persons,\nwere carried out on a large scale in Germany and the occupied countries.\nThese experiments were not the isolated and casual acts of individual\ndoctors and scientists working solely on their own responsibility, but\nwere the product of coordinated policy-making and planning at high\ngovernmental, military, and Nazi Party levels, conducted as an integral\npart of the total war effort. They were ordered, sanctioned, permitted,\nor approved by persons in positions of authority who under all\nprinciples of law were under the duty to know about these things and to\ntake steps to terminate or prevent them.\n\n\n PERMISSIBLE MEDICAL EXPERIMENTS\n\nThe great weight of the evidence before us is to the effect that certain\ntypes of medical experiments on human beings, when kept within\nreasonably well-defined bounds, conform to the ethics of the medical\nprofession generally. The protagonists of the practice of human\nexperimentation justify their views on the basis that such experiments\nyield results for the good of society that are unprocurable by other\nmethods or means of study. All agree, however, that certain basic\nprinciples must be observed in order to satisfy moral, ethical and legal\nconcepts:\n\n1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.\n\nThis means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give\nconsent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of\nchoice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit,\nduress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion;\nand should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements\nof the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding\nand enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the\nacceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there\nshould be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the\nexperiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all\ninconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects\nupon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation\nin the experiment.\n\nThe duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent\nrests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the\nexperiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be\ndelegated to another with impunity.\n\n2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the\ngood of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and\nnot random and unnecessary in nature.\n\n3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of\nanimal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the\ndisease or other problem under study that the anticipated results will\njustify the performance of the experiment.\n\n4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary\nphysical and mental suffering and injury.\n\n5. No experiment should be conducted where there is an _a priori_ reason\nto believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps,\nin those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as\nsubjects.\n\n6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by\nthe humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the\nexperiment.\n\n7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided\nto protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of\ninjury, disability, or death.\n\n8. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified\npersons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through\nall stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the\nexperiment.\n\n9. During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at\nliberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical\nor mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be\nimpossible.\n\n10. During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be\nprepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probably\ncause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and\ncareful judgment required of him that a continuation of the experiment\nis likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental\nsubject.\n\nOf the ten principles which have been enumerated our judicial concern,\nof course, is with those requirements which are purely legal in\nnature\u2014or which at least are so clearly related to matters legal that\nthey assist us in determining criminal culpability and punishment. To go\nbeyond that point would lead us into a field that would be beyond our\nsphere of competence. However, the point need not be labored. We find\nfrom the evidence that in the medical experiments which have been\nproved, these ten principles were much more frequently honored in their\nbreach than in their observance. Many of the concentration camp inmates\nwho were the victims of these atrocities were citizens of countries\nother than the German Reich. They were non-German nationals, including\nJews and \u201casocial persons\u201d, both prisoners of war and civilians, who had\nbeen imprisoned and forced to submit to these tortures and barbarities\nwithout so much as a semblance of trial. In every single instance\nappearing in the record, subjects were used who did not consent to the\nexperiments; indeed, as to some of the experiments, it is not even\ncontended by the defendants that the subjects occupied the status of\nvolunteers. In no case was the experimental subject at liberty of his\nown free choice to withdraw from any experiment. In many cases\nexperiments were performed by unqualified persons; were conducted at\nrandom for no adequate scientific reason, and under revolting physical\nconditions. All of the experiments were conducted with unnecessary\nsuffering and injury and but very little, if any, precautions were taken\nto protect or safeguard the human subjects from the possibilities of\ninjury, disability, or death. In every one of the experiments the\nsubjects experienced extreme pain or torture, and in most of them they\nsuffered permanent injury, mutilation, or death, either as a direct\nresult of the experiments or because of lack of adequate follow-up care.\n\nObviously all of these experiments involving brutalities, tortures,\ndisabling injury, and death were performed in complete disregard of\ninternational conventions, the laws and customs of war, the general\nprinciples of criminal law as derived from the criminal laws of all\ncivilized nations, and Control Council Law No. 10. Manifestly human\nexperiments under such conditions are contrary to \u201cthe principles of the\nlaw of nations as they result from the usages established among\ncivilized peoples, from the laws of humanity, and from the dictates of\npublic conscience.\u201d\n\nWhether any of the defendants in the dock are guilty of these atrocities\nis, of course, another question.\n\nUnder the Anglo-Saxon system of jurisprudence every defendant in a\ncriminal case is presumed to be innocent of an offense charged until the\nprosecution, by competent, credible proof, has shown his guilt to the\nexclusion of every reasonable doubt. And this presumption abides with a\ndefendant through each stage of his trial until such degree of proof has\nbeen adduced. A \u201creasonable doubt\u201d as the name implies is one\nconformable to reason\u2014a doubt which a reasonable man would entertain.\nStated differently, it is that state of a case which, after a full and\ncomplete comparison and consideration of all the evidence, would leave\nan unbiased, unprejudiced, reflective person, charged with the\nresponsibility for decision, in the state of mind that he could not say\nthat he felt an abiding conviction amounting to a moral certainty of the\ntruth of the charge.\n\nIf any of the defendants are to be found guilty under counts two or\nthree of the indictment it must be because the evidence has shown beyond\na reasonable doubt that such defendant, without regard to nationality or\nthe capacity in which he acted, participated as a principal in,\naccessory to, ordered, abetted, took a consenting part in, or was\nconnected with plans or enterprises involving the commission of at least\nsome of the medical experiments and other atrocities which are the\nsubject matter of these counts. Under no other circumstances may he be\nconvicted.\n\nBefore examining the evidence to which we must look in order to\ndetermine individual culpability, a brief statement concerning some of\nthe official agencies of the German Government and Nazi Party which will\nbe referred to in this judgment seems desirable.\n\n\n THE MEDICAL SERVICE IN GERMANY\n\nAdolf Hitler was the head of the Nazi Party, the German Government, and\nthe German Armed Forces. His title as Chief of the Government was \u201cReich\nChancellor\u201d. As Supreme Leader of the National Socialist German Workers\u2019\nParty, commonly called the NSDAP or Nazi Party, his title was \u201cFuehrer\u201d.\nAs head of Germany\u2019s armed military might he was \u201cSupreme Commander in\nChief of the German Armed Forces [Supreme Commander of the German Armed\nForces], or Wehrmacht\u201d.\n\nThe staff through which Hitler controlled the German Armed Forces was\nknown as the \u201cSupreme Command of the Wehrmacht\u201d (OKW). The chief of this\nstaff was Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel.\n\nUnder the Supreme Command of the Wehrmacht were the Supreme [High]\nCommands of the Army, Navy, and Air Force. The Supreme [High] Command of\nthe Navy (OKM) was headed by Grand Admiral Karl Doenitz. The Supreme\n[High] Command of the Army (OKH) was headed by Field Marshal Walter von\nBrauchitsch until December 1941, and thereafter by Hitler himself. The\nSupreme [High] Command of the Air Force (OKL) was headed by Reich\nMarshal Hermann Goering.\n\nEach of the three branches of the Wehrmacht maintained its own medical\nservice.\n\n_Army Medical Service._ The defendant Handloser was the head of the Army\nMedical Service from 1 January 1941 to 1 September 1944. While in this\nposition he served in two capacities, namely; as Army Medical Inspector\nand as Army [Heeres] Physician. These positions required the maintenance\nof two departments, each separate from the other. At one time or another\nthere were subordinated to Handloser in these official capacities the\nfollowing officers, among others: Generalarzt Professor Schreiber and\nProfessor Rostock; Oberstabsaerzte Drs. Scholz, Eyer, Bernhard Schmidt\nand Craemer; Oberstabsaerzte Professor Gutzeit and Professor Wirth;\nStabsarzt Professor Kliewe and Professor Killian, and Stabsarzt Dr.\nDohmen. Under his supervision in either or both of his official\ncapacities were the Military Medical Academy, the Typhus and Virus\nInstitute of the OKH at Cracow [Krakow] and Lemberg [Lvov], and the\nMedical School for Mountain Troops at St. Johann.\n\n_Luftwaffe Medical Service._ From the beginning of the war until 1\nJanuary 1944 Hippke was Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe.\nOn that date the defendant Schroeder succeeded Hippke and remained in\nthat position until the end of the war.\n\nSubordinated to Schroeder as Chief of the Medical Service of the\nLuftwaffe were the following defendants: Rose, who was consulting\nmedical officer on hygiene and tropical medicine; Weltz, who was chief\nof the Institute for Aviation Medicine in Munich; Becker-Freyseng, a\nconsultant for aviation medicine in Schroeder\u2019s office; Ruff, the chief\nof the Institute for Aviation Medicine in the German Experimental\nInstitute for Aviation in Berlin; Romberg, Ruff\u2019s chief assistant, who\ntoward the end of the war attained the position of a department head at\nthe Institute; Schaefer, who, in the summer of 1942, was assigned to the\nstaff of the Research Institute for Aviation Medicine in Berlin to do\nresearch work on the problem of sea emergency; and Beiglboeck, a\nLuftwaffe officer who performed medical experiments on concentration\ncamp inmates at Dachau in July 1944 for the purpose of determining the\npotability of processed sea water.\n\nUnder Schroeder\u2019s jurisdiction as Chief of the Luftwaffe Medical Service\nwas the Medical Academy of the Luftwaffe at Berlin.\n\n_SS Medical Service._ One of the most important branches of the Nazi\nParty was the Schutzstaffel of the NSDAP, commonly known as the SS.\nHeinrich Himmler was chief of the SS with the title of Reichsfuehrer SS,\nand on his personal staff, serving in various and sundry official\ncapacities was the defendant Rudolf Brandt.\n\nThe SS maintained its own medical service headed by a certain Dr.\nGrawitz, who held the position of Reich Physician SS and Police.\n\n_Medical Service of the Waffen SS._ The SS branch of the Nazi Party, in\nturn, was divided into several components, of which one of the most\nimportant was the Waffen, or Armed, SS. The Waffen SS was formed into\nmilitary units and fought at the front with units of the Wehrmacht. Such\nmedical units of the Waffen SS as were assigned to the field, became\nsubordinated to the Medical Service of the Army, which was supervised by\nHandloser.\n\nThe Chief of the Waffen SS Medical Service was the defendant Genzken.\nHis immediate superior was Reich Physician SS and Police Grawitz.\n\nSix other defendants in the dock were members of the Medical Service of\nthe SS, under Grawitz, namely; Gebhardt, who in 1940 became surgical\nadviser to the Waffen SS and who in August 1943 created and took over\nthe position of chief clinical officer of the Reich Physician SS and\nPolice; Mrugowsky, who became Chief of the Hygiene Institute of the\nWaffen SS under Genzken in November 1940, and when the Institute was\ntaken from Genzken\u2019s supervision on 1 September 1943 and placed under\ndirect subordination to Grawitz, remained as chief; Poppendick, who in\n1941 was appointed Chief Physician of the Main Race and Settlement\nOffice in Berlin and who in 1943 also became chief of the personal staff\nof the Reich Physician SS and Police; Hoven, who from the beginning of\n1941 until July 1942, served as the assistant, and from then to\nSeptember 1943, as chief physician at the Buchenwald concentration camp;\nFischer, an assistant physician to the defendant Gebhardt; and finally\nthe defendant Oberheuser, who in December 1940 became a physician at the\nRavensbrueck concentration camp, and thereafter, from June 1943 until\nthe end of the war, served as an assistant physician under the defendant\nGebhardt at Hohenlychen.\n\n_Civilian Medical Service._ Throughout the war the Civilian Medical\nServices of the Reich were headed by a certain Dr. Leonardo Conti. Conti\nhad two principal capacities (1) he was the State Secretary for Health\nin the Ministry of the Interior of the Government; in this capacity he\nwas a German civil servant subordinated to the Minister of the\nInterior\u2014first Wilhelm Frick and later, Heinrich Himmler; (2) he was\nthe Reich Health Leader of the Nazi Party; in this capacity he was\nsubordinated to the Nazi Party Chancellery, the Chief of which was\nMartin Bormann. In his capacity as Reich Health Leader, Conti had as his\ndeputy the defendant Blome.\n\n_Reorganization of Wehrmacht Medical Service._ In 1942 a reorganization\nof the various medical services of the Wehrmacht was effected. By a\nFuehrer decree of 28 July 1942, Handloser became Chief of the Medical\nServices of the Wehrmacht, while at the same time retaining his position\nas Chief Physician of the Army and Army Medical Inspector. Under the\ndecree referred to, Handloser was given power and authority to supervise\nand coordinate \u201call tasks common to the Medical Services of the\nWehrmacht, the Waffen SS and the organizations and units subordinate or\nattached to the Wehrmacht.\u201d He was also commanded \u201cto represent the\nWehrmacht before the civilian authorities in all common medical problems\narising in the various branches of the Wehrmacht, the Waffen SS and\norganizations and units subordinate or attached to the Wehrmacht\u201d and\n\u201cto protect the interests of the Wehrmacht in all medical measures taken\nby the civilian authorities.\u201d\n\nHandloser thus became supreme medical leader in the military field, as\nwas Conti in the civilian health and medical service.\n\nBy a subsequent Fuehrer decree of 7 August 1944 Handloser was relieved\nof his duties as Chief Physician of the Army and Army Medical Inspector,\nbut retained his position as Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service.\n\nBy the decree of 28 July 1942 pursuant to which Handloser became Chief\nof the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht, the defendant Karl Brandt\nbecame empowered, subordinate only to, and receiving instructions\ndirectly from, Hitler \u201cto carry out special tasks and negotiations to\nreadjust the requirements for doctors, hospitals, medical supplies,\netc., between the military and the civilian sectors of the Health and\nMedical Services.\u201d The decree also directed that Brandt \u201cis to be kept\ninformed about the fundamental events in the Medical Service of the\nWehrmacht and in the Civilian Health Service\u201d and \u201cis authorized to\nintervene in a responsible manner.\u201d\n\nA subsequent decree issued 5 September 1943 extended the powers of the\ndefendant Karl Brandt by providing: \u201cThe plenipotentiary for the Medical\nand Health Services * * * is charged with centrally coordinating and\ndirecting the problems and activities of the entire Medical and Health\nService according to instructions. In this sense this order applies also\nto the field of medical science and research, as well as to the\norganizational institutions concerned with the manufacture and\ndistribution of medical material. The plenipotentiary for the Medical\nand Health services is authorized to appoint and commission special\ndeputies for this sphere of action.\u201d\n\nBy a later decree of 25 August 1944 Karl Brandt was made Reich\nCommissioner for Sanitation and Health for the duration of the war; the\ndecree providing:\n\n \u201cIn this capacity his office ranks as highest Reich Authority\u201d\n and he is \u201cauthorized to issue instructions to the offices and\n organizations of the State, Party, and Wehrmacht which are\n concerned with the problems of the medical and health services.\u201d\n\nThus, by this series of decrees, the defendant Karl Brandt, within this\nsphere of competence, became the supreme medical authority of the Reich\nsubordinate to no one but Hitler.\n\nThree of the defendants are not physicians.\n\nThe first is the defendant Brack who became subordinated to Bouhler at\nthe time the latter was appointed Chief of the Chancellery of the\nFuehrer, in 1934, and remained with Bouhler throughout the war.\n\nThe second is the defendant Rudolf Brandt who, from the time he joined\nthe staff of Himmler in 1933, served for a twelve-year period in varying\ncapacities. At first Rudolf Brandt was a mere clerk in the staff of the\nReichsfuehrer SS but by 1936 had risen to chief of the personal staff of\nHimmler. In 1938 or 1939 he became Himmler\u2019s liaison officer to the\nMinistry of the Interior and particularly to the Office of the Secretary\nof the Interior. When Himmler became Minister of the Interior in 1943\nRudolf Brandt became Chief of the Ministerial Office; when Himmler\nbecame President of the Ahnenerbe Society, Rudolf Brandt became liaison\nofficer between Himmler and the Reich Secretary of the Ahnenerbe\nSociety, defendant Wolfram Sievers.\n\nThe third is the defendant Sievers, who was a member of Himmler\u2019s\npersonal staff and Reich Business Manager of the Ahnenerbe Society from\n1 July 1935 until the end of the war.\n\n\n THE AHNENERBE SOCIETY\n\nThe Ahnenerbe Society, of which Sievers was Reich Business Manager, was\nin existence as an independent entity as early as 1933. On 1 July 1935\nthe Ahnenerbe became duly registered as an organization to conduct or\nfurther \u201cresearch on the locality, mind, deeds and heritage of the\nNorthern race of Indo-Germans and to pass on the results of this\nresearch to the people in an interesting manner.\u201d On 1 January 1942 the\nSociety became part of the personal staff of the Reichsfuehrer SS and\nthereby a section of the SS. Its management was composed of Heinrich\nHimmler as President, Professor Dr. Wuest, Rector of the University of\nMunich, as Curator, and the defendant Sievers as Reich Business Manager.\nSubsequently, during the same year, the Institute of Military Scientific\nResearch was established as a part of the Ahnenerbe. Its purposes are\ndefined in a letter written by Himmler to Sievers, which directed the\nfollowing with reference to the Ahnenerbe:\n\n \u201c1. To establish an Institute for Military Scientific Research.\n\n 2. To support in every possible way the research carried out by\n SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Professor Dr. Hirt and to promote all\n corresponding research and undertakings.\n\n 3. To make available the required apparatus, equipment,\n accessories and assistants, or to procure them.\n\n 4. To make use of the facilities available in Dachau.\n\n 5. To contact the Chief of the SS Economic and Administrative\n Main Office with regards to the costs which can be borne by the\n Waffen SS.\u201d\n\nIn its judgment, the International Military Tribunal made the following\nfindings of fact with reference to the Ahnenerbe:\n\n \u201cAlso attached to the SS main offices was a research foundation\n known as the Experiments Ahnenerbe. The scientists attached to\n this organization are stated to have been mainly honorary\n members of the SS. During the war an institute for military\n scientific research became attached to the Ahnenerbe which\n conducted extensive experiments involving the use of living\n human beings. An employee of this institute was a certain Dr.\n Rascher, who conducted these experiments with the full knowledge\n of the Ahnenerbe, which were subsidized and under the patronage\n of the Reichsfuehrer SS who was a trustee of the\n foundation.\u201d[58]\n\nWe shall now discuss the evidence as it pertains to the cases of the\nindividual defendants.\n\nThe evidence conclusively shows that the German word \u201c_Fleckfieber_\u201d\nwhich is translated in the indictment as \u201cspotted fever\u201d is more\ncorrectly translated by \u201ctyphus.\u201d This is admitted, and in this\njudgment, in accord with the evidence, we use the word typhus instead of\n\u201cspotted fever.\u201d\n\n\n KARL BRANDT\n\nThe defendant Karl Brandt is charged with special responsibility for,\nand participation in, Freezing, Malaria, Lost Gas, Sulfanilamide, Bone,\nMuscle and Nerve Regeneration and Bone Transplantation, Sea-Water,\nEpidemic Jaundice, Sterilization, and Typhus Experiments, as alleged\nunder counts two and three of the indictment. He is also charged in\ncounts two and three with criminality in connection with the planning\nand carrying out of the Euthanasia Program of the German Reich. Under\ncount four of the indictment he is charged with membership in the SS, an\norganization declared criminal by the judgment of the International\nMilitary Tribunal.\n\nKarl Brandt was born 8 January 1904 at Muehlhausen, Alsace, then a\nportion of Germany, studied medicine, and passed his medical examination\nin 1928. He joined the National Socialist Party in January 1932, and\nbecame a member of the SA in 1933. He became a member of the Allgemeine\nSS in July 1934 and was appointed Untersturmfuehrer on the day he joined\nthat organization. During the summer of 1934 he became Hitler\u2019s \u201cEscort\nPhysician\u201d\u2014as he describes the office.\n\nHe was promoted to the grade of Obersturmfuehrer in the Allgemeine SS on\n1 January 1935, and in 1938 was classed as deferred in order that in\ncase of war he might be free to serve on the staff of the Reich\nChancellery in Hitler\u2019s headquarters. During the month of April 1939\nKarl Brandt was promoted to the rank of Obersturmbannfuehrer in the\nAllgemeine SS. In 1940 he was transferred from the Allgemeine SS to the\nWaffen SS, in which commissions were equivalent to those of the army. On\n30 January 1943 he received a grade equivalent to that of major general\nin the Waffen SS, and on 20 April 1944 was promoted to the grade of\nlieutenant general in that organization. Having at some previous date\nbeen relieved as Hitler\u2019s escort physician, he was again appointed as\nsuch in the fall of 1944. On 16 April 1945 he was arrested by the\nGestapo, and the next day was condemned to death by a court at Berlin.\nHe was released from arrest by order of the provisional government under\nDoenitz on 2 May 1945. On 23 May 1945 he was placed under arrest by the\nBritish authorities.\n\nBy decree bearing date 28 July 1942, signed by Hitler, Keitel, and\nLammers, Karl Brandt was invested with high authority over the medical\nservices, military and civilian, in Germany. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of this\ndecree, referring to Karl Brandt, read as follows:\n\n \u201c3. I empower Professor Dr. Karl Brandt, subordinate only to me\n personally and receiving his instructions directly from me, to\n carry out special tasks and negotiations to readjust the\n requirements for doctors, hospitals, medical supplies, etc.,\n between the military and the civilian sectors of the Health and\n Medical Services.\n\n \u201c4. My plenipotentiary for Health and Medical Services is to be\n kept informed about the fundamental events in the Medical\n Service of the Wehrmacht and in the Civilian Health Service. He\n is authorized to intervene in a responsible manner.\u201d\n\nBy decree bearing date 5 September 1943, signed by Hitler and Lammers,\nBrandt\u2019s authority was strengthened. This decree reads as follows:\n\n \u201cIn amplification of my decree concerning the Medical and Health\n Services of 28 July 1942 (RGBL. I, P. 515) I order:\n\n \u201cThe plenipotentiary for the Medical and Health Services,\n General Commissioner Professor Dr. med. Brandt, is charged with\n centrally coordinating and directing the problems and activities\n of the entire Medical and Health Services according to\n instructions. In this sense this order applies also to the field\n of medical science and research, as well as to the\n organizational institutions concerned with the manufacture and\n distribution of medical material.\n\n \u201cThe plenipotentiary for the Medical and Health Services is\n authorized to appoint and commission special deputies for his\n spheres of action.\u201d\n\nBy further decree bearing date 25 August 1944, signed by Hitler,\nLammers, Bormann, and Keitel, Karl Brandt received further authority.\nThis decree reads:\n\n \u201cI hereby appoint the General Commissioner for Medical and\n Health matters, Professor Dr. Brandt, Reich Commissioner for\n Sanitation and Health [Reich Commissioner for Medical and Health\n Services] as well, for the duration of this war. In this\n capacity his office ranks as highest Reich authority.\n\n \u201cThe Reich Commissioner for Medical and Health Services is\n authorized to issue instructions to the offices and\n organizations of the State, Party, and Wehrmacht, which are\n concerned with the problems of the Medical and Health Services.\u201d\n\nProsecution Exhibit 445, a letter bearing date at Munich, 9 January\n1943, signed by Conti and marked \u201cStrictly Confidential\u201d directed to the\nLeaders of Public Health Gau Offices of the National Socialist German\nWorkers\u2019 Party, refers to a decree of the Fuehrer on \u201cSuspending the\nPledge to Secrecy in Special Cases.\u201d The letter continues:\n\n \u201cFor your strictly confidential information I am sending\n attached Fuehrer decree and the circular letter I am writing on\n that subject to the heads of the medical chambers.\u201d\n\nAnother portion of the exhibit consists of a copy of Conti\u2019s letter,\nalso bearing date 9 January 1943, to the heads of the medical chambers,\nand reads as follows:\n\n \u201cStrictly Confidential.\n\n \u201cSubject: Fuehrer decree on suspension of pledge to secrecy in\n special cases.\n\n \u201cGentlemen:\n\n \u201cI am sending you enclosed a Fuehrer decree which I received\n from Professor Dr. Brandt.\n\n \u201cCommunications having bearing on the Fuehrer decree should be\n directed to the following address: Professor Doctor Karl Brandt,\n Personal Attention, Berlin W8, Reich Chancellory.\n\n \u201cIt is left to the discretion of the physician who is handling\n the case whether he wishes to acquaint the patient with the\n information himself.\u201d\n\nHitler\u2019s decree, bearing date 23 December 1942, reads as follows:\n\n \u201cI not only relieve physicians, medical practitioners and\n dentists of their pledge to secrecy towards my Commissioner\n General Professor Dr. med. Karl Brandt, but I place upon them\n the binding obligation to advise him\u2014for my own\n information\u2014immediately after a final diagnosis has established\n a serious disease, or a disease of ill-boding character, with a\n personality holding a leading position or a position of\n responsibility in the State, the Party, the Wehrmacht, in\n industry, and so forth.\u201d\n\nConcerning this matter Karl Brandt testified that the decree \u201cin special\ncases\u201d relieved German physicians from one of the generally accepted\nprinciples of medical practice.\n\nFrom the year 1942 to the end of the war Karl Brandt was a member of the\nReich Research Council and was also a member of the Presidential Council\nof that body.\n\nKarl Brandt, then, finally reached a position authorizing him to issue\ninstructions to all the medical services of the State, Party, and\nWehrmacht concerning medical problems (Hitler Decree bearing date 25\nAugust 1944). The above decrees of Hitler disclose his great reliance\nupon Karl Brandt and the high degree of personal and professional\nconfidence which Hitler reposed in him.\n\nIt may be noted that by the service regulation governing the Chief of\nthe Medical Services of the Wehrmacht, issued by Keitel 7 August 1944,\nthe chief of those medical services was required to pay due regard to\nthe general rules of the Fuehrer\u2019s Commissioner General for Medical and\nHealth Departments. The regulation contained the following:\n\n \u201c3. The Chief of the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht will\n inform the Fuehrer\u2019s Commissioner General about basic events in\n the field of the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht.\u201d\n\nBy a pre-trial affidavit made by the defendant Handloser and put in\nevidence by the prosecution, Handloser makes the statement that Karl\nBrandt was his \u201cimmediate superior in medical affairs.\u201d\n\nSULFANILAMIDE EXPERIMENTS\n\nCertain sulfanilamide experiments were conducted at Ravensbrueck for a\nperiod of about a year prior to August 1943. These experiments were\ncarried on by the defendants Gebhardt, Fischer, and Oberheuser\u2014Gebhardt\nbeing in charge of the project. At the Third Meeting of the Consulting\nPhysicians of the Wehrmacht held at the Military Medical Academy in\nBerlin from 24 to 26 May 1943, Gebhardt and Fischer made a complete\nreport concerning these experiments. Karl Brandt was present and heard\nthe reports. Gebhardt testified that he made a full statement concerning\nwhat he had done, stating that experiments had been carried out on human\nbeings. The evidence is convincing that statements were also made that\nthe persons experimented upon were concentration camp inmates. It was\nstated that 75 persons had been experimented upon, that the subjects had\nbeen deliberately infected, and that different drugs had been used in\ntreating the infections to determine their respective efficacy. It was\nalso stated that three of the subjects died. It nowhere appears that\nKarl Brandt made any objection to such experiments or that he made any\ninvestigation whatever concerning the experiments reported upon, or to\ngain any information as to whether other human subjects would be\nsubjected to experiments in the future. Had he made the slightest\ninvestigation he could have ascertained that such experiments were being\nconducted on non-German nationals, without their consent, and in\nflagrant disregard of their personal rights; and that such experiments\nwere planned for the future.\n\nIn the medical field Karl Brandt held a position of the highest rank\ndirectly under Hitler. He was in a position to intervene with authority\non all medical matters; indeed, it appears that such was his positive\nduty. It does not appear that at any time he took any steps to check\nmedical experiments upon human subjects. During the war he visited\nseveral concentration camps. Occupying the position he did, and being a\nphysician of ability and experience, the duty rested upon him to make\nsome adequate investigation concerning the medical experiments which he\nknew had been, were being, and doubtless would continue to be, conducted\nin the concentration camps.\n\nEPIDEMIC JAUNDICE EXPERIMENTS\n\nKarl Brandt is charged with criminal responsibility for experiments\nconducted for the purpose of discovering an effective vaccine to bring\nabout immunity from epidemic jaundice. Grawitz, by letter dated 1 June\n1943, wrote Himmler stating that Karl Brandt had requested his\nassistance in the matter of research on the causes of epidemic jaundice.\nGrawitz stated that Karl Brandt had interested himself in this research\nand desired that prisoners be placed at his disposal. The letter further\nstated that up to that date experiments had been made only on animals,\nbut that it had become necessary to pursue the matter further by\ninoculating human beings with virus cultures. The letter stated that\ndeaths must be anticipated, and that eight prisoners who had been\ncondemned to death were needed for the experiments at the hospital of\nthe concentration camp at Sachsenhausen. Under date of 16 June 1943\nHimmler acknowledged the letter from Grawitz and directed that eight\ncriminals in Auschwitz, Jews of the Polish Resistance Movement condemned\nto death, should be used for experiments which should be conducted by\nDr. Dohmen at Sachsenhausen. Karl Brandt\u2019s knowledge of experiments on\nnon-German nationals is clearly shown by the foregoing.\n\nLOST (MUSTARD) GAS EXPERIMENTS\n\nIt is clear from the record that experiments with Lost gas were\nconducted on concentration camp inmates throughout the period covered by\nthe indictment. The evidence is that over 200 concentration camp\ninmates, Russians, Poles, Czechs, and Germans, were used as experimental\nsubjects. At least 50 of these subjects, most of whom were\nnonvolunteers, died as a direct or indirect result of the treatment\nreceived.\n\nKarl Brandt knew of the fact that such experiments were being conducted.\nThe evidence is to the effect that he knew of Lost gas experiments\nconducted by Bickenbach at Strasbourg during the fall of 1943, in which\nRussian prisoners were apparently used as subjects, some of whom died.\n\nA letter written by the defendant Sievers to the defendant Rudolf\nBrandt, dated 11 April 1944, points to the fact that Karl Brandt knew of\nstill other such experiments. The letter states, that in accordance with\ninstructions he, Sievers, had contacted Karl Brandt, at Beelitz, and had\nreported to him concerning the activities of a certain Dr. Hirt, who the\nevidence shows had been experimenting with Lost gas upon concentration\ncamp inmates at Natzweiler. In the letter, Sievers states, further, that\nKarl Brandt had told him that he would be in Strasbourg in April and\nwould then discuss details with Dr. Hirt.\n\nKnowledge of the conduct of at least some of the experiments was\nconfirmed by Karl Brandt when he testified in his own behalf. He stated\nthat pursuant to competent authority he had engaged in studies\nconcerning defense measures against poison gas. He admitted receiving a\nreport from Hirt, and that one reading the report could reach the\nconclusion that human beings had been experimented upon in connection\nwith injuries from Lost gas.\n\nFREEZING, MALARIA, BONE, MUSCLE AND\nNERVE REGENERATION AND BONE TRANSPLANTATION,\nSEA-WATER, STERILIZATION,\nAND TYPHUS EXPERIMENTS\n\nThe evidence does not show beyond a reasonable doubt that Karl Brandt is\ncriminally responsible on account of the experiments with which he is\ncharged under these specifications.\n\nThe defendant Karl Brandt certainly knew that medical experiments were\ncarried out in concentration camps upon human subjects, that the\nexperiments caused suffering, injury, and death. By letter bearing date\n26 January 1943 Karl Brandt wrote to Wolff at the Fuehrer\u2019s (Hitler\u2019s)\nheadquarters asking if it were possible to carry out \u201cnutritional\nexperiments\u201d in concentration camps. The nature of the desired\nexperiments does not appear, nor does the evidence show whether or not\nsuch experiments were ever made. The letter, however, indicates Brandt\u2019s\nknowledge of the fact that human subjects could be made available for\nexperimentation.\n\nDefendant Rudolf Brandt, by letter dated 4 September 1944, wrote\nBaumert, evidently a member of Himmler\u2019s staff, stating that Karl Brandt\nhad telephoned and requested that Himmler direct that 10 prisoners from\nOranienburg should be made available as of the next day for two days to\ntest a certain drug. The letter stated that the prisoners would not be\ninjured by the test.\n\nIt appears from an official note filed by Kliewe of the Army Medical\nInspectorate, dated 23 February 1944, referring to a conversation with\nthe defendant Blome on that date, that experiments concerning biological\nwarfare connected with plant parasites, etc., had been made; that up to\nthat date no experiments had been conducted in the field of human\nmedicine; but that such experiments were necessary and were in\ncontemplation. The memorandum continues:\n\n \u201cField Marshal Keitel has given permission to build;\n Reichsfuehrer SS and Generalarzt Professor Brandt have assured\n him of vast support. By request of Field Marshal Keitel the\n armed forces are not to have a responsible share in the\n experiments, since experiments will also be conducted on human\n beings.\u201d\n\nIt is significant that Hitler\u2019s Chief of Staff should deem it advisable\nto direct that the Wehrmacht should have nothing to do with experiments\non human subjects.\n\nEUTHANASIA\n\nDefendant Karl Brandt is charged under counts two and three of the\nindictment with criminal activities in connection with the euthanasia\nprogram of the German Reich, in the course of which thousands of human\nbeings, including nationals of German occupied countries, were killed\nbetween 1 September 1939 and April 1945.\n\nOn his own letterhead Hitler, at Berlin, 1 September 1939, signed a\nsecret order reading as follows:\n\n \u201cReichsleiter Bouhler and Dr. Brandt, M.D., are charged with the\n responsibility of enlarging the authority of certain physicians\n to be designated by name in such a manner that persons who,\n according to human judgment, are incurable can, upon a most\n careful diagnosis of their condition of sickness, be accorded a\n mercy death.\u201d\n\nBouhler was holding a high office in the NSDAP. He was not a physician.\n\nThe foregoing order was not based on any previously existing German law;\nand the only authority for the execution of euthanasia was the secret\norder issued by Hitler.\n\nThe evidence shows that Bouhler and Karl Brandt, who were jointly\ncharged with the administration of euthanasia, entered upon the duties\nassigned them in connection with the setting up of processes for\ncarrying out the order. A budget was adopted; the method of determining\ncandidates for euthanasia was established; a patients\u2019 transport\ncorporation was organized to convey the selected patients to the gassing\nchambers. Questionnaires were prepared which were forwarded to the heads\nof mental institutions, one questionnaire to be accomplished concerning\neach inmate and then returned to the Ministry of the Interior. At the\nMinistry the completed questionnaires were examined by so-called\nexperts, who registered their professional opinions thereon, returned\nthem to the appropriate office for final examination, and orders were\nissued for those patients who by this process were finally selected for\nextermination. Thereafter the condemned patients were gathered at\ncollection points, from whence they were transported to euthanasia\nstations and killed by gassing.\n\nUtmost secrecy was demanded of the executioners throughout the entire\nprocedure. Persons actively concerned in the program were required to\nsubscribe a written oath of secrecy and were warned that violation of\nthat oath would result in most serious personal consequences. The\nconsent of the relatives of the \u201cincurables\u201d was not even obtained; the\nquestion of secrecy being deemed so important.\n\nShortly after the commencement of operations for the disposal of\n\u201cincurables\u201d, the program was extended to Jews, and then to\nconcentration camp inmates. In this latter phase of the program,\nprisoners deemed by the examining doctors to be unfit or useless for\nlabor were ruthlessly weeded out and sent to the extermination stations\nin great numbers.\n\nKarl Brandt maintains that he is not implicated in the extermination of\nJews or of concentration camp inmates; that his official responsibility\nfor euthanasia ceased at the close of the summer of 1941, at which time\neuthanasia procedures against \u201cincurables\u201d were terminated by order of\nHitler.\n\nIt is difficult to believe this assertion, but even if it be true, we\ncannot understand how this fact would aid the defendant. The evidence is\nconclusive that almost at the outset of the program non-German nationals\nwere selected for euthanasia and exterminated. Needless to say, these\npersons did not voluntarily consent to become the subjects of this\nprocedure.\n\nKarl Brandt admits that after he had disposed of the medical decisions\nrequired to be made by him with regard to the initial program which he\nmaintains was valid, he did not follow the program further but left the\nadministrative details of execution to Bouhler. If this be true, his\nfailure to follow up a program for which he was charged with special\nresponsibility constituted the gravest breach of duty. A discharge of\nthat duty would have easily revealed what now is so manifestly evident\nfrom the record; that whatever may have been the original aim of the\nprogram, its purposes were prostituted by men for whom Brandt was\nresponsible, and great numbers of non-German nationals were exterminated\nunder its authority.\n\nWe have no doubt but that Karl Brandt\u2014as he himself testified\u2014is a\nsincere believer in the administration of euthanasia to persons\nhopelessly ill, whose lives are burdensome to themselves and an expense\nto the state or to their families. The abstract proposition of whether\nor not euthanasia is justified in certain cases of the class referred to\nis no concern of this Tribunal. Whether or not a state may validly enact\nlegislation which imposes euthanasia upon certain classes of its\ncitizens is likewise a question which does not enter into the issues.\nAssuming that it may do so, the Family of Nations is not obligated to\ngive recognition to such legislation when it manifestly gives legality\nto plain murder and torture of defenseless and powerless human beings of\nother nations.\n\nThe evidence is conclusive that persons were included in the program who\nwere non-German nationals. The dereliction of the defendant Brandt\ncontributed to their extermination. That is enough to require this\nTribunal to find that he is criminally responsible in the program.\n\nWe find that Karl Brandt was responsible for, aided and abetted, took a\nconsenting part in, and was connected with plans and enterprises\ninvolving medical experiments conducted on non-German nationals against\ntheir consent, and in other atrocities, in the course of which murders,\nbrutalities, cruelties, tortures and other inhumane acts were committed.\nTo the extent that these criminal acts did not constitute war crimes\nthey constituted crimes against humanity.\n\nMEMBERSHIP IN CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION\n\nUnder count four of the indictment Karl Brandt is charged with being a\nmember of an organization declared criminal by the judgment of the\nInternational Military Tribunal, namely, the SS. The evidence shows that\nKarl Brandt became a member of the SS in July 1934 and remained in this\norganization at least until April 1945. As a member of the SS he was\ncriminally implicated in the commission of war crimes and crimes against\nhumanity, as charged under counts two and three of the indictment.\n\nCONCLUSION\n\nMilitary Tribunal I finds and adjudges the defendant Karl Brandt guilty,\nunder counts two, three, and four, of the indictment.\n\n\n HANDLOSER\n\nUnder counts two and three of the indictment the defendant Handloser is\ncharged with special responsibility for, and participation in,\nHigh-Altitude, Freezing, Malaria, Lost (Mustard) Gas, Sulfanilamide,\nBone, Muscle and Nerve Regeneration and Bone Transplantation, Sea-Water,\nEpidemic Jaundice, and Typhus Experiments.\n\nThe charge of participation in the high-altitude experiments has been\nabandoned by the prosecution, and hence will not be considered further.\n\nHandloser was a professional soldier, having been commissioned in the\nMedical Department of the German Army in 1910. During the First World\nWar he rose to the position of commanding officer of a division medical\nunit, and on 1 September 1939 he was appointed Chief Medical Officer of\nthe 14th German Army. After service in the field, on 6 November 1940 he\nwas appointed Deputy Army Medical Inspector. He became Army Medical\nInspector on 1 January 1941, and the following April was given the\nadditional appointment of Chief Medical Officer of the field forces,\nholding both positions until 28 July 1942, when he became Chief of the\nWehrmacht Medical Service. He retained also his other appointment and\nperformed the duties of both positions. He was retained in his position\nas Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service on 1 September 1944, but\nrelieved of the duties pertaining to the other office which he had\ntheretofore held, he having exercised the functions of both offices\nuntil the date last mentioned. His professional career is more\nparticularly described above.\n\nHandloser states that prior to his last appointment in 1944 he was\nauthorized to issue \u201cinstructions,\u201d but not orders\u2014testifying that\nafter his latest appointment he had authority to issue orders to the\nchiefs of the medical services of all branches of the Wehrmacht. He also\nhad jurisdiction over scientific medical institutes, etc., as designated\nby the service regulations promulgated at the time of his last\nappointment. While the chief medical officers of the army, navy, and\nLuftwaffe were under their appropriate military superiors, Handloser had\nauthority to coordinate the activities of all the Wehrmacht medical\nservices and to establish their coordinated action. As to the Waffen SS,\nhis authority extended only to such units of that organization as were\nattached to and made part of the Wehrmacht.\n\nHandloser testified that the utilization of medical material and\npersonnel were, insofar as the Wehrmacht was concerned, within his\njurisdiction after the entry of the decree of 28 July 1942, and that\nupon occasion he called meetings of the chief medical officers of the\nWehrmacht and specialists in appropriate fields of medicine, in an\neffort to avoid duplication of certain research problems in connection\nwith malaria, typhus, paratyphus, and cholera.\n\nAs Army Medical Inspector he was also _ex officio_ president of the\nScientific Senate, but testified that this body did not meet after 1942.\nAs an army physician he denied any special knowledge concerning\nscientific problems peculiarly affecting the navy or the Luftwaffe; but\non an organization chart prepared by him and received in evidence as\nProsecution Exhibit 9 he is shown as subordinated to Karl Brandt and as\nChief of the Medical Service of the Wehrmacht occupying the position of\nsuperior over the Army Medical Service and the chiefs of the Medical\nServices of the Navy and Luftwaffe and certain other subordinate\nagencies pertaining to the Wehrmacht. The chart also indicates his\nauthority over the Chief of the Medical Office [Service] of the Waffen\nSS and components of the Waffen SS when attached to the Wehrmacht.\n\nIt appears that Handloser had much to do in connection with the calling\nof meetings of the \u201cConsulting Physicians\u201d; that he designated some of\nthe subjects to be discussed at these meetings; and that his\nsubordinate, Schreiber, arranged the details.\n\nAt the Second Meeting of Consulting Surgeons held 30 November to 3\nDecember 1942 at the Military Medical Academy, he addressed those\npresent (referring to the meeting as \u201cThis Second Work Conference\nEast\u201d), observing that representatives of the three branches of the\nWehrmacht, of the Waffen SS and Police, of the Labor Service, and the\nOrganization Todt, were also present. He called attention to the\npresence of Conti, Head of the Medical Services in the Civilian Sector.\n\nAt the Fourth Meeting of Consulting Physicians held at Hohenlychen, 16\nto 18 May 1944, Karl Brandt\u2014in addressing the meeting\u2014said that\nHandloser, a soldier and a physician, was \u201cresponsible for the use and\nthe performance of our medical officers\u201d.\n\nSchreiber, until 30 May 1943 a close subordinate of Handloser in his\ncapacity of Army Medical Inspector, was a member of the Reich Research\nCouncil, paying particular regard to the control of epidemics as his\nspecial field. Schreiber frequently reported to Handloser, with whom he\nhad worked for some years.\n\nFREEZING EXPERIMENTS\n\nProfessor Dr. Holzloehner, who with Drs. Finke and Rascher performed\nfreezing experiments on concentration camp inmates at Dachau, made\nreports on at least two occasions to groups of army physicians\nconcerning cold and freezing problems. The first such report was made at\na meeting held on 26 to 27 October 1942, which was called to consider\nproblems concerning cold. Schreiber, who held a responsible position\nunder Handloser from 1 April 1942 to 31 May 1943, was present at this\nmeeting, as was Craemer, head of the Mountain Medical School of the army\nat St. Johann, which was also under Handloser\u2019s jurisdiction. During the\nmeeting and after Holzloehner had made his report, Rascher also made\nstatements before the meeting concerning these experiments, from which\nit was obvious that statements contained in the reports were based upon\nobservations made by experimenting on human beings. From the two reports\nit was clear that concentration camp inmates had been experimented upon\nand that some deaths had resulted.\n\nHolzloehner was invited to lecture again upon this subject at the Second\nMeeting of the Consulting Physicians of the Wehrmacht, held 30 November\nto 3 December 1942, at the Military Medical Academy at Berlin. Handloser\nheard this talk by Holzloehner and testified that the matter of cold and\nfreezing was one of the most important problems to the army.\n\nWe think it manifestly clear from the evidence dealing with freezing\nthat Handloser had actual knowledge that such experiments had been\nconducted upon inmates at Dachau concentration camp, during the course\nof which suffering and deaths had resulted to the experimental subjects.\n\nSULFANILAMIDE EXPERIMENTS\n\nHandloser is charged with participation in the sulfanilamide experiments\nconducted by the defendant Gebhardt. These experiments were conducted at\nRavensbrueck concentration camp during a period extending from 20 July\n1942 to August 1943 upon concentration camp inmates without their\nconsent. While these experiments were still in progress Gebhardt was\ninvited to present a report on his research findings at the Third\nMeeting of the Consulting Physicians held on 18 and 19 May 1943, at the\nMilitary Medical Academy in Berlin. Handloser was present at that\nmeeting; in fact, he had addressed the meeting prior to Gebhardt\u2019s\ngiving his report.\n\nAs stated elsewhere, Gebhardt made a frank and candid report of what he\nhad been doing at Ravensbrueck; honestly telling the group that his\nexperimental subjects were not volunteers but were concentration camp\ninmates condemned to death, who had been given the hope of reduction of\nsentence should they survive the experiments. By means of charts to\nillustrate his lecture, he made it clear that deaths had occurred among\nthe human subjects. When on the witness stand, the defendant Gebhardt\ntestified that prior to the meeting of consulting physicians he had\ndiscussed with either Schreiber or the defendant Rostock the subject\nmatter of the lecture to be given, and that at that time Schreiber had\nstated that he had received data concerning the experiments through\nofficial channels.\n\nAt that time Schreiber was a direct subordinate of the defendant\nHandloser, and we think it may be fairly assumed that Schreiber\u2019s\nknowledge was the knowledge of Handloser. However, be that as it may,\nthe evidence is clear that Handloser heard the lecture by Gebhardt, as\nwell as a subsequent lecture on the same subject matter given by the\ndefendant Fischer. There can be no question, therefore, but that when\nHandloser came away from the meeting he was fully informed of the fact\nthat medical experiments were being conducted in Ravensbrueck\nconcentration camp with inmates who were nonvolunteers. Moreover, he\nknew that deaths had occurred among the experimental subjects.\n\nAfter the meeting of consulting physicians had ended, Gebhardt returned\nto Ravensbrueck and conducted several more series of sulfanilamide\nexperiments. The subjects used for the later experiments were Polish\nwomen who had been condemned to Ravensbrueck without trial, and who did\nnot give their consent to act as experimental subjects. Three of these\nwere killed by the experiments.\n\nTYPHUS EXPERIMENTS\n\nUnder counts two and three of the indictment Handloser is charged with\nspecial responsibility for, and participation in, typhus experiments\nconducted in the Buchenwald concentration camp which were supervised by\na certain Dr. Ding, and like experiments conducted in the Natzweiler\nconcentration camp by a certain Dr. Haagen. As shown elsewhere in the\njudgment, these experiments were unlawful and resulted in deaths of\nnon-German nationals.\n\nThere can be no question but that in 1941 typhus was a potential menace\nto the German Army and to many German civilians. The use of an adequate\ntyphus vaccine was therefore a matter of prime importance. The\ndistribution of vaccines to the Wehrmacht was within the control of\nHandloser. In the exercise of his functions he was also interested in\ntyphus vaccine production.\n\nThe Typhus and Virus Institutes of the OKH at Cracow [Krakow] and\nLemberg [Lvov] were engaged in the production of the Weigl vaccine from\nthe intestines of lice. This vaccine was thought to be effective, but\nthe production procedure was complicated and expensive; hence,\nsufficient quantities of this vaccine could not be furnished. Another\nvaccine\u2014the so-called Cox-Haagen-Gildemeister vaccine, produced from\negg-yolk cultures\u2014could be quickly produced in large quantities, but\nits protective qualities had not been sufficiently demonstrated.\n\nEvidence is before the Tribunal that the general problem was discussed\nat a meeting held in Berlin, 29 December 1941, attended by Dr. Bieber of\nthe Ministry of Interior; Gildemeister; Dr. Scholz, a subordinate of\nHandloser; two physicians of the \u201cgoverning body of the Government\nGeneral\u201d; and three representatives of the Behring Works. It is stated\nin the minutes of this conference that\u2014\n\n \u201cThe vaccine which is presently being produced by the Behring\n Works from chicken eggs shall be tested for its effectiveness in\n an experiment.\u201d\n\nFor the purpose above referred to, Dr. Demnitz of the Behring Works\nwould contact Dr. Mrugowsky. The minutes of the meeting were prepared by\nBieber, under date 4 January 1942.\n\nA copy of the minutes of the meeting last referred to was forwarded to\nthe Army Medical Inspectorate at Berlin. It thus appears that a\nrepresentative of Handloser\u2019s office, Scholz, attended the meeting, and\nthat a copy of the minutes was forwarded to the Army Medical\nInspectorate.\n\nThere is also evidence that on the same day a conference was held\nbetween the defendant Handloser, Conti of the Ministry of Interior,\nReiter of the Health Department of the Reich, Gildemeister of the Robert\nKoch Institute, and the defendant Mrugowsky, at which time it was\ndecided to establish a research station at Buchenwald concentration camp\nto test the efficacy of the egg-yolk, and other vaccines on\nconcentration camp inmates. As a result of the conference an\nexperimental station was established at Buchenwald under the direction\nof Dr. Ding, with the defendant Hoven acting as his deputy.\n\nInasmuch as some of this information comes from Prosecution Exhibit 287,\nreferred to as the \u201cDing Diary\u201d, a discussion of the document is now\nappropriate.\n\nDr. Ding (who later changed his name to Schuler) was a very ambitious\nman who was apparently willing to engage in any professional activity\nwhich he thought might further his medical career. He gladly seized upon\nthe opportunity to conduct experiments on concentration camp inmates in\nconnection with the vaccine study.\n\nEvery German officer holding a position comparable to that held by Dr.\nDing was required to keep a journal or diary showing his official\nactivities. It appears that Ding kept two diaries. Ding\u2019s personal diary\ncontaining official and personal entries and work reports has\ndisappeared; his official log or journal concerning his work at\nBuchenwald is the document in evidence. This diary was kept by one Eugen\nKogon, an inmate at Buchenwald. He made the actual entries and Ding\nverified and signed them.\n\nKogon, an Austrian subject, testified for the prosecution. We learn from\nhis testimony that he was a former newspaper editor and held other\nhighly responsible positions. He was sent by the German authorities to\nBuchenwald in 1939 as a political prisoner. In April 1943 he was\nassigned to Ding as a clerk or assistant. For many months prior to that\ntime, however, he had been on extremely friendly terms with Ding and as\na consequence was completely familiar with Ding\u2019s operations. Indeed, so\nclose was the attachment that during the first half of the year 1942\nDing had dictated the first portion of the diary which is in evidence,\nand Kogon had transcribed it. After officially becoming Ding\u2019s assistant\nin 1943 all correspondence of every nature with which Ding was concerned\npassed through the hands of Kogon.\n\nThe diary came into Kogon\u2019s possession at the breaking up of the camp,\nand remained in his possession, as he testified, until he delivered it\nto the Office of Chief of Counsel for War Crimes at Nuernberg.\n\nIt is manifest that the entries in the diary were often not made on the\nday they bear date; but this does not mean that it has no probative\nvalue. Almost every entry in the diary is personally signed by Ding.\nTime and again the entries in the diary have been corroborated by other\ncredible evidence. The defendants themselves who were familiar with\noperations at Buchenwald have confirmed the entries in important\nessential particulars. We consider the diary as constituting evidence of\nconsiderable probative value, and shall give to the entries such\nconsideration as under all circumstances they are entitled to receive.\n\nThe first entry in the Ding diary, under date of 29 December 1941, reads\nas follows:\n\n \u201cConference between Army Sanitation Inspection [Inspector],\n General Chief Surgeon Professor Dr. Handloser; State Secretary\n for the Department of Health of the Reich, SS Gruppenfuehrer Dr.\n Conti; President Professor Reiter of the Health Department of\n the Reich; President Professor Gildemeister of the Robert Koch\n Institute (Reich Institution to Combat Contagious Diseases) and\n SS Standartenfuehrer and Lecturer (Dozent) Dr. Mrugowsky of the\n Institute of Hygiene, Waffen SS, Berlin.\n\n \u201cIt has been established that the need exists, to test the\n efficiency of, and resistance of the human body to, the typhus\n serum extracted from egg yolks. Since tests on animals are not\n of sufficient value, tests on human beings must be carried out.\u201d\n\nThis entry preceded by only a few days the actual commencement of the\nexperiments on concentration camp inmates to determine the efficiency of\nthe egg-yolk vaccine.\n\nIt seems certain that the foregoing entry in the Ding diary was written\nor rewritten at some date later than that which it bears, but the entry\nmay be accepted as evidence of probative value to the fact that it was\nagreed by some persons in authority that experiments with vaccine\nprepared from egg yolks be made on concentration camp inmates at\nBuchenwald. The next entry in the diary bears date 2 January 1942, and\nreads as follows:\n\n \u201cThe concentration camp Buchenwald is chosen for testing the\n typhus serums. SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Ding is charged with these\n tests.\u201d\n\nHandloser testified that many conferences concerning typhus vaccine took\nplace and that he was interested in the testing of chicken-egg vaccine\n\u201con a sufficient number of persons in a certain vicinity, that is,\nwithin an area where typhus had already occurred or there was imminent\ndanger existing.\u201d He also testified that during the summer of 1941 he\nmet Mrugowsky, who was recommended to him by Schreiber, Handloser\u2019s\nsubordinate. He also testified that he discussed the matter of the\nchicken-egg vaccines with Gildemeister and Conti. Handloser testified\nthat he was present at many conferences, both at the front and in rear\nechelons, where such matters were discussed. Mrugowsky, in a letter\ndated 5 May 1942, reported to Eyer (who was a subordinate of Handloser)\nof the Typhus and Vaccine Institute of the High Command at Cracow\n[Krakow], describing the results of the first series of experiments\ncarried out in Buchenwald. The experiments covered both the Weigl and\negg-yolk vaccines. This report called attention to the fact that two\nexperimental subjects had died.\n\nAn entry in the Ding diary dated 8 February 1943 states that Dr. Eyer\nand Dr. Schmidt, a hygienist on the staff of the Medical Inspectorate,\nvisited the Typhus and Virus Institute at Buchenwald. Schmidt, a\nsubordinate of Handloser from 1942 until August 1944, stated that he and\nEyer had visited Buchenwald. He testified that his visit was concerned\nonly with yellow fever vaccine tests which were being carried out at\nthat station. This statement by the witness is not convincing. From the\nDing diary it appears that infected lice were received by Ding prior to\n30 November 1942. If this is correct, these lice could have come only\nfrom an institute under control of the army over which Handloser had\njurisdiction.\n\nDing reported on his activities at the meeting of the Consulting\nSurgeons of the Wehrmacht held in May 1943 in Berlin. Handloser was\npresent at that meeting but may not have heard the report, the report\nhaving been made to the hygiene section, which was presided over by\nSchreiber, Handloser\u2019s subordinate. Defendant Rose, having heard the\nreport, openly objected to the character of the experiments carried out\nat Buchenwald. Schreiber, then, had full knowledge of the nature of the\nexperiments there carried on. Rose\u2019s vigorous objection was doubtless a\nsubject of general interest.\n\nHandloser testified that on at least two occasions he discussed with\nMrugowsky matters connected with vaccines against typhoid, typhus and\nother diseases. He stated that he was unable to fix the dates of these\nconferences.\n\nThe entries in the Ding diary clearly indicate an effective liaison\nbetween the Army Medical Inspectorate and the experiments which Ding was\nconducting at Buchenwald. There is also credible evidence that the\nInspectorate was informed of medical research carried on by the\nLuftwaffe. The experiments at Buchenwald continued after Handloser had\ngained actual knowledge of the fact that concentration camp inmates had\nbeen killed at Dachau as the result of freezing; and that inmates at\nRavensbrueck had died as victims of the sulfanilamide experiments\nconducted by Gebhardt and Fischer. Yet with this knowledge Handloser in\nhis superior medical position made no effort to investigate the\nsituation of the human subjects or to exercise any proper degree of\ncontrol over those conducting experiments within his field of authority\nand competence.\n\nHad the slightest inquiry been made the facts would have revealed that\nin vaccine experiments already conducted at Buchenwald, deaths had\noccurred\u2014both as a result of artificial infections by the lice which\nhad been imported from the Typhus and Virus Institute of the OKH at\nCracow [Krakow] or Lemberg [Lvov], or from infections by a virulent\nvirus given to subjects after they had first been vaccinated with either\nthe Weigl, Cox-Haagen-Gildemeister, or other vaccines, whose efficacy\nwas being tested. Had this step been taken, and had Handloser exercised\nhis authority, later deaths would have been prevented in these\nparticular experiments which were originally set in motion through the\noffices of the Medical Inspectorate and which were being conducted for\nthe benefit of the German armed forces.\n\nThese deaths not only occurred with German nationals, but also among\nnon-German nationals who had not consented to becoming experimental\nsubjects.\n\nOTHER EXPERIMENTS\n\nThe defendant Handloser is also charged with special responsibility for,\nand participation in, Malaria, Lost Gas, Bone, Muscle and Nerve\nRegeneration and Bone Transplantation, Sea-Water, and Epidemic Jaundice\nExperiments. In our view the evidence is insufficient to show any\ncriminal connection of the defendant Handloser with regard to these\nexperiments.\n\nThe law of war imposes on a military officer in a position of command an\naffirmative duty to take such steps as are within his power and\nappropriate to the circumstances to control those under his command for\nthe prevention of acts which are violations of the law of war. The\nreason for the rule is plain and understandable. As is pointed out in a\ndecision rendered by the Supreme Court of the United States, entitled\nApplication of Yamashita, 66 Supreme Court [Reporter] 340-347, 1946\u2014\n\n \u201cIt is evident that the conduct of military operations by troops\n whose excesses are unrestrained by the orders or efforts of\n their commander would almost certainly result in violations\n which it is the purpose of the law of war to prevent. Its\n purpose to protect civilian populations and prisoners of war\n from brutality would largely be defeated if the commander of an\n invading army could with impunity neglect to take reasonable\n measures for their protection. Hence the law of war presupposes\n that its violation is to be avoided through the control of the\n operations of war by commanders who are to some extent\n responsible for their subordinates.\u201d\n\nWhat has been said in this decision applies peculiarly to the case of\nHandloser.\n\nIn connection with Handloser\u2019s responsibility for unlawful experiments\nupon human beings, the evidence is conclusive that with knowledge of the\nfrequent use of non-German nationals as human experimental subjects, he\nfailed to exercise any proper degree of control over those subordinated\nto him who were implicated in medical experiments coming within his\nofficial sphere of competence. This was a duty which clearly devolved\nupon him by virtue of his official position. Had he exercised his\nresponsibility, great numbers of non-German nationals would have been\nsaved from murder. To the extent that the crimes committed by or under\nhis authority were not war crimes they were crimes against humanity.\n\nCONCLUSION\n\nMilitary Tribunal I finds and adjudges the defendant Siegfried Handloser\nguilty under counts two and three of the indictment.\n\n\n ROSTOCK\n\nThe defendant Rostock is charged under counts two and three of the\nindictment with special responsibility for, and participation in,\nMalaria, Lost (Mustard) Gas, Sulfanilamide, Bone, Muscle and Nerve\nRegeneration and Bone Transplantation, Sea-Water, Epidemic Jaundice, and\nSpotted Fever Experiments.\n\nRostock was a physician of recognized ability. From 1933 to 1941 he\noccupied successively the positions of senior surgeon of the Surgical\nClinic in Berlin, Professor of Surgery of the University of Berlin, and\nDeputy Director of the University Clinic. In 1941 he was appointed\nDirector of the Surgical Clinic, and in 1942 he became Dean of the\nMedical Faculty of the University of Berlin. Prior to the war he had\njoined the NSDAP, and in 1939 he was assigned to military duty as a\nconsulting surgeon. In 1942 he was appointed consulting surgeon to the\nArmy Medical Inspectorate and was subordinate to the Military Medical\nAcademy in Berlin. He attained the rank of brigadier general, medical\ndepartment (reserve). In 1943 he was appointed Chief of the Office for\nMedical Science and Research, a department under the supervision of\ndefendant Karl Brandt, in which position Rostock remained until the end\nof the war. From the time he received the last mentioned appointment,\nRostock acted as Brandt\u2019s deputy on the Reich Research Council.\n\nAs Karl Brandt\u2019s deputy Rostock was his agent in the field of medical\nscience and research\u2014Rostock being charged with the duty of\ncoordinating and directing problems and activities concerning the\nmedical health service insofar as science and research were concerned.\nRostock was informed concerning medical research conducted by the\nseveral branches of the Wehrmacht. As head of the Office for Science and\nResearch, he assigned research problems and designated some as \u201curgent\u201d.\nIt was his duty to avoid duplication of work in scientific research and\nto decide whether or not a suggested problem was worthy of a research\nassignment. It is clear that Rostock and Karl Brandt were intimate\nfriends of years standing.\n\nThe prosecution does not contend that Rostock personally participated in\ncriminal experiments. It vigorously argues, however, that\u2014with full\nknowledge that concentration camp inmates were being experimented\nupon\u2014he continued to function upon research assignments concerning\nscientific investigations, the result of which would probably further\nexperiments upon human beings. The prosecution then argues that his\nknowledge concerning these matters, considered together with the\nposition of authority which he occupied in connection with scientific\nresearch and the fact that he failed to exercise his authority in an\nattempt to stop or check criminal experiments, renders him guilty as\ncharged.\n\nIn this connection the prosecution relies upon its Exhibit 457, a\ndocument which bears date at Berlin, 14 September 1944. It is headed,\n\u201cCommissioner for Medical and Health Matters,\u201d followed by \u201cThe Delegate\nfor Science and Research.\u201d Below appears:\n\n \u201cList of medical institutes working on problems of research\n which were designated as urgent by the discussion on research on\n 26 August 1944 in Beelitz.\n\n \u201c(Summary according to the 650 orders for research submitted to\n us.)\u201d\n\nThe document then contains a list of research assignments numbered \u201c1\u201d\nto \u201c45.\u201d Numbers 42 and 44 read as follows:\n\n \u201c_Strasbourg_\n\n \u201c42. Hygiene Institute (Haagen) virus research\n\n * * * * *\n\n \u201c44. Anatomical Institute (Hirt) Chemical warfare agents.\u201d\n\nThe document bears Rostock\u2019s signature. Five of the problems concern\nhepatitis research, and three, virus research.\n\nIt appears from the evidence that Rostock\u2019s duties included the\navoidance of duplication in the distribution of assignments for medical\nresearch. If the head of the medical department of a branch of the\nWehrmacht assigned to some particular physician or institute a\nparticular scientific or medical problem, a copy of the assignment would\nbe forwarded to Rostock, who would then coordinate the matter by\nascertaining whether or not that assignment was being worked on by some\nother agency or whether it would lead to worthwhile results. Who\nclassified as \u201curgent\u201d the 45 of the 650 orders for research does not\nappear; but it may be assumed that Rostock approved that classification.\n\nDoubtless Rostock knew that experiments on concentration camp inmates\nwere being conducted. He presided over the meeting of surgeons held in\nMay 1943, and there heard statements that experimental subjects had been\nartificially infected. Doubtless he knew that the experiments were\ndangerous and that further experiments would probably be conducted.\nHowever, it does not appear that either Rostock or any subordinate of\nhis directed the work done on any assignment concerning criminal\nexperiments. Certain of these experiments were classified as \u201curgent\u201d at\na \u201cdiscussion on research\u201d as above set forth. Nothing in the\ndesignation of any such assignment as appears in Prosecution Exhibit 457\ncontains on its face anything more than a matter of proper scientific\ninvestigation.\n\nThe record does not show that the position held by Rostock vested in him\nany authority whatsoever other than as above stated. No experiments were\nconducted by any person or organization which was to the least extent\nunder Rostock\u2019s control or direction.\n\nCONCLUSION\n\nMilitary Tribunal I finds and adjudges that the defendant Paul Rostock\nis not guilty as charged under the indictment, and directs that he be\nreleased from custody under the indictment when this Tribunal presently\nadjourns.\n\n\n SCHROEDER\n\nThe defendant Schroeder is charged under counts two and three of the\nindictment with special responsibility for, and participation in,\nHigh-Altitude, Freezing, Sulfanilamide, Sea-Water, Epidemic Jaundice,\nTyphus and other vaccines, and Gas Experiments. The prosecution has\nabandoned the charge that he participated in the sulfanilamide\nexperiments and hence that subject will not be considered further.\n\nThe defendant served as a medical officer with the infantry during the\nFirst World War. In the period prior to 1931 he was attached as medical\nofficer to a number of military units. On 1 January 1931 he was\ntransferred to the Army Medical Inspectorate as a consultant (Referent)\non hospital matters and therapeutics with the rank of Oberstabsarzt\n(major). In 1935 Schroeder became chief of staff to Generalarzt Hippke\nin the newly established Medical Department of the Reich Ministry for\nAviation. He retained this position after Hippke was made Inspector of\nthe Medical Service of the Luftwaffe in 1937. In February 1940 Schroeder\nwas appointed air fleet physician for Air Fleet II with the rank of\nGeneralstabsarzt (major general). On 1 January 1944 he replaced Hippke\nas Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe. Simultaneously he was\npromoted to Generaloberstabsarzt (lieutenant general), which was the\nhighest rank obtainable in the medical services. As Chief of the Medical\nService of the Luftwaffe, all medical officers of the German Air Force\nwere subordinated directly or indirectly to Schroeder. After he became\nChief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe his immediate superior was\nHandloser, who was Chief of the Medical Service of the Wehrmacht.\n\nHIGH-ALTITUDE EXPERIMENTS\n\nThese experiments were performed at Dachau concentration camp for the\nbenefit of the Luftwaffe during the year 1942. Details of the\nexperiments are discussed in other portions of this judgment.\n\nDuring the period from 1941 to the end of 1943 the defendant Schroeder,\nin his position as air fleet physician of Air Fleet II, was in the\noperational zone of Air Fleet II, which comprised the Mediterranean\narea. He did not become Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe\nuntil 1 January 1944. There is no evidence that while air fleet\nphysician he exercised or could have exercised any control over\nexperiments then being conducted for the benefit of the Luftwaffe.\n\nEPIDEMIC JAUNDICE EXPERIMENTS\n\nSchreiber, a member of Handloser\u2019s staff, who presided over a conference\nheld in Breslau in June 1944 for the purpose of co-ordinating jaundice\nresearch, assigned groups of physicians to work together on jaundice\nproblems. Dohmen, Gutzeit, and Haagen were assigned to one of these\ngroups. On 27 June 1944 Haagen, a Luftwaffe officer, wrote his\ncollaborator Kalk, a consultant to Schroeder, asking, \u201cCould you in your\nofficial position take the necessary steps to obtain the required\nexperimental subjects?\u201d\n\nThe record shows that Haagen subsequently conducted epidemic jaundice\nexperiments on prisoners at Natzweiler concentration camp. There is no\nevidence, however, to establish Schroeder\u2019s criminal connection with\nthese experiments. At most, all that can be said for this evidence is\nthat Schroeder may have gained knowledge of the experiments through\nKalk, a member of his staff\u2014but even that fact has not been made plain.\n\nFREEZING EXPERIMENTS\n\nFreezing experiments were carried out at Dachau concentration camp for\nthe benefit of the Luftwaffe, during the year 1942. Details of these\nexperiments are discussed elsewhere in this judgment.\n\nIt is conclusively shown from the evidence dealing with freezing that as\nearly as the year 1943 Schroeder had actual knowledge that such\nexperiments had been conducted upon inmates at Dachau concentration\ncamp, during the course of which suffering and deaths had resulted to\nthe experimental subjects.\n\nTYPHUS EXPERIMENTS\n\nExperiments in connection with typhus were conducted at Schirmeck and\nNatzweiler concentration camps during the years 1942, 1943, and 1944.\nThe details of these experiments are discussed elsewhere in this\njudgment.\n\nThe experiments were carried out by a Luftwaffe medical officer,\nProfessor Dr. Haagen. As a medical officer of the Luftwaffe he was\nsubject to Schroeder\u2019s orders after the latter became Chief of the\nMedical Service of the Luftwaffe. The office of Schroeder issued and\napproved the research assignments pursuant to which these experiments\nwere carried out. It provided the funds for the research. One of the\nchief collaborators in the program was the defendant Rose, consultant to\nthe Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe.\n\nCorrespondence was carried on between Haagen and the Chief of Staff for\nthe defendant Schroeder with reference to whether a typhus epidemic\nprevailing at Natzweiler was connected in any manner with the vaccine\nresearch then being conducted. The office of the Chief of the Medical\nService of the Luftwaffe received reports on the experiments from which\nit could be clearly perceived that typhus vaccine experiments were being\nperformed on concentration camp inmates.\n\nWhile the experiments were in progress, Schroeder admits having visited\nHaagen at Strasbourg, but denies that he talked with Haagen about the\nexperiments. The defendant\u2019s assertion that the experiments were not\ndiscussed does not carry conviction.\n\nAs has been pointed out in this judgment, the law of war imposes on a\nmilitary officer in a position of command an affirmative duty to take\nsuch steps as are within his power and appropriate to the circumstances\nto control those under his command for the prevention of acts which are\nviolations of the law of war.\n\nThis rule is applicable to the case of Schroeder. At the time he became\nChief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe, Schroeder knew of the\nfact that freezing experiments for the benefit of the Luftwaffe had been\ncarried out at Dachau concentration camp by Luftwaffe medical officers.\nHe knew that through these experiments injury and death had resulted to\nthe experimental subjects. He also knew that during the years 1942 and\n1943, typhus vaccine research had been carried out by the Luftwaffe\nofficer, Haagen, for the benefit of the Luftwaffe Medical Service, at\nNatzweiler and Schirmeck concentration camps\u2014and had he taken the\ntrouble to inquire, he could have known that deaths had occurred as a\nresult of these experiments.\n\nWith all this knowledge, or means of knowledge, before him as commanding\nofficer, he blindly approved a continuation of typhus research by\nHaagen, supported the program, and was furnished reports of its\nprogress, without so much as taking one step to determine the\ncircumstances under which the research had been or was being carried on,\nto lay down rules for the conduct of present or future research by his\nsubordinates, or to prescribe the conditions under which the\nconcentration camp inmates could be used as experimental subjects.\n\nAs was the case with reference to the freezing experiments at Dachau,\nnon-German nationals were used as experimental subjects, none gave their\nconsent, and many suffered injury and death as a result of the\nexperiments.\n\nGAS EXPERIMENTS\n\nExperiments with various types of poison gas were performed by Luftwaffe\nOfficer Haagen and a Professor Dr. Hirt in the Natzweiler concentration\ncamp. They began in November 1942 and were conducted through the summer\nof 1944. During this period a great many concentration camp inmates of\nRussian, Polish, and Czech nationality were experimented on with gas, at\nleast 50 of whom died. A certain Oberarzt Wimmer, a staff physician of\nthe Luftwaffe worked with Hirt on the gas experiments throughout the\nperiod.\n\nWe discussed the duty which rests upon a commanding officer to take\nappropriate measures to control his subordinates, in dealing with the\ncase of Handloser. We shall not repeat what we said there. Had Schroeder\nadopted the measures which the law of war imposes upon one in position\nof command to prevent the actions of his subordinates amounting to\nviolations of the law of war, the deaths of the non-German nationals\ninvolved in the gas experiments might well have been prevented.\n\nSEA-WATER EXPERIMENTS\n\nSea-Water experiments were conducted on inmates of Dachau concentration\ncamp during the late spring and summer of 1944. The defendant Schroeder\nopenly admits that these experiments were conducted by his authority.\nWhen on the witness stand he related the circumstances under which these\nexperiments were initiated and carried through to completion.\n\nAs related by Schroeder the experiment on making sea water drinkable was\na problem of great importance. Two methods were available in Germany,\neach of which to some extent had been previously tried, both on animal\nand on human subjects. These were known as the Schaefer and the Berkatit\nprocesses. Use of the Schaefer method on sea water produced a\nsatisfactory liquid essentially the same in its effects and potable\nqualities as ordinary pure drinking water. The Schaefer process,\nhowever, called for quantities of silver, which were thought to be\nunavailable. Use of the Berka process, however, resulted merely in\nchanging the taste of sea water, thus making it more palatable, without\nat the same time doing away with danger to health and life which always\nresults from consuming considerable quantities of untreated sea water.\nMaterials were available for the Berka process, but Schroeder did not\nfeel that it could be adopted until more was known of the method. At\nSchroeder\u2019s direction, the defendant Becker-Freyseng arranged for a\nconference to be held at the German Air Ministry in May 1944 to discuss\nthe problem. Present at the conference, among others, were Berka and the\ndefendants Becker-Freyseng and Schaefer.\n\nThere is no doubt that the conference was well informed, and discussed\nall current data upon the subject. Such fact appears from the minutes of\nthe meeting, in which it is stated:\n\n \u201c* * * Captain (med.) Dr. Becker-Freyseng reported on the\n clinical experiments conducted by Colonel (med.) Dr. von Sirany,\n and came to the final conclusion that he did not consider them\n as being unobjectionable and conclusive enough for a final\n decision. The Chief of the Medical Service is convinced that, if\n the Berka method is used, damage to health has to be expected\n not later than 6 days after taking Berkatit, which damage will\n result in permanent injuries to health and\u2014according to the\n opinion of N.C.O. (med.) Dr. Schaefer\u2014will finally result in\n death after not later than 12 days. External symptoms are to be\n expected such as dehydration, diarrhea, convulsions,\n hallucinations, and finally death.\u201d\n\nIt was concluded at this meeting that it would be necessary to perform\nfurther sea-water experiments upon human beings in order to determine\ndefinitely whether or not the Berkatit method of treating sea water\ncould be safely employed and used in connection with the German war\neffort. These experiments were planned to be carried on in group series,\neach of which would require six days, and would be made upon human\nbeings in this order: one group would be supplied only with\nBerkatit-treated sea water; a second group would receive only ordinary\ndrinking water; a third group would receive no water of any kind; the\nfourth group was to be given such water as was generally provided in\nemergency sea-distress kits, then used by German military personnel.\n\nIn addition to the first experiment it was agreed that a second\nexperiment should be conducted. The notes of the meeting which deal with\nthe second experimental series read as follows:\n\n \u201cPersons nourished with sea water and Berkatit, and as diet also\n the emergency sea rations.\n\n \u201cDuration of experiments\u201412 days.\n\n \u201cSince in the opinion of the Chief of the Medical Service,\n permanent injuries to health, that is, the death of the\n experimental subjects, has to be expected, as experimental\n subjects such persons should be used as will be put at the\n disposal by the Reichsfuehrer SS.\u201d\n\nOn 7 June 1944 Schroeder wrote to Himmler through Grawitz asking for\nconcentration camp inmates to be used as subjects in the sea-water\nexperiments, which letter reads in part as follows:\n\n \u201cHighly Respected Reich Minister:\n\n \u201cEarlier already you made it possible for the Luftwaffe to\n settle urgent medical matters through experiments on human\n beings. Today again, I stand before a decision which, after\n numerous experiments on animals as well as human experiments on\n voluntary experimental subjects, demands a final solution. The\n Luftwaffe has simultaneously developed two methods for making\n sea water potable. The one method, developed by a medical\n officer, removes the salt from the sea water and transforms it\n into real drinking water; the second method, suggested by an\n engineer, leaves the salt content unchanged, and only removes\n the unpleasant taste from the sea water. The latter method in\n contrast to the first, requires no critical raw material. From\n the medical point of view this method must be viewed critically,\n as the administration of concentrated salt solutions can produce\n severe symptoms of poisoning.\n\n \u201cAs the experiments on human beings could thus far only be\n carried out for a period of four days, and as practical demands\n require a remedy for those who are in distress at sea up to 12\n days, appropriate experiments are necessary.\n\n \u201cRequired are 40 healthy test subjects, who must be available\n for 4 whole weeks. As it is known from previous experiments that\n necessary laboratories exist in the concentration camp Dachau,\n this camp would be very suitable * * *\u201d\n\nVarious other parties took part in correspondence upon this application,\none of the writers suggesting that Jews or persons held in quarantine be\nused as experimental subjects. Another correspondent nominated asocial\ngypsy half-breeds as candidates for the treatment. Herr Himmler decided\nthat gypsies, plus three others for control purposes, should be\nutilized.\n\nIn fairness to the defendant it should be stated that he contests the\ntranslation of the second sentence in the first paragraph of the letter\nwritten by him to Himmler, which the prosecution interprets as meaning\nthat experiments could no longer be conducted on voluntary subjects, and\nthat the words \u201cdemands a final solution\u201d meant that involuntary\nsubjects in concentration camps should be employed. Regardless of\nwhether or not the letter quoted by us is a correct translation of the\nGerman original, the evidence shows that within a month after the letter\nwas sent to Himmler through Grawitz, sea-water experiments were\ncommenced at Dachau by the defendant Beiglboeck.\n\nThe method by which the experimental subjects were chosen is not known\nto the defendant Schroeder. As he explained from the witness stand with\nreference to his letter and the subsequent procedure, \u201cI sent it away\nonly after I had consulted [about] the possibility of the experiment\nwith Grawitz, and after I had informed him how the whole thing was\nthought [of] by us, so that he could pass on this information to Himmler\nin case it became necessary. Then this letter was sent off, and after\npossibly four weeks when Beiglboeck had arrived at Dachau\u2014in the\nmeantime, he was given an opportunity to carry out this work. Whatever\nlay in between that, how in the administrative way this was organized,\nwe never learned * * * it was an inter-office affair * * *. We only saw\nthe initial point and the end point of this route.\u201d\n\nThus began another experiment conducted under the auspices of the\ndefendant Schroeder, wherein the initiator of the experiment failed to\nexercise the personal duty of determining that only consenting human\nsubjects would be used, but left that responsibility to others. Again is\ndemonstrated the case of an officer in a position of superior command\nwho authorizes the performance of experiments by his subordinates while\nfailing to take efforts to prescribe the conditions which will insure\nthe conduct of the experiments within legally permissible limits.\n\nThe evidence shows conclusively that gypsies of various nationalities\nwere used as experimental subjects. Former inmates of Auschwitz\nconcentration camp were tricked into coming to Dachau with the promise\nthat they were to be used as members of a labor battalion. When they\narrived at Dachau they were assigned to the sea-water experimental\nstation without their consent. During the course of the experiment many\nof them suffered intense physical and mental anguish.\n\nThe Tribunal finds that the defendant Schroeder was responsible for,\naided and abetted, and took a consenting part in, medical experiments\nperformed on non-German nationals against their consent; in the course\nof which experiments deaths, brutalities, cruelties, tortures, and other\ninhuman acts were committed on the experimental subjects. To the extent\nthat these experiments did not constitute war crimes they constitute\ncrimes against humanity.\n\nCONCLUSION\n\nMilitary Tribunal I finds and adjudges the defendant Oskar Schroeder\nguilty under counts two and three of the indictment.\n\n\n GENZKEN\n\nThe defendant Genzken is charged under counts two and three of the\nindictment with special responsibility for, and participation in,\nSulfanilamide, Spotted Fever, Poison, and Incendiary Bomb Experiments.\nThe prosecution has abandoned the two latter charges and hence they will\nnot be considered further. The defendant is also charged under count\nfour of the indictment with membership, after 1 September 1939, in an\norganization declared criminal by the judgment of the International\nMilitary Tribunal\u2014namely, the SS.\n\nGenzken was commissioned in the Medical Service of the German Navy in\n1912 and served through the First World War in that capacity. From 1919\nto 1934, he engaged in the private practice of medicine. He joined the\nNSDAP in 1926, and in October 1934 he was again commissioned as a\nreserve officer of the naval medical department. On 1 March 1936 he was\ntransferred to the medical department of the SS, with the rank of major,\nand assigned to the medical department of a branch of the SS, which in\nthe summer of 1940 became the Waffen SS. He served as chief surgeon of\nthe SS hospital in Berlin, and was director of the department charged\nwith supplying medical equipment and with the supervision of medical\npersonnel in concentration camps. He was also medical supervisor to\nEicke, the head of all the concentration camps, which were within\nGenzken\u2019s jurisdiction insofar as medical matters were concerned. In May\n1940, Genzken was appointed Chief of the Medical Office of the Waffen SS\nwith the rank of senior colonel, Grawitz being his medical superior. He\nretained this position until the close of the war. In 1942 he was\ndesignated as Chief of the Medical Service of the Waffen SS, Division D\nof the SS Operational Headquarters. On 30 January 1943 he was appointed\nGruppenfuehrer and Generalleutnant in the Waffen SS.\n\nSULFANILAMIDE EXPERIMENTS\n\nThe sulfanilamide experiments referred to in the indictment were\nconducted by the defendants Gebhardt, Fischer, and Oberheuser at\nRavensbrueck concentration camp between 20 July 1942 and August 1943.\nDuring this period of time, four of the medical branches of the Waffen\nSS were under Genzken, including Office XVI, Hygiene, of which the\ndefendant Mrugowsky was chief.\n\nIt is submitted by the prosecution that the evidence proves Mrugowsky to\nhave given support and assistance to these experiments, and that,\nconsequently, Genzken becomes criminally liable because of the position\nof command he held over Mrugowsky. It is also urged that because Genzken\nattended the meeting in Berlin at which Gebhardt and Fischer gave their\nlecture on the experiments, this likewise shows criminal connection.\n\nThat Mrugowsky rendered assistance to Gebhardt in the sulfanilamide\nexperiments at Ravensbrueck is clearly proved. Mrugowsky put his\nlaboratory and co-workers at Gebhardt\u2019s disposal. He furnished the\nbacterial cultures for the infections. He conferred with Gebhardt about\nthe medical problems involved. It was on the suggestion of Mrugowsky\u2019s\noffice that wood shavings and ground glass were placed in artificially\ninflicted wounds made on the subjects so that battlefield wounds would\nbe more closely simulated. It also appears that Blumenreuter, who was\nthe chief of Office XV under Genzken\u2019s direction, may have furthered the\nexperiments by furnishing surgical instruments and medicines to\nGebhardt.\n\nThe Tribunal finds that Genzken was not present at the Berlin meeting.\n\nAlthough Mrugowsky and Blumenreuter may have aided Gebhardt in his\nexperiments, the prosecution has failed to show that it was done with\nGenzken\u2019s direction or knowledge.\n\nThe prosecution, therefore, has failed to sustain the burden with regard\nto this particular specification.\n\nTYPHUS EXPERIMENTS\n\nThe series of experiments which are the subject of this specification\nwere conducted at Buchenwald concentration camp and began in January\n1942. SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Ding, who was attached to the Hygiene\nInstitute of the Waffen SS, was in charge of these experiments\u2014with the\ndefendant Hoven serving as his deputy.\n\nUntil 1 September 1943 both Mrugowsky, the Chief of the Hygiene\nInstitute, and Ding, were subordinate to Genzken. Until the date last\nmentioned the chain of military command in the field of hygiene and\nresearch was as follows: Himmler-Grawitz-Genzken-Mrugowsky-Ding.\n\nPrior to 1939 Ding had been camp physician at Buchenwald, and as such\nwas subordinate to Genzken. During the early months of the war Genzken\nserved as an army surgeon in the field, Ding being his adjutant. During\nthe fall of 1941 Ding returned to Buchenwald and Genzken to his office\nat Berlin. During their service in the field Genzken and Ding had become\nwarm personal friends. Ding was attached to the Hygiene Institute of the\nWaffen SS and was engaged in typhus research for the Institute. Genzken\ntestified that Mrugowsky and the Hygiene Institute were in his chain of\ncommand prior to 31 August 1943. He further testified that after the\ndate last mentioned his office had nothing to do with Ding save to\nprovide money for Ding\u2019s expenses, there being no other budget from\nwhich money was available. Mrugowsky testified that Genzken was his\nsuperior officer until 1 September 1943, and knew that the Hygiene\nInstitute was working on the problem of providing an efficient vaccine\nagainst typhus. It is admitted that Ding was carrying out medical\nexperiments on concentration camp inmates in order to determine the\neffect of various typhus vaccines.\n\nIt is not contended that such experiments were not carried out. In the\ncourse of these experiments two buildings or \u201cblocks\u201d were used. The\nexperiments were conducted in Block 46, and when satisfactory vaccine\nwas decided upon, Block 50 was used for the preparation of vaccines.\n\nDuring the course of the experiments with vaccines in March 1942, Ding\nhimself contracted typhus. Genzken testified that he was aware of the\nfact that concentration camp inmates were subjected to experiments, but\nstated that he was not advised as to the method of experimentation.\n\nIt is clear that the experiments necessary to decide upon a satisfactory\nvaccine preceded by a considerable period the production of the vaccine.\nGenzken testified that vaccine production began in December 1943, that\nthe production establishment only moved into Block 50 in the middle of\nAugust, and that when production actually began \u201cthis establishment had\nalready come under the agency of Grawitz and it was not subordinated any\nmore\u201d to him.\n\nUnder date of 9 January 1943 the Ding diary contains a lengthy entry\nstating that by Genzken\u2019s order the typhus research station became the\n\u201cDepartment of Typhus and Virus Research,\u201d that Dr. Ding would be head\nof this department, and that during his absence defendant Hoven would\nact in his place. The entry further stated that Ding was appointed chief\ndepartment head for special missions in hygiene, etc. The Ding diary is\ndiscussed elsewhere in this judgment. Considering the demonstrated\ndesire of Ding for his personal aggrandizement, this entry is not\nentitled to entire credit, as written. It refers to Genzken as \u201cMajor\nGeneral\u201d\u2014which rank he did not receive until a few weeks after 9\nJanuary 1943. The entry, however, has some probative value upon the\nquestion of Ding\u2019s status during the year 1943.\n\nGenzken testified that he \u201capproved\u201d the establishment of Ding\u2019s\ndepartment for vaccine research. He also testified that his department\nfurnished necessary funds from its budget for Ding\u2019s investigations.\n\nFrom the evidence it appears that prior to 1 September 1943, Mrugowsky\nreported regularly to Genzken, on an average of once per week, either\norally or in writing.\n\nUnder date 5 May 1942, Mrugowsky signed a written report upon the\nsubject, \u201cTesting Typhus Vaccines.\u201d This report went to six different\noffices: the first copy, to Conti; the second copy, to Grawitz; and the\nthird copy, to Genzken. The report commences: \u201cThe tests of four typhus\nvaccines made by us on human subjects at the instigation of the Reich\nHealth Leader Dr. Conti had the following results * * *\u201d. It is stated\nthat the mortality of victims of typhus during an epidemic \u201cwas around\n30 percent\u201d and that \u201cduring the same epidemic four groups of\nexperimental subjects were vaccinated with one each\u201d of the four types\nof vaccine described in the beginning of the report.\n\n\u201cThe experimental subjects were mostly in their twenties and thirties.\nCare was taken when selecting them that they did not come from typhus\ndistricts and also to ensure an interval of four to six weeks between\nthe protective vaccination and the outbreak of the clinical symptoms of\nthe disease. According to experience this period is imperative to\nachieve immunity.\u201d\n\nThe effects of the four vaccines tested were described as follows. The\nreport on the Weigl vaccine states that \u201cnobody died\u201d. The report on the\nGildemeister and Haagen vaccine also states that no deaths occurred. The\nreport on the Behring-Normal vaccine states that one person died. The\nexperiment with the Behring-Strong vaccine reports one death.\n\nThe last paragraph of the report states: \u201cIn the last two groups the\nsymptoms were considerably stronger than in the first groups * * *. No\ndifference between the two vaccines of the Behring Works was observed.\nThe attending physicians stated that the general picture of the disease\nin group four was rather more severe compared with that of the patients\nof group three.\u201d\n\nIn a summation, Mrugowsky recommended the use of a vaccine \u201cproduced\naccording to the chicken egg process, which, in its immunization effect,\nis equal to the vaccine after Weigl.\u201d\n\n\u201cThe effectiveness of protection depends on the method used in making\nthe vaccine.\u201d\n\nOf course, experiments with vaccines, conducted because of the urgent\nneed for the discovery of a protective vaccine, would lead to scant\nresults unless the subjects vaccinated were subsequently in some manner\neffectively exposed to typhus, thereby demonstrating the effectiveness\nor noneffectiveness of the vaccination. While Mrugowsky\u2019s report, above\nreferred to, makes no reference to an artificial infection, it does\nstate without further explanation that two deaths occurred, and in the\nlast paragraph, quoted above, compares the severity of \u201cthe diseased\u201d\nbetween groups three and four.\n\nOn cross-examination Mrugowsky testified that Dr. Ding was to lecture at\na meeting of consulting surgeons in the spring of 1943, and that the\nwitness informed Genzken concerning \u201cthe intended amount of vaccines to\nbe produced by the SS.\u201d Mrugowsky testified that he gave Genzken this\ninformation for three reasons: first, that Genzken had to be advised of\nthe fact that Ding, as a member of the Waffen SS, was to give a lecture\nto the surgeons; second, that Genzken should be informed concerning \u201cthe\neffectiveness of a number of vaccines to be used for troops\u201d; third,\nthat Genzken should know when he could expect the first production of\nvaccines for the SS and the amounts he could count on for each month.\nMrugowsky further testified:\n\n \u201cThe conference with Dr. Genzken was extremely brief. As far as\n I remember we were standing close to his desk. I told him that\n the various vaccines which I mentioned to him had a different\n effect; I told him that the effect varied as to the length of\n the temperature and a reduction of fatalities; and I told him\n that after having vaccinated the entire SS we could count on\n some protective effect for all soldiers. On that occasion I\n showed him a few charts which Ding had handed over to me at that\n time, the same charts which Ding reproduced in his paper, and I\n used these charts in order to explain the effectiveness of the\n vaccines to him.\u201d\n\n Q. \u201cThe mortality figures and the temperature figures could be\n derived from these charts, couldn\u2019t they?\u201d\n\n A. \u201cYes. If I remember correctly, on the heading of these charts\n the information was given what the day of the infection was.\n This entire conference was very brief and it is quite possible\n that Dr. Genzken\u2014who was only concerned with the most important\n points which he had to know\u2014it is quite possible that he\n overlooked that. I had no cause to point it out to him in\n particular since I was not reporting to him about Ding\u2019s series\n of experiments but was only reporting to him about the\n protective value of various vaccines which he, as medical chief,\n had to know. These were two completely different points of\n view.\u201d\n\nThe Tribunal is convinced that prior to 1 September 1943, Genzken knew\nthe nature and scope of the activities of his subordinates, Mrugowsky\nand Ding, in the field of typhus research; yet he did nothing to insure\nthat such research would be conducted within permissible legal limits.\nHe knew that concentration camp inmates were being subjected to cruel\nmedical experiments in the course of which deaths were occurring; yet he\ntook no steps to ascertain the status of the subjects or the\ncircumstances under which they were being sent to the experimental\nblock. Had he made the slightest inquiry he would have discovered that\nmany of the human subjects used were non-German nationals who had not\ngiven their consent to the experiments.\n\nAs the Tribunal has already pointed out in this judgment, \u201cthe duty and\nresponsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon\neach individual who initiates, directs, or engages in the experiment. It\nis a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to\nanother with impunity.\u201d\n\nWe find that Genzken, in his official capacity, was responsible for,\naided and abetted the typhus experiments, performed on non-German\nnationals against their consent, in the course of which deaths occurred\nas a result of the treatment received. To the extent that these\nexperiments did not constitute war crimes they constituted crimes\nagainst humanity.\n\nMEMBERSHIP IN CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION\n\nUnder count four of the indictment Genzken is charged with being a\nmember of an organization declared criminal by the judgment of the\nInternational Military Tribunal, namely, the SS. The evidence shows that\nGenzken became a member of the SS on 1 March 1936 and voluntarily\nremained in that organization until the end of the war. As a\nhigh-ranking member of the Medical Service of the Waffen SS he was\ncriminally implicated in the commission of war crimes and crimes against\nhumanity, as charged under counts two and three of the indictment.\n\nCONCLUSION\n\nMilitary Tribunal I finds and adjudges the defendant Karl Genzken\nguilty, under counts two, three, and four of the indictment.\n\n\n GEBHARDT\n\nThe defendant Gebhardt is charged under counts two and three of the\nindictment with special responsibility for, and participation in,\nHigh-Altitude, Freezing, Malaria, Lost Gas, Sulfanilamide, Bone, Muscle\nand Nerve Regeneration and Bone Transplantation, Sea-Water, Epidemic\nJaundice, Sterilization, Typhus, Poison, and Incendiary Bomb\nExperiments.\n\nThe defendant Gebhardt held positions of great power and responsibility\nin the Medical Service of the SS in Nazi Germany. He joined the NSDAP in\n1933 and the SS at least as early as 1935. He took part in the Nazi\nPutsch of 1923, which aimed at the overthrow of the so-called Weimar\nRepublic, the democratic government of Germany, being then a member of\nthe illegal Free Corps, \u201cBund Oberland.\u201d When, in 1933, the hospital at\nHohenlychen was founded, Gebhardt was appointed chief physician of this\ninstitution. In 1938 he became the attending physician to Himmler. He\nwas also personal physician to Himmler and his family. In 1940 Gebhardt\nwas appointed consulting surgeon of the Waffen SS and, in 1943, chief\nclinical officer (Oberster Kliniker) of the Reich Physician SS and\nPolice, Grawitz. In the Allgemeine SS Gebhardt attained the rank of a\nGruppenfuehrer (major general), and in the Waffen SS the rank of major\ngeneral in the reserve.\n\nSULFANILAMIDE EXPERIMENTS\n\nThe purpose for which these experiments were undertaken is defined in\ncounts two and three of the indictment.\n\nIn the Ravensbrueck concentration camp during a period from 20 July 1942\nuntil August 1943, the defendant Gebhardt, aided by defendants Fischer\nand Oberheuser, performed such experiments upon human subjects without\ntheir consent. Gebhardt personally requested Heinrich Himmler\u2019s\npermission to carry out these experiments, and attempts to assume full\nresponsibility for them and for any consequences resulting therefrom. He\nhimself personally carried out the initial operations.\n\nWhile it is not deemed strictly necessary in this judgment to describe\nin any detail the procedure followed in performing these experiments, a\nbrief statement will now be made thereon. The first experimental\nsubjects consisted of 15 male concentration camp inmates used during\npreliminary experiments in July 1942, but later 60 Polish women, who\nwere experimented on in 5 groups of 12 subjects each.\n\nIn the first series of experiments the healthy subjects were infected\nwith various bacteria, but resulting infections were not thereafter\nconsidered sufficiently serious to furnish an answer to the problem\nsought to be solved and further experiments were then undertaken.\n\nDr. Gebhardt has admitted that in the second series of experiments three\nof the subjects died as a result of the treatment received. All of these\nsubjects were persons who had been selected by the concentration camp\nauthorities and who were not consulted as to their consent or\nwillingness to participate. Notwithstanding this, however, the\nexperimental subjects protested against experiments both orally and in\nwriting, stating that they would have preferred death to continued\nexperiments, since they were convinced that they would die in any event.\n\nAn examination of the evidence presented to this Tribunal in connection\nwith sulfanilamide experiments performed upon unwilling and\nnonconsenting concentration camp inmates indicates conclusively, that\nparticipating human subjects were used under duress and coercion in\nexperiments performed upon their bodies; that persons acting as subjects\nincurred and suffered physical torture and the risk of death; that in\nthe experiments here discussed at least five deaths of subjects were\ncaused therefrom.\n\nIt is claimed by Dr. Gebhardt that all of the non-German experimental\nsubjects were selected from inmates of concentration camps, former\nmembers of the Polish Resistance Movement, who had previously been\ncondemned to death and were in any event marked for legal execution.\nThis is not recognized as a valid defense to the charge of the\nindictment.\n\nThe Polish women who were used in the experiments had not given their\nconsent to become experimental subjects. That fact was known to\nGebhardt. The evidence conclusively shows that they had been confined at\nRavensbrueck without so much as a semblance of trial. That fact could\nhave been known to Gebhardt had he made the slightest inquiry of them\nconcerning their status. Moreover, assuming for the moment that they had\nbeen condemned to death for acts considered hostile to the German forces\nin the occupied territory of Poland, these persons still were entitled\nto the protection of the laws of civilized nations. While under certain\nspecific conditions the rules of land warfare may recognize the validity\nof an execution of spies, war rebels, or other resistance workers, it\ndoes not under any circumstances countenance the infliction of death or\nother punishment by maiming or torture.\n\nBONE, MUSCLE AND NERVE REGENERATION AND BONE\nTRANSPLANTATION EXPERIMENTS\n\nThese experiments were carried out in Ravensbrueck concentration camp\nduring the same time, and on the same group of Polish women used in the\nsulfanilamide experiments. Upon these Polish inmates three kinds of bone\noperations were performed\u2014artificially induced fractures, bone\ntransplantations, bone splints\u2014the conditions of the operations being\nspecially created in each particular case. Some girls were required to\nsubmit to operations several times. In one instance small pieces of\nfibula were taken out; in another instance the periosteum of the leg was\nremoved. Cases occurred where subjects were experimented on by\ndeliberately fracturing their limbs in several places and testing the\neffect of certain treatments. In at least one case bone incisions were\nperformed on a subject six different times. In another case the shoulder\nblade of a subject was removed.\n\nFurther recital of these activities is as unnecessary as were the\noperations themselves. The testimony heard and exhibits filed and\nexamined by the Tribunal conclusively sustain the allegations of the\nindictment with reference to the experiments mentioned therein.\n\nSEPSIS (PHLEGMON) EXPERIMENTS\n\nA witness whose testimony must be accepted as credible testified\nconcerning these experiments in which concentration camp inmates were\nused without their consent and were thereafter infected with pus. He\ntestified as to at least two series of experiments which resulted\nfatally for 12 of the subjects.\n\nThe prosecution claims, and it is likely that these biochemical\nexperiments which were performed in the Dachau concentration camp were\ncomplementary to and formed parts of the sulfanilamide experiments in\nRavensbrueck. The evidence, however, is not sufficient to establish the\ncriminal connection of Gebhardt with these experiments.\n\nSEA-WATER EXPERIMENTS\n\nDr. Gebhardt\u2019s position, which has been mentioned in this judgment as\nthat of an official and personal associate of Heinrich Himmler\u2014part of\nwhose duties concerned concentration camp medical experiments, was\npartially defined by an order issued by Himmler 15 May 1944 directing\nthat an opinion from Gebhardt would be required before any experiments\nthereafter could be carried out on such human subjects. This order\nstated that all medical experiments to be carried out at the\nconcentration camps had to have Himmler\u2019s personal approval. It appears,\nhowever, that while the application for permission to carry out\nexperiments involving human subjects was required to be obtained from\nHimmler\u2014yet before such application could be examined, a critical\nopinion of the chief clinical officer of the SS, Dr. Gebhardt,\nconcerning its technical aspects was required to accompany it. Complying\nwith this order Gebhardt, in reference to sea-water experiments, wrote\u2014\n\n \u201cI deem it absolutely right to support the Luftwaffe in every\n way and to place a general physician of the Waffen SS at\n disposal to supervise the experiments.\u201d\n\nThis alone is deemed to be sufficient to show that Dr. Gebhardt knew\nabout, and approved, the performance of the sea-water experiments as\ncharged in the indictment.\n\nSTERILIZATION EXPERIMENTS\n\nDetails of the sterilization experiments will be dealt with elsewhere in\nthis judgment; and it is unnecessary to repeat them here, except to the\nextent necessary to inquire the part, if any, taken by Gebhardt therein.\n\nOn 7 and 8 July 1942 a conference took place between Himmler, Gebhardt,\nSS Brigadefuehrer Gluecks, and SS Brigadefuehrer Clauberg, to discuss\nthe sterilization of Jewesses. Dr. Clauberg was promised that the\nAuschwitz concentration camp would be placed at his disposal for\nexperiments on human beings and animals, and he was requested to\ndiscover by means of fundamental experiments a method of sterilizing\npersons without their knowledge. During the course of the conference,\nHimmler called the special attention of all present \u201cto the fact that\nthe matter involved was most secret and should be discussed only with\nthe officers in charge and that the persons present at the experiments\nor discussions had to pledge secrecy.\u201d\n\nFrom this evidence it is apparent that Gebhardt was present at the\ninitial meeting which launched at least one phase of the sterilization\nprogram in the concentration camps, and thus had knowledge and gave at\nleast passive approval to the program.\n\nHIGH-ALTITUDE, FREEZING, MALARIA, LOST GAS, EPIDEMIC\nJAUNDICE, TYPHUS, POISON, AND INCENDIARY BOMB EXPERIMENTS\n\nDetails as to the origin of and procedure followed in these experiments\nare discussed elsewhere in this judgment, and will not be repeated. Our\nonly concern is to determine to what extent, if any, the defendant\nGebhardt took part in the experiments.\n\nIn these enterprises the defendant seems not to have taken any active\npart, as he did in the sulfanilamide experiments and in other programs.\nIt may be argued that his close connection with Heinrich Himmler creates\na presumption that these experiments were conducted with Gebhardt\u2019s\nknowledge and approval. Be that as it may, no sufficient evidence to\nthat effect has been presented, and a mere presumption is not enough in\nthis case to convict the defendant.\n\nAttention has been given to the brief filed by counsel for the defendant\nGebhardt. For the most part it is unnecessary to discuss the theories\npresented in this brief, for the reason that the main reliance of the\ndefense seems to be that in his connection with the experiments charged\nin the indictment, Dr. Gebhardt acted as a soldier in the execution of\norders from an authorized superior. We cannot see the applicability of\nthe doctrine of superior orders as a defense to the charges contained in\nthe indictment. Such doctrine has never been held applicable to a case\nwhere the one to whom the order is given has free latitude of decision\nwhether to accept the order or reject it. Such was the situation with\nreference to Gebhardt. The record makes it manifestly plain that he was\nnot ordered to perform the experiments, but that he sought the\nopportunity to do so. Particularly is this true with reference to the\nsulfanilamide experiments: Gebhardt, in effect, took them away from\nGrawitz to demonstrate that certain surgical procedures advocated by him\nat the bedside of the mortally wounded Heydrich at Prague in May of 1942\nwere scientifically and surgically superior to the methods of treatment\nproposed by Dr. Morell, Hitler\u2019s personal physician. The doctrine,\ntherefore, is not applicable. But even if it were, the fact of such\norders could merely be considered, under Control Council Law No. 10, as\npalliating punishment.\n\nAnother argument presented in briefs of counsel attempts to ground\nitself upon the debatable proposition that in the broad interest of\nalleviating human suffering, a state may legally provide for medical\nexperiments to be carried out on prisoners condemned to death without\ntheir consent, even though such experiments may involve great suffering\nor death for the experimental subject. Whatever may be the right of a\nstate with reference to its own citizens, it is certain that such\nlegislation may not be extended so as to permit the practice upon\nnationals of other countries who, held in the most abject servitude, are\nsubjected to experiments without their consent and under the most brutal\nand senseless conditions.\n\nWe find that Gebhardt, in his official capacity, was responsible for,\naided and abetted, and took a consenting part in medical experiments\nperformed on non-German nationals against their consent; in the course\nof which deaths, maiming, and other inhuman treatment resulted to the\nexperimental subjects. To the extent that these experiments did not\nconstitute war crimes they constituted crimes against humanity.\n\nMEMBERSHIP IN CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION\n\nUnder count four of the indictment Gebhardt is charged with being a\nmember of an organization declared criminal by the judgment of the\nInternational Military Tribunal, namely the SS. The evidence shows that\nGebhardt became a member of the SS at least as early as 1933 and\nvoluntarily remained in that organization until the end of the war. As\none of the most influential members of the Medical Service of the Waffen\nSS he was criminally implicated in the commission of war crimes and\ncrimes against humanity as charged under counts two and three of the\nindictment.\n\nCONCLUSION\n\nMilitary Tribunal I finds and adjudges the defendant Karl Gebhardt\nguilty under counts two, three and four of the indictment.\n\n\n BLOME\n\nThe defendant Blome is charged under counts two and three of the\nindictment with personal responsibility for, and participation in\nMalaria, Lost Gas, and Sulfanilamide Experiments, the extermination of\ntubercular Poles, and the execution of the Euthanasia Program. Proof has\nalso been adduced for the purpose of showing that he participated in the\nfreezing bacteriological warfare, and blood coagulation experiments.\n\nThe charge with reference to sulfanilamide experiments has been\nabandoned by the prosecution and hence will not be considered further.\n\nThe defendant Blome studied medicine at Goettingen and received his\nmedical degree in 1920. From 1924 to 1934 he engaged in private\npractice. In the latter year he was summoned to Berlin where, in 1935,\nhe reorganized the German medical educational system. He also acted as\nadjutant in the central office of the German Red Cross and as business\nmanager of the German Physicians\u2019 Association, which position he held\nuntil the end of World War II. In 1938 he became President of the Bureau\nof the Academy for International Medical Education. From 1939 on Blome\nacted as deputy for Dr. Leonardo Conti who was leader of the German\nPhysicians\u2019 Association, Head of the Main Office for Public Health of\nthe Party, and Leader of the National Socialist Physicians\u2019 Association.\nIn 1941 he became a member of the Reich Research Council, and in 1943\nwas appointed Plenipotentiary for Cancer Research, connected with the\nresearch commission for protection against biological warfare.\n\nBlome joined the SA in 1931 and became the chief medical officer of the\nSA in the province of Mecklenburg. In 1934 he was appointed a province\noffice leader, and in the SA he attained a rank equivalent to that of\nmajor general. In 1943 he was awarded the highest decoration of the Nazi\nParty.\n\nAs Plenipotentiary for Cancer Research, it was his duty to determine\nwhich research problems should be studied and to assign such problems to\nscientists best fitted to investigate them.\n\nFREEZING EXPERIMENTS\n\nThe prosecution argues that Blome is criminally responsible for\nparticipation in the freezing experiments as charged in the indictment.\nIn the subparagraph which particularly refers to freezing, Blome is not\nnamed among the defendants charged with special responsibility for the\nexperiments. Moreover, the record does not contain evidence which shows\nbeyond a reasonable doubt that Blome bore any responsible part in the\nconduct of the freezing experiments.\n\nMALARIA EXPERIMENTS\n\nThe evidence is insufficient to disclose any criminal responsibility of\nthe defendant in connection with the malaria experiments.\n\nLOST GAS EXPERIMENTS\n\nThe evidence is insufficient to disclose any criminal responsibility of\nthe defendant in connection with these experiments.\n\nEXTERMINATION OF TUBERCULAR POLES\n\nThe basis for the prosecution\u2019s case against the defendant in this\nregard is to be found in a series of letters with reference to the\ntuberculosis menace in the Reichsgau Wartheland, which had been overrun\nby the German Reich and settled by its citizens.\n\nDuring the year 1941 the German Government began a program of\nextermination of the Jewish population of the eastern occupied\nterritories. On 1 May 1942 Greiser, the German Military Governor of\nReichsgau Wartheland, wrote Himmler advising him that \u201cas to the 100,000\nJews in the district, the \u2018special treatment\u2019 approved by Himmler was\nabout completed.\u201d The letter then continued:\n\n \u201c* * * I ask you for permission to rescue the district\n immediately, after the measures taken against the Jews, from a\n menace which is increasing week by week, and use the existing\n and efficient special commandos for that purpose.\n\n \u201cThere are about 230,000 people of Polish nationality in my\n district who were diagnosed to suffer from tuberculosis. The\n number * * * infected with open tuberculosis is estimated at\n about 35,000. This fact has led in an increasingly frightening\n measure to the infection of Germans who came to the Warthegau\n perfectly healthy * * *. A considerable number of well known\n leading men, especially of the police, have been infected lately\n and are not available for the war effort * * *. The ever\n increasing risks were also recognized and appreciated by the\n deputy of the Reich Leader for Public Health, Comrade Professor\n Dr. Blome * * *.\n\n \u201cThough in Germany proper it is not possible to take appropriate\n draconic steps against this public plague, I think I could take\n responsibility * * * to have cases of open tuberculosis\n exterminated among the Polish race here in the Warthegau. Of\n course, only a Pole should be handed over for such an action who\n is not only suffering from open tuberculosis, but whose\n incurability is proved and certified by a public health officer.\n\n \u201cConsidering the urgency of this project I ask for your approval\n in principle as soon as possible. This would enable us to make\n the preparations with all necessary precautions now to get the\n action against the Poles suffering from open tuberculosis under\n way, while the action against the Jews is in its closing stages.\n\n \u201cHeil Hitler!\n \u201cGREISER\u201d\n\nTwo days later Koppe, the police leader on Greiser\u2019s staff, wrote to\nRudolf Brandt restating Greiser\u2019s proposal and urging Brandt to call the\nmatter to Himmler\u2019s attention. Brandt promptly acknowledged the letter,\nadvising Koppe that the proposal had been referred to the Chief of the\nSecurity Police for opinion, but that the final decision would rest with\nHitler.\n\nOn 9 June 1942 the Chief of the Security Police rendered his opinion to\nHimmler: \u201cI have no scruples against having the protectorate members and\nstateless persons of the Polish race * * * who are afflicted with open\ntuberculosis, submitted to the special treatment in the sense of the\nproposal of Gau Leader Greiser. * * * The individual measures, though,\nwill first have to be discussed thoroughly with the Security Police, in\norder to carry out the execution with the least possible attraction of\nattention.\u201d The opinions thus rendered undoubtedly received the full\napproval of Himmler, for on 27 June 1942 Rudolf Brandt passed on to\nGreiser a letter from Himmler containing the following decision:\n\n \u201cDear Comrade Greiser:\n\n \u201cI have no objection to having protectorate people and stateless\n persons of Polish origin who live within the territory of the\n Warthegau and are infected with tuberculosis handed over for\n special treatment as you suggest; as long as their disease is\n incurable * * *. I would like to request, however, to discuss\n the individual measures in detail with the Security Police\n first, in order to assure inconspicuous accomplishment of the\n task * * *.\n\n [Signed] \u201cH. HIMMLER\u201d\n\nThe Himmler letter was acknowledged by Greiser on 21 November 1942,\nGreiser advising Himmler that in pursuance of the permission given him\nto apply \u201cspecial treatment\u201d to tubercular Poles he had made\narrangements for an X-ray examination of all people in the territory,\nbut that now that \u201cspecial treatment\u201d had been approved, Blome, Deputy\nChief of the Public Health Office of the NSDAP was raising objections to\nits execution. A copy of Blome\u2019s letter to Greiser was enclosed for\nHimmler\u2019s information.\n\nBlome\u2019s letter to Greiser is dated 18 November 1942. It opens by\nrecalling various conversations between the writer and Greiser\nconcerning the campaign against tuberculosis in the Warthegau, and then\nproceeds to consider the matter in detail; the letter proceeding:\n\n \u201cWith the settlement of Germans in all parts of the Gau, an\n enormous danger has arisen for them * * *. What goes for the\n Warthegau [* * *] also holds true for the other annexed\n territories * * *.\n\n \u201cTherefore, something basic must be done soon. One must decide\n the most efficient way in which this can be done. There are\n three ways to be taken into consideration:\n\n \u201c1. Special treatment of the seriously ill persons,\n\n \u201c2. Most rigorous isolation of the seriously ill\n persons,\n\n \u201c3. Creation of a reservation for all TB patients.\n\n \u201cFor the planning, attention must be paid to different points of\n view of a practical, political and psychological nature.\n Considering it most soberly, the simplest way would be the\n following: Aided by the X-ray battalion, we could reach the\n entire population, German and Polish, of the Gau during the\n first half of 1943. As to the Germans, the treatment and\n isolation is to be prepared and carried out according to the\n regulations of Tuberculosis Relief. The approximately 35,000\n Poles who are incurable and infectious will be \u2018specially\n treated\u2019. All other Polish consumptives will be subjected to an\n appropriate cure in order to save them for work and to avoid\n their causing contagion.\u201d\n\nBlome then proceeds, stating that he has made arrangements for\ncommencement of the \u201cradical procedure\u201d, but suggests that some\nassurance should be procured that Hitler would agree to the project. The\nletter then goes on to say\u2014\n\n \u201cI could imagine that the Fuehrer, having some time ago stopped\n the program in the insane asylums, might at this moment consider\n a \u2018special treatment\u2019 of the incurably sick as unsuitable and\n irresponsible from a political point of view. As regards the\n Euthanasia Program it was a question of people of German\n nationality afflicted with hereditary diseases. Now it is a\n question of infected sick people of a subjugated nation.\u201d\n\nBlome then voices the opinion that if the program is put into execution,\nit cannot be kept secret and will be made the basis for much adverse and\nharmful propaganda both at home and abroad. He suggests accordingly that\nbefore the program is commenced all points of view should again be\npresented to Hitler.\n\nContinuing, Blome writes that if Hitler should forbid the radical\nproposal suggested by Greiser, three other solutions were open (1)\nconsumptives and incurables could be isolated with their relatives; (2)\nall infectious consumptives might be strictly isolated in nursing\nestablishments; (3) the consumptives might be resettled in a particular\narea. If the latter plan were adopted, the sick could reach the assigned\nterritory on foot, and thus save the costs of transportation.\n\nBlome\u2019s letter finally concludes\u2014\n\n \u201cAfter a proper examination of all these considerations and\n circumstances, the creation of a reservation, such as the\n reservations for lepers, seems to be the most practicable\n solution. Such a reservation should be able to be created in the\n shortest time by means of the necessary settlement. Within the\n reservation one could easily set up conditions for the strict\n isolation of the strongly contagious.\n\n \u201cEven the case of the German consumptives represents an\n extremely difficult problem for the Gau. But this cannot be\n overcome, unless the problem of the Polish consumptives is\n solved at the same time.\u201d\n\nThe evidence shows that the letter from Greiser to Himmler, with Blome\u2019s\nsuggestions enclosed, was acknowledged by Himmler on 3 December 1942\nwith the following final decision:\n\n \u201cDear Party Comrade Greiser:\n\n \u201cI have received your letter of 21 November 1942. I, too,\n believe that it would be better to take into consideration the\n misgivings set forth by Party Member Dr. Blome. In my opinion it\n is impossible to proceed with the sick persons in the manner\n intended, especially since, as you have informed me, it will be\n possible to exploit the practical results of the tests only in\n six months.\n\n \u201cI suggest you look for a suitable area to which the incurable\n consumptives can be sent. Besides the incurables, other patients\n with less severe cases of tuberculosis could quite well be put\n into this territory, too. This action would also, of course,\n have to be exploited with the appropriate form of propaganda.\n\n \u201cBefore writing you this letter I again thoroughly thought over\n whether the original idea could not in some way be carried out.\n However, I am convinced now that it is better to proceed the\n other way.\u201d\n\nThe prosecution maintains that this series of letters which have been\nreferred to establishes the criminal participation of the defendant\nBlome in the extermination of tubercular Poles. We cannot follow the\nargument. It is probable that the proposal to isolate tubercular Poles,\nas suggested by Blome and approved by Himmler, was at least partially\ncarried out; although the record discloses but little with reference to\nwhat actually transpired. It may be that in the course of such a program\nPoles may have died as the result of being uprooted from their homes and\nsent to isolation stations; but the record contains no direct credible\nevidence upon the subject. Blome explained from the witness stand his\nletter to Greiser by saying that it was written in order to prevent the\nextermination program of tubercular Poles from being put into execution.\nCertainly, his letter indicates on its face that he opposed the \u201cspecial\ntreatment\u201d suggested by Greiser.\n\nWe cannot say, therefore, that the explanation offered is wholly without\nsubstance. It at least raises a reasonable doubt in our minds concerning\nthe matter. Blome knew Hitler and Himmler. He well knew that any\nobjections to \u201cspecial treatment\u201d based on moral or humanitarian grounds\nwould make but small impact upon the minds of men like these Nazi\nleaders. He knew, moreover, that before Greiser\u2019s proposal for\nextermination would be abandoned a plan which appeared to be better must\nbe suggested. If viewed from the standpoint of factual and psychological\nconsiderations, it cannot be held that the letter was not well-worded\nwhen considered as an attempt to put an end to the plan originally\nadopted, and to bring the substitution of another plan not so drastic.\nWhatever may have been its purpose, the record shows that, in this\nparticular, the letter did in fact divert Himmler from his original\nprogram and that as a result thereof the extermination plan was\nabandoned.\n\nEUTHANASIA PROGRAM\n\nBlome is charged with criminal responsibility in connection with the\nEuthanasia Program, but we are of opinion that the evidence is\ninsufficient to sustain the charge.\n\nBACTERIOLOGICAL WARFARE\n\nThe prosecution contends that the evidence in the case established\nBlome\u2019s guilt in connection with research concerning different forms of\nbacteriological warfare. Blome, who was plenipotentiary for cancer\nresearch in the Reich Research Council, admits that the problem of\ncancer research was allied with the research commission for protection\nagainst biological warfare. He admits further, that he was placed in\ncharge of an institute near Poznan in which the problems of biological\nwarfare were to be investigated, but states that the work being done at\nthe Poznan institute was interrupted in March 1945 by the advance of the\nRussian army.\n\nThis latter fact seems to be confirmed by the evidence. In this\nconnection Schreiber appeared as a witness before the International\nMilitary Tribunal. His testimony given there has been received in\nevidence before this Tribunal. From the testimony it appears that Blome\nvisited Schreiber at the Military Medical Academy, Berlin, during March\n1945 and stated to him that he, Blome, had abandoned his institute in\nPoznan due to the advance of the Russians, but before leaving had\nattempted to destroy his installations as he feared that the Russians\nmight discover that preparations had been made in the institute for\nexperiments on human beings.\n\nCounsel for the prosecution has brought to our judicial notice a finding\nby the International Military Tribunal in its judgment wherein it is\nfound that\u2014\n\n \u201cIn July 1943 experimental work was begun in preparation for a\n campaign of bacteriological warfare; Soviet prisoners of war\n were used in the medical experiments, which more often than not\n proved fatal.\u201d (_See \u201cTrial of the Major War Criminals\u201d, Vol. I,\n p. 231._)\n\nIt is submitted by the prosecution that this finding of the\nInternational Military Tribunal, when considered in connection with\nother evidence in the case, requires this Tribunal to find the defendant\nBlome guilty under the indictment.\n\nThe suggestion is not tenable. It may well be that defendant Blome was\npreparing to experiment upon human beings in connection with\nbacteriological warfare, but the record fails to disclose that fact, or\nthat he ever actually conducted experiments. The charge of the\nprosecution on this item is not sustained.\n\nPOLYGAL EXPERIMENTS\n\nThe prosecution has introduced evidence which suggests that Blome may be\ncriminally responsible for polygal experiments conducted by Rascher at\nDachau, in which Russian prisoners of war were used as experimental\nsubjects. In our view the evidence does no more than raise a strong\nsuspicion; it does not sustain the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.\n\nCONCLUSION\n\nMilitary Tribunal I finds and adjudges the defendant Kurt Blome not\nguilty as charged under the indictment and directs that he be released\nfrom custody under the indictment when this Tribunal presently adjourns.\n\n\n RUDOLF BRANDT\n\nUnder counts two and three of the indictment the defendant Rudolf Brandt\nis charged with special responsibility for, and participation in,\nHigh-Altitude, Freezing, Malaria, Lost Gas, Sulfanilamide, Bone, Muscle\nand Nerve Regeneration and Bone Transplantation, Sea-Water, Epidemic\nJaundice, Sterilization, and Typhus Experiments. He is also charged\nunder these counts with criminal responsibility for the murder of 112\nJews for the purpose of completing a Skeleton Collection for the Reich\nUniversity of Strasbourg, for the murder and ill-treatment of tubercular\nPoles, and for the Euthanasia Program carried out by the German Reich.\n\nUnder count four of the indictment he is charged with membership in an\norganization declared criminal by the judgment of the International\nMilitary Tribunal.\n\nThe prosecution has abandoned the charge of participation in the bone,\nmuscle and nerve regeneration and bone transplantation experiment;\nhence, it will not be considered further.\n\nThe defendant Rudolf Brandt joined the Nazi Party in 1932. He was\ncommissioned a second lieutenant in the SS in 1935. In approximately ten\nyears he rose to the rank of SS colonel. He is one of the three\ndefendants in the case who is not a physician.\n\nFrom the commencement of his career in the Nazi organization until his\ncapture by the Allied Forces in 1945 he was directly subordinate to and\nclosely associated with the leader of the SS, Heinrich Himmler, and he\nhad full knowledge of his chief\u2019s personal and official interests and\nactivities.\n\nTo Himmler, Rudolf Brandt was first of all an important and trusted\nclerical assistant. The record shows him to have been an unusually\nproficient stenographer. That is the road by which he finally arrived at\na position of considerable power and authority as personal Referent on\nHimmler\u2019s Personal Staff, Ministerial Counsellor in the Ministry of the\nInterior, and a member of the Ahnenerbe. Acting for Himmler during his\nabsences, Rudolf Brandt, in these positions, had a tremendous\nopportunity to and did exercise personal judgment and discretion in many\nserious and important matters.\n\nHIGH-ALTITUDE EXPERIMENTS\n\nThese experiments extended from March to August 1942. Their details are\ndealt with elsewhere in this judgment. A portion of the evidence in this\nspecification consists of correspondence between the defendant Rudolf\nBrandt and various others in the German military service who were\npersonally engaged in, or were closely connected with, the physical\ndetails of the experiments performed. The correspondence just previously\nmentioned was admitted in evidence, is well authenticated, and even\nstanding alone, without additional oral testimony\u2014of which there was\nalso plenty\u2014is deemed amply sufficient to disclose beyond reasonable\ndoubt that except for the sanction and diligent cooperation of the\ndefendant Rudolf Brandt, or someone occupying his position, the\nhigh-altitude experiments mentioned in the indictment could not have\nbeen conducted.\n\nTaken altogether, the evidence on this item discloses that during the\nperiod between March and August 1942, certain medical experiments were\nconducted at the Dachau concentration camp in Germany for the benefit of\nthe German Air Force, to determine the limits of human endurance and\nexistence at extremely high altitudes. Various human beings,\nunwillingly, and entirely without their consent, were required and\ncompelled to, and did participate in the aforesaid experiments as\nsubjects thereof. The said nonconsenting subjects were prisoners of war,\nGerman civilians and civilians from German occupied territory, whose\nexact citizenship, in many cases, could not be ascertained. Among the\nexperimental subjects there were numerous deaths, estimated by witnesses\nat 70 or 80, resulting directly from compulsory participation in the\nexperiments. Exact data on the total fatalities cannot be stated, but\nthere is convincing evidence that during the last day\u2019s operation of the\nhigh-altitude experiments, five participating and nonconsenting subjects\ndied as the result thereof. The greater number of the experimental\nsubjects suffered grave injury, torture and ill-treatment.\n\nFREEZING EXPERIMENTS\n\nIn this experiment, or series of experiments, Rudolf Brandt is\nestablished as an intermediary and necessary aid between Heinrich\nHimmler, who authorized the work to be done, and those who were\nappointed by him actually to perform the ruthless task. Evidence is\nconclusive that Rudolf Brandt at all times knew exactly what\nexperimental processes would be carried out. He knew that the procedure\nfollowed was to select from the inmates at Dachau such human subjects as\nwere considered most suitable for experimental purposes. He knew that no\nconsent was ever deemed necessary from the persons upon whom the\nexperiments were to be performed. He knew that among the experimental\nsubjects were non-German nationals, including civilians and prisoners of\nwar.\n\nThe exact number of deaths cannot be ascertained from the evidence, but\nthat fatalities occurred among the experimental subjects has been proved\nbeyond a reasonable doubt.\n\nLOST (MUSTARD) GAS EXPERIMENTS\n\nOn this specification, an affidavit of the defendant Rudolf Brandt which\nis confirmed by other evidence reads substantially as follows:\n\n \u201cTowards the end of the year 1939, experiments were conducted at\n the Sachsenhausen concentration camp on persons who were\n certainly not all volunteers, in order to ascertain the efficacy\n of the different treatment of wounds inflicted by Lost gas. Lost\n is a poisonous gas which produces injurious effects on the\n epidermis. I think it is generally known as mustard gas. * * *\n Therefore, experiments were conducted on inmates of\n concentration camps. As far as I understand, the experiments\n consisted of inflicting wounds upon various parts of the bodies\n of the experimental subjects and infecting them thereafter with\n Lost. Various methods of treatment were applied in order to\n determine the most effective one * * *.\n\n \u201cIn the second half of 1942, Hirt (Dr. August Hirt) together\n with * * * who served in the Luftwaffe, initiated experiments on\n inmates of the Natzweiler concentration camp. The inmates for\n these as well as other experiments were simply chosen by Pohl\u2019s\n office, the Economic and Administrative Main Office, WVHA. In\n order to be employed for such purposes, the experiments on human\n subjects with Lost gas had been carried on during the years 1943\n and 1944 in the Sachsenhausen concentration camp as well as in\n the Natzweiler concentration camp. The result was that some of\n the inmates died.\u201d\n\nIn the course of the gas experiments above referred to, testimony in the\nrecord discloses that a considerable amount of correspondence was\ncarried on by persons concerned (except the experimental subjects\nthemselves), and it appears that some, at least, of this was referred to\nRudolf Brandt for action, upon which he personally intervened\nsufficiently to associate himself actively with the conduct of the work\nbeing done. And so he must be regarded as criminally responsible.\n\nSTERILIZATION EXPERIMENTS\n\nRudolf Brandt is charged, as in the indictment set forth, with special\nresponsibility under the above heading. The means by which sterilization\nexperiments or processes were to be made or utilized included X-ray\ntreatment, surgery, and drugs.\n\nNo specific instances of any drug being actually used have been clearly\nshown by oral testimony, or exhibits herein submitted in evidence. In\nreference to the X-ray and surgery methods of sterilization, however,\nRudolf Brandt is shown by the evidence to have taken a moving part in\nthe preparation of plans, and in their execution, sufficient to justify\nthe Tribunal in finding his criminal connection therewith. An affidavit\nexecuted by the defendant Rudolf Brandt reads as follows:\n\n \u201cHimmler was extremely interested in the development of a cheap,\n rapid sterilization method which could be used against enemies\n of Germany, such as the Russians, Poles, and Jews. One hoped\n thereby not only to defeat the enemy, but to exterminate him.\n The capacity for work of the sterilized persons could be\n exploited by Germany, while the danger of propagation would be\n eliminated. This mass sterilization was part of Himmler\u2019s racial\n theory; particular time and care were devoted to these\n sterilization experiments.\u201d\n\nWe learn from the record that persons subjected to treatment were\n\u201cyoung, well-built inmates of concentration camps who were in the best\nof health, and these were Poles, Russians, French, and prisoners of\nwar.\u201d\n\nIt goes without saying that the work done in conformity with the plans\nof Himmler, substantially aided by the cooperation of Rudolf Brandt,\nbrought maiming and suffering to great numbers of people.\n\nTYPHUS EXPERIMENTS\n\nMedical experiments ostensibly conducted to benefit Germany in the\nprevention of typhus fever were carried on in the Natzweiler\nconcentration camp beginning with the year 1942. The details of these\nexperiments have been dealt with elsewhere in this judgment.\n\nIn the evidence it is proved that not less than 50 experimental subjects\ndied as a direct result of their participation in these typhus\nexperiments. Persons of all nationalities were used as subjects.\nRegarding these enterprises, Rudolf Brandt, in his own affidavit, admits\nthat these experimental subjects did not volunteer but were conscripted\nand compelled to serve without their consent being sought or given.\n\nInasmuch as information on the typhus experiments, both before and after\ntheir performance, was furnished, as a matter of course, to Himmler\nthrough Brandt, the defendant\u2019s full knowledge of them is regarded as\ndefinitely proven.\n\nHere, again, the managing hand of the defendant is shown. The smooth\noperation of these experiments is demonstrated to have been contingent\nupon the diligence with which Rudolf Brandt arranged for the supply of\nquotas of suitable human experimental material to the physicians at the\nscene of the experiment.\n\nIn view of these proven facts, the defendant Rudolf Brandt must be held\nand considered as one of the defendants responsible for performance of\nillegal medical experiments where deaths resulted to the nonconsenting\nhuman subjects.\n\nSKELETON COLLECTION\n\nIn response to a request by Rudolf Brandt, on 9 February 1942 the\ndefendant Sievers, business manager of the Ahnenerbe, submitted to him\ncertain data on the alleged desirability of securing a Jewish skeleton\ncollection for the Reich University of Strasbourg. The report furnished\nto the defendant Brandt contained among other things the following:\n\n \u201cBy procuring the skulls of the Jewish Bolshevik Commissars, who\n personified a repulsive yet characteristic humanity, we have the\n opportunity of obtaining tangible scientific evidence. The\n actual obtaining and collecting of these skulls without\n difficulty could be best accomplished by a directive issued to\n the Wehrmacht in the future to immediately turn over alive all\n Jewish Bolshevik Commissars to the field police.\u201d\n\nOn 27 February 1942, Rudolf Brandt informed defendant Sievers that\nHimmler would support the enterprise and would place everything\nnecessary at his disposal; and that Sievers should report again in\nconnection with the undertaking.\n\nTestimony and exhibits placed before this Court are abundantly\nsufficient to show that the plan mentioned was actually put into\noperation; that not less than 86 people were murdered for the sole\npurpose of obtaining their skeletons. Much more could be said in\nreference to this revolting topic, but it would add nothing to the\njudgment. The fact that Rudolf Brandt showed an initial interest and\ncollaborated in the undertaking is enough to require a finding that he\nis guilty of murder in connection with the program.\n\n MALARIA, SEA-WATER, AND EPIDEMIC JAUNDICE EXPERIMENTS; AND THE\n CHARGE OF THE MURDER AND MISTREATMENT OF POLES\n\nIt appears to be well established that Himmler sponsored, supported,\nfurthered or initiated each of these enterprises. Doubtless Brandt knew\nwhat was going on, and perhaps he helped in the program. The evidence is\nnot sufficient, however, to justify such a finding.\n\nThe Tribunal finds that the defendant Rudolf Brandt was an accessory to,\nordered, abetted, took a consenting part in, was knowingly connected\nwith plans and enterprises involving, and was a member of an\norganization or group connected with, the commission of medical\nexperiments on non-German nationals, without their consent, in the\ncourse of which experiments murders, brutalities, cruelties, tortures,\natrocities, and other inhuman acts were committed; and the murder of no\nless than 86 non-German Jews for a skeleton collection. To the extent\nthat these crimes were not war crimes they were crimes against humanity.\n\nMEMBERSHIP IN CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION\n\nUnder count four of the indictment Rudolf Brandt is charged with being a\nmember of an organization declared criminal by the judgment of the\nInternational Military Tribunal, namely, the SS. The evidence shows that\nRudolf Brandt became a member of the SS in 1933, and remained in this\norganization until the end of the war. As a member of the SS he was\ncriminally implicated in the commission of war crimes and crimes against\nhumanity, as charged under counts two and three of the indictment.\n\nAn extremely persuasive and interesting brief on behalf of the defendant\nRudolf Brandt, filed by his attorney, has received careful attention by\nthis Tribunal. Therein it is urged that Rudolf Brandt\u2019s position under\nHeinrich Himmler was one of such subordination, his personal character\nso essentially mild, and he was so dominated by his chief, that the full\nsignificance of the crimes in which he became engulfed came to him with\na shock only when he went to trial. This plea is offered in mitigation\nof appalling offenses in which the defendant Brandt is said to have\nplayed only an unassuming role.\n\nIf it be thought for even a moment that the part played by Rudolf Brandt\nwas relatively unimportant when compared with the enormity of the\ncharges proved by the evidence, let it be said that every Himmler must\nhave his Brandt else the plans of a master criminal would never be put\ninto execution.\n\nThe Tribunal, therefore, cannot accept the thesis.\n\nCONCLUSION\n\nMilitary Tribunal I finds and adjudges that the defendant Rudolf Brandt\nis guilty under counts two, three and four of the indictment.\n\n\n MRUGOWSKY\n\nThe defendant is charged under counts two and three of the indictment\nwith special responsibility for, and participation in, Freezing,\nMalaria, Sulfanilamide, Typhus, Poison, Epidemic Jaundice, and\nIncendiary Bomb Experiments. Charges were made concerning certain other\nmedical experiments, but they have been abandoned by the prosecution.\n\nMrugowsky joined the NSDAP in 1930 and the SS in 1931. He ultimately\nrose to the rank of senior colonel in the Waffen SS.\n\nIn 1938 Mrugowsky became a member of the staff of the SS medical office,\nas hygienist. At the beginning of 1939 he founded the Hygiene\nBacteriological Testing Station of the SS in Berlin, whose purpose was\nto combat epidemics in the SS garrison troops of the Waffen SS. In 1940\nthe station was enlarged and renamed the \u201cHygiene Institute of the\nWaffen SS.\u201d Mrugowsky became its chief and at the same time Chief of the\nOffice for Hygiene in the Medical Service of the Waffen SS under\nGenzken.\n\nIn his dual capacity Mrugowsky was answerable to Genzken in all\nquestions concerning epidemic control and hygiene in the Waffen SS, but\nas Chief of the Hygiene Institute, was military superior and commander\nof the Institute and its affiliated institutions with power to issue\norders.\n\nThe Medical Service of the Waffen SS was reorganized on 1 September\n1943. Mrugowsky and the Hygiene Institute were transferred from under\nGenzken and became directly subordinated to Grawitz as Reich Physician\nSS and Police. By this transfer Mrugowsky became chief hygienist under\nGrawitz, but remained Chief of the Hygiene Institute.\n\nTYPHUS AND OTHER VACCINE EXPERIMENTS\n\nThe details concerning the vaccine experiments conducted at Buchenwald\nconcentration camp have been related elsewhere in this judgment and\nhence the details need no further discussion.\n\nAs pointed out in the case against Handloser, there is evidence in the\nrecord that on 29 December 1941 a conference was held in Berlin attended\nby Mrugowsky at which the decision was reached to begin research tests\nat Buchenwald to determine the efficacy of egg yolk, and other vaccines\nas protection against typhus. As a result of the conference, such an\nexperimental station was established at Buchenwald under the direction\nof Dr. Ding with the defendant Hoven acting as his deputy.\n\nExcept for a few tests conducted early in 1942, all experiments were\ncarried out in Block 46\u2014so-called clinical block of the station. In the\nautumn of 1943 a vaccine production department was established in Block\n50 and this also came under the supervision of Dr. Ding-Schuler.\n\nIt would burden this judgment unnecessarily to narrate in detail the\nvarious tests and experiments carried out by Ding at Buchenwald as a\nresult of the decisions reached at higher levels. All of them conformed\nto a more or less uniform pattern, with certain groups of inmates being\ninoculated with vaccines, other groups (known as control groups) being\ngiven no immunization, and finally both groups being artificially\ninfected with a virulent virus, and the results noted upon the\nexperimental subjects.\n\nWe learn from the Ding diary, the authenticity and reliability of which\nhas been discussed at length in other portions of the judgment, the\nmethods employed, and the results obtained in at least some of the\nexperiments.\n\nFor example: In \u201cTyphus vaccination material research series I\u201d, which\nbegan on 6 January 1942, 135 inmates were vaccinated with Weigl,\nCox-Haagen-Gildemeister, Behring-Normal, or Behring-Strong, vaccines; 10\npersons were used for control. On 3 March 1942 all test subjects,\nincluding control persons, were artificially infected with virulent\nvirus of Rickettsia-Prowazeki furnished by the Robert Koch Institute.\nFive deaths occurred; three in the control group and two among the\nvaccinated subjects.\n\nIn \u201cTyphus vaccine, research series II\u201d, from 19 August to 4 September\n1942, 40 persons were vaccinated with two different vaccines; 19 persons\nwere used for control. Subsequently all were artificially infected with\nvirulent virus; four deaths among the control persons occurred.\n\nThe entries in the diary concerning \u201cTyphus vaccine experimental series\nVII\u201d read as follows:\n\n \u201c28 May 43-18 June 1943: Carrying out of typhus vaccination for\n immunization with the following vaccine (1) 20 persons with\n vaccine \u2018Asid\u2019, (2) 20 persons with vaccine \u2018Asid Adsorbat\u2019, (3)\n 20 persons with vaccine \u2018Weigl\u2019 of the Institute for Typhus and\n Virus Research of the High Command, Army (OKH) Krakow (Eyer) * *\n *. All experimental persons got very serious typhus. 7 Sept. 43:\n Chart and case history completed. The experimental series was\n concluded. 53 deaths (18 with \u2018Asid\u2019) (18 with \u2018Asid Adsorbat\u2019)\n (9 with \u2018Weigl\u2019) (8 control) 9 Sep. 43: Charts and case\n histories delivered to Berlin. Dr. Ding, SS Sturmbannfuehrer.\u201d\n\nConcerning \u201cTyphus vaccine experimental series VIII\u201d began on 8 March\n1944 the following entry appears in the diary:\n\n \u201cSuggested by Colonel M.C. of the Air Corps, Professor Rose\n (Oberstarzt) the vaccine \u2018Kopenhagen\u2019 (Ipsen-Murine-vaccine),\n produced from mouse liver by the national serum institute in\n Copenhagen, was tested for its compatibility on humans. 20\n persons were vaccinated for immunization by intramuscular\n injection * * *, 10 persons were contemplated for control and\n comparison. 4 of the 30 persons were eliminated _before_ the\n start of the artificial injection because of intermittent\n sickness * * *. The remaining experimental persons were infected\n on 16 April 44 by subcutaneous injection of 1/20 cc. typhus sick\n fresh blood * * *. The following fell sick: 17 persons\n immunized: 9 medium, 8 seriously; 9 persons control, 2 medium, 7\n seriously * * *. 2 June 44: The experimental series was\n concluded. 13 June 44: Chart and case history completed and sent\n to Berlin. 6 deaths (3 Kopenhagen) (3 control). Dr. Ding.\u201d\n\n\u201cTyphus vaccine experimental series IX\u201d began on 17 July 1944. Twenty\npersons were immunized with the vaccine \u201cWeimar\u201d produced by the\ndepartment for Typhus and Virus Research of the Hygiene Institute of the\nWaffen SS; and for comparison, another group of 20 persons were\nimmunized with vaccine \u201cWeigl\u201d produced from lice by the Army High\nCommand (OKH) in Cracow [Krakow]. Still another group of 20 persons were\nused for the control group. On 6 September 1944 the 60 experimental\npersons were infected with fresh blood \u201csick with typhus\u201d which was\ninjected into the upper arm. As a result, all experimental persons\nbecame sick, some seriously. The narration of this experimental series\ncloses with the cryptic report: \u201c4 Nov 44: Chart and case history\ncompleted, 24 deaths (5 \u2018Weigl\u2019) (19 Control). Dr. Schuler.\u201d\n\nThese entries are but few of the many which we have taken at random from\nthe Ding diary, dealing with the sordid murders of defenseless victims\nin the name of Nazi medical science. Many more could be set forth if\ntime and space permitted. An analysis of the Ding diary discloses that\nno less than 729 concentration camp inmates were experimented on with\ntyphus, at least 154 of whom died. And this toll of death takes no\naccount of the certain demise of scores of so-called \u201cpassage\u201d persons\nwho were artificially infected with typhus for the sole purpose of\nhaving at hand an ever-ready supply of fresh blood \u201csick with typhus\u201d to\nbe used to infect the experimental subjects.\n\nThere is some evidence to the effect that the camp inmates used as\nsubjects in the first series submitted to being used as experimental\nsubjects after being told that the experiments were harmless and that\nadditional food would be given to volunteers. But these victims were not\ninformed that they would be artificially infected with a highly virulent\nvirus nor that they might die as a result. Certainly no one would\nseriously suggest that under the circumstances these men gave their\nlegal consent to act as subjects. One does not ordinarily consent to be\nthe special object of a murder, and if one did, such consent would not\nabsolve his slayer.\n\nLater, when news of what was happening in Block 46 became generally\nknown in the camp, it was no longer possible to delude the inmates into\noffering themselves as victims. Thereupon, the shabby pretense of\nseeking volunteers was dropped and the experimental subjects were taken\narbitrarily from a list of inmates prepared by the camp administration.\n\nOther experiments were also carried out in Block 46 of Buchenwald to\ntest typhoid, para-typhoid A and B, and yellow fever.\n\nAs in the typhus experiments, nonconsenting human subjects were used,\nincluding not only German criminal prisoners but also Poles, Russians,\nand Frenchmen, both civilians and prisoners of war.\n\nIn all the typhus experiments, death resulted to many experimental\nsubjects. As to each of these experiments the evidence is overwhelming\nthat they were carried out by Ding under the orders or authority of the\ndefendant Mrugowsky.\n\nPOISON EXPERIMENTS\n\nOn 11 September 1944 Mrugowsky, Ding, and a certain Dr. Widmann carried\nout an experiment with aconitin nitrate projectiles in the Sachenshausen\nconcentration camp. Details of the experiment are fully explained by a\n\u201cTop Secret\u201d report of the sordid affair in a letter written by the\ndefendant Mrugowsky to the Criminological Institute, Berlin. The letter\nfollows:\n\n \u201cSubject: Experiments with aconitin nitrate projectiles.\n\n To the Criminological Institute\n Attn: Dr. Widmann\n Berlin\n\n \u201cIn the presence of SS Strumbannfuehrer Dr. Ding, Dr. Widmann,\n and the undersigned, experiments with aconitin nitrate\n projectiles were conducted on 11 September 1944 on 5 persons who\n had been condemned to death. The projectiles in question were of\n a 7.65-mm caliber, filled with crystalized poison. The\n experimental subjects, in a lying position, were each shot in\n the upper part of the left thigh. The thighs of two of them were\n cleanly shot through. Even afterwards, no effect of the poison\n was to be observed. These two experimental subjects were\n therefore exempted.\n\n \u201cThe entrance of the projectile did not show any peculiarities.\n Evidently, the arteria femolaries of one of the subjects was\n injured. A light stream of blood issued from the wound. But the\n bleeding stopped after a short time. The loss of blood was\n estimated as having been at the most \u00be of a liter, and\n consequently was on no account fatal.\n\n \u201cThe symptoms of the condemned three showed a surprising\n similarity. At first no peculiarities appeared. After 20-25\n minutes a motor agitation and a slight ptyalism set in but\n stopped again. After 40 to 45 minutes a stronger salivation set\n in. The poisoned persons swallowed repeatedly, but later the\n flow of saliva became so strong that it could not even be\n overcome by swallowing. Foamy saliva flowed from their mouths.\n Then choking and vomiting set in.\n\n \u201cAfter 58 minutes the pulse of two of them could no longer be\n felt. The third had a pulse rate of 76. After 65 minutes his\n blood pressure was 90/60. The sounds were extremely low. A\n reduction of blood pressure was evident.\n\n \u201cDuring the first hour of the experiment the pupils did not show\n any changes. After 78 minutes the pupils of all three showed a\n medium dilation together with a retarded light reaction.\n Simultaneously, maximum respiration with heavy breathing\n inhalations set in. This subsided after a few minutes. The\n pupils contracted again and their reaction improved. After 65\n minutes the patellar and achilles tendon reflexes of the\n poisoned subjects were negative. The abdominal reflexes of two\n of them were also negative. The upper abdominal reflexes of the\n third were still positive, while the lower were negative. After\n approximately 90 minutes, one of the subjects again started\n breathing heavily, this was accompanied by an increasing motor\n unrest. Then the heavy breathing changed into a flat,\n accelerated respiration, accompanied by extreme nausea. One of\n the poisoned persons tried in vain to vomit. To do so he\n introduced four fingers of his hand up to the knuckles into his\n throat, but nevertheless could not vomit. His face was flushed.\n\n \u201cThe other two experimental subjects had already early shown a\n pale face. The other symptoms were the same. The motor unrest\n increased so much that the persons flung themselves up, then\n down, rolled their eyes, and made meaningless motions with their\n hands and arms. Finally the agitation subsided, the pupils\n dilated to the maximum, and the condemned lay motionless.\n Masseter spasms and urination were observed in one case. Death\n occurred 121, 123 and 129 minutes after entry of the projectile.\n\n \u201c_Summary._ The projectiles filled with approximately 38 mg. of\n aconitin nitrate in solid form had, in spite of only\n insignificant injuries, a deadly effect after two hours.\n Poisoning showed 20 to 25 minutes after injury. The main\n reactions were: salivation, alteration of the pupils, negative\n tendon reflexes, motor unrest, and extreme nausea.\n\n \u201cMRUGOWSKY\n \u201cSS Lecturer Oberfuehrer and Office Chief.\u201d\n\nThe defendant attempts to meet this charge with the defense that the\nsubjects used in this experiment were persons who had been condemned to\ndeath and that he, Mrugowsky, had been appointed as their legal\nexecutioner.\n\nOne need but read the letter introduced in evidence to arrive at the\nconclusion that the defense has no validity. This was not a legal\nexecution carried out in conformance with the laws and rules of war, but\na criminal medical experiment wherein wounds were inflicted on prisoners\nwith the sole end in view of determining the effectiveness of poisoned\nbullets as a means of taking life. The hapless victims of this dastardly\ntorture were Russian prisoners of war, entitled to the protection\nafforded by the laws of civilized nations. As has been said, in\nsubstance, in this judgment: While under certain specific conditions the\nrules of land warfare may recognize the validity of an execution by\nshooting, it will not under any circumstances countenance the infliction\nof death by maiming or torture.\n\nSULFANILAMIDE EXPERIMENTS\n\nThat Mrugowsky rendered assistance to Gebhardt in the sulfanilamide\nexperiments at Ravensbrueck is plainly shown by the record. Mrugowsky\nput his laboratory and co-workers at Gebhardt\u2019s disposal. He furnished\nthe cultures for the infections. It was on the suggestion of Mrugowsky\u2019s\noffice that wood shavings and ground glass were placed in the wounds of\nthe subjects so that battlefield wounds would be more closely simulated.\n\nGAS OEDEMA EXPERIMENTS\n\nToward the end of 1942 a conference was held in the Military Medical\nAcademy, Berlin, to discuss the effects of gas oedema serum on wounded\npersons. During the conference, several cases were reported in which\nwounded soldiers who had received gas oedema serum injections in large\nquantities suddenly died without apparent reason. Mrugowsky, who\nparticipated in the conference, expressed the possibility that perhaps\nthe deaths had been due to the phenol content of the serum. As a step\ntoward solving the problem Mrugowsky ordered Dr. Ding-Schuler, his\nsubordinate, to take part in a euthanasia killing with phenol and to\nreport on the results in detail.\n\nIn pursuance of the order given, Dr. Ding and the defendant Hoven killed\nsome of the concentration camp inmates at Buchenwald with phenol\ninjections and Ding reported his findings to his superior officer,\nMrugowsky, as required by the order.\n\nFREEZING, INCENDIARY BOMB, AND EPIDEMIC JAUNDICE\nEXPERIMENTS\n\nAs to these items the Tribunal is of the view that the evidence is\ninsufficient to sustain the charges.\n\nIt has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant\nMrugowsky was a principal in, accessory to, ordered, abetted, took a\nconsenting part in, and was knowingly connected with plans and\nenterprises involving medical experiments on non-German nationals,\nwithout their consent, in the course of which experiments, murders,\nbrutalities, cruelties, tortures, atrocities, and other inhuman acts\nwere committed. To the extent that these crimes were not war crimes they\nwere crimes against humanity.\n\nCOUNT FOUR\n\nUnder count four of the indictment, the defendant is charged with being\na member of an organization declared criminal by the International\nMilitary Tribunal, namely, the SS.\n\nThe evidence proves that Mrugowsky joined the NSDAP in 1930 and\nvoluntarily became a member of the Waffen SS in 1931. He remained in\nthese organizations throughout the war. As a member of the Waffen SS, he\nwas criminally implicated in the commission of war crimes and crimes\nagainst humanity as discussed in this judgment.\n\nCONCLUSION\n\nMilitary Tribunal I finds and adjudges that the defendant Joachim\nMrugowsky is guilty under counts two, three, and four of the indictment.\n\n\n POPPENDICK\n\nThe defendant Poppendick is charged under counts two and three of the\nindictment with personal responsibility for, and participation in,\nHigh-Altitude, Freezing, Malaria, Sulfanilamide, Sea-Water, Epidemic\nJaundice, Sterilization, Typhus, and Poison experiments. He is charged\nunder count four with being a member of an organization declared\ncriminal by the judgment of the International Military Tribunal.\n\nThe charges with reference to high-altitude and poison experiments have\nbeen abandoned by the prosecution and hence will not be considered\nfurther.\n\nPoppendick studied medicine at several German universities from 1921 to\n1926 and passed his state examination in December of the latter year. He\njoined the NSDAP on 1 March 1932 and the SS on 1 July following. He rose\nto the rank of lieutenant colonel in the SS and to the rank of senior\ncolonel in the Waffen SS. He was also a member of a Nazi Physicians\u2019\nAssociation. In August 1935 he was appointed as a physician in the Main\nRace and Settlement Office in Berlin and became chief physician of that\noffice in 1941. He held the latter appointment until the fall of 1944.\n\nFrom 1 September 1939 until sometime in 1941, Poppendick was on active\nduty in the army as a surgeon. During the latter year he resumed his\nduties with the Race and Settlement Office in Berlin. Between 1939 and\n1943, he performed some duties as a member of the staff of the Reich\nPhysician SS and Police, Dr. Grawitz, taking care of special\nassignments.\n\nIn the fall of 1943 Poppendick was made Chief of the Personal Office of\nGrawitz, which position he retained until the end of the war.\n\nFREEZING EXPERIMENTS\n\nThe evidence is that Poppendick gained knowledge of the freezing\nexperiments conducted by Rascher at Dachau, as the result of a\nconference held between Rascher, Grawitz, and Poppendick on 13 January\n1943 for the purpose of discussing certain phases of the research. The\nevidence does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Poppendick was\ncriminally connected with these experiments.\n\nMALARIA EXPERIMENTS\n\nThe prosecution contends that Poppendick is criminally responsible for\nthe malaria experiments conducted by Dr. Schilling at Dachau. Dr.\nPloetner was engaged in the malaria experiments as a subordinate of\nSchilling. Sievers\u2019 Diary, which is in evidence, contains a notation\nthat on 23 May 1944 Grawitz, Poppendick, Ploetner, and Sievers held a\nconference, which had probably been arranged by Poppendick three days\npreviously by telephone. The subject of the conference is not disclosed\nby the diary entry, but it appears elsewhere in the diary that on 31 May\n1944 Grawitz sanctioned Ploetner\u2019s collaboration with Schilling.\n\nPoppendick testified as a witness on his own behalf that he had heard\nthat Schilling was carrying on special investigations at Dachau\nconcerning immunity from malaria. He stated further that his knowledge\nof the nature of the investigations went no further. The record does not\ncontradict his testimony.\n\nThe Tribunal finds that the evidence does not disclose beyond a\nreasonable doubt that Poppendick was criminally connected with the\nmalaria experiments.\n\nSULFANILAMIDE EXPERIMENTS\n\nPoppendick attended the Third Meeting of Consulting Surgeons at the\nMilitary Medical Academy, Berlin, and heard lectures by Gebhardt and\nFischer concerning the sulfanilamide experiments, which have been\ndiscussed elsewhere in this judgment. Under date of 7 September 1942 he\nsigned a certificate to a true copy of a report, concerning\nsulfanilamide experiments which had been conducted at Ravensbrueck, made\nby Gebhardt to Grawitz. Grawitz forwarded the report, or a certified\ncopy thereof, to Himmler.\n\nWe are of the opinion that Poppendick had knowledge of the criminal\nnature of the experiments conducted by Gebhardt and Fischer at\nRavensbrueck, but the defendant\u2019s criminal connection with any such\nexperiments has not been proved by the evidence.\n\nSEA-WATER EXPERIMENTS\n\nThe evidence does not disclose beyond a reasonable doubt that Poppendick\nwas criminally implicated in these experiments.\n\nEPIDEMIC JAUNDICE EXPERIMENTS\n\nThe evidence does not disclose beyond a reasonable doubt that Poppendick\nwas criminally implicated in these experiments.\n\nSTERILIZATION EXPERIMENTS\n\nPoppendick was Chief Physician of the Main Race and Settlement Office.\nThe judgment of the International Military Tribunal found that this\noffice was \u201cactive in carrying out schemes for Germanization of occupied\nterritories according to the racial principles of the Nazi Party and\nwere involved in the deportation of Jews and other foreign nationals.\u201d\n(_See the \u201cTrial of the Major War Criminals,\u201d Vol. 1, p. 270._)\n\nTestifying before this Tribunal, Poppendick stated that the Nazi racial\npolicy was twofold in aspect; one policy being positive, the other,\nnegative in character. The positive policy included many matters, one\nbeing the encouragement of German families to produce more children. The\nnegative policy concerned the sterilization and extermination of\nnon-Aryans as well as other measures to reduce the non-Aryan population.\nAccording to Poppendick\u2019s testimony, he was not concerned with the\nexecution of negative, but only with positive measures.\n\nBy letter dated 29 May 1941 Grawitz wrote to Himmler concerning a\nconference held on 27 May 1941 at which Dr. Clauberg was present, and\ndiscussed his \u201cnew method of sterilization of inferior women without an\noperation.\u201d\n\nPoppendick by letter dated 4 June 1941, which referred to a previous\ntelephone conversation with Grawitz, wrote Rudolf Brandt stating that he\nwas enclosing \u201cthe list of physicians who are prepared to perform the\ntreatment of sterility\u201d as requested by Himmler. The list referred to is\nevidently the same as was contained in a letter from Grawitz to Himmler,\ndated 30 May 1941, which stated: \u201cIn the following, I submit a list of\nspecialists in charge of the treatment of sterility in women according\nto the method of Professor Clauberg.\u201d\n\nIt is shown by the evidence that Clauberg later carried out\nsterilization experiments on Jewesses at Auschwitz. Similar experiments\nwere carried out in other concentration camps by SS doctors who were\nsubordinate to Grawitz. It is evident that Poppendick knew of these\nsterilization experiments, although it is not shown that he was\ncriminally connected with them.\n\nTYPHUS EXPERIMENTS\n\nIt is not clear from the evidence that Poppendick was criminally\nconnected with, or had knowledge of, the nature of the typhus\nexperiments at Buchenwald, or the type of subjects upon which they were\nconducted.\n\nINCENDIARY BOMB EXPERIMENTS\n\nThere is some evidence in the record to the effect that after incendiary\nbomb experiments were completed at Buchenwald, reports of the\nexperiments were forwarded to Poppendick and Mrugowsky. It is evident\nthat through the reports Poppendick gained knowledge of the nature of\nthe experiments, but the record fails to show criminal responsibility of\nthe defendant in connection therewith.\n\nPHLEGMON EXPERIMENTS\n\nThe evidence clearly proves Poppendick\u2019s knowledge of these experiments,\nbut it fails to show the defendant\u2019s criminal connection therewith.\n\nPOLYGAL EXPERIMENTS\n\nThe record does not show Poppendick\u2019s knowledge of or connection with\nthese experiments.\n\nHORMONE EXPERIMENTS\n\nThe prosecution contends that the evidence shows Poppendick\u2019s criminal\nresponsibility in connection with a series of experiments conducted at\nBuchenwald by Dr. Varnet, a Danish physician who claimed to have\ndiscovered a method of curing homosexuality by transplantation of an\nartificial gland.\n\nUnder date 15 July 1944, Poppendick wrote to Dr. Ding at the\nconcentration camp Buchenwald as follows:\n\n \u201cBy request of the Reichsfuehrer SS the Danish doctor SS\n Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Varnet has been given opportunity to\n continue his hormone research with the SS, particularly the\n development of his artificial gland. The Reichsfuehrer SS\n anticipates certain results from the treatment of homosexuals\n with Vamet\u2019s artificial gland. The technical preparations have\n come to such a point that experiments on human beings can be\n started within a reasonable space of time.\n\n \u201cAs SS Standartenfuehrer Dr. Lolling informed me, the\n concentration camp Weimar-Buchenwald has been directed to make\n available 5 prisoners for SS Sturmbannfuehrer Varnet\u2019s\n experiments. These prisoners will be made available to SS\n Sturmbannfuehrer Varnet by the camp physician at any time.\n\n \u201cSS Sturmbannfuehrer Varnet intends to go to Buchenwald shortly\n in order to make certain necessary preliminary tests on these\n prisoners. In case there will be special laboratory tests, you\n are requested to assist Varnet within the scope of your\n possibilities.\n\n \u201cParticulars on Varnet\u2019s research were sent today to the camp\n physician of Weimar-Buchenwald for his information.\u201d\n\nThere is evidence that during the summer of 1944 Dr. Varnet conducted\nthe experiments referred to in Poppendick\u2019s letter. However, the\nnationality of the prisoners used for the experiments is not shown, nor\nhas it been proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the experiments were\nharmful or caused death, or injury to the experimental subjects.\n\nWe have given careful consideration to the evidence concerning the\ncharges made by the prosecution against the defendant Poppendick.\nCertainly the evidence raises a strong suspicion that he was involved in\nthe experiments. He at least had notice of them and of their\nconsequences. He knew also that they were being carried on by the SS, of\nwhich he was and remained a member.\n\nBut this Tribunal, however, cannot convict upon mere suspicion; evidence\nbeyond a reasonable doubt is necessary. The evidence is insufficient to\nsustain guilt under counts two and three of the indictment.\n\nMEMBERSHIP IN A CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION\n\nThe defendant Poppendick is charged with membership in an organization\ndeclared criminal by the judgment of the International Military\nTribunal, namely, the SS. Poppendick joined the SS in July 1932. He\nremained in the SS voluntarily throughout the war, with actual knowledge\nof the fact that that organization was being used for the commission of\nacts now declared criminal by Control Council Law No. 10. He must,\ntherefore, be found guilty under count four of the indictment.\n\nWith reference to the nature of punishment which should be imposed under\nsuch circumstances, the International Military Tribunal has made the\nfollowing recommendation:\n\n \u201c1. That so far as possible throughout the four zones of\n occupation in Germany the classifications, sanctions, and\n penalties be standardized. Uniformity of treatment so far as\n practical should be a basic principle. This does not, of course,\n mean that discretion in sentencing should not be vested in the\n Court; but the discretion should be within fixed limits\n appropriate to the nature of the crime.\n\n \u201c2. Law No. 10 * * * leaves punishment entirely to the\n discretion of the trial court even to the extent of inflicting\n the death penalty.\n\n \u201cThe De-Nazification Law of 5 March 1946, however, passed for\n Bavaria, Greater Hesse, and Wuerttemberg-Baden, provides\n definite sentences for punishment in each type of offense. The\n Tribunal recommends that in no case should punishment imposed\n under Law No. 10 upon any members of an organization or group\n declared by the Tribunal to be criminal exceed the punishment\n fixed by the De-Nazification Law. No person should be punished\n under both laws.\u201d\n\n (_See \u201cTrial of the Major War Criminals,\u201d Vol. 1, p. 257._)\n\nIn weighing the punishment, if any, which should be meted out to the\ndefendant for his guilt by reason of the charge contained in count four\nof the indictment, this Tribunal will give such consideration to the\nrecommendations of the International Military Tribunal as may under the\npremises seem meet and proper.\n\nCONCLUSION\n\nMilitary Tribunal I finds the defendant Helmut Poppendick not guilty\nunder counts two and three of the indictment, and finds and adjudges the\ndefendant Helmut Poppendick guilty as charged in the fourth count of the\nindictment.\n\n\n SIEVERS\n\nThe defendant Sievers is charged under counts two and three of the\nindictment with special responsibility for, and participation in,\nHigh-Altitude, Freezing, Malaria, Lost Gas, Sea-Water, Epidemic\nJaundice, and Typhus Experiments, and with extermination of Jews to\ncomplete a skeleton collection. Under count four of the indictment, he\nis charged with being a member of an organization declared criminal by\nthe judgment of the International Military Tribunal, namely, the SS.\n\nThe prosecution has abandoned the charge of participation in the\nEpidemic Jaundice experiments, and hence, this charge will not be\nconsidered further.\n\nSievers is one of the three defendants who are not physicians. He joined\nthe NSDAP in 1929 and renewed his membership in the Nazi Party in 1933.\nHe joined the SS at the end of 1935 on the suggestion of Himmler. In\nthis organization he attained the rank of a Standartenfuehrer (colonel).\n\nFrom 1 July 1935 until the war ended, Sievers was a member of Himmler\u2019s\npersonal staff and Reich Business Manager of the Ahnenerbe Society.\nAccording to a statute of 1 January 1939, the purpose of the Ahnenerbe\nwas to support scientific research concerning the culture and heritage\nof the Nordic race. The Board of Directors was composed of Himmler as\npresident, Dr. Wuest as curator, and Sievers as the business manager.\nSievers was responsible for the business organization administration and\nthe budget of the Ahnenerbe. The place of business was Berlin. Sievers\nsupported and participated in the medical experiments which are the\nsubject of the indictment, primarily through the Institute of Military\nScientific Research which was established by order of Himmler dated 7\nJuly 1942 and was administratively attached to the Ahnenerbe.\n\nOn 1 January 1942 Himmler ordered the establishment of an entomological\ninstitute; in March 1942 the Institute Dr. Rascher in Dachau; and in the\nfirst month of the year 1942, the Institute Dr. Hirt, at Strasbourg.\nThese subsequently became part of the Institute for Military Scientific\nResearch.\n\nSievers was, for all practical purposes, the acting head of the\nAhnenerbe. In this capacity he was subordinated to Himmler and regularly\nreported to him on the affairs of this Society. The top secret\ncorrespondence of Himmler concerning the Ahnenerbe was sent to Sievers.\nThe charter of the Ahnenerbe defines Sievers\u2019 duties as follows:\n\n \u201cThe Reich Business Manager handles the business affairs of the\n community; he is in charge of the business organization and\n administration. He is responsible for the drawing up of the\n budget and for the administration of the treasury.\u201d\n\nSievers was responsible for the entire administrative problems of the\nsecretary\u2019s office, bookkeeping and treasury. Besides that he also had\nto manage the Ahnenerbe publishing house. In June 1943 Professor Dr.\nMentzel, who among other things was Chief of the Business Managing\nAdvisory Council of the Reich Research Council, appointed Sievers as his\ndeputy. By this act Sievers did not become a member of the Reich\nResearch Council but held only an honorary position.\n\nIn a letter to the defendant Rudolf Brandt, dated 28 January 1943,\nSievers defines his position as Reich Business Manager of the Ahnenerbe\nas follows:\n\n \u201cMy duty merely consists in smoothing the way for the research\n men and seeing that the tasks ordered by the Reichsfuehrer SS\n are carried out in the quickest possible way. On one thing I\n certainly can form an opinion; that is, on who is doing the\n quickest job.\u201d\n\nSievers received orders directly from Himmler on matters of research\nassignments for the Ahnenerbe and he reported directly to Himmler on\nsuch experiments. Sievers devoted his efforts to obtaining the funds,\nmaterials, and equipment needed by the research workers. The materials\nobtained by Sievers included concentration camp inmates to be used as\nexperimental subjects. When the experiments were under way, Sievers made\ncertain that they were being performed in a satisfactory manner. In this\nconnection, Sievers necessarily exercised his own independent judgment\nand had to familiarize himself with the details of such assignments.\n\nHIGH-ALTITUDE EXPERIMENTS\n\nThe details of these experiments are discussed in other portions of this\njudgment. Sievers\u2019 activities in the high-altitude experiments are\nrevealed clearly by the evidence. Rascher, in a letter to Himmler dated\n5 April 1942, states as follows:\n\n \u201cSS Obersturmbannfuehrer Sievers took a whole day off to watch\n some of the interesting standard experiments and may have given\n you a brief report * * * I am very much indebted to\n Obersturmbannfuehrer Sievers as he has shown a very active\n interest in my work in every respect.\u201d\n\nSievers admitted that he reported to Himmler about his visit to Dachau.\nOn the basis of the reports of Sievers and Rascher, Himmler authorized\nRascher to continue the high-altitude experiments in Dachau, in the\ncourse of which the evidence shows that 180 to 200 inmates were\nexperimented upon; that 70 to 80 of them died. Rascher became associated\nwith the Ahnenerbe in March 1942, and during the entire time covered by\nthe period of the high-altitude experiments, Rascher was attached to the\nAhnenerbe and performed the high-altitude experiments with its\nassistance. On 20 July 1942, when the final report on high-altitude\nexperiments was submitted to Himmler, Rascher\u2019s name appeared on the\nletterhead of the Ahnenerbe Institute for Military Scientific Research\nas shown by the cover letter, and the inclosed report bore the statement\nthat the experiments had been carried out in conjunction with the\nresearch and instruction association \u201cDas Ahnenerbe\u201d. Sievers had actual\nknowledge of the criminal aspects of the Rascher experiments. He was\nnotified that Dachau inmates were to be used. He himself inspected the\nexperiments. Sievers admitted that Rascher told him that several died as\na result of the high-altitude experiments.\n\nUnder these facts Sievers is specially chargeable with the criminal\naspects of these experiments.\n\nFREEZING EXPERIMENTS\n\nBefore the high-altitude experiments had actually been completed,\nfreezing experiments were ordered to be performed at Dachau. They were\nconducted from August 1942 to the early part of 1943 by Holzloehner,\nFinke and Rascher, all of whom were officers in the Medical Services of\nthe Luftwaffe. Details of the freezing experiments have been given\nelsewhere in this judgment.\n\nIn May 1943 Rascher was transferred to the Waffen SS and then proceeded\nalone to conduct freezing experiments in Dachau until May 1945. Rascher\nadvised the defendant Rudolf Brandt that Poles and Russians had been\nused as subjects.\n\nThe witness Neff testified that the defendant Sievers visited the\nexperimental station quite frequently during the freezing experiments.\nHe testified further that in September 1942 he received orders to take\nthe hearts and lungs of 5 experimental subjects killed in the\nexperiments to Professor Hirt in Strasbourg for further scientific\nstudy; that the travel warrant for the trip was made out by Sievers; and\nthat the Ahnenerbe Society paid the expenses for the transfer of the\nbodies. One of the 5 experimental subjects killed was a Dutch citizen.\n\nNeff\u2019s testimony is corroborated in large part by the affidavits of the\ndefendants Rudolf Brandt and Becker-Freyseng, by the testimony of the\nwitnesses Lutz, Michalowsky and Vieweg, and by the documentary evidence\nin the record. In the Sievers\u2019 diary, there are numerous instances of\nSievers\u2019 activities in the aid of Rascher. On 1 February 1943 Sievers\nnoted efforts in obtaining apparatus, implements and chemicals for\nRascher\u2019s experiments. On 6 and 21 January 1944 Sievers noted the\nproblem of location. Rascher reported to Sievers periodically concerning\nthe status and details of the freezing experiments.\n\nIt is plain from the record that the relationship of Sievers and Rascher\nin the performance of freezing experiments required Sievers to make the\npreliminary arrangements for the performance of the experiments to\nfamiliarize himself with the progress of the experiments by personal\ninspection, to furnish necessary equipment and material, including human\nbeings used during the freezing experiments, to receive and make\nprogress reports concerning Rascher, and to handle the matter of\nevaluation and publication of such reports. Basically, such activities\nconstituted a performance of his duties as defined by Sievers in his\nletter of 28 January 1943 to Rudolf Brandt, in which he stated that he\nsmoothed the way for research workers and saw to it that Himmler\u2019s\norders were carried out.\n\nUnder these facts Sievers is chargeable with the criminal activities in\nthese experiments.\n\nMALARIA EXPERIMENTS\n\nDetails of these experiments are given elsewhere in this judgment. These\nexperiments were performed at Dachau by Schilling and Ploetner. The\nevidence shows that Sievers had knowledge of the nature and purpose of\nthese criminal enterprises and supported them in his official position.\n\nLOST GAS EXPERIMENTS\n\nThese experiments were conducted in the Natzweiler concentration camp\nunder the supervision of Professor Hirt of the University of Strasbourg.\nThe Ahnenerbe Society and the defendant Sievers supported this research\non behalf of the SS. The arrangement for the payment of the research\nsubsidies of the Ahnenerbe was made by Sievers. The defendant Sievers\nparticipated in these experiments by actively collaborating with the\ndefendants Karl Brandt and Rudolf Brandt and with Hirt and his principal\nassistant, Dr. Wimmer. The record shows that Sievers was in\ncorrespondence with Hirt at least as early as January 1942, and that he\nestablished contact between Himmler and Hirt.\n\nIn a letter of 11 September 1942 to Gluecks, Sievers wrote that the\nnecessary conditions existed in Natzweiler \u201cfor carrying out our\nmilitary scientific research work\u201d. He requested that Gluecks issue the\nnecessary authorization for Hirt, Wimmer, and Kieselbach to enter\nNatzweiler, and that provision be made for their board and\naccommodations. The letter also stated:\n\n \u201cThe experiments which are to be performed on prisoners are to\n be carried out in four rooms of an already existing medical\n barrack. Only slight changes in the construction of the building\n are required, in particular the installation of the hood which\n can be produced with very little material. In accordance with\n attached plan of the construction management at Natzweiler, I\n request that necessary orders be issued to same to carry out the\n reconstruction. All the expenses arising out of our activity at\n Natzweiler will be covered by this office.\u201d\n\nIn a memorandum of 3 November 1942 to the defendant Rudolf Brandt,\nSievers complained about certain difficulties which had arisen in\nNatzweiler because of the lack of cooperation from the camp officials.\nHe seemed particularly outraged by the fact that the camp officials were\nasking that the experimental prisoners be paid for. A portion of the\nmemorandum follows:\n\n \u201cWhen I think of our military research work conducted at the\n concentration camp Dachau, I must praise and call special\n attention to the generous and understanding way in which our\n work was furthered there and to the cooperation we were given.\n Payment of prisoners was never discussed. It seems as if at\n Natzweiler they are trying to make as much money as possible out\n of this matter. We are not conducting these experiments, as a\n matter of fact, for the sake of some fixed scientific idea, but\n to be of practical help to the armed forces and beyond that, to\n the German people in a possible emergency.\u201d\n\nBrandt was requested to give his help in a comradely fashion in setting\nup the necessary conditions at Natzweiler. The defendant Rudolf Brandt\nreplied to this memorandum on 3 December 1942 and told Sievers that he\nhad had occasion to speak to Pohl concerning these difficulties, and\nthat they would be remedied.\n\nThe testimony of the witness Holl was that approximately 220 inmates of\nRussian, Polish, Czech, and German nationality were experimented upon by\nHirt and his collaborators, and that approximately 50 died. None of the\nexperimental subjects volunteered. During the entire period of these\nexperiments, Hirt was associated with the Ahnenerbe Society.\n\nIn early 1944 Hirt and Wimmer summarized their findings from the Lost\nexperiments in a report entitled \u201cProposed Treatment of Poisoning Caused\nby Lost.\u201d The report was described as from the Institute for Military\nScientific Research, Department H of the Ahnenerbe, located at the\nStrasbourg Anatomical Institute. Light, medium, and heavy injuries due\nto Lost gas are mentioned. Sievers received several copies of this\nreport. On 31 March 1944, after Karl Brandt had received a Fuehrer\nDecree giving him broad powers in the field of chemical-warfare, Sievers\ninformed Brandt about Hirt\u2019s work and gave him a copy of the report.\nThis is proved by Sievers\u2019 letter to Rudolf Brandt on 11 April 1944.\nKarl Brandt admitted that the wording of the report made it clear that\nexperiments had been conducted on human beings.\n\nSievers testified that on 25 January 1943, he went to Natzweiler\nconcentration camp and consulted with the camp authorities concerning\nthe arrangements to be made for Hirt\u2019s Lost experiments. These\narrangements included the obtaining of laboratories and experimental\nsubjects. Sievers testified that the Lost experiments were harmful. On\nthe visit of 25 January 1943, Sievers saw ten persons who had been\nsubjected to Lost experiments and watched Hirt change the bandages on\none of the persons. Sievers testified that in March 1943 he asked Hirt\nwhether any of the experimental subjects had suffered harm from the\nexperiments and was told by Hirt that two of the experimental subjects\nhad died due to other causes.\n\nIt is evident that Sievers was criminally connected with these\nexperiments.\n\nSEA-WATER EXPERIMENTS\n\nThese experiments were conducted at Dachau from July through September\n1944. Details of these experiments are explained elsewhere in the\njudgment.\n\nThe function of the Ahnenerbe in the performance of sea-water\nexperiments conducted at Dachau from July through September 1944 was\nchiefly in connection with the furnishing of space and equipment for the\nexperiments. Sievers made these necessary arrangements on behalf of the\nAhnenerbe. As a result of Schroeder\u2019s request to Himmler through Grawitz\nfor permission to perform the sea-water experiments on inmates in\nDachau, Himmler directed on 8 July 1944 that the experiments be made on\ngypsies and three other persons with other racial qualities as control\nsubjects. Sievers was advised by Himmler\u2019s office of the above\nauthorization for experiments at the Rascher station at Dachau.\n\nOn 27 June 1944, Rascher was replaced by Ploetner as head of the\nAhnenerbe Institute for Military Scientific Research at Dachau. Sievers,\non 20 July, went to Dachau and conferred with Ploetner of the Ahnenerbe\nInstitute and the defendant Beiglboeck, who was to perform the\nexperiments, concerning the execution of the sea-water experiments and\nthe availability of working space for them. Sievers agreed to supply\nworking space in Ploetner\u2019s department and at the Ahnenerbe\nEntomological Institute.\n\nOn 26 July 1944, Sievers made a written report to Grawitz concerning\ndetails of his conference at Dachau. Sievers wrote that 40 experimental\npersons could be accommodated at \u201cour\u201d research station, that the\nAhnenerbe would supply a laboratory, and that Dr. Ploetner would give\nhis assistance, help, and advice to the Luftwaffe physicians performing\nthe experiments. Sievers also stated the number and assignment of the\npersonnel to be employed, estimating that the work would cover a period\nof three weeks and designated 23 July 1944 as the date of commencement,\nprovided that experimental persons were available and the camp commander\nhad received the necessary order from Himmler. In conclusion, Sievers\nexpressed his hope that the arrangements which he had made would permit\na successful conduct of the experiments and requested that\nacknowledgment be made to Himmler as a participant in the experiments.\n\nIn his testimony Sievers admitted that he had written the above letter\nand had conferred with Beiglboeck at Dachau. As the letter indicates,\nSievers knew that concentration camp inmates were to be used.\n\nSievers had knowledge of and criminally participated in sea-water\nexperiments.\n\nTYPHUS EXPERIMENTS\n\nDetailed description of these experiments is contained elsewhere in this\njudgment. Sievers participated in the criminal typhus experiments\nconducted by Haagen on concentration camp inmates at Natzweiler by\nmaking the necessary arrangements in connection with securing\nexperimental subjects, handling administrative problems incident to the\nexperiments, and by furnishing the Ahnenerbe station with its equipment\nin Natzweiler for their performance.\n\nOn 16 August 1943, when Haagen was preparing to transfer his typhus\nexperiments from Schirmeck to Natzweiler, he requested Sievers to make\navailable a hundred concentration camp inmates for his research. This is\nseen from a letter of 30 September 1943 from Sievers to Haagen in which\nhe states that he will be glad to assist, and that he is accordingly\ncontacting the proper source to have the \u201cdesired personnel\u201d placed at\nHaagen\u2019s disposal. As a result of Sievers\u2019 efforts, a hundred inmates\nwere shipped from Auschwitz to Natzweiler for Haagen\u2019s experiments.\nThese were found to be unfit for experimentation because of their\npitiful physical condition. A second group of one hundred was then made\navailable. Some of these were used by Haagen as experimental subjects.\n\nThat the experiments were carried out in the Ahnenerbe experimental\nstation in Natzweiler is proved by excerpts from monthly reports of the\ncamp doctor in Natzweiler. A number of deaths occurred among non-German\nexperimental subjects as a direct result of the treatment to which they\nwere subjected.\n\nPOLYGAL EXPERIMENTS\n\nEvidence has been introduced during the course of the trial to show that\nexperiments to test the efficacy of a blood coagulant \u201cpolygal\u201d were\nconducted on Dachau inmates by Rascher. The Sievers\u2019 diary shows that\nthe defendant had knowledge of activities concerning the production of\npolygal, and that he lent his support to the conduct of the experiments.\n\nJEWISH SKELETON COLLECTION\n\nSievers is charged under the indictment with participation in the\nkilling of 112 Jews who were selected to complete a skeleton collection\nfor the Reich University of Strasbourg.\n\nResponding to a request by the defendant Rudolf Brandt, Sievers\nsubmitted to him on 9 February 1942 a report by Dr. Hirt of the\nUniversity of Strasbourg on the desirability of securing a Jewish\nskeleton collection. In this report, Hirt advocated outright murder of\n\u201cJewish Bolshevik Commissars\u201d for the procurement of such a collection.\nOn 27 February 1942, Rudolf Brandt informed Sievers that Himmler would\nsupport Hirt\u2019s work and would place everything necessary at his\ndisposal. Brandt asked Sievers to inform Hirt accordingly and to report\nagain on the subject. On 2 November 1942 Sievers requested Brandt to\nmake the necessary arrangements with the Reich Main Security Office for\nproviding 150 Jewish inmates from Auschwitz to carry out this plan. On 6\nNovember, Brandt informed Adolf Eichmann, the Chief of Office IV B/4\n(Jewish Affairs) of the Reich Main Security Office to put everything at\nHirt\u2019s disposal which was necessary for the completion of the skeleton\ncollection.\n\nFrom Sievers\u2019 letter to Eichmann of 21 June 1943, it is apparent that SS\nHauptsturmfuehrer Beger, a collaborator of the Ahnenerbe Society,\ncarried out the preliminary work for the assembling of the skeleton\ncollection in the Auschwitz concentration camp on 79 Jews, 30 Jewesses,\n2 Poles, and 4 Asiatics. The corpses of the victims were sent in three\nshipments to the Anatomical Institute of Hirt in the Strasbourg\nUniversity.\n\nWhen the Allied Armies were threatening to overrun Strasbourg early in\nSeptember 1944, Sievers dispatched to Rudolf Brandt the following\nteletype message:\n\n \u201cSubject: Collection of Jewish Skeletons.\n\n \u201cIn conformity with the proposal of 9 February 1942 and with the\n consent of 23 February 1942 * * * SS Sturmbannfuehrer Professor\n Hirt planned the hitherto missing collection of skeletons. Due\n to the extent of the scientific work connected herewith, the\n preparation of the skeletons is not yet concluded. Hirt asks\n with respect to the time needed for 80 specimens, and in case\n the endangering of Strasbourg has to be reckoned with, how to\n proceed with the collection situated in the dissecting room of\n the anatomical institute. He is able to carry out the maceration\n and thus render them irrecognizable. Then, however, part of the\n entire work would have been partly done in vain, and it would be\n a great scientific loss for this unique collection, because\n hominit casts could not be made afterwards. The skeleton\n collection as such is not conspicuous. Viscera could be declared\n as remnants of corpses, apparently left in the anatomical\n institute by the French and ordered to be cremated. Decision on\n the following proposals is requested:\n\n \u201c1. Collection can be preserved.\n\n \u201c2. Collection is to be partly dissolved.\n\n \u201c3. Entire collection is to be dissolved.\n\n \u201cSievers\u201d\n\nThe pictures of the corpses and the dissecting rooms of the Institute,\ntaken by the French authorities after the liberation of Strasbourg,\npoint up the grim story of these deliberate murders to which Sievers was\na party.\n\nSievers knew from the first moment he received Hirt\u2019s report of 9\nFebruary 1942 that mass murder was planned for the procurement of the\nskeleton collection. Nevertheless he actively collaborated in the\nproject, sent an employee of the Ahnenerbe to make the preparatory\nselections in the concentration camp at Auschwitz, and provided for the\ntransfer of the victims from Auschwitz to Natzweiler. He made\narrangements that the collection be destroyed.\n\nSievers\u2019 guilt under this specification is shown without question.\n\nSievers offers two purported defenses to the charges against him (1)\nthat he acted pursuant to superior orders; (2) that he was a member of a\nresistance movement.\n\nThe first defense is wholly without merit. There is nothing to show that\nin the commission of these ghastly crimes, Sievers acted entirely\npursuant to orders. True, the basic policies or projects which he\ncarried through were decided upon by his superiors, but in the execution\nof the details Sievers had an unlimited power of discretion. The\ndefendant says that in his position he could not have refused an\nassignment. The fact remains that the record shows the case of several\nmen who did, and who have lived to tell about it.\n\nSievers\u2019 second matter of defense is equally untenable. In support of\nthe defense, Sievers offered evidence by which he hoped to prove that as\nearly as 1933 he became a member of a secret resistance movement which\nplotted to overthrow the Nazi Government and to assassinate Hitler and\nHimmler; that as a leading member of the group, Sievers obtained the\nappointment as Reich Business Manager of the Ahnenerbe so that he could\nbe close to Himmler and observe his movements; that in this position he\nbecame enmeshed in the revolting crimes, the subject matter of this\nindictment; that he remained as business manager upon advice of his\nresistance leader to gain vital information which would hasten the day\nof the overthrow of the Nazi Government and the liberation of the\nhelpless peoples coming under its domination.\n\nAssuming all these things to be true, we cannot see how they may be used\nas a defense for Sievers. The fact remains that murders were committed\nwith cooperation of the Ahnenerbe upon countless thousands of wretched\nconcentration camp inmates who had not the slightest means of\nresistance. Sievers directed the program by which these murders were\ncommitted.\n\nIt certainly is not the law that a resistance worker can commit no\ncrime, and least of all, against the very people he is supposed to be\nprotecting.\n\nMEMBERSHIP IN A CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION\n\nUnder count four of the indictment, Wolfram Sievers is charged with\nbeing a member of an organization declared criminal by the judgment of\nthe International Military Tribunal, namely, the SS. The evidence shows\nthat Wolfram Sievers became a member of the SS in 1935 and remained a\nmember of that organization to the end of the war. As a member of the SS\nhe was criminally implicated in the commission of war crimes and crimes\nagainst humanity, as charged under counts two and three of the\nindictment.\n\nCONCLUSION\n\nMilitary Tribunal I finds and adjudges the defendant Wolfram Sievers\nguilty under counts two, three and four of the indictment.\n\n\n ROSE\n\nThe defendant Rose is charged under counts two and three of the\nindictment with special responsibility for, and participation in Typhus\nand Epidemic Jaundice Experiments.\n\nThe latter charge has been abandoned by the prosecution.\n\nEvidence was offered concerning Rose\u2019s criminal participation in malaria\nexperiments at Dachau, although he was not named in the indictment as\none of the defendants particularly charged with criminal responsibility\nin connection with malaria experiments. Questions presented by this\nsituation will be discussed later.\n\nThe defendant Rose is a physician of large experience, for many years\nrecognized as an expert in tropical diseases. He studied medicine at the\nUniversities of Berlin and Breslau and was admitted to practice in the\nfall of 1921. After serving as interne in several medical institutes, he\nreceived an appointment on the staff of the Robert Koch Institute in\nBerlin. Later he served on the staff of Heidelberg University and for\nthree years engaged in the private practice of medicine in Heidelberg.\nIn 1929 he went to China, where he remained until 1936, occupying\nimportant positions as medical adviser to the Chinese Government. In\n1936 he returned to Germany and became head of the Department for\nTropical Medicine at the Robert Koch Institute in Berlin. Late in August\n1939 he joined the Luftwaffe with the rank of first lieutenant in the\nMedical Corps. In that service he was commissioned brigadier general in\nthe reserve and continued on active duty until the end of the war. He\nwas consultant on hygiene and tropical medicine to the Chief of the\nMedical Service of the Luftwaffe. From 1944 he was also consultant on\nthe staff of defendant Handloser and was medical adviser to Dr. Conti in\nmatters pertaining to tropical diseases. During the war Rose devoted\npractically all of his time to his duties as consultant to the Chief of\nthe Medical Service of the Luftwaffe, Hippke, and after 1 January 1944,\nthe defendant Schroeder.\n\nMALARIA EXPERIMENTS\n\nMedical experiments in connection with malaria were carried on at Dachau\nconcentration camp from February 1942 until the end of the war. These\nexperiments were conducted under Dr. Klaus Schilling for the purpose of\ndiscovering a method of establishing immunity against malaria. During\nthe course of the experiments probably as many as 1,000 inmates of the\nconcentration camp were used as subjects of the experiments. Very many\nof these persons were nationals of countries other than Germany who did\nnot volunteer for the experiments. By credible evidence it is\nestablished that approximately 30 of the experimental subjects died as a\ndirect result of the experiments and that many more succumbed from\ncauses directly following the experiments, including non-German\nnationals.\n\nWith reference to Rose\u2019s participation in these experiments, the record\nshows the following: The defendant Rose had been acquainted with\nSchilling for a number of years, having been his successor in a position\nonce held by Schilling in the Robert Koch Institute. Under date 3\nFebruary 1941, Rose, writing to Schilling, then in Italy, referred to a\nletter received from Schilling, in which the latter requested \u201cmalaria\nspleens\u201d (spleens taken from the bodies of persons who had died from\nmalaria). Rose in reply asked for information concerning the exact\nnature of the material desired. Schilling wrote 4 April 1942 from Dachau\nto Rose at Berlin, stating that he had inoculated a person\nintracutaneously with sporocoides from the salivary glands of a female\nanopheles which Rose had sent him. The letter continues:\n\n \u201cFor the second inoculation I miss the sporocoides material\n because I do not possess the \u2018Strain Rose\u2019 in the anopheles yet.\n If you could find it possible to send me in the next days a few\n anopheles infected with \u2018Strain Rose\u2019 (with the last consignment\n two out of ten mosquitoes were infected) I would have the\n possibility to continue this experiment and I would naturally be\n very thankful to you for this new support of my work.\n\n \u201cThe mosquito breeding and the experiments proceed\n satisfactorily and I am working now on six tertiary strains.\u201d\n\nThe letter bears the handwritten endorsement \u201cfinished 17 April 1942. L.\ng. RO 17/4,\u201d which evidence clearly reveals that Rose had complied with\nSchilling\u2019s request for material.\n\nSchilling again wrote Rose from Dachau malaria station 5 July 1943,\nthanking Rose for his letter and \u201cthe consignment of atroparvus eggs.\u201d\nThe letter continues:\n\n \u201cFive percent of them brought on water went down and were\n therefore unfit for development; the rest of them hatched almost\n 100 percent.\n\n \u201cThanks to your solicitude, achieved again the completion of my\n breed.\n\n \u201cDespite this fact I accept with great pleasure your offer to\n send me your excess of eggs. How did you dispatch this\n consignment? The result could not have been any better!\n\n \u201cPlease tell Fraeulein Lange, who apparently takes care of her\n breed with greater skill and better success than the prisoner\n August, my best thanks for her trouble.\n\n \u201cAgain my sincere thanks to you!\u201d\n\nThe \u201cprisoner August\u201d mentioned in the letter was doubtless the witness\nAugust Vieweg, who testified before this Tribunal concerning the malaria\nexperiments.\n\nRose wrote Schilling 27 July 1943 in answer to the latter\u2019s letter of 5\nJuly 1943, stating he was glad the shipment of eggs had arrived in good\norder and had proved useful. He also gave the information that another\nshipment of anopheles eggs would follow.\n\nIn the fall of 1942 Rose was present at the \u201cCold Conference\u201d held at\nNuernberg and heard Holzloehner deliver his lecture on the freezing\nexperiments which had taken place at Dachau. Rose testified that after\nthe conference he talked with Holzloehner, who told him that the\ncarrying out of physiological experiments on human beings imposed upon\nhim a tremendous mental burden, adding that he hoped he never would\nreceive another order to conduct such experiments.\n\nIt is impossible to believe that during the years 1942 and 1943 Rose was\nunaware of malaria experiments on human beings which were progressing at\nDachau under Schilling, or to credit Rose with innocence of knowledge\nthat the malaria research was not confined solely to vaccinations\ndesigned for the purpose of immunizing the persons vaccinated. On the\ncontrary, it is clear that Rose well knew that human beings were being\nused in the concentration camp as subjects for medical experimentation.\n\nHowever, no adjudication either of guilt or innocence will be entered\nagainst Rose for criminal participation in these experiments for the\nfollowing reason: In preparing counts two and three of its indictment\nthe prosecution elected to frame its pleading in such a manner as to\ncharge all defendants with the commission of war crimes and crimes\nagainst humanity, generally, and at the same time to name in each\nsub-paragraph dealing with medical experiments only those defendants\nparticularly charged with responsibility for each particular item.\n\nIn our view this constituted, in effect, a bill of particulars and was,\nin essence, a declaration to the defendants upon which they were\nentitled to rely in preparing their defenses, that only such persons as\nwere actually named in the designated experiments would be called upon\nto defend against the specific items. Included in the list of names of\nthose defendants specifically charged with responsibility for the\nmalaria experiments the name of Rose does not appear. We think it would\nbe manifestly unfair to the defendant to find him guilty of an offense\nwith which the indictment affirmatively indicated he was not charged.\n\nThis does not mean that the evidence adduced by the prosecution was\ninadmissible against the charges actually preferred against Rose. We\nthink it had probative value as proof of the fact of Rose\u2019s knowledge of\nhuman experimentation upon concentration camp inmates.\n\nTYPHUS EXPERIMENTS\n\nThese experiments were carried out at Buchenwald and Natzweiler\nconcentration camps, over a period extending from 1942 to 1945, in an\nattempt to procure a protective typhus vaccine.\n\nIn the experimental block at Buchenwald, with Dr. Ding in charge,\ninmates of the camp were infected with typhus for the purpose of\nprocuring a continuing supply of fresh blood taken from persons\nsuffering from typhus. Other inmates, some previously immunized and some\nnot, were infected with typhus to demonstrate the efficacy of the\nvaccines. Full particulars of these experiments have been given\nelsewhere in the judgment.\n\nRose visited Buchenwald in company with Gildemeister of the Robert Koch\nInstitute in the spring of 1942. At this time Dr. Ding was absent,\nsuffering from typhus as the result of an accidental infection received\nwhile infecting his experimental subjects. Rose inspected the\nexperimental block where he saw many persons suffering from typhus. He\npassed through the wards and looked at the clinical records \u201cof * * *\npersons with severe cases in the control cases and * * * lighter cases\namong those vaccinated.\u201d\n\nThe Ding diary, under dates 19 August-4 September 1942, referring to use\nof vaccines for immunization, states that 20 persons were inoculated\nwith vaccine from Bucharest, with a note \u201cthis vaccine was made\navailable by Professor Rose, who received it from Navy Doctor Professor\nRuegge from Bucharest.\u201d Rose denied that he had ever sent vaccine to\nMrugowsky or Ding for use at Buchenwald. Mrugowsky, from Berlin, under\ndate 16 May 1942, wrote Rose as follows:\n\n \u201cDear Professor:\n\n \u201cThe Reich Physician SS and Police has consented to the\n execution of experiments to test typhus vaccines. May I\n therefore ask you to let me have the vaccines.\n\n \u201cThe other question which you raised, as to whether the louse\n can be infected by a vaccinated typhus patient, will also be\n dealt with. In principle, this also has been approved. There\n are, however, still some difficulties at the moment about the\n practical execution, since we have at present no facilities for\n breeding lice.\n\n \u201cYour suggestion to use Olzscha has been passed on to the\n personnel department of the SS medical office. It will be given\n consideration in due course.\u201d\n\nFrom a note on the letter, it appears that Rose was absent from Berlin\nand was not expected to return until June. The letter, however, refers\nto previous contact with Rose and to some suggestions made by him which\nevidently concern medical experiments on human beings. Rose in effect\nadmitted that he had forwarded the Bucharest vaccine to be tested at\nBuchenwald.\n\nAt a meeting of consulting physicians of the Wehrmacht held in May 1943,\nDing made a report in which he described the typhus experiments he had\nbeen performing at Buchenwald. Rose heard the report at the meeting and\nthen and there objected strongly to the methods used by Ding in\nconducting the experiments. As may well be imagined, this protest\ncreated considerable discussion among those present.\n\nThe Ding diary shows that, subsequent to this meeting, experiments were\nconducted at Buchenwald at the instigation of the defendant Rose. The\nentry under date of 8 March 1944, which refers to \u201ctyphus vaccine\nexperimental series VIII\u201d, appears as follows:\n\n \u201cSuggested by Colonel M. C. of the Air Corps, Professor Rose\n (Oberstarzt), the vaccine \u2018Kopenhagen\u2019 (Ipsen-Murine-vaccine)\n produced from mouse liver by the National Serum Institute in\n Copenhagen was tested for its compatibility on humans. 20\n persons were vaccinated for immunization by intramuscular\n injection * * *. 10 persons were contemplated for control and\n comparison. 4 of the 30 persons were eliminated before the start\n of the artificial injection because of intermittent sickness * *\n *. The remaining experimental persons were infected on 16 April\n 44 by subcutaneous injection of 1/20 cc. typhus sick fresh blood\n * * *. The following fell sick: 17 persons immunized: 9 medium,\n 8 seriously; 9 persons control: 2 medium, 7 seriously * * *. 2\n June 44: The experimental series was concluded 13 June 44: Chart\n and case history completed and sent to Berlin. 6 deaths (3\n Copenhagen) (3 control). Dr. Ding.\u201d\n\nWhen on the witness stand Rose vigorously challenged the correctness of\nthis entry in the Ding diary and flatly denied that he had sent a\nCopenhagen vaccine to Mrugowsky or Ding for use at Buchenwald. The\nprosecution met this challenge by offering in evidence a letter from\nRose to Mrugowsky dated 2 December 1943, in which Rose stated that he\nhad at his disposal a number of samples of a new murine virus typhus\nvaccine prepared from mice livers, which in animal experiments had been\nmuch more effective than the vaccine prepared from the lungs of mice.\nThe letter continued:\n\n \u201cTo decide whether this first-rate murine vaccine should be used\n for protective vaccination of human beings against lice typhus,\n it would be desirable to know if this vaccine showed in your and\n Ding\u2019s experimental arrangement at Buchenwald an effect similar\n to that of the classic virus vaccines.\n\n \u201cWould you be able to have such an experimental series carried\n out? Unfortunately I could not reach you over the phone.\n Considering the slowness of postal communications I would be\n grateful for an answer by telephone * * *.\u201d\n\nThe letter shows on its face that it was forwarded by Mrugowsky to Ding,\nwho noted its receipt by him 21 February 1944.\n\nOn cross-examination, when Rose was confronted with the letter he\nadmitted its authorship, and that he had asked that experiments be\ncarried out by Mrugowsky and Ding at Buchenwald.\n\nThe fact that Rose contributed actively and materially to the\nMrugowsky-Ding experiments at Buchenwald clearly appears from the\nevidence.\n\nThe evidence also shows that Rose actively collaborated in the typhus\nexperiments carried out by Haagen at the Natzweiler concentration camp\nfor the benefit of the Luftwaffe.\n\nFrom the exhibits in the record, it appears that Rose and Haagen\ncorresponded during the month of June 1943 concerning the production of\na vaccine for typhus. Under date 5 June 1943 Haagen wrote to Rose\namplifying a telephone conversation between the two and referring to a\nletter from a certain Giroud with reference to a vaccine which had been\nused on rabbits. A few days later Rose replied, thanking him for his\nletters of 4 and 5 June and for \u201cthe prompt execution of my request.\u201d\nThe record makes it plain that by use of the phrase \u201cthe prompt\nexecution of my request\u201d was meant a request made by Rose to the Chief\nof the Medical Service of the Wehrmacht for an order to produce typhus\nvaccine to be used by the armed forces in the eastern area.\n\nUnder date 4 October 1943 Haagen again wrote Rose concerning his plans\nfor vaccine production, making reference in the letter to a report made\nby Rose on the Ipsen vaccine. Haagen stated that he had already reported\nto Rose on the results of experiments with human beings and expressed\nhis regret that, up to the date of the letter, he had been unable to\n\u201cperform infection experiments on the vaccinated persons.\u201d He also\nstated that he had requested the Ahnenerbe to provide suitable persons\nfor vaccination but had received no answer; that he was then vaccinating\nother human beings and would report results later. He concluded by\nexpressing the wish and need for experimental subjects upon whom to test\nvaccinations, and suggested that when subjects were procured, parallel\ntests should be made between the vaccine referred to in the letter and\nthe Ipsen tests.\n\nWe think the only reasonable inference which can be drawn from this\nletter is that Haagen was proposing to test the efficacy of the\nvaccinations which he had completed, which could only be accomplished by\ninfecting the vaccinated subjects with a virulent pathogenic virus.\n\nIn a letter written by Rose and dated \u201cin the field, 29 September 1943\u201d,\ndirected to the Behring Works at Marburg/Lahn, Rose states that he is\nenclosing a memorandum regarding reports by Dr. Ipsen on his experience\nin the production of typhus vaccine. Copy of the report which Rose\nenclosed is in evidence, Rose stating therein that he had proposed, and\nIpsen had promised, that a number of Ipsen\u2019s liver vaccine samples\nshould be sent to Rose with the object of testing its protective\nefficacy on human beings whose lives were in special danger. Copies of\nthis report were forwarded by Rose to several institutions, including\nthat presided over by Haagen.\n\nIn November 1943, 100 prisoners were transported to Natzweiler, of whom\n18 had died during the journey. The remainder were in such poor health\nthat Haagen found them worthless for his experiments and requested\nadditional healthy prisoners through Dr. Hirt, who was a member of the\nAhnenerbe.\n\nRose wrote to Haagen 13 December 1943, saying among other things \u201cI\nrequest that in procuring persons for vaccination in your experiment,\nyou request a corresponding number of persons for vaccination with\nCopenhagen vaccine. This has the advantage, as also appeared in the\nBuchenwald experiments, that the test of various vaccines simultaneously\ngives a clearer idea of their value than the test of one vaccine alone.\u201d\n\nThere is much other evidence connecting Rose with the series of\nexperiments conducted by Haagen but we shall not burden the judgment\nfurther. It will be sufficient to say that the evidence proves\nconclusively that Rose was directly connected with the criminal\nexperiments conducted by Haagen.\n\nDoubtless at the outset of the experimental program launched in the\nconcentration camps, Rose may have voiced some vigorous opposition. In\nthe end, however, he overcame what scruples he had and knowingly took an\nactive and consenting part in the program. He attempts to justify his\nactions on the ground that a state may validly order experiments to be\ncarried out on persons condemned to death without regard to the fact\nthat such persons may refuse to consent to submit themselves as\nexperimental subjects. This defense entirely misses the point of the\ndominant issue. As we have pointed out in the case of Gebhardt, whatever\nmay be the condition of the law with reference to medical experiments\nconducted by or through a state upon its own citizens, such a thing will\nnot be sanctioned in international law when practiced upon citizens or\nsubjects of an occupied territory.\n\nWe have indulged every presumption in favor of the defendant, but his\nposition lacks substance in the face of the overwhelming evidence\nagainst him. His own consciousness of turpitude is clearly disclosed by\nthe statement made by him at the close of a vigorous cross-examination\nin the following language:\n\n \u201cIt was known to me that such experiments had earlier been\n carried out, although I basically objected to these experiments.\n This institution had been set up in Germany and was approved by\n the state and covered by the state. At that moment I was in a\n position which perhaps corresponds to a lawyer who is, perhaps,\n a basic opponent of execution or death sentence. On occasion\n when he is dealing with leading members of the government, or\n with lawyers during public congresses or meetings, he will do\n everything in his power to maintain his opinion on the subject\n and have it put into effect. If, however, he does not succeed,\n he stays in his profession and in his environment in spite of\n this. Under circumstances he may perhaps even be forced to\n pronounce such a death sentence himself, although he is\n basically an opponent of that set-up.\u201d\n\nThe Tribunal finds that the defendant Rose was a principal in, accessory\nto, ordered, abetted, took a consenting part in, and was connected with\nplans and enterprises involving medical experiments on non-German\nnationals without their consent, in the course of which murders,\nbrutalities, cruelties, tortures, atrocities, and other inhuman acts\nwere committed. To the extent that these crimes were not war crimes they\nwere crimes against humanity.\n\nCONCLUSION\n\nMilitary Tribunal I finds and adjudges the defendant Gerhard Rose guilty\nunder counts two and three of the indictment.\n\n\n RUFF, ROMBERG, AND WELTZ\n\nThe defendants Ruff, Romberg, and Weltz are charged under counts two and\nthree of the indictment with special responsibility for, and\nparticipation in, High-Altitude Experiments.\n\nThe defendant Weltz is also charged under counts two and three with\nspecial responsibility for, and participation in, Freezing Experiments.\n\nTo the extent that the evidence in the record relates to the\nhigh-altitude experiments, the cases of the three defendants will be\nconsidered together.\n\nDefendant Ruff specialized in the field of aviation medicine from the\ncompletion of his medical education at Berlin and Bonn in 1932. In\nJanuary 1934 he was assigned to the German Experimental Institute for\nAviation, a civilian agency, in order to establish a department for\naviation medicine. Later he became chief of the department.\n\nDefendant Romberg joined the NSDAP in May 1933. From April 1936 until\n1938 he interned as an assistant physician at a Berlin hospital. On 1\nJanuary 1938 he joined the staff of the German Experimental Institution\nfor Aviation as an associate assistant to the defendant Ruff. He\nremained as a subordinate to Ruff until the end of the war.\n\nDefendant Weltz for many years was a specialist in X-ray work. In the\nyear 1935 he received an assignment as lecturer in the field of aviation\nmedicine at the University of Munich. At the same time he instituted a\nsmall experimental department at the Physiological Institute of the\nUniversity of Munich. Weltz lectured at the University until 1945; at\nthe same time he did research work at the Institute.\n\nIn the summer of 1941 the experimental department at the Physiological\nInstitute, University of Munich, was taken over by the Luftwaffe and\nrenamed the \u201cInstitute for Aviation Medicine in Munich.\u201d Weltz was\ncommissioned director of this Institute by Hippke, then Chief of the\nMedical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe. In his capacity as director of\nthis Institute, Weltz was subordinated to Luftgau No. VII in Munich for\ndisciplinary purposes. In scientific matters he was subordinated\ndirectly to Anthony, Chief of the Department for Aviation Medicine in\nthe Office of the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe.\n\nHIGH-ALTITUDE EXPERIMENTS\n\nThe evidence is overwhelming and not contradicted that experiments\ninvolving the effect of low air pressure on living human beings were\nconducted at Dachau from the latter part of February through May 1942.\nIn some of these experiments great numbers of human subjects were killed\nunder the most brutal and senseless conditions. A certain Dr. Sigmund\nRascher, Luftwaffe officer, was the prime mover in the experiments which\nresulted in the deaths of the subjects. The prosecution maintains that\nRuff, Romberg, and Weltz were criminally implicated in these\nexperiments.\n\nThe guilt of the defendant Weltz is said to arise by reason of the fact\nthat, according to the prosecution\u2019s theory, Weltz, as the dominant\nfigure proposed the experiments, arranged for their conduct at Dachau,\nand brought the parties Ruff, Romberg, and Rascher together. The guilt\nof Ruff and Romberg is charged by reason of the fact that they are said\nto have collaborated with Rascher in the conduct of the experiments. The\nevidence on the details of the matter appears to be as follows:\n\nIn the late summer of 1941 soon after the Institute Weltz at Munich was\ntaken over by the Luftwaffe, Hippke, Chief of the Medical Service of the\nLuftwaffe, approved, in principle, a research assignment for Weltz in\nconnection with the problem of rescue of aviators at high altitudes.\nThis required the use of human experimental subjects. Weltz endeavored\nto secure volunteer subjects for the research from various sources;\nhowever, he was unsuccessful in his efforts.\n\nRascher, one of Himmler\u2019s minor satellites, was at the time an assistant\nat the Institute. He, Rascher, suggested the possibility of securing\nHimmler\u2019s consent to conducting the experiments at Dachau. Weltz seized\nupon the suggestion, and thereafter arrangements to that end were\ncompleted, Himmler giving his consent for experiments to be conducted on\nconcentration camp inmates condemned to death, but only upon express\ncondition that Rascher be included as one of the collaborators in the\nresearch.\n\nRascher was not an expert in aviation medicine. Ruff was the leading\nGerman scientist in this field, and Romberg was his principal assistant.\nWeltz felt that before he could proceed with his research these men\nshould be persuaded to come into the undertaking. He visited Ruff in\nBerlin and explained the proposition. Thereafter Ruff and Romberg came\nto Munich, where a conference was held with Weltz and Rascher to discuss\nthe technical nature of the proposed experiments.\n\nAccording to the testimony of Weltz, Ruff, and Romberg, the basic\nconsideration which impelled them to agree to the use of concentration\ncamp inmates as subjects was the fact that the inmates were to be\ncriminals condemned to death who were to receive some form of clemency\nin the event they survived the experiments. Rascher, who was active in\nthe conference, assured the defendants that this also was one of the\nconditions under which Himmler had authorized the use of camp inmates as\nexperimental subjects.\n\nThe decisions reached at the conference were then made known to Hippke,\nwho gave his approval to the institution of experiments at Dachau and\nissued an order that a mobile low-pressure chamber which was then in the\npossession of Ruff at the Department for Aviation Medicine, Berlin,\nshould be transferred to Dachau for use in the project.\n\nA second meeting was held at Dachau, attended by Ruff, Romberg, Weltz,\nRascher, and the camp commander, to make the necessary arrangements for\nthe conduct of the experiments. The mobile low-pressure chamber was then\nbrought to Dachau, and on 22 February 1942 the first series of\nexperiments was instituted.\n\nWeltz was Rascher\u2019s superior; Romberg was subordinate to Ruff. Rascher\nand Romberg were in personal charge of the conduct of the experiments.\nThere is no evidence to show that Weltz was ever present at any of these\nexperiments. Ruff visited Dachau one day during the early part of the\nexperiments, but thereafter remained in Berlin and received information\nconcerning the progress of the experiments only through his subordinate,\nRomberg.\n\nThere is evidence from which it may reasonably be found that at the\noutset of the program personal friction developed between Weltz and his\nsubordinate Rascher. The testimony of Weltz is that on several occasions\nhe asked Rascher for reports on the progress of the experiments and each\ntime Rascher told Weltz that nothing had been started with reference to\nthe research. Finally Weltz ordered Rascher to make a report; whereupon\nRascher showed his superior a telegram from Himmler which stated, in\nsubstance, that the experiments to be conducted by Rascher were to be\ntreated as top secret matter and that reports were to be given to none\nother than Himmler. Because of this situation Weltz had Rascher\ntransferred out of his command to the DVL branch at Dachau. Defendant\nRomberg stated that these experiments had been stopped soon after their\ninception by the adjutant of the Reich War Ministry, because of friction\nbetween Weltz and Rascher, and that the experiments were resumed only\nafter Rascher had been transferred out of Weltz Institute.\n\nWhile the evidence is convincingly plain that Weltz participated in the\ninitial arrangements for the experiments and brought all parties\ntogether, it is not so clear that illegal experiments were planned or\ncarried out while Rascher was under Weltz command, or that he knew that\nexperiments which Rascher might conduct in the future would be illegal\nand criminal.\n\nThere appear to have been two distinct groups of prisoners used in the\nexperimental series. One was a group of 10 to 15 inmates known in the\ncamp as \u201cexhibition patients\u201d or \u201cpermanent experimental subjects\u201d.\nMost, if not all, of these were German nationals who were confined in\nthe camp as criminal prisoners. These men were housed together and were\nwell-fed and reasonably contented. None of them suffered death or injury\nas a result of the experiments. The other group consisted of 150 to 200\nsubjects picked at random from the camp and used in the experiments\nwithout their permission. Some 70 or 80 of these were killed during the\ncourse of the experiments.\n\nThe defendants Ruff and Romberg maintain that two separate and distinct\nexperimental series were carried on at Dachau; one conducted by them\nwith the use of the \u201cexhibition subjects\u201d, relating to the problems of\nrescue at high altitudes, in which no injuries occurred; the other\nconducted by Rascher on the large group of nonvolunteers picked from the\ncamp at random, to test the limits of human endurance at extremely high\naltitudes, in which experimental subjects in large numbers were killed.\n\nThe prosecution submits that no such fine distinction may be drawn\nbetween the experiments said to have been conducted by Ruff and Romberg,\non the one hand, and Rascher on the other, or in the prisoners who were\nused as the subjects of these experiments; that Romberg\u2014and Ruff as his\nsuperior\u2014share equal guilt with Rascher for all experiments in which\ndeaths to the human subjects resulted.\n\nIn support of this submission the members of the prosecution cite the\nfact that Rascher was always present when Romberg was engaged in work at\nthe altitude chamber; that on at least three occasions Romberg was at\nthe chamber when deaths occurred to the so-called Rascher subjects, yet\nelected to continue the experiments. They point likewise to the fact\nthat, in a secret preliminary report made by Rascher to Himmler which\ntells of deaths, Rascher mentions the name of Romberg as being a\ncollaborator in the research. Finally they point to the fact that, after\nthe experiments were concluded, Romberg was recommended by Rascher and\nSievers for the War Merit Cross, because of the work done by him at\nDachau.\n\nThe issue on the question of the guilt or innocence of these defendants\nis close; we would be less than fair were we not to concede this fact.\nIt cannot be denied that there is much in the record to create at least\na grave suspicion that the defendants Ruff and Romberg were implicated\nin criminal experiments at Dachau. However, virtually all of the\nevidence which points in this direction is circumstantial in its nature.\nOn the other hand, it cannot be gainsaid that there is a certain\nconsistency, a certain logic, in the story told by the defendants. And\nsome of the story is corroborated in significant particulars by evidence\noffered by the prosecution.\n\nThe value of circumstantial evidence depends upon the conclusive nature\nand tendency of the circumstances relied on to establish any\ncontroverted fact. The circumstances must not only be consistent with\nguilt, but they must be inconsistent with innocence. Such evidence is\ninsufficient when, assuming all to be true which the evidence tends to\nprove, some other reasonable hypothesis of innocence may still be true;\nfor it is the actual exclusion of every other reasonable hypothesis but\nthat of guilt which invests mere circumstances with the force of proof.\nTherefore, before a court will be warranted in finding a defendant\nguilty on circumstantial evidence alone, the evidence must show such a\nwell-connected and unbroken chain of circumstances as to exclude all\nother reasonable hypotheses but that of the guilt of the defendant. What\ncircumstances can amount to proof can never be a matter of general\ndefinition. In the final analysis the legal test is whether the evidence\nis sufficient to satisfy beyond a reasonable doubt the understanding and\nconscience of those who, under their solemn oaths as officers, must\nassume the responsibility for finding the facts.\n\nOn this particular specification, it is the conviction of the Tribunal\nthat the defendants Ruff, Romberg, and Weltz must be found not guilty.\n\nFREEZING EXPERIMENTS\n\nIn addition to the high-altitude experiments, the defendant Weltz is\ncharged with freezing experiments, likewise conducted at Dachau for the\nbenefit of the German Luftwaffe. These began at the camp at the\nconclusion of the high-altitude experiments and were performed by\nHolzloehner, Finke, and Rascher, all of whom were officers in the\nmedical services of the Luftwaffe. Non-German nationals were killed in\nthese experiments.\n\nWe think it quite probable that Weltz had knowledge of these\nexperiments, but the evidence is not sufficient to prove that he\nparticipated in them.\n\nCONCLUSION\n\nMilitary Tribunal I finds and adjudges that the defendant Siegfried Ruff\nis not guilty under either counts two or three of the indictment, and\ndirects that he be released from custody under the indictment when this\nTribunal presently adjourns; and\n\nMilitary Tribunal I finds and adjudges that the defendant Hans Wolfgang\nRomberg is not guilty under either counts two or three of the\nindictment, and directs that he be released from custody under the\nindictment when this Tribunal presently adjourns; and\n\nMilitary Tribunal I finds and adjudges that the defendant Georg August\nWeltz is not guilty under either counts two or three of the indictment;\nand directs that he be released from custody under the indictment when\nthis Tribunal presently adjourns.\n\n\n BRACK\n\nThe defendant Brack is charged under counts two and three of the\nindictment with personal responsibility for, and participation in,\nSterilization Experiments and the Euthanasia Program of the German\nReich. Under count four the defendant is charged with membership in an\norganization declared criminal by the judgment of the International\nMilitary Tribunal, namely, the SS.\n\nThe defendant Brack enlisted in an artillery unit of an SA regiment in\n1923, and became a member of the NSDAP and the SS in 1929. Throughout\nhis career in the Party he was quite active in high official circles. He\nentered upon full-time service in the Braune Haus, the Nazi headquarters\nat Munich, in the summer of 1932. The following year he was appointed to\nthe Staff of Bouhler, business manager of the NSDAP in Munich. When in\n1934 Bouhler became Chief of the Chancellery of the Fuehrer of the\nNSDAP, Brack was transferred from the Braune Haus to Bouhler\u2019s Berlin\noffice. In 1936 Brack was placed in charge of office 2 (Amt 2) in the\nChancellery of the Fuehrer in Berlin, that office being charged with the\nexaminations of complaints received by the Fuehrer from all parts of\nGermany. Later, he became Bouhler\u2019s deputy in office 2. As such he\nfrequently journeyed to the different Gaue for the purpose of gaining\nfirst-hand information concerning matters in which Bouhler was\ninterested.\n\nBrack was promoted to the rank of Sturmbannfuehrer in the SS in 1935,\nand in April 1936 to the rank of Obersturmbannfuehrer. The following\nSeptember he became a Standartenfuehrer in the SS, and was transferred\nto the staff of the Main Office of the SS in November. In November 1940\nhe was promoted to the grade of Oberfuehrer.\n\nIn 1942 Brack joined the Waffen SS, and during the late summer of that\nyear was ordered to active duty with a Waffen SS division. He apparently\nremained on active duty until the close of the war.\n\nSTERILIZATION EXPERIMENTS\n\nThe persecution of the Jews had become a fixed Nazi policy very soon\nafter the outbreak of World War II. By 1941 that persecution had reached\nthe stage of the extermination of Jews, both in Germany and in the\noccupied territories. This fact is confirmed by Brack himself, who\ntestified that he had been told by Himmler that he, Himmler, had\nreceived a personal order to that effect from Hitler.\n\nThe record shows that the agencies organized for the so-called\neuthanasia of incurables were used for this bloody pogrom. Later,\nbecause of the urgent need for laborers in Germany, it was decided not\nto kill Jews who were able to work but, as an alternative, to sterilize\nthem.\n\nWith this end in view Himmler instructed Brack to inquire of physicians\nwho were engaged in the Euthanasia Program about the possibility of a\nmethod of sterilizing persons without the victim\u2019s knowledge. Brack\nworked on the assignment, with the result that in March 1941 he\nforwarded to Himmler his signed report on the results of experiments\nconcerning the sterilization of human beings by means of X-rays. In the\nreport a method was suggested by which sterilization with X-ray could be\neffected on groups of persons without their being aware of the\noperation.\n\nOn 23 June 1942 Brack wrote the following letter to Himmler:\n\n \u201cDear Reichsfuehrer:\n\n \u201c* * * Among 10 millions of Jews in Europe, there are, I figure,\n at least 2-3 millions of men and women who are fit enough to\n work. Considering the extraordinary difficulties the labor\n problem presents us with I hold the view that those 2-3 millions\n should be specially selected and preserved. This can however\n only be done if at the same time they are rendered incapable to\n propagate. About a year ago I reported to you that agents of\n mine have completed the experiments necessary for this purpose.\n I would like to recall these facts once more. Sterilization, as\n normally performed on persons with hereditary diseases is here\n out of the question, because it takes too long and is too\n expensive. Castration by X-ray however is not only relatively\n cheap, but can also be performed on many thousands in the\n shortest time. I think, that at this time it is already\n irrelevant whether the people in question become aware of having\n been castrated after some weeks or months, once they feel the\n effects.\n\n \u201cShould you, Reichsfuehrer, decide to choose this way in the\n interest of the preservation of labor, then Reichsleiter Bouhler\n would be prepared to place all physicians and other personnel\n needed for this work at your disposal. Likewise he requested me\n to inform you that then I would have to order the apparatus so\n urgently needed with the greatest speed.\n\n \u201cHeil Hitler!\n \u201cYours\n \u201cVIKTOR BRACK.\u201d\n\nBrack testified from the witness stand that at the time he wrote this\nletter he had every confidence that Germany would win the war.\n\nBrack\u2019s letter was answered by Himmler on 11 August 1942. In the reply\nHimmler directed that sterilization by means of X-rays be tried in at\nleast one concentration camp in a series of experiments, and that Brack\nplace at his disposal expert physicians to conduct the operation.\n\nBlankenburg, Brack\u2019s deputy, replied to Himmler\u2019s letter and stated that\nBrack had been transferred to an SS division, but that he, Blankenburg,\nas Brack\u2019s permanent deputy would \u201cimmediately take the necessary\nmeasures and get in touch with the chiefs of the main offices of the\nconcentration camps.\u201d\n\nA Polish Jew testified before the Tribunal that while confined in\nAuschwitz concentration camp he was marched to Birkenau and forcibly\nsubjected to severe X-ray exposure and was castrated later in order that\nthe effects of the X-ray could be studied.\n\nA French physician of Jewish descent who was confined at Auschwitz from\nSeptember 1943 to January 1945, testified that near Auschwitz was\nBirkenau camp where people were sterilized by SS doctors. About 100 male\nPoles who had been sterilized at Birkenau were attended by the witness\nafter the operation. Later this group was castrated by the camp\nphysicians.\n\nThe record contains other evidence from which it is manifestly plain\nthat sterilization by means of X-rays was attempted on groups of persons\nwho were painfully injured thereby; and that castration followed the\nX-ray procedures.\n\nBrack\u2019s part in the organization of the sterilization program with full\nknowledge that it would be put into execution, is conclusively shown by\nthe record.\n\nEUTHANASIA PROGRAM\n\nThe Euthanasia Program, which was put into effect by a secret decree of\nHitler on the day that Germany invaded Poland, has been discussed at\nlength in the judgment in the case against Karl Brandt.\n\nBrack contends that he was basically opposed to this program and that,\non occasion, he assisted certain of his Jewish friends to escape from\nits consequences. But be that as it may, the evidence is that whatever\nsentiments Brack may have entertained toward individual members of the\nrace, he was perfectly willing to and did act as an important\nadministrator in furthering the Euthanasia Program. After it had gotten\nunder way, he wrote letters to various public officials, explaining to\nthem how to keep the matter secret and to allay the public sentiment\nagainst the program.\n\nThis much is shown by Brack\u2019s own statements. As a witness on the stand\nhe testified that while at first he did not understand the full import\nof the program, he decided, after a talk with Bouhler, to collaborate in\ncarrying out the assignment and to execute Bouhler\u2019s orders.\n\nHe participated in the initial meetings called for the purpose of\nplacing the project in operation. He was present at meetings of the\nexperts, as well as the administrative discussions. He often acted as\nBouhler\u2019s representative, frequently making decisions which called for\nthe exercise of personal judgment and a wide latitude of discretion.\n\nBrack admitted that such were his activities in the program, that one\nmight well have come to the conclusion that he was the influential man\nin euthanasia.\n\nAs Bouhler\u2019s deputy he addressed a meeting at Munich, where he explained\nthe purpose of Hitler\u2019s decree and mentioned the draft of a law which\nwas being prepared to give complete legislative sanctify to\neuthanasia\u2014a law, incidentally, which was never in fact enacted. He\nrepresented Bouhler in April of 1941 at a meeting attended by Nazi\njudges and prosecutors. He testified that the Ministry of Justice had\nbecome considerably embarrassed because of the Euthanasia Program, and\nthat he was present at the meeting for the purpose of imparting\ninformation concerning the salutary features of euthanasia to those who\nwere present.\n\nBrack gave the Tribunal considerable information concerning the method\nof extermination by euthanasia, stating that the program was so designed\nas to render the process inconspicuous and painless. In December 1939,\nor January 1940, Brack, Bouhler, Conti, and some other doctors were\npresent at the administration of euthanasia to four experimental\nsubjects. The victims were led into a gas chamber which had been built\nto resemble a shower room. The patients were seated on benches and\npoisonous gas was let into the chamber. A few moments later the patients\nbecame drowsy and finally lapsed into a death sleep without even knowing\nthey were being executed. On the basis of this execution \u201cHitler decided\nthat only carbon monoxide was to be used for killing the patients.\u201d\nAccording to Brack these persons were not Jews, because, as Bouhler had\nexplained to him, \u201cthe philanthropic action of euthanasia should be\nextended only to Germans.\u201d\n\nThe evidence is plain that the euthanasia program explained by the\ndefendant, gradually merged into the \u201cAction 14 f 13,\u201d which, briefly\nstated, amounted to an extermination of concentration camp inmates by\nmethods and agencies used in euthanasia. One of the prime motives behind\nthe program was to eliminate \u201cuseless eaters\u201d from the scene, in order\nto conserve food, hospital facilities, doctors and nurses for the more\nimportant use of the German Armed Forces. Many nationals of countries\nother than Germany were killed.\n\nBrack\u2019s direct connection with and participation in the execution of\neuthanasia is conclusively proved by the evidence in the record.\n\nMEMBERSHIP IN A CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION\n\nUnder count four of the indictment the defendant Brack is charged with\nbeing a member of the organization declared criminal by the judgment of\nthe International Military Tribunal, namely, the SS. The evidence shows\nthat Brack became a member of the SS in 1929, and voluntarily remained\nin that organization until the end of the war. As a member of the SS he\nwas criminally implicated in the commission of war crimes and crimes\nagainst humanity, as charged under counts two and three of the\nindictment.\n\nCONCLUSION\n\nMilitary Tribunal I finds and adjudges the defendant Viktor Brack guilty\nunder counts two, three and four of the indictment.\n\n\n BECKER-FREYSENG\n\nThe defendant Becker-Freyseng is charged under counts two and three of\nthe indictment with personal responsibility for, and participation in,\nHigh-Altitude, Freezing, Sulfanilamide, Sea-Water, Epidemic Jaundice,\nand Typhus Experiments.\n\nThe prosecution has abandoned all charges except as to high-altitude,\nfreezing, sea-water and typhus experiments, and hence only these will be\nconsidered.\n\nThe defendant Becker-Freyseng joined the Nazi Party in 1933. In 1940 he\nwas drafted into the Luftwaffe. In 1943 he was promoted to the rank of\nStabsarzt in the Luftwaffe.\n\nFrom August 1941 until May 1944 the defendant was an assistant\nconsultant to Anthony, Chief of the Referat for Aviation Medicine,\nBerlin. This department dealt with all questions concerning aviation\nmedicine and reported to the Chief of the Medical Service of the\nLuftwaffe. When Schroeder became Chief of the Medical Service of the\nLuftwaffe on 1 January 1944, the defendant became the consultant for\naviation medicine in Schroeder\u2019s office.\n\nHIGH-ALTITUDE EXPERIMENTS\n\nAs shown elsewhere in the judgment, high-altitude experiments for the\nbenefit of the Luftwaffe were conducted at Dachau concentration camp on\nnon-German nationals, beginning in February or March 1942. These\nexperiments had been approved, in principle at least, by Hippke, Chief\nof the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe. A mobile low-pressure chamber\nwhich had been in the possession of the department of aviation medicine,\nBerlin, was transferred to Dachau for use in the experiments.\nConcentration camp inmates were killed while being subjected to\nexperiments conducted in the chamber.\n\nDuring the time the experiments were conducted, defendant\nBecker-Freyseng was an assistant consultant to Anthony, Chief of the\nReferat for Aviation Medicine, Berlin. All low-pressure chambers owned\nby the Luftwaffe were under the general control of that office.\n\nIt is submitted by the prosecution that the record shows that\nBecker-Freyseng was a principal in, accessory to, aided, abetted, took a\nconsenting part in, and was connected with plans and enterprises\ninvolving the commission of these experiments.\n\nThe evidence upon this charge is not deemed sufficient to preponderate\nagainst a reasonable doubt as to the defendant\u2019s guilty participation in\nthe experiments here involved.\n\nFREEZING EXPERIMENTS\n\nIt is claimed that in June 1942 Becker-Freyseng was informed from\ncertain of his official files that a meeting to consider experiments to\ninvestigate the treatment of persons who had been severely chilled or\nfrozen would be held in Nuernberg the following October (referred to as\nthe \u201cCold Congress\u201d). It is contended that the directive which set the\nexperiment into motion was issued from the office of the department for\naviation medicine, that the funds and equipment were supplied by that\noffice, and that Becker-Freyseng had knowledge of the experiments, and\nthat he admitted such knowledge.\n\nAs to all this, the proof is clear that Becker-Freyseng was actively\nemployed in organizing and was present at the so-called \u201cCold Congress.\u201d\nBut more than the evidence discloses is needed to establish that he had\nany later part in or connection with the experiments themselves, or that\nhe had any controlling relationship to their initial establishment.\n\nTYPHUS EXPERIMENTS\n\nThe evidence is insufficient to disclose any criminal responsibility of\nthe defendant Becker-Freyseng in connection with the typhus experiments.\n\nSEA-WATER EXPERIMENTS\n\nWe have discussed the sea-water experiments in that portion of our\njudgment which deals with the case of the defendant Schroeder. As was\npointed out there, two methods of making sea water drinkable were\navailable to the Luftwaffe. One, the so-called Schaefer method, had been\nchemically tested and apparently produced potable sea water; the other,\nthe so-called Berka process, which changed the taste of the sea water\nbut did not reduce the salt content.\n\nBecker-Freyseng, as chief consultant for aviation medicine in the office\nof Schroeder, arranged for a conference to be held in May 1944 to\ndiscuss the testing of these two methods. At the conference the\ndefendant reported on various clinical experiments which had been\nconducted by a certain von Sirany to test the Berka process. He came to\nthe conclusion that the experiments had not been conducted under\nsufficiently realistic conditions of sea distress to make the findings\nconclusive.\n\nAs a result of the conference it was decided that new experiments should\nbe conducted.\n\nWe learn from the report of the meeting, which is in evidence, that two\nseries of experiments were to be conducted. The first, a maximum period\nof six days, during which one group of subjects would receive sea water\nprocessed with the Berka method; a second group, ordinary drinking\nwater; a third group no water at all; and the fourth group, such water\nas would be available in the emergency sea distress kits then used.\nDuring the duration of the experiment all persons were to receive only\nan emergency sea diet, such as provided for persons in distress at sea.\n\nIn addition to the 6-day experiment it was determined that a 12-day\nexperiment should be run. The plan for this series reads as follows:\n\n \u201cPersons nourished with sea water and Berkatit, and as diet also\n the emergency sea rations.\n\n \u201cDuration of experiments: 12 days.\n\n \u201cSince in the opinion of the Chief of the Medical Service\n permanent injuries to health, that is the death of the\n experimental subjects, has to be expected, as experimental\n subjects such persons should be used as will be put at the\n disposal by [the] Reichsfuehrer SS.\u201d\n\nBy letter dated 7 June 1944 Schroeder requested the Reichsfuehrer SS to\nallow him to use concentration camp inmates for the sea-water\nexperiments. The letter stated among other things the following:\n\n \u201cAs the experiments on human beings could thus far only be\n carried out for a period of four days, and as practical demands\n require a remedy for those who are in distress at sea up to 12\n days, appropriate experiments are necessary.\n\n \u201cRequired are 40 healthy test subjects, who must be available\n for 4 whole weeks. As it is known from previous experiments that\n necessary laboratories exist in the concentration camp Dachau,\n this camp would be very suitable * * *.\u201d\n\nWhen on the stand as a witness, the defendant Becker-Freyseng admitted\nthat he prepared the substance of the letter for Schroeder\u2019s dictation\nand signature.\n\nThus with actual knowledge of the nature of the Berka process, and the\nfact that if used over prolonged periods it would cause suffering and\ndeath, Becker-Freyseng counselled and conferred with his chief\nconcerning the necessity for experiments wherein the process would be\nused. He gave advice upon the exact procedure to be used in the 6-day\nand 12-day experimental series. He framed the letter to Himmler\nrequesting the use of concentration camp inmates at Dachau for\nexperimental subjects. He called the defendant Beiglboeck to Berlin to\nexplain to him the details and purpose of the experiments. He issued the\norder under which Beiglboeck went to Dachau to begin the experiments. He\nreceived Beiglboeck\u2019s report after the experimental series had been\nconcluded.\n\nThroughout all stages of the affair, from its inception to its\nconclusion, the defendant knew of the dangerous nature of the\nexperiments. He knew that deaths were reasonably to be expected. He knew\nthat concentration camp inmates were to be used as experimental\nsubjects. It is impossible to believe that he supposed that the inmates\nof the camps, who were to be furnished by Himmler, were to be\nvolunteers. The entire language of the letter, which was written to\nHimmler asking for experimental subjects, entirely refutes such\nimplication.\n\nThe evidence shows conclusively that gypsies of various nationalities\nwere used as experimental subjects. They were former inmates of\nAuschwitz who had been tricked into coming to Dachau under the promise\nthat they were to be used in a special labor battalion. When they\narrived at Dachau they were detailed to the sea-water experiments\nwithout their voluntary consent being asked or given.\n\nDuring the course of the experiment many of the experimental subjects\nwere treated brutally and endured much pain and suffering.\n\nIt is apparent from the evidence that Becker-Freyseng was criminally\nconnected with the experiments, and that the experiments were\nessentially criminal in their nature. To the extent that the crimes\ncommitted by him or under his authority were not war crimes, they were\ncrimes against humanity.\n\nCONCLUSION\n\nMilitary Tribunal I finds and adjudges the defendant Hermann\nBecker-Freyseng guilty under counts two and three of the indictment.\n\n\n SCHAEFER\n\nThe defendant Schaefer is charged under counts two and three of the\nindictment with personal responsibility for and participation in\nSea-Water Experiments.\n\nKonrad Schaefer was a scientist whose special field of research was\nchemical therapy. In November 1941 he was drafted into the Luftwaffe. In\nspring of the following year he was transferred to the Luftwaffe\nReplacement Depot in Salow, and from there to the Luftwaffe base at\nFrankfurt on the Oder. In summer of 1942 he was transferred to Berlin\nand assigned to the staff of the Research Institute for Aviation\nMedicine. His chief assignment at the Institute was to do research on\nthe problem of sea emergency for the Luftwaffe. This included research\nwork on various methods to render sea water potable. Schaefer remained\nin his position at the Institute without ever having attained officer\nrank.\n\nIn May of 1944 the defendant was ordered to be present at a meeting to\nbe held at the German Air Ministry in Berlin, called to consider further\nresearch on making sea water potable. Some months previous to the\nmeeting Schaefer had developed a process which actually precipitated the\nsalts from sea water, but it was thought by the Chief of the Luftwaffe\nMedical Service to be too bulky and expensive for military use by the\nLuftwaffe.\n\nPresent at the meeting were Schaefer; Becker-Freyseng, research advisor\nto Schroeder; Christensen, of the Technical Bureau of the Reich Ministry\nof Aviation; and others. The subject of discussion was the feasibility\nof using the Schaefer process, or of turning to another process known as\nthe Berka Method. The latter method, while cheap, did not precipitate\nsalts from sea water and was dangerous to health when used for a period\nof time\u2014as Schaefer, previous to the meeting, had already reported to\nSchroeder. Nevertheless, those in command of the meeting agreed that\nexperiments should be conducted on concentration camp inmates to\ndetermine the extent to which the Berka method might be usable.\n\nThe experiments later conducted have been described at length in dealing\nwith the case of Schroeder. Due to his attendance at this meeting,\nSchaefer is sought to be held criminally responsible in connection with\nthe sea-water experiments.\n\nThe record has received careful attention from the Tribunal.\n\nNowhere have we been able to find that Schaefer was a principal in, or\naccessory to, or was otherwise criminally involved in or connected with\nthe experiments mentioned. In fact, the record fails to show that the\ndefendant had anything to do with these experiments, except such as\nmight be implied from his attendance at several meetings of the parties\nwho were actively interested therein. Nowhere in the testimony or\nelsewhere is it revealed that Schaefer voted for commencement or\nprosecution of the experiments or in any other manner aided in their\nexecution.\n\nCONCLUSION\n\nMilitary Tribunal I finds and adjudges the defendant Konrad Schaefer not\nguilty of the charges contained in the indictment, and directs that he\nbe released from custody under the indictment when the Tribunal\npresently adjourns.\n\n\n HOVEN\n\nThe defendant Hoven is charged under counts two and three of the\nindictment with special responsibility for and participation in Typhus\nand other Vaccine Experiments, Gas Oedema Experiments, and the\nEuthanasia Program. In count four he is charged with being a member,\nafter 1 September 1939, of an organization declared criminal by the\nInternational Military Tribunal.\n\nHoven joined the SS in 1934 and the Nazi Party in 1937. Soon after the\noutbreak of the war he joined the Waffen SS. In October 1939 he became\nassistant medical officer in the SS hospital at Buchenwald concentration\ncamp. In 1941 he was appointed medical officer in charge of the SS\ntroops stationed in the camp. He became assistant medical officer at the\ncamp inmate hospital, and in July 1942 he became chief camp physician.\nHe remained in the latter position until September 1943. At that time he\nwas arrested on the order of the SS police court in Kassel for having\nallegedly murdered an SS noncommissioned officer who was a dangerous\nwitness against Koch, the camp commander.\n\nTYPHUS AND OTHER VACCINE EXPERIMENTS\n\nThe vaccine experiments with which Hoven is charged were conducted at\nBuchenwald under the supervision of SS Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Ding, alias\nDing-Schuler. They have already been described at length in other\nportions of this judgment.\n\nThe prosecution has shown beyond a reasonable doubt that Hoven was a\ncriminal participant in these experiments. In collaboration with the SS\ncamp administration he helped select the concentration camp inmates who\nbecame the experimental subjects. During the course of selection he\nexercised the right to include some prisoners and to reject others.\nWhile perhaps not empowered to initiate new series of experiments on his\nown responsibility\u2014that apparently being a power which only Ding could\nexercise\u2014the defendant worked with Ding on experiments then in\nprogress. He supervised the preparation of diary notes, fever charts,\nand report sheets of the experiments. Occasionally he injected some of\nthe subjects with the vaccines. He acted as Ding\u2019s deputy in the conduct\nof the experiments. He was in command of experimental Block 46 in Ding\u2019s\nabsence. During the period of Hoven\u2019s activity in the experimental\nstation no less than 100 inmates were killed as a result of the typhus\nexperiments. Many of these victims were non-German nationals who had not\ngiven their consent to be used as experimental subjects.\n\nGAS OEDEMA EXPERIMENTS\n\nIt is asserted in an affidavit made by Dr. Ding-Schuler, who was in\ncharge of Blocks 46 and 50, Buchenwald, that toward the end of 1942 a\nconference was held in the Military Medical Academy, Berlin, for the\npurpose of discussing the fatal effects of gas oedema serum on wounded\npersons. During the conference, Killian, of the Army Medical\nInspectorate, and the defendant Mrugowsky reported several cases in\nwhich wounded soldiers who had received gas oedema serum injections in\nhigh quantities died suddenly without apparent reason. Mrugowsky\nsuspected that the fatalities were due to the phenol content of the\nserum. To help solve the problem Mrugowsky ordered Ding to take part in\na euthanasia killing with phenol and to report on the results in detail.\nA few days later Hoven, in the presence of Ding, gave phenol injections\nto several of the concentration camp inmates with the result that they\ndied instantly. In accordance with instructions, Ding made a report of\nthe killings to his superior officer.\n\nThe fact that Hoven engaged in phenol killings is substantiated by an\naffidavit voluntarily made by Hoven himself prior to the trial, which\nwas received in evidence as a part of the case of the prosecution. In\nthe affidavit Hoven makes the following statement:\n\n \u201cThere were many prisoners who were jealous of the positions\n held by a few political prisoners and tried to discredit them.\n These traitors were immediately killed, and I was later notified\n in order to make out statements that they had died of natural\n causes.\n\n \u201cIn some instances I supervised the killings of these unworthy\n inmates by injections of phenol, at the request of the inmates,\n in the hospital assisted by several inmates. Dr. Ding came once\n and said I was not doing it correctly, and performed some of the\n injections himself, killing three inmates who died within a\n minute.\n\n \u201cThe total number of traitors killed was about 150, of whom 60\n were killed by phenol injections, either by myself or under my\n supervision, and the rest were killed by beatings, etc., by the\n inmates.\u201d\n\nEUTHANASIA PROGRAM\n\nThe details of the Euthanasia Program have been discussed by us at\nlength in dealing with the charges against certain other defendants;\nconsequently they will not be repeated here.\n\nIn the Hoven pre-trial affidavit, portions of which were quoted while\ndiscussing gas oedema serum experimentation, the defendant gives us a\npartial picture of the Euthanasia Program, in the following statement:\n\n \u201cIn 1941 Koch, the camp commander, called all the important SS\n officials of the camp together and informed them that he had\n received a secret order from Himmler that all mentally and\n physically deficient inmates should be killed, including Jews.\n 300 to 400 Jewish prisoners of different nationalities were sent\n to the \u2018euthanasia station\u2019 at Bernburg for extermination. I was\n ordered to issue falsified statements of the death of these\n Jews, and obeyed the order. This action was known as \u201814 f 13\u2019.\u201d\n\nWhen the defendant Hoven took the stand in his own defense, he attempted\nto discredit the effects of the statements contained in his affidavit by\ntestifying that the affidavit was taken as a result of interrogations\npropounded to him by the prosecution in English, and that he was not\nsufficiently familiar with the language to be fully aware of the\ninculpatory nature of the statements he was making.\n\nThe Tribunal is not impressed with these assertions. The evidence shows\nthat prior to the war the defendant had lived for several years in the\nUnited States, where he had acquired at least an average understanding\nand comprehension of the English language. When he was on the witness\nstand, the Tribunal questioned him at length in order to ascertain the\nextent of his knowledge of English, and in particular, of his\nunderstanding of the meaning of the words used by him in his affidavit.\nAs a result of this questioning the Tribunal is convinced that no undue\nor improper advantage was taken of the defendant in procuring the\naffidavit, and that at the time of his interrogation by the prosecution,\nHoven knew and understood perfectly well the nature of the statements he\nwas making.\n\nThe facts contained in the Hoven affidavit were convincingly\nsubstantiated by other evidence in the record, the only real difference\nbeing that the evidence shows the defendant to have been guilty of even\nmany hundreds more murders than are admitted by him in his affidavit. As\nstated, in essence, by one of the prosecution witnesses in connection\nwith the subject, Hoven personally killed inmates in the hospital\nbarracks by injection. These people were mostly suffering from\nmalnutrition and exhaustion. Hoven must have killed 1,000 of every\nnationality. These inmates were killed on the initiative of Hoven with\nno requests from the illegal camp administration or the political\nprisoners.\n\nIt is obvious from the evidence that throughout his entire service at\nBuchenwald, Hoven attempted to serve three masters: the SS camp\nadministration, the criminal prisoners, and the political prisoners of\nthe camp. As a result he became criminally implicated in murders\ncommitted by all three groups involving the deaths of non-German\nnationals, some of whom were prisoners of war and others of whom were\ncivilians. In addition to these, he committed murders on his own\nindividual responsibility. There can be nothing said in mitigation of\nsuch conduct. To the extent that the crimes committed by Hoven were not\nwar crimes, they were crimes against humanity.\n\nMEMBERSHIP IN CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION\n\nUnder count four of the indictment the defendant is charged with being a\nmember of an organization declared criminal by the judgment of the\nInternational Military Tribunal, namely, the SS. The evidence shows that\nHoven became a member of the SS in 1934, and remained in this\norganization throughout the war. As a member of the SS he was criminally\nimplicated in the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity,\nas charged under counts two and three of the indictment.\n\nCONCLUSION\n\nMilitary Tribunal I finds and adjudges the defendant Waldemar Hoven\nguilty, under counts two, three and four of the indictment.\n\n\n BEIGLBOECK\n\nThe defendant Beiglboeck is charged under counts two and three of the\nindictment with personal responsibility for, and participation in\nSea-Water Experiments.\n\nThe defendant Beiglboeck, an Austrian citizen, was a captain in the\nmedical department of the German Air Force from May 1941 until the end\nof the war. In June 1944, while stationed at the hospital for\nparatroopers at Tarvis [Tarvisio], Italy, he received orders from his\nmilitary and medical superior, defendant Becker-Freyseng, to carry out\nsea-water experiments at Dachau.\n\nThe sea-water experiments have been described in detail in those\nportions of the judgment dealing with defendants Schroeder and\nBecker-Freyseng.\n\nThe defendant Beiglboeck testified that he reported to Berlin at the end\nof June 1944, where Becker-Freyseng told him the nature and purpose of\nthe experiments. Upon that trip he also reported to and talked with the\ndefendant Schroeder. From these conversations he learned that the prime\npurpose of the experiments was to test the process developed by Berka\nfor making sea water potable and also to ascertain whether it would be\nbetter for a shipwrecked person in distress at sea to go completely\nwithout sea water or to drink small quantities thereof.\n\nIt appears from the record that the persons used in the experiments were\n40 gypsies of various nationalities who had been formerly at Auschwitz\nbut who had been brought to Dachau under the pretext that they were to\nbe assigned to various work details. These persons had been imprisoned\nin the concentration camps on the basis that they were \u201casocial\npersons.\u201d Nothing was said to them about being used as human subjects in\nmedical experiments. When they reached Dachau some of them were told\nthat they were being assigned to the sea-water experiment detail.\n\nBeiglboeck testified that before beginning the experiments he called the\nsubjects together and told them the purpose of the experiments and asked\nthem if they wanted to participate. He did not tell them the duration of\nthe experiments, or that they could withdraw if ever they reached the\nphysical or mental state that continuation of the experiment should seem\nto them to be impossible. The evidence is that none of the experimental\nsubjects felt that they dared refuse becoming experimental subjects for\nfear of unpleasant consequences if they voiced any objections.\n\nThe defendant testified that pursuant to the order that had been given\nhim, it was necessary that the subjects thirst for a continuous period;\nand that the question of when, if ever, they should be relieved during\nthe course of the experiment was a matter which he reserved for his own\ndecision.\n\nDuring the course of the experiments the subjects were locked in a room.\nAs to this phase of the program the defendant testified that \u201cThey\nshould have been locked in a lot better than they were, because then\nthey would have had no opportunity at all to get fresh water on the\nside.\u201d\n\nAt the trial the defendant produced clinical charts which he said were\nmade during the course of the experiments and which, according to the\ndefendant, showed that the subjects did not suffer injury. On\ncross-examination the defendant admitted that some of the charts had\nbeen altered by him since he reached Nuernberg in order to present a\nmore favorable picture of the experiments.\n\nWe do not think it necessary to discuss in detail what is shown by the\ncharts either before or after the fraudulent alterations. We think it\nonly necessary to say that a man who intends to rely on written evidence\nat a trial does not fraudulently alter such evidence from any honest or\nworthy motive.\n\nThe defendant claims that he was at all times extremely reluctant to\nperform the experiments with which he is charged, and did so only out of\nhis sense of obedience as a soldier to superior authority. Under Control\nCouncil Law No. 10 such fact does not constitute a defense, but will be\nconsidered, if at all, only in mitigation of sentence.\n\nIn our view the experimental subjects were treated brutally. Many of\nthem endured much pain and suffering, although from the evidence we\ncannot find that any deaths occurred among the experimental subjects.\n\nIt is apparent from the evidence that the experiments were essentially\ncriminal in their nature, and that non-German nationals were used\nwithout their consent as experimental subjects. To the extent that the\ncrimes committed by defendant Beiglboeck were not war crimes they were\ncrimes against humanity.\n\nCONCLUSION\n\nMilitary Tribunal I finds and adjudges the defendant Wilhelm Beiglboeck\nguilty under counts two and three of the indictment.\n\n\n POKORNY\n\nThe defendant Pokorny is charged with special responsibility for, and\nparticipation in, criminal Sterilization Experiments, as set forth in\ncounts two and three of the indictment.\n\nIt is conceded by the prosecution that, in contradistinction to all\nother defendants, the defendant Pokorny never held any position of\nresponsibility in the Party or State Hierarchy of Nazi Germany. Neither\nwas he a member of the Nazi Party or of the SS. Formerly a\nCzechoslovakian citizen, he became a citizen of the Greater German Reich\nunder the Munich Agreement of October 1938. During the war he served as\na medical officer in the German Army and attained the rank of captain.\n\nThe only direct evidence bearing on the guilt of the defendant is a\nletter written by Pokorny to Himmler in October 1941, suggesting the use\nof a drug, caladium seguinum, as a possible means of medical\nsterilization of peoples of the occupied territories. The letter\nfollows:\n\n \u201cTo the Reich Commissioner for the Consolidation of German\n Folkdom,\n\n SS Himmler, Chief of Police,\n\n Berlin.\n\n \u201cI beg you to turn your attention to the following arguments. I\n have requested Professor Hoehn to forward this letter to you. I\n have chosen this direct way to you in order to avoid the slower\n process through channels and the possibility of an indiscretion\n in regard to the eventually enormous importance of the ideas\n presented.\n\n \u201cLed by the idea that the enemy must not only be conquered but\n destroyed, I feel obliged to present to you, as the Reich\n Commissioner for the Consolidation of German Folkdom the\n following:\n\n \u201cDr. Madaus published the result of his research on a _medicinal\n sterilization_ (both articles are enclosed). Reading these\n articles, the immense importance of this drug in the present\n fight of our people occurred to me. _If, on the basis of this\n research, it were possible to produce a drug which, after a\n relatively short time, effects an imperceptible sterilization on\n human beings, then we would have a new powerful weapon at our\n disposal._ The thought alone that the 3 million Bolsheviks, at\n present German prisoners, could be sterilized so that they could\n be used as laborers but be prevented from reproduction, opens\n the most far-reaching perspectives.\n\n \u201cMadaus found that the sap of the Schweigrohr (caladium\n seguinum) when taken by mouth or given as injection to male but\n also to female animals, after a certain time produces permanent\n sterility. The illustrations accompanying the scientific article\n are convincing.\n\n If my ideas meet your approval the following course should be\n taken:\n\n 1. Dr. Madaus must not publish any more such articles. (The\n enemy listens!)\n\n 2. Multiplying the plant (easily cultivated in greenhouses!)\n\n 3. Immediate research on human beings (criminals!) in order to\n determine the dose and length of the treatment.\n\n 4. Quick research of the constitutional formula of the effective\n chemical substance in order to\n\n 5. Produce it synthetically if possible.\n\n \u201cAs German physician and Chief Physician of the Reserves of the\n German Wehrmacht, retired (d.R.a.D.), I undertake to keep secret\n the purpose as suggested by me in this letter.\n\n \u201cHeil Hitler!\n [Signed] \u201cDr. Pokorny\n \u201cSpecialist for skin and venereal diseases.\n\n \u201cKomotau, October 1941.\u201d\n\nThe defendant has attempted to explain his motives for sending the\nletter by asserting that for some time prior to its transmittal he had\nknown of Himmler\u2019s intentions to sterilize all Jews and inhabitants of\nthe eastern territories, and had hoped to find some means of preventing\nthe execution of this dreadful program. He knew, because of his special\nexperience as a specialist in skin and venereal diseases, that\nsterilization of human beings could not be effected by the\nadministration of caladium seguinum. He thought, however, that if the\narticles written by Madaus could be brought to the attention of Himmler,\nthe latter might turn his attentions to the unobtrusive method for\nsterilization which had been suggested by the articles and thus be\ndiverted, at least temporarily, from continuing his program of\ncastration and sterilization by well-known, tried and tested methods.\nTherefore the letter was written\u2014so explained the defendant\u2014not for\nthe purpose of furthering, but of sabotaging the program.\n\nWe are not impressed with the defense which has been tendered by the\ndefendant and have great difficulty in believing that he was motivated\nby the high purposes which he asserted impelled him to write the letter.\nRather are we inclined to the view that the letter was written by\nPokorny for very different and more personal reasons.\n\nBe that however as it may, every defendant is presumed to be innocent\nuntil he has been proved guilty. In the case of Pokorny the prosecution\nhas failed to sustain the burden. As monstrous and base as the\nsuggestions in the letter are, there is not the slightest evidence that\nany steps were ever taken to put them into execution by human\nexperimentation. We find, therefore, that the defendant must be\nacquitted\u2014not because of the defense tendered, but in spite of it.\n\nCONCLUSION\n\nMilitary Tribunal I finds and adjudges that the defendant Adolf Pokorny\nis not guilty of the charge contained in the indictment, and directs\nthat he be discharged from custody under the indictment when the\nTribunal presently adjourns.\n\n\n OBERHEUSER\n\nThe defendant Oberheuser is charged under counts two and three of the\nindictment with Sulfanilamide, Bone, Muscle and Nerve Regeneration and\nBone Transplantation, and Sterilization Experiments.\n\nThe charge of participation in the sterilization experiments has been\nabandoned by the prosecution and will not be considered further.\n\nThe defendant Oberheuser joined the league of German Girls (BDM) in 1935\nand held the rank of \u201cblock leader.\u201d In August 1937 she became a member\nof the Nazi Party. She was also a member of the Association of National\nSocialist Physicians. She volunteered for the position of a camp doctor\nin the women\u2019s department of the Ravensbrueck concentration camp in 1940\nand remained there until June 1943. She was then given a position as\nassistant physician in the Hohenlychen Hospital under the defendant\nGebhardt.\n\nRegarding her connection with both the sulfanilamide and the bone,\nmuscle, and nerve regeneration and bone transplantation experiments, the\nsame facts are applicable as were presented in the cases of the\ndefendants Fischer and Gebhardt. Fischer and Oberheuser were Gebhardt\u2019s\nactive agents in carrying out these experiments. They did a great deal\nof the actual work. They personally committed atrocities involved in the\nexperiments.\n\nA few facts produced in evidence regarding the special work of defendant\nOberheuser in these experiments are entitled to comment.\n\nOberheuser was thoroughly aware of the nature and purpose of the\nexperiments. She aided in the selection of the subjects, gave them\nphysical examinations, and otherwise prepared them for the operation\ntable. She was present in the operating room at the time of the\noperations and assisted in the operational procedures. She faithfully\ncooperated with Gebhardt and Fischer at the conclusion of each operation\nby deliberately neglecting the patients so that the wounds which had\nbeen given the subjects would reach the maximum degree of infection.\n\nTestimony of the witness Sofia Maczka, an X-ray technician in the camp\nat Ravensbrueck, is that deaths occurred among the experimental\nsubjects. Most of these deaths could have been averted by proper\npost-operative care, proper treatment, or by the amputation of badly\ninfected members.\n\nIn one instance\u2014the case of a Krystina Dabska\u2014small pieces of bone\nwere cut from both legs of the subject. Witness Maczka testified that\nshe read on the cast of the patient that on one leg periosteum had been\nleft and on the other leg periosteum had been removed together with\nbone. Because she was of the opinion that the purpose of the experiment\nhad been to check regeneration, the witness asked the defendant\nOberheuser, \u201cHow do you expect to get regeneration of bone if the bones\nare removed with periosteum?\u201d To this the defendant replied, \u201cThat is\njust what we want to check.\u201d\n\nNonconsenting non-German nationals were used in at least some of the\nexperiments. Many of them died as a result of the experiments. To the\nextent that the crimes committed were not war crimes, they were crimes\nagainst humanity.\n\nCONCLUSION\n\nMilitary Tribunal I finds and adjudges that the defendant Herta\nOberheuser is guilty under counts two and three of the indictment.\n\n\n FISCHER\n\nThe defendant Fischer is charged under counts two and three with\nSulfanilamide and Bone, Muscle and Nerve Regeneration and Bone\nTransplantation Experiments.\n\nFritz Fischer joined the Allgemeine SS in February 1934 and the NSDAP in\n1939. In the latter year he joined the Waffen SS and was assigned to the\nSS unit in the Hohenlychen Hospital as a physician subordinated to the\ndefendant Gebhardt. In June 1940 he was transferred to the SS regiment\nLeibstandarte \u201cAdolf Hitler\u201d, and returned the same year to Hohenlychen\nas assistant physician to Gebhardt, where he remained until May 1943. He\nthen served as a surgeon on both the eastern and western fronts and,\nafter having been wounded in August 1944, came back to Hohenlychen as a\npatient. In December 1944 he was assigned to the Charity Hospital in\nBerlin, but returned again to Hohenlychen as Gebhardt\u2019s assistant in\nApril 1945. In the Waffen SS he attained the rank of Sturmbannfuehrer\n(major).\n\nSULFANILAMIDE EXPERIMENTS\n\nGebhardt, as shown elsewhere in this judgment, was in personal charge of\nthe work being done in this field by his assistant Fritz Fischer. That\nthe latter performed most of the sulfanilamide experimental work is not\ndenied by him; on the contrary, he freely admits it. The defense offered\nin his behalf is twofold; that the experimental subjects were to have\nalleged death sentences, then impending, commuted to something less\nsevere in the event they survived the experiments; and that defendant\nFischer was acting under military orders from his superior officer,\nGebhardt. These defenses have been considered and separately rejected in\nother parts of this judgment.\n\nIt is true, however, that paragraph 4 (_b_) of Article II of Control\nCouncil Law No. 10 reads:\n\n \u201cThe fact that any person acted pursuant to the order of his\n government, or of a superior, does not free him from\n responsibility for crime, but may be considered in mitigation.\u201d\n\nIt is unnecessary to take up and answer all the arguments that might be\npresented upon whether or not Fischer is entitled to a mitigation of\nsentence due to the circumstances claimed as the basis of such\nmitigation. He acted with most complete knowledge that what he was doing\nwas fundamentally criminal, even though directed by a superior. Under\nthe circumstances his defense must be rejected, and he must be held to\nbe guilty as charged.\n\nBONE, MUSCLE AND NERVE REGENERATION AND BONE\nTRANSPLANTATION\n\nThese experiments have been discussed in connection with the case of the\ndefendant Gebhardt, who was assisted therein by the defendant Fischer.\nTestimony and exhibits now constituting parts of the record in this case\nreveal that Fischer has offered no substantial defense to the charge.\nIndeed, criminal connection with these experiments is admitted, and the\nadmission includes the defendant\u2019s own testimony that he personally\nperformed at least some of the operations. It only remains for the\nTribunal to hold that on the specification above-mentioned the defendant\nFischer is guilty.\n\nTo the extent that the crimes committed by defendant Fischer were not\nwar crimes they were crimes against humanity.\n\nMEMBERSHIP IN CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION\n\nUnder count four of the indictment Fritz Fischer is charged with being a\nmember of an organization declared criminal by the judgment of the\nInternational Military Tribunal, namely, the SS. The evidence shows that\nFritz Fischer became a member of the SS in 1934 and remained in this\norganization until the end of the war. As a member of the SS he was\ncriminally implicated in the commission of war crimes and crimes against\nhumanity, as charged under counts two and three of the indictment.\n\nCONCLUSION\n\nMilitary Tribunal I finds and adjudges that the defendant Fritz Fischer\nis guilty under counts two, three, and four of the indictment.\n\n [signed] WALTER B. BEALS\n PRESIDING JUDGE.\n HAROLD L. SEBRING\n JUDGE.\n JOHNSON T. CRAWFORD\n JUDGE.\n\n\n\n\n SENTENCES\n\n PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Military Tribunal I has convened this\n morning for the purpose of imposing sentences upon the\n defendants who have been on trial before this Tribunal and who\n have been adjudged guilty by the Tribunal.\n\n\u201cKARL BRANDT, Military Tribunal I has found and adjudged you guilty of\nwar crimes, crimes against humanity, and membership in an organization\ndeclared criminal by the judgment of the International Military\nTribunal, as charged under the indictment heretofore filed against you.\nFor your said crimes on which you have been and now stand convicted\nMilitary Tribunal I sentences you, Karl Brandt, to death by hanging.\n\n\u201cSIEGFRIED HANDLOSER, Military Tribunal I has found and adjudged you\nguilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity, as charged under the\nindictment heretofore filed against you. For your said crimes on which\nyou have been and now stand convicted, Military Tribunal I sentences\nyou, Siegfried Handloser, to imprisonment for the full term and period\nof your natural life, to be served at such prison or prisons, or other\nappropriate place of confinement, as shall be determined by competent\nauthority.\n\n\u201cOSKAR SCHROEDER, Military Tribunal I has found and adjudged you guilty\nof war crimes and crimes against humanity, as charged under the\nindictment heretofore filed against you. For your said crimes on which\nyou have been and now stand convicted Military Tribunal I sentences you,\nOskar Schroeder, to imprisonment for the full term and period of your\nnatural life, to be served at such prison or prisons, or other\nappropriate place of confinement, as shall be determined by competent\nauthority.\n\n\u201cKARL GENZKEN, Military Tribunal I has found and adjudged you guilty of\nwar crimes, crimes against humanity, and membership in an organization\ndeclared criminal by the judgment of the International Military\nTribunal, as charged under the indictment heretofore filed against you.\nFor your said crimes on which you have been and now stand convicted,\nMilitary Tribunal I sentences you, Karl Genzken, to imprisonment for the\nfull term and period of your natural life, to be served at such prison\nor prisons, or other appropriate place of confinement, as shall be\ndetermined by competent authority.\n\n\u201cKARL GEBHARDT, Military Tribunal I has found and adjudged you guilty of\nwar crimes, crimes against humanity, and membership in an organization\ndeclared criminal by the judgment of the International Military\nTribunal, as charged under the indictment heretofore filed against you.\nFor your said crimes on which you have been and now stand convicted,\nMilitary Tribunal I sentences you, Karl Gebhardt, to death by hanging.\n\n\u201cRUDOLF BRANDT, Military Tribunal I has found and adjudged you guilty of\nwar crimes, crimes against humanity, and membership in an organization\ndeclared criminal by the judgment of the International Military\nTribunal, as charged under the indictment heretofore filed against you.\nFor your said crimes on which you have been and now stand convicted,\nMilitary Tribunal I sentences you, Rudolf Brandt, to death by hanging.\n\n\u201cJOACHIM MRUGOWSKY, Military Tribunal I has found and adjudged you\nguilty of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and membership in an\norganization declared criminal by the judgment of the International\nMilitary Tribunal, as charged under the indictment heretofore filed\nagainst you. For your said crimes on which you have been and now stand\nconvicted Military Tribunal I sentences you, Joachim Mrugowsky, to death\nby hanging.\n\n\u201cHELMUT POPPENDICK, Military Tribunal I has found and adjudged you\nguilty of membership in an organization declared criminal by the\njudgment of the International Military Tribunal, as charged under the\nindictment heretofore filed against you. For your said crimes on which\nyou have been and now stand convicted, Military Tribunal I sentences\nyou, Helmut Poppendick, to imprisonment for a term of ten years, to be\nserved at such prison or prisons, or other appropriate place of\nconfinement, as shall be determined by competent authority.\n\n\u201cWOLFRAM SIEVERS, Military Tribunal I has found and adjudged you guilty\nof war crimes, crimes against humanity, and membership in an\norganization declared criminal by the judgment of the International\nMilitary Tribunal, as charged under the indictment heretofore filed\nagainst you. For your said crimes on which you have been and now stand\nconvicted, Military Tribunal I sentences you, Wolfram Sievers, to death\nby hanging.\n\n\u201cGERHARD ROSE, Military Tribunal I has found and adjudged you guilty of\nwar crimes and crimes against humanity, as charged under the indictment\nheretofore filed against you. For your said crimes on which you have\nbeen and now stand convicted Military Tribunal I sentences you, Gerhard\nRose, to imprisonment for the full term and period of your natural life,\nto be served at such prison or prisons, or other appropriate place of\nconfinement, as shall be determined by competent authority.\n\n\u201cVIKTOR BRACK, Military Tribunal I has found and adjudged you guilty of\nwar crimes, crimes against humanity, and membership in an organization\ndeclared criminal by the judgment of the International Military\nTribunal, as charged under the indictment heretofore filed against you.\nFor your said crimes on which you have been and now stand convicted,\nMilitary Tribunal I sentences you, Viktor Brack, to death by hanging.\n\n\u201cHERMANN BECKER-FREYSENG, Military Tribunal I has found and adjudged you\nguilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity, as charged under the\nindictment heretofore filed against you. For your said crimes on which\nyou have been and now stand convicted, Military Tribunal I sentences\nyou, Hermann Becker-Freyseng, to imprisonment for a term of twenty\nyears, to be served at such prison or prisons, or other appropriate\nplace of confinement, as shall be determined by competent authority.\n\n\u201cWALDEMAR HOVEN, Military Tribunal I has found and adjudged you guilty\nof war crimes, crimes against humanity, and membership in an\norganization declared criminal by the judgment of the International\nMilitary Tribunal, as charged under the indictment heretofore filed\nagainst you. For your said crimes on which you have been and now stand\nconvicted, Military Tribunal I sentences you, Waldemar Hoven, to death\nby hanging.\n\n\u201cWILHELM BEIGLBOECK, Military Tribunal I has found and adjudged you\nguilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity, as charged under the\nindictment heretofore filed against you. For your said crimes on which\nyou have been and now stand convicted Military Tribunal I sentences you,\nWilhelm Beiglboeck, to imprisonment for a term of fifteen years, to be\nserved at such prison or prisons, or other appropriate place of\nconfinement, as shall be determined by competent authority.\n\n\u201cHERTA OBERHEUSER, Military Tribunal I has found and adjudged you guilty\nof war crimes and crimes against humanity, as charged under the\nindictment heretofore filed against you. For your said crimes on which\nyou have been and now stand convicted Military Tribunal I sentences you,\nHerta Oberheuser, to imprisonment for a term of twenty years, to be\nserved at such prison or prisons, or other appropriate place of\nconfinement, as shall be determined by competent authority.\n\n\u201cFRITZ FISCHER, Military Tribunal I has found and adjudged you guilty of\nwar crimes, crimes against humanity, and membership in an organization\ndeclared criminal by the judgment of the International Military\nTribunal, as charged under the indictment heretofore filed against you.\nFor your said crimes on which you have been and now stand convicted\nMilitary Tribunal I sentences you, Fritz Fischer, to imprisonment for\nthe full term and period of your natural life, to be served at such\nprison or prisons, or other appropriate place of confinement, as shall\nbe determined by competent authority.\u201d\n\n-----\n\n[56] A more correct translation is typhus, see vol. I, p. 13.\n\n[57] Indictment originally read \u201cJanuary 1943\u201d but was amended by a\nmotion filed with the Secretary General. See Arraignment, vol. I, p. 22.\n\n[58] Trial of the Major War Criminals, vol. I, p. 269, Nuernberg, 1947.\n\n\n\n\n XIII. PETITIONS\n\n\n a. Introduction\n\nArticle XV of Ordinance No. 7 of Military Government for Germany (US)\nprovides that the judgment of the Tribunal as to the guilt or innocence\nof any defendant shall be final and not subject to review. However,\nArticle XVII provides that the Military Governor has the power to\nmitigate, reduce, or otherwise alter the sentence imposed by the\nTribunal, but may not increase the severity thereof. The petitions on\nbehalf of defendants seeking a revision of the sentences have ordinarily\nbeen called clemency pleas.\n\nAll 16 defendants found guilty by the Tribunal in case No. I petitioned\nfor clemency to the Military Governor of the United States Zone of\nOccupation in accordance with Article XVII of Ordinance No. 7. Each of\nthe condemned defendants, with the exception of the defendant\nPoppendick, also petitioned to the Supreme Court of the United States\nfor a writ of habeas corpus and for a writ of prohibition against the\nproceeding or an order nullifying the trial and setting the defendants\nat liberty. Moreover, all defendants, with the exception of the\ndefendant Becker-Freyseng, filed appeals of some kind with the Secretary\nof War. From these various types of petitions, six are set forth below\nin whole or in part as follows: petition of appeal to the Secretary of\nWar for the defendant Karl Brandt, page 302; petition for a writ of\nhabeas corpus and a writ of prohibition to the Supreme Court of the\nUnited States by the defendant Rose, pp. 303 to 306; extracts from the\npetition for a writ of habeas corpus and a writ of prohibition to the\nSupreme Court of the United States by the defendant Schroeder, pp. 307\nto 308; petition for review to the Military Governor of the United\nStates Zone of Occupation for the defendant Genzken, pp. 309 to 318;\nclemency plea to the Military Governor of the United States Zone of\nOccupation for the defendant Rudolf Brandt, pp. 319 to 321; and clemency\nplea to the Military Governor of the United States Zone of Occupation\nfor the defendant Poppendick, pp. 322 to 326.\n\n\n\n\n b. Selections from the Petitions to the Military Governor, the\n Supreme Court of the United States, and to the\n Judge Advocate General\n\n _FOR THE DEFENDANT KARL BRANDT_\n Nuernberg, 4 September 1947.\n\nThe\nSecretary of War,\nJudge Advocate General,\nWar Department,\nWashington, D.C.,\nUnited States of America.\nProfessor Dr. Karl BRANDT, Petitioner,\n Defense Counsel Dr. R. Servatius, attorney-at-law, Cologne\n _vs._\n United States of America\nPetition of Appeal\n\n No.\u2014\u2014\n\nAs defense counsel of the defendant Professor Dr. med. Karl Brandt, I\nherewith lodge an appeal against the verdict of the Military Tribunal\nNo. I at Nuernberg in Case I, of 19 and 20 August 1947, by which the\ndefendant was sentenced to death. For justification of my appeal against\nthe indictment on which the verdict is based, as well as the verdict\nitself, I refer to the following documents, copies of which are\nattached:\n\n (_a_) Application for review, dated 28 August 1947, addressed to\n the Chief of Military Government for the American Zone of\n Occupation in Germany.\n\n (_b_) Application for writ of habeas corpus, dated 28 August\n 1947, addressed to the Supreme Court of the United States of\n America.\n\nIt follows from these attached documents that the defendant Karl Brandt\nwas unlawfully deprived of the possibility to lodge an appeal before a\nMilitary Tribunal consisting of medical experts.\n\nA re-trial before a court of higher order is necessary in order to\nre-examine the errors committed by the Tribunal in ascertaining the\nfacts of the case and applying the law.\n\nI request:\n\n (_a_) that the verdict of the Military Tribunal, dated 20 August\n 1947, be annulled.\n\n (_b_) that a court of appeal be formed for a new trial of the\n case.\n\n [Signature] DR. R. SERVATIUS\n _Attorney-at-law_.\n\n\n\n\n _FOR THE DEFENDANT ROSE_\nProf. Dr. med. Gerhard Rose Nuernberg, 4 September 1947\n POW A/938984\nPalace of Justice,\nNuernberg, Germany\n\n Defense Counsel: Dr. Heinz [Hans] Fritz\n Attorney-at-law,\n Bavariaring 14,\n Munich, Germany\n\n To the\n Supreme Court of the United States of America\n Washington, D.C.\n\n Prof. Dr. med. Gerhard Rose, Petitioner\n _vs._\n United States of America\n\n Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus\n and\n Petition for Writ of Prohibition\n\n No.\u2014\u2014\n\nI, the undersigned Prof. Dr. Gerhard Rose, was sentenced, in the verdict\nof the American Military Tribunal I in Nuernberg, Germany, that was\nannounced on 19 and 20 August 1947, of Case I, United States of America\n_vs._ Karl Brandt and others, for war crimes and crimes against\nhumanity, as defined in Control Council Law No. 10 of 20 Dec 1945, to\nlife imprisonment.\n\nI pray:\n\n (1) that a writ of habeas corpus be issued by this Court,\n directed to Lieutenant General Lucius D. Clay, Commanding\n General, United States Army Forces, Germany, commanding him to\n produce the body of the petitioner before your Court or some\n member thereof at a time and place therein to be specified, then\n and there to receive and to do what your honorable Court shall\n order concerning his confinement and trial as an accused war\n criminal and that he be ordered returned to the status of, and\n internment as a prisoner of war in conformity with the\n provisions of Article 9 of the Geneva Convention of July 27,\n 1929, relative to the treatment of prisoners of war and of\n paragraph 82 of the Rules of Land Warfare [U. S. Field Manual\n 27-10], and\n\n (2) that a writ of prohibition be issued by this Court\n prohibiting the respondent from proceeding with the trial and\n that the petitioner be discharged from the offenses and\n confinement aforesaid,\n\n (3) that the costs of the court shall not be levied, because I\n am a prisoner of war and my property has been confiscated by the\n Control Council for Germany.\n\nAs reasons for the above requests I offer the following:\n\n The sentence imposed on me not only violates valid international\n law, but also legal principles whose observance by all the\n courts of the United States is guaranteed by the Constitution of\n the United States of America.\n\n The basic principle that has been violated is that no one may be\n deprived of the judge [justice] provided for by law and that\n each defendant must be granted a regular trial.\n\nThe following violations are charged in particular:\n\n The sentence was passed in violation of Article 63 of the Geneva\n Convention of 1929. I am a medical officer and was Generalarzt\n in the Reserve, which is equivalent to a brigadier general in\n the Medical Corps in the American Army. In May 1941 I was in the\n Luftwaffe hospital at Kitzbuehl in Austria and became a prisoner\n of war. Shortly afterwards I was flown to England and taken to\n Camp Latimer (Bucks), known as POW Camp 7. There I was\n registered as a prisoner of war in the middle of June 1945 and\n received the POW number A 938984. I was informed that I was a\n British prisoner of war. I am still a prisoner of war today,\n because I was neither discharged _de facto_ nor was I ever given\n discharge papers or shown discharge papers that had been filled\n out. As a prisoner of war I have a right to have my case tried\n by a court martial, as would be correct in case an Allied\n medical officer of equal rank were to be indicted on the same\n charges. This Court must not only be an officers\u2019 court composed\n of judges holding corresponding rank, but it must also be a\n professional court, because it must be composed of medical\n officers. Since the American Military Tribunal I is not such a\n court, it was, for example, not in a position to correctly judge\n my activity as scientific consultant medical officer in\n relationship to that of a commanding officer.\n\n Article 63 of the Geneva Convention of 1929 purposely makes no\n differentiation between crimes that a prisoner of war commits\n during his prisoner of war captivity and those which he\n committed before he became a prisoner of war. In accordance with\n the purpose and spirit of the Geneva Convention of 1929, the\n prisoners of war are to be protected by this provision from\n being brought up before a special court or from any limitation\n of their legal rights.\n\n (2) There is a violation of Article 64 of the Geneva Convention\n because the legal remedies that would be available to an Allied\n medical officer in a corresponding case cannot be used in the\n case of the sentence that has been imposed upon me, because\n Article 15 of Ordinance No. 7 of the American Military\n Government in Germany provides that the verdicts of the Military\n Tribunals are final and incontestable.\n\n (3) There is a violation of Article 60 of the Geneva Convention,\n because Switzerland was not informed, as the protecting power\n for prisoners of war, of the criminal proceedings pending\n against me.\n\n (4) The sentence imposed on me violates generally recognized\n legal principles. It is based on the Control Council Law No. 10,\n dated 20 December 1945, and the _ex post facto_ definitions\n contained therein. The sentence has inflicted punishment on me\n for crimes against humanity, that is, on the basis of an act\n which was for the first time declared punishable by Control\n Council Law No. 10.\n\n The suspension of this universally recognized legal principle by\n a new law cannot change justice itself. The validity of this\n special law must be tested by the court.\n\n (5) The sentence violates the basic principle _nulla poena sine\n culpa_, because it punished me according to Article II, 2_c_ and\n _d_ of the Control Council Law. These parts of the Control\n Council Laws allow punishment for mere consent to an act and for\n a merely objective \u201cconnection\u201d with the planning or execution\n of such act. These provisions represent new substantive law that\n has been created _ex post facto_.\n\n (6) During the trial I was limited in my defense in an\n inadmissible way. My defense counsel, Attorney Dr. Fritz, twice\n requested, in the prescribed manner, that Prof. Dr. Blanc, a\n French citizen and director of the Pasteur Institute in\n Casablanca, Morocco, be summoned as an expert witness in the\n examination of the research work of Prof. Haagen. The medical\n research work of Prof. Haagen concerns such difficult medical\n problems that it cannot, in my opinion, be judged by judges who\n lack medical training, without the expert testimony of a capable\n specialist. However, the Court did not approve the requests.\n This is in my opinion the only reason that I was found guilty in\n connection with the research work of Haagen.\n\n (7) It is further asserted that the principle of oral\n proceedings was violated. In the final stages of the trial the\n Court ordered a partly written procedure. Although the main\n trial had lasted many months and there was an extremely abundant\n amount of material to discuss, from a factual as well as a legal\n standpoint, my defense counsel was only allowed one hour for his\n closing speech. As for the remaining arguments he was advised to\n present a closing brief. In this way the protection of publicity\n was denied and the guarantee removed that the Court would really\n take cognizance of these written statements.\n\n It was not possible for me to receive information concerning\n these written statements of my co-defendants in time to take\n action thereon.\n\n The contents of the closing brief which my defense counsel\n submitted, and the contents of his rebuttal to the closing brief\n submitted by the prosecutor against me have obviously not been\n considered in the findings of the Court, although the Court\n described the closing brief which it demanded as the most\n important part of the defense. The English translations of the\n closing brief and rebuttal to the closing brief of the\n prosecution arrived so late that it seems impossible that the\n Court could have taken note of the contents before writing the\n verdict.\n\n Several closing briefs which had been submitted by the defense\n counsels of my co-defendants were not even available at the time\n when the verdict was read.\n\n I assume that the Court could not peruse the rebuttal of my\n defense counsels to the closing brief of the prosecution before\n writing the verdict, because the verdict, insofar as it pertains\n to my case, contains several obviously false statements of facts\n and furthermore does not even analyze these statements.\n\n (8) The verdict does not have, according to the provisions of\n Military Government Ordinance No. 7, sufficient reasons to back\n it up. For instance, it is impossible to determine whether the\n Court investigated the possibility of duress that would preclude\n punishment.\n\nInsofar as incompetency of the American Military Tribunal No. I is\nasserted in my case, I point to the fact that it was not possible for me\nto object earlier on account of Article II _e_ of Ordinance No. 7.\n\nI reserve the right to submit further statements and evidence later.\n\n [Signature] DR. GERHARD ROSE.\n\n\n\n\n _FOR THE DEFENDANT SCHROEDER_\n\nTo the\nSupreme Court\nof the United States of America\nWashington\nthrough the office of the General Secretary of the\nU. S. Military Tribunal I\nNuernberg.\n\nOskar Schroeder, Petitioner\n _vs._\nThe United States of America\n\n Oskar Schroeder, former Generaloberstabsarzt (Lieutenant\n General) of the Luftwaffe (German Air Force) at present in the\n prison of the Court in Nuernberg, Germany.\n\n Counsel for the defendant: Dr. Hanns Marx at present at the\n Military Tribunal I Nuernberg, Roonstrasse 15.\n\n_Writ of Habeas Corpus and_\n\n_Writ of Prohibition_\n\n * * * * *\n\nHere too, the Court found that I am guilty merely because of the fact\nthat contrary to duty I did not supervise my subordinates.\n\nFinally the judgment found me guilty with regard to the responsibility\nfor gas experiments. Here the judgment states:\n\n \u201cA certain Oberarzt Wimmer, a staff physician of the Luftwaffe\n worked with Hirt on the gas experiments throughout the period.\n\n \u201cWe discussed the duty which rests upon a commanding officer to\n take appropriate measures to control his subordinates, in\n dealing with the case of Handloser. We shall not repeat what we\n said there. Had Schroeder adopted the measures which the law of\n war imposes upon one in position of command to prevent the\n actions of his subordinates amounting to violations of the law\n of war, the deaths of the non-German nationals involved in the\n gas experiments might well have been prevented.\u201d\n\n * * * * *\n\n III\n\nA further infringement against the habeas corpus is the fact that while\nI have been found guilty as being responsible for the Lost experiments,\nalthough I have never been indicted on this count.\n\nThe verdict of the Military Tribunal I states on page 11 the names of\nthose defendants who have been accused of having borne special\nresponsibility for the Lost (mustard) gas experiments. My name does not\nappear on that list.\n\nOn page 187 of the verdict, the Court describes the importance that this\nenumeration of defendants has in relation to the various individual\ncounts of the indictment. It says:\n\n \u201cIn preparing counts II and III of the indictment, the\n prosecution elected to frame its pleadings in such a manner\n [page 7 of the original] as to charge all defendants with the\n commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity, generally,\n and at the same time to name in each subparagraph dealing with\n medical experiments only those defendants particularly charged\n with responsibility for each particular item.\u201d\n\nThe Court goes on to say:\n\n \u201cIn our view this constituted in effect, a bill of particulars\n and was, in essence, a declaration to the defendants upon which\n they were entitled to rely in preparing their defenses, that\n only such persons as were actually named in the designated\n experiments would be called upon to defend against the specific\n items.\u201d\n\nAs the Court repeatedly gave evidence during the course of the\nproceedings that it adhered to this view I did not defend myself, did\nnot need to defend myself and could not defend myself against the\naccusation that I had participated in the Lost experiments.\n\nAlthough the Court finds on page 187 of the verdict:\n\n \u201cWe think it would be manifestly unfair to the defendant to find\n him guilty of an offense with which the indictment affirmatively\n indicated he was not charged,\u201d\n\nit has still found me guilty because of responsibility for the Lost\nexperiment, so that in view of the Court\u2019s own statements as contained\nin the verdict, my sentence constitutes, insofar as it concerns this\nmatter, a gross injustice.\n\nI believe that the sentence of the Military Tribunal I violates a\nprinciple insofar as each defendant must be told clearly what crime he\nhas been charged with, and that he must have opportunity to defend\nhimself against these accusations.\n\nIt is this principle that is being violated in the findings of the Court\nagainst me. In my opinion, it infringes thus the principle of legal\nheading laid down in the habeas corpus. It is therefore obviously\nunjust, according to the wording of the verdict itself.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n\n\n _FOR THE DEFENDANT GENZKEN_\nDr. R. Merkel\nDefense Counsel of Defendant Dr. Karl Genzken\n Nuernberg, 2 September 1947.\n\nTo the\nAmerican Military Governor for Germany\nGeneral Lucius D. Clay\n_via_\nthe Secretary General of the\nMilitary Tribunal I\nNuernberg.\n\n_Concerning_: Confirmation of the sentence of Military Tribunal I,\n Nuernberg, of 19 August 1947.\n\nKarl Genzken, defendant in Case I, defended by Attorney-at-Law Dr. R.\nMerkel, Nuernberg, by verdict of Military Tribunal I of 19 August 1947\nwas found guilty of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and membership\nin the SS\u2014counts two, three, and four of the indictment\u2014and was\nsentenced to life imprisonment.\n\nI request that the sentence may not be confirmed, since the defendant is\ninnocent of the punishable participation in the typhus experiments in\nBuchenwald with which he is charged.\n\nThe verdict of Military Tribunal I, Nuernberg of 19-20 August 1947\ndecided that Genzken in his official position was responsible for,\ncooperated in, and promoted the typhus experiments which were carried\nout on non-Germans against their will, and in the course of which, and\nas a result of which, cases of death occurred.\n\nOn the basis of the verdict it is certain that the defendant himself did\nnot actively participate in the typhus experiments; he never entered the\nBuchenwald concentration camp during the war and never saw the typhus\nexperimental station in Block 46.\n\nThe verdict is based on the presupposition\u2014\n\n(1) that Genzken before 1 September 1943\u2014as superior of Mrugowsky, the\nChief of the Hygiene Institute, and of Ding in his capacity as an\nassistant in this Institute\u2014has had the command and thus the official\nsupervision over the experiments in the typhus experimental station in\nBlock 46 of the Buchenwald concentration camp,\n\n(2) that Genzken before 1 September 1943 was acquainted with the kind\nand scope of the activity of Mrugowsky and Ding, who were supposedly\nsubordinated to him in the field of typhus research, and\n\n(3) that he nevertheless failed to make sure that this research work was\ncarried out within legally permissible limits.\n\nThese statements of the verdict are not correct, since they do not take\ninto account in any way the actual facts which emerged on the basis of\nthe extensive evidence submitted by the prosecution and defense.\n\n I\n _Genzken had no command and no official supervision over the\n typhus experiments in Block 46_\n\nThe research for a new typhus vaccine for the Waffen SS was purely\nscientific research in the medical field. In contrast to the Chiefs of\nthe Medical Services of the three Wehrmacht branches (Army, Air Corps,\nNavy) scientific research and planning did not belong to the tasks\ndelegated to the Chief of the Medical Service of the Waffen SS. The\nofficial agency in charge of scientific research and planning for all\nthe organizations of the SS and the police was rather exclusively Reich\nPhysician SS and Police Professor Dr. Grawitz (pages 4-6 of closing\nbrief of the defense).\n\nExhibit No. 39 of the prosecution proves that Grawitz in 1942 without\nsuccess requested funds for the intended establishment of several\nresearch institutes. However, in view of the imminent pressing danger of\ntyphus, Grawitz, at the order of Himmler, gave the command to establish\na typhus experimental station in connection with and sharing the funds\nappropriated for Block 46 of the Buchenwald concentration camp and in\nDecember 1941 he appointed Dr. Ding of the Hygiene Institute of the\nWaffen SS head of Block 46. In reference to this Mrugowsky states:\n\u201cHimmler did not order me to take charge of these experiments, but at\nthe suggestion of Grawitz assigned these duties to Dr. Ding.\u201d (_p. 5067\nof the English transcript._) In the affidavit of S. Dumont, we read:\n\u201cMrugowsky told me that Grawitz will transmit Himmler\u2019s order direct to\nDing\u201d (_Document Mrugowsky 38, Exhibit 13, p. 50 Document book Mrugowsky\nI_). Finally Blumenreuther declares in his affidavit of 3 February 1947\n(_Document Mrugowsky No. 26, Exhibit 6, p. 170 Document Book Mrugowsky\nI_) as follows: \u201cIn 1942 Grawitz brought about Himmler\u2019s order to\nestablish in the Buchenwald concentration camp an experimental station\nfor typhus research and appointed Dr. Ding to take charge of this\nexperimental station.\u201d Thus Ding left the Hygiene Institute, when his\nresearch work began, and from this time on he was no longer a\nsubordinate of Genzken, but as chief of the research department in Block\n46 was directly, immediately, and exclusively subordinate to Grawitz. As\noldest hygienic expert, Grawitz consulted his consulting hygienist\nMrugowsky in the course of his researches concerned with typhus. This\nlatter called himself \u201cReich Physician SS and Leading Police Hygienist\u201d\nin his report of 5 May 1942 which was mentioned in the verdict\n(_Mrugowsky, Exhibit 20, p._ _86, Doc. Book Mrug. I_). As a result of\nthe shortage of hygienists, Mrugowsky, in his capacity as head of the\nonly Hygiene Institute on the home front, was available also to the\nReich Physician for his medical duties concerned with all the branches\nof the SS and for his scientific research tasks. As head of the Hygiene\nInstitute and as head of Office XVI concerned with questions of group\nhygiene of the Waffen SS, Mrugowsky was subordinate to Genzken, not\nhowever in his capacity as hygienic consultant to the Reich Physician.\nIn connection with these problems, to which belonged also the typhus\nvaccine research, Mrugowsky was subordinate only to Reich Physician SS\nGrawitz and not to Genzken. If, as the verdict presupposes, the\nrelationship of giving orders had really been the following:\nHimmler-Grawitz-Genzken-Mrugowsky-Ding, then Genzken would have had to\ntake orders from Grawitz and would have been called for conferences with\nGrawitz. This has not been established by the prosecution.\n\nThrough the examination of witnesses by prosecution and defense, it was\nestablished that there were two separate institutions in Buchenwald: the\ntyphus research institute from December 1941 in Block 46 and the typhus\nvaccine manufacturing station from the fall of 1943 in Block 50 (_see\npage 35, Closing Brief of the Defense and Exhibit Genzken Exh. No. 5_).\nThe manufacturing station in Block 50, and Ding as its head, would have\nbeen subordinate to Dr. Genzken as such if the manufacture of the new SS\ntyphus vaccine had been started before 1 September 1943. However, this\nwas definitely not the case; it was still in a preparatory state (_see\npage 46, closing brief of the defense_). If on page 96 (German text) of\nthe verdict it is furthermore stated that the official channels were\narranged in this manner: _Himmler-Grawitz-Genzken-Mrugowsky-Ding_, then\nthis statement also is in obvious contradiction to the facts established\nin a clear and conclusive manner by the examination of witnesses.\n\nBecause, as far as the channels of command for the typhus experimental\nstation are concerned, the following points prove that these channels of\ncommand ran _Himmler-Grawitz-Ding_ for Block 46:\n\n(1) Dr. Morgen states in his affidavit Mrugowsky Exh. 107 (_Doc. Mrug.\n114, Doc. Book Mrug. Supplement II, p. 54_), that Grawitz gave written\nand direct order to Ding to carry out the typhus research without\nGenzken\u2019s participation. Ding showed Morgen the written order from\nGrawitz.\n\n(2) The letterhead which Ding used before spring 1943, as head of the\nexperimental station for typhus and virus research, read as follows:\n\u201cReich Fuehrer SS\u2014Typhus-Experimental Station, Buchenwald\u201d (_see Doc.\nGenzken No. 2, Genzken Exh. 8_).\n\n(3) The prosecution witness Kogon confirms the fact that all reports\nwent through Mrugowsky directly to Grawitz and not by way of Genzken.\n\n(4) Genzken and Mrugowsky both testify under oath that Himmler and\nGrawitz gave the order for the establishment of the experimental station\nto Ding directly.\n\n(5) In Exhibit 283 of the prosecution, Ding states \u201cthat Grawitz, in\nagreement with the leading physician of the concentration camp Dr.\nLolling appointed Dr. Hoven as Ding\u2019s deputy in Buchenwald\u201d. The\nappointment, therefore, did not take place by way of Genzken.\n\nThe order channel, Himmler-Grawitz-Genzken-Mrugowsky-Ding, as stated in\nthe verdict, is based exclusively on the affidavit of Dr. Hoven dated 24\nOctober 1946, Prosecution Exh. No. 281. When he was interrogated, Hoven\nstated under oath that this channel of command was correct only for the\nmanufacturing station in Block 50 and not for the research institute in\nBlock 46 (_see p. 9913 of the English record_). When Mrugowsky was\ninterrogated, he also stated under oath \u201cthat this command relationship\nreferred solely to the vaccine _manufacture_ in Block 50. This chain of\ncommand did not refer to Block 46, and insofar as it is touched by it,\nthis channel of giving orders is not correct\u201d (_see p. 46 closing brief\nof the defense_).\n\nFrom all this evidence it follows conclusively that Hoven\u2019s statement\ncannot be used as supporting evidence for a conviction against Genzken.\nFor he was not a station on this channel of giving orders and had never\nhad anything to do about giving orders concerning the carrying out of\nthe typhus experiments in Block 46 until 1 September 1943.\n\nIf, therefore, the verdict states that Genzken was responsible for the\ncarrying out of the typhus experiments, then the verdict does not take\ninto consideration the proven fact that not Genzken, but Grawitz was the\none who gave the order to carry out research experiments in the\nconcentration camp Buchenwald on concentration camp inmates. Only he who\ngives the order to carry out an action and who was a party to it in some\nother ways can be responsible for the act. Nothing of the sort has been\nproved against Genzken. If, as established by Document Mrug. Exh. No.\n107, Grawitz gave the order to carry out typhus experiments to Ding,\nthen it is impossible that Genzken too could have given such an order,\nif for no other reason, because he was never the competent authority for\nscientific research and projects. Furthermore on the basis of his\ntestimony as a witness, it has been established that he never received\nan order to this effect by Grawitz, and that Grawitz purposely excluded\nhim from exerting any influence on the research projects in Block 46.\n\nIn Genzken Exhibit No. 3, Mrugowsky confirms \u201cthat Grawitz, in\nconversations with him, frequently emphasized that he\u2014Grawitz\u2014was the\nonly one responsible for research and planning assignments within the\nSS, and that Genzken had nothing to do with them.\u201d\n\nThe assumption in the verdict is, therefore, not correct that Ding\nundertook typhus research \u201cfor\u201d the Hygiene Institute (_page 97, German\ntext of the verdict_). As already mentioned above and as proved beyond\ndoubt during the trial, Ding did not undertake these typhus experiments\nfor the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS, but exclusively for his\nemployer and commander, Grawitz.\n\nGenzken, therefore, was not responsible for the carrying out of the\ntyphus experiments, since he neither commanded nor ordered those\nexperiments.\n\nIf furthermore the Tribunal is trying to construe incriminating evidence\nagainst Genzken by claiming that Genzken provided the funds for Ding\u2019s\nexpenses (_see page 97 and 99 of the German text_), this too is a\nmistake. Genzken expressly said under oath that he never provided any\nmoney for Ding\u2019s experiments, but that only for Ding\u2019s personal needs\nhad funds been transferred to the Waffen SS through the medical office.\nIn the Genzken Document No. 17, Genzken Exhibit No. 15, Rudolf Tonndorf\nsays \u201cthat he never paid or ordered payment for the upkeep or provided\nother funds for scientific experiments or for institutions which served\nsuch purposes, because such scientific research work was not the concern\nof the medical office of the Waffen SS, but exclusively that of the\noffice of the Reich Physician of the SS and Police, Dr. Grawitz.\u201d\n\nIn Genzken Exhibit No. 8, Barnewald states under oath \u201cthat the entire\nadministrative care for Block 46 was the concern of the Buchenwald camp\nadministration through the official channels via the patients\u2019 building\nof the concentration camp. The administration of the medical office of\nthe Waffen SS had officially nothing to do with administrative matters\nconcerning Block 46.\u201d\n\nOn page 6 of the Ding diary\u2014Prosecution Exhibit No. 287\u2014it says that\nPohl, the Chief of the Main Administrative and Economic Office, gave the\norder for the enlargement of a block of stone buildings. On page 9 of\nthat same document a conference between Ding and two representatives of\nthe Main Administrative and Economic Office is mentioned (Barnewald and\nSchlesinger), who occupied themselves with the breeding of experimental\nanimals for the experimental department.\n\nNot Genzken, but the authorities competent for the economic supply of\nthe concentration camps, namely, the Main Administrative and Economic\nOffice therefore carried through the financing of the typhus experiments\nvia the camp administration of the concentration camp Buchenwald.\n\n II\n _Genzken had no knowledge of the character and of the extent of\n the experiments carried out in the field of typhus research\n in Block 46_\n\nThe statement in the verdict (_page 105_) \u201cthat Genzken knew that the\nprisoners were subjected to cruel medical experiments, in the course of\nwhich deaths were occurring,\u201d is not proved in any way.\n\nThe verdict itself (_page 98_) states that Genzken said \u201cthat he was\naware of the fact that concentration camp inmates were subjected to\nexperiments, and that he stated that he was not advised as to the\n_methods_ of experimentation.\u201d In the cross-examination, Genzken\nemphasized that the number of the experimental persons, of the series of\nexperiments, the number of dead, the cultures for infections, and the\npassages had only become clear to him through the trial, and that the\nnames \u201cBlock 46\u201d and \u201cBlock 50\u201d had been entirely unknown to him up to\nthe trial. As proved by the evidence it is clear, beyond doubt, that\nGenzken was not informed either by Grawitz, nor by Ding, nor by\nMrugowsky about the details of the experiments. Grawitz who distrusted\nGenzken, consciously never informed Genzken about a single case of his\nmany secret experiments upon human beings in which, according to the\ndocumentary evidence he participated. The defense has given sufficient\nevidence for this fact. Grawitz even prevented Mrugowsky from informing\nGenzken (_Document Genzken, Exhibit No. 3_): \u201cThis is none of Genzken\u2019s\nbusiness.\u201d\n\nIt has also been made very clear by the defense that Ding had never\ngiven any oral or written information about the details of the\nexperiments. The prosecution could not produce any evidence for such\ninformation.\n\nThe verdict speaks about a \u201cwarm personal friendship between Genzken and\nDing\u201d (_page 97_). Their relationship never was more than one of\nofficial comradeship. They did not use the intimate \u201cDu\u201d in addressing\neach other. Ding was never a guest at Genzken\u2019s house. Once Ding was\npresented to Frau Genzken. The two women did not know each other at all.\n\nDing\u2019s scientific reports concerning his research went directly to\nGrawitz via Mrugowsky. To the question whether it was not true that\nreports concerning the typhus experiments in Block 46 went to the office\nof the Reich Physician of the SS and of the Police Grawitz, the\nprosecution witness Kogon answered by saying: \u201cThis is correct\u201d (_see p.\n1290 of the English Transcript_). Mrugowsky said in this connection:\n\n\u201cThe reports were never presented to Genzken through me but in a new\nenvelope went directly to Grawitz\u201d (_see p. 5366 of the English\nTranscript_). Finally the witness Dumont in figure 7 of her affidavit\n(_Document Mrugowsky, Exhibit 13, page 51, Document Book Mrug. I_)\ndeclared: \u201cThe reports which Ding made concerning his experiments with\nprisoners were directed to Grawitz via the Hygiene Institute.\u201d\n\nThe verdict tries furthermore to base the fact that Genzken knew about\nthe typhus experiments via stating that once a report by Mrugowsky of 5\nMay 1942 went to him and that besides this, he had been personally\ninformed about everything by Mrugowsky. Both conclusions are also wrong\nand are in direct contradiction to the evidence.\n\nThe only document of the prosecution which, according to the distributor\nmentions the name of Genzken at all, is the report by Mrugowsky of 5 May\n1942, mentioned in the verdict (_page 99 and following_). The\nconclusions which the Tribunal feels compelled to have to draw from this\nreport to the prejudice of Genzken do not apply if only for the reason\nthat this report was _never_ made available to Dr. Genzken. Mrugowsky\nsaid in this respect: \u201cThis report was not presented to Genzken himself\nbut was even later on, until the end, in the files of Amt XVI.\u201d (_See\nreply of the defense to the closing brief of the prosecution, p. 5_).\nGenzken cannot be made responsible for something he, as has been proved,\nnever knew. If he never saw that report of Mrugowsky and if he never\nknew of its existence, it cannot serve as an incriminating evidence\nagainst him.\n\nIt is not correct, that before 1 September 1943 Mrugowsky gave\nregularly, on the average once a week, oral or written reports\nconcerning the typhus experiments to Genzken. Mrugowsky only said that\nabout once a week he reported to Genzken on the hygiene of the troops at\nthe meeting of the Referenten[59] of the medical office. Mrugowsky did\nthis in his capacity as leading hygienist of the medical office\n(Sanitaets-Amt). Mrugowsky never reported to Genzken about the typhus\nexperiments, on the occasion of these weekly reports and meetings of\nReferenten (Heads of Referate, Departments in a Ministry), if only\nbecause of the fact that these experiments did not fall within the scope\nof the work of the medical office of the Waffen SS, and because, upon\nGrawitz order, they were to be kept strictly secret. Written reports\nwere never made at all. The established fact that in the medical office\nthere was not the slightest information about, nor was there ever any\ndiscussion of, typhus experiments or any other experiments upon human\nbeings in concentration camps, in itself shows that on Mrugowsky\u2019s part,\nno oral or written reports were submitted to the medical office of the\nWaffen SS. Four participants in such meetings of the Referenten of the\nmedical office have borne witness to this fact (_see p. 52 of the\nclosing brief for the defense_).\n\nThe sole report of the spring of 1943 has been described in detail by\nMrugowsky. His explanations were incorporated into the verdict word for\nword. The Tribunal thus considers them to be true and accurate.\nMrugowsky and Genzken both stated under oath that Genzken had not seen\nthat infection dates and incidents of death had been marked in the\ncharts which were submitted to him. Mrugowsky stated literally as\nfollows: \u201cI had no cause to call his attention to these things expressly\nbecause actually I made no report to him concerning Ding\u2019s experimental\nseries, but merely wanted to give him factual information concerning the\nprotective effect of certain vaccines, which he as head of the medical\noffice had to know.\u201d\n\nOn pages 25-26, the verdict states: \u201cIn Anglo-Saxon law, every defendant\nin a criminal proceedings for a crime of which he is accused is\nconsidered innocent until the prosecution has brought sound credible\nproof of his guilt, excluding all reasonable doubt. This assumption\napplies to the defendant throughout all the stages of the trial, until\nsuch proof has been brought. \u2018Reasonable doubt\u2019 is, as the name implies,\ndoubt that is in keeping with reason, a doubt that a reasonable person\nwould entertain.\u201d\n\nThese statements must be completely and entirely agreed to. But, when\napplied to this very case of defendant Genzken and especially to his\nalleged knowledge of the experiments, it can under no circumstances be\nsaid that the evidence brought by the prosecution is sufficient to\nprovide the judge with a lasting conviction giving him the moral\ncertainty the accusation is true. For Genzken did not see Mrugowsky\u2019s\nreport, and the single report made by Mrugowsky presents, according to\nthe latter\u2019s statement, no sound and conclusive proof of Genzken\u2019s\nknowledge.\n\nThe verdict holds Genzken responsible (_p. 103_) \u201cfor having\nnevertheless neglected to reassure himself that his experimental work\nwas being carried out within permissible legitimate limits.\u201d\n\n III\n _Genzken had no official supervisory power and no chance\n to intervene by giving orders and also no reason\n at all to reassure himself_\n\nAs witness, Genzken himself stated that he had merely known that a new\ntyphus vaccine was to be produced in an institute at Buchenwald. Genzken\nhad no knowledge whatsoever in this specialized field of hygiene, as\nwell as no bacteriological training at all, and had never conducted\nscientific research work. He had no reason at all to assume that, in\nconnection with this research, prisoners would be used in a criminal\nmanner. He was merely of the opinion that the prisoners were brought in\nfor purposes of checking the efficacy of the vaccine, in the form of\nexperimental series which were generally customary in medical research.\nIt was only during the course of the trial that he for the first time\nlearned of deliberate infections and that there had been many deaths\nduring the experimental series. He could not know anything about these\nfacts, especially because the assignment of the prisoners was, as a\nconcentration camp matter, completely outside of his sphere of duties.\nWhen, on page 103 (German text), the verdict implies that Genzken had\nundertaken no steps to reassure himself about the condition of the\nexperimental subjects or of the circumstances under which they had been\ntaken to the experimental block, this implication of the verdict is also\nincorrect, because the prisoners were not assigned by the medical office\nof the Waffen SS, but by the office in charge of the administration of\nthe concentration camp in collaboration with the Reich Criminal Police\nOffice. Until the trial, he had not even known that non-Germans were\ncalled in as experimental subjects. This and the fact that all\nexperiments were kept strictly secret made it impossible for Genzken to\ninstitute investigations or to undertake steps to reassure himself about\nthe condition of the experimental subjects. If, finally, on page 98 of\nthe verdict, reference is made to Ding\u2019s diary in order to support the\njudgment, it must above all be stated that there are grave doubts as to\nthe probative value of this document (_see p. 27 and the following of\nthe closing brief for the defense_). The verdict asserts that Kogon kept\nthe original diary. That is not in keeping with the facts; in any case\nit would have been impossible for the period from December 1941 to June\n1943, because Kogon only became Ding\u2019s secretary on the latter date\n(_see p. 1259 of the English Transcript_). On page 99 of the verdict,\nthe Tribunal itself makes the following statement in connection with the\nentry for 9 January 1943 referred to in order to incriminate Genzken:\n\u201cif Ding\u2019s proven attempts at self-glorification are taken into account,\none should not credulously accept this entry in its existing form.\u201d Thus\nin this connection the statements on page 25 and 26 of the verdict\nregarding the Tribunal\u2019s conviction apply in particular. If even the\nTribunal, and quite rightly so, feels considerable doubts as to the\ncorrectness and significance of this entry, it is not permissible to use\nit in order to the prejudice of the defendant. Besides, Genzken\nexpressly declared as also confirmed by Kogon (_see p. 1228 of English\nTr._) that he never expressed his approval with regard to the department\nfor typhus research, but that this entry would have to be interpreted as\nhis consent to the change of name of the vaccine _production_\nlaboratory. This intended change of name was not effected until after 1\nSeptember 1943, thus at a time when Genzken was no longer responsible.\n(_See p. 32 and following of the closing brief for the defense._)\n\nThe verdict states at the end of the opinion for Genzken\u2019s sentence that\nhe was responsible for the typhus experiments and that he assisted in\nthem and furthered them.\n\nIn the face of all this, the result of the case in chief is once again\nto be summarized as follows:\n\n Genzken had no responsibility, no authority to give orders, and\n no official supervisory power regarding the Typhus Experimental\n Station in Block 46 of the Buchenwald concentration camp. All\n these were in the hands of Grawitz. The latter gave direct\n orders for the experiments to be carried out to Ding who was his\n immediate subordinate. Ding\u2019s reports went directly through\n Mrugowsky to Grawitz and never to Genzken. The latter had no\n knowledge whatsoever of the criminal methods of the experiments.\n Genzken had no responsibility, no official supervisory power,\n and no possibility to interfere by an order; owing to his\n ignorance of the facts, he had no cause to reassure himself of\n the conditions under which the experiments took place. Therefore\n a sentence in connection with counts two and three of the\n indictment ought not to follow. I, therefore, ask that the\n verdict should not be confirmed on these points, as Genzken is\n not guilty of a war crime or of a crime against humanity as is\n clearly proved by the evidence.\n\n With regard to his membership in the SS, this fact alone is not\n sufficient to bring about his conviction before the American\n Military Tribunal. In addition, it would be necessary that his\n knowledge of _criminal_ experiments should have been proved as\n in the Poppendick case. However, in accordance with the above\n statements this is not the case.\n\n Only the competent German Denazification Board could convict the\n defendant for his SS membership. I therefore propose that the\n case be referred to the Denazification Board competent for his\n home town Preetz/Holstein.\n\n [Signature] DR. R. MERKEL,\n _Attorney-at-Law_.\n\n\n\n\n _FOR THE DEFENDANT RUDOLF BRANDT_\n\nDr. Kurt Kauffmann\nCounsel for the Defense of the Defendant Rudolf Brandt\n\n Nuernberg, 2 September 1947\n\nTo the Military Governor of the American Zone of Occupation in Germany.\n\nThrough the Secretary General at Military Tribunal No. I, Nuernberg.\n\nAs counsel for the defense of Rudolf Brandt, who has been sentenced to\ndeath, I herewith petition that the judgment of the American Military\nTribunal No. I, dated 19-20 August 1947, not be confirmed.\n\nIt is perhaps the grandest task of a human being and counsel for the\ndefense to intercede on behalf of another person and to commend him to\nthe clemency of the mighty.\n\nClemency appeals to the understanding of the great for human weakness.\nClemency is the opposite of pure criticism and spiteful anger.\n\nFor this reason I remain quiet in the face of the sentence pronounced; I\ndo not raise any complaint because, in one point or another, the\ndecision of the Tribunal does not perhaps entirely agree with my opinion\nof the course of events, of the position of the defendant at that time,\nand of his character.\n\nThis petition for clemency wants once more to go into the depths of the\nthoughts which basically were already the subject of my final plea.\n\nOne may well believe that at the beginning of the trial, after I had\nstudied the case of Rudolf Brandt, I recognized that this task was\nhardly to be rewarded with success; nevertheless it seemed to me that it\nwas worth my efforts to take over the defense, since I believed\u2014then as\nwell as now\u2014that Rudolf Brandt is guilty to receive any kind of\npunishment but not the death sentence.\n\nNot a few of the statements made in my final plea serve this idea. I\nmust admit, however, that even I, as the counsel for his defense,\narrived at this conviction only on the strength of the characterization\nof the personality of the defendant contained in my document book, as\nwell as on the strength of my own judgment of him, which sees in Brandt\na beast of burden which dragged on day and night without really\nrecognizing the contents of its burden; for the burden which it carried,\ntogether with the weights, which make this trial such a terrible one,\nwere only a small fraction of the gigantic burden under which the bearer\nhimself was not visible any more.\n\nThis comparison can be drawn without difficulty from the evidence\npresented by the defense.\n\nI take the liberty\u2014because it seems characteristic in this respect\u2014to\nrefer to some pieces of evidence which have already been submitted to\nthe Tribunal, namely:\n\n (1) the affidavit of Medizinalrat Felix Kersten of Stockholm\n (_Document Book Rudolf Brandt, page 8_).\n\n (2) two affidavits from Schellenberg and Dr. Stuckart (_Document\n Book Rudolf Brandt, pp. 16-17 and pp. 23-24_).\n\n (3) I once more refer to the final plea of Rudolf Brandt\n (_English transcript, pages 11330-35_).\n\n (4) I attached two letters of the World Jewish Congress in Paris\n and Stockholm, addressed to the above-mentioned Felix Kersten,\n which had been rejected by the Tribunal as unessential pieces of\n evidence, which, however, throw a distinct light on the\n personality of Felix Kersten, who, on his part, defends so\n warmly Rudolf Brandt.\n\nThe fact that Rudolf Brandt did not make his own decisions but was under\nthe command of Himmler can be found a mitigating consideration according\nto Law No. 10 of the Control Council, Article II 4 _b_.\n\nI appeal to the generosity of the great to make use of this possibility\nto mitigate the sentence.\n\nA sentence of imprisonment is also a heavy expiation.\n\nThe counsel for the defense again and again feels tempted to regret that\nthese trials are too drawn out and through their long duration have a\nnegative effect on the broad masses of the German people. If it is to be\nthe goal of these trials to punish the main war criminals, these\nprocedures should be shortened. The people are not interested any more\nin the course of these trials, apart from the trial against Goering and\nothers during its first stages; one reason for this is, of course, the\ngeneral plight; because the hunger of the people, the great mortality,\nthe problem of the prisoners of war who are not returned to their\nfamilies, the conditions in the East push everything else aside.\nFurthermore, the long duration of the trials causes even the most lively\ninterest to slacken. But it also seems wrong to pronounce death\nsentences after such a long duration of proceedings. In the case of the\ntrial of the International Military Tribunal, the people were still able\nto connect the long duration of the proceedings with the sentences\npronounced, because each proceeding was an individual event. The\nfollowing trials, however, among them, therefore, the doctors\u2019 trial,\nare much too much drawn out with regard to German legal opinion. If such\na drawn-out procedure closes with a death sentence, that death\npunishment seems hardly justified anymore. German trial procedure does\nnot know such long drawn-out proceedings, the final result of which is a\ndeath sentence. The special peculiarities of the Anglo-American trial\nprocedures are the cause for such trials that last for months and\nmonths. It has also to be remembered that the defendants in each case\nhave been in custody for almost or more than two years when the trial\nfinally began. Procedures ending with death sentences will have to be\ncarried through much faster. It is in contradiction to one\u2019s reactions\nthat death sentences are pronounced against defendants with whom not\nonly counsel for the defense has worked together for many months, but\nwho also for many months appeared daily in court and were respected by\nthe court, since they are rightly considered innocent until their guilt\nis finally established.\n\nNeither should one forget that the defendants themselves, after having\nbeen held in custody for inquiry for such a long time and having gone\nthrough such long drawn-out procedures, have already atoned more for\ntheir crimes than if there had been a quick procedure started\nimmediately after the collapse of Germany.\n\nIf I may impose on the instance for clemency I beg to read some parts of\nmy final plea; then, I don\u2019t have to repeat myself here. (_Cf.\nstatements on page 14 V, 1_; _furthermore pages 18-20, 27, 43 C_).\n\n [Signature] DR. KAUFFMANN.\n\n\n\n\n _FOR THE DEFENDANT POPPENDICK_\n Nuernberg, 1 September 1947\n\nGeorg Boehm, Attorney\nDefense Counsel\nMilitary Tribunal I\nNuernberg, 115 Zerzabelshofstrasse\n\nThe\nMilitary Commander\nof the U.S. Occupation Zone\nGermany\n\n Petition\n of Attorney Georg Boehm, Defense Counsel at\n Military Tribunal I, Nuernberg\n\n for the defendant\n Helmut Poppendick, at present in the courthouse prison at\n Nuernberg, _concerning alteration of the sentence passed_\n _by Military Tribunal I, Nuernberg_\n\nThe defendant Helmut Poppendick was acquitted of the charges of having\ncommitted war crimes and crimes against humanity (counts two and three)\nin the sentence of the Military Tribunal I at Nuernberg in Case I,\nUnited States of America against Karl Brandt _et al._, on 19 August\n1947, and found guilty only, as an SS member, of membership in an\norganization declared criminal by the International Military Tribunal\n(count four). On 20 August 1947, the defendant Helmut Poppendick was\nsentenced to 10 years\u2019 imprisonment merely on account of membership in\nthe SS.\n\n I. _The sentence exceeds the maximum penalty_\n\nAccording to the recommendations of the International Military Tribunal\n(_The Trial of the Major War Criminals before the International Military\nTribunal, Vol. I, p. 288_), inserted into the sentence of the Medical\nCase, a maximum penalty is provided for the punishment of members of\norganizations declared criminal. The IMT recommendation provides in\ndetail that \u201cin no case is the penalty, imposed on the basis of Law No.\n10 upon a member of an organization or group declared criminal by the\nTribunal, to be more severe than the one provided in the Denazification\nLaw\u201d. The Denazification Law, dated 5 March 1946, valid for the U.S.\nOccupation Zone of Germany, referred to as a standard for comparison,\nprovides the maximum penalty of 10 years in a labor camp. According to\npresent penal regulations, 10 years\u2019 imprisonment is, however, a more\nsevere penalty than being sent to a labor camp for the same period. _10\nyears\u2019 imprisonment_ _exceeds, therefore, the penalty provided in the\nrecommendation of the IMT._ The sentence against Poppendick does not\ngive any special reason for exceeding the maximum penalty.\n\n II. _More lenient evaluation of the group of persons within the\n SS who only knew about crimes without, however,\n being involved in them_\n\nThe sentence of the International Military Tribunal declares punishable\nin the sense of the statute \u201cthe group composed of those persons who\nwere officially admitted as members * * * in the SS, became or remained\nmembers of the organization knowing that use was made of them for\ncommitting acts declared punishable by Article 6 of the Statute, _or_\nwho were involved in committing such crimes as members of the\norganization.\u201d According to a reasonable interpretation of this\nprovision, if mere membership is punished, one has to differentiate\nbetween those persons involved in committing such crimes and those\npersons only knowing about the commission of such crimes within the SS.\nAccording to a sound sense of justice, the provided maximum penalty for\nmembership in the SS cannot possibly be valid for both groups of\npersons. On the contrary, the group having only knowledge has to be\npunished more lightly than the group involved in crimes. A penalty\n_inferior_ to the provided maximum penalty has, therefore, to be imposed\non the first mentioned persons among the SS members called to account.\nThe Tribunal clearly stated that the defendant Helmut Poppendick was not\ninvolved in the crimes of the SS and, in this way, made it clear that\nnot even on account of his rank or official position was he able to\nprevent crimes. The Tribunal only tried to impute knowledge on the part\nof the defendant Poppendick of definite experiments specified in the\nindictment. _For this reason the maximum penalty should not be imposed\nin the case of the defendant Poppendick._\n\n III. _Knowledge of the defendant Poppendick_\n\nThe Tribunal imputed to the defendant Poppendick, who was Oberfuehrer of\nthe Waffen SS and Obersturmbannfuehrer of the General SS: (1) knowledge\nof freezing experiments; (2) sulfanilamide experiments; (3)\nsterilization experiments; (4) incendiary bomb experiments; (5) phlegmon\nexperiments, without, however, being criminally involved in them.\n\n(1) Knowledge of freezing experiments is imputed to the defendant\nPoppendick because he was subsequently invited to participate in a\nconference between Grawitz and Dr. Rascher in January 1943. As Rascher\nwas at that time an officer in the Luftwaffe and all his collaborators\nwere not members of the SS, this series of experiments (at least in\nJanuary 1943) cannot be interpreted as a series of experiments within\nthe SS and consequently as crimes of the SS. There is no proof of\nknowledge of such experiments after January 1943.\n\n(2) The defendant Poppendick knew as much about Professor Gebhardt\u2019s\nsulfanilamide experiments as Professor Rostock who was acquitted by the\nsame Tribunal, i.e., that prisoners sentenced to death were used for\nthese experiments.\n\n(3) Knowledge of sterilization experiments is imputed to the defendant\nPoppendick by means of a simple assumption, although the Tribunal\npointed out in several passages of the judgment that a mere assumption\nof guilt, in our case of knowledge, is insufficient. Poppendick only\nworked in the Race and Settlement Office as a doctor dealing with\nhereditary questions for members of the SS and their families; as\nmedical superintendent he had to supervise this activity and the social\nwelfare doctors. These matters were purely internal SS affairs. If the\nRace and Settlement Office occasionally dealt, amongst other measures,\nwith one of racial policy through its field offices, the doctors were\nnot involved in any case, and there is not the least indication that\nPoppendick knew or ought to have known about such measures. Even the\njudgment itself reveals to what extent the real sterilization\nexperiments were kept secret.\n\n(4) On page 112 (German), the Tribunal points out, that in conferences\nconcerning sterilization experiments (Poppendick never took part in such\nconferences) each participant had to undertake to maintain absolute\nsecrecy. Neither the defendant Poppendick\u2019s statement nor the evidence\nsubmitted reveal that Poppendick had any knowledge of sterilization\nexperiments, let alone of extermination measures.\n\n(5) In the case of the phlegmon experiments it has not been proved that\nPoppendick had any knowledge of them. Here, too, the assertion that he\nhad such knowledge is based on a mere assumption.\n\nIt has, however, nowhere been proved that defendant Helmut Poppendick\nknew about the experiments in such a way as to necessitate his realizing\nthat non-Germans were being used for such experiments. In its verdict\nthe Tribunal has consistently followed the principle that it must be\nproved that crimes were committed on non-German nationals (_see pp. 50,\n51, 70, 91, 103, 131, 160, German text_). In contrast to this the\nTribunal left open the question as to how far the state is entitled to\ncarry out experiments on its own citizens; it stated when dealing with\nthe question of guilt: \u201c* * * whatever right a state may have concerning\nits own citizens\u201d (_see pp. 114, 195, German_). The Tribunal, therefore,\nin all essentials confined itself to the question of to what extent\ncrimes were committed on non-Germans. _No conclusive evidence has been\nbrought against defendant Helmut Poppendick in each single case to prove\nhis knowledge of experiments carried out on non-Germans._ In reality,\nnothing is more suitable to explain under whatever point of view we have\nto look at defendant Poppendick\u2019s knowledge of experiments, than his\nwords at the end of the trial: \u201cAs to medical experiments on prisoners,\nhuman experiments were nothing striking and nothing new to me. I knew\nthat experiments were being conducted in hospitals. I knew that the\ntriumphs of modern medicine had not been achieved without sacrifices. I\nadmit I cannot remember that in experiments in hospitals, the voluntary\nparticipation of the experimental subjects had to be such an\nindispensable and obvious prerequisite, as it appears to be according to\nthe argumentation heard in this trial. Furthermore, I know that some\nscientific questions can only be solved by serial experiments in an\nunchanging environment, and that, therefore, in all countries,\nexperiments are often conducted, particularly on soldiers in camps.\nUnder these circumstances I was not at all surprised that during the war\nserial examinations and experiments were also carried out by scientists\nin concentration camps. I had not the slightest reason to assume that\nthese scientists in the camps went beyond what was usual everywhere else\nin the world of science. As far as I was concerned, what I knew about\nmedical experiments in the SS had just as little to do with criminal\nacts as the experiments about which I knew from my internship before\n1933.\u201d\n\n IV. _Consequences for future jurisdiction arising from the\n penalties imposed by the sentence on Poppendick_\n\nThe sentence imposed on Helmut Poppendick for his membership in the SS\nis altogether the first sentence in the American Zone against an SS\nmember of this kind. Therefore, it has to be regarded as a precedent for\nall military tribunals and possibly, later on, for German courts, whose\ntask it will be to punish members of criminal organizations. To sum up\nits consequences, the sentence creates a precedent, that\u2014\n\n 1. Every SS leader with a rank higher than Poppendick\u2019s, who\n knew of SS crimes committed on Germans and non-Germans, can, on\n principle, only be sentenced to the maximum penalty.\n\n 2. Every member of the SS involved in crimes can be sentenced up\n to this maximum penalty again only on account of his SS\n membership. What penalty can, for example, be inflicted on an SS\n Obergruppenfuehrer who saw how the gas chambers were run at\n Auschwitz, without, however, being otherwise involved in the\n extermination of the Jews; a man thus having, so to speak, the\n highest degree of knowledge derived from SS membership? _It is\n obvious that such a sentence as the one passed on Poppendick\n deprives future tribunals of all latitude of discretion,\n transforms the maximum penalty into the average penalty, and in\n this way renders the recommendation of the IMT absurd._\n\n V. _Prevention of further possibilities of appeal_\n\nThe defendant Poppendick, whose domicile is in the British Zone, would\nconsequently under normal circumstances have to be tried by a tribunal\n(Spruchgericht) set up in the meantime in consequence of the British\nOrdinance No. 69. Because he has been sentenced by a Nuernberg Military\nTribunal as a member of an organization declared criminal _he loses the\ntwo further appeals_ provided for by Ordinance No. 69 and its\nimplementation regulations for the British Zone. _Therefore this is the\nonly legal way still open to him to state his case._\n\n VI. _Personal Conditions_\n\nI make the following application for reduction of penalty with even\ngreater emphasis, because the defendant has already been amply punished\nfor his SS membership. His family has lost all its property and has not\na pfennig left. His wife must support her four little children aged 3 to\n7 by the labor of her hands under the most primitive conditions, without\nhaving a chance during her husband\u2019s entire term of imprisonment to\nobtain the slightest financial assistance for herself and her children.\n\nThe defendant used his considerable abilities as a physician to help\nmany people, both Germans and foreigners, during the long years of his\nmedical practice, without ever even mentioning this during the trial,\nbecause it is a physician\u2019s duty to help suffering humanity. The\ndefendant, who is not involved in the crimes dealt with by this\nTribunal, suffers sufficiently under his outward discrimination as an SS\nmember.\n\nIn view of all these circumstances and with the request for careful\nexamination of the case, I make in conclusion the\n\n _Application_\n\n1. _For the sentence of imprisonment for ten years inflicted on\ndefendant Helmut Poppendick to be reduced to a tolerable term of\nimprisonment, perhaps to be commuted into a shorter term of confinement\nin a labor camp, and at the same time_\n\n2. _For the 2\u00bc years\u2019 detention already served by the defendant to be\nincluded in the then newly-determined term of imprisonment._\n\n [Signature] G. BOEHM,\n _Attorney-at-Law_.\n\n-----\n\n[59] According to German terminology a \u201cReferent\u201d (plural: \u201cReferenten\u201d)\nis an official with expert knowledge of a specialized subject in a\ngovernment or private organization.\n\n\n\n\n XIV. AFFIRMATION OF SENTENCES BY THE\n MILITARY GOVERNOR OF THE UNITED\n STATES ZONE OF OCCUPATION\n\n\n OFFICE OF MILITARY GOVERNMENT\n FOR GERMANY (U. S.)\n\n Office of the Military Governor\n APO 742\n\n Berlin, Germany\n 22 November 1947\n\nAG 013. 3 (LD)\n\n SUBJECT: Petitions for Review and for Habeas Corpus in the case of the\n _United States of America_ v. _Karl Brandt et al._, Case 1,\n Military Tribunal I, Nuernberg, Germany (Medical Case)\n\n TO: Secretary General\n Military Tribunals\n APO 696-A, U.S. Army\n\n1. Inclosed herewith you will find original orders denying petitions for\nclemency submitted by the following persons convicted in Case Number 1\nbefore Military Tribunal I:\n\n Karl Brandt Siegfried Handloser\n Oskar Schroeder Karl Genzken\n Karl Gebhardt Rudolf Brandt\n Joachim Mrugowsky Helmut Poppendick\n Wolfram Sievers Gerhard Rose\n Viktor Brack Hermann Becker-Freyseng\n Waldemar Hoven Wilhelm Beiglboeck\n Herta Oberheuser Fritz Fischer\n\n2. Please formally advise the petitioners through their respective\nattorneys of the action taken by the Military Governor upon these\npetitions.\n\n FOR THE MILITARY GOVERNOR:\n [Signed] G. H. Garde\n G. H. GARDE\n Lieutenant Colonel, AGD\n Adjutant General\n\nIncls: a/s\n\nTelephone BERLIN 42361\n\n\n\n\n HEADQUARTERS, EUROPEAN COMMAND\n\n Office of the Commander-in-Chief\n\n APO 742\n\n Berlin, Germany\n\n In the Case of Military Tribunal I\n The United States of America Case No. 1\n _vs._\n Karl Brandt, et alii\n\n _Order with Respect to Sentence of Karl Brandt_\n\nIn the case of the United States of America against Karl Brandt et alii,\ntried by United States Military Tribunal I, Case No. 1, Nuernberg,\nGermany, the defendant, Karl Brandt, on 20 August 1947, was sentenced by\nthe Tribunal to death by hanging. A petition to modify the sentence,\nfiled on behalf of the defendant by Dr. R. Servatius, his defense\ncounsel, has been referred to me pursuant to the provision of Military\nGovernment Ordinance No. 7. I have duly considered the petition and the\nrecord of the trial and in accordance with Article XVII of said\nOrdinance it is hereby ordered that:\n\n 1. The sentence imposed by Military Tribunal I upon Karl Brandt\n be, and hereby is, in all respects, confirmed.\n\n 2. Pending action on petitions filed by the defendant with\n authorities other than the Office of Military Government for\n Germany, (U.S.), the execution of the death sentence be stayed\n until further order by me.\n\n 3. The defendant be confined until further order in War Crimes\n Prison No. 1, Landsberg, Bavaria, Germany.\n\n [Signed] Lucius D. Clay\n LUCIUS D. CLAY\n General, U.S. Army\n Commander-in-Chief, European Command\n and Military Governor\n\n\n\n\n HEADQUARTERS, EUROPEAN COMMAND\n\n Office of the Commander-in-Chief\n\n APO 742\n\nIn the Case of The\nUnited States of America\n _vs._\nKarl Brandt, et alii\n\n Military Tribunal I\n Case No. 1\n\n _Order with respect to sentence of Siegfried Handloser_[60]\n\nIn the case of the United States of America against Karl Brandt, et\nalii, tried by United States Military Tribunal I, Case No. 1, Nuernberg,\nGermany, the defendant Siegfried Handloser, on 20 August 1947, was\nsentenced by the Tribunal to life imprisonment. A petition to modify the\nsentence, filed on behalf of the defendant by Dr. Otto Nelte, his\ndefense counsel, has been referred to me pursuant to the provisions of\nMilitary Government Ordinance No. 7. I have duly considered the petition\nand the record of the trial and in accordance with Article XVII of said\nOrdinance, it is hereby ordered that:\n\n _a._ the sentence imposed by Military Tribunal I, on Siegfried\n Handloser be, and hereby is, in all respects confirmed;\n\n _b._ the defendant be confined in War Crimes Prison No. 1,\n Landsberg, Bavaria, Germany.\n\n [Signed] Lucius D. Clay\n LUCIUS D. CLAY\n General, U.S.A.\n Commander-in-Chief, European Command\n and Military Governor\n\n-----\n\n[60] The sentences imposed upon the remaining 14 defendants were\nconfirmed in all respects by the Military Commander of the United States\nZone of Occupation by identical orders.\n\n\n\n\n XV. ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME\n COURT DENYING WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS\n\n\n Monday, 16 February 1948\n\n No. 286, Misc. Karl Brandt, petitioner, _v._ The United States\n of America;\n\n No. 287, Misc. Viktor Brack, petitioner, _v._ The United States\n of America;\n\n No. 288, Misc. Rudolf Brandt, petitioner, _v._ The United States\n of America;\n\nNo. 299, Misc. Wilhelm Bieglboeck, petitioner, _v._ The United States of\nAmerica. The motions for leave to file petitions for writs of habeas\ncorpus and prohibition are denied. Mr. Justice Black, Mr. Justice\nMurphy, and Mr. Justice Rutledge are of the opinion that the petitions\nshould be set for hearing on the question of the jurisdiction of this\nCourt. Mr. Justice Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision\nof these applications.[61]\n\n[The execution of death sentences imposed on Karl Brandt, Rudolf Brandt,\nKarl Gebhardt, Joachim Mrugowsky, Viktor Brack, Wolfram Sievers, and\nWaldemar Hoven were ordered on 14 May 1948 by the Military Governor.\nExecutions were carried out at Landsberg prison on 2 June 1948.]\n\n-----\n\n[61] The motions for leave to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus\nand prohibition in the case of the other defendants were also denied.\n\n\n\n\n APPENDIX\n\n\n Table of Comparative Ranks\n\n U. S. German U. S. Navy German Med. SS SA\n Army Army Navy Svcs.(A)\n\n2d Leutnant Ensign Leutnant Assistenza Untersturm Sturmfuehr\n Lieuten zur See rzt fuehrer er.\n ant\n\n1st Oberleutn Lieutenant Oberleutna Oberarzt Obersturmf Obersturmf\n Lieuten ant (junior nt zur uehrer uehrer.\n ant grade) See\n\nCaptain Hauptmann Lieutenant Kapitaenle Stabsarzt Hauptsturm Hauptsturm\n (senior utnant fuehrer fuehrer.\n grade)\n\nMajor Major Lieutenant Korvettenk Oberstabsa Sturmbannf Sturmbannf\n Commande apitaen rzt uehrer uehrer.\n r\n\nLieutenan Oberstleu Commander Fregattenk Oberfeldar Obersturmb Obersturmb\n t tnant apitaen zt annfuehrer annfuehrer\n Colonel .\n\nColonel Oberst Captain Kapitaen Oberstarzt Standarten Standarten\n zur See fuehrer fuehrer\n Oberfuehre Oberfuehre\n r (B) r (C).\n\nBrigadier Generalma Commodore Konteradmi Generalarz Brigadefue Brigadefue\n General jor ral t hrer hrer.\n\nMajor Generalle Rear Vizeadmira Generalsta Gruppenfue Gruppenfue\n General utnant Admiral l bsarzt hrer hrer.\n\nLieutenan General Vice Admiral Generalobe Obergruppe Obergruppe\n t der Admiral rstabsarzt nfuehrer nfuehrer.\n General Infante\n rie,\n der\n Artille\n rie,\n etc.\n\nGeneral Generalob Admiral Generaladm Oberstgrup\n erst iral penfuehrer\n .\n\nGeneral Generalfe Admiral of Grossadmir Reichsfueh Stabschef.\n of the ldmarscha the al rer\n Army ll Fleet\n\n(A) Ranks for the Medical Service of the German Army and the German Air\nForce are identical. Ranks for the Medical Service of the German Navy\ndiffer somewhat but are for the most part immaterial here. Dr.\nFikentacher held the rank of Admiraloberstabsarzt which is equivalent to\nthat of Generaloberstabsarzt.\n\n(B) Equivalent to a senior Colonel.\n\n(C) Same as B above.\n\n\n\n\n List of Witnesses in Case I\n\n [Note.\u2014All witnesses in this case appeared before the Tribunal.\n Prosecution witnesses are designated by the letter \u201cP\u201d, defense\n witnesses by the letter \u201cD\u201d, and the Tribunal witness by the\n letter \u201cT\u201d. The names not preceded by any designation represent\n defendants testifying in their own behalf. Extracts from\n testimony in this case are listed in the index of documents and\n testimony.]\n\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 Pages\n \u2502 Name \u2502 Dates of testimony \u2502 (mimeographed\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 transcript)\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\nP\u2502ALEXANDER, Dr. Leo \u250220 Dec 46 \u2502805-814; 832-838;\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502848-855; 864-869\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\nD\u2502AUGUSTINICK, Dr. \u250227, 28 Feb 47 \u25023701-3737\n \u2502 Herbert \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502BECKER-FREYSENG, \u250219, 20, 21, 22, 23, 27,\u25027774-8243; 8255-8292\n \u2502 Hermann \u250228, 29 May 46 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502BEIGLBOECK, Wilhelm \u25026, 9, 10, 11, 12, 17 \u25028666-9028; 9326-9328\n \u2502 \u2502Jun 46 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\nD\u2502BLOCK, Maria Lotte \u250216, 17 Apr 47 \u25026002-6031\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502BLOME, Kurt \u250213, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20,\u25024450-4811\n \u2502 \u250221 Mar 47 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\nD\u2502BORKENAU, Franz \u250214, 15 Apr 47 \u25025890-5908\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502BRACK, Viktor Hermann \u250212, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19 \u25027413-7772\n \u2502 \u2502May 47 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502BRANDT, Karl \u25023, 4, 5, 6, 7 Feb 47 \u25022301-2661\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502BRANDT, Rudolf \u250224, 25, 26 Mar 47 \u25024869-4994\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\nP\u2502BROEL-PLATER, Maria \u250219, 20 Dec 46 \u2502785-804\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\nP\u2502BROERS, Constantyn \u250230 Jun 47 \u250210386-10406\n \u2502 Johan \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\nD\u2502CHRISTENSEN, Heinz \u250224 Feb 47 \u25023430-3454\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\nD\u2502DORN, Paul Friedrich \u25025, 6 Jun 47 \u25028574-8665\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\nP\u2502DZIDO, Jadwiga \u250220 Dec 46 \u2502838-848\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\nP\u2502EYER, Olga \u250215 Jan 47 \u25021755-1779\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502FISCHER, Fritz \u250210, 11, 12 Mar 47 \u25024266-4384\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502GEBHARDT, Karl \u25024, 5, 6, 7, 10 Mar 47 \u25023931-4256\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502GENZKEN, Karl \u250228 Feb; 3 Mar 47 \u25023773-3891\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\nP\u2502GRANDJEAN, Henri-Jean \u25026 Jan 47 \u25021099-1105; 1119-1120\nD\u2502GUTZEIT, Kurt \u25027, 10 Feb 47 \u25022692-2764\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\nD\u2502HAAGEN, Eugen \u250217, 18, 19, 20 Jun 47 \u25029408-9712\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\nP\u2502HALL, Ferdinand \u25023 Jan 47 \u25021048-1073\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502HANDLOSER, Siegfried \u250211, 12, 13, 18 Feb 47 \u25022815-3104\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\nD\u2502HARTLENBEN, Hans \u250219 Feb 47 \u25023189-3231\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\nD\u2502HEDERICH, Karl Heinz \u25028, 9 May 47 \u25027262-7291\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\nP\u2502HENRI PIERRE, Henri \u250218 Dec 46 \u2502708-722\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\nD\u2502HIELSCHER, Friedrich \u250215, 16 Apr 47 \u25025926-5994\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\nP\u2502HIRTZ, Georg \u25028 Jan 47 \u25021291-1300\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\nP\u2502HOELLENRAINER, Karl \u250227 Jun 47; 1 Jul 47 \u250210229-10234; 10508-10544\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\nD\u2502HOERING, Felix \u250217 Apr 47 \u25026031-6078\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\nD\u2502HORN, Videslaw \u250231 Mar, 1 Apr 47 \u25025245-5333\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502HOVEN, Waldemar \u250221, 23, 24 Jun 47 \u25029761-10004\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\nP\u2502IVY, Dr. Andrew Conway \u250212, 13, 14, 16 Jun 47 \u25029029-9324\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\nD\u2502JAEGER, Rolf \u250228 May 47 \u25028244-8255\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\nD\u2502JENTSCH, Werner \u250226 Feb 47 \u25023582-3602\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\nD\u2502JUNG, Friedrich \u250226 Jun 47 \u250210148-10154\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\nD\u2502KARLSTETTER, Maria \u250225 Feb 47 \u25023455-3461\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\nP\u2502KAROLEWSKA, Vladislava \u250220 Dec 46 \u2502815-832\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\nP\u2502KIRCHHEIMER, Fritz \u25028, 9 Jan 47 \u25021321-1348\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\nD\u2502KOCH, Ernst \u250226 Jun 47 \u250210120-10144\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\nP\u2502KOGON, Dr. Eugen \u25026, 7, 8 Jan 47 \u25021150-1290\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\nD\u2502KOSMEHL, Dr. Herbert \u250212 Mar 47 \u25024387-4446\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\nP\u2502KUSMIERCZUK, Maria \u250220 Dec 46 \u2502856-864\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\nD\u2502LAMMERS, Hans Heinrich \u25027 Feb 47 \u25022661-2692\nP\u2502LAUBINGER, Josef \u250227 Jun 47 \u250210198-10229\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\nP\u2502LEIBBRANDT, Werner \u250227 Jan 47 \u25021961-2028\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\nP\u2502LEVY, Robert \u250217 Dec 46 \u2502550-561\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\nP\u2502LUTZ, Wolfgang \u250212 Dec 46 \u2502266-308\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\nP\u2502MACZKA, Sofia \u250210 Jan 47 \u25021430-1462\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\nD\u2502MAY, Eduard \u250214 Apr 47 \u25025869-5889\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\nD\u2502MEINE, August \u250221, 24 Mar 47 \u25024831-4867\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\nD\u2502METTBACH, Ernst \u250221 Jun 47 \u25029714-9757\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\nP\u2502MENNECKE, Fritz \u250216, 17 Jan 47 \u25021866-1946\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\nP\u2502MICHALOWSKI, Father Leo\u250221 Dec 46 \u2502871-886\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502MRUGOWSKY, Joachim \u250226, 27, 28, 31 Mar 47; \u25025000-5244; 5334-5464\n \u2502 \u25021, 2, 3 Apr 47 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\nP\u2502NALES, Gerrid Hendrick \u250230 Jun 47 \u250210409-10471\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\nT\u2502NEFF, Walter \u250217, 18 Dec 46 \u2502595-695\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502OBERHEUSER, Herta \u25023, 8 Apr 47 \u25025478-5528\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\nD\u2502PFANNMUELLER, Hermann \u25029, 12 May 47 \u25027291-7412\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\nD\u2502PIECK, Henry \u250220 Mar 47 \u25024722-4755\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502POKORNY, Adolf \u250225, 26 Jun 47 \u250210007-10109\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502POPPENDICK, Helmut \u25028, 9 Apr 47 \u25025530-5651\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\nP\u2502ROEMHILD, Ferdinand \u250214 Jan 47 \u25021627-1664\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502ROMBERG, Hans Wolfgang \u25021, 2, 5, 6 May 47 \u25026764-7032A\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502ROSE, Gerhard \u250218, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 \u25026081-6484\n \u2502 \u2502Apr 47 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502ROSTOCK, Paul \u250220, 21, 24 Feb 47 \u25023258-3430\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502RUFF, Siegfried \u250225, 28, 29, 30 Apr 47 \u25026490-6739\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502SIEVERS, Wolfram \u25029, 10, 11, 14 Apr 47 \u25025656-5869\n \u2502SCHAEFER, Konrad \u25022, 4 Jun 47 \u25028349-8399; 8494-8571\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\nD\u2502SCHMIDT, Bernhard \u250219 Feb 47 \u25023144-3188\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\nP\u2502SCHMIDT, Edith \u25029 Jan 47 \u25021364-1383\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\nP\u2502SCHMIDT, Walter Eugen \u250216 Jan 47 \u25021816-1863\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502SCHROEDER, Oskar \u250225, 26, 27 Feb 47 \u25023469-3582; 3602-3700\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\nP\u2502STOEHR, Heinrich \u250217 Dec 46 \u2502574-594\n \u2502 Wilhelm \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\nD\u2502TOPF, Erwin \u250215 Apr 47 \u25025908-5924\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\nD\u2502TRUX, Rudolf \u250226 Jun 47 \u250210110-10120\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\nP\u2502TSCHOFENIG, Joseph \u250217 Jun 47 \u25029329-9363\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\nP\u2502VIEWEG, August Heinrich\u250213, 16 Dec 46 \u2502418-468\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\nD\u2502VOLLHARDT, Franz \u25023 Jun 47 \u25028400-8490\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\nP\u2502VORLICEK, Joseph \u250217 Jun 47 \u25029383-9407\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502WELTZ, Georg August \u25026, 7, 8 May 47 \u25027035-7254\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\nD\u2502WITT, Fritz \u250228 Feb 47 \u25023740-3753\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\nD\u2502WUERFLER, Paul \u250218, 19 Feb 47 \u25023104-3144\n\n\n\n\n INDEX OF DOCUMENTS AND TESTIMONY\n\n\n Document No. Exhibit No. Description Vol-Page\n\nNO-005 Pros. Ex. 279 Letter from Grawitz to I-344\n Himmler, 22 November 1944,\n requesting prisoners for\n experiments.\n\nNO-011 Pros. Ex. 188 Note from Himmler to Grawitz, I-504\n 16 June 1943, concerning\n epidemic jaundice\n experiments at\n concentration camp\n Sachsenhausen.\n\nNO-018 Pros. Ex. 404 Letter from Himmler to Brack, I-856\n 19 December 1940,\n requesting that euthanasia\n station Grafeneck be\n discontinued and that\n motion pictures be shown to\n dispel rumors.\n\nNO-035 Pros. Ex. 142 Letter from Pokorny to I-713\n Himmler, October 1941,\n concerning a sterilization\n drug to be used against\n Germany\u2019s enemies.\n\nNO-036 Pros. Ex. 143 Letter from Himmler, 10 March I-714\n 1942, to Pohl (initialed by\n Rudolf Brandt) concerning a\n sterilization drug and\n suggesting further research\n on criminals.\n\nNO-038 Pros. Ex. 147 Letter from Rudolf Brandt to I-715\n Pohl, June 1942,\n transmitting an inquiry by\n Himmler as to the progress\n made with experiments for\n medical sterilization.\n\nNO-039 Pros. Ex. 153 Letter from Gund to Himmler, I-717\n 24 August 1942, concerning\n research in medical\n sterilization and\n development of\n sterilization drugs.\n\nNO-046a Pros. Ex. 148 Letter from Pohl to Himmler, I-716\n 3 June 1942, concerning the\n development of a\n sterilization drug by the\n firm of Dr. Madaus and Co.\n\nNO-046b Pros. Ex. 149 Letter from Rudolf Brandt to I-717\n Pohl, 11 June 1942, asking\n him on behalf of Himmler to\n set up a large hothouse for\n the development of a\n sterilization drug.\nNO-080 Pros. Ex. 5 Fuehrer Decree, 28 July 1942, I-81\n concerning the Medical and\n Health Services.\n\nNO-081 Pros. Ex. 6 Second Fuehrer Decree, 5 I-83\n September 1943, concerning\n the Medical and Health\n Services, 1943.\n\nNO-082 Pros. Ex. 7 Fuehrer Decree, 25 August I-83\n 1944, concerning the\n appointment of a Reich\n Commissioner for Medical\n and Health Services, 1944.\n\nNO-085 Pros. Ex. 175 Letter from Sievers to Rudolf I-784\n Brandt, 9 February 1942,\n and report by Hirt\n concerning the acquisition\n of skulls of\n Jewish-Bolshevik\n Commissars.\n\nNO-086 Pros. Ex. 177 Letter from Sievers to Rudolf I-750\n Brandt, 2 November 1942,\n requesting with Himmler\u2019s\n approval, 150 skeletons.\n\nNO-087 Pros. Ex. 181 Letter from Sievers to I-751\n Eichmann, (copy to Rudolf\n Brandt), 21 June 1943,\n concerning selection of\n subjects for a skeleton\n collection.\n\nNO-098 Pros. Ex. 263 Memorandum from Sievers to I-337\n Rudolf Brandt, 3 November\n 1942, concerning research\n in the Natzweiler\n concentration camp.\n\nNO-099 Pros. Ex. 268 Report by Hirt and Wimmer on I-341\n the proposed treatment of\n poisoning caused by Lost\n gas.\n\nNO-121 Pros. Ex. 293 Letter from Haagen to Hirt, I-578\n 15 November 1943,\n concerning prisoners to be\n used as experimental\n subjects for tests with\n typhus vaccine.\n\nNO-122 Pros. Ex. 298 Letter dictated by Rose, I-579\n addressed to Haagen, 13\n December 1943, concerning\n experimental subjects for\n vaccine experiments.\nNO-123 Pros. Ex. 303 Letter from Haagen to Hirt, 9 I-580\n March 1944, concerning\n experiments conducted with\n typhus vaccine and\n requesting experimental\n subjects.\n\nNO-125 Pros. Ex. 194 Letter from Haagen to I-506\n Gutzeit, 27 June 1944,\n concerning epidemic\n jaundice experiments on\n human beings.\n\nNO-139 Pros. Ex. 317 Letter from Dr. Grunske to I-581\n Haagen, 7 March 1944,\n concerning reports on\n yellow fever virus\n experiments requested by a\n Japanese medical officer.\n\nNO-158 Pros. Ex. 410 Letter from Hirche, I-858\n administrator of the Mental\n Institution Bernburg, to\n camp commandant of the\n Gross-Rosen concentration\n camp, 19 March 1942, with\n list of inmates transferred\n from the concentration camp\n to Bernburg.\n\nNO-177 Pros. Ex. 133 Minutes of conference at the I-448\n Reich Ministry of Aviation,\n 20 May 1944, concerning\n methods for making sea\n water potable.\n\nNO-182 Pros. Ex. 137 Letter from Sievers to I-454\n Grawitz, 24 July 1944,\n concerning experiments of\n the potability of sea\n water.\n\nNO-183 Pros. Ex. 136 Teletype from Rudolf Brandt I-453\n to Grawitz, undated,\n concerning experimental\n subjects.\n\nNO-184 Pros. Ex. 132 Letter from the Technical I-447\n Office of the Reich\n Minister of Aviation\n (Goering) to Himmler\u2019s\n office, 15 May 1944,\n concerning methods to\n render sea water potable.\n\nNO-185 Pros. Ex. 134 Letter from Schroeder to I-452\n Himmler and Grawitz, 7 June\n 1944, requesting subjects\n for sea-water experiments.\nNO-193 Pros. Ex. 264 Letter from Sievers to Rudolf I-340\n Brandt, 22 April 1943,\n regarding prevention of Dr.\n Wimmer\u2019s transfer to active\n duty with the air force.\n\nNO-201 Pros. Ex. 290 Report from Mrugowsky to the I-635\n Criminological Institute,\n 12 September 1944,\n concerning experiments with\n aconitine nitrate\n projectiles.\n\nNO-203 Pros. Ex. 161 Covering letter from Brack to I-719\n Himmler, 28 March 1941,\n with report on experiments\n concerning sterilization\n and castration by X-rays.\n\nNO-205 Pros. Ex. 163 Letter from Brack to Himmler, I-721\n 23 June 1942, proposing\n sterilization of two to\n three million Jews.\n\nNO-206 Pros. Ex. 164 Letter from Himmler I-722\n (counter-signed by Rudolf\n Brandt), 11 August 1942,\n addressed to Brack,\n concerning Himmler\u2019s\n interest in sterilization\n experiments.\n\nNO-208 Pros. Ex. 166 Letter from Blankenburg to I-723\n Himmler, 29 April 1944,\n regarding employment of Dr.\n Horst Schumann on\n experiments concerning the\n influence of X-rays on\n human genital glands in\n connection with similar\n experiments conducted at\n concentration camp\n Auschwitz.\n\nNO-211 Pros. Ex. 169 Letter from Professor I-724\n Clauberg to Himmler, 30 May\n 1942 (referring to a letter\n from Rudolf Brandt),\n concerning the urgency of\n research into biological\n propagation and\n sterilization without\n operation, and draft of a\n \u201cResearch Institute for\n Biological Propagation\u201d.\n\nNO-212 Pros. Ex. 173 Letter from Professor I-730\n Clauberg to Himmler, 7 June\n 1943, reporting on research\n in connection with the\n sterilization of women.\nNO-213 Pros. Ex. 171 Letter from Rudolf Brandt to I-729\n Clauberg, 10 July 1942,\n transmitting instructions\n of Himmler to perform\n sterilizations on Jewesses\n at concentration camp\n Ravensbrueck.\n\nNO-216 Pros. Ex. 170 Memorandum of Rudolf Brandt, I-728\n July 1942, on a discussion\n between Himmler, Gebhardt,\n Gluecks, and Clauberg\n concerning sterilization\n experiments conducted on\n Jewesses.\n\nNO-218 Pros. Ex. 56 Letter from Rascher to I-150\n Himmler, 16 April 1942,\n reporting on high-altitude\n experiments with fatal\n results and on experiments\n conducted together with\n Romberg.\n\nNO-220 Pros. Ex. 61 Letter from Rascher to I-152\n Himmler, 11 May 1942, and\n secret report concerning\n high-altitude experiments.\n\nNO-224 Pros. Ex. 76 Note by Romberg on showing of I-174\n film in office of State\n Secretary Milch, and\n proposed report to Milch,\n 11 September 1942.\n\nNO-227 Pros. Ex. 11 Fuehrer Decree of 7 August I-84\n 1944 concerning the\n reorganization of the\n Medical Services of the\n Wehrmacht.\n\nNO-228 Pros. Ex. 206 Affidavit of defendant I-371\n Fischer, 19 November 1946,\n concerning sulfanilamide\n experiments conducted in\n the concentration camp\n Ravensbrueck.\n\nNO-231 Pros. Ex. 116 Letter from Rascher to I-255\n Sievers, 17 May 1943,\n concerning a conference\n with Gebhardt on freezing\n experiments.\n\nNO-234 Pros. Ex. 83 Letter from Rascher to I-219\n Himmler, 10 September 1942,\n transmitting intermediate\n report on freezing\n experiments (_1618-PS_).\n\nNO-244 Pros. Ex. 201 Letter from Himmler (signed I-770\n by Rudolf Brandt) to\n Greiser, 27 June 1942,\n concerning the\n extermination of tubercular\n Poles.\nNO-246 Pros. Ex. 196 Letter from Greiser to I-776\n Himmler 1 May 1942,\n concerning the plan for\n mass extermination of\n tubercular Poles.\n\nNO-247 Pros. Ex. 197 Letter from Koppe to Rudolf I-769\n Brandt, 3 May 1942,\n concerning the killing of\n tubercular Poles.\n\nNO-250 Pros. Ex. 203 Letter from Blome to Greiser, I-771\n 18 November 1942,\n concerning the mass\n extermination of tubercular\n Poles.\n\nNO-257 Pros. Ex. 283 Extract from the affidavit of I-572\n Dr. Erwin Schuler, 20 July\n 1945, concerning typhus\n experiments.\n\nNO-257 Pros. Ex. 283 Extract from a sworn I-686\n statement by Dr. Erwin\n Schuler (Ding), 20 July\n 1945, concerning euthanasia\n with phenol injection.\n\nNO-264 Pros. Ex. 60 File note for SS I-151\n Obersturmfuehrer\n Schnitzler, 28 April 1942.\n\nNO-265 Pros. Ex. 287 Diary of the Division for I-557\n Typhus and Virus Research\n at the Institute of Hygiene\n of the Waffen SS (Ding\n diary) 1941 to 1945.\n\nNO-268 Pros. Ex. 106 Letter from Hippke to I-252\n Himmler, 19 February 1943,\n on freezing experiments in\n Dachau.\n\nNO-285 Pros. Ex. 86 Letter from Rascher to Rudolf I-221\n Brandt, 3 October 1942,\n stating that Sievers would\n obtain four gypsy women for\n rewarming through body\n warmth.\n\nNO-286 Pros. Ex. 88 Letter from Goering\u2019s office I-223\n to Himmler, 8 October 1942,\n with attached invitation to\n the conference on \u201cMedical\n Problems Arising from\n Hardships of Sea and\n Winter.\u201d\n\nNO-289 Pros. Ex. 72 Letter from Hippke to I-173\n Himmler, 8 October 1942,\n thanking the latter for his\n assistance in high-altitude\n experiments in Dachau.\nNO-292 Pros. Ex. 111 Letter from Rascher to Rudolf I-253\n Brandt, 4 April 1943,\n reporting on dry-freezing\n experiments in Dachau.\n\nNO-299 Pros. Ex. 190 Letter from Haagen to I-505\n Schreiber, 12 June 1944,\n concerning epidemic\n jaundice experiments.\n\nNO-303 Pros. Ex. 32 Table of organization of the I-88\n \u201cAhnenerbe\u201d from the files\n of the Ahnenerbe Society.\n\nNO-320 Pros. Ex. 103 Letter from Sievers to I-246\n Brandt, 28 January 1943,\n and Rascher\u2019s report on his\n discussions with Grawitz\n and Poppendick.\n\nNO-322 Pros. Ex. 114 Letter from Rascher to I-254\n Keindl, 28 April 1943,\n about previous freezing\n experiments conducted at\n Sachsenhausen.\n\nNO-323 Pros. Ex. 94 Memorandum of Rascher on I-245\n women used for rewarming in\n freezing experiments, 5\n November 1942.\n\nNO-365 Pros. Ex. 507 Unsigned draft letter from I-870\n Dr. Wetzel to Rosenberg, 25\n October 1941, dealing with\n Brack\u2019s collaboration in\n the construction of gas\n chambers for the\n extermination of Jews.\n\nNO-371 Pros. Ex. 186 Affidavit of defendant Rudolf I-503\n Brandt, 14 October 1946,\n concerning experiments to\n determine the cause of\n epidemic jaundice.\n\nNO-402 Pros. Ex. 66 Letter, 29 September 1942, I-155\n and report, 28 July 1942,\n from Romberg and Ruff to\n Himmler concerning\n experiments on rescue from\n high altitudes.\n\nNO-409 Pros. Ex. 249 Report from Grawitz to I-657\n Himmler, 29 August 1942,\n concerning experiments with\n biochemical remedies\n conducted at the Dachau and\n Auschwitz concentration\n camps.\nNO-422 Pros. Ex. 33 Letter from Himmler to I-89\n Sievers, 7 July 1942,\n concerning the\n establishment of an\n \u201cInstitute for Military\n Scientific Research\u201d within\n the Ahnenerbe Society.\n\nNO-426 Pros. Ex. 160 Extract from the affidavit of I-842\n defendant Brack, 14 October\n 1946, describing\n administrative details and\n procedure of the Euthanasia\n Program.\n\nNO-428 Pros. Ex. 91 Report of 10 October 1942, on I-226\n cooling experiments on\n human beings.\n\nNO-429 Pros. Ex. 281 Extract from the affidavit of I-555\n defendant Hoven, 24 October\n 1946, concerning typhus and\n virus experiments.\n\nNO-429 Pros. Ex. 281 Extracts from the affidavit I-685\n of Waldemar Hoven, 24\n October 1946, concerning\n the killing of inmates by\n phenol and other means.\n\nNO-429 Pros. Ex. 281 Extract from the affidavit of I-847\n defendant Hoven, 24 October\n 1946, concerning the\n transfer of concentration\n camp inmates to euthanasia\n stations for extermination.\n\nNO-432 Pros. Ex. 119 Letter from Rascher to Neff, I-258\n 21 October 1943, concerning\n dry-freezing experiments.\n\nNO-438 Pros. Ex. 240 Report from the Institute for I-678\n Military Scientific\n Research, (Department Dr.\n Rascher) on \u201cPolygal 10\u201d.\n\nNO-441 Pros. Ex. 205 Affidavit of defendant Rudolf I-775\n Brandt, 24 October 1946,\n concerning the plan to\n exterminate tubercular\n Polish Nationals.\n\nNO-472 Pros. Ex. 234 Affidavit of the defendant I-376\n Fischer, 21 October 1946,\n supplementing his affidavit\n concerning sulfanilamide\n experiments.\nNO-520 Pros. Ex. 374 Letter from the chief of the I-854\n Institution for\n feeble-minded in Stetten to\n Dr. Frank, 6 September\n 1940, requesting that\n euthanasia be carried out\n only after legal basis was\n created.\n\nNO-571 Pros. Ex. 285 1943 Work Report for I-573\n Department for Typhus and\n Virus Research.\n\nNO-579 Pros. Ex. 288 Extract from a report on the I-644\n Findings of 2 January 1944,\n on a skin ointment\u2014R 17\u2014for\n phosphorus burns.\n\nNO-610 Pros. Ex. 41 Inmates of the Dachau I-898-900\n concentration camp in\n different stages of\n simulated altitude in the\n low-pressure chamber;\n postmortem dissections of\n high altitude experimental\n subjects showing air\n bubbles in blood vessels in\n subarachnoid space of brain\n and under pleura of\n anterior chest wall. (_See_\n selections from\n photographic evidence of\n the prosecution.)\n\nNO-645 Pros. Ex. 3 Table of organization of the I-91\n Reich Commissioner for\n Health and Medical\n Services, drawn by the\n defendant Karl Brandt.\n\nNO-656 Pros. Ex. 247 Memorandum by SS I-680\n Obersturmbannfuerer Wolff,\n 8 May 1944; letters from\n Dr. Kahr to Rascher, 10 and\n 16 December 1943.\n\nNO-660 Pros. Ex. 377 Note by Sellmer, 6 December I-855\n 1940, describing the method\n of selection for\n euthanasia.\n\nNO-690 Pros. Ex. 120 List of research projects I-259\n from the files of the Reich\n Research Council.\n\nNO-794 Pros. Ex. 259 Letter from Sievers to Rudolf I-336\n Brandt, 27 June 1942,\n concerning mustard gas and\n its effect on human beings.\n\nNO-807 Pros. Ex. 185 Tank containing formaldehyde I-905-908\n for the preservation of\n corpses; corpses assembled\n in tanks prior to\n dissection; corpse showing\n incisions in preparation\n for dissection. (_See_\n selections from\n photographic evidence of\n the prosecution.)\nNO-842 Pros. Ex. 405 Letter from Brack to Dr. I-857\n Schlegelberger, 18 April\n 1941, forwarding forms for\n euthanasia and suggesting\n that death notifications\n should not follow a\n stereotyped form.\n\nNO-856 Pros. Ex. 125 Extracts from the review of I-289\n the proceedings of the\n general military court in\n the case of the United\n States _vs._ Weiss,\n Ruppert, _et al._, held at\n Dachau, Germany.\n\nNO-861 Pros. Ex. 232 Affidavit of Sofia Maczka, 16 I-402\n April 1946, concerning\n experimental operations on\n inmates of the Ravensbrueck\n concentration camp.\n\nNO-875 Pros. Ex. 230 Affidavit of Mrs. Zdenka I-400\n Nedvedova-Nejedla, M.D., of\n Prague, concerning\n experimental operations\n conducted on fellow inmates\n in Ravensbrueck\n concentration camp.\n\nNO-891 Pros. Ex. 414 Directive of the Reich I-863\n Minister of the Interior, 6\n September 1944, ordering\n euthanasia extended to\n insane Eastern workers.\n\nNO-894 Pros. Ex. 38 Fuehrer Decree, 9 June 1942, I-90\n concerning the Reich\n Research Council.\n\nNO-907 Pros. Ex. 412 Extract from letter from Dr. I-861\n Fritz Mennecke to his wife,\n 25 November 1941,\n concerning his activities\n as physician selecting\n inmates of concentration\n camp Buchenwald for\n euthanasia.\n\nNO-978 Pros. Ex. 480 Letter from Sievers to I-349\n Gluecks, 11 September 1942,\n concerning military\n scientific research work to\n be conducted at Natzweiler\n concentration camp.\nNO-1007 Pros. Ex. 413 Circular from Gluecks to I-862\n concentration camp\n commandants, 27 April 1943,\n stating that in the future\n only insane prisoners\n should be used for Action\n \u201c14 f 13\u201d (euthanasia).\n\nNO-1080 A, E, F Pros. Ex. 219 Exposures of the witness I-901-902\n A, E, F Maria Kusmierczuk who\n underwent sulfanilamide and\n bone experiments while an\n inmate of the Ravensbrueck\n concentration camp. (_See_\n selections from\n photographic evidence of\n the prosecution.)\n\nNO-1082 A, C Pros. Ex. 214 Exposures of the witness I-903\n A, C Jadwiga Dzido who underwent\n sulfanilamide and bone\n experiments while an inmate\n of the Ravensbrueck\n concentration camp. (_See_\n selections from\n photographic evidence of\n the prosecution.)\n\nNO-1135 Pros. Ex. 334 Confirmation, 30 August 1940, I-848\n of the transfer of mental\n patients with list of\n transferred patients\n attached.\n\nNO-1424 Pros. Ex. 462 Affidavit of Fritz Friedrich I-676\n Karl Rascher, M.D., 31\n December 1946, concerning\n the life and activities of\n Dr. Sigmund Rascher.\n\nNO-1852 Pros. Ex. 456 Extract from report on I-345\n medical experiments\n addressed to Karl Brandt.\n\nNO-2734 Pros. Ex. 473 Extracts of letter from I-660\n Grawitz to Himmler, 7\n September 1942, and report\n on gas gangrene\n experiments.\n\nNO-3963 Pros. Ex. 528 Extracts from affidavit of I-710\n Karl Wilhelm Friedrich\n Tauboeck, 18 June 1947,\n concerning the development\n of, and experiments with\n sterilization drugs.\n\n343-A-PS Pros. Ex. 62 Letter from Milch to Wolff, I-172\n 20 May 1942, regarding\n continuation of\n experiments.\n343-B-PS Pros. Ex. 70 Letter from Milch to Himmler, I-172\n 31 August 1942,\n acknowledging receipt of\n reports by Rascher and\n Romberg on high-altitude\n experiments.\n\n615-PS Pros. Ex. 246 Letter from Dr. Hilfrich, I-845\n Bishop of Limburg, to the\n Reich Minister of Justice,\n 13 August 1941, protesting\n against the killing of\n mentally ill people.\n\n630-PS Pros. Ex. 330 Letter from Hitler to Karl I-848\n Brandt and Bouhler, 1\n September 1939, charging\n them with the execution of\n euthanasia.\n\n1553-PS Pros. Ex. 428 Extract from the field I-865\n interrogation of Kurt\n Gerstein, 26 April 1945,\n describing the mass gassing\n of Jews and other\n \u201cundesirables\u201d.\n\n1580-PS Pros. Ex. 107 Letter from Himmler to I-253\n Rascher, 26 February 1943,\n on freezing experiments in\n the concentration camps\n Auschwitz and Lublin.\n\n1581-A-PS Pros. Ex. 48 Letter from Rudolf Brandt to I-144\n Sievers, 21 March 1942,\n concerning Rascher\u2019s\n participation in\n high-altitude experiments.\n\n1582-PS Pros. Ex. 45 Letter from Rudolf Brandt to I-143\n Rascher, undated, informing\n him that prisoners would be\n made available for\n high-altitude research.\n\n1602-PS Pros. Ex. 44 Letter from Rascher to I-141\n Himmler, 15 May 1941,\n concerning high-altitude\n experiments on human\n beings.\n\n1609-PS Pros. Ex. 92 Letter from Himmler to I-244\n Rascher, 24 October 1942,\n and note by Rudolf Brandt.\n\n1611-PS Pros. Ex. 85 Letter from Himmler to I-221\n Rascher and Sievers, 22\n September 1942, ordering\n rewarming in freezing\n experiments through\n physical warmth.\n1612-PS Pros. Ex. 79 Letter from Rudolf Brandt to I-176\n Rascher, 13 December 1942,\n and Himmler\u2019s order\n assigning Rascher to\n high-altitude experiments.\n\n1613-PS Pros. Ex. 90 Letter from Rascher to I-225\n Himmler, 16 October 1942,\n transmitting report on\n cooling experiments on\n human beings (_NO-428_).\n\n1616-PS Pros. Ex. 105 Letter from Rascher to I-249\n Himmler, 17 February 1943,\n and summary of experiments\n for rewarming of chilled\n human beings by animal\n warmth, 12 February 1943.\n\n1618-PS Pros. Ex. 84 Intermediate report, 10 I-220\n September 1942, on intense\n chilling experiments in the\n Dachau concentration camp.\n\n1619-PS Pros. Ex. 87 Teletype from commandant of I-223\n Dachau concentration camp\n to Rudolf Brandt, 7 October\n 1942, stating that four\n women would be available\n from Ravensbrueck\n concentration camp for\n Rascher\u2019s experiments.\n\n1696-PS Pros. Ex. 357 Letter from Dr. Conti to the I-849\n Mental Hospital in\n Kaufbeuren, 16 November\n 1939, requesting that\n questionnaires (attached)\n be filled out for\n individual patients; letter\n from the General Sick\n Transport Company to the\n Mental Hospital in\n Kaufbeuren, 12 May 1941,\n stating that the company\n would remove mental\n patients; report from the\n Provincial Association for\n Social Welfare in Swabia, 6\n May 1941, that all\n transferred patients had\n died; letter from Gaum, 24\n November 1942, to Dr.\n Leinisch stating that\n epileptics would be made\n available for research.\n\n1971-A-PS Pros. Ex. 49 Letter from Rascher to I-144\n Himmler, 5 April 1942, and\n report, undated, on\n high-altitude experiments.\n1971-B-PS Pros. Ex. 51 Letter from Himmler to I-148\n Rascher, 13 April 1942,\n requesting a repetition of\n high-altitude experiments\n on prisoners condemned to\n death.\n\n1971-C-PS Pros. Ex. 50 Letter from Rudolf Brandt to I-147\n Rascher, 13 April 1942,\n regarding his success with\n high-altitude experiments.\n\n1971-D-PS Pros. Ex. 52 Teletype from Rascher to I-149\n Rudolf Brandt, 20 October\n 1942, requesting\n clarification on the pardon\n granted by Himmler.\n\n1971-E-PS Pros. Ex. 53 Teletype from Rudolf Brandt I-149\n to Schnitzler, 21 October\n 1942, concerning the pardon\n granted by Himmler.\n\n3896-PS Pros. Ex. 372 Extract from the affidavit of I-853\n Dr. Ludwig Sprauer, 23\n April 1946, concerning the\n organization of the\n Euthanasia Program.\n\nBecker-Freyseng 31 Becker-Freysen Extracts from Harper\u2019s II-65\n g Ex. 18 Magazine entitled \u201cSecrets\n by the Thousand\u201d by C.\n Lester Walker.\n\nBecker-Freyseng 42 Becker-Freysen Affidavit of Dr. Ludwig I-455\n g Ex. 29 Harriehausen, 9 January\n 1947, regarding use of\n patients in sea-water\n experiments.\n\nBecker-Freyseng 60 Becker-Freysen Statement of Professor Dr. II-95\n g Ex. 58 Hans Luxenburger and Dr.\n Hans Halbach concerning the\n report on experiments on\n human beings in world\n literature (Becker-Freyseng\n 60a, Becker-Freyseng Ex.\n 59).\n\nBecker-Freyseng Becker-Freysen Extracts from report on II-96\n60a g Ex. 59 experiments on human beings\n in world literature;\n excerpts from various\n newspapers and medical\n weeklies.\n\nKarl Brandt 1 Karl Brandt Extract from \u201cLife\u201d magazine II-95\n Ex. 1 concerning malaria\n experiments on convicts in\n U.S. penitentiaries.\n\nKarl Brandt 12 Karl Brandt Affidavit of Dr. Walther I-350\n Ex. 11 Scheiber on his efforts to\n purchase experimental\n animals in Spain and bring\n them to Germany.\nKarl Brandt 18 Karl Brandt Extracts from the affidavit I-871\n Ex. 15 of Dr. Werner Kirchert, 29\n January 1947, stating that\n Karl Brandt was not\n involved in the Euthanasia\n Program.\n\nKarl Brandt 19 Karl Brandt Affidavit of Alfred I-872\n Ex. 16 Rueggeberg, 23 January\n 1947, concerning radio\n discussions on euthanasia.\n\nKarl Brandt 23 Karl Brandt Affidavit of Eduard Woermann, I-873\n Ex. 19 18 January 1947, concerning\n discussion of Karl Brandt\n and Pastor Bodelschwingh on\n euthanasia.\n\nKarl Brandt 101 Karl Brandt Affidavit of Dr. Otto Ambros, I-351\n Ex. 41 21 April 1947, concerning\n the urgency of experiments\n in the field of\n chemical-warfare agents and\n their countermeasures.\n\nKarl Brandt 103 Karl Brandt Affidavit of Dr. Walter I-352\n Ex. 42 Mielenz, 21 April 1947,\n concerning the assignment\n of Karl Brandt in\n connection with chemical\n warfare.\n\nKarl Brandt 117 Karl Brandt Excerpts from the II-103\n Ex. 103 dissertation \u201cInfection\n Experiments on Human\n Beings\u201d by Alfred Heilbrunn\n of the Hygiene Institute of\n the Wuerzburg University,\n 1937, concerning\n experiments on human beings\n in other countries.\n\nGebhardt, Fischer, Gebhardt, Extract from report on the I-377\nOberheuser 1 Fischer, First Conference East of\n Oberheuser Ex. Consulting Specialists on\n 6 18 and 19 May 1942 at the\n Military Medical Academy,\n Berlin.\n\nGebhardt, Fischer, Gebhardt, Extract from report on the I-378\nOberheuser 3 Fischer, Third Conference East of\n Oberheuser Ex. Consulting Specialists on\n 10 24 to 26 May 1943 at the\n Military Medical Academy,\n Berlin.\n\nGebhardt, Fischer, Gebhardt, Extract from \u201cClinic and I-405\nOberheuser 6 Fischer, Practice\u201d, weekly journal\n Oberheuser Ex. for the Practicing\n 9 Physician, regarding bone\n transplantation.\n\nGebhardt, Fischer, Gebhardt, Extract from affidavit of Dr. I-377\nOberheuser 21 Fischer, Karl Friedrich Brunner, 14\n Oberheuser Ex. March 1947.\n 20\nGebhardt, Fischer, Gebhardt, Extract from affidavit of Dr. I-407\nOberheuser 21 Fischer, Karl Friedrich Brunner, 14\n Oberheuser Ex. March 1945, concerning\n 20 scientific experiments\n conducted at the clinic of\n Hohenlychen.\n\nGebhardt, Fischer, Gebhardt, Extract from affidavit of Dr. I-408\nOberheuser 22 Fischer, Josef Koestler concerning\n Oberheuser Ex. Dr. Gebhardt\u2019s activities,\n 21 27 February 1947.\n\nRose 11 Rose Ex. 27 Extract from report of I-298\n Professor Dr. E.\n Gildemeister concerning the\n activities of the Robert\n Koch Institute\u2014Reich\n Institute for the fight\n against infectious\n diseases.\n\nRose 16 Rose Ex. 12 Extracts from the affidavit I-581\n of Professor Otto Lenz,\n director of the Robert Koch\n Institute in Berlin.\n\nRose 46 Rose Ex. 20 Extract from a certified I-582\n statement, 4 March 1947, of\n J. Oerskov, M.D., director\n of the State Serum\n Institute in Copenhagen.\n\nRose 47 Rose Ex. 35 Affidavit of Professor Dr. I-300\n Hans Luxenburger, 24 March\n 1947, concerning Rose\u2019s\n interest in therapeutical\n malaria treatments.\n\nRose 50 Rose Ex. 49 Extract from the affidavit of I-302\n Professor Dr. Ernst Georg\n Nauck, M.D., Hamburg 4,\n Bernhard-Nocht-Institute\n for nautical and tropical\n diseases.\n\nMrugowsky 115 Mrugowsky Ex. Extracts from the affidavit I-647\n 108 of Udo Von Woyrsch, 3 May\n 1947, concerning\n experiments on combating\n injuries due to phosphorus\n incendiary bombs.\n\nSievers 45 Sievers Ex. 46 Extract from the affidavit of I-752\n Dr. Gisela Schmitz, 27\n March 1947, on Siever\u2019s\n position in the Ahnenerbe\n Society and his connection\n with the skeleton\n collection.\n\nSievers 54 Sievers Ex. 50 Regulations for the Commandos I-754\n (Einsatzkommandos) of the\n Security Police and the\n Security Service to be\n activated in Stalags.\nBlome 1 Blome Ex. 8 Extracts from the affidavit I-778\n of Dr. Oskar Gundermann, 28\n December 1946, stating that\n Blome opposed the plan to\n exterminate tubercular\n Poles and that the plan was\n never carried out.\n\nBlome 14 Blome Ex. 6 Extracts from a report on the I-777\n German Tuberculosis\n Conference of 18 to 20\n March 1937, at Wiesbaden.\n\nPokorny 19 Pokorny Ex. 27 Affidavit of Dr. Helmuth I-874\n Weese, 19 March 1947,\n concerning use of caladium\n seguinum for sterilization.\n\n TESTIMONIES\n\n Vol-\n Page\n\nDr. Leo Alexander I-386, 417\nBeiglboeck I-468\nBlome I-780\nBrack I-732, 876\nKarl Brandt I-506, 892, 900;\n II-29\nRudolf Brandt I-183, 757\nJadwiga Dzido I-381\nGebhardt I-388, 667\nDr. Eugen Haagen I-606\nHandloser I-265\nDr. Friedrich Hielscher II-30\nKarl Hoellenrainer I-456\nDr. Andrew C. Ivy I-994;\nII-42, 60, 82,\n 110\nMiss Karolewska I-409\nEugen Kogon I-583, 637, 648, 993\nWerner Leibbrandt II-80\nDr. Mennecke I-875\nMrugowsky I-595, 651, 688;\n II-56, 66\nWalter Neff I-177, 260\nRomberg I-186\nRose I-308, 586, 973;\n II-69, 77, 118\nSchmidt I-890\nSchroeder I-269\nSievers I-274, 682\nStoehr I-664\nVieweg I-303\nVollhardt I-474\n\n\n\n\n \u201c_The Milch Case_\u201d\n\n _CASE NO. 2_\n\n MILITARY TRIBUNAL NO. II\n\n THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA\n \u2014_against_\u2014\n ERHARD MILCH\n\n\n\n\n INTRODUCTION\n\n\nThe trial of Erhard Milch, formerly a Field Marshal in the German Air\nForce, is officially designated _United States of America vs. Erhard\nMilch_ (Case No. 2), and was heard by Military Tribunal II in the Palace\nof Justice at Nuernberg. The proceedings lasted from 13 November 1946 to\n17 April 1947, in the course of which period the Court convened 39\ntimes. The prosecution consumed 8 and the defense 28 trial days. A\nchronological table of the trial follows:\n\n Indictment filed 13 November 1946\n Indictment served 14 November 1946\n Arraignment 20 December 1946\n Prosecution opening statement 2 January 1947\n Defense opening statement 27 January 1947\n Prosecution and defense closing 25 March 1947\n statements\n Judgment 16 April 1947\n Sentence 17 April 1947\n Affirmation of sentence by Military 17 June 1947\n Governor, U.S. Zone of Occupation\n Order of the U.S. Supreme Court 20 October 1947\n denying writ of habeas corpus\n\nThe prosecution introduced into evidence 161 written exhibits, some of\nwhich contained several documents. The defense introduced 51 written\nexhibits. The Tribunal heard the oral testimony of 3 witnesses who were\ncalled by the prosecution; 27 witnesses called by the defense were heard\nby the full court, and 3 before a commissioner. One witness was called\nby the Tribunal on its own motion. The defendant Milch testified at\nlength in his own behalf.\n\nThe members of the Tribunal, and prosecution and defense counsel, are\nlisted on the ensuing pages. Prosecution counsel were assisted in\npreparing the case by Walter Rapp, Chief of the Evidence Division,\nNorbert Barr and Bevenuto Selcke, interrogators, and Robert Blakeslie,\nNancy Fenstermacher, and Tempa Altman Watson, research and documentary\nanalysts.\n\nThe material selected for this volume was principally compiled by Mr.\nPaul H. Gantt as case editor, working under the general supervision of\nMr. Drexel A. Sprecher, Deputy Chief Counsel and Director of\nPublications, Office, United States Chief of Counsel for War Crimes.\nCatherine W. Bedford, Henry Buxbaum, Emilie Evand, Gertrude Ferencz,\nHelga Lund, Gwendoline Niebergall, and Johanna K. Reischer assisted in\nselecting, compiling, editing and indexing the numerous papers.\n\nJohn H. E. Fried, Special Legal Consultant to the Tribunals, reviewed\nand approved the selection and arrangement of the material as the\ndesignated representative of the Nuernberg Military Tribunals.\n\nFinal compilation and editing of the manuscript for printing was\nadministered by the War Crimes Division, Office of the Judge Advocate\nGeneral, under the direct supervision of Richard A. Olbeter, Chief,\nSpecial Projects Branch, with Alma Soller as editor, Amelia Rivers as\nassistant editor and John W. Mosenthal as research analyst.\n\n\n\n\n ORDER CONSTITUTING TRIBUNAL II\n\n\n OFFICE OF MILITARY GOVERNMENT FOR GERMANY (U.S.)\n APO 742\n\n 16 DECEMBER 1946\n\nGENERAL ORDERS }\nNo. 85 }\n\n PURSUANT TO MILITARY GOVERNMENT ORDINANCE NO. 7\n\n1. Effective as of 14 December 1946, pursuant to Military Government\nOrdinance No. 7, 24 October 1946, entitled \u201cOrganization and Powers of\nCertain Military Tribunals\u201d, there is hereby constituted, Military\nTribunal II.\n\n2. The following are designated as members of Military Tribunal II:\n\n ROBERT M. TOMS Presiding Judge\n FITZROI D. PHILLIPS^{*} Judge\n MICHAEL A. MUSMANNO Judge\n JOHN J. SPEIGHT Alternate Judge\n\n^{*} OMGUS General Orders No. 5, 21 January 1947, corrected spelling to\nFitzroy D. Phillips.\n\n3. The Tribunal shall convene at Nurenberg, Germany, to hear such cases\nas may be filed by the Chief of Counsel for War Crimes or by his duly\ndesignated representative.\n\n BY COMMAND OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL CLAY:\n\n C. K. GAILEY\n _Brigadier General, GSC_\n _Chief of Staff_\n\n\nOFFICIAL: SEAL:\n G. H. GARDE Office of Military Government\n _Lieutenant Colonel, AGD_ for Germany (U. S.)\n _Adjutant General_\n\nDISTRIBUTION: \u201cB\u201d plus\n2\u2014AG MRU USFET\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration: TRIBUNAL II\u2014CASE TWO\n L. to R.: _F. Donald Phillips_; _Robert M. Toms, presiding_;\n _Michael A. Musmanno_; _John J. Speight, alternate_.]\n\n[Illustration: _Former Luftwaffe Field Marshal Milch,\n seated in the defense counsel section of courtroom one,\n listens with his lawyer Dr. Bergold and his brother Werner\n as Tribunal II announces its verdict in his case._]\n\n[Illustration: _Defendant Erhard Milch with_\n _his counsel, Dr. Friedrich Bergold._]\n\n[Illustration: _Mr. Clark Denny, Chief\n Trial Counsel of Case II._]\n\n\n\n\n MEMBERS OF MILITARY TRIBUNAL II\n\nROBERT M. TOMS, Presiding\n Judge of the Third Judicial Circuit Court, Detroit, Michigan\n\nFITZROY DONALD PHILLIPS, Member,\n Judge of the Superior Court for the 13th Judicial District of the\n State of North Carolina\n\nMICHAEL A. MUSMANNO, Member,\n United States Naval Reserve, on military leave from Court of Common\n Pleas, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania\n\nJOHN JOSHUA SPEIGHT, Alternate,\n Prominent member of the Bar of the State of Alabama\n\n ASSISTANT SECRETARIES GENERAL\n\nJudge RICHARD D. DIXON From 20 December 1946 to 25 March 1947\nMajor MILLS C. HATFIELD From 16 April 1947 to 17 April 1947\n\n PROSECUTION COUNSEL\n\nCHIEF OF COUNSEL:\n Brigadier General TELFORD TAYLOR\n\nCHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL:\n Mr. CLARK DENNEY\n\nASSISTANT TRIAL COUNSEL:\n Mr. JAMES S. CONWAY\n Miss DOROTHY M. HUNT\n Mr. HENRY T. KING, JR.\n Mr. RAYMOND J. MCMAHON, JR.\n Mr. MAURICE C. MYERS\n\n DEFENSE COUNSEL\n\nDr. FRIEDRICH BERGOLD\n Main Counsel\nDr. WERNER MILCH^{*}\n Assistant Counsel\n\n^{*} Brother of the defendant Milch.\n\n\n\n\n I. INDICTMENT\n\n\nThe United States of America, by the undersigned Telford Taylor, Chief\nof Counsel for War Crimes, duly appointed to represent said Government\nin the prosecution of war criminals, charges the defendant Erhard Milch\nwith the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity as defined\nin Control Council Law No. 10,[62] duly enacted by the Allied Control\nCouncil on 20 December 1945. The defendant Milch between 1939 and 1945\nwas State Secretary in the [Reich] Air Ministry (Staatssekretaer im\nReichsluftfahrt ministerium), Inspector General of the Air Force\n(Generalinspekteur der Luftwaffe), Deputy to the Commander in Chief of\nthe Air Force (Stellvertreter des Oberbefehlshabers der Luftwaffe), and\nMember of the Nazi Party (Mitglied der NSDAP). The defendant Milch was\nalso Field Marshal in the Luftwaffe (Generalfeldmarschall in der\nLuftwaffe) 1940-45, Aircraft Master General (Generalluftzeugmeister)\n1941-44, Member of the Central Planning Board (Mitglied der \u201cZentralen\nPlanung\u201d) 1942-1945, and Chief of the Jaegerstab 1944-1945. The war\ncrimes and crimes against humanity charged herein against the defendant\nMilch include deportation, enslavement and mistreatment of millions of\npersons, participation in criminal medical experiments upon human\nbeings, and murders, brutalities, cruelties, tortures, atrocities, and\nother inhumane acts.\n\n COUNT ONE\n\n1. Between September 1939 and May 1945 the defendant Milch unlawfully,\nwilfully, and knowingly committed war crimes as defined by Article II of\nControl Council Law No. 10, in that he was a principal in, accessory to,\nordered, abetted, took a consenting part in, and was connected with\nplans and enterprises involving slave labor and deportation to slave\nlabor of the civilian populations of Austria, Czechoslovakia, Italy,\nHungary, and other countries and territories occupied by the German\nArmed Forces, in the course of which millions of persons were enslaved,\ndeported, ill-treated, terrorized, tortured, and murdered.\n\n2. Between September 1939 and May 1945 the defendant Milch unlawfully,\nwilfully, and knowingly committed war crimes as defined by Article II of\nControl Council Law No. 10, in that he was a principal in, accessory to,\nordered, abetted, took a consenting part in, and was connected with\nplans and enterprises involving the use of prisoners of war in war\noperations and work having a direct relation with war operations,\nincluding the manufacture and transportation of arms and munitions, in\nthe course of which murders, cruelties, ill-treatment, and other\ninhumane acts were committed against members of the armed forces of\nnations then at war with the German Reich and who were in custody of the\nGerman Reich in the exercise of belligerent control.\n\n3. In the execution of the plans and enterprises charged in paragraphs 1\nand 2 of this count, millions of persons were unlawfully subjected to\nforced labor under cruel and inhumane conditions which resulted in\nwidespread suffering. At least 5,000,000 workers were deported to\nGermany. The conscription of labor was accomplished in many cases by\ndrastic and violent methods. Workers destined for the Reich were sent\nunder guard to Germany, often packed in trains without adequate heat,\nfood, clothing, or sanitary facilities; other inhabitants of occupied\ncountries were conscripted and compelled to work in their own countries\nto assist the German war economy and on fortifications and military\ninstallations. The resources and needs of the occupied countries were\ncompletely disregarded in the execution of the said plans and\nenterprises. Prisoners of war were assigned to work directly related to\nwar operations, including work in munitions factories, loading bombers,\ncarrying ammunition, and manning antiaircraft guns. The treatment of\nslave laborers and prisoners of war was based on the principle that they\nshould be fed, sheltered, and treated in such a way as to exploit them\nto the greatest possible extent at the lowest expenditure.\n\n4. The defendant Milch from 1942 to 1945 was a member of the Central\nPlanning Board which had supreme authority for the scheduling of\nproduction and the allocation and development of raw materials in the\nGerman war economy. The Central Planning Board determined the labor\nrequirements of industry, agriculture, and all other phases of German\nwar economy, and made requisitions for and allocations of such labor.\nThe defendant Milch had full knowledge of the illegal manner in which\nforeign laborers were conscripted and prisoners of war utilized to meet\nsuch requisitions, and of the unlawful and inhumane conditions under\nwhich they were exploited. He attended the meetings of the Central\nPlanning Board, participated in its decisions and in the formulation of\nbasic policies with reference to the exploitation of such labor,\nadvocated the increased use of forced labor and prisoners of war to\nexpand war production, and urged that cruel and repressive measures be\nutilized to procure and exploit such labor.\n\n5. During the years 1939-1945 the defendant Milch, as State Secretary in\nthe Air Ministry, Inspector General of the Air Force, Deputy to the\nCommander in Chief of the Air Force, Field Marshal in the Luftwaffe,\nAircraft Master General, and Chief of the Jaegerstab, had responsibility\nfor the development and production of arms and munitions for the German\nAir Force. The defendant Milch exploited foreign laborers and prisoners\nof war in the arms, aircraft, and munitions factories under his control,\nmade requisitions for and allocations of such labor within the aircraft\nindustry, and personally directed that cruel and repressive measures be\nadopted towards such labor.\n\n6. Pursuant to the order of the defendant Milch, prisoners of war who\nhad attempted escape were murdered on or about 15 February 1944.\n\n7. The said war crimes constitute violations of international\nconventions, particularly of Articles 4, 5, 6, 7, 46, and 52 of the\nHague Regulations, 1907, and of Articles 2, 3, 4, 6, and 31 of the\nPrisoner-of-War Convention (Geneva, 1929), the laws and customs of war,\nthe general principles of criminal law as derived from the criminal laws\nof all civilized nations, the internal penal laws of the countries in\nwhich such crimes were committed, and Article II of Control Council Law\nNo. 10.\n\n COUNT TWO\n\n8. Between March 1942 and May 1943 the defendant Milch unlawfully,\nwilfully, and knowingly committed war crimes as defined in Article II of\nControl Council Law No. 10, in that he was a principal in, accessory to,\nordered, abetted, took a consenting part in, and was connected with\nplans and enterprises involving medical experiments without the\nsubjects\u2019 consent, upon members of the armed forces and civilians of\nnations then at war with the German Reich and who were in the custody of\nthe German Reich in the exercise of belligerent control, in the course\nof which experiments the defendant Milch, together with divers other\npersons, committed murders, brutalities, cruelties, tortures, and other\ninhumane acts. Such experiments included, but were not limited to, the\nfollowing:\n\n (_A_) _HIGH-ALTITUDE EXPERIMENTS._ From about March 1942 to\n about August 1942 experiments were conducted at the Dachau\n concentration camp for the benefit of the German Air Force to\n investigate the limits of human endurance and existence at\n extremely high altitudes. The experiments were carried out in a\n low-pressure chamber in which the atmospheric conditions and\n pressure prevailing at high altitudes (up to 68,000 feet) could\n be duplicated. The experimental subjects were placed in the\n low-pressure chamber and thereafter the simulated altitude\n therein was raised. Many victims died as a result of these\n experiments and others suffered grave injury, torture, and\n ill-treatment.\n\n (_B_) _FREEZING EXPERIMENTS._ From about August 1942 to about\n May 1943 experiments were conducted at the Dachau concentration\n camp primarily for the benefit of the German Air Force to\n investigate the most effective means of treating persons who had\n been severely chilled or frozen. In one series of experiments\n the subjects were forced to remain in a tank of ice water for\n periods up to 3 hours. Extreme rigor developed in a short time.\n Numerous victims died in the course of these experiments. After\n the survivors were severely chilled, rewarming was attempted by\n various means. In another series of experiments, the subjects\n were kept naked outdoors for many hours at temperatures below\n freezing. The victims screamed with pain as parts of their\n bodies froze.\n\n9. The said war crimes constitute violations of international\nconventions, particularly of Articles 4, 5, 6, 7, and 46 of the Hague\nRegulations, 1907, and of Articles 2, 3, and 4 of the Prisoner-of-War\nConvention (Geneva, 1929), the laws and customs of war, the general\nprinciples of criminal law as derived from the criminal laws of all\ncivilized nations, the internal penal laws of the countries in which\nsuch crimes were committed, and of Article II, of Control Council Law\nNo. 10.\n\n COUNT THREE\n\n10. Between September 1939 and May 1945 the defendant Milch unlawfully,\nwilfully, and knowingly committed crimes against humanity, as defined by\nArticle II of Control Council Law No. 10, in that he was a principal in,\naccessory to, ordered, abetted, took a consenting part in, and was\nconnected with plans and enterprises involving slave labor and\ndeportation to slave labor of German nationals and nationals of other\ncountries in the course of which millions of persons were enslaved,\ndeported, ill-treated, terrorized, tortured, and murdered. The\nparticulars of these crimes are set forth in count one of this\nindictment and are incorporated herein by reference.\n\n11. Between March 1942 and May 1943 the defendant Milch unlawfully,\nwilfully, and knowingly committed crimes against humanity as defined in\nArticle II of Control Council Law No. 10 in that he was principal in,\naccessory to, ordered, abetted, took a consenting part in, and was\nconnected with plans and enterprises involving medical experiments,\nwithout the subjects\u2019 consent, upon German nationals and nationals of\nother countries, in the course of which experiments the defendant Milch,\ntogether with divers other persons, committed murders, brutalities,\ncruelties, tortures, atrocities, and other inhumane acts. The\nparticulars of such experiments are set forth in count two of this\nindictment and are incorporated herein by reference.\n\n12. The said crimes against humanity constitute violations of\ninternational conventions, the laws and customs of war, the general\nprinciples of criminal law as derived from the criminal laws of all\ncivilized nations, the internal penal laws of the countries in which\nsuch crimes were committed, and Article II of Control Council Law No.\n10.\n\nWHEREFORE, this indictment is filed with the Secretary General of the\nMilitary Tribunals and the charges herein made against the above-named\ndefendant are hereby presented to the Military Tribunals.\n\n TELFORD TAYLOR\n Brigadier General, USA\n Chief of Counsel for War Crimes\n Acting on Behalf of the United States of America\nNuernberg, 13 November 1946\n\n-----\n\n[62] See vol. I, this series, pref. pp. III thru XXVIII for basic\npapers.\n\n\n\n\n II. ARRAIGNMENT[63]\n\n\nTHE MARSHAL: Military Tribunal No. 2 is now in session. God save the\nUnited States of America and this honorable Tribunal.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE TOMS: The Marshal will ascertain whether the defendant,\nErhard Milch, is present in Court.\n\nTHE MARSHAL: May it please your Honors, the defendant is present in the\nCourt.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE TOMS: Is counsel for the defendant, Dr. Bergold, also\npresent?\n\nTHE MARSHAL: Dr. Bergold is also present in the courtroom.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE TOMS: Prosecution may proceed with the arraignment by\nreading the indictment.\n\n [At this point Mr. Clark Denney read the indictment. See p.\n 360.]\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE TOMS: The defendant will stand. You have heard the\nindictment just read?\n\nERHARD MILCH: Yes.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE TOMS: And it has been translated into the German\nlanguage which you understand?\n\nERHARD MILCH: Yes.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE TOMS: For more than 30 days you have had in your\npossession a copy of this indictment translated into the German\nlanguage?\n\nERHARD MILCH: Yes.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE TOMS: You have also had the benefit of Dr. Bergold\u2019s\ncounsel for at least 30 days?\n\nERHARD MILCH: Yes.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE TOMS: Now then to this indictment how do you plead,\nguilty or not guilty?\n\nERHARD MILCH: Not guilty.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE TOMS: The Secretary General will enter upon the records\nof the Court the defendant\u2019s plea of not guilty. You may be seated.\n\nThe Tribunal has set Thursday, the second day of January 1947 for the\ncommencement of the trial of this action. Will the United States be\nready on that date?\n\nMR. DENNEY: The Government will be ready at that time, your Honor.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE TOMS: Dr. Bergold, will you be ready to proceed with the\ntrial on the second of January?\n\nDR. BERGOLD: Yes.\n\n * * * * *\n\n-----\n\n[63] Tr. p. 7.\n\n\n\n\n III. OPENING STATEMENTS\n\n\n A. Opening Statement for the Prosecution[64]\n\nMR. DENNEY: May it please your Honors, this defendant is Erhard Milch,\nField Marshal in the Luftwaffe, Inspector General of the Luftwaffe,\nState Secretary in the Air Ministry, Generalluftzeugmeister, sole\nrepresentative of the Wehrmacht on the Central Planning Board, Chief of\nthe Jaegerstab,[65] and member of the Nazi Party.\n\nThis man is accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity in that he\ntook part in the program for the enslavement and ill-treatment of the\ncivilian population of vast territories conquered by the armed forces of\nGermany and in the employment of prisoners of war in tasks forbidden by\nthe laws and customs of war. He is also accused of the torture and\nmurder of concentration camp inmates and prisoners of war who were made\nthe unwilling subjects of savage and fatal medical experiments.\n\nThe life of Erhard Milch is a story of personal and professional\nbetrayal. A man of high intelligence, of great executive ability, he\nmisused these talents to dedicate them to a scheme for conquest and a\nplan for the enslavement of the world. The 10 years of military service\nof the defendant from the age of 18 to 28 which took him through the\nFirst World War were a perfect preparation for the tasks to come. From\n1915 to 1919, Milch was a scout, observer, adjutant and squadron leader\nin the German Air Force. At the very infancy of military aviation, the\ndefendant began an association which was to last through his entire\npublic career. It was at this time that he learned the needs and the\nproblems of flying men, a knowledge which was to stand him in such good\nstead in his work as the founder of the Luftwaffe.\n\nThe defendant never dissociated himself from the aims and ideals of\nGerman militarism. He became one of the silent army of men who\nremembered, hated, and hoped; but unlike many others, this man did not\nsit idly by. He did not wait passively for Germany to rise again, he\ndevoted his best efforts towards that end. In 1921, only 1 year after\nhis discharge from the army, we find him working as chief of air\noperations [flights] in the new business of commercial aviation.\n\nThere is no necessity to fill out in detail the successive steps in the\ndefendant\u2019s rise in civilian air transportation\u2014a few broad strokes\nsuffice. The next significant event in his career came in 1925 when he\njoined the state-sponsored Lufthansa which within 3 years he was to form\ninto the nucleus of a new air force. It is no euphemism that he was\ncalled the Father of German Air Transportation.\n\nWhen Hitler came into power in 1933, Milch acceded to the requests of\nboth Goering and Hitler and assumed the additional duty of State\nSecretary in the Air Ministry. It was understood from the start, and it\nwas confirmed in 1937, that Milch would succeed Goering as Chief of the\nGerman Air Force in the event of the latter\u2019s death or withdrawal. By\nthe time the new Luftwaffe had publicly emerged from such embryos as the\nAir Sport League, the Air Defense League, and the Flying [Flieger]\nHitler Youth, the defendant had become a Generalleutnant (the equivalent\nof the American major general). The honors which followed: field marshal\nin the Luftwaffe in 1940, which was gained from 2 months\u2019 participation\nin the invasion of Norway; Generalluft-Zeugmeister in 1941; member of\nthe Central Planning Board in 1942; Chief of the Jaegerstab in 1944,\nwere proof alike of the evil genius of Erhard Milch and of his complete\ncompatibility with the Nazi ambitions and methods.\n\nThis defendant became a member of the Nazi Party in May 1933. His work\nin the Party was important. He was indeed one of the little group of\nspecialists of whom Mr. Justice Jackson, in his closing address before\nthe International Military Tribunal, aptly said:\n\n \u201cIt is doubtful whether the Nazi master plan could have\n succeeded without their specialized intelligence which they so\n willingly put at its command. They (speaking of Goering, Keitel,\n Jodl, and the rest) did so with knowledge of its announced aims\n and methods and continued their services after practice had\n confirmed the direction in which they were tending. Their\n superiority to the average run of Nazi mediocrity is not their\n excuse. It is their condemnation.\u201d[66]\n\nVarious Germans allowed themselves to be absorbed into the Nazi Party\nfor a variety of reasons. Depression, financial and business betterment,\nambition, discouragement with the previous political situation, and\nhuman weakness in the face of terrorism, all played their part in the\nrecruitment of the Nazi machine. There were few cases in which a man\nmade as clear, as deliberate, and as discreditable a choice of Nazism as\ndid Milch.\n\nThe high esteem in which the defendant was held by Hitler and his\nposition within the inner circle of Nazi militarists can be seen from\nthe fact that he was one of a party of fourteen of Hitler\u2019s highest and\nmost trusted officers who attended a conference in the new Reich\nChancellory on 23 May 1939, at which Hitler made known to his military\nchiefs his plans and objectives. (_L-79._)\n\nAll in all, two points stand out in even a quick survey of Milch\u2019s\ncareer: First, he never accepted the defeat of Germany in the First\nWorld War; his life between the wars was devoted to the work of placing\nGermany in a position to challenge the world in the matter of air\nsupremacy; and second, he was a man who was unlikely to allow either\ndifficulty or honor to stand in the way of the accomplishment of his\npurpose\u2014the objectives of the Nazi Party. If these characteristics are\nborne in mind, much of the defendant\u2019s fanaticism and the unbelievable\nsavagery with which he adhered to the Nazi plan for conquest at the\nexpense of all values of human decency may be seen as the natural\nconsequences of the acts of a man with his criminal philosophy.\n\nWe have then, at the outbreak of the war this man, already within the\ninner circle, already devoted to the Nazi scheme of things and quite\nessential to their fulfillment, with a record of organization and with\nthe work of preparation behind him\u2014poised with his companions for the\nkill. We see the air armadas, which were the labor of his love, helping\nto shatter Poland within 18 days, helping to reduce the Lowlands to\nsmoking ruins within a few days\u2019 time, assisting in the subjugation of\nthe French military machine and in driving the British from the\ncontinent in a period of a few weeks. We see the hordes of the\nFatherland racing on and on with the air arm always overhead, preparing\nthe way, until Germany had overrun a territory from the Normandy Coast\nto Moscow, and from the North Sea to El Alamein.\n\nThen began the occupation, the next step in the plan of the Third\nReich\u2014an empire which was to last a thousand years. Over an entire\ncontinent there spread the deadly rigor of a \u201cPax Germanica\u201d in which\nthere was to be one citizen class, one race of supermen, and the\nbalance, one class of slaves. At first the occupation overlords\nmaintained the appearance of legality. They gave receipts for the\nproperty they plundered, they offered inducements to the laborers they\nshanghaied, they went through the mockery of signing contracts which\nwere both illusory and fraudulent. But even this sham disappeared as the\nwar went on, and as early as 1942, the German occupation appeared in\npublic as the ugly thing it was, complete with armed recruiters,\nmilitary escorts on deportation trains and prison camps for the workers\nbrought into Germany. Mr. Justice Jackson, in his opening address on\nbehalf of the United States of America before the International Military\nTribunal,[67] vividly described the character and extent of the\nslave-labor program in the following words:\n\n \u201cPerhaps the deportation to slave labor was the most horrible\n and extensive slaving operation in history. On few other\n subjects is our evidence so abundant and so damaging. In a\n speech made on 25 January 1944 the defendant Frank, Governor\n General of Poland, boasted, \u2018I have sent 1,300,000 Polish\n workers into the Reich.\u2019 (_059-PS, p. 2._) The defendant Sauckel\n reported that \u2018out of the 5 million foreign workers who arrived\n in Germany not even 200,000 came voluntarily.\u2019 * * * Children of\n 10 to 14 years were impressed into service * * *.\n\n \u201cWhen enough labor was not forthcoming, prisoners of war were\n forced into war work in flagrant violation of international\n conventions (_016-PS_). Slave labor came from France, Belgium,\n Holland, Italy, and the East. Methods of recruitment were\n violent (_R-124_, _018-PS_, _204-PS_). The treatment of these\n slave laborers was stated in general terms, not difficult to\n translate into concrete deprivations, in a letter to the\n defendant Rosenberg from the defendant Sauckel, which stated:\n\n * * * * *\n\n \u201c\u2018All the men\u2019 (prisoners of war and foreign civilian\n workers) \u2018must be fed, sheltered, and treated in such a\n way as to exploit them to the highest possible extent at\n the lowest conceivable degree of expenditure * * *\u2019\n (_016-PS_)\u201d.\n\nWorking as we do every day with crimes of unbelievable enormity, we are\napt to become quite deadened to the hideous nature of specific crimes.\nIt is, therefore, well to stop and consider the particular offenses with\nwhich this man stands charged.\n\nCrimes are best evaluated in terms of the rights they violate. The evil,\nslavery, which is the deprivation of another\u2019s liberty, is best judged\nthrough a consideration of its opposite good, freedom. Freedom is, to an\nextent, properly regarded as the symbol of human progress, the measure\nof civilization. Much of man\u2019s history can be expressed in terms of his\nfight for freedom. Man\u2019s personal freedom is his most precious\nprerogative, the exercise of his free will is his distinctive function.\nThe building of a legal structure to protect the freedom of the\nindividual is the basic purpose of good government. Men have lived for\nfreedom, worked for it, fought for it, and died for it.\n\nIt is precisely because of their destructive effects on the freedom of\nthe individual that governments such as the Nazi German State are so\nhatefully and essentially evil. The Nazi rise to power is a story of\nduress which ripened into slavery, first for the people within Germany\nand then for those in the lands she conquered. The enforced labor\nprogram was no expedient forced upon Germany by the exigencies of war.\nIt was a basic concept of the Nazi scheme and the permanent destiny of\nthose who would come under the German yoke.\n\nIt is most natural, therefore, that Control Council Law No. 10, which\nwas enacted for the guidance of this and other tribunals which are set\nup for the trial of the principals in the crime of Nazi Germany, should\ndeal in very severe terms with that most Nazi of all crimes\u2014slavery.\nArticle II, paragraph 1 (sec. _b_) specifically names among the\nenumerated war crimes the ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor of\ncivilian populations from occupied territory and the murder or\nill-treatment of prisoners of war. Paragraph 1 (sec. _c_) specifies as a\ncrime against humanity, deportation of civilian populations. Article II,\nparagraphs 2 and 3 proclaim that anyone taking a principal or consenting\npart in these crimes, or belonging to a plan or enterprise for the\ncommission of these crimes, is guilty of an offense for which the death\npenalty may be prescribed.\n\nThe prosecution will prove that Milch was a principal in the deportation\ninto slave labor of civilian populations from occupied territories. It\nwill show that he was involved in the murder and ill-treatment of\nprisoners of war. Evidence will be presented which will prove that he\nwas engaged in plans and enterprises which directly involved the use of\nslave labor. We will show that this man was as much concerned with the\nemployment of slave labor as was any man in Germany. In his positions as\na member of the Central Planning Board, as Generalluftzeugmeister, and\nas Chief of the Jaegerstab, he had full opportunity to hear all the grim\ndetails of the exploitation of slave labor. He participated in decisions\nand formulated basic policies with reference to its use, and over and\nabove all this he showed his personal animosity and his gratuitous\nfanaticism in constantly urging the most repressive and cruel measures\nin the procurement and exploitation of foreign workers.\n\nDuring the course of this trial, an attempt will be made to distinguish\namong that which this defendant did as Generalluftzeugmeister, as Chief\nof the Jaegerstab, as State Secretary for Air, and as a member of the\nCentral Planning Board. At times it will be difficult, if not\nimpossible, to state in just which capacity he was acting at a\nparticular time. We must emphasize now that it is not essential to the\nproof of this case that we should be able always to specify the exact\ncapacity in which the defendant acted. The multiplicity of his\nconnection with the slave-labor program is his greatest condemnation,\nand it is because he knew so much and did so much that there can be no\nexcuse for him.\n\nErhard Milch operated at a policy level high in the chain of command\nabove the work boss and the concentration camp guard. We need not show\nhim driving the workers to their tasks or crowding them into the hovels\nin which they lived. We are not primarily concerned with the minute\ndetails of the slave-labor program which were carried out by minions who\nobeyed men like the defendant. We were dealing with a planner of a great\ncrime, and it has not been difficult for the law to seek out and punish\nthose who plan as well as those who obey. The law would indeed be\nderelict if only those were punished who pulled the trigger to kill, or,\ncomparably speaking, ran a slave camp in which people worked an 84-hour\nweek and dragged out a miserable existence under conditions from which\ndeath was welcome relief.\n\nThis defendant cannot plead in truth that he did not know that the use\nof slave labor was wrong. He cannot use even the technical excuse, so\ncommon among the Nazis, that this was not illegal because the Nazi law\nauthorized it. Official sanction of slavery would have been a law so\nevil that even the Nazi masters dared not proclaim it. A search through\nthe mass of decrees and pronouncements which passed for law during the\nregime of Adolf Hitler fails to reveal sanction for slavery of foreign\nlaborers. On the other hand, certain prohibitory laws survived from a\nmore respectable day.\n\nParagraph 234 of the German Criminal Law (published in 1942 in Munich\nand Berlin, pp. 364-365) provides that \u201cwhoever seizes another by ruse,\nthreat or force in order to expose him in a state of helplessness, or to\ndeliver him into slavery, bondage, or a foreign military or naval\nservice shall be punished for kidnapping by confinement in a\npenitentiary.\u201d This law was in force during the Nazi regime and was\npublished in the most recent edition of German Criminal Law which we\nhave been able to find.\n\nThat maltreatment was commonplace in the course of the enforced labor\nprogram in Germany is well known; that starvation, murder, and all types\nof personal abuses took place is notorious. All of this was found as a\nfact in the decision of the International Military Tribunal. There can\nbe no question of the responsibility of the defendant for the murders\nand privations which were the inevitable byproduct of the slave-labor\nprogram.\n\nBut we need not follow the crime of slave labor down to its last detail\nin order to show the defendant as the murderer he was. We can and will\nprove that he directly participated in crimes of which murder was often\nthe intended and on numerous occasions the inevitable result.\n\nThe prosecution charges, and will prove, that he took an important,\nresponsible, and essential part in the practice of experiments upon\nhuman beings carried out against their wills and in callous disregard of\nthe lives of its victims.\n\nCut then to bare essentials the charges set forth in paragraphs 8 and 9\nof count two of the indictment and in paragraph 11 of count three can be\nsummarized by the statement that the defendant was officially connected\nwith and took a consenting part in enterprises in which criminal medical\nexperiments were performed upon involuntary subjects.\n\nThe nature and extent of these experiments and the fact that they were\nconducted for the specific benefit of the Luftwaffe will be shown in\nsome detail. We will prove that the defendant was the responsible\nLuftwaffe officer with ultimate supervisory authority over the\nexperiments. The Court will see that throughout the duration of these\nexperiments, the defendant was constantly treated by all concerned as\nthe ultimate authority within the Luftwaffe in control of the\nexperimental equipment and in charge of certain personnel who were\nactively engaged in them.\n\nEvidence will be presented which will prove that the defendant was\nthoroughly informed of the criminal activities of Dr. Rascher, the\nexperimenter, and his associates. We will prove that a conference was\nheld at the defendant\u2019s office, that films were shown there, that\ncommunications were sent to him from highest Nazi sources which\nspecifically referred to opposition on the part of \u201cnarrow-minded\ndoctors\u201d to the experiments. A web of evidence will be adduced to\nportray the defendant, as he really was, an active partner in crime. We\nwill show that the defendant authorized the initiation of freezing\nexperiments and that he ordered an extension of the high-altitude\nexperiments for a period of 2 months, during which extended period a\nnumber of experimental subjects died.\n\nAt the conclusion of the evidence with respect to the medical\nexperiments upon human beings there will remain no doubt that Erhard\nMilch was a knowing, willing, and active participant in murder.\n\nThroughout the trial the prosecution will place before the Court a\nnumber of statements which will portray him as a man who believed no\ntears should be shed for the victims of total war when German soldiers\nevery day were making the ultimate sacrifice for the Fatherland. This\nman was not a hard-headed, single-minded production chief whose only\nproblem was to get things done and whose rash statements were the\nimpetuous remarks of an over-worked executive. Milch will be shown as a\nman who boasted of his responsibility in the hanging of prisoners of\nwar, who urged that any effort on the part of foreign workers to strike\nduring enemy action should be met with rifle fire, who offered\nprotection to slave supervisors who should mistreat their subjects. We\nwill show that he was not too busy to inform himself fully of everything\nwith which he was officially connected and that over and above this he\nwent out of his way to learn the most minute details of matters with\nwhich he was very remotely connected.\n\nAnd now a brief word about the type of evidence with which the\nprosecution will prove its case. It must be borne in mind that we are\nnot concerned with a single localized incident or with a series of such\nincidents. The proof which we must show cannot be brought forth from the\ndaily events of ordered society. It must be drawn from the cold ashes of\na broken nation. The documents which will be brought into Court have\nbeen taken from all corners of a continent. They have one common feature\nwhich elevates them in the hierarchy of evidence to a place above the\nstory of sincere but fallible eyewitnesses. These documents are official\nGerman records, some of them records of the defendant\u2019s own\norganizations. In some cases they bear the defendant\u2019s signature or his\nhandwritten initials. In every case they are authentic records compiled\nby Germans, accurate because there was no reason for falsification or\nexaggeration, thorough because of a national fetish for attention to\ndetail, reliable because they were made at times when the German\nfortunes of war were high and their scriveners had no reason to fear\nthat one day they would be confronted with their hand-made records of\ncriminality.\n\nIt would seem that at this point there should be some discussion of the\nvarious organizations with which the defendant was connected.\n\nWe are concerned principally with that part of the OKW (Oberkommando der\nWehrmacht), Supreme Command of the Armed Forces, known as the OKL\n(Oberkommando der Luftwaffe), the High Command of the German Air Force.\nThe Chief of the OKL was Reich Marshal Hermann Goering. His Inspector\nGeneral and State Secretary in the Air Ministry was the defendant Erhard\nMilch. As such, from July 1940, he held the rank of field marshal\n(comparable to the American rank of general of the armies).[68]\n\nThe other two branches of the OKW with which we are incidentally\nconcerned were the OKH (Oberkommando des Heeres), High Command of the\nArmy, and the OKM (Oberkommando der Marine), High Command of the Navy.\nThe army was commanded by Field Marshal von Brauchitsch until December\n1941, at which time it was taken over by Hitler. The navy was commanded\nby Grand Admiral [Admiral of the Fleet] Raeder until 1943, thereafter by\nGrand Admiral Doenitz.\n\nThe Luftwaffe Medical Service came under this defendant in his capacity\nas Inspector General of the Luftwaffe. The Medical Service was headed by\nDr. Erich Hippke until January 1944; thereafter it was headed by Dr.\nOskar Schroeder.\n\nThere was an experimental institute in Berlin called the DVL which was a\ntechnical research institution for aero-research. This was subordinate\nto the defendant in his position as Generalluftzeugmeister.\n\nWe now turn to the Central Planning Board. This was established by a\nGoering decree, pursuant to a Hitler order of 22 April, 1942. The Board\nconsisted of Albert Speer, Erhard Milch, and Paul Koerner. Later, by a\nsupplementary Goering decree, in September 1943, Walter Funk was added\nto the Board. Speer and Milch were the dominant members, and Koerner and\nFunk played comparatively minor roles. The Central Planning Board was,\nin effect, a consolidation of all controls over German war production.\nThe Board was found by the International Military Tribunal to have \u201chad\nsupreme authority for the scheduling of German production and the\nallocation and development of raw materials. * * *\u201d[69] Hand in hand\nwith this goes the corollary of the procurement and allocation of labor.\nReich Marshal Goering, in his decree of 22 April, 1942, stated in\npart\u2014\u2014\u201cIt (the Central Planning Board) encompasses that which is\nfundamental and vital. It makes unequivocal decisions and supervises the\nexecution of its directives\u201d. The Central Planning Board requisitioned\nlabor from Sauckel with full knowledge that the demands would be\nsupplied by foreign forced labor, and the Board determined the basic\nallocation of this labor within the German war economy. Sauckel was the\nservant of the Central Planning Board in the procurement of slave labor.\nThere are records of some 50-odd meetings of the Board between the time\nof its establishment in 1942, and 1945. The defendant was present at all\nbut a few of these meetings and on occasion his was the dominant voice.\nThe International Military Tribunal found that the Central Planning\nBoard determined the total number of laborers needed for German\nindustry, and required Sauckel to produce them, usually by deportation\nfrom occupied territories.\n\nIt is worthy of note that Speer was appointed Reich Minister for\nArmaments and Munitions on 2 February 1942, Sauckel was appointed\nPlenipotentiary General for Labor Allocation on 21 March 1942, and the\nCentral Planning Board was created on 22 April 1942.\n\nTurning now to the defendant\u2019s position as Chief of the Jaegerstab. The\nJaegerstab was formed pursuant to a Speer decree of 1 March 1944, for\nthe purpose of increasing the production of German fighter aircraft,\nwhich, because of effective and heavy raids by strategic air forces of\nGreat Britain and America, had suffered a production decrease to a\nfigure below 1,000 planes a month.\n\nBecause of this reduced production of fighter planes, Milch had\nrequested Speer to establish a commission to deal with this most vital\nproblem. The commission was created and Speer and Milch were joint\nchiefs. The Jaegerstab was actually a group of experts, drawn from the\nvarious phases of German industry and supplemented by representatives of\nthe various Ministries concerned, such as Labor, Supply, Transportation,\nPower and Energy, Raw Materials, Health, Repairs, and so forth.\n\nMeetings were held almost daily, in the beginning at the Air Ministry in\nBerlin and later at Tempelhof airfield in the same city. The Jaegerstab\nfunctions were these: the quick repair of plants damaged in bombing or\nstrafing operations, the dispersal of German aircraft plants, and the\nconstruction of underground factories for aircraft production.\n\nAs it was with the Central Planning Board, so it was with the\nJaegerstab, a major problem was the procurement of slave labor. The\nworkers for the Jaegerstab were procured from the Sauckel Ministry, from\noccupied countries, and from the SS, who supplied concentration camp\ninmates and Hungarian Jews.\n\nSo successful was the work of the Jaegerstab that Speer decided to\nenlarge its functions to include other phases of armament and munitions\nproduction. Accordingly, on 1 August 1944, he issued a decree expanding\nthe functions of the Jaegerstab and changing its name to Ruestungsstab.\n\nThe position of Generalluftzeugmeister was taken over by the defendant\nin 1941, following the death of Colonel General Ernst Udet. In this post\nthe defendant was in charge of all technical research in the Luftwaffe\nand his was the over-all responsibility for all aircraft production. As\nsuch he spoke for the Luftwaffe in the meetings of the Central Planning\nBoard and in conferences with Hitler. It is obvious that here again the\nprocurement of labor was a primary consideration for one who had the\ncomplete responsibility for keeping the Luftwaffe in the air.\n\nIn the trial before the International Military Tribunal, it was\ndetermined that 5,000,000 laborers were deported to Germany. Of these,\n4,800,000 did not come voluntarily.\n\nThe evidence will show that the defendant\u2019s responsibility was as great,\nif not greater, than was Sauckel\u2019s. Erhard Milch raised his voice in\ndemanding that foreign labor be procured by any methods and in\nadvocating that cruel and repressive measures be taken by those in\ncharge of these laborers. There is no record of any utterance by him,\nwhich can be offered as a mitigating circumstance to his complete\ncomplicity in the criminality of the slave-labor program.\n\nThe evidence on the altitude and freezing experiments will reveal him as\na man completely without concern for the welfare and lives of the\nwretched, unwilling victims of the criminal tortures conducted for the\nbenefit of the Luftwaffe.\n\nThe series of trials, of which this is one, if it is to serve its\npurpose in exposing and punishing the abuses of Nazidom, must strike\nhard at the cores of savage German militarism and its technical\ncounterpart, industry for war. Erhard Milch is the foremost example of\nthe union between German militarism and German heavy industry. What\nuseful purpose is served by condemning these two and allowing their\nsponsors, men like Milch, to go unpunished?\n\nWe take it as a fundamental proposition that man is not the helpless\nproduct of his environment. Civilization is a lengthy chronicle of men\nwho triumphed over difficulty. Its survival depends on the moral fibre\nof individuals who can use circumstance, not be determined by it. If\nsociety must answer for the actions of men, and not men for the course\nof society, then, indeed, governments are our masters and not our\nservants; then, indeed, law dictates but does not express justice.\nErhard Milch lived during years of violence and in an evil environment\nbut he was a man well able to overcome these factors and become a force\nfor good. It was by his own free choice that he followed the line of\nleast resistance and became one of the evil spirits who cast a dark\nshadow of war and crime over Germany and the world. He had a choice\nbetween the easy wrong and the hard right\u2014he chose the former. Peace,\norder, and progress depend on men of sufficient courage to choose at\ntimes a hard, just path. Ours indeed is an exacting standard, but the\nrewards are great, and the alternative is chaos.\n\n-----\n\n[64] Opening statement is recorded in mimeographed transcript.\n\n[65] See section IV A3, p. 524 ff.\n\n[66] Trial of the Major War Criminals, vol. XIX, pp. 417-18, Nuremberg,\n1947.\n\n[67] Ibid., vol. II, pp. 139-140.\n\n[68] See Table of comparative ranks, p. 331.\n\n[69] Trial of Major War Criminals, vol. I, p. 331.\n\n\n\n\n B. Opening Statement for the Defense[70]\n\nDR. BERGOLD: May it please the Tribunal, I undertake now to present the\nevidence for the defense. The prosecution has painted the blackest\npossible picture of the man I am here to defend. It has pronounced a\nmoral judgment on him, even for the period of his life, which, according\nto the indictment, is not to be judged by this Tribunal.\n\nBecause of the great difference between the American and the German\npeople I have no knowledge of whether such a method of prosecution is\ncustomary in the United States of America. The good principles of law\nwhich were practiced in Germany before 1933 provided that even counsel\nfor the prosecution should not reproach the defendant for anything that\nis not subject to examination by the Tribunal. The meaning of this is\nthat defense counsel also should be in a position to express his views\nwith regard to these charges. This, according to my opinion, seems to be\na fair principle.\n\nTherefore, if it please the Tribunal, it shall be my aim in the course\nof my submission of evidence to prove by witnesses who have been\napproved and by the defendant himself that the charges made by the\nprosecution are incorrect, and I shall aim to prove that also for the\ncharges which are not contained in the indictment.\n\nErhard Milch has never in his life been a traitor, as a person or in his\nprofession, not even at the end of the National Socialist rule when he\nhimself was threatened as to his life and his honor. As a man of high\nintelligence and great talent for organization, he always tried to do\nhis best for his people and for the world.\n\nTo say of him that he misused his talent and devoted his life to a plan\nfor conquest and enslavement of the world is to have a completely wrong\nconception of reality. He was never a militarist in the bad sense of the\nword. Never did he arm secretly before 1933 nor make use of the peaceful\ninstrument of the commercial air fleet for any sinister purposes. He,\nthe man who wanted to devote himself only to the tasks of peace, the man\nwho in his capacity as director of the German Lufthansa collaborated\nwith many European air transport companies and who conceived this\ncollaboration as almost a forerunner of a unified Europe; he, the man\nwho in 1937 devoted all his efforts, together with a few wise and\ncourageous statesmen, to the attempt to bring about a full understanding\nand a large scale collaboration between France, Belgium, and Germany\n(unfortunately, the high Tribunal has not given me permission to furnish\ncomplete proof for this fact); he, Erhard Milch, truly never tried to\nenslave the world. If he had succeeded in his plans in 1937, then there\nwould have been no 1938. And, all the more, there would not have been\nthe horrible period of 1939 to 1945, the period in which the battle\nagainst intolerance became so hard and so complicated that we might\nthink today that, as in an Arabian tale, this spirit of intolerance\nfreed itself from the bottle and spread itself over so wide an area\nthat, even today, it causes actions which one day must also be condemned\nby the just and the wise.\n\nI shall prove that from the moment when this man tried, in 1937, to\nachieve his plans for peace he lost the confidence of his superiors. He\nnever belonged to the intimate circle in which his superiors confided,\neven less so after 1937. They employed him unwillingly and only because\nthey believed that they could not spare him because of his ability. It\nis cheap and easy to say now that this man should have denied his\nsuperiors the benefit of his talents. We shall prove that he tried to do\nso. But who can dare to judge with certainty what went on in the heart\nof such a man who was terribly aware of what dangers threatened his\npeople, once the fateful step of starting the war had been taken?\nNeither did he want this step nor could he prevent it.\n\nShould he really have chosen the path of revolt, this man who was\nbrought up in a world in which, for all ages, military obedience had\nbeen an inviolate law, this man who had a passionate love for his\npeople? How many human beings in any country are capable of breaking the\nchains of their education, and turn against the laws which have been\ninviolate for them ever since their childhood?\n\nThere is no punishable guilt, perhaps even no moral guilt in the fact\nthat a man cannot free himself from the world of his education. Because\nit is the very essence of all education to give the man unbreakable laws\nand to create around him what philosophers call \u201cthe environment proper\nto his own nature.\u201d Therefore, he has not made himself guilty by doing\nwhat his education and the conceptions of his environment made him call\nhis duty, in a war which he did not want, which he tried to prevent; and\nthe stopping of which he advised again and again after it had started.\nThis duty, he felt, was to do his work and to prevent the worst which he\nanticipated, namely, the terrible devastation of his fatherland and its\ncomplete and helpless collapse.\n\nI shall prove that he always, even after the war had broken out,\nconcerned himself with questions of defense only; that he wanted to\nstrengthen the fighter force, a defensive weapon with which he wanted to\nprevent the doom of the German cities. Perhaps, one day, the necessity\nfor this doom will be judged differently. I shall prove that he\ncondemned the attack against Soviet Russia as folly, and that he tried\nto prevent it. I shall show that in the spring of 1943 he submitted to\nHitler detailed proposals for an immediate termination of the war and\nthat he told him without reserve that the war was lost.\n\nIf it is true that from that moment onward he made efforts again and\nagain to strengthen the fighter force, and that he took part in the\ncreation of the Jaegerstab, who can reproach him with the intention to\nprolong the war if it will be proved that he knew that the enemy air\nforces would make a desert of Germany? Was it inhuman that he tried to\nprevent this total destruction even if the war was lost? He alone could\nnot end the war. But he could try to prevent the inferno in Germany from\nbecoming full reality. What true lover of his own country in any part of\nthe world would not make the same attempt? Never can he be considered\nguilty on account of that, and even less so because of the fact that in\nother countries also voices have arisen and still arise which say that\nduring the destruction of Germany many a thing happened which was not\nalways compatible with military necessity.\n\nDespite the pains he took, his superiors mistrusted him so much that\nboth Goering and Hitler contemplated to have him put out of the way.\n\nI shall show that he never endorsed the theory of the superman and of\nthe master race; that he always remained humane and that he intervened\non behalf of friends with disregard for his own security. He never was\ncruel. It may be that some of the minutes carry wild speeches about him\nwhich must strike your Honors who come from a different world and are\nused to different customs as terrible and incomprehensible. I shall\nprove to you that in the barracks yards, which made the first impress on\nthe sensitive mind of young Milch, wild expressions were quite common\nand that in German barracks yards bombastic expressions were considered\nnormal and truly militaristic style. Nobody in Germany did at any time\ntake these expressions at face value. For this human element in\nparticular, the old saying holds true that dogs which bark do not bite.\n\nThis man, however, was all the more inclined to use these shocking\nexpressions due to the fact that in a number of accidents he had\nsuffered severe concussions of the brain as a result of which he was\nmore susceptible to fits of anger than other people; all the more so\nsince he was overburdened with work and always frantic because time was\ntoo short. But witnesses will appear before this Tribunal who will\nconfirm that no one in his surroundings took these fits of wrath, these\ncrazy words, seriously; that these expressions never went further than\nthe circle of his intimates, and that they in no way had any effect. His\nraving and yelling would make so little impression that when people\naround him noticed he was about to have another fit of rage, one would\nhear the familiar quotation: \u201cIn a moment somebody will be hanged again\nand then nothing happens.\u201d\n\nI shall show that this man knew nothing at all of the many abominable\nhappenings which occurred out in the country, sometimes committed by\npersons who were under his command, and that, for example, the\nconnection with the experiments at Dachau were so remote and incidental\nthat he could not even surmise what the men there undertook to do. The\nsphere of his duties was so terrific, the burden of his work so great\nthat he truly would have needed to be a superman if he were expected to\nhave known all that the prosecution finds out today from records and\nfrom the examination of the offenders. It is appropriate to use a Latin\nquotation here with a little change: \u201c_Quod est in actis, non semper est\nin munde._\u201d Not everything that the investigating mind uncovers at a\nlater date and interconnects was so in actual fact. The poet says \u201cEasy\nfor him to speak who speaks last.\u201d This man is charged with letting\nprisoners be abused and killed. I shall prove that this was not so. I\nshall even prove that, for example, he did everything possible to\nprotect so-called terror fliers from being lynched. He was a man who\ntried to attenuate verdicts pronounced by competent courts of justice\nand who never favored death sentences.\n\nThe prosecution charges him with the enslavement of the peoples of\nEurope. I shall prove that he never aspired to enslavement; that\ninformation on deportations and shanghaiing never reached him; and that,\non the contrary, information reached him which was bound to confuse his\njudgment and which permitted him to engage in deeds which now are\nconsidered as wrong. Up to this day the opinion still prevails that\neverybody in Germany knew everything about all the cruelties. Slowly,\nhowever, the recognition comes through that this is not correct. In the\n\u201cNeue Zeitung\u201d, the official organ of the military government, a German\nanti-Fascist by the name of Arnold Weiss Reuthel, whose book on the\nconcentration camps is considered noteworthy by the newspapers,\npublished an article \u201cOn the Psychological Causes.\u201d There he states\nliterally:\n\n \u201cOne would have termed anybody who informed the public of such\n happenings a scoundrel or a lunatic. This also explains why\n people who did not see these things with their own eyes and did\n not suffer from them day after day, even today still refuse to\n believe that they actually happened. Yes, to me too it seems\n today often a dream and impossible when I think back and try to\n persuade myself that they really happened, the fearful excesses\n to which I was a witness during my 5 years in the concentration\n camp.\u201d\n\nThus writes, be it noted, a man who suffered for years in a\nconcentration camp himself. It has been proved again and again that the\nmost painstaking secrecy was maintained regarding the atrocities. This\nis no hollow talk. This is the truth. The actual perpetrators\ndissembled, denied, lied, in a way that could not have been surpassed in\ncunning. The documents show you, Honorable Judges, that it was forbidden\nfor Rascher to make reports without Himmler\u2019s authorization. Himmler\nwanted to draw the veil of secrecy over everything. But even with a\nHitler, Sauckel, for example, soft-pedalled all his doings in the\nprocuring of the foreign workers. Regarding this, I will submit\nevidence.\n\nI shall also show that the assignment of these workers was not a point\nin any program existing from the outset; that it was exclusively an\nemergency device which the exigencies of the war forced upon Germany. So\nat least all this had to appear to him, the man who did not belong to\nthe innermost circle. That he could not think otherwise will be\ndemonstrated to the Court, to the Tribunal.\n\nIt is misleading when the honorable representative of the prosecution in\nhis opening speech points out that this man had more to do with the use\nof forced labor than any other man in Germany. The International\nMilitary Tribunal, in its judgment on Speer, whose position, as no one\nin this courtroom can doubt, was far more powerful and significant than\nthat of this man here, has stated:[71] \u201cSpeer\u2019s position was such that\nhe did not have to deal directly with the atrocities and the carrying\nout of the forced labor program.\u201d On Sauckel, the International Military\nTribunal says:[72] \u201cIt is nevertheless established beyond all doubt that\nSauckel had the over-all responsibility for the slave-labor program.\u201d I\nshall offer evidence that Sauckel actually also had the sole power over\nthe manner in which the people were recruited and brought to Germany,\nand over the urgent work for which they were required.\n\nThe prosecution submitted much evidence in Document Books No. IA and IB\nwhich contain the speeches and decrees of all kinds of persons and\noffices in Germany and in the territories formerly occupied. In my\nopinion, however, it never proved that the defendant knew of all these\nthings, much less that he had anything to do with them. I shall prove\nthat he knew nothing of all this and that it was all so far remote from\nhis sphere of action that, logically speaking and considering his\nnumerous tasks, he could know nothing about it.\n\nI ask permission to remark here that in cases of this kind it is perhaps\nafter all not in keeping with the rules of true justice to charge one\nperson with everything that happened somewhere and was committed by\nsomeone among a people of eighty million. In my opinion the concept of\nconspiracy is in such a case inflated to the point of monstrosity. It\nwas created for conditions of a narrower and smaller scope where it was\nwithin the framework of a man\u2019s possibilities to keep an over-all view\nof his associates and their deeds. But to extend the concept of\nconspiracy over an entire nation and, simultaneously, over numerous\norganizations with millions of members, that no longer can be\ncommensurate with true justice. This would result in the creation of a\nconspirator to whom would be ascribed a Godlike stature. That, however,\nwould be a distortion of an intelligent legal thought.\n\nIt must, therefore, be demanded that in the case of each document, of\neach act, with due consideration of the extent of the defendant\u2019s\nworking sphere and, consequently, with due consideration for his working\ncapacity, one should examine whether he could obtain knowledge thereof,\nwhether he could humanly anticipate, examine any of them, and by reason\nof his authority, could somehow prevent them.\n\nFinally, I shall prove to you that the documents submitted to you as\nofficial documents are not exact, not reliable; that they never were\nexamined by the defendant and his associates, and that they contain\ninaccuracies, distortions, and wilful deceptions.\n\nRegarding the powers and position held by the defendant, a number of\nwitnesses and the defendant himself will attest that his powers were not\nso great nor so permanent as the prosecution assumes.\n\nWe will show that while the Medical Inspector of the Luftwaffe was\nsubordinate to him in his capacity of Inspector General of the\nLuftwaffe, this subordination was more a formal than a practical one,\nthat the staff of the Medical Service was not at all subordinate to him\nand that especially he did not have under his direction the DVL (German\nExperimental Institute for Aviation).\n\nWe shall further prove that even the Central Planning Board did not have\nthe significance that the prosecution assumes, that this agency was much\nmore an advisory and information agency, that it was chiefly occupied\nwith the allocation of raw materials and that only those decisions of\nthe meetings were binding which were summarized in the so-called\n\u201cResults.\u201d\n\nFinally, we shall show that although, it is true, the defendant was one\nof the founders of the Jaegerstab, he was not its chief and that his\nimportance in this connection was far less than it would appear on first\nconsideration. The work of the Jaegerstab and of the defendant was aimed\nsolely at the protection of Germany against bombing attacks, and Milch\nvery soon lost all influence in this Jaegerstab.\n\nIn the presentation of all this evidence, I would ask the high Tribunal\nto have in mind one difficulty which, particularly in this case, is\nnearly insurmountable.\n\nThe documents submitted by the prosecution are only parts of a body of\nmaterial the extent of which can be termed gigantic. When one considers\nthat the Jaegerstab, for instance, from the time of its establishment\nheld daily meetings and that from those meetings only these few\nstenographic records of a few sessions have been submitted that appear\nin the document books of the prosecution, then one realizes that not\neven five percent of the material pertaining to the Jaegerstab has been\nsubmitted.\n\nSimilar, although perhaps not equally striking, is the situation with\nreference to the minutes of the Central Planning Board. All these\ndocuments which were not submitted are not accessible to me at all. Does\nnot, however, justice demand that the material in its entirety should be\navailable to the defense counsel for examination? Already it has been\npossible for me to discover in the incriminating documents numerous\npassages which throw a different light on the indictment. Is it not\nhighly probable, then, that numerous other passages may be found in all\nof the other material likely to extenuate to a high degree the guilt of\nthe defendant, or which, in any case, might show many things in a better\nlight?\n\nIn an ordinary trial with a considerably narrower scope it is much\neasier for a defendant to conduct his defense than here where material\nof such volume is at hand that even if he had the best of memories, it\nwould be impossible for him to point out to me, his counsel, where and\nwhat kind of exonerating material can be found. That simply surpasses\nthe capacity of the human memory, of the human ability to think.\n\nIn passing, I would say that probably in all of the armies which fought\nin this war the responsible men used strong language during meetings and\ndiscussions which, had they all gone down in records, would today cause\nthe milder ones to shake their heads. Wrath, impatience, worry, and\nanguish because of damages sustained frequently lead responsible persons\nto wild utterances. What counts is not whether such words are uttered\nbut the deeds which come after such excitement dies away.\n\nThe prosecution had many long months to prepare its case. We, the\ndefendant and I, received the real documents on the indictment only in\nJanuary. It is beyond human capacity to examine everything within such a\nshort period of time with the thoroughness which is necessary to\nassemble the required counter-evidence. The presentation of argument on\nthe part of the defendant must therefore, be full of gaps. It is\nparticularly difficult in this case because within the short time\navailable for preparation it is impossible to study all the problems\nwhich are brought to light as a result of the Dachau experiments. This\ncalls for special technical knowledge which a man such as the defendant,\nwho never studied medicine, simply cannot possess. However, as this\ntrial is held simultaneously with the trial on the Dachau\nexperiments,[73] the danger exists that the important and exonerating\nfacts brought to light there, through the defendant experts and their\nwell informed counsel, cannot be properly appraised in the present case,\nand in this way the cause of justice is endangered.\n\nAll of this I merely say in order to ask your Honors not to lose sight\nof these angles in judging this present case. Honorable Judges, please\nbear that in mind also when examining the documents which I shall submit\nand, giving ear to that extent to the voice of humanity and of justice,\nlend your assistance to a man who, cut off for so long and bitter a time\nfrom all his information and other aids to support his memory, has been\ncalled upon to defend himself before you. If at any time the fundamental\nprinciple of penal justice, which exists since the days of the wise\nRomans, should find application, \u201c_In dubio pro reo_\u201d (In case of doubt\nfavor the accused), it should find strict application in this case. That\nis what I wanted to tell you as an introduction.\n\n-----\n\n[70] Opening statement is recorded in mimeographed transcript 27 January\n1947. Tr. pp. 494-504.\n\n[71] IMT mimeographed German transcript p. 16614. See also Trial of\nMajor War Criminals, vol. I, p. 332, Nuremberg, 1947.\n\n[72] Ibid., p. 16598. See also Trial of Major War Criminals, vol I, p.\n321.\n\n[73] United States _vs._ Karl Brandt, et al. See vol. I.\n\n\n\n\n IV. SELECTIONS FROM THE DOCUMENTS AND\n TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES OF PROSECUTION\n AND DEFENSE\n\n\n A. Slave Labor\n\n\n I. GENERAL SLAVE LABOR PROGRAM IN GERMANY\n\n _Prosecution Documents_\n\n Doc. No. Pros. Ex. No. Description of Document Page\n L-79 3 Extract from minutes of Fuehrer 387\n conference, 23 May 1939.\n EC-68 6 Letter from the Ministry of 389\n Finance and Economics of\n Baden, 6 March 1941,\n containing directives\n regarding the treatment of\n Polish farm workers.\n 3005-PS 7 Extracts from letter from the 392\n Reich Labor Ministry to\n presidents of regional labor\n offices, 26 August 1941,\n concerning the use of French\n and Russian PW\u2019s.\n EC-194 8 Memorandum of Keitel, 31 393\n October 1941, concerning the\n use of PW\u2019s in the armament\n industry.\n 1206-PS 9 Outlines of directives of 395\n Goering regarding the\n employment of PW\u2019s in the\n armament industry, 7 November\n 1941.\n 3040-PS 10 Extracts from secret order of 399\n Himmler, 20 February 1942,\n concerning the commitment and\n treatment of manpower from\n the East.\n 016-PS 13 Letter from Sauckel to 405\n Rosenberg, 24 April 1942, and\n extracts from report on\n Sauckel\u2019s labor mobilization\n program, 20 April 1942.\n 084-PS 16-A Extracts from interdepartmental 408\n report of the Ministry for\n Occupied Eastern Territories,\n 30 September 1942, concerning\n the status of eastern\n laborers.\n 294-PS 19-A Extracts from top secret 411\n memorandum, signed by\n Braeutigam, 25 October 1942,\n concerning effects of slave\n labor program.\n L-61 20 Letter from Sauckel to the 413\n presidents of labor offices,\n 26 November 1942, concerning\n deportation and employment of\n Poles and Jews.\n 1063-D-PS 21 Extract from order of Mueller, 415\n 17 December 1942, concerning\n prisoners qualified for work\n to be sent to concentration\n camps.\n 1526-PS 25 Extracts from letter from 416\n German-appointed Ukrainian\n main committee to Frank,\n February 1943.\n 407-V-PS 30 Extracts from letter from 418\n Sauckel to Hitler, 14 April\n 1943, concerning labor\n questions.\n 407-IX-PS 33 Letter from Sauckel to Hitler, 420\n 3 June 1943, concerning\n foreign labor situation.\n 3000-PS 34 Extracts from report rendered 422\n to Riecke,\n Ministerialdirektor in the\n Ministry of Agriculture, 28\n June 1943, on experiences in\n political and economic\n problems in the East.\n 265-PS 35 Extracts from report by Leyser 423\n to Rosenberg, 30 June 1943,\n on conditions in the district\n Zhitomir.\n 204-PS 39 Extracts from memorandum of a 424\n conference, 18 February 1944,\n concerning the release of\n indigenous labor for purposes\n of the Reich.\n R-103 40 Extracts from a letter from the 426\n (German-appointed) Polish\n main committee to the General\n Government of Poland on the\n conditions of Polish workers\n in Germany, 17 May 1944.\n 208-PS 55 Report by Sauckel, 7 July 1944, 428\n on the accomplishments of\n labor mobilization in the\n first half of 1944.\n 3819-PS 56 Minutes of a conference on 11 430\n July 1944 attended by Milch,\n concerning the labor problem.\n\n _Defense Documents_\n\n Doc. No. Pros. Ex. No. Description of Document Page\n R-124 1 Extract from report on Fuehrer 438\n conference attended by Milch\n on 19 February 1942.\n R-124 32 Extract from the Fuehrer 438\n conference minutes, 21 and 22\n April 1942.\n R-124 2 Extract from the Fuehrer 439\n conference minutes of 3, 4, 5\n January 1943.\n 407-II-PS 3 Report from Sauckel to Hitler, 439\n 10 March 1943, concerning\n difficulties originating from\n the draft of manpower in\n former Soviet territories.\n R-124 33 Extract from report on Fuehrer 441\n conference of 30 May 1943.\n R-124 4 Extract from report of Fuehrer 442\n conference of 11-12 September\n 1943.\n R-124 34 Extract from Fuehrer conference 443\n of 1-4 January 1944,\n concerning Speer\u2019s report on\n the French labor situation.\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT L-79[74]\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 3\n\n EXTRACT FROM MINUTES OF FUEHRER CONFERENCE, 23 MAY 1939\n\n Top Secret\n\nTo be transmitted by officer only\n\n Minutes of a Conference on 23 May 39\n\nPlace: The Fuehrer\u2019s Study, New Reich Chancellery.\nAdjutant on duty: Lt.-Col. (GSC) Schmundt.\nPresent: The Fuehrer, Field Marshal Goering, Grand Admiral [Admiral of the\n Fleet] Raeder. Col. Gen. [General] von Brauchitsch, Col. Gen.\n Keitel, Col. Gen. Milch, Gen. (of Artillery) [Lt. General]\n Halder, Gen. Bodenschatz, Rear Admiral Schniewind, Col. (GSC)\n Jeschonnek, Col. (GSC) Warlimont, Lt.-Col. (GSC) Schmundt, Capt.\n [Army] Engel, Lt. Comdr. Albrecht, Capt. [Army] v. Below.\n\nSubject: Indoctrination on the political situation and future aims.\n\nThe Fuehrer defined as _the purpose of the conference_:\n\n 1. Analysis of the situation.\n 2. Definition of the tasks for the armed forces arising from the\n situation.\n 3. Exposition of the consequences of those tasks.\n 4. Ensuring the secrecy of all decisions and work resulting from\n these consequences.\n\nSecrecy is the first essential for success. The Fuehrer\u2019s observations\nare given in systematized form below.\n\nOur present situation must be considered from two points of view: (1)\nthe actual development of events between 1933 and 1939; (2) the\npermanent and unchanging situation in which Germany lies.\n\nIn the period 1933-1939, progress was made in all fields. Our military\nsituation improved enormously.\n\nOur situation with regard to the rest of the world has remained the\nsame.\n\nGermany had dropped from the circle of Great Powers. The balance of\npower had been effected without the participation of Germany.\n\nThis equilibrium is disturbed when Germany\u2019s demands for the necessities\nof life make themselves felt, and Germany reemerges as a Great Power.\nAll demands are regarded as \u201cEncroachments\u201d. The English are more afraid\nof dangers in the economic sphere than of the simple threat of force.\n\nA mass of 80 million people has solved the ideological problems. So,\ntoo, must the economic problems be solved. No German can evade the\ncreation of the necessary economic conditions for this. The solution of\nthe problems demands courage. The principle by which one evades solving\nthe problems by adapting oneself to circumstances is inadmissible.\nCircumstances must rather be adapted to aims. This is impossible without\ninvasion of foreign states or attacks upon foreign property.\n\nLiving space, in proportion to the magnitude of the state, is the basis\nof all power. One may refuse for a time to face the problem, but finally\nit is solved one way or the other. The choice is between advancement or\ndecline. In 15 or 20 years\u2019 time we shall be compelled to find a\nsolution. No German statesman can evade the question longer than that.\n\nWe are at present in a state of patriotic fervor, which is shared by two\nother nations\u2014Italy and Japan.\n\nThe period which lies behind us has indeed been put to good use. All\nmeasures have been taken in the correct sequence and in harmony with our\naims.\n\nAfter 6 years the situation is today as follows:\n\nThe national-political unity of the Germans has been achieved, apart\nfrom minor exceptions. Further successes cannot be attained without the\nshedding of blood.\n\nThe demarcation of frontiers is of military importance.\n\nThe Pole is no supplementary enemy. Poland will always be on the side of\nour adversaries. In spite of treaties of friendship, Poland has always\nhad the secret intention of exploiting every opportunity to do us harm.\n\nDanzig is not the subject of the dispute at all. It is a question of\nexpanding our living space in the East and of securing our food\nsupplies, of the settlement of the Baltic problem. Food supplies can be\nexpected only from thinly populated areas. Over and above the natural\nfertility, thorough German exploitation will enormously increase the\nsurplus.\n\nThere is no other possibility for Europe.\n\nColonies: Beware of gifts of colonial territory. This does not solve the\nfood problem. [Remember]\u2014blockade!\n\nIf fate brings us into conflict with the West, the possession of\nextensive areas in the East will be advantageous. Upon record harvest we\nshall be able to rely even less in time of war than in peace.\n\nThe population of non-German areas will perform no military service, and\nwill be available as a source of labor.\n\nThe problem \u201cPolish\u201d is inseparable from conflict with the West.\n\nPoland\u2019s internal power of resistance to Bolshevism is doubtful. Thus\nPoland is of doubtful value as a barrier against Russia.\n\nIt is questionable whether military success in the West can be achieved\nby a quick decision; questionable too is the attitude of Poland.\n\nThe Polish government will not resist pressure from Russia. Poland sees\ndanger in a German victory in the West, and will attempt to rob us of\nthe victory.\n\nThere is therefore no question of sparing Poland, and we are left with\nthe _decision_:\n\n_To attack Poland at the first suitable opportunity._\n\n * * * * *\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT EC-68\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 6[75]\n\n LETTER FROM THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND ECONOMICS OF\n BADEN, 6 MARCH 1941, CONTAINING DIRECTIVES REGARDING\n THE TREATMENT OF POLISH FARM WORKERS\n\n 49-7\n Copy\n\n III B 5 C (in pencil)\n Karlsruhe, 6 March 1941\n\nMinister of Finance and Economics of Baden\nProvincial [Land] Food Office Dept. A.\n(Provincial Farmers Association)\n Confidential Only for Official Business\nTo all District Farmers Associations [Kreis]\n\nSubject: Directives regarding the treatment of foreign farm workers of\n Polish nationality.\n\nThe agencies of the Reich Food Estate, Provincial Farmers Association of\nBaden, have received the results of the negotiations with the Higher SS\nand Police Leader in Stuttgart on 14 February 1941, with great\nsatisfaction. Appropriate memoranda have already been turned over to the\nDistrict Farmers Associations. Below, I promulgate the individual\nregulations, as they have been laid down during the conference and how\nthey are not to be applied accordingly:\n\n 1. Fundamentally, farm workers of Polish nationality no longer\n have the right to complain, and thus no complaints may be\n accepted any more by any official agency.\n\n 2. The farm workers of Polish nationality may not leave the\n localities in which they are employed, and have a curfew from 1\n October to 31 March from 2000 hours to 0600 hours, and from 1\n April to 30 September from 2100 hours to 0500 hours.\n\n 3. The use of bicycles is strictly prohibited. Exceptions are\n possible, for riding to the place of work in the field, if a\n relative of the employer or the employer himself is present.\n\n 4. The visit of churches, regardless of faith, is strictly\n prohibited, even when there is no service in progress.\n Individual spiritual care by clergymen outside of the church is\n permitted.\n\n 5. Visits to theaters, motion pictures or other cultural\n entertainment are strictly prohibited for farm workers of Polish\n nationality.\n\n 6. The visit of restaurants is strictly prohibited to farm\n workers of Polish nationality except for one restaurant in the\n village, which will be selected by the Rural Councillor\u2019s\n Office, and then only one day per week. The day, which is\n determined as the day to visit the restaurant, will also be\n determined by the Rural Councillor\u2019s Office. This regulation\n does not change the curfew regulation, mentioned above under No.\n 2.\n\n 7. Sexual intercourse with women and girls is strictly\n prohibited, and wherever it is established, it must be reported.\n\n 8. Gatherings of farm workers of Polish nationality after work\n is prohibited, whether it is on other farms, in the stables, or\n in the living quarters of the Poles.\n\n 9. The use of railroads, buses, or other public conveyances by\n farm workers of Polish nationality is prohibited.\n\n 10. Permits to leave the village may only be granted in very\n exceptional cases, by the local police authority (mayor\u2019s\n office). However, in no case may it be granted if he wants to\n visit a public agency on his own, whether it is a labor office\n or the District Farmers Association, or whether he wants to\n change his place of employment.\n\n 11. Arbitrary change of employment is strictly prohibited. The\n farm workers of Polish nationality have to work daily so long as\n the interests of the enterprise demand it, and as it is demanded\n by the employer. There are no time limits to the working time.\n\n 12. Every employer has the right to give corporal punishment to\n farm workers of Polish nationality, if instructions and good\n words fail. The employer may not be held accountable in any such\n case by an official agency.\n\n 13. Farm workers of Polish nationality should if possible be\n removed from the community of the home, and they can be\n quartered in stables, etc. No remorse whatever should restrict\n such action.\n\n 14. Report to the authorities is compulsory in all cases when\n crimes have been committed by farm workers of Polish nationality\n which are to sabotage the enterprise or slow down work, for\n instance, unwillingness to work, impertinent behavior; it is\n compulsory even in minor cases. An employer who loses his Pole\n who must serve a longer prison sentence because of such a\n compulsory report will receive another Pole from the competent\n labor office on request with preference.\n\n 15. In all other cases, only the state police is still\n competent.\n\nFor the employer himself, severe punishment is contemplated if it is\nestablished that the necessary distance from farm workers of Polish\nnationality has not been kept. The same applies to women and girls.\nExtra rations are strictly prohibited. Noncompliance of the Reich\ntariffs for farm workers of Polish nationality will be punished by the\ncompetent labor office by the taking away of the worker.\n\nIn any case of doubt, the Provincial Farmers Association\u2014IB\u2014will give\ninformation.\n\nForwarding in writing of the above agreement to the farm workers of\nPolish nationality is strictly prohibited.\n\nThese regulations do not apply to Poles who are still prisoners of war\nand are thus subordinated to the armed forces. In this case, the\nregulations published by the armed forces apply.\n\n Heil Hitler!\n BY ORDER:\n [Signed] DR. KLOTZ\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 3005-PS\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 7\n\n EXTRACTS FROM LETTER FROM THE REICH LABOR MINISTRY TO\n PRESIDENTS OF REGIONAL LABOR OFFICES, 26 AUGUST 1941,\n CONCERNING THE USE OF FRENCH AND RUSSIAN PW\u2019S\n\nVol. 78-L\n\n Annex 1 to the Decree of the Reich Minister of Armament\n and Munitions\n\nTHE REICH MINISTER OF LABOR\n_Va 5135/1277_\n Nr. 371-4770/41 secret 216/985\n\n Berlin, SW 11, 26 August 1941\n\n Special Delivery\n\nTo the Presidents of Regional Labor Offices\n (including Nuernberg Branch Office)\n\nSubject: Use of Russian PW\u2019s.\nReference: Circular of 14 August 1941\u2014Va 5135/1189\u2014.\n\nUpon personal order of the Reich Marshal [Goering], 100,000 men are to\nbe taken from among the French PW\u2019s not yet employed in armament\nindustry, and are to be assigned to the armament industry (airplane\nindustry). Gaps in manpower supply resulting therefrom will be filled by\nSoviet PW\u2019s. The transfer of the above-named French PW\u2019s is to be\naccomplished by 1 October. Russian PW\u2019s can be utilized only in larger\nconcentrated groups under the well-known, tougher employment conditions.\nIn the civilian field the regional labor offices will have to determine\nimmediately those work projects where French prisoners of war can be\nwithdrawn and replaced by Soviet groups. For the time being, no\nadditional assignment of Soviet prisoners of war can be considered.\nInitially all replacement possibilities must be completely exhausted.\nSimilarly, all French PW\u2019s no longer needed are not to be channeled into\nagriculture and forestry any more, but exclusively into armament\nindustry (aircraft industry).\n\nAll branches of economic life employing French PW\u2019s, with the exception\nof armament industry and mining, are to be encompassed in determining\nthose work projects where exchanges are feasible. The absolute necessity\nthat Soviet PW replacements be employed in larger concentrated groups,\nrequires, among other things, special checking of all larger\nconstruction projects of any kind (including construction of the Reich\nrailroads, navigational and cultivation projects). Reich Minister Dr.\nTodt has already consented to the exchange of French PW\u2019s employed by\nthe Reich super highways. In agriculture the exchange can naturally be\neffected only in the case of large estates (especially estates with\noutlying farms).\n\nExchange of PW\u2019s will frequently encounter resistance. The factories\nconcerned will be reluctant to exchange the trained and proven French\nPW\u2019s for Soviet PW\u2019s. In such cases the labor offices have to draw the\nfactories\u2019 attention to the necessities of state, and to the directive\nof the Reich Marshal.\n\nAs soon as the regional labor offices have determined the work projects\naffected by the exchange, they will inform the Service Commands\nHeadquarters, indicating how many French PW\u2019s are being made available\nand how many Soviet PW\u2019s will be needed to replace the French PW\u2019s.\nWithout my express consent not more than 120 Soviet PW\u2019s may be\nrequested for each 100 French PW\u2019s made available. Since the determining\nfactors in the allocation of Soviet PW\u2019s are military and\ncounter-intelligence considerations, final decision about the exchange\nrests with the Service Commands [Military Districts] Headquarters.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe first 100,000 French prisoners of war shall be channeled into the\naircraft industry. * * *\n\n * * * * *\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT EC-194\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 8\n\n MEMORANDUM OF KEITEL, 31 OCTOBER 1941, CONCERNING THE\n USE OF PW\u2019S IN THE ARMAMENT INDUSTRY\n\n Copy\n Fuehrer Headquarters, 31 October 1941\nThe Chief of the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces\n Secret\nWFSt/Abt. L (II Org/IV Qu [sic]\nNo. 0 2588/41 Secret\nSubject: Use of prisoners of war in the war industry.\n\nThe lack of workers is becoming an increasingly dangerous hindrance for\nthe future German war and armament industry. The expected relief through\ndischarges from the armed forces is uncertain as to extent and date. Its\npossible extent will by no means correspond to expectations and\nrequirements in view of the great demand.\n\nThe Fuehrer has now ordered that also the working power of the Russian\nprisoners of war should be utilized to a great extent by large scale\nassignment for the requirements of the war industry. The prerequisite\nfor production is adequate nourishment. Also very small wages are to be\nplanned for the most modest supply with a few consumers\u2019 goods for every\nday life, and perhaps rewards for production.\n\nFor labor utilization [Arbeitseinsatz], the following may be considered\nas examples:\n\nI. _Armed Forces._\n\n_a._ Clearing and construction units of all kinds in the occupied\neastern territories.\n\n_b._ Work and construction battalions in the other occupied territories\nand in Germany.\n\n_c._ Large scale employment in units to relieve soldiers in labor\nservice.\n\nII. _Construction and Armament Industry._\n\n_a._ Work units for construction of all kind, particularly for the\nfortification of coastal defenses (concrete workers, unloading units for\nessential war plants).\n\n_b._ Suitable armament factories which have to be selected in such a way\nthat their personnel should consist in the majority of prisoners of war\nunder guidance and supervision (perhaps after withdrawal and transfer to\nother employment of the German workers).\n\nIII. _Other War Industries._\n\n_a._ Mining as under II _b_.\n\n_b._ Railroad construction units for building tracks, etc.\n\n_c._ Agriculture and forestry in closed units.\n\nThe utilization of Russian prisoners of war is to be regulated on the\nbasis of above examples by:\n\nTo I. The armed forces.\n\nTo II. The Reich Minister of Armament and Munitions and the Inspector\nGeneral for the German road system, in agreement with the Reich Minister\nof Labor and the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces (Economic Armament\nOffice).\n\nCommissioners of the Reich Minister of Armament and Munitions are to be\nadmitted to the prisoner of war camps to assist in the selection of\nskilled workers.\n\nTo III. The Reich Minister of Labor. Limitations are\u2014\n\n 1. The securing of guards to protect the German people from\n dangers.\n\n 2. Housing in closed camps.\n\n 3. Securing adequate nourishment.\n\nThe observance of the counter-intelligence regulations which apply for\nthe use of prisoners of war will be supervised by military\ncounter-intelligence agencies as until now.\n\nOKW (AWA)[76] will furnish the Reich Minister of Labor with blueprints\nbased on professional selection for the appropriate use of labor and\nwill also permanently provide workers for assignment to the labor\nutilization [Arbeitseinsatz].\n\nFurthermore, the Commander in Chief of the Army is asked to take the\nnecessary measures for the recruiting of voluntary labor in the eastern\noperational zone in cooperation with the Reich Minister of Labor.\n\n [Signed] KEITEL\n\nDistribution:\n\n * * * * *\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 1206-PS\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 9\n\n OUTLINES OF DIRECTIVES OF GOERING REGARDING THE\n EMPLOYMENT OF PW\u2019S IN THE ARMAMENT INDUSTRY,\n 7 NOVEMBER 1941\n\n Draft\nRue(IV)\n Berlin, 11 November 1941\n Top Secret\n 6 Copies\u20146th Copy\n\n _NOTES ON OUTLINES LAID DOWN BY THE REICH MARSHAL\n [GOERING] AT THE MEETING OF 7 NOVEMBER\n 1941 IN THE REICH AIR MINISTRY [RLM]_\n\nSubject: Employment of laborers in war industries\n\nThe Fuehrer\u2019s point of view as to employment of prisoners of war in war\nindustries has changed basically. So far, a total of 5 million prisoners\nof war\u2014employed so far 2 million.\n\nDirectives for employment:\n\nFrenchmen: Individual employment, transposition into the armament\n industry. [Rue-Wirtschaft.]\nBelgians: Individual employment, transposition into the armament\n industry. [Rue-Wirtschaft.]\nSerbs: Preferably agriculture.\nPoles: If feasible, no individual employment.\n\nOutput of Russian armament industry surpasses the German one. Assembly\nline work, a great many mechanical devices with relatively few skilled\nworkers.\n\nReadiness of Russians to work in the operational area is strong. In the\nUkraine and other areas discharged prisoners of war already work as free\nlabor. In Krivoi Rog, large numbers of workers are available due to the\ndestruction of the factories.\n\n _Employment of Russian PW\u2019s_\n\nAs a rule, employment in groups [geschlossener Arbeitseinsatz]; no\nindividual employment, not even in agriculture. Guard personnel, not\nonly soldiers but also foremen, at least during the working time proper.\nAs a rule soldiers in the camp.\n\nOne has to distinguish between _employment in_:\n\n 1. Operational area,\n 2. Reich Commissariats (occupied territories in the East),\n 3. General Government, and\n 4. Interior and Protectorate.\n\nTo 1: In the _operational area_ take preferably into consideration:\n\n _a._ Railroads.\n _b._ Highway construction.\n Very important that in the Ukraine some roads be built with\n increased speed, not by German skilled labor but by Russian PW\u2019s.\n _c._ Clearing work.\n _d._ Agriculture.\n The Ukraine being conquered, we now finally have to secure the\n feeding of the German people. If necessary Frenchmen and Belgians\n are to be used for directing the work of the Russian farm workers\n in the eastern area. If farm machinery is lacking, employ masses of\n workers. Transfer of German farmers only where actual success can\n be expected.\n _e._ Railroad-repair-factories, etc.\n\nBest supervision: \u201cField kitchen\u201d. Quick evacuation from operational\narea necessary. Losses during transport very heavy (escaping and joining\nwith partisan and robber bands).\n\nBarbed wire hard to get. (Discarding of barbed wire fences in East\nPrussia desirable.)\n\nLeave Asiatic people in operational area if possible.\n\nFrom construction battalions 69,000 workers have been transferred to the\narmament industry: replacement by prisoner-of-war battalions.\n\nAgain and again skilled workers are being found in the construction\nbattalions (machine [wood or metal] operators). Investigation by army\ndesirable. Express will of the Fuehrer, that every skilled worker is\nused in the proper place. If necessary, repeated checking should be\ninstituted.\n\nTo 2: The same applies to employment in _Reich Commissariats_.\n\nTo 3: The above is also applicable to the _General Government_.\n\nAttention is to be paid to avoiding of unnecessary transport of\nmachinery, as thereby often the available manpower in the General\nGovernment is not fully utilized and, on the other hand, the machinery\ncannot be made use of for a long time in other places.\n\nTo 4: In the _Interior and the Protectorate_ it would be ideal if entire\nfactories could be manned by Russian PW\u2019s except the employees necessary\nfor direction. For employment in the Interior and the Protectorate the\nfollowing are to have priority:\n\n _a._ At the top, _coal mining industry_.\n\n Order by the Fuehrer to investigate all mines as to\n suitability for employment of Russians. At times manning\n the entire plant with Russian laborers.\n\n _b._ _Transportation_ (construction of locomotives and cars,\n repair shops).\n\n Railroad repair and industry workers are to be sought\n out from the PW\u2019s. Railroad is most important means of\n transportation in the East.\n\n _c._ _Armament industries._\n\n Above all factories producing tanks and guns. Possibly\n also construction of parts for airplane engines.\n Suitable complete sections of factories to be manned\n exclusively by Russians. For the remainder, employment\n in columns. Use in factories of tool machinery,\n production of farm tractors, generators, etc. In\n emergency, erect in individual places barracks for\n occasional workers which are used as unloading details\n and similar purposes. (Reich Minister of the Interior\n through communal authorities.)\n\nThe General Armed Forces Office of the Supreme Command Armed Forces\n[OKW/AWA] is competent for _transporting_ Russian PW\u2019s, employment\nthrough \u201c_Planning Board for Employment of all PW\u2019s_.\u201d If necessary,\noffices of Reich Commissariats.\n\nNo employment where _danger to people_ [_fuer Menschen_] or their supply\nexists, i.e., factories sensitive to explosions, waterworks, powerworks,\netc. No contact with German population, especially no \u201csolidarity\u201d.\nGerman worker as a rule is foreman of Russians.\n\n_Food_ is a matter of the Four Year Plan. Supply their own food (cats,\nhorses, etc.).\n\n_Clothing_, _billeting_, _messing_ somewhat better than at home where\npart of the people live in caverns.\n\n_Supply of shoes_ for Russians, as a rule wooden shoes; if necessary\ninstall Russian shoe repair shops.\n\nExamination of _physical fitness_, in order to avoid importation of\ndiseases.\n\n_Clearing of mines_ as a rule by Russians, if possible by selected\nRussian engineers.\n\nEmployment offices for _civilian workers_ to be kept separate from those\nfor PW\u2019s. In this respect the wage problem is to be considered.\nFurthermore, families in Russia have to share the support. As a rule\nemployment in groups [geschlossener Einsatz].\n\n_Some aspects for labor utilization [Arbeitseinsatz] in general._\n\nRather employ PW\u2019s than _unsuitable foreign workers_. Draft Poles,\nDutchmen, etc., if necessary as PW\u2019s, and employ them as such, if work\nthrough free contract cannot be obtained. Strong action.\n\nGeneral employment of all _German women_ repudiated by the Fuehrer.\n\nWhere Russians can be employed, _labor service_ is not to be used. Labor\nservice to be used where greatest effect is produced, even if the\nprinciple of education through labor service is curtailed thereby. War\nsituation to be taken into consideration.\n\n_As a matter of principle, central interests precede local interests_,\ntherefore no resistance from Reich Commissioners and other local\nauthorities against labor utilization [Arbeitseinsatz] in the homeland.\n\n_Savings in wages_ are to be offset by compensatory contributions [to\nthe Reich] by the respective management.\n\n_Express order by the Fuehrer._ Under no circumstances may the _wage\nlevel in the East_ be raised or assimilated to the wages in western\nGermany. Strong action is imperative against recruiting agents who offer\nhigh wages.\n\nIt is intended to issue a basically new regulation of _wages for foreign\nworkers_.\n\n_Foreigners not to be treated like German workers_, on the other hand do\nnot provoke inferiority complex in foreigners by posters.\n\nThe _welfare installations_ of the German Labor Front [DAF] are _under\nno circumstances_ to be used by PW\u2019s or eastern workers.\n\nAll agencies are to promote maximum _utilization of Russian manpower_.\n\nEmployment of Russians not to be improvised, but first to be thoroughly\norganized in the operational area. _Speed_ is necessary, as the mass of\nmanpower is decreasing daily by losses (lack of food and billets).\n\nMake provisions to decrease the excessive number of _escaping\nprisoners_. Especially in and around Berlin, strictest guarding is\nessential.\n\n [illegible initials]\n\nDistribution:\n\n * * * * *\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 3040-PS[77]\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 10\n\n EXTRACTS FROM SECRET ORDER OF HIMMLER, 20 FEBRUARY 1942,\n CONCERNING THE COMMITMENT AND TREATMENT OF\n MANPOWER FROM THE EAST\n\n _GENERAL COLLECTION OF DECREES [ALLGEMEINE_\n _ERLASSAMMLUNG (AES)]_\n Part 2\n Secret\n _Printed by RSHA (Reich Security Main Office) I Org_\nSection 2 A III f\n\nCommitment of Manpower from the East. Circular Decree of the Reich\nFuehrer SS and Chief of German Police in the Reich Ministry of the\nInterior dated 20 February 1942\u2014S IV No. 208/42 (foreign workers).\n\nEnclosed I am sending you general regulations concerning the recruiting\nand the committing of manpower from the East for your information and\ncareful attention.\n\nI have the following additional directives for the Security Police and\nthe SD [Security Service]:\n\n _A. MANPOWER FROM THE ORIGINAL SOVIET RUSSIAN\n TERRITORY_\n\n_I. General security measures._\n\n1. The commitment of manpower in the Reich from the original Soviet\nRussian territory results in greater dangers than any other employment\nof foreigners in spite of the special standards of their way of living,\nsince a complete separation from the German and other foreign laborers\nand a strict supervision will frequently, in practice and especially at\nthe place of work, scarcely be effected. The Security Police is charged\nwith the responsibility for preventing the danger and it must do\neverything to accomplish its tasks; that is, to diminish the\npossibilities of danger to a minimum. Since enforcements cannot be\ncounted on, it is the special task of the inspectors and state police\nadministrative offices to urge the other administrative offices, charged\nwith the commitment of the manpower, to take over the affairs of the\nSecurity Police within the sphere of their jurisdiction.\n\n * * * * *\n\n_III. Combatting violations against discipline._\n\n1. According to the equal status of the manpower from the original\nSoviet Russian territory with prisoners of war, a strict discipline must\nbe exercised in the quarters and at the working place. Violations\nagainst discipline, including work refusal and loafing at work, will be\nfought exclusively by the Secret State Police [Gestapo]. The smaller\ncases will be settled by the leader of the guard according to\ninstruction of the state police administration offices with measures as\nprovided for in the enclosure. To break acute resistance, the guards\nshall be permitted to use also physical power against the manpower. But\nthis may be done only for a cogent cause. The manpower should always be\ninformed about the fact that they will be treated decently when\nconducting themselves with discipline and accomplishing good work.\n\n2. In severe cases, that is in such cases where the measures at the\ndisposal of the leader of the guard do not suffice, the state police\noffice has to act with its means. Accordingly, they will be treated, as\na rule only with strict measures, that is, with transfer to a\nconcentration camp or with special treatment.\n\n3. The transfer to a concentration camp is done in the usual manner.\n\n4. In especially severe cases special treatment is to be requested at\nthe Reich Security Main Office, stating personal data and the exact\nhistory of the act.\n\n5. Special treatment consists of hanging. It should not take place in\nthe immediate vicinity of the camp. A certain number of the manpower\nfrom the original Soviet Russian territory should attend the special\ntreatment; at that time they are warned about the circumstances which\nled to this special treatment.\n\n6. Should special treatment be required within the camp for exceptional\nreasons of camp discipline, this is also to be requested.\n\n * * * * *\n\n_IV. Subversive activities against the Reich._\n\nAnti-Reich activities, especially dissemination of communist ideology,\npropaganda of disunity, sabotage acts, are to be fought against with the\nstrictest measures. The care in obtaining information shall not suffer\nthrough quick arrests, in order to catch the whole group of\nperpetrators. Anti-Reich conduct is, as a rule, to be punished by\nspecial treatment, in slighter cases a transfer to a concentration camp\nmay be considered.\n\n_V. Criminal violations [Kriminelle Verfehlungen]._\n\n1. As a matter of principle, criminal violations\u2014regardless of whether\ncommitted inside or outside the camp\u2014shall be punished by state police\nmeasures. * * *\n\n2. Criminal offenses [Kriminelle Delikte] are generally to be punished\nas violations against discipline, that is, the state police measures\nprovided for, shall take place in cases of smaller violations, and\nspecial treatment shall take place in cases of crimes\u2014such as, murder,\nhomicide, and robbery.\n\n3. Concerning capital crimes against German persons, punishment by\ncriminal court procedure may, however, in an individual case appear\nsuitable. If the (superior) state police agency considers this\nopportune, it can transfer the case to the prosecuting attorney, under\nthe provision that pursuant to the criminal laws, one can safely count\non the death penalty for the perpetrator.\n\n_VI. Sexual Intercourse._\n\nSexual intercourse is forbidden to the manpower of the original Soviet\nRussian territory. Because of their closely confined quarters they have\nno opportunity for it. Should sexual intercourse occur\nnevertheless\u2014especially by the individually employed manpower on the\nfarms\u2014the following is directed:\n\n1. For every case of sexual intercourse with our German countrymen or\nwomen [deutschen Volksgenossen oder Volksgenossinnen] special treatment\nis to be requested for male manpower from the original Soviet Russian\nterritory, transfer to a concentration camp for female manpower.\n\n2. When exercising sexual intercourse with other foreign workers, the\nconduct of the manpower from the original Soviet Russian territory is to\nbe punished as severe violation of discipline with transfer to a\nconcentration camp.\n\n_VII. Measures against fraternization with manpower from the original\nSoviet Russian territory._\n\n1. Special attention is to be paid to the fundamental segregation of\nmanpower from the original Soviet Russian territory from the German\npopulation. It is important to prevent a penetration of communistic\nideology into the German population by cutting off every contact not\ndirectly pertaining to the work and, if possible, to avoid every\nsolidarity between German people and the manpower from the original\nSoviet Russian territory. Against Germans who act to the contrary, steps\nare to be taken by the state police according to the situation of the\nindividual case.\n\n2. If German countrymen or women should exercise sexual intercourse or\ncommit indecent acts with manpower from the original Soviet Russian\nterritory, transfer to a concentration camp is to be requested.\n\n3. The intercourse between other foreign workers employed in the Reich\nand the manpower from the original Soviet Russian territory also brings\ngreat dangers to be dealt with by the Security Police; therefore, it\nshould also be fought with measures against the foreign workers. As a\nrule, the transfer to a correction camp (deportation for Italians) will\nbe proper; this also applies to cases of sexual intercourse.\n\n_VIII. Search._\n\n * * * * *\n\n2. When caught, the fugitive must receive special treatment.\n\n * * * * *\n\n _B. MANPOWER FROM THE BALTIC COUNTRIES AND\n FOREIGN MANPOWER, NOT OF POLISH ORIGIN,\n FROM THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT AND FROM\n THE ANNEXED EASTERN TERRITORIES_\n\n_I. General._\n\n1. This manpower is to be treated uniformly in the Reich by the state\npolice. In view of the political attitude of these nations, or ethnic\ngroups [Volksstaemme] toward the Reich on the one hand and their\nposition in the East on the other hand, they are to be governed by the\nregulations valid for foreign manpower in general, but are subject to\nspecial limitations in their way of living.\n\n2. These limitations consist essentially in a conspicuous separation of\nthis manpower from the German people. Since the employment and housing\nof this manpower is not closely confined and guarded, it is the task of\nthe Secret State Police to be especially watchful about the observation\nof the mentioned principle. The Secret State Police has to inform the\noffices charged with the employment of foreigners through constant\ncommunication, that this principle will be considered in all measures of\nwork employment. Settlement of these persons in the Reich, individual\nbilleting in spite of existing collective quarters, position superior to\nthat of a German worker, etc., must not be tolerated. As far as these\npeople themselves violate the established principle, and act unlawfully\nagainst Germans by insubordination and acts of violence, such a conduct\nwill be met with state police measures.\n\n3. This manpower must, however, by no means be put on the same level as\nthe Poles or the manpower from the original Soviet Russian territory, on\naccount of their nations\u2019 fundamental antagonism toward the Polish\npeople and Bolshevism. Nevertheless, special attention should be paid to\nthem\u2014especially by the establishment of an active intelligence service\namong this manpower\u2014since their rather receptive attitude toward the\nGerman nation might change into the opposite, but at least could\nstiffen, because too high political expectations are not fulfilled.\n\n * * * * *\n\n_III. Fighting against breach of labor contract._\n\n1. The fight against breach of labor contract of this manpower is\nprincipally the duty of the Secret State Police.\n\n2. This does not mean, of course, an interference with the activity of\nthe Reich trustee of labor, with the means at his disposal in the\nregulation and settlement of industrial difficulties as long as no\nactive intervention is necessary. If more stringent measures are\nnecessary, the Reich trustee of labor will transfer the proceedings to\nthe Secret State Police.\n\n3. In every case, however, it is the task of the (superior) state police\nagency to check whether the violation of the working duty by this\nmanpower is not caused by the plant through breach of contract as well\nas general bad treatment. If the conduct of the concerned manpower\nappears justified through the fault on the part of this plant, the state\npolice is not to interfere, since this is free manpower.\n\n4. In any other case, however, immediate action is necessary and, in\ncase of a breach of contract on part of this manpower, the transfer to a\ncorrection camp is to be ordered, as a rule. In cases of severe\nrepetition the transfer to a concentration camp can also be requested.\nIn the cases of breach of contracts handled by the state police, the\nReich trustee of labor has to be informed each time about the decision.\n\n_IV. Criminal violations._\n\n * * * * *\n\n3. * * *. Crimes against decency, acts of violence, and acts of sabotage\nare to be punished, as a matter of principle, by state police measures\n(special treatment); however, I have no objection against a transfer of\nthe inquiry proceedings to the competent public prosecutor if, pursuant\nto the criminal laws, one can safely count on the death penalty for the\nperpetrator. In these cases it is to be ascertained what the outcome of\nthe trial is; should, against expectations, a death sentence not be\npassed, a report has to be made to me, attaching copy of the judgment.\n\nInquiry proceedings concerning other offenses are, as a rule, to be\ntransferred to the competent public prosecutor. If a strong increase of\ncrimes is noted in certain spheres, then there are no objections at all\nagainst punishing purely criminal acts, as a deterrent example, by state\npolice measures.\n\n * * * * *\n\n_VI. Sexual intercourse with Germans._\n\n1. The sexual intercourse of the manpower from the Baltic states as well\nas of the foreign manpower of non-Polish origin from the General\nGovernment and from the annexed eastern territories with Germans is\npunishable by severest penalties. (Changed by Circular Decree dated 23\nOctober 1943.) The workers will be thoroughly instructed through the\nattached orientation sheet (enclo. 3) [not reproduced] in the foreign\nlanguages when they report upon their arrival at the local police\noffices. An instruction of the German population will be effected\nthrough the Party administration offices.\n\n2. The district [Kreis] police offices have received instructions to\narrest without delay workers who violate this regulation and to report\nthem to the competent (superior) state police agency.\n\n3. For male manpower who had sexual intercourse with Germans, special\ntreatment is to be requested, for female manpower, transfer into a\nconcentration camp. The directives issued for the special treatment of\nPolish civil workers are valid correspondingly; this is also applicable\nfor the treatment of the involved German persons.\n\n * * * * *\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 016-PS[78]\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 13\n\n LETTER FROM SAUCKEL TO ROSENBERG, 24 APRIL 1942, AND\n EXTRACTS FROM REPORT ON SAUCKEL\u2019S LABOR\n MOBILIZATION PROGRAM, 20 APRIL 1942\n\nThe Plenipotentiary for the Four Year Plan\nThe Plenipotentiary General for Labor Allocation\nGBA\n\n Berlin W. 8, 24 April 1942\n Mohrenstrasse 65\n (Thuringia House)\n Phone: 126571\n\n [Stamp]\n\n Bureau of Ministry [Ministerbuero]\n received 27 April 1942, No. 0887 Min. 28/v\n Dr. K.P. has been informed\n\nVery esteemed and dear Party Member Rosenberg:\n\nEnclosed please find my program for the mobilization of labor. Please\nexcuse the fact that this copy still contains a few corrections.\n\n Heil Hitler!\n Yours,\n [Signed] FRITZ SAUCKEL\n 5 copies\ncopy for Mr. Wittenbacher.\n [Signed] WACHS\n Chancellory 1 May 1942\n [Kanzlei]\n [Stamp] MISCHKE\n read: ILFL/KS 4.5.42\n filed: 1-5, 5/5 42 Pg\n\nTo The Reich Minister for the\nOccupied Eastern Territories,\nParty Member Rosenberg\nBerlin\n\nThe Plenipotentiary for the Four Year Plan\nThe Plenipotentiary for Labor Allocation\n 20 April 1942\nSckl./We.\n _The Labor Mobilization Program_\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe aim of this new, gigantic labor mobilization is to use all the rich\nand tremendous sources, conquered and secured for us by our fighting\narmed forces under the leadership of Adolf Hitler, for the armament of\nthe armed forces and also for the nutrition of the homeland. The raw\nmaterial as well as the fertility of the conquered territories and their\nhuman labor power are to be used completely and conscientiously to the\nprofit of Germany and their allies.\n\n * * * * *\n\nVII. * * * Should we succeed with the help of the Party to convince all\nthe German intellectual and manual workers of the great importance of\nthe labor mobilization for the outcome of the war, and succeed to take\ngood care of and keep up the morale of all the men, women, and the\nGerman youths who work within the labor mobilization program under\nextraordinarily strenuous circumstances, as far as their physical and\nmental capabilities of endurance are concerned and should we furthermore\nbe able, also with the help of the Party, to use the prisoners of war as\nwell as civilian workmen and women of foreign blood not only without\nharm to our own people but to the greatest advantage to our war and\nnutrition industries, then we will have accomplished the most difficult\npart of the labor mobilization program.\n\n _The Task and its Solution_\n\n(No figures are mentioned because of security reasons. I can assure you,\nnevertheless, that we are concerned with the greatest labor problem of\nall times, especially with regard to figures.)\n\n * * * * *\n\nB. _The Solution_:\n\n * * * * *\n\n3. The armament and nutrition tasks make it vitally necessary, not only\nto include the entire German labor power but also to call on foreign\nlabor.\n\nConsequently, I immediately tripled the transport program which I found\nwhen I took charge of my mission.\n\nThe main effort of that transport has been advanced into the months of\nMay-June in order to assure in time and under any circumstances the\navailability of foreign labor power from the occupied territories for an\nincreased production, in view of coming operations of the army, as well\nas of agricultural labor in the sector of the German food economy.\n\nAll prisoners of war, from the territories of the West as well as of the\nEast, actually in Germany, must be completely incorporated into the\nGerman armament and nutrition industries. Their production must be\nbrought to the highest possible level.\n\nIt must be emphasized, however, that an additional tremendous number of\nforeign labor has to be found for the Reich. The greatest pool for that\npurpose is the occupied territories of the East.\n\nConsequently, it is an immediate necessity to use the human reserves of\nthe conquered Soviet territory to the fullest extent. Should we not\nsucceed in obtaining the necessary amount of labor on a voluntary basis,\nwe must immediately institute conscription or forced labor.\n\n * * * * *\n\n _Prisoners of War and Foreign Workers_\n\nThe complete employment of all prisoners of war as well as the use of a\ngigantic number of new foreign civilian workers, men and women, has\nbecome an indisputable necessity for the solution of the mobilization of\nlabor program in this war.\n\nAll the men must be fed, sheltered, and treated in such a way as to\nexploit them to the highest possible extent at the lowest conceivable\ndegree of expenditure.\n\nIt has always been natural for us Germans to refrain from cruelty and\nmean chicaneries towards the beaten enemy, even if he has proved himself\nthe most bestial and most implacable adversary, and to treat him\ncorrectly and humanely, even when we expect useful work of him.\n\nAs long as the German armaments industry did not make it absolutely\nnecessary, we refrained under any circumstances from the use of Soviet\nprisoners of war as well as of civilian workers, men or women, from the\nSoviet territories. This has now become impossible and the working\ncapacity of these people must now be exploited to the greatest extent.\n\n * * * * *\n\nTherefore, I want to impress most cordially but also most emphatically\nupon all the men and women who participate decisively in this war in the\nlabor mobilization program, the necessity to comply with all these\nnecessities, decisions and measures, according to the old National\nSocialist principle:\n\n Nothing for us, everything for the Fuehrer and his work,\n that is, for the future of our Nation!\n\n [Signed] FRITZ SAUCKEL\n [Stamp]\n\n(The Plenipotentiary for the Four Year Plan\nThe Plenipotentiary General for Labor Allocation)\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 084-PS[79]\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 16-A\n\n EXTRACTS FROM INTERDEPARTMENTAL REPORT OF THE MINISTRY\n FOR OCCUPIED EASTERN TERRITORIES, 30 SEPTEMBER 1942,\n CONCERNING THE STATUS OF EASTERN LABORERS\n\n Berlin NW 7, Hegelplatz 2, 30 September 1942\n\nCentral Office for Members of Eastern Nations\nIh (ZO)\n\nSubject: Present situation of the Eastern Labor Problem\n\n* * * The manner and method by which the problems created through the\nimportation of millions of members of the eastern peoples into the Reich\nare being solved is relevant with respect to two big tasks:\n\n1. the development of the _war situation_,\n\n2. the enforcement of the German _claim for leadership in the East_\nafter the end of the war.\n\n * * * * *\n\n* * * The facts which, by the fall of 1942, have been changed only\npartially or incompletely, are, among other, as follows:\n\n1. The _definition_ of workers from the occupied territories of the USSR\nwas narrowed down to the legal labor and social labor concept of\n\u201cEastern workers\u201d; thereby, a particular \u201cemployment relationship of a\nspecial type\u201d was created among \u201cforeigners\u201d\u2014something which had to be\nlooked upon, by those affected, as degrading.\n\n2. The _drafting_ of eastern male and female workers often occurred\nwithout the necessary examination of the capabilities of those\nconcerned, so that 5 to 10 percent sick and children were transported\nalong. On the other hand, in those places where no volunteers were\nobtained, instead of recruiting them pursuant to labor conscription law,\ncoercive measures were used by the police (imprisonment, penal\nexpeditions, and the like).\n\n3. The _allocation_ to enterprises was not undertaken by considering the\noccupation and previous training but according to the chance assignment\nof the individual to the respective transports or transient camps.\n\n4. The _billeting_ did not follow the policies for other foreigners, but\nwas done like for civilian prisoners, in camps which were fenced in with\nbarbed wire and were heavily guarded and which they were not permitted\nto leave.\n\n5. The _treatment_ by the guards was, on the average, without\nintelligence and cruel so that the Russian and Ukrainian workers, in\nenterprises with foreign laborers of different nationalities, were\nexposed to the ridicule of the Poles and Czechs, among other things.\n\n6. The _food_ was so bad and insufficient in the camps for the eastern\nlaborers employed in industry and mining that, on the average, the good\ncapability of the camp members dropped quickly and many sicknesses and\ndeaths occurred.\n\n7. _Payment_ was carried out in the form of a ruling in which the\nindustrial worker would be left on the average with 2 or 3 RM each week,\nand the farm laborers with even less, so that the wage transfer to their\nhomes became illusory, not to mention the fact that no procedure was as\nyet developed for such transfer.\n\n8. The _postal service_ with their families was not feasible for months\nbecause of the lack of preparatory measures, so that instead of factual\nreports, wild rumors arrived in their countries\u2014among others, by way of\nemigrants.\n\n9. The _promises_ which had been made time and time again in the areas\nof enlistment were in gross contradiction with the facts mentioned under\n3 to 8.\n\nApart from the natural impairment of morale and working capacity\nresulting from these measures and conditions, the result was that the\n_Soviet propaganda_ seized upon this matter and exploited it carefully;\nfor this, an ample basis was provided not only by the actual conditions\nand the letters which reached the home country [of the workers] in spite\nof the initial blockade, as well as by stories of fugitives and such,\nbut also by the clumsy publications in the German press about the\nrespective legal regulations. As early as April 1942, Commissar of\nForeign Affairs, Molotov, in his _note_ to the enemy powers referred to\nthis, especially in section III of that note in which among other things\nit is stated:\n\n \u201cThe German administration is stamping under its feet the long\n recognized laws and customs of warfare by ordering its troops to\n take into captivity the male civilian population, in many places\n even the women, and to apply to them the kind of regime, which\n the Hitlerites have introduced for the prisoners of war. This\n does not only mean _slave labor_ for the captured peaceful\n inhabitants but in most cases also inescapable death by\n starvation or death through sickness, corporal punishment, and\n organized mass murders.\n\n \u201cThe deportation of peaceful inhabitants to the rear which has\n been very widely practiced by the German-Fascist Army at the\n time of its advance is taking on a mass character; it is carried\n out at direct orders of the Supreme Command of the German Armed\n Forces (OKW) and its effects are especially cruel in the\n immediate rear areas during the retreat of the German Army. In a\n series of documents which have been found by units of the Red\n Army at the staffs of destroyed German units, there is a\n reference to the Order of the High Command under No. 2974/41 of\n 6 December 1941 which orders the deportation of all grown men\n from the occupied places to prisoner of war camps. * * *\n\n \u201cSometimes, all the inhabitants were deported, sometimes the men\n were torn away from their families, or mothers were separated\n from their children. Only the smallest number of these deported\n people have been able to return to their homes. _These returnees\n report about unheard-of degradations, heaviest forced labor,\n enormous numbers of deaths among inhabitants because of\n starvation and tortures, about the murder by the Fascists of all\n the weak, wounded, and sick._\u201d\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe effects of this large-scale radio, press, and leaflet propaganda\nwhich is based on documentary evidence, a propaganda operating even into\nGerman-administered territories, must be considered as one of the main\nreasons for this year\u2019s stiffening of the Soviet resistance as well as\nthe threatening increase of guerilla bands up to the borders of the\nGeneral Government.\n\nIn the meantime, after a _betterment of the condition of the eastern\nlaborers_ had been insisted upon, not only by the Main Office for\nPolitics in the Reich Ministry for the occupied eastern territories,\nwhich has been able to find support in the repeated requests by the High\nCommand of the Armed Forces, but also by the gentleman charged with the\nresponsibility for all labor employment as well as the Department of\nLabor Employment in the German Labor Movement, which has the supervision\nof the eastern laborers\u2014those previously existing legal and police\nrulings have been mitigated and the conditions in the 8-10,000 camps in\nthe Reich have, on the whole, been improved. * * *\n\nIn spite of the improvements mentioned as well as others, which in many\ncases can be traced back to the personal intervention of the\nPlenipotentiary General of Labor Allocation, the _total situation_ of\nthe eastern laborers (sampling date: 1 October 1942) must still be\nconsidered _unsatisfactory_, * * *.\n\nThere remains such a _quantity of grievances and problems_ that it would\nbe impossible to relate now.\n\n * * * * *\n\n [Signed] GUTKELCH\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 294-PS[80]\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 19-A\n\n EXTRACTS FROM TOP SECRET MEMORANDUM, SIGNED BY\n BRAEUTIGAM,[81] 25 OCTOBER 1942, CONCERNING\n EFFECTS OF SLAVE LABOR PROGRAM\n\n Copy\n Top Secret Matter of State [Geheime Reichssache]\n [handwritten:] II 1 1161/44 g Rs.\n Memorandum\n\nIn the East, Germany is carrying on a threefold war: a war for the\ndestruction of Bolshevism, a war for the destruction of the Greater\nRussian Empire, and finally a war for the acquisition of colonial\nterritory for colonizing purposes and economic exploitation.\n\n* * * With the instinct characteristic of the eastern peoples, even the\nprimitive person has soon found out that for Germany, the slogan\n\u201cliberation from Bolshevism\u201d was merely a pretext, in order to enslave\nthe Slavic peoples of the East in her own manner. But lest any doubts at\nall exist as to this German war aim, the German public is, to an ever\nincreasing extent, unabashedly pointing at this intention. Not only for\nGermany is the conquered territory publicly being claimed as\ncolonization area, but even for Germany\u2019s bitter enemies, the Dutch and\nNorwegians. * * *\n\n * * * * *\n\nOf primary importance, the treatment of prisoners of war should be\nnamed. It is no longer a secret from friend or foe that hundreds of\nthousands of them literally have died of hunger or cold in our camps.\nAllegedly there were not enough food supplies on hand for them. It is\nespecially peculiar that the food supplies are deficient only for\nprisoners of war from the Soviet Union, while complaints about the\ntreatment of other prisoners of war, Polish, Serbian, French and\nEnglish, have not been heard of. It is obvious that nothing was so\nsuitable for strengthening the resistance of the Red Army as the\nknowledge that in German captivity a slow miserable death is to be met.\nTo be sure, the Main Department for Politics has succeeded here by\nunceasing efforts in bringing about a material improvement of the fate\nof the prisoners of war. However, this improvement is not to be ascribed\nto political insight, but to the sudden realization that our labor\nmarket must be supplied with laborers at once. We now experienced the\ngrotesque picture of having to recruit millions of laborers from the\noccupied eastern territories, after prisoners of war have died of hunger\nlike flies, in order to fill the gaps that have formed within Germany.\nNow the food question suddenly no longer existed. With the usual\nunlimited abuse of the Slavic humanity, \u201crecruiting\u201d methods were used\nwhich probably have their model only in the blackest periods of the\nslave trade.\n\nA regular manhunt was inaugurated. Without consideration of health or\nage, the people were shipped to Germany, where it turned out immediately\nthat many more than 100,000 had to be sent back because of serious\nillnesses and other incapabilities for work. It need not be emphasized\nthat these methods would of necessity have their effect on the\nresistance of the Red Army; of course, these methods were used only in\nthe Soviet Union, and in no way remotely resembled this form in enemy\ncountries like Holland or Norway. Actually we have made it quite easy\nfor Soviet propaganda to augment the hate for Germany and the National\nSocialist system. The Soviet soldier fights more and more bravely in\nspite of the efforts of our politicians to find another name for this\nbravery. Valuable German blood must flow more and more, in order to\nbreak the resistance of the Red Army. Obviously, the Main Department for\nPolitics has struggled unceasingly to place the methods of acquiring\nworkers and their treatment within Germany on a rational foundation.\nOriginally it was thought in all earnestness to demand the utmost\nefforts with a minimum of food. Here, as well, not political insight,\nbut merely the most primitive biological knowledge has led to an\nimprovement. Now 400,000 female household workers from the Ukraine are\nto come to Germany, and already the German press announces publicly that\nthese people have no right to free time and may not visit theaters,\nmovies, restaurants, etc., and may leave the house at the most three\nhours a week, except for duty purposes.\n\nIn addition, there is the treatment of the Ukrainians in the Reich\nCommissariat itself. With an unequalled arrogance, we put aside all\npolitical knowledge and, to the happy surprise of all the colored world,\ntreat the peoples of the Occupied Eastern Territories as whites of class\n2, who apparently have only the task of serving as slaves for Germany\nand Europe. Only the most limited education is suitable for them, no\nsocial services must be given them. Their sustenance interests us only\ninsofar as they are still capable of labor, and, in every respect, they\nare given to understand that we regard them as of minute value.\n\n * * * * *\n\nBerlin, 25 October 1942\n\n [Signed] BRAEUTIGAM\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT L-61\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 20\n\n LETTER FROM SAUCKEL TO THE PRESIDENTS OF LABOR OFFICES,\n 26 NOVEMBER 1942, CONCERNING DEPORTATION AND\n EMPLOYMENT OF POLES AND JEWS\n\n Copy\n\nThe Plenipotentiary for the Four Year Plan\nThe Plenipotentiary General for Labor Allocation\n\n Berlin S.W. 11, Saarlandstr. 96\n 26 November 1942\n\n Va 5431/7468/42 g\n\nTo the Presidents of the Landes\nLabor Offices (excl. Labor\nOffice Brandenburg)\n\n Special-delivery letter\n Secret\n\nSubject: Employment of Jews. _Specif_: Replacement of Jews in\n war-essential jobs by Polish labor.\n\nIn agreement with the Chief of the Security Police and the Security\nService, Jews still employed will now be evacuated from the territory of\nthe Reich and replaced by Poles, who are being deported from the General\nGovernment.\n\nThe Chief of the Security Police and the Security Service has informed\nme on 26 October 1942, that it is anticipated that during the month of\nNovember the evacuation of Poles in the Lublin district will begin, in\norder to make room there for the resettlement of Germans.\n\nPoles slated for evacuation, as a result of this measure, will be\ncommitted to concentration camps and put to work insofar as they are\ncriminal or asocial elements. The remaining Poles, if fit for labor,\nwill be transported without their families to the Reich, particularly to\nBerlin; there they will be put at the disposal of the labor allocation\noffices to serve as replacements for Jews to be eliminated from armament\nfactories.\n\nThe Jews who will become available as a result of the employment of\nPolish labor will be deported _at once_. This will apply first to Jews\nengaged in unskilled labor since they can be exchanged most easily. The\nremaining so-called \u201cqualified\u201d Jewish laborers will be left in the\nindustries until their Polish replacements have been made sufficiently\nfamiliar with the work processes by a period of apprenticeship to be\ndetermined for each case individually. Loss of production in individual\nindustries will thus be reduced to the absolute minimum.\n\nI reserve the right to issue further instructions. Please inform the\nlabor offices concerned accordingly.\n\n\n\nTo the President of the Landes Labor Office Brandenburg, Berlin W. 62\n\nI transmit the foregoing copy for your information. Insofar as the\nremoval of Jews allocated for work concerns your district, too, I\nrequest that you take the necessary measures in cooperation with the\ncompetent offices of the Chief of the Security Police and of the\nSecurity Service.\n\n [Signed] FRITZ SAUCKEL\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 1063-D-PS[82]\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 21\n\n EXTRACT FROM ORDER OF MUELLER, 17 DECEMBER 1942,\n CONCERNING PRISONERS QUALIFIED FOR WORK\n TO BE SENT TO CONCENTRATION CAMPS\n\n Berlin, 17 December 1942\n\nThe Chief of the Security Police and the Security Service\nB. Nr. IV 656/42 Secret\n\n Secret\n\nDistribution\u2014Secret:\n\n All Commanders of the Security Police and the Security Service\n\n All Inspectors of the Security Police and the Security Service\n\n All Commandants of the Security Police and the Security Service\n\n All Chiefs of State Police Headquarters\n\nFor information:\n\n The Chief of the SS Economic and Administrative Main Office,\n\n SS Obergruppenfuehrer [Lt. Gen.] Pohl\n\n All Higher SS and Police Chiefs\n\n The Inspector of Concentration Camps\n\nFor reasons of war necessity, which need not be specified here, the\nReich Leader SS and Chief of the German Police has ordered on 14\nDecember 1942 that at least 35,000 prisoners fit for work are to be\ncommitted to the concentration camps before the end of January 1943.\n\nIn order to reach this number, the following measures are required:\n\n1. As of now (and for the time being, until 1 February 1943) eastern\nworkers or such foreign workers, who have been fugitives, or who have\nbroken contracts, insofar as they do not belong to allied, friendly, or\nneutral states, are to be brought by the quickest means to the nearest\nconcentration camps under observance of the simplest formalities listed\nunder No. 3. In order to eliminate or forestall complaints by outside\npublic offices, explanations will be furnished, if required, stating\nthat the measures are essential for reasons of public security on the\nbasis of the facts in the individual cases.\n\n2. The commanders and the commandants of the Security Police and the\nSecurity Service, and the Chiefs of the State Police Headquarters will\nmake immediate checks, applying especially rigorous and strict\nstandards, on (a) prisons, and (b) labor correction camps. All prisoners\nfit for work, if at all possible physically and from a humanitarian\naspect, will be committed at once to the nearest concentration camp,\naccording to the following instructions, even if criminal procedures\nhave already been or will be instituted in the near future. Only such\nprisoners who are to remain in solitary confinement, for investigation\npurposes, may be left.\n\n * * * * *\n\n By order:\n [Signed] MUELLER\n Certified correct.\n [Signed] HELLMUTH\n[Seal of Secret State Police] Chief Secretary of Police\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 1526-PS[83]\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 25\n\n EXTRACTS FROM LETTER FROM GERMAN-APPOINTED UKRAINIAN\n MAIN COMMITTEE TO FRANK, FEBRUARY 1943\n\n Copy\n\nProf. Dr. Wolodymyr Kubijowytch,\nChairman of the Ukrainian Main Committee\n\n Krakow, February 1943\n\nTo the Governor General,\nReich Minister Dr. Frank.\n\nYour Excellency:\n\nComplying with your request I am sending you this letter, in which I\nshould like to state briefly the critical conditions and the distressing\nincidents which are creating an especially grave situation for the\nUkrainian population in the General Government. * * *\n\n * * * * *\n\n_II. Measures of labor procurement._\n\nThe general nervousness is enhanced yet by the wrong methods to obtain\nlabor, which have been used increasingly in recent months.\n\nThe wild and ruthless manhunt carried on everywhere in towns and\ncountry, in streets, public squares, railway stations, even in churches,\nas well as in homes at night, has badly shaken the sense of security of\nthe population. Everybody is exposed to the danger of being seized\nanywhere and at any time by the police, suddenly and unexpectedly, and\nbeing taken into an assembly camp. The family does not know what has\nhappened to him, until weeks or months later one or the other gives news\nof his fate by a postcard.\n\nI beg to mention some instances with their respective proofs:\n\n _a._ During such a drive a schoolboy in Sokal lost his life and\n another was wounded (App. 2).\n\n _b._ 19 Ukrainian workers from Galicia, all provided with\n identity cards, were assigned in Krakow to a transport of\n \u201cRussian prisoners of war\u201d and delivered into a punishment camp\n in Graz (App. 3).\n\n _c._ 95 Ukrainians from Galicia, recruited for work in Germany\n by the labor office in the middle of January, were sent via East\n Prussia to Pskov in Russia, where most of them died as a result\n of the very severe conditions (App. 4).\n\n _d._ Seizure of workers under pretext of military recruitment\n (Zalesczyki); kidnapping schoolboys from classes (Biala\n Podlaska, Wlodawa, Hrubieszow) (App. 5).\n\n * * * * *\n\n_III. Question of Personal Security._\n\nOf a much worse character are the mass executions of absolutely innocent\npersons * * *.\n\n * * * * *\n\n _Appendix 12_\n\n * * * * *\n\nAs this holiday is celebrated by the Ukrainians with great piety, the\nshootings of these innocent people on this holy day caused great\nindignance and embitterment. These events depress the Ukrainian\npopulation. The view is current that now the shootings of the Jews are\ncoming to an end those of the Ukrainians begin. The case of Ustrzyki is\ncommented upon as follows: The Germans do not care about any non-German\nsanctity and holidays, they even shoot Ukrainians on the Ukrainian\n\u201cSchtschedryj Wetschir\u201d (the case in Ustrzyki).\n\nThe Ukrainian population is suspicious of all orders given by the German\nauthorities and even keep away from the communal kitchens, for fear that\nthose in need may be considered as beggars and shot.\n\n * * * * *\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 407-V-PS\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 30\n\n EXTRACTS FROM LETTER FROM SAUCKEL TO HITLER, 14 APRIL 1943, CONCERNING\n LABOR QUESTIONS\n\nG.B.A.\n\n April 14th, [1943]\n\nSckl./We.\n\n Forwarded We.\n [in ink] April 15th\n\nTo the Fuehrer\nObersalzberg\n\nMy Fuehrer,\n\nAs Gruppenfuehrer Bormann has already informed you, I am going to the\neastern areas on the 15th April in order to secure 1 million workers\nfrom the east for the German war economy in the coming months.\n\nThe result of my last trip to France is that, after exact fulfilment of\nthe last program, another 450,000 workers from the western areas, too,\nwill come into the Reich by the beginning of the summer.\n\nWith the addition of about 150,000 workers who furthermore may be\nobtained from Poland and from the other territories, it will then be\npossible by summer again to put 5-600,000 workers at the disposal of\nGerman agriculture and 1,000,000 workers at the disposal of the armament\nand other war industries.\n\nI ask for your approval to have the new French workers come into the\nReich under conditions similar to those of the last group. I have taken\ncontact with the High Command of the Wehrmacht (OKW).\n\nSince the largest part of the Belgian civilian workers and prisoners of\nwar perform very satisfactorily, I ask you to agree that a similar\nstatute to that which was granted to the French be made for some 20,000\nBelgian prisoners of war. This very great concession by you has made a\nvery deep impression upon Laval and the French Ministers. Laval has\nrepeatedly asked me to transmit his sincerest thanks for this to you, my\nFuehrer.\n\n1. After one year\u2019s activity as Plenipotentiary for the Allocation of\nLabor, I can report that 3,638,056 new foreign workers have been added\nto the German war economy from 1 April of last year to 31 March this\nyear.\n\nAs a whole, these forces have produced satisfactory performances. Their\nfeeding and housing is secured, their treatment so indisputably\nregulated that, in this respect too, our National Socialist Reich\npresents a shining example compared to the methods of the capitalist and\nbolshevist world. However, it is naturally inevitable that mistakes and\nblunders still occur here and there. I will continue to endeavor with\nthe greatest energy to reduce them to a minimum.\n\nIn addition to the foreign civilian workers, 1,622,829 prisoners of war\nare also employed in the German economy.\n\n2. The 3,638,056 workers are distributed amongst the following branches\nof the German war economy:\n\n Armament 1,568,801\n Mining industry 163,632\n Building 218,707\n Transportation 199,074\n Agriculture and forestry 1,007,544\n Other branches of the economy 480,298\n\nIn addition to the foreign workers, 5 million male and female German\nworkers were channelled into the German war economy proper through\ntransfer from enterprises unimportant to the war effort, to\nwar-essential industries, etc.\n\n * * * * *\n\n Yours faithfully and obediently,\n [Signed] FRITZ SAUCKEL\n\nThe following persons received a copy of the above version:\n\nReich Marshal Goering\n\nReichsleiter Bormann\n\nReich Minister Dr. Lammers\n\nReich Minister Dr. Goebbels\n\nAdditional text on the original letter to the Fuehrer.\n\nSince I will be in the eastern territories on April 20th, I ask you, my\nFuehrer, to accept in advance my most sincere congratulations along with\nthose of my district [Gau] and my family.\n\nLet me assure you that the district [Gau] of Thuringia and I will serve\nyou and our dear people with all our strength.\n\nIt is the most fervent wish that you, my Fuehrer, may always enjoy the\nbest of health and that we ourselves can serve you to your complete\nsatisfaction.\n\n Faithfully and obediently yours\n [Signed] FRITZ SAUCKEL\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 407-IX-PS\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 33\n\n LETTER FROM SAUCKEL TO HITLER, 3 JUNE 1943, CONCERNING\n FOREIGN LABOR SITUATION\n\nThe Plenipotentiary for the Four Year Plan\nThe Plenipotentiary General for Labor Allocation\n1751/43 [pencilled]\n forwarded on 6 June 1943\n\n Berlin W 8, 3 June 1943\n\nTo the Fuehrer of Greater Germany\nThe Fuehrer\u2019s Headquarters.\n\nMy Fuehrer,\n\nI beg to be permitted to read to you [a report] on the situation of the\nlabor allocation for the first 5 months of 1943.\n\nThe following number of new foreigners and prisoners of war was for the\nfirst time put at the disposal of the German war industry:\n\n January 1943 120,085\n February 1943 138,354\n March 1943 257,382\n April 1943 160,535\n May 1943 170,155\n \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\n TOTAL 846,511\n\nI may remark that it was possible to reach this figure of 850,000 only\nunder great difficulties which had not existed during the previous year\nand only because all labor allocation agencies, particularly also in the\noccupied territories, approached their task with the greatest devotion.\n\nUnfortunately, quite a number of our officials and employees became\nvictims of assassination, attack, and the like, by partisans.\n\nIn addition to the labor forces put at the disposal of the economy\nwithin the Reich, several hundred thousand laborers were made available\nwithin the occupied territories by the agencies of the Labor Allocation\nAdministration to the Organization Todt as well as to the enterprises\nworking for the German war economy in the East and the West.\nFurthermore, it was possible to assign to the Wehrmacht, in addition to\na large number of laborers, some considerable numbers of labor\nvolunteers.\n\nMoreover, by virtue of the order concerning compulsory registration,\ndated 27 January 1943, the following number of men and women are made\navailable.\n\n \u2502 Men \u2502 Women \u2502 Total\nFebruary \u2502 14,594 \u2502 163,012 \u2502 177,606\nMarch \u2502 45,606 \u2502 494,931 \u2502 540,537\nApril \u2502 19,315 \u2502 269,374 \u2502 288,689\nMay \u2502 11,485 \u2502 186,683 \u2502 198,168\n \u2502 \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014 \u2502 \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014 \u2502 \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\n TOTAL \u2502 91,000 \u2502 1,114,000 \u2502 1,205,000\n\nHowever, approximately 600,000 of these persons are available only for\nless than 48 hours of work per week.\n\nAltogether German war industry recruited 2,000,000 laborers during 5\nmonths of 1943.\n\nFurthermore, as regards wage control and increase of the output of the\nlaborers in the various European territories, especially in France,\nnegotiations were conducted as well as arrangements made and regulations\nissued, which enabled us to keep the wage system in the occupied\nEuropean territories in order to secure, as far as possible, the living\nconditions of laborers working for German interests, in spite of the\ndifficult conditions created by the war, and to increase production by\nmeans of wage regulations also in these territories. The coordination of\nthese measures was achieved through agreements with the respective\narmament and agricultural agencies, as well as with the Reich\nCommissioner for Price Control.\n\n Heil!\n Yours faithfully and obediently,\n [Signed] SAUCKEL\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 3000-PS\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 34\n\n EXTRACTS FROM REPORT RENDERED TO RIECKE,\n MINISTERIALDIREKTOR IN THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE,\n 28 JUNE 1943, ON EXPERIENCES IN POLITICAL\n AND ECONOMIC PROBLEMS IN THE EAST\n\nFreitag, Chief of Main Office III\nwith the Commissariat General in Minsk\n\n Minsk, 28 June 1943\n Secret!\n\n [stamp]\n Main Group Food and Agriculture\n Rec\u2019d. 14 July 1943; no encl.\n III E 733/43 Secret\n\nTo Ministerialdirektor Riecke\nin Berlin\n\nSubject: Report on experiences in political and economic problems in the\n East, particularly the Commissariat General White Ruthenia.\n\n * * * * *\n\n* * * The task of the military agencies and, subsequently, of the German\nadministration, is: \u201cExploitation of the region for the German war\neconomy,\u201d and the motto: \u201cEverything you do for Germany is right,\neverything else is wrong!\u201d\n\n * * * * *\n\n* * * The recruitment of labor for the Reich, however necessary, had\ndisastrous effects. The recruitment measures in the last months and\nweeks were absolute manhunts, which have an irreparable political and\neconomic effect * * * From * * * White Ruthenia, approximately 50,000\npeople have been obtained for the Reich so far. Another 130,000 are to\nbe obtained. Considering the total population of 2.4 million, these\nfigures are impossible * * *.\n\n * * * * *\n\n* * * Due to the sweeping drives [Grossaktionen] of the SS and police in\nNovember 1942, about 250,000 acres of farmland are left unused, as the\npopulation has gone and the villages have been razed.\n\n * * * * *\n\n [Signed] FREITAG\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 265-PS[84]\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 35\n\nEXTRACTS FROM REPORT BY LEYSER TO ROSENBERG, 30 JUNE 1943, ON CONDITIONS\n IN THE DISTRICT ZHITOMIR\n\nThe Commissioner General\n\n Zhitomir, 30 June 1943\n Secret\n\nOral report on the situation in the general district [Generalbezirk]\nZhitomir, by Commissioner General Leyser, delivered at a conference with\nReich Minister Rosenberg, in Vinnitsa, on 17 June 1943.\n\nMr. Reich Minister,\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe symptoms created by the _recruiting of workers_ are, no doubt, well\nknown to the Reich Minister through reports and his own observations.\nTherefore, I shall not report them. It is certain that a recruitment of\nlabor, in the sense of the word, can hardly be spoken of. _In most\ncases, it is nowadays a matter of actual conscription by force._ The\npopulation has been stirred up to a large extent and views the\ntransports to the Reich as a measure which does in no way differ from\nthe former exile to Siberia, during the Czarist and Bolshevist systems.\n\n * * * * *\n\nTo date, almost 170,000 male and female workers have been sent to the\nReich from the general district Zhitomir. It can be taken for granted\nthat, during the month of June, this number is going to rise to\napproximately 200,000.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe struggle which has to be carried on is hard and full of sacrifices.\nBut it will and must be carried through. Enormous moral forces have been\nmobilized in the personnel of the civil administration in their daily\nefforts. The successes which they were able to achieve so far are\nimpressive, particularly with regard to the resistance encountered. May\nI, therefore, be permitted at the conclusion of this report to thank all\nmy co-workers for their excellent work. They know that they are\npractically on the front. I can promise your Excellency, that we all\nshall do our duty now, and in the future, as our Fuehrer has ordered.\n\n [Signed] LEYSER\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 204-PS\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 39\n\n EXTRACTS FROM MEMORANDUM OF A CONFERENCE, 18 FEBRUARY 1944, CONCERNING\n THE RELEASE OF INDIGENOUS LABOR FOR PURPOSES OF THE REICH\n\nThe City Commissioner in Kaunas.\n Kaunas, 18 February 1944.\n _PROCUREMENT OF INDIGENOUS WORKERS FOR\n PURPOSES OF THE REICH_\n\nNumerous drives for the purpose of recruiting indigenous workers for the\nReich have taken place since the entry of German armed forces into the\ngeneral district [Generalbezirk] Lithuania in June 1941. A few weeks\nafter the entry of the German troops, thousands of Lithuanian male and\nfemale farm workers were recruited at the instigation of the military\nadministration, to work for 6 months on large estates in the Gau East\nPrussia. _Unfortunately, the promises made then were not kept._ These\nfarm workers were not released after 6 months nor after 12 months; their\nfamilies remaining behind were left without any support for months; they\nwere for a long time refused a short vacation in Lithuania, and now it\nis even considered to transfer these farm workers, recruited in 1941 for\n6 months, to the armament industry in the Reich.\n\nThe second major drive was started by the armed forces in the spring of\n1942 and concerned the _collecting of approximately 7,000 male workers\nas so-called transport helpers_. The action, which was rushed into\nwithout sufficient propaganda preparation, was greatly handicapped by\nunwise measures on the part of the nervous armed forces command. Thus\nfor instance, the Lithuanians, ordered to the official agencies \u201conly\nfor registration\u201d, were not allowed to return home and were taken away\nunder military escort to the local barracks, leaving them no way of\neither saying good-by to their families or putting in order their most\nimportant personal affairs. No wonder that the enemy propaganda\nexploited this \u201cblemish\u201d with avidity comparing the procedure with the\ndeportation methods used barely a year ago by the Soviets.\n\nUntil most recent times, numerous additional drives have been undertaken\nfor the purpose of obtaining volunteers for the armed forces, the police\nand the Reich Labor Service, or for obtaining workers for the armament\nindustry in the Reich. * * *\n\n * * * * *\n\nFinally it must be recalled that the indigenous administration in its\npresent form and since its inception _has completely failed_ in the\nquestion of procuring workers for the Reich. * * *\n\n * * * * *\n\n3. Gauleiter Sauckel requested that _30,000 indigenous workers for the\nReich_ be recruited at short order and be shipped to Germany. At a\nconference between the Commissioner General and the First Councillor\nGeneral [Ersten Generalrat] on 7 September 1943, the latter offered to\nassume the entire responsibility for the execution of this drive for the\nnative administration and to recruit and ship the specified number of\n30,000 workers by 7 November 1943.\n\n * * * * *\n\n4. In the meantime, Gauleiter Sauckel made an _additional demand_ to the\neffect that the general district Lithuania had to furnish _100,000\nnative workers_ (instead of the 30,000 demanded up until now) _for the\nReich_. At a conference with all the general councillors on 24 January\n1944, the commissioner general did not leave any doubts as to the fact\nthat this number would have to be furnished regardless of any\nconsideration, even at the risk of leaving many work projects in the\ngeneral district unfinished and permanently removing workers needed on\njobs in the country. The responsibility for the execution of this new\ndrive lies again in the hands of the local administration, and, with the\nconsent of the commissioner general, indigenous conscription commissions\nhave been formed with all district chiefs and all chiefs of judicial and\nlocal districts. The total number to be made available has been divided\nup into contingents, and the quota to be furnished by every mayor or\ndistrict chief was exactly determined. This is the way the matter looks\nin the district of the City of Kaunas:\n\n New quota, to be supplied 7,000 workers\n 20 percent addition 1,400 workers\n \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\n TOTAL 8,400 workers\n\nIn the district of the City of Kaunas, according to the records of my\nlabor office on 1 February 1944, there were 7,000 unfilled jobs in\nindustry and the agencies of the armed forces, police, etc., so that to\nall intents and purposes 15,400 workers would have to be found in the\ncity of Kaunas alone, in order to comply fully with the demands of the\nReich and the local economy. _And all that with a total indigenous\npopulation of only a little over 130,000._\n\n * * * * *\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT R-103[85]\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 40\n\nEXTRACTS FROM A LETTER FROM THE (GERMAN-APPOINTED) POLISH MAIN COMMITTEE\nTO THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT OF POLAND ON THE CONDITIONS OF POLISH WORKERS\n IN GERMANY, 17 MAY 1944\n\nPolish Main Committee\n5 Vischer Street, Krakow\n\n Krakow, 17 May 1944\n\nTo the Administration of the General Government,\nMain Department Internal Administration,\nDept. Population and Welfare,\n13 University Street, Krakow\n\nNo. Pa 1/724\n \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\n 6699/44\n\nSubject: Situation of the Polish Workers in the Reich.\n\nThe living conditions of about 2 million Polish male and female workers\nin the Reich have given rise to shortcomings which are largely lowering\nthe will and the capacity to work of many workers, endanger their health\nand even their lives, and also have a strong influence on the situation\nof their families within the General Government, thus directly affecting\nthe sphere of our own work.\n\nThese bad conditions are felt with particular intensity by those groups\nof workers who have been assigned for work in factories and have been\nlodged in large camps [Massenlagern]. With regard to workers on the\nland, they occur as individual cases and are more easily dealt with. * *\n*\n\n * * * * *\n\nFood relief allotments\u2014We receive letters from the camps for eastern\nworkers and their large families, beseeching us for food. The quantity\nand quality of camp rations mentioned therein\u2014the so-called fourth\ncategory of rations\u2014is absolutely insufficient to maintain the energies\nspent in heavy work. 3.5 kg. bread weekly and a thin soup at lunch time,\ncooked with swedes or other vegetables without any meat or fat, with a\nmeager addition of potatoes now and then, is a hunger ration for a heavy\nworker.\n\nSometimes punishment consists of starvation, which is inflicted e.g.,\nfor refusal to wear the badge \u201cEast\u201d. Such punishment has the result\nthat workers faint at work (Klosterteich Camp, Gruenheim, Saxony). The\nconsequence is complete exhaustion, an ailing state of health, and\ntuberculosis. The spread of tuberculosis among the Polish factory\nworkers is a result of the deficient food rations meted out in the\ncommunity camps, because energy spent in the heavy work assigned to them\ncannot be replaced.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe quantities of bread and [other] food fixed for Polish children in\nthe camps is thoroughly insufficient for building up substance for\ngrowing and developing their bodies. In some cases children up to the\nage of 10 and even more are allotted 200 grams of bread daily, 200 grams\nof butter or margarine and 250 grams of sugar monthly, and nothing else\n(factory in Zeititz, near Wurzen, Saxony). * * *\n\n * * * * *\n\n_Care of Children_\u2014* * * An indication of the awful conditions this may\nlead to is given by the fact that in the camps for eastern workers (camp\nfor eastern workers \u201cWaldlust\u201d, Post Office Lauf, Pegnitz) there are\ncases of 8-year-old, weak and undernourished children put to forced\nlabor and perishing from such treatment. * * *\n\n_Health Care_\u2014The fact that these bad conditions dangerously affect the\nstate of health and the vitality of the workers is proved by many cases\nof tuberculosis found in very young people returning from the Reich to\nthe General Government unfit for work. Their state of health is usually\ndeteriorated past hope of recovery.\n\nThe reason is that a state of exhaustion resulting from overwork and\nmalnutrition is not recognized as a disease condition until the illness\nmanifests itself in high fever and fainting spells.\n\n * * * * *\n\n_Protection of the Family_\u2014Grave depression is caused among the eastern\nworkers by the order forbidding marriage among them within the borders\nof the Reich. * * * No less suffering is caused by the separation of\nfamilies when wives and mothers of small children are torn away from\ntheir families and sent to the Reich for forced labor.\n\n * * * * *\n\n_Religious Care_\u2014If under these bad conditions there is no moral\nsupport such as is normally provided by regular family life, then at\nleast such moral support which the religious feeling of the Polish\npopulation require should be maintained and increased. The elimination\nof religious services, worship, and religious care from the life of the\nPolish workers, the prohibition of church attendance at a time when\nthere is a religious service for other people, and other measures show a\ncertain contempt for the influence of religion on the feelings and\noutlook of the workers. * * *\n\n * * * * *\n\n[Stamp] THE POLISH CENTRAL COMMITTEE\n\n [Signed] [name illegible]\n President\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 208-PS\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 55\n\n REPORT BY SAUCKEL, 7 JULY 1944, ON THE ACCOMPLISHMENTS\n OF LABOR MOBILIZATION IN THE FIRST HALF OF 1944\n\nPlenipotentiary of the Four Year Plan\nPlenipotentiary General for Labor Allocation\n\n Berlin W8, 7 July 1944\n 65 Mohren Street\n Thuring House\n\n Secret\n\nNR 520/44/g Dr. ST/Ka\n\n _Special Delivery Letter_\n\nTo: All Top Reich Authorities\n The Reich Leader of the NSDAP\n All Top Army Agencies\n All Gauleiters\n\nSubject: Accomplishments of the Labor Mobilization in the first half of\n 1944.\n\nEnclosed I am submitting the total figures on additional manpower placed\nat the disposal of the German war effort by the German Labor Offices in\nthe first half-year of 1944. They represent only such manpower that was\nnot previously employed in the German war effort.\n\nAccording to the quota of 4,050,000 laborers set for this year,\n2,000,000 new workers would have had to be secured in the first half of\nthe year. Because of increased difficulties in Italy and in the occupied\nWestern countries, regrettably one-half million less than that were\nfound. If despite the known difficult situation it was possible to\nmobilize 1,500,000 people in the first half of the year, it is solely\ndue to the exertion of all available energy.\n\nSince the Proclamation of 17 February 1944, around 62,000 women have\nreported for \u201cVoluntary Honorary Service,\u201d and 52,000 of them have\nalready been assigned to work.\n\n Heil Hitler!\n [Signed] FRITZ SAUCKEL\n\n\nPlenipotentiary of the Four Year Plan\nPlenipotentiary General for Labor Allocation\n\n Berlin, 7 July 1944\n _New Manpower Placed at the Disposal of the Economy\n between 1 January and 30 June 1944_\n\nA. Entire Economy:\n\n Total 1,482,000\n\n Of these were: Germans 848,000\n Foreigners 537,400\n War prisoners 96,600\n\nB. Breakdown of allocation of [the persons listed under] A:\n\n Agriculture and Forestry 231,000\n Of them, foreigners 156,000\n Mining 46,000\n Of them, foreigners 34,000\n Metal industry 415,000\n Of them, foreigners 250,000\n All other [branches of] economy 790,000\n Of them, foreigners 194,000\n\nC. Origin of foreign labor:\n\n Occupied Eastern Territories 284,000\n General Government 52,000\n Protectorate 23,000\n France, excluding Northern France 33,000\n Belgium, including Northern France 16,000\n Netherlands 15,000\n Italy 37,000\n Rest of Europe 77,400\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 3819-PS[86]\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 56\n\n MINUTES OF A CONFERENCE ON 11 JULY 1944 ATTENDED BY MILCH, CONCERNING\n THE LABOR PROBLEM\n\n _LIST OF ATTENDANCE FOR THE CONFERENCE IN THE\n REICH CHANCELLERY ON 11 JULY 1944 1600 HOURS_\n\n Name Official capacity Agency\nDr. Kuehne Chief of Mil. Adm. [illegible]\n\n(1) Warlimont General of Artillery [Lt. OKW\n Gen.]\n\nDr. Kohlhaase Director of Labor Section of the Supreme\n Commissioner, Adriatic Coast,\n Trieste\n\nDr. Landfried State Secretary, Chief of Italy\n Mil. Adm.\n\n(2) Walter Funk and Albert Speer\n\nMilch [illegible]\n\n(3) Krosigk\n\n(3) Steengracht State Secretary Foreign Office\n\nAbetz Ambassador German Embassy in Paris\n\nHanel [?] Major General Armaments Commissioner Staff,\n France\n\nvon Linstow Colonel, GSC Military Commander, France\n\nSass Colonel, GSC General [Plenipotentiary] for\n Italy\n\nFranssen Major General Armaments Inspector, Belgium\n\nWaeger Major General Armaments Office\n\nSarnow Ministerialdirektor Gen. Staff of Army, QM Section\n\nKoegel Lieut. Col., GSC Gen. Staff of Army, QM Section\n\nReeder Chief of Mil. Adm. Brussels\n\nHeider Chief of General Staff Brussels\n(4) Ley\n\n(5) Sauckel Labor Plenipotentiary Berlin\n\nH. Backe Minister Reich Food Ministry\n\nMarrenbach Chief [of Dept.] German Labor Front\n\nLeyers Armaments Plenipotentiary Italy\n\nAlso present:\n\n Ministerial Direktor Klopfer (Party Chancellery)\n Ministerialrat Froehling\n Ambassador Rahn\n Dr. Huber\n (6) Chief of Police, Dr. Kaltenbrunner\n General Labor Fuehrer Kretschmann\n Colonel Meixner (OKW)\n\n(1) United States _vs._ Wilhelm von Leeb, et al. See vols. X and XI.\n\n(2) Trial before International Military Tribunal. See Trial of Major War\nCriminals, vols. I-XIII, Nuremberg, 1947.\n\n(3) United States _vs._ Ernst von Welzsaecker et al. See vols. XII, XIII\nand XIV.\n\n(4) Trial before International Military Tribunal. See Trial of the Major\nWar Criminals, vols. I-XLII, Nuremberg, 1947.\n\n(5) Ibid.\n\n(6) Ibid.\n\n\n Berlin, 12 July 1944\n\n_To Rk. 5815 C_\n\nSubject: Stepped-up Procuring of Foreign Manpower\n\n Executive Conference, 11 July 1944\n\n_Note_\n\nParticipating in the executive conference were the departmental chiefs\nand representatives indicated in the attached list of those present. No\nguarantee can be given for the completeness of the list, as not all\nparticipants signed the register.\n\n_Reich Minister Dr. Lammers_[87] reported by way of introduction on the\nvarious proposals on hand by the Plenipotentiary General for Labor\nAllocation calculated to bring about the increase in labor in Germany\nwhich is absolutely essential for winning the final victory. He limited\nthe theme of the discussion by saying that all possibilities were to be\nexamined by which the present deficit of foreign manpower could be\noffset, for example, the question of the reestablishment of an\nacceptable price and wage differential between the Reich and non-German\nterritories. But the primary consideration will have to remain the\nsolution of the question whether and in what form greater compulsion\ncould be exerted to accept work in Germany. In this connection it must\nbe examined how the police agencies, regarding the inadequacy of which\nthe Plenipotentiary General for Labor Allocation has serious complaints,\ncould be strengthened, on the one hand, through bringing influence to\nbear on the foreign governments and, on the other, through reorganizing\nthe indigenous police forces by an increased use of the Wehrmacht, the\npolice or other German agencies. Reich Minister Dr. Lammers then gave\nthe floor to the Plenipotentiary General for Labor Allocation, Gauleiter\nSauckel.\n\n_Gauleiter Sauckel_ stated that the present deficit of the half-year\nprogram for 2,025,000 foreign workers, to be filled by 30 June of the\ncurrent year, totals 500,000. Of the total of 1,500,000 workers procured\nup to now, no less than 865,000 were Germans, of whom half were\napprentices and women, two categories which cannot be regarded as\nfull-fledged workers. Of the 560,000 foreigners put to work,\nthree-fourths came from the East alone. This result was a scandal\nconsidering that the German people now are mobilized for work to the\nfullest extent and it represents the complete bankruptcy of German\nauthorities in Italy and France, where hundreds of thousands of workers\nwere still idling. In mobilizing the manpower we did not exert the\nnecessary severity and, in particular, we were unable to achieve the\nnecessary unity of the German authorities. It was quite improper for\nGerman authorities to interfere irresponsibly in the tasks of the GBA\n[Plenipotentiary for Labor Allocation]. He had to have much greater\nfreedom of action, just as was the case in 1942. With the present\nmethods of recruitment for voluntary employment we would not make any\nprogress, for one thing because any volunteers still available exposed\nthemselves to danger to life and limb from reprisals by their own fellow\ncountrymen. If, on the other hand, they were forcibly hired and decently\ntreated at their jobs, they would do completely satisfactory work.\nAttention to the wage and price questions connected with the subject was\ndesirable, but in the present situation no longer so important. If no\neffective action were taken now, our manpower mobilization program would\nfail, with the consequence that the combat troops would no longer\nreceive the weapons they need.\n\n_State Secretary von Steengracht_, Foreign Office, stressed that the\nReich Foreign Minister from the beginning had favored the same\nstandpoint as the Plenipotentiary General for Labor Allocation. The\nForeign Office, however, could do nothing except press the foreign\ngovernments more or less urgently to meet German demands, and this has\nbeen done consistently up to the present. The police power was handled\nby others who, therefore, would now have to voice their opinion on the\nsubject of the conference.\n\n_The Deputy for the Chief of the OKW, General Warlimont_, referred to a\nrecently issued Fuehrer order, according to which all German forces had\nto put themselves at the disposal of the task to secure manpower.\nWherever the Wehrmacht was not employed exclusively in essential\nmilitary duties (as, for example, in the construction of the coastal\ndefenses), it would be available, but it could not actually be\n_assigned_ for the purposes of the GBA [Sauckel]. General Warlimont made\nthe following practical suggestions:\n\n _a._ The troops employed in fighting partisans are to take over\n the additional task of securing manpower in the partisan areas.\n Everyone who cannot fully show cause for his presence in these\n areas is to be seized for labor;\n\n _b._ When large cities, due to the difficulty of providing food,\n are wholly or partly evacuated, the population suitable for\n labor commitment is to be put to work with the assistance of the\n Wehrmacht;\n\n _c._ The seizing of labor recruits among the refugees from the\n areas near the front is to receive special attention with the\n assistance of the Wehrmacht.\n\n_Gauleiter Sauckel_ accepted these suggestions with thanks and said that\nhe expected that a certain measure of success would no doubt be achieved\nby these means.\n\nOn behalf of the _Military Commander of Belgium and Northern France_,\nthe _Chief of the Military Administration, Reeder_, put up for\ndiscussion the possibility of expanding the Military Police, now\ntotaling only 70, and of the Civilian Searching Service\n[Fahndungsdienst] consisting of Flemings and Walloons (1,100 strong). If\nthe Military Police were increased to 200, appreciable results could be\nachieved. Upon inquiry by Reich Minister Dr. Lammers, General Warlimont\npromised on behalf of the OKW that the searching service would be\nreinforced.\n\nOn further inquiry by Reich Minister Dr. Lammers, as to whether the\npopulation suitable for work could not be taken along as the troops\nwithdrew from an area, _Colonel Saas_ ([_Plenipotentiary_] _General for\nItaly_) stated that Field Marshal Kesselring had already directed that\nthe population in a zone of 30 kilometers\u2019 depth behind the front was to\nbe \u201ccaptured\u201d. This measure, however, could not be extended to areas\nextending farther behind the lines, because of the most severe shock\nthat would be inflicted on the whole structure of these areas,\nespecially in regard to the industry still in full production.\n\n_Gauleiter Sauckel_ was of the opinion that widest circles of the\nWehrmacht saw something disreputable in the labor recruiting program.\nThere had been actual instances where German soldiers had endeavored to\nprotect the population from being taken away by German labor recruiting\nagencies. Therefore it was essential to explain to the front troops the\nextraordinary importance of labor recruiting. In contrast to the much\ntoo mild German method, it was part of the Bolshevist conception of war\nfor the fighting troops, on occupying a new territory, to put the entire\npopulation to work at once. The question for the administration thus was\nnot one of mass recruiting, but of being consistent. It would be\nnecessary to establish a few object lessons, and the passive resistance\nwould quickly change into active cooperation. Nor ought one to shrink\nfrom proceeding drastically against the administrative heads\n[Behoerdenleiter] themselves who sabotage the labor recruitment. Not the\nsmall refractory offenders should be punished, but the responsible\nadministrative heads. In addition to these compulsory measures, other\nmeans too must be applied. Thus it would be advisable to remove a large\npart of the exceptional Italian crops in order to improve the rations of\nthe German and foreign workers. A special problem was presented by the\nentirely insufficient rations for the Italian military internees who\nwere almost starving. The Fuehrer should be asked to have the statute\nfor these military internees gradually altered. This would release a not\ninconsiderable labor potential.\n\n_Reich Leader Dr. Ley_ underscored these statements and suggested the\nestablishment of a searching service made up by all German forces in the\nnon-German territories, that would carry out the ruthless recruiting in\nlarge areas.\n\nThese proposals were countered by the following objections:\n\n_Reich Minister Funk_ holds that ruthless raids would entail\nconsiderable disturbances in the industries of the non-German\nterritories. The same opinion is held by the _Chief of the Military\nAdministration of Italy, State Secretary Dr. Landfried_, who believes\nthat the German forces making up the executive body are too weak, and\nfears that the Italian population would escape seizure in great numbers\nand flee to uncontrollable areas.\n\n_Reich Minister Speer_ states that he had an interest in both promoting\nincreased labor recruiting for the Reich and maintaining the production\nin the non-German territories. Up to the present, 25 to 30 percent of\nthe German war production was furnished by the occupied Western\nterritories and Italy, with Italy alone supplying 12\u00bd percent. The\nFuehrer had recently decided that this production must be maintained as\nlong as possible, in spite of the difficulties already existing,\nespecially in the field of transportation. The Military Administration,\nin the opinion of Reich Minister Speer, was easily capable to seize\nsufficient foreign workers at its present strength, as only a relatively\nsmall police force was needed for that purpose. The chief need was for\nstricter orders, but violent measures or large-scale round-ups were not\nto be carried out. Rather it would be advisable to proceed gradually\nwith clean methods.\n\nOn behalf of the _Military Commander in France, Chief of Military\nAdministration Dr. Michel_, referred to the statements of State\nSecretary Dr. Landfried and stated that the situation in France was\nsimilar. The calling up of entire age groups was being prepared in\nFrance, but had not yet begun as the German military authorities had not\nyet been able to give their consent. The good will of the highest French\nauthorities could not be doubted, but it was lacking partly at the lower\nand middle levels. The friendly administrators and individuals willing\nto work and showing cooperativeness toward the German authorities,\nexposed themselves to reprisals by the French population.\n\n_Ambassador Abetz_ confirmed these statements. The application of severe\nmeasures, such as the shooting of French functionaries, was of no avail.\nSuch a policy only served to drive the population into the Maquis. In\nthese territories, where there were large German armed forces, it would\nno doubt be possible to obtain a few more ten-thousands of workers. Then\nthese same German forces could be employed in police duty, which would\nalso turn up large numbers of workers. In Paris, the evacuation of which\nwas being considered, 100,000 to 200,000 workers could be seized. In\nthis connection it might be possible to transfer the manpower of entire\nindustries in a body.\n\nThe _Chief of the Security Police, Dr. Kaltenbrunner_, declared himself\nwilling, if asked by the GBA, to place the Security Police at his\ndisposal for this purpose, but pointed out their numerical weakness. For\nall of France he had only 2,400 men available. It was questionable\nwhether entire age groups could be seized with these feeble forces. In\nhis opinion, the Foreign Office must exercise a stronger influence on\nthe foreign governments.\n\n_State Secretary von Steengracht_, Foreign Office, commented to the\neffect that the agreements made with the foreign governments were\nentirely sufficient. The governments had always been willing, upon\nrequests of the Foreign Office, to issue the necessary orders. If these\norders were not carried out, this was due to the inadequate police power\nof the foreign governments themselves. In France, it had been reduced to\na minimum for political reasons. In Italy an executive power was no\nlonger extant. The Foreign Office was willing at any time, he said, to\nexercise stronger pressure on the foreign governments, but did not\nexpect too much from that. State Secretary von Steengracht asked\nAmbassador Rahn to comment on this for Italy.\n\n_Ambassador Rahn_ believes that there is still a sufficient number of\nworkers in Italy, so that in theory 1 million could still be taken out,\nalthough 2/3 of the Italian territory and population had been lost. He\nhad always been in favor of the system of drafting age classes. This was\ngenerally successful until the fall of Rome, as could be seen from the\nfact that it was possible to seize 200,000 Italians for military\nservice. Since that time the situation in Italy had become extremely\ndifficult, however, as the fall of Rome was an enormous shock to the\nItalian people. The German authorities had done what they could to\nneutralize these effects and to that end had merged all executive power\nin the person of Marshal Graziani. At present, however, the use of\nviolent methods on a large scale was impracticable because it would\ncause complete disorder and disrupt production. The best example for\nthis is the retaliatory action ordered by the Fuehrer because of the\nstrikes in Turin, when 10 percent of all factory labor forces were to be\nconscripted because they were shirkers. A force of 4,000 Germans was\nbrought together for that purpose. The result was that the food and\npower supply of Turin was cut off by the resistance movement so that\n250,000 workers had to stop working. This could not be tolerated in view\nof the substantial contribution of the Italian armament industry to the\nwar effort. Field Marshal Kesselring declared that continuation of\nforced recruitment would cause not only the loss of the armament\nproduction in the upper Italian area, but the loss of the entire theater\nof war. In the face of this statement the hardiest political will must\nkeep silent. The only thing which could be done was the execution of the\nforced recruitment in the rebellious area proper. Ambassador Rahn\nbelieves the following practical suggestions could be carried out:\n\n_a._ The recruitment of volunteers is to be continued.\n\n_b._ To a limited extent, plants are to be transferred to the Reich with\nmachinery and workers.\n\n_c._ The transfer of wage savings of the Italian workers in Germany to\ntheir homeland, which is not functioning well, is to be ensured. For\nthis purpose an automatic procedure is to be introduced which Ambassador\nRahn had already proposed in another connection.\n\n_d._ The system of the induction of age classes will be resumed when the\nGerman military authorities consider the time ripe.\n\nIn answer to the reported remark of Field Marshal Kesselring, _General\nWarlimont_ (OKW) commented that this remark was unknown to the OKW. The\nOKW\u2019s approval of this standpoint could therefore not yet be assumed.\n\n_Gauleiter Sauckel_ declared that all these proposals were inadequate\nsince they were not suited to mobilize the masses of manpower which he\nneeded. The execution of all these proposals had already been tried in\npractice since the labor mobilization authorities had at no time limited\nthemselves to any single method. He still had to name as seriously\ndamaging to the execution of the labor mobilization plan the fact that\nhis far-reaching jurisdiction and powers had been made the subject of\ndiscussion. What he needed, as already said, was \u201celbow room\u201d.\n\nAt the suggestion of Reich Minister Dr. Lammers, Gauleiter Sauckel\ndeclared himself willing to set up several programmatic demands on which\nhe would consult with the interested parties and which then would be\nsubmitted to the Fuehrer with a request for endorsement and translation\ninto law. A written formulation will follow. For the time being the\nPlenipotentiary General for Labor Allocation presents his demands as\nfollows:\n\n_a._ The proposals of General Warlimont will be discussed directly among\nthe interested parties and will be carried out jointly.\n\n_b._ The Plenipotentiary General for Labor Allocation receives\npermission to establish local security and recruiting machineries for\nlabor recruitment, which will operate on the basis of his orders and\ndirectives without interference by other offices.\n\n_c._ The regulations on recruitment of labor for Germany promulgated by\nFrench and Italian authorities are to be given solid foundations by\nconcrete implementation orders which guarantee the most active\ncollaboration of foreign authorities in the acquisition of manpower.\n\nAfter these statements were made Reich Minister Dr. Lammers closed the\nmeeting, pointing out that he would leave the further handling of the\nproblem to those concerned, as proposed.\n\n [Initialed] L. [LAMMERS]\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT R-124\n DEFENSE EXHIBIT 1\n\n EXTRACT FROM REPORT ON FUEHRER CONFERENCE ATTENDED\n BY MILCH ON 19 FEBRUARY 1942\n\n _POINTS OF DISCUSSION ON VISIT TO FUEHRER HEADQUARTERS\n ON 19 FEBRUARY 1942_\n\n * * * * *\n\n16. Upon recommendation of Field Marshal Milch, the Fuehrer decides that\nthe 6-month contracts for foreign workers should be dropped and that tax\nregulations, which stand in the way against this measure, are to be\nrescinded. Rather, contracts are to be introduced which would provide,\nin the event of employment of longer duration (exceeding six months), a\nsingle lump sum compensation of some kind\u2014also in view of the fact that\nthere would be a corresponding saving of the cost of travel back and\nforth.\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT R-124\n DEFENSE EXHIBIT 32\n\n EXTRACT FROM THE FUEHRER CONFERENCE MINUTES,\n 21 AND 22 APRIL 1942\n\n _POINTS OF DISCUSSION FROM THE FUEHRER CONFERENCE\n OF 21 AND 22 APRIL 1942_\n\n * * * * *\n\nSPEER:\n\n20. The Fuehrer explains clearly in an elaborate form that he does not\napprove the bad food dispensed to the Russians. The Russians must\nabsolutely be given sufficient food, and Sauckel has to see to it that\nthis food will now be guaranteed by Backe.\n\n21. The Fuehrer is surprised that the civilian Russians are kept like\nprisoners of war behind a barbed wire fence. I told him that this was\ndue to a decree issued by him. The Fuehrer knows nothing of such a\ndecree. I request the documents pertaining thereto to be included in the\nforthcoming Fuehrer file and at the same time to see to it that Sauckel\nwill arrange to have the civilian Russians no longer treated like\nprisoners of war.\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT R-124\n DEFENSE EXHIBIT 2\n\n EXTRACT FROM THE FUEHRER CONFERENCE MINUTES\n OF 3, 4, 5 JANUARY 1943\n\n Berlin, 8 January 1943\n _POINTS OF DISCUSSION AT THE FUEHRER CONFERENCE\n OF 3, 4, 5 JANUARY 1943_\n\n * * * * *\n\nSPEER:\n\n55. The Fuehrer demands unequivocally that in no case must it be\npermitted that France be less burdened than Germany. Germany must\nsacrifice her blood for this war. We must insist that France intensify\nher economic contribution. Any French workers on that job showing signs\nof resistance will be deported, if necessary, as civilian internees. At\nthe slightest attempt of sabotage the most rigorous measures must be\ntaken. Any maudlin humanitarianism is out of place.\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 407-II-PS[88]\n DEFENSE EXHIBIT 3\n\n REPORT FROM SAUCKEL TO HITLER, 10 MARCH 1943, CONCERNING\n DIFFICULTIES ORIGINATING FROM THE DRAFT OF\n MANPOWER IN FORMER SOVIET TERRITORIES\n\n _Teletype_\n 10 March 1943\n\nTo the Fuehrer\nFuehrer Headquarters\n\n_With the urgent request to be submitted to the Fuehrer in person\nimmediately for decision_\n\nSubject: Difficulties originating from draft of manpower in former Soviet\n territories.\n\nMy Fuehrer,\n\nYou may be assured that the labor assignment is being pushed by me with\nfanatical will but also with circumspection and with due consideration\nfor economic and technical as well as human necessities and conditions.\n\nReplacement for soldiers who will be relieved and the stockpiling of\nadditional labor needed for the armament programs can and will be\ncarried through, notwithstanding the fact that especially during the\nlast two winter months the greatest difficulties had to be overcome. Yet\nit was possible to make 258,000 foreign workers available to the war\neconomy for January and February alone despite the fact that in the East\ntransports practically ceased. The employment of German men and women is\nin full progress.\n\nInasmuch as the difficulties of the winter months will now gradually\ndisappear, and as preparations were made by me, also the transports from\nthe East can again be resumed in full measure. Although the yield of the\nregistration and employment of German men and women is excellent, the\nemployment of the strongest and most efficient foreigners who are used\nto work cannot be neglected.\n\nUnfortunately, some of the commanding generals [Oberbefehlshaber] in the\nEast have prohibited the compulsory enrollment of men and women in the\nconquered Soviet territories for\u2014as Gauleiter Koch[89] informs\nme\u2014political reasons.\n\nMy Fuehrer, in order to enable me to carry out my assignment, I ask that\nthese orders be rescinded. I consider it entirely impossible that the\npopulation of former Soviet nationality could be accorded a greater\nmeasure of consideration than our German people on whom I have been\nforced to place very drastic measures. Should it no longer be possible\nto enforce the compulsion to work in the East, nor to draft labor, then\nthe German war economy and agriculture will likewise no longer be able\nto fulfil their tasks in full measure.\n\nI myself am of the opinion that under no circumstances should the\ncommanders of our armies give credence to the Bolshevist propaganda of\natrocities and defamation. After all, it is to the interest of the\ngenerals themselves that replacements for the troops be made in\nopportune time.\n\nI take permission to point out that\u2014without wishing to discredit their\nbest will\u2014it is impossible to put German women\u2014entirely inexperienced\nin work\u2014into the place of hundreds of thousands of excellent workers\nwho now have to go to the front as soldiers. It must be possible for me\nto replace them with people from the Eastern territories.\n\nI myself report to you that all foreign nationals who are working with\nus are being treated satisfactorily according to humane standards; that\nthey are being treated correctly and fairly; they are being fed, housed,\nyes, even clothed. Because of my own experience in the service of\nforeign nations, I am even bold enough to claim that never before have\nforeign workers been so decently treated anywhere in the world as is\nbeing done by the German people during this the hardest of all wars.\n\nI therefore ask you, my Fuehrer, to cancel orders which prevent the\nenrollment of foreign male and female workers and to kindly advise me\nwhether my concept of the assignment as laid down herein still is\ncorrect.\n\nI ask your permission to report to you in person on several important\npoints of the labor recruitment early next week, possibly on Tuesday.\n\nIn lasting gratitude, loyalty and obedience, yours,\n\n [Signed] FRITZ SAUCKEL\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT R-124\n DEFENSE EXHIBIT 33\n\n EXTRACT FROM REPORT ON FUEHRER CONFERENCE OF 30 MAY 1943\n\n Obersalzberg, 1 June 1943\n _Fuehrer Conference on 30 May 1943_\n\n * * * * *\n\nSPEER:\n[Marginal Note] Schieber, Pleiger, Sauckel, Backe, Keitel, Waeger.\n\n19. The coal situation causes the Fuehrer to call a meeting with\nPleiger, Sauckel, Backe, and Keitel.\n\nAt this meeting will be discussed the allocation of sufficient labor for\nthe coal district, the removal of Russian prisoners of war from farming\nand small war industries (insofar as they are employed as unskilled\nlabor) and their replacement by other workers from the Ukraine, Poland,\netc.\n\nFurthermore it is intended, if possible, to raise the food rations of\nthe German miners, even above present levels. The Russians are to get\nplentiful additional rations, which will be individually allotted by\nplant managers on the basis of efficiency.\n\nAdditionally the German workers\u2014and particularly also the Russian\nprisoners of war\u2014will receive bonuses for higher production in the form\nof tobacco and similar items.\n\nThe details are to be discussed in a preliminary conference so as to\nestablish uniform data as regards quantities, etc., for submission to\nthe Fuehrer.\n\nOn no account must we capitulate to existing conditions on the coal\nquestion. Coal is _the_ critical basis for maintaining our production\nand the entire domestic economy.\n\n[Marginal Note] Saur, Kippung, Milch, Dornberger.\n\n20. The Fuehrer desires that in areas which are certainly recurrent\ntargets of enemy air attacks (Ruhr District, Krupp-Essen) about 100 to\n200 rocket projector batteries be installed, which experimentally are to\nfire a steady stream of rockets set for the computed altitude of the\nenemy formations.\n\nSome of these rockets will, on detonating, loose wire coils. The Fuehrer\nexpects, after all, significant and not only psychological effects from\nmassed, unaimed fire against concentrated air attacks on these targets.\n\nMilch and Dornberger are to state their views on the subject.\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT R-124\n DEFENSE EXHIBIT 4\n\n EXTRACT FROM REPORT OF FUEHRER CONFERENCE OF\n 11-12 SEPTEMBER 1943\n\n 14 September 1943\n _FUEHRER CONFERENCE OF 11-12 SEPTEMBER 1943_\n\n * * * * *\n\nDETHLEFFSEN:\n\n16. The Fuehrer brings up the question of air force mat\u00e9riel production\nand the discussion with Messerschmitt, and asks for my personal\nintervention with the Reich Marshal [Goering] and Field Marshal Milch to\ncut down appreciably on the number of aircraft types.\n\n17. The Fuehrer approves Messerschmitt\u2019s recommendation that a monthly\nconference be held on questions pertaining to developments and\nproductions for the Luftwaffe, on the introduction of new types and\nmodifications with the participation of construction designers and\nproduction experts. This is to be discussed with Field Marshal Milch.\n\nMILCH:\n\n18. The Fuehrer is displeased that the long-range Messerschmitt plane\nhad not yet been taken up by the Luftwaffe. M. is said to have been\nunable to obtain the support of the Luftwaffe for it.\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT R-124\n DEFENSE EXHIBIT 34\n\n EXTRACT FROM FUEHRER CONFERENCE OF 1-4 JANUARY 1944,\n CONCERNING SPEER\u2019S REPORT ON THE FRENCH\n LABOR SITUATION\n\n 6 January 1944\n _FUEHRER CONFERENCE OF 1-4 JANUARY 1944_\n\n * * * * *\n\n[Marginal Note] Kehrl, Waeger.\n\nThe Fuehrer has been informed of the differences of opinion with the\nPlenipotentiary General for Labor Allocation. According to my arguments,\nthe principal thing is to exploit the industry of France for Germany to\na larger extent, in order to be able to locate there about 1 million\nadditional workers. However, Sauckel is of the opinion that first of all\nworkers have to be brought to Germany.\n\nThe Fuehrer explains that in his view the transfer to France is of\nextreme importance, be it only on account of the possibility to increase\nthe production of iron connected therewith. In spite of this, in his\nopinion, one cannot do without bringing additional French labor to\nGermany. It must, therefore, be attempted to find a happy union of both\nthings. In this connection he proposes to designate protected works in\nFrance, in order to induce the French to work in these plants just\nthrough the pressure of allocation of labor for Germany. Upon my\nstatement that the protected plants have already been established, he\naffirms again the importance of this institution and the necessity to\ncreate here a basis of long-range confidence. He thinks that it is my\naffair whether I will be able to do without French labor or not; Sauckel\ncould be only happy if I would do without them.\n\nUpon my reply that this is not the only problem, but that also the\nquestion of the _executive power_ is involved, since otherwise a loss of\nprestige for Germany and a disorder in the allocation of French labor\nwould be inevitable, the Fuehrer declares that this is, of course, one\nof the most important bases for further discussions. I then told him\nthat on 3 January there will be a meeting between Himmler, Keitel,\nSauckel, and myself (Kehrl) (is the Foreign Office to be included?), at\nwhich these problems will be discussed. Subsequently there shall be a\nmeeting with him, at which the possibility of executive power in France,\nas far as the allocation, and the transport of French workers to Germany\nis concerned, will be laid before him. (Kehrl to do advance work, that\nwe also make a claim for executive power for the protection of the\nfactories in France against terror bands.)\n\n-----\n\n[74] The basic importance of this Hitler conference on 23 May 1939 was\nemphasized by the IMT Judgment. See Trial of Major War Criminals, vol.\nI, pp. 188 and 200, Nuremberg, 1947.\n\nFor translation of entire document see Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression,\nvol. VII, pp. 847-854, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,\n1946.\n\n[75] When the prosecution introduced this document in evidence, the\nfollowing colloquy ensued (Tr. p. 49):\n\nJUDGE SPEIGHT: Do you establish a chain between all of these documents\nwhich you read and the defendant?\n\nMR. DENNEY: If your Honor please, the prosecution, in presenting these\ndocuments, has in mind to give an over-all picture of the way slave\nlabor was treated in Germany, going back to the early days showing that\nthis defendant knew because of attendance at the May 1939, conference\nthat slave labor was going to be employed. Then as Air Ordnance Master\nGeneral, later as Chief of the Jaegerstab, and later as a member of the\nCentral Planning Board, we will connect him with enterprises involving\nslave labor.\n\nJUDGE SPEIGHT: Very well.\n\n[76] Allgemeines Wehrmachtamt of the Oberkommando der Wehrmacht. See\ncase of United States _vs._ Wilhelm von Leeb, et al., vols. X, XI.\n\n[77] For more complete translation of document see Nazi Conspiracy and\nAggression, vol. V, pp. 744-754, U.S. Government Printing Office,\nWashington, 1946.\n\n[78] For complete translation of document, see Nazi Conspiracy and\nAggression, vol. III, pp. 46-59, U.S. Government Printing Office,\nWashington, 1946.\n\n[79] For complete translation of document, see Nazi Conspiracy and\nAggression, vol. III, pp. 130-146, U.S. Government Printing Office,\nWashington, 1946.\n\n[80] For complete translation of document, see Nazi Conspiracy and\nAggression, vol. III, pp. 242-251, U.S. Government Printing Office,\nWashington, 1946.\n\n[81] Otto Braeutigam, member of the Economic Political Department of the\nForeign Office. As of May 1941 detached by the German Foreign Office to\nRosenberg\u2019s Agency, the Eastern Ministry (Ost-Ministerium).\n\n[82] For more complete translation of document, see Nazi Conspiracy and\nAggression, vol. III, pp. 778-9, U.S. Government Printing Office,\nWashington, 1946.\n\n[83] For more complete translation of document, see Nazi Conspiracy and\nAggression, vol. IV, pp. 79-93, U.S. Government Printing Office,\nWashington, 1946.\n\n[84] For more complete translation of document, see Nazi Conspiracy and\nAggression, vol. III, pp. 234-238, U.S. Government Printing Office,\nWashington, 1946.\n\n[85] For more complete translation, see Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression,\nvol. VIII, pp. 104-107, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,\n1946.\n\n[86] For more complete translation, see Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression,\nvol. VI pp. 760-772, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, 1946.\n\n[87] United States _vs._ Ernst von Welzsaecker, et al. See Vols. XII,\nXIII, XIV.\n\n[88] After Dr. Bergold read this document into the record he made the\nfollowing statement (Tr. pp. 520-521):\n\n \u201cWhich proves that until March 1943, the commanders in the\n conquered territories were opposed to the labor conscription,\n and that it was Sauckel who demanded that this opposition be\n removed, because he was of the opinion that foreign people had\n to produce the same as the German people. It is further\n important that he didn\u2019t declare that to the Fuehrer alone but\n also to the defendant [witness] Speer and the defendant Milch.\n Accordingly, the defendant [witness] Speer later on will attest\n that never before have foreigners been treated so fairly. In\n other words, he lied to the men who were to work with him.\u201d\n\n[89] 1130-PS. See Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression, vol. III, pp. 797-799,\nU.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, 1946.\n\n\n\n\n 2. THE CENTRAL PLANNING BOARD\n\n _EXCERPT FROM THE STATEMENT OF THE PROSECUTION\n REGARDING MILCH\u2019S ACTIVITY IN THE CENTRAL\n PLANNING BOARD, 6 JANUARY 1947_[90]\n\nMR. DENNEY: We come now to the part of the proof which places the\ndefendant in the very center of the Slave Labor Program.\n\nWe have shown that from the outset of the war and prior thereto, he was\nthoroughly informed of the Nazi plan for total war, which contemplated\nthe full use of all human material resources within the homeland. We\nwill show he was active in the formation and announcement of decisions\nof the Central Planning Board. We will show the Board exercised\njurisdiction in the matter of procurement, allocation, and use. He\ncarried out the master plan for requisition, allocation, and use of\nhuman raw material for the war machine. There are words we will have by\nnecessity to repeat as we introduce the documents\u2014requisition,\nallocation, and use.\n\nOur evidence will show that Milch, a member of the Central Planning\nBoard, belonged to an organization\u2014and here again we have another\nimportant word \u201cbelong\u201d. He was one of two most essential men in the\nPlanning Board that guided the decisions of that organization.\n\nWe will present to the Court excerpts from the minutes of some 12\nconferences at every one of which Milch was present, starting with the\nfirst held in April 1942 and ending with the fifty-eighth held in May\n1944. Actually, he was at all but eight conferences, and we use the\nfigure \u201ceight\u201d advisably. We are not sure, he may have been in some of\nthose. There is no question that he was in every one of those meetings\nwhich we introduce here. On occasions when Speer was not present Milch\npresided. We will show he actively participated when the Central\nPlanning Board arrived at decisions with respect to the request,\nallocation, and use of this labor.\n\nWe will show he was active in the formation of the announcement of\ndecisions of the Central Planning Board. We will show the Board\nexercised jurisdiction in the matter of procurement, allocation, and use\nof labor. And all of them were prisoners of war and were allocated to\nthe German war effort. Requisition, allocation, and use were the\ndominating voice. Decisive influence, active participation, forced\nlabor, illegal occupation\u2014these are the words with which we are\nconcerned, and these are the things with which he concerned himself.\n\n Evidence\n\n _Prosecution Documents_\n\n Doc. No. Pros. Ex. No. Description of Document Page\n R-124 48-B Stenographic record of the 447\n first conference of the\n Central Planning Board on 27\n April 1942.\n\n R-124 48-B Letter of 20 October 1942 448\n transmitting the statutes of\n the Central Planning Board.\n\n 1510-PS 58 Extracts from decree of 16 450\n September 1943, defining the\n duties of the Planning Office\n of the Central Planning\n Board.\n\n 3721-PS 41-A Testimony of Fritz Sauckel, 22 452\n September 1945, regarding the\n jurisdiction of the Central\n Planning Board.\n\n NI-1098 63 Extracts from affidavit of 456\n Fritz Sauckel, 22 September\n 1946, regarding the\n jurisdiction of the Central\n Planning Board.\n\n R-124 48-A Extracts from report on the 457\n eleventh conference of the\n Central Planning Board, 22\n July 1942.\n\n R-124 48-A Extracts from report on the 459\n seventeenth conference of the\n Central Planning Board, 28\n October 1942.\n\n R-124 48-A Extracts from stenographic 461\n minutes of twenty-first\n conference of Central\n Planning Board, 30 October\n 1942.\n\n R-124 48-B Extracts from stenographic 465\n minutes of the twenty-third\n conference of the Central\n Planning Board, 3 November\n 1942.\n\n R-124 48-A Extracts from stenographic 467\n minutes of the thirty-third\n conference of the Central\n Planning Board, 16 February\n 1943.\n\n R-124 48-A Extracts from stenographic 471\n minutes of the thirty-sixth\n conference of the Central\n Planning Board, 22 April\n 1943.\n\n R-124 48-A Report of the forty-second 475\n conference of the Central\n Planning Board, 23 June 1943.\n\n R-124 48-A Extracts from stenographic 478\n minutes of the fifty-third\n conference of the Central\n Planning Board, 16 February\n 1944.\n R-124 48-B Report on the fifty-third 479\n conference of the Central\n Planning Board, 16 February\n 1944.\n\n R-124 48-A Extracts from stenographic 484\n minutes of the fifty-fourth\n conference of the Central\n Planning Board, 1 March 1944.\n\n R-124 48-D Extracts from the report on the 498\n fifty-sixth conference of the\n Central Planning Board, 4\n April 1944.\n\n NOKW-287 49 Letter from Milch to Sauckel, 8 499\n April 1943, concerning the\n protection of industry.\n\n R-124 48-A Speer\u2019s minutes of a conference 501\n with Hitler on 8 July 1943.\n\n R-124 48-A Extract from the report by Saur 502\n of the conference with the\n Fuehrer, 5 March 1944.\n\n _Defense Documents_\n\n Doc. No. Pros. Ex. No. Description of Document Page\n R-124 5 Extract from the stenographic 509\n report of the eleventh\n conference of the Central\n Planning Board, 22 July 1942.\n\n R-124 6 Extract from the stenographic 510\n minutes of the twenty-second\n conference of the Central\n Planning Board, 2 November\n 1942.\n\n R-124 7 Extract from the stenographic 510\n minutes of the thirty-second\n conference of the Central\n Planning Board, 12 February\n 1943.\n\n R-124 8 Extract from the stenographic 511\n minutes of the thirty-third\n conference of the Central\n Planning Board, 16 February\n 1943.\n\n R-124 9 Extract from stenographic 516\n minutes of the thirty-ninth\n conference of the Central\n Planning Board, 23 April\n 1943.\n\n R-124 31 Extracts from the stenographic 517\n minutes of the fifty-fourth\n conference of the Central\n Planning Board, 1 March 1944.\n\n _Testimony_\n\n Excerpts from the testimony given by defense witness Albert 502\n Speer before commission on 19 February 1947\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT R-124\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 48-B\n\n STENOGRAPHIC RECORD OF THE FIRST CONFERENCE OF THE\n CENTRAL PLANNING BOARD ON 27 APRIL 1942\n\n Berlin, 27 April 1942\n\n Secret\n\n _\u201cTHE CENTRAL PLANNING BOARD\u201d IN THE FOUR YEAR PLAN_\n\n _1ST CONFERENCE_\n\nPresent:\n The three members:\n Reich Minister Speer,\n Field Marshal Milch,\n State Secretary Koerner.\n Furthermore:\n State Secretary Dr. Schulze-Fielitz, Ministry of Munitions,\n Ministerialrat von Normann, Four Year Plan.\n\nResult:\n\nI. The _Central Planning_ in the Four Year Plan (Decree of the Reich\nMarshal of Greater Germany of 22 April 1942\u2014VP 6707 g) is a task for\nleaders. It encompasses only principles and executive matters. It makes\nunequivocal decisions and supervises the execution of its directives.\nThe Central Planning does not rely on anonymous institutions difficult\nto control, but always on individuals and fully responsible persons who\nare free in the selection of their work methods and their collaboration\nas far as there are no directives issued by the Central Planning.\n\nII. _Discussion of the situation in iron._\n\nA. The objective is to reach a production of 2,2 million tons per month.\nIn the first place it has to be established whether, after taking into\naccount the excessive requests which were certainly made and of the\ndifficulties confronting an increase of production (coal, transport) the\npresent figures are sufficient (2 million tons). For the distribution in\nthe third quarter these 2 million tons have to serve in any case as a\nbasis.\n\nB. The principles of distribution and the new quotas will be discussed\nin a subsequent conference with a wider circle of participants (see\nspecial protocol).\n\nC. The _iron-producing industry_ will be organized into a Reich\nassociation. It is to be established and made to operate as soon as\npossible. The creation of an interimistic liaison organization (Planning\nGroup Iron) has, therefore, been abandoned. The task of the Reich\nAssociation ends with the production of iron and before the distribution\nof the iron.\n\nD. For the position of president of the Reich Association Iron,\nGeneraldirektor Voegler and Geheimrat Roechling[91] are suggested.\nRoechling was chosen, the appointment of whom would be approved by the\nFuehrer, according to Reich Minister Speer. State Secretary Koerner will\nsubmit the proposal to the Reich Marshal [Goering].\n\nIII. The reorganization of the Upper Silesian Territory with the object\nof the highest and best utilization for war economy in mind is urgent.\nThe selection of locations and the determining of capacities in this\nterritory has to be expedited with regard to raw material, transport,\nand labor.\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT R-124\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 48-B\n\n LETTER OF 20 OCTOBER 1942 TRANSMITTING THE STATUTES\n OF THE CENTRAL PLANNING BOARD\n\nThe Plenipotentiary for the Four Year Plan.\nCentral Planning Board.\n_Z. P. 1_\n\n Berlin, October 20, 1942\n\nEnclosed I send you, for your information, the statutes of the Central\nPlanning Board with the request to support the office of the \u201cCentral\nPlanning Board\u201d in every possible way in its work, and to direct, more\nparticularly, your section chiefs and reporters to forward all\ninformation requested orally or by writing, in the shortest possible\ntime. By this collaboration of your section chiefs and reporters, the\nbuilding up of a larger apparatus in the framework of the \u201cCentral\nPlanning Board\u201d is to be avoided.\n\n BY ORDER:\n [Typewritten] WALTHER SCHIEBER\n Certified: SCHWINGE\n Ministerialregistrator\n\n[Stamp of the Plenipotentiary for the Four Year Plan.]\n\nDistribution to\u2014\n\n _a._ The highest Reich authorities.\n _b._ The Reich Protector.\n _c._ The Governor General.\n _d._ The executive authorities in the occupied territories.\n\n _STATUTES OF THE CENTRAL PLANNING BOARD_\n\n1. The Central Planning Board, created by the Fuehrer and the Reich\nMarshal in order to unify armament and war economy, deals only with the\ndecision of basic questions. Professional questions remain the task of\nthe competent departments, which in their fields remain responsible\nwithin the framework of the decisions made by the Central Planning\nBoard.\n\n2. In order to have the conferences properly prepared and to have the\nexecution of the decisions supervised, the Central Planning Board\nappoints an office. This office consists of the deputies appointed by\neach of three members of the Central Planning Board; one of these three\ndeputies shall be appointed chief of the office.\n\n[Handwritten marginal note on left side of the document: \u201cTo be\nforwarded\u201d.]\n\n3. In accordance with the attached Table of Organization [not\nreproduced], the office appoints reporters. These reporters are at the\ndisposal of all members of the Central Planning Board. The office\nappoints one reporter to keep the record.\n\n4. Office and reporters have to see to it, above all, and to draw the\nattention of the Central Planning Board, if necessary, to the required\nmeasures, that\u2014\n\n _a._ All decisive tasks of war economy are achieved quickly,\n without red tape, and ruthlessly, by mutual adapting of all\n composing branches.\n\n _b._ All such work as is obviously without importance for\n winning the war, be discontinued.\n\n5. _Tasks of the office_\n\n _a._ The office prepares the meetings of the Central Planning\n Board in such a manner that the members of the Central Planning\n Board have the agenda and the material of discussion 24 hours in\n advance. For this purpose the office conducts preliminary talks\n with the competent departments, etc.\n\n _b._ On the strength of the record made by the reporter, the\n office sees to the execution of the decisions of the Central\n Planning Board by the competent agencies, and sees to it that\n the deadlines fixed are complied with.\n\n _c._ The members of the office keep the members of the Central\n Planning Board informed between the sessions.\n\n6. The distribution of work, dealing with incoming mail, etc., is\narranged by the office itself. The members of the office sign: \u201cBy\norder\u201d of the Central Planning Board.\n\n7. _Tasks of the reporters_\n\nReporters have to keep in constant touch with the departments, with\nregard to the sectors of work they are in charge of. In the regular\nsittings of the office they report on the progress made and on the\nmeasures which are required for the carrying on of the war economy,\nespecially for the increase in production, for other improvements in the\nsupply with raw materials, and for necessary changes in distribution.\nThey do the preliminary work for the meetings of the board (see also 5\n_a_) and in their working sector they are primarily responsible for the\nexecution, within the established time limits, of the decisions of the\nCentral Planning Board.\n\nBerlin, 20 October 1942.\n\n [Typewritten] MILCH\n [Typewritten] SPEER\n [Typewritten] KOERNER\n\n [Stamp]\nBerlin 6-11-1942\nNo. L 16-501\n\nCopy to the State Secretary for his information.\n\n [Typewritten] DR. SCHATTENMANN\n\nCertified: Schulz, Reg. Sekr.\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 1510-PS\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 58\n\n EXTRACTS FROM DECREE OF 16 SEPTEMBER 1943, DEFINING THE\n DUTIES OF THE PLANNING OFFICE OF THE\n CENTRAL PLANNING BOARD\n\n Berlin, 16 September 1943\n\n_DECREE OF 16 SEPTEMBER 1948 OF THE PLENIPOTENTIARY GENERAL FOR ARMAMENT\nTASKS WITHIN THE FOUR YEAR PLAN AND OF THE REICH MINISTER FOR ARMAMENT\nAND WAR PRODUCTION CONCERNING THE TASK OF THE PLANNING OFFICE_\n\nThe Reich Marshal of the Greater German Reich has established a Planning\nOffice in my department by decree of 4 September 1943 for the purpose of\nconcentrated handling of all fundamental questions of war economical\nplanning.\n\nIn this connection I order:\n\n I\n\n1. The Planning Office prepares the decisions of the Central Planning\nBoard and supervises their execution.\n\n2. In this connection it will especially prepare the distribution to\nconsumers of basic materials (for instance, iron, metals, coal, mineral\noil, nitrogen, and other important raw materials).\n\n3. As a working basis for Central Planning Board, the Planning Office\nhas to draw up plans for production and distribution for the entire war\neconomy, the demand schedules being based on the demands of the entire\nGerman sphere of power. In this connection imports and exports are to be\nconsidered. The entire planning is to be synchronized in advance with\nthe participating departments and specialist offices, taking into\naccount production requisites. The Planning Office will constantly have\nto summarize and to evaluate the necessary statistical material.\n\n4. The Planning Office will have to submit to the Central Planning Board\nfor decision the proposed assignment of manpower to the individual big\nsectors of employment (trade industry for war effort [gewerbliche\nKriegswirtschaft], traffic, foodstuffs, etc.). It also has to evaluate\nstatistically the carrying through of the assignments.\n\n * * * * *\n\n6. The Planning Office will have to advocate towards the Reich Ministry\nof Economics the requirements of war industry in connection with the\nestablishment of import and export quotas.\n\nIt has to report constantly to the Central Planning Board about the\nstate of imports essential for war economy.\n\n * * * * *\n\n II\n\n * * * * *\n\n4. The Planning Office has to evaluate statistically the industrial and\nwar production existing within the power sphere of Greater Germany or of\nthe states allied with the Reich; it has to develop out of that\nevaluation proposals for a common exchange of production in order to\nincrease the initial war production.\n\n * * * * *\n\n [Signed] SPEER\n The Reich Minister for Armament and War Production\n Plenipotentiary General for\n Armament Tasks within the Four Year Plan\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 3721-PS\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT NO. 41-A[92]\n\n TESTIMONY OF FRITZ SAUCKEL, 22 SEPTEMBER 1945, REGARDING\n THE JURISDICTION OF THE CENTRAL PLANNING BOARD\n\nTESTIMONY OF FRITZ SAUCKEL TAKEN AT NUERNBERG, GERMANY, 1030 HOURS TO\n1210 HOURS ON 22 SEPTEMBER 1945, BY JOHN J. MONIGAN JR., MAJ., CAC,\nOUSCC\n\nMAJOR MONIGAN: Principally, what I am interested in are the functions\nand responsibilities of the Central Planning Board in their relationship\nto your office and their relationship to industry.\n\nSAUCKEL: I believe that this Central Planning Board was founded about\nthree months after my taking over my office. The Board was founded in\naccord with a law by the Fuehrer or just upon an agreement between the\nFuehrer and Speer and Goering, I don\u2019t know which. The leader and\nchairman of this Central Planning Board was Speer himself. It was\nfounded to transfer the work from the Four Year Plan to Speer, I think,\nbecause Goering was already ill at that time, and there also were\ndifficulties about which I am not informed. Speer always took on the job\nof making great changes in production and put it under his own\ndirection. Constant members of this Central Planning Board were the\nState Secretary and Field Marshal Milch, and State Secretary Koerner.\nThese three were responsible for the decisions of the Central Planning\nBoard and for internal matters and they went through this office if they\nwere worked out by other people inside the office. I was only called to\nthis Central Planning Board when my task was discussed, and the demands\nwere put before me and my agencies by Speer, the Four Year Plan\n[Office], as well as by Milch. The Fuehrer himself told me to fulfil\nthese demands without question. In other words, if Speer asked me for a\ncertain amount of workers, for instance, several thousand, I could not\nrefuse him. The particular minister had to give the number to the\nCentral Planning Board and that was the only place where the number of\nworkers could be discussed. In the Central Planning Board it was decided\nhow many workers I was able to supply to these various sections like\nMilch and Speer, agriculture, and so on. If it came to an argument,\nthese discussions were brought before the Fuehrer and he then decided\nhimself.\n\nQ. Would the Central Planning Board, in their outline of workers to be\nprovided for agriculture and for Speer and for Milch\u2019s industries, etc.,\njust give you the numbers of workers which they required, or would you\nget the final destination of the workers too, say panzers [tanks] and\nmachine guns, and so on, from the Central Planning Board?\n\nA. In general, I always got the numbers for the sections in large,\nexcept for Speer who always demanded individual allocations of workers\nto agriculture or mining; in other words, Speer always demanded a\ncertain number of workers for a certain kind of work.\n\nQ. Except for Speer, they would give the requirements in general for the\nbroad field, but in Speer\u2019s work you would get them allocated by\nindustry, and so on. Is that right?\n\nA. The others only received whatever was left over, because Speer told\nme once in the presence of the Fuehrer that I am here to work for Speer\nand that I mainly am his man, he mentioned it very often, without\nreference to the countries involved. It was very unnatural, that process\nof doing these things. These smaller plants, instead of ordering their\nworkers from the next higher echelons, gave their orders to the very\nhighest, to Speer, who in turn handed them down to the lower ones and to\nme, and this was the reason for the Rotzettel (red slip) system which\nhad to be fulfilled by me without question. In practice it came to this\nthat if a factory actually didn\u2019t need any workers but Speer demanded\nthem for that factory I had to supply these workers without being able\nto discuss or to tell him that it would be a waste of manpower; I just\nhad to do it because Speer had complete domination.\n\nQ. When it was determined in the Central Planning Board that say a\nthousand workers would be required by Speer, how did these workers find\ntheir way from all over Germany and Europe into the Krupp factory, for\ninstance?\n\nA. The orders were given from higher echelons down to lower echelons;\nfor instance, the transports were either turned over from one office to\nanother or the lower echelons in Berlin, for instance, got orders to\ntransfer certain men from one factory which happened to be in Berlin to\nanother factory which was also in Berlin. This happened also through the\ncooperation among the various offices who were headed by Hildebrand. The\norders were discussed in a so-called daily schedule of trains which was\ndecided upon in all these meetings.\n\nQ. Well, as I understand it, you would get a requirement for say a\nthousand workers for panzers, say; now, in Germany certain factories\nwould be making tread, some would be making turrets, and some would be\nmaking other things. Now, of that thousand workers needed for tank\nproduction some would be working on treads and some would be working on\nother things. How did they get into the particular factories which were\nmaking the specific products?\n\nA. This was accomplished by giving orders recklessly through the various\noffices. A factory, for instance, got an order to send 20 or 30 men to\nanother place, and they were just ordered to go there. This was the\nreason for the Notdienstverordnung [Emergency Service Decree] where the\nworkers were forced by a decree to obey any order which was given to\nthem.\n\nQ. After the workers were conscripted inside the Reich and outside, they\nwould be worked according to certain skills and technical specialties,\nwould they not?\n\nA. As far as possible, they were used according to the profession they\nhad been trained in.\n\nQ. And the local Gau labor offices, etc., would have a list of all the\nworkers according to their skills, would they not?\n\nA. Yes, there were detailed files about this. This was the basic\nprinciple: There were various offices which only were concerned about a\ncertain kind of trade or skill.\n\nQ. So, when you got the request from the Central Planning Board for a\nhundred thousand men for tank production, would you, through your\nministry, tell the various offices that you needed so many welders and\nso many machine tool people, etc., and then tell them how many of each\nspecialty you wanted?\n\nA. When I got these orders my assistants were always present and they in\nturn took down the individual numbers required for this kind of work. I\nalso received rosters which pointed out in detail how many people were\nneeded for certain productions and how many were needed in a certain\nplace. There was also, besides the red-slip system, another one, which\nwas a system used after the red-slip system. We called this the\nDringlichkeitsstufen\u2014that means the priority system for workers. These\nDringlichkeitsstufen, which were divided according to place and kind of\nwork, were given to me in the presence of my assistants and they in turn\nworked out these plans. The influence of Speer was so great that\nsometimes he specifically asked for certain specialists from a certain\nfactory to be turned over to another place. It also happened that we\nwere not even told about these things. If we were not able to supply him\nwith workers from inside Germany, we had to take them from the other\ndepartments or from foreign countries. There was always a reserve of\nsomething like 500,000 people who went to schools where they were\ntrained for the armament production.\n\nQ. That was 500,000 German and foreign workers?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. When a requirement was fixed for Speer or for Milch in the Central\nPlanning Board and they called you in and said we need 500,000, or some\nnumber of workers, would they give at that time the breakdown of what\nkind of workers they wanted, or would they give a blanket request for\n500,000 without the listing of specialties?\n\nA. Naturally, they gave a detailed breakdown. For instance, they only\nasked for miners, but they also asked for specialists in that kind of\nwork.\n\nQ. The requirements would be stated in detail for the kind of work, not\nonly whether it should be a mine worker, but, for instance, a locomotive\nengineer in a mine, or something like that, would they not?\n\nA. Naturally, since there are many kinds of professions; I, for\ninstance, put in charge of the mining President Dr. Gaertner who was\nalways oriented about the different jobs which were required in that\nfield of work.\n\nQ. Then after you got the detailed specification of the qualifications\nof the workers desired, would you also get a statement as to what places\nthey would work in, and so on?\n\nA. This was just the remarkable thing about it, especially from Speer;\nfactories were always mentioned and they were also mentioned by\npriority; for instance, the ones that always were working on the\nso-called Fuehrer orders had priority over the others. Speer actually\ncontrolled the small places, not step by step, but directly from the\nhighest echelon.\n\nQ. So that you would be informed at the Central Planning Board, at least\nfor Speer\u2019s factories, about the specialists and the place to which they\nwere supposed to be sent, is that right?\n\nA. The Central Planning Board determined only the numbers for a certain\ntime, three months or so. These orders were then forwarded to the\nindividual offices, who were working for me, from all kinds of\nindustries; the Central Planning Board met only every two weeks or so.\n\nQ. The Central Planning Board would decide that Speer would get so many\nhundred thousand and Milch would get so many hundred thousand, and that\nthe agricultural program would get so many hundred thousand. Then, that\nwas agreed upon, if they all agreed upon it among themselves in the\nCentral Planning Board, and had no disputes regarding the number. But if\nthere were disputes, then the Fuehrer would decide?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Then, after they decided a hundred thousand for Speer, then the\nsection chiefs (in the rings for tank treads, and machine guns, etc.)\nwould meet with your section later and say we need so many hundred\nthousand, we need 10,000 who are welders and 10,000 who are metal\nworkers, etc., is that right?\n\nA. Yes. A daily conference was held among the different offices where it\nwas decided how many workers were needed for the individual industries.\nIt did not occur that when a factory asked for a certain amount of men,\nit was like that: Speer said this factory has to be supplied with so and\nso many workers. In peacetime it was different.\n\nQ. And the requirements of Speer were met as a matter of priority among\nall the other industries; first Speer and then the others?\n\nA. Yes.\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NI-1098\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 63\n\n EXTRACTS FROM AFFIDAVIT OF FRITZ SAUCKEL, 22 SEPTEMBER 1946, REGARDING\n THE JURISDICTION OF THE CENTRAL PLANNING BOARD\n\nA. 1. I, Fritz Sauckel, born in Hassfurt-Unterfranken on 27 October 1894\nwas honorary Obergruppenfuehrer of the SS and SA, Reich Governor\n[Reichsstatthalter], Commissioner for Reich Defense and Gauleiter of\nThuringia. Since 1942 I was Plenipotentiary General for Manpower and\nfrom 1933 on I was a member of the Reichstag. I state upon oath the\nfollowing facts which are known to me personally:\n\n * * * * *\n\nL. 1. The Central Planning Board intervened in the problem of foreign\nworkers to the extent of determining priorities and in representing and\ndemanding the requirements of the economics branches consolidated in the\nCentral Planning Board. It also transmitted these demands to the\nFuehrer. The competent gentlemen of the Central Planning Board at the\nsame time of course represented their ministries as heads. Thus I am not\nin a position today to say whether Speer, for instance, spoke in one or\nthe other capacity in connection with any special matter. At any rate\nthe Central Planning Board determined the total labor requirements. In\npractice I only obtained labor for them.\n\n2. I attended sessions of the Central Planning Board only when questions\nconcerning the mobilization of labor were involved. Sometimes only my\nrepresentatives, Dr. Timm, Landrat Berk, Stothfang, or Dr. Hildebrand,\nattended.\n\n3. The competent gentlemen from Speer\u2019s Ministry also attended. Speer\nhad a labor mobilization department where the requirements of industry\nwere collected and confirmed.\n\n4. Milch produced the figures for aviation. The same was done by Speer\nin his sphere of activity. Speer and Milch, however, also exerted\ninfluence on the allocation of workers. How far this came within their\ncapacity as members of the Central Planning Board I cannot say; in any\ncase they did this in their ministerial capacity.\n\n * * * * *\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT R-124\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 48-A\n\n EXTRACTS FROM REPORT ON THE ELEVENTH CONFERENCE\n OF THE CENTRAL PLANNING BOARD, 22 JULY 1942\n\n Berlin 24 July 1942\n Dr. Goe/W\n\nReich Minister Speer\nMinister\u2019s Office\n\n Secret\n _REPORT ON THE 11TH CONFERENCE OF THE \u201cCENTRAL\n PLANNING BOARD\u201d ON 22 JULY 1942_\n\nPresent:\n\n Reich Minister Speer\n Field Marshal Milch\n State Secretary Koerner\n Kommerzialrat Roechling Reich Association Iron\n Dr. Rohland Reich Association Iron\n Von Bohlen und Halbach Reich Association Iron\n Dr. Langen Reich Association Iron\n Bergassessor Sohl Reich Association Iron\n Gauleiter Sauckel Plenipotentiary General for Labor\n Mobilization\n State Secretary Backe Reich Food Ministry\n General Director Pleiger Reich Association Coal\n Dr. Fischer Reich Association Coal\n Major General Gablenz Reich Air Ministry\n Colonel Sellschopp Reich Air Ministry\n Ministerial Director Gramsch 4 Year Plan\n Ministerial Advisor Normann 4 Year Plan\n Dr. Schieber Reich Ministry for Armament and\n Munitions\n Dr. Stellwaag Reich Ministry for Armament and\n Munitions\n Major Wagner Reich Ministry for Armament and\n Munitions\n Brigadier General Becht Reich Ministry for Armament and\n Munitions\n Lieutenant Colonel Nicolai Reich Ministry for Armament and\n Munitions\n Ministerial Advisor Dr. Wissmann Reich Ministry for Armament and\n Munitions\n Schlieker Reich Ministry for Armament and\n Munitions\n Dr. Goerner Reich Ministry for Armament and\n Munitions\n\n * * * * *\n\nSecuring of food. A net influx of 1 million foreign workers is counted\non. This number was not reached in the past months. Even with an influx\nof more than 1 million in the coming months, the 1-million peak will\nactually not be surpassed in view of current departures of workers. Food\nfor this 1 million is secured.[93]\n\nTo what extent an improvement of the food situation, through a sharper\nhold on the production outside of Germany, could be accomplished.\n\n * * * * *\n\nEvery day a train load of the forces recruited in the East will be\ndirected to the coal mines until the figure of 6,000 is achieved.\nPrisoners of war are being obtained, at present, from camps in the\nGeneral Government. 51,000 prisoners of war in the Senne Camp. In the\ndistrict east of the General Government there are 74,000 prisoners of\nwar available. Up till now an elimination quota of 50 percent of\nunemployable people has been reckoned with in the allocations to coal\nmining. It is considered necessary that not too high demands should be\nplaced on the choice of prisoners of war. The Miner\u2019s Union doctors\n[Knappschaftsaerzte] are to be informed that a different standard is to\nbe established for the prisoners of war than for German miners.\n\nFor the consecutive order in which the prisoners of war are to be put to\nwork, it will be laid down, that before the metal workers are chosen,\nthe coal mining in the first place and requirements for the loading and\nunloading commands in the second place are to be considered.\n\nField Marshal Milch undertakes to accelerate the procuring of the\nRussian prisoners of war from the camps.\n\n [Typewritten] DR. ING. GOERNER\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT R-124\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 48-A\n\n EXTRACTS FROM REPORT ON THE SEVENTEENTH CONFERENCE\n OF THE CENTRAL PLANNING BOARD, 28 OCTOBER 1942\n\n Berlin, 30 October 1942\n\nThe Plenipotentiary General for the Four Year Plan\nCentral Planning Board\n\n _REPORT ON THE 17TH CONFERENCE OF THE CENTRAL\n PLANNING BOARD ON 28 OCTOBER 1942, 0930 HOURS_\n\n Increase of Coal Production\n_Allocation of Labor_\n\nCoal production in the Ruhr district has increased to 390,000 tons per\nday. Any further increase depends on whether the requirements for labor\nare being met. About 104,000 men are required. Furthermore 7,800\nmen\u2014originally 16-17,000 requirements having been brought down by\nrationalization\u2014are needed for the supplying industry, 6,800 of these\nfor the machine industry. 5,000 more unskilled workers are furthermore\nrequired to secure the transport of mine-timber which is essential for\nreason of variety [Sortimentsgruenden].\n\nThe intake capacity of the mining industry for the month of November is\n44,000 prisoners of war, of whom 25,000 are for the Ruhr district, and\n12,600 eastern workers, 7,500 of whom are for the Ruhr district. Total\nrequirements so far amount to 191,000 laborers of whom 90,700 were\nwanted by the Ruhr District. Up to 24 October a total of 123,000 was\nallocated. These numbers are still to be checked up by the Reich\nAssociation Coal (RVK) and Mr. Sauckel.\n\nAccording to the Plenipotentiary for Labor Allocation, the following\nnumber of prisoners of war is at present at hand.\n\n Within the Reich (on the way and in camp) 30,000\n Remainder of prisoners of war (outstanding from a total of 60,000\n 150,000 and promised up to the beginning of December)\n At camps in the General Government 15,000\n\nOf these the following can be regarded as available up to 1 December:\n\n Within the Reich 15,000\n Of the remaining prisoners of war 10,000\n From the General Government 7,500\n \u2014\u2014\u2014\n Total about 32,000\n\nTherefore, as compared to the required 44,000, there is a deficit of\nabout 12,000. Moreover, 10,000 civilian laborers from the East can be\nput up by exchanges from the agricultural sector which is 2,000 less\nthan required so that the November deficit amounts to 14,000 and, in\ncomparison with the total requirements of the mining industry of\n104,000, there is a deficit of 62,000. The deficit increases by the\nsmaller number of prisoners of war the size of which is still to be\nascertained by the Commissioner of Labor.\n\nThe mining industry is in a position to use any amount of eastern labor\ninstead of prisoners of war. Therefore, it is to get preference at the\ncombing-out of the agricultural sector. There is no objection to a\ntemporary accommodation of eastern labor at prisoner-of-war camps\n(without barbed wire, etc.).\n\nThe requirements of the supply industry are to be met by the Red Label\nmethod [Rotzettelverfahren]. Constructors are to be provided by\ncanvassing at the French prisoner-of-war camps for officers.\n\n [Typewritten] DR. STEFFLER\n\n * * * * *\n\nPresent:\n\n Reich Minister Speer\n Field Marshal Milch\n State Secretary Koerner Reich Ministry for Armament and\n Munitions\n Staatsrat Schieber Reich Ministry for Armament and\n Munitions\n Brig. Gen. Becht Reich Ministry for Armament and\n Munitions\n Lt. Col. v. Nicolai Reich Ministry for Armament and\n Munitions\n Herr Schlieker Reich Ministry for Armament and\n Munitions\n Oberberghauptmann Gabel Reich Economic Ministry\n Colonel Dr. Krull Reich Economic Ministry\n Oberbergrat Otto Reich Economic Ministry\n State Secretary Ganzenmueller Reich Traffic Ministry\n Staatsrat Heinberg Reich Traffic Ministry\n Min. Dir. Gramsch Four Year Plan\n Min. Rat Steffler Four Year Plan\n Min. Dirig. Timm Plenipotentiary for Labor Allocation\n Oberreg. Rat Hildebrand Plenipotentiary for Labor Allocation\n Gen. Dir. Pleiger Reich Association Coal\n Dr. Sogemeier Reich Association Coal\n Dr. Fischer Reich Association Coal\n Dir. Winkaus Plenipotentiary for Mining Requirements\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT R-124\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 48-A\n\n EXTRACTS FROM STENOGRAPHIC MINUTES OF TWENTY-FIRST\n CONFERENCE OF CENTRAL PLANNING BOARD, 30 OCTOBER 1942\n\n _EXCERPT OF STENOGRAPHIC MINUTES OF THE 21ST\n CONFERENCE OF THE CENTRAL PLANNING BOARD_\n\nRe: Labor supply and direction of labor held on 30 October 1942,\nafternoon, at the Reich Ministry of Armament and Munitions.\n\n Berlin, Pariser Platz 3\n\n * * * * *\n\nSAUCKEL: There is but one possibility, and that is, that the moment the\nWehrmacht takes prisoners in operational territory, they are to be\nimmediately turned over to us. We will move them away much faster than\nthe Wehrmacht.\n\nMILCH: The correct thing to do would be to have all Stalags transferred\nto you by order of the Fuehrer. The Wehrmacht takes prisoners and as\nsoon at it relinquishes them, the first delivery goes to your\norganization. Then everything will be in order.\n\nSAUCKEL: Yes, but we do not have sufficient personnel for guarding the\nprisoners.\n\n(MILCH: The Wehrmacht should have to provide you with that!)\n\nSAUCKEL: As soon as prisoners of war are taken, they should be placed at\nour disposal and we would then allocate them in a fair manner. However,\nwith the present method we get nothing or only a fraction of what the\nWehrmacht had promised us, although the prisoners had been taken by the\nWehrmacht.\n\nTIMM: We can hardly hope to achieve that, since this might have\nsomething to do with the convention concerning the treatment of\nprisoners of war.\n\nMILCH: The man who acts there for you can wear a uniform all right and\nbe a soldier. Only his superior will not be Herr Reinecke but Herr\nSauckel.\n\nFor psychological reasons emphasis should be placed on first of all\ncovering the requirements of the Wehrmacht branches, without other\nconsiderations. The feeling, we don\u2019t get it anyway, has gradually\npermeated our whole air force industry\u2014and I heard the same about the\narmy. I will admit that these gigantic allocations are completely\nmisjudged. For example, in the Luftwaffe where from an original\nallocation of 480,000, a balance of 150,000 was left over [per Saldo\nuebrig]. The plants always look only at the balance [Saldo]. However,\nthere are many plants also who have suffered an actual decrease in\nmanpower, especially in a young industry like ours, which is occupied\nwith the manufacture of very special products. This industry has many\nyoung people, of whom many again have been drafted into the Wehrmacht.\nThis drafting is done in such an idiotic way that one actually has to\nfeel ashamed. All three experimenting engineers working on a development\nwhich may have an important bearing on the outcome of the war are simply\ndrafted. They are not sent to the front or into training but sit around\nin the back somewhere and are guarding some camp. No consideration\nwhatsoever is given to individual cases. Of course the plants then call\nfor replacements. The masses cannot fill these breaches, and qualified\nreplacements we cannot supply at all. Herr Dr. Werner, for example,\nwrites a letter to Herr Schieber of which he forwards a copy to me and\nwhich states that production figures established in the delivery\nschedules can no longer be met, owing to the fact that for weeks\npartially even for months, no manpower has been allocated, and that even\ncurrent withdrawals cannot be replaced by the labor offices\n[Arbeitsaemter]. The fact, that we can no longer meet the demands of the\nrising production, that backlogs are increasing more and more, fills him\nwith rising apprehension. He then goes into details, but always reverts\nto the same conclusion: everything might be accomplished, we could even\nget the necessary material; in the final analysis we fail, however, in\none important aspect in connection with our whole armament program\u2014the\nallocation of manpower. If only we had, if only we had\u2014thus it goes all\nday and in every conference.\n\nI am convinced that many people are beginning to put in fake requests\nand exaggerate their requirements. There is only one way to straighten\nout this affair. In my department, I do it this way: if for months a\nspare part cannot be found, the entire front begins to hoard this\narticle; so, for instance, the tail skid of a Ju 52. Then we proceeded\nto manufacture triple the amount of the expected requirements, yet no\ntail skids were available. Ordnance stock piles were filled with it; but\nthey did not issue any. I then said: We will now manufacture nothing but\ntail skids until we hear shouts not to send any more. Thus, an affair\nlike that gets finally straightened out. And here likewise we must say\nfor once: We will supply the required laborers to the industry, if\nnecessary by depriving other fields. Agriculture, at the moment can\nspare laborers; it does not need them from 15 November to 15 March of\nnext year. It is just a waste to have to feed them. Only a small number\nwill be needed for the procurement of wood. Thus we are able to\ngenerously help industry and later on again replenish agriculture. At\nthe same time we have the advantage of getting fairly well-fed people.\nAs Herr Timm recently explained, prisoners of war from the Ukraine would\nnot serve our purpose; they could not regain their physical strength on\nwhat they get to eat in the industry. Even supplying them with better\nfood than we give to our own people would not be sufficient to get them\nbeyond a still weakened condition. In agriculture they get additional\nfood. Don\u2019t muzzle the mouth of a beast when food lies all around it.\nThis is also of advantage to prisoners of war and workers from the East.\n\nHowever, we have to finally do away with the general feeling: we have\nnothing and we want yet anything; we have been forsaken by God and the\nFuehrer; constantly more and more is demanded of us; how can we still\nbelieve in this great program? We can only carry it out if we have such\nfaith in it, as is spoken of in the Bible. In January we started with a\nmonthly production of 2,000 engines; today we have reached 4,000, and in\na year and a half I must reach 14,000. That of course is a gigantic\nachievement for a month. Every engine has at least 1,200 h.p. If in\nmeasurements of horsepower I compare the present with the former World\nWar, then the present achievement is 40 times as great. What an immense\namount of manpower was available at that time for an industry so totally\ndifferent from ours! Yet today we must come up to more than three times\nthat, which we have already done. That means, that in airplane engines\nalone we have to achieve 135 to 140 times as much as we did in the World\nWar. Dr. Werner who is responsible for the engine industry proposed how\nthis can be done. He said: We must apply a mass production scale\neverywhere, or else we will not accomplish it. He has very progressive\nideas in this field. With the airplane engine, it can be done for sure.\nCrankshafts and connecting rods, etc., we can produce on a mass\nproduction scale. Today we manufacture 40,000 connecting rods. However,\nwe still have no machines today that assemble these products\nindividually on the assembly line. The Americans have such machines. We\nare lacking about 10 construction engineers and 5 mechanics; they just\nsimply cannot be procured. One must for once satisfy the needs of the\npeople again. I have always put them off until November and told them\nthat Sauckel would produce the necessary labor from agriculture.\n\n * * * * *\n\nSPEER: We must also discuss the slackers. Ley has ascertained that the\nsick list decreased to one-fourth or one-fifth in factories where\ndoctors are on the staff who are examining the sick men. There is\nnothing to be said against SS and police taking drastic steps and\nputting those known as slackers into concentration camps. There is no\nalternative. Let it happen several times and the news will soon go\naround.\n\n * * * * *\n\nSAUCKEL: We talked of taking the waiters out of the restaurants in\nGermany. But in this respect we have absolutely an abundance in France,\nthe General Government and the Protectorate. As long as we have not\nskimmed that off, we could not take the responsibility towards the\nGerman people for such a measure. Again a cable of the Foreign Minister\nhas burst into my recent negotiations in France stating that under no\ncircumstances should the Ministry Laval be put into peril. The Fuehrer\nhas said: If the French show no good will, then I shall retake the\n800,000 French PW\u2019s. If they show good will, then the French wives can\nfollow their husbands to Germany and work there. Of course, he said, I\nhave an interest that Laval remains in power. The Ministry Laval will\nremain, it depends only on us. And Laval cannot go back after he has\nreproduced in his speech and spoken before the French passages which he\nhas taken verbally out of my appeal. Only P\u00e9tain could bring him to\nfall. I wish to draw your attention to the fact, however, that in France\nthere is a surplus of young men all of whom we could use in Germany. If\nwe expect our people to accept severest restrictions then we cannot\nadmit such luxuries in Paris as, e.g., small restaurants with bands of\n25 musicians and two waiters per table. I am firmly convinced, if we are\nbrutal also against the others then we can extract quite a considerable\nnumber of men out of the General Government\u2014I sent an efficient man,\nPresident Struwe, over there\u2014and of the Protectorate. This need not\ninterfere with the armament industry over there. There is, therefore, no\nfear that the demand could not be met.\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT R-124\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 48-B\n\nEXTRACTS FROM STENOGRAPHIC MINUTES OF THE TWENTY-THIRD CONFERENCE OF THE\n CENTRAL PLANNING BOARD, 3 NOVEMBER 1942\n\n Secret\n _STENOGRAPHIC MINUTES OF THE 23D CONFERENCE OF\n CENTRAL PLANNING BOARD_\n\n _Concerning the fixing of iron quotas, on 3 November 1942, 1600_\n _hours in the Reich Ministry for Armament and Munitions,_\n _Berlin, Pariser Platz 3_\n\n * * * * *\n\nPLEIGER: * * * For the physical strain on the miners, who practically\nwork two Sunday shifts each month, is such that they could not stand it\nfor another six months. In other words\u2014this is the important point\u2014the\nquota of approximately 95,600 men is still lacking and must be assigned\nto work now at last; it was promised to me at one time. The gentlemen of\nthe Ruhr tell me: We have our huts ready. Some of them are not\ncompletely furnished, and I reproached the people for it. They answered,\nhowever: But you promised us workers for about half a year. We have\nalways been ahead with our huts. How can you reproach us now, our huts\nwere not ready. The workers assigned to us will be taken care of. I\nwould be very thankful if Sauckel would be induced to assign to us the\nquota of workers.\n\nSPEER: He received the instruction in the last conference of the Central\nPlanning Board to assign workers first of all to the coal-mining\nindustry as well as to the iron-producing industry, for you the amount\nof 44,000 plus 12,000, plus 7,500 for the feeder industry, plus 5,000\nfor pit props. The same holds true for Mr. Rohland.\n\nPLEIGER: In our conferences it must always be taken as a basis that the\nReichsbahn, with regard to the allocation of cars, is at least in the\nsame position as they were last year.\n\n(SPEER: That\u2019s pretty bad.)\n\n\u2014No, it allocated over 80,000 cars in December.\n\n * * * * *\n\nSPEER: Can you give me by name any smelters or other people which could\nbe taken out?\n\n(ROHLAND: Yes.)\n\nThis would still be another 50 or 100, I guess.\n\nROHLAND: I figure about 40 men per Martin furnace. If we take away 20 or\n15\u2014let\u2019s say 20\u2014as trained Martin furnace smelters, we would have 300\nmen. 300 smelters could help us a lot. But when will they come?\n\nSPEER: Then we could deceive the French about the industry in such a\nway, as if we would release among the prisoners of war the rollers and\nsmelters\u2014they have\u2014if they give us their names.\n\nROHLAND: We opened our own office in Paris. In other words, you mean the\nFrench should report the smelters who are prisoners of war in Germany?\n\nMILCH: I would simply say: You will get two people for one of this kind.\n\nSPEER: The French firms know exactly who is a smelter among the\nprisoners of war. There you should make it appear, as if they would be\nreleased. They give us the names and then we take them out. Try it.\n\nROHLAND: That\u2019s an idea.\n\nMILCH: We in the Luftwaffe and airplane industry will also try to find\nout: Who is a roller, smelter, or furnace mason.\n\nROHLAND: But by the time the people arrive, the quarter of the year will\nbe over.\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT R-124\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 48-A\n\n EXTRACTS FROM STENOGRAPHIC MINUTES OF THE THIRTY-THIRD\n CONFERENCE OF THE CENTRAL PLANNING BOARD,\n 16 FEBRUARY 1943\n\n Secret!\n\n Top Secret State Matter\n\n _STENOGRAPHIC MINUTES OF THE 33D CONFERENCE[94]\n OF THE CENTRAL PLANNING BOARD_\n\n _Concerning Labor Supply on 16 February 1943 at 1600 hrs. at the_\n _Reich Ministry for Armament and Munitions 3,_\n _Pariser Platz, Berlin_\n\n * * * * *\n\nTIMM: I should like to say something about the labor supply\npossibilities. Perhaps you will permit me to emphasize the negative side\na little. The greatest difficulties result from the fact that the supply\nof labor outstanding could not be fully dispatched from the East, but\ncame in in ever diminishing numbers. One may say that they have almost\nbecome completely exhausted. Eastern laborers during the last six weeks\narrived only in smaller numbers than in former times, so that they can\nhardly be included to an appreciable amount on the credit side of the\nsupply account. In any case their numbers are small. The foremost reason\nis that in former months most transports were dispatched from the\nUkraine while the main recruitment areas were those which in the\nmeantime have become operational areas, or even are no longer in our\nhands. The forecasts we made applied to a large extent to the transport\nof people from the Caucasus district, the Kuban, from areas like\nStalingrad. We prepared measures which should enable us to draw more\neastern workers again during the following months. I venture to think\nthat we should be able, on a conservative calculation, to transfer\nduring the month of March between 150,000 and 200,000 laborers from the\nEast to the West.\n\n(SPEER: Including or excluding those needed for agriculture?)\n\nIncluding those needed for agriculture. But in my opinion it will be\nnecessary to apply much pressure, since just those districts are\nconcerned which have been pacified to a certain extent, and for the same\nreason will not be very much inclined to release labor. This is\ncalculated on the assumption that some labor has to be released also\nfrom the eastern and northern parts of the East.\n\nThe second area, capable of releasing a considerable amount of labor is\nthe General Government and that for the January estimate which has been\ndrawn up with particular caution as I again wish to emphasize. We expect\nthat the figures will be surpassed rather than not reached. I think we\ncan expect a number of 40,000, of which, it is true, a part will have to\nbe given to agriculture, if we intend no more than to cover the losses\nwhich we had to inflict last autumn.\n\nBeyond this it ought to be possible in my opinion to employ within the\nReich, and especially for the mining industry, part of the Polish\nBuilding Service. I venture to think one ought to enlarge this\norganization in such a way that more age groups than so far are called\nup for it, since this procedure is functioning. The younger age groups\nwhich in fact are especially suited for mining could be dispatched to\nthe Reich. In this case the supervisors who are provided for the\ngreatest part by the Building Service, will be needed only in very small\nnumbers in the Reich.\n\nThe next area would be the Protectorate on which I cannot make a final\nstatement today. We have been promised for the month of March about\n10,000 laborers. But I am of the opinion that some loosening-up is\npossible. The Plenipotentiary will soon in a personal visit take in hand\nthe possibility of this loosening-up.\n\nFrance is included in the account with 100,000 laborers for March.\nMessages which I received permit us to hope that this number will be\nincreased in the middle of March. Belgium is included with 40,000,\nHolland with 30,000, Slovakia with 20,000, who, it is true, are\nexclusively suited for agriculture, since their share of individual\nworkers has been completely delivered. This item consists exclusively of\nagricultural laborers, owing to a state treaty. For the remaining part\nof the foreign areas I included another 10,000. This amounts altogether\nto 400,000 laborers who should arrive in March. One might be entitled to\nadd for the last month altogether 10,000 prisoners of war. These are men\nto be drawn from the East. It can be expected that this number might\nunder certain conditions be surpassed, since the High Command intends\nespecially for operational reasons, to take the prisoners of war back to\nthe Reich, particularly from the areas threatened by the enemy.\n\nA former item concerns the fluctuation of labor which certainly amounts\nto about 100,000 laborers. Then there are items which at the moment\ncannot be estimated\u2014the yield from the threatened areas and from the\n\u201cStoppage-action\u201d. Here I cannot venture to name final figures, but I\nhope to be able to do so next month.\n\nSAUCKEL: Of course, we regret very much that last autumn we were unable\nto recruit as much as we would have liked in the areas which now are\nagain in enemy hands. This is partly due to the fact that we were not\nassisted in the degree we had expected. Moreover we were not able to\neffect the removal of the civil population which had been planned. These\nevents are an urgent reminder of the fact that it is necessary to employ\nforeign laborers at once and in great numbers in Germany proper and in\nthe actual armaments industry. You may be certain that we wish to\nachieve this. We have not the slightest interest in creating\ndifficulties for an armaments office, even for those working for German\ninterest abroad, by taking labor away from them to an unreasonable\nextent. But on this occasion I should like to ask you to try and\nunderstand our procedure. We Germans surely have sent to the front\nbetween 50 and 75 percent of our skilled workers. A part of them has\nbeen killed while the nations subjugated by us need no longer shed their\nblood. Thus they can preserve their entire capacity with regard to\nskilled workers, inasmuch as they have not been transferred to Germany\nwhich is the case only for a much smaller percentage than all of us\nsupposed, and in fact they do use them partly for manufacturing things\nwhich are not in the least important for the German war economy. If we\nproceed energetically against this abuse, I ask you to give me credit\nfor so much reason that I do not intend to damage the foreign interests\nof the German armaments industry. The quality of the foreign worker is\nsuch that it cannot be compared with that of the German worker. But even\nthen I intend to create a similar proportion between skilled and workers\ntrained for their job, as it exists in Germany by force of tradition,\nsince it has come about that we had to send men to the front in much\nlarger numbers than we requested France or any other country to do.\nMoreover we shall endeavor increasingly to bring about on a generous\nscale the adaptation of the French, Polish, and Czech workers. I do not\nsee for the moment any necessity for limiting the use of foreign labor.\nThe only thing I ask for is that we understand each other, so that the\nimmense difficulties and friction between the respective authorities\ndisappear and the program drawn up by us will by no means be frustrated\nby such things.\n\nThere are without a doubt still enough men in France, Holland, Belgium,\nthe Protectorate, and the General Government to meet our labor demands\nfor the next months. I confess that I expect more success from such a\nprocedure with respect to heavier work or for work where shifts of 10 or\nmore hours are customary, than from relying on the use of German women\nand men exclusively. We shall have better success by proceeding this way\nprovided the foreign workers still obey, which remains a risk we always\nrun, than by using weaker German women and girls as labor in places of\nvery important armament work, where foreigners may be used for security\nreasons. * * *\n\n* * * The situation in France is this; after I and my assistants had\nsucceeded after difficult discussions in inducing Laval to introduce the\nService Act this act has now been enlarged, owing to our pressure so\nthat already yesterday three French age groups have been called up. We\nare now, therefore, legally and with the assistance of the French\nGovernment entitled to recruit laborers in France from three age groups,\nwhom we can use in French factories in the future, but of whom we may\nchoose some for our use in Germany and send them to Germany. I think in\nFrance the ice is now broken. According to reports received they now\nhave begun to think about a possible break-through by the Bolshevists\nand the dangers which thereby threaten Europe. The resistance which the\nFrench Government has hitherto shown is diminishing. Within the next\ndays I shall go to France in order to set the whole thing into motion,\nso that the losses in the East may be somewhat balanced by increasing\nrecruitment and calling-up in France.\n\nIf we receive comprehensive lists in time, we shall, I think, be able to\ncover all demands by dispatching in March 800,000 laborers.\n\nSPEER: Recruitment abroad as such is supported by us. We only fear very\nmuch that the skilled workers extracted from the occupied countries do\nnot always reach the appropriate factories in Germany. It might\ncertainly be better if we acted in such a way that the parent firms of\nGermany which work with the French and Czech factories would comb out\nthe foreign workers more than before for their own use.\n\nSAUCKEL: We made an agreement with Field Marshal Milch. You will get the\nfactories which are urgently needed for your airplane motors, etc.;\nthese will be completely safeguarded. In the same way I promised Admiral\nof the Fleet Doenitz[95] today that the U-boat repair firms proper are\nabsolutely safeguarded. We shall even be able to provide our own\narmament factories on French soil with labor extracted from French\nfactories, in the main from the unoccupied territory where there still\nare metal works which have their full complement of skilled workers\nwithout even having been touched so far.\n\nHILDEBRAND: May I point out at this point that we have to figure that we\nshall be deprived of the Italian workers this year. This according to\npresent discussions, concerns 300,000 men altogether, or 15 to 20,000 a\nmonth. If we deduct the first installment, the remaining ones to a great\npart are just highly skilled metal workers.\n\nSAUCKEL: This is a request of the Fuehrer, but he has not yet finally\ndecided.\n\nHILDEBRAND: But we have been told to be prepared to lose these men.\n\nSPEER: We ourselves quite support the combing-out abroad. On the other\nhand we must be entitled\u2014and this was agreed\u2014to exclude or prefer\nparticular kinds of work, e.g., the armor factories. In France we are\nmore and more turning towards giving up finishing processes and\nstressing the subcontracting. It is the foundries and similar works,\ne.g., for the use of the aluminum industry, which we wish to use to\ncapacity. We could force the production of Opel, so that in this case\nPeugeot who manufacture the forged parts for Opel, the parent firm,\nmight demand more labor for this while the rest of their workers would\nbe taken over by Opel.\n\n * * * * *\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT R-124\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 48-A\n\n EXTRACTS FROM STENOGRAPHIC MINUTES OF THE THIRTY-SIXTH\n CONFERENCE OF THE CENTRAL PLANNING BOARD,\n 22 APRIL 1943\n\nDr. Jaenicke\nSecret\n\n Top Secret State Matter\n _STENOGRAPHIC MINUTES OF THE 36TH CONFERENCE\n OF THE CENTRAL PLANNING BOARD_\n\n_Concerning 1943-44 coal economy plan. Held on Thursday, 22 April 1943,\n1550 hours at the Festival Hall at the Zoo, Jebenstr._\n\n * * * * *\n\nSPEER: Throughout the winter we have seen that in the last instance it\nis coal which provides the basis for all plans we wish to execute in\nother respects, and most of you are also aware of our intention to\nincrease the manufacture of iron. Here also it will again be coal which\nin the last instance will tip the scales, whether or not we shall be\nable to accomplish this increase of iron production. Seen from the\nCentral Planning Board, we are of the opinion that the demand for coal\nas well as the demand for iron ought to be coordinated in a separate\nplan, and that this plan ought to receive about the same degree of\nurgency as the Krauch plan, and that with regard to labor, the\nconditions required for the execution of that plan must be established.\nPerhaps Mr. Timm will be able to state how he expects the question of\nthe miners to be developed; unfortunately the miners cannot be taken\nfrom the German reservoir, in their place we shall have to use very\nstrong foreigners.\n\nTIMM: At the moment, 69,000 men are needed for hauling that coal. We\nwant to cover this by finding within the Reich 23,000 men, viz., healthy\nprisoners of war, etc., who are especially suitable for mining\u2014and by\ndispatching 50,000 Poles from the General Government. Out of these about\n30,000 men have been supplied up to 24 April, so that about 39,000 men\nare still outstanding for January to April. The demand for May has been\nreported to us at 35,700. The difficulties existed especially with\nregard to recruitment in the General Government, since in every district\nsurrounding Germany there is an extraordinary resistance to recruitment.\nIn all countries we have to change over more or less to registering the\nmen by age groups and to conscripting them in age groups. They do appear\nfor registration as such, but as soon as transport is available, they do\nnot come back so that the dispatch of the men has become more or less a\nquestion for the police.\n\nEspecially in Poland the situation at the moment is extraordinarily\nserious. It is well known that vehement battles occurred just because of\nthese actions. The resistance against the administration established by\nus is very strong. Quite a number of our men have been exposed to\nincreased dangers, and it was just in the last two or three weeks that\nsome of them were shot dead, e.g., the head of the labor office in\nWarsaw who was shot in his office, and yesterday another man again. This\nis how matters stand presently, and the recruiting itself even if done\nwith the best will remain extremely difficult unless police\nreinforcements are at hand.\n\n * * * * *\n\nSPEER: These [women] we can use in the Reich. There are a great number\nof Russian PW\u2019s and laborers who are employed at places where they need\nnot be employed. There can be an exchange. The only thing is to do this\nwith unskilled workers, and not to take the workers from the industry\nwhere they were trained with difficulty.\n\nKEHRL: Where we are late in completion of a task, or where we lose an\nopportunity, we can make up for it. But any coal which we cannot haul at\nonce is definitely lost for use in this war. This is why we cannot do\nenough to force the allotment to the pits.\n\nSPEER: But not by forcible actions in smashing what we toilsomely built.\n\n(KEHRL: We need not do that!)\n\nYou ought to add the conscripted labor.\n\nTIMM: We must endeavor to get German men for working at the coal-face.\n\nKEHRL: We subsist on foreigners who live in Germany.\n\nTIMM: These men are concentrated within a very small area. Otherwise\nthere might be trouble in this sector.\n\nSPEER: There is a specified statement showing in what sectors the\nRussian PW\u2019s have been distributed, and this statement is quite\ninteresting. It shows that the armaments industry only received 30\npercent. I always complained about this.\n\nTIMM: The highest percentage of PW\u2019s are Frenchmen, and one ought not to\nforget that it is difficult to employ them at the coal-face. The number\nof Russians living within the Reich is small.\n\nROHLAND: In the mines one should exclusively use eastern people, not\nwestern ones.\n\nSPEER: The western men collapse!\n\n * * * * *\n\nSPEER: In any case we ought to force the coal production with all our\npower. I now have here a statement on the distribution of the Soviet\nprisoners. There are 368,000 altogether. Of these are: 101,000 in\nagriculture; 94,000 in the mining industry\u2014who are not available in any\ncase; 15,000 in the building materials industry; 26,000 in iron and\nmetal production where they cannot be extracted either; 29,000 in the\nmanufacture of iron, steel, and metal goods; 63,000 in the manufacture\nof machines, boilers, and cars, and similar appliances, which means in\narmaments industry; and 10,000 in the chemical industry. Agriculture has\nreceived by far the most of them, and the men employed there could in\nthe course of time be exchanged for women. The 90,000 Russian PW\u2019s\nemployed in the whole of the armaments industry are for the greatest\npart skilled men. If you can extract 8-10,000 men from there, it would\nalready be the limit.\n\nKEHRL: Would it not be possible to add Serbians, etc.?\n\nSOGEMEIER: We ought not to mix too much.\n\nROHLAND: For God\u2019s sake, no Serbians! We had very bad experiences with\nmixing.\n\n * * * * *\n\nSPEER: Everything depends on the amount of the influx from abroad.\n\nSCHIEBER: If anyway nothing arrives, the mines certainly will get\nnothing.\n\nTIMM: Gauleiter Sauckel is perfectly convinced that the transports will\nbe on their way within a short time. Now the front has been consolidated\nat last.\n\nSCHIEBER: We ought to be grateful that the weather has allowed the\nfarmer to keep things going in some way despite the little labor being\navailable to him. For the farmer, the coal supply is just as important\nas for the whole of the armaments industry. When we discuss tomorrow the\nnitrogen problem we shall see the same; our first need is coal.\n\nKOERNER: On 1 April we had in agriculture a deficit of about 600,000\nlaborers. It had been planned to cover it by supplying labor from the\nEast, mainly women. These laborers will first have to be supplied until\nother laborers are released from agriculture. We are just entering the\nseason where the heaviest work in the fields has to be done, for which\nmany laborers are necessary. Much labor is needed for the hoeing of the\nfruits, and it is to be hoped that this year the harvest can be started\nearly which would be rendered much more difficult if an exchange of\nlabor would have to take place.\n\n * * * * *\n\nMILCH: We ought to except certain areas of the Protectorate to which the\norders are being directed, and extract nothing there until a surplus is\nfound out subsequently. For the time being it cannot be ascertained.\nThere are enough other areas of the Protectorate which are not affected\nby the industry plan and some labor could be extracted from them at\nonce. We ought to name the places which are excepted from our action.\n\nTIMM: In this the authorities on the other side ought to participate;\nthey are in the best position to tell the places from where nothing must\nbe extracted.\n\nMILCH: If one proceeds as I proposed, and Timm agreed to it, no damage\ncan be done. This ought to be done in any case. For the rest I\ncompletely agree; we must now supply the mines with labor. The greatest\npart of labor which we can supply from the East will indeed be women.\nBut the eastern women are quite accustomed to agricultural work, and\nespecially to the type of work which has to be done these coming weeks,\nthe hoeing and transplanting of turnips, etc. The women are quite\nsuitable for this. One thing has to be considered: first you must supply\nagriculture with the women, then you can extract the men, laborer for\nlaborer. It is not the right thing if first the men are taken away and\nthe farmers are left without labor for 4 to 6 weeks. If the women arrive\nafter such time they arrive too late.\n\nSPEER: Beyond this we are prepared to release from all parts of the war\neconomy, in exchange for women, any Russian PW\u2019s or other Russian who is\nemployed as auxiliary laborer.\n\n * * * * *\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT R-124\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 48-A\n\n REPORT OF THE FORTY-SECOND CONFERENCE OF THE CENTRAL\n PLANNING BOARD, 23 JUNE 1943\n\nThe Plenipotentiary for the Four Year Plan\nCentral Planning Board\nZ.P. 148\n\n Berlin W 8, 24 June 1943\n Leipziger Strasse 3\n\n 24 copies, 17th copy\n\n Top Secret State Matter\n _REPORT ON THE 42D CONFERENCE OF THE CENTRAL\n PLANNING BOARD ON 23 JUNE 1943, 1600 HOURS_\n\n _Coal situation_\n\nThe manpower situation in the coal mining industry, particularly in the\nhard coal mining industry, is still unsatisfactory, and necessitates an\nextension of the measures decided upon at the 36th Conference of the\nCentral Planning Board, held on 22 April 1943.\n\nThe intensive discussion yielded as the most expedient solution the use\nof Russian prisoners of war to fill the existing vacancies. The more\nhomogeneous character of the shifts will bring about the necessary\nhigher output resulting both from an increased capacity of such shifts\nand particularly from a restriction of fluctuations.\n\n1. The present drive, which is to be carried out throughout the German\neconomy proper, aims both at freeing Russian labor, fit for work in the\nmining industry and actually not employed as semi-skilled workmen, and\nat replacing it by additionally imported labor consisting of eastern\nworkers, Poles, etc. Thus, about 50,000 workmen are expected to be made\navailable up to the end of July 1943. This drive is to be accelerated.\n\nFurthermore as an immediate measure it should be suggested to the\nFuehrer\u2014RVK [Reich Association Coal] and GBA [Plenipotentiary General\nfor Labor Allocation] submitting the necessary figures for the statement\nto the Fuehrer\u2014that 200,000 Russian prisoners fit for the heaviest work\nbe made available from the Wehrmacht and Waffen SS through the chiefs of\nthe army groups [Heeresgruppenchefs]. The prisoners will be selected on\nthe spot by medical officers of the mining industry and officials of the\noffice of the Plenipotentiary General for Labor Allocation will take\ncharge of them there and then. Provisions are to be made for an\nextension of this program in order to satisfy any demand for manpower,\nwhich will have accumulated up to the end of the year 1943.\n\nThe manpower needed by the mining transport industry\n[Bergbau-Zubringer-Industrie] and by the iron-producing industry may be\nsupplied from that same source provided that the necessities of the coal\nmining industry have previously been adjusted.\n\nThe performance of the Soviet Russians so employed is to be raised by a\npremium system. For this purpose, the present pay restrictions are to be\nlifted and the manager [Betriebsfuehrer] be allowed to distribute\namongst the workers, according to his discretion, one Reichmark per head\nper day as premium for particular services rendered.\n\nFurthermore, care will be taken that workmen can exchange these\npremiums, which will be paid out in camp money [Lagergeld] for goods. It\nis intended to put at their disposal various provisions (e.g., sunflower\nseeds, etc.) beer, tobacco, cigarettes and cigars, small items for daily\nuse, etc.\n\nThe Reich Food Ministry in conjunction with the Reich Association Coal\nand the Reich Ministry of Economic Affairs will clarify the question\nwhether, beyond that, something else can be changed as far as rations\nare concerned.\n\n2. Equally, in occupied countries, labor is to be tied more securely to\nthe various factories by means of the distribution of additional ration\ncards as premium for good services. This refers in particular to the\nGeneral Government and the occupied territories in the East. The output\ndemanded of the General Government is to be fixed at the proposed\namount, and the additional rations for armament workers may then be\nrated accordingly.\n\n [Typewritten signature] DR. GRAMSCH\nPresent:\n\n Reich Minister Speer\n Field Marshal Milch\n Staatstrat Schieber Reich Ministry for Armament and\n Munitions\n Oberbuergermeister Liebel Reich Ministry for Armament and\n Munitions\n Major General Waeger Reich Ministry for Armament and\n Munitions\n Dr. Ing. Groener Reich Ministry for Armament and\n Munitions\n President Kehrl Reich Economic Ministry\n Min. Dir. Gramsch Four Year Plan\n Min. Dirig. Timm Plenipotentiary General for Labor\n Allocation (GBA)\n Staatsrat Pleiger Reich Association Coal (RVK)\n Dr. Sogemeier Reich Association Coal (RVK)\n Dr. Rosenkranz Reich Association Coal (RVK)\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT R-124\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 48-A\n\n EXTRACTS FROM STENOGRAPHIC MINUTES OF THE FIFTY-THIRD\n CONFERENCE OF THE CENTRAL PLANNING BOARD,\n 16 FEBRUARY 1944\n\n Secret!\n _STENOGRAPHIC MINUTES OF THE 53D CONFERENCE\n OF THE CENTRAL PLANNING BOARD_\n\n _Concerning Supply of Labor held on 16 February 1944, 10 o\u2019clock,_\n _in the Reich Air Ministry_\n\nPresent: Milch (for Central Planning Board), Kehrl, Backe, etc.\n\nMILCH: The armament industry employs foreign workers to a large extent,\naccording to the latest figures\u201440 percent. The new allocations of the\nPlenipotentiary General for Labor Allocation consist mostly of\nforeigners and we lost a lot of German personnel which was called up.\nSpecially the air industry being a young industry employs a great many\nyoung people who should be called up. This will be very difficult as is\neasily seen if one deducts those working for experimental stations. In\nmass production the foreign workers by far prevail. It is about 95\npercent and higher. Our best new engine is made 88 percent by Russian\nprisoners of war and the other 12 percent by German men and women. 50-60\nJu 52\u2019s which we now regard only as transport planes are made per month.\nOnly 6-8 German men are working on this machine, the rest are Ukrainian\nwomen who have beaten all the records of trained workers.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe list of the shirkers should be entrusted to Himmler\u2019s trustworthy\nhands who will make them work, all right. This is very important for\neducating people and has also a deterrent effect on such others who\nwould likewise feel inclined to shirk.\n\n * * * * *\n\n* * * It is, therefore, not possible to exploit fully all the foreigners\nunless we compel them by piece work or have the possibility of taking\nmeasures against foreigners who are not doing their bit. But if the\nforeman lays hands on a prisoner of war or smacks him, at once there is\na terrible uproar, the man is put into prison, etc. There are sufficient\nofficials in Germany who think it their most important duty to stand up\nfor human rights instead of war production. I, too, am all for human\nrights. But if a Frenchman says, \u201cYou fellows will all be hanged and the\nchief of the factory will be beheaded first\u201d, and if then the chief\nsays, \u201cI am going to hit him\u201d, then he is in a mess. He is not\nprotected, but the \u201cpoor fellow\u201d who said that to him is protected. I\nhave told my engineers, \u201cI am going to punish you if you don\u2019t hit such\na man; the more you do in this respect the more I shall praise you. I\nshall see to it that nothing happens to you.\u201d This is not yet\nsufficiently known. I cannot talk to all plant leaders. I should like to\nsee the man who stays my arm because I can take care of anybody who does\nso. If the little plant leader does that he is put into a concentration\ncamp and runs the risk of losing the prisoners of war. In one case two\nRussian officers took off with an airplane but crashed. I ordered that\nthese two men be hanged at once. They were hanged or shot yesterday. I\nleft that to the SS. I expressed the wish to have them hanged in the\nfactory for the others to see. * * *\n\n * * * * *\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT R-124\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 48-B\n\n REPORT ON THE FIFTY-THIRD CONFERENCE OF THE CENTRAL\n PLANNING BOARD, 16 FEBRUARY 1944\n\n [Marginal notes] St. 10-44 VII Top Secret\n\nThe Plenipotentiary for the Four Year Plan\nCentral Planning Board\nZ.P. 7 g. Rs.\nPl. 030053\n\n Berlin, 18 February 1944\n W 8, Leipziger Strasse 3\n\n Secret\n 31 copies, 3d copy\n [Milch\u2019s initial]\n M\n _REPORT ON THE 53D CONFERENCE OF THE CENTRAL\n PLANNING BOARD ON 16 FEBRUARY 1944,\n ON LABOR ALLOCATION 1944_\n\nThe purpose of this conference is to determine the labor needs and\nresources for the 1st quarter and the whole year of 1944. The session is\nopened by the discussion of the data submitted by the planning office\n(see enclosures 1-9). On the basis of the planning office\u2019s estimate of\nthe requirements (enclosure 9) these turn out, after discussion with the\nindividual allottees, to be the following:\n\n First Second-Fourth\n Quarter-44 Quarter-44 Total\n in 1000\u2019s\nAgriculture 70 (1) 70 (2) 140\nForestry and Timber Industry 40 (3) . . (4) 40\nArmament and War Production 544 (5) 3,000 (6) 3,544\nAir Raid Damages 100 50 150 (7)\nCommunications 85 (8) 265 350\nDistribution . . . . . .\nPublic Administration 62 (9) . . 62\nWehrmacht Administration 130 . . 130\n \u2014\u2014\u2014 \u2014\u2014\u2014 \u2014\u2014\u2014\n 1,031 3,385 4,416\n\n(1) Not including the 200,000 of whom 100,000 each will flow back from\nindustry and forestry.\n\n(2) Not including the demand for seasonal workers amounting usually to\n62,000.\n\n(3) 25,000 for forestry and 15,000, including 8,000 women for the timber\nindustry, as against a peacetime requirement of 150,000 male and 40,000\nfemale seasonal workers, although now considerably increased production\n(1943:70 million cubic meters; 1944:80 million cubic meters) and\nparticularly heavy combing-out through draft.\n\n(4) Starting autumn 1944, the usual necessary transfer from agriculture.\n\n(5) Found to be a priority requirement for February with the\nPlenipotentiary for Labor Allocation.\n\n(6) Starting March, 200,000 monthly as compensation for fluctuations\u20142\nmillion for period March to December 1944. Plus compensation for return\nto agriculture 100,000 (cp. note 1) including 30,000 retrained workers\nwho perhaps will have to be covered by an over-all exchange system and\nabout 900,000 as replacement for draftees, as reserves for increased\nprograms, etc., making about 3 million men all told for the period from\nMarch to December 1944.\n\n(7) 150,000 is the minimum requirement in addition to the hitherto\nassigned 70,000 OT, 100,000 GB construction and 118,000 workmen to the\nlocal and district assignments and 42,000 workers centrally assigned.\nThe mobile formations are to be increased and sometimes to be reinforced\nby local help, particularly by people unemployed through bombings.\n\n(8) Including 75,000 for the Reichsbahn, 1,000 for inland navigation,\n7,000 for motor traffic, 2,000 for minor railways.\n\n(9) Including 27,000 for the Reichspost and 35,000 for the Red Cross.\n\nIn this estimate, real fluctuation (departure from work) as well as\nfictitious fluctuation (change of work location) are taken into account.\nFictitious fluctuation is still to be variously estimated in the various\nbranches. For the armament section it is estimated at 50 percent of the\ntotal fluctuation (cp. note 6). The total requirements of approximately\n4.4 million would thus decrease by up to 1 million. The above estimate\nof requirements ought, therefore, in no case to exceed the requirements\ndetermined at the Fuehrer\u2019s conference on 4 January 1944, comprising\nonly the real fluctuation and amounting to 4,05 million namely:\n\n 1. Maintenance of the status of activity in the whole of 2,5 million\n the war economy including agriculture, taking into\n account the replacement of deficiencies due to drafts\n into the Wehrmacht, deaths, illness, expiration of\n contract, etc. (real fluctuation)\n 2. For additional armament tasks and removal of bottleneck 1,30 million\n situations in armament plants\n 3. Air raid defense constructions, etc. 0,25 million\n \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\n Total 4,05 million\n\nKehrl is charged with the task of ascertaining the magnitude of real and\nfictitious fluctuation, and as a basis thereto, on behalf of the Central\nPlanning Board, together with the competent offices, to determine the\nconcepts, \u201creal and fictitious fluctuation,\u201d furthermore the concepts,\nassignment, reserves [Aufstockung], etc., in a uniform terminology which\nwill be binding for all agencies concerned.\n\nThe following resources are the GBA\u2019s [Sauckel\u2019s] estimated coverage of\nthe requirements:\n\n 1. With the utmost efforts, other workers can be mobilized 500,000\n from German domestic reserves (getting hold of labor\n unemployed as result of enemy air raids, compulsory\n registration, shutting down, combing out measures)\n 2. Recruitment of Italian labor numbering at the rate of 1,500,000\n 250,000 a month from January to April\u20141,000,000 and\n 500,000 from May to December\n 3. Recruitment of French labor at equal monthly rates, 1,000,000\n from 1 February to 31 December 1944 (approx. 91,000 per\n month)\n 4. Recruitment of labor from Belgium 250,000\n 5. Recruitment of labor from the Netherlands 250,000\n 6. Recruitment of labor from the eastern territories, 600,000\n occupied former Soviet territories, Baltic states, and\n General Government\n 7. Recruitment of workers from other European countries 100,000\n \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\n Approximately 4,2 million\n\nIn addition, the following possibilities are seen for the mobilization\nof more reserves: Intensification of employment of women (in England, 61\npercent of women between 14 and 65 are conscripted for the war economy,\nin Germany only 46 percent) especially in agriculture (more stringent\napplication of the Goering ordinance), reduction in number of domestic\nassistants, reduction of the idle classes (Sauckel-Kehrl-Himmler, in\nthis respect regional round-ups are to be carried out separately for\nforeigners, men and women) improvement of the sanitary system (saving up\nto 3 percent), working out of equitable contractual wages with incentive\nwage premiums. The planning office undertakes in common with the GBA\n[Sauckel] the examination of these possibilities for an intensified\nmobilization. Kehrl is moreover commissioned to make a general\nexamination of the question of an improvement of industrial labor\nassignment. Everyone concerned will transmit their data on faulty\nassignment of workers to the planning office. If necessary, this\nquestion will be handled at a special session of the Central Planning\nBoard.\n\nFor the 1st quarter of 1944 the following resources (including a\nfictitious fluctuation of about 50,000 per month) are given by the\nestimate of the GBA [Sauckel]:\n\n Assignments in January 145,000\n Assignments February-March 500,000\n \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\n Approximately 650,000\n\nThe adjustment of requirements and coverage will be effected at another\nsession of the Central Planning Board.\n\n [Signed] STEFFLER\nPresent:\n\n Field Marshal Milch\n State Secretary Koerner\n President Kehrl\n Ministerial Councillor Steffler\n Maj. Gen. Waeger Ministry for Armament and\n Munitions\n Teuscher Ministry for Armament and\n Munitions\n KVV Chief Bosch Ministry for Armament and\n Munitions\n Ministerial Councillor Wissmann Ministry for Armament and\n Munitions\n Lt. Col. Schaede Ministry for Armament and\n Munitions\n Provincial Counsellor Berk Plenipotentiary for Labor\n Allocation\n State Secretary Hayler Reich Economic Ministry\n General of Engineers Sellschopp Reich Air Ministry\n Staff Engineer Kaufmann Reich Air Ministry\n Staff Secretary Ganzenmueller Reich Transport Ministry\n Ministerial Director Hassenpflug Reich Transport Ministry\n Ministerial Councillor Hennig Reich Transport Ministry\n State Secretary Backe Reich Food Ministry\n State Secretary Alpers Reich Office for Forestry\n Prof. Abetz Reich Office for Forestry\n State Secretary Gutterer Propaganda Ministry\n Mayor Ellgering Propaganda Ministry\n Gen. Weidemann OKW\n Major Koch OKW\n\nDistribution:\n\n Reich Minister Speer 1st copy\n Reich Minister Funk 2d copy\n Field Marshal Milch 3d copy\n State Secretary Koerner 4th copy\n President Kehrl 5th copy & 6th\n Engineer Goerner 7th copy\n Ministerial Councillor Steffler 8th & 9th copies\n Maj. Gen. Waeger 10th copy\n KVV Chief Bosch 11th copy\n Ministerial Councillor Wissmann 12th copy\n Provincial Councillor Berk 13th copy\n State Secretary Hayler 14th copy\n General Engineer Sellschopp 15th copy\n State Secretary Ganzenmueller 16th copy\n State Secretary Backe 17th copy\n State Secretary Alpers 18th copy\n State Secretary Gutterer 19th copy\n Gen. Weidemann 20th copy\n Major Koch 21st copy\n Planning Office 22d & 23d copies\n Registry V.P. 24th & 31st copies\n\nPla. 160/ 11.2.\n\n List of persons invited to the Conference of the Central\n Planning Board on 16 February 1944:\n\n Chairman: Field Marshal Milch\n\nParticipants:\n\n Reich Minister of Economy Funk\n State Secretary Koerner\n State Secretary Dr. Backe\n General Forester Dr. Alpers\n State Secretary Dr. Ganzenmueller\n State Secretary Dr. Gutterer\n President Kehrl\n Maj. Gen. Waeger\n Ministerial Manager Dr. Timm (crossed out and replaced by Provincial\n Councillor Berk)\n Military Government vice-regent Dr. Bosch\n Ministerial Councillor Dr. Steffler\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT R-124\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 48-A\n\n EXTRACTS FROM THE STENOGRAPHIC MINUTES OF THE\n FIFTY-FOURTH CONFERENCE OF THE CENTRAL PLANNING\n BOARD, 1 MARCH 1944\n\n _STENOGRAPHIC MINUTES OF THE 54TH CONFERENCE_[96]\n _OF THE CENTRAL PLANNING BOARD_\n\n Re: Labor Supply on Wednesday, 1 March 1944, 10 o\u2019clock, at the\n Ministry for Air Transport\n\nSAUCKEL: Field Marshal [Milch], Gentlemen, it goes without saying that\nwe shall satisfy as far as possible the demands agreed upon by the\nCentral Planning Board. In this connection I wish to state that I call\nsuch deliveries as can be made by the Plenipotentiary for Labor\nAllocation \u201cpossible\u201d by stressing every nerve of his organization.\nAlready on 4 January I had to report to the Fuehrer with the greatest\nregret that for the first time I was not in a position to guarantee\ndelivery of the grand total of 4,050,000 men then calculated in the\nFuehrer\u2019s Headquarters for the year 1944. In the presence of the Fuehrer\nI emphasized this several times. In the previous years I was able to\nsatisfy the demands, at least with regard to the number of laborers, but\nthis year I am no longer able to guarantee them in advance. In case I\ncan deliver only a small number, I should be glad if those arriving\nwould be distributed by percentage within the framework of your program.\nOf course, I shall readily agree if I am now told by the board: Now we\nhave to change the program; now this or that is more urgent. It goes\nwithout saying that we will satisfy the demands whatever they may be, to\nthe best of our ability, with due regard to the war situation. So much\nabout figures!\n\nWe have no reason to contest the figures as such, for we ask nothing for\nourselves. We are not even able to do anything with the laborers we\ncollect; we only put them at the disposal of industry. I only wish to\nmake some general statements and ask for your indulgence.\n\nIn the autumn of last year the supply program, inasmuch as it concerns\nsupply from abroad was frustrated to a very great extent; I need not\ngive the reasons in this circle; we have talked enough about them, but I\nhave to state: the program has been smashed. People in France, Belgium,\nand Holland thought that labor was no longer to be directed from these\ncountries to Germany because the work now had to be done within these\ncountries themselves. For months\u2014sometimes I visited these countries\ntwice within a month\u2014I have been called a fool who against all reason\ntravelled around in these countries in order to extract labor. This went\nso far, I assure you, that all prefectures in France had general orders\nnot to satisfy my demands since even the German authorities quarreled\nover whether or not Sauckel was a fool. If one\u2019s work is smashed in such\na way, repair is very, very difficult. * * *\n\n * * * * *\n\n* * * Today I am able to report that we stopped that decrease. According\nto most accurate statistics, which I had ordered, we have today again\nincluding foreign workers and prisoners of war, the same number of 29.1\nmillion which we had in September. But we have added nothing since that\ntime. Thus we dispatched to the Reich in those two months no more than\n4,500 Frenchmen which amounts to nothing. From Italy only 7,000\ncivilians arrived. This, although from 1 December until today, I have\nhad no hour, no Sunday, and no night for myself. I have visited all\nthese countries and travelled through the whole Reich. My work was\nterribly difficult, but not for the reason that no more workers are to\nbe found. I wish to state expressly, in France and in Italy there are\nstill men galore. The situation in Italy is nothing but a European\nscandal, the same applies to a certain extent to France. Gentlemen, the\nFrench work badly and support themselves at the expense of the work done\nby the German soldier and laborer, even at the expense of the German\nfood supply, and the same applies to Italy. I found out during my last\nstay that the food supply of the northern Italians cannot suffer any\ncomparison with that of the southern Italians. The northern Italians,\nviz., as far to the south as Rome are so well nourished that they need\nnot work; they are nourished quite differently from the German nation by\ntheir Father in Heaven without having to work for their bread. The labor\nreserves exist but the means of touching them have been smashed.\n\nThe most abominable point made by my adversaries is their claim that no\nexecutive had been provided within these areas in order to recruit in a\nsensible manner the Frenchmen, Belgians, and Italians and to dispatch\nthem to work. Thereupon I even proceeded to employ and train a whole\nbatch of French male and female agents who for good pay, just as was\ndone in olden times for \u201cshanghaiing\u201d, went hunting for men and made\nthem drunk by using liquor as well as words in order to dispatch them to\nGermany. Moreover I charged some able men with founding a special labor\nsupply executive of our own, and this they did by training and arming,\nwith the help of the Higher SS and Police Leader, a number of natives,\nbut I still have to ask the Munitions Ministry for arms for the use of\nthese men. * * *\n\n * * * * *\n\n* * * Especially the protected factories in the occupied countries make\nmy work more difficult. According to reports received within the last\ndays these protected factories are to a great part filled to capacity,\nand still labor is sucked up into these areas. This strong suction very\nmuch obstructs our desire to dispatch labor to the Reich. I wish to\nemphasize that I never opposed the use of French labor in factories\nwhich had been transferred from Germany to France. I am still sound of\nmind, and as recently as last summer I charged Mr. Hildebrand with an\ninquiry in France which had the following result: It would be easy to\nextract from French medium and small factories\u201480 percent of all French\nfactories are small enterprises with only 36-40 working hours\u20141 million\nlaborers for use in the transferred factories, and 1 million more for\ndispatch to Germany. To use 1 million within France should be quite\npossible unless the protected factories in France artificially suck up\nthe labor completely and unless their number is continually increased,\nas happens according to my reports especially in Belgium, and unless new\ncategories of works are continually declared protected, so that finally\nno labor is left which I may use in Germany. I wish here and now to\nrepeat my thesis: A French workman, if treated in the right way, does\ndouble the amount of work in Germany that he would do in France, and he\nhas here twice the value he has in France. I want to state clearly and\nfearlessly\u2014the exaggerated use of the idea of protected factories in\nconnection with the labor supply from France in my submission implies a\ngrave danger for the German labor supply. If we cannot come to the\ndecision that my assistants, together with the armament authorities, are\nto comb out every factory, this fountain of labor too in the future will\nremain blocked for the use of Germany, and in this case the program\nprescribed to me by the Fuehrer may well be frustrated. The same applies\nto Italy. In either country there are enough laborers, even enough\nskilled workers; only we must have enough courage to step into the\nFrench plants. What really happens in France, I do not know. That a\nsmaller amount of work is done during enemy operations in France, like\nin every occupied country, than is done in Germany seems to me evident.\nIf I am to fulfill the demands which you present to me, you must be\nprepared to agree with me and my assistants, that the term \u201cprotected\nfactory\u201d is to be restricted in France to what is really necessary and\nfeasible by reasonable men, and the protected factories are not, as the\nFrenchmen think, protected against any extraction of labor from them for\nuse in Germany. It is indeed very difficult for me to be presented to\nFrench eyes as a German of whom they may say, Sauckel is here stopped\nfrom acting for German armament! * * * On the other hand, I have grounds\nfor hoping that I shall be just able to wiggle through, first by using\nmy old corps of agents and my labor executive, and secondly by relying\nupon the measures which I was lucky enough to succeed in obtaining from\nthe French Government. In a discussion lasting 5-6 hours I have exerted\nfrom M. Laval the concession that the death penalty will be threatened\nfor officials endeavoring to sabotage the flow of labor supply and\ncertain other measures. Believe me, this was very difficult. It required\na hard struggle to get this through. But I succeeded and now in France,\nGermans ought to take really severe measures, in case the French\nGovernment does not do so. Don\u2019t take it amiss, I and my assistants in\nfact have sometimes seen things happen in France that I was forced to\nask, is there no respect any more in France for the German lieutenant\nwith his 10 men. For months every word I spoke was countered by the\nanswer: But what do you mean, Mr. Gauleiter, you know there is no\nexecutive at our disposal; we are not able to take action in France!\nThis I have been answered over and over again. How then, am I to\nregulate the labor supply with regard to France. There is only one\nsolution\u2014the German authorities have to co-operate with each other, and\nif the Frenchmen despite all their promises do not act, then we Germans\nmust make an example of one case, and, by reason of this law, if\nnecessary put prefect or burgomaster against the wall, if he does not\ncomply with the rules; otherwise no Frenchman at all will be dispatched\nto Germany. During the latter quarter the belief in a German victory and\nin all propaganda statements which we were still able to make has sunk\nbelow zero, and today it is still the same. I rather expect the new\nFrench ministers, especially Henriot [French (Vichy) Minister of\nPropaganda] will act ruthlessly; they are very willing and I have a good\nimpression of them. The question is only how far they will be able to\nimpress their will on the subordinated authorities. Such is the\nsituation in France.\n\nIn Italy the situation is exactly the same, perhaps rather worse. * * *\n\nMoreover, I am offended, and this grieves me most, by the statement that\nI was responsible for the European partisan nuisance. Even German\nauthorities reproached me thus, although they were the last ones who\nhave the right to make such statements. I wish to protest against this\nslander, and I can prove that it is not I who is responsible. * * *\n\n* * * Numerous German authorities, even such as had no connections with\neconomics and labor supply, inquired of me, why do you fetch these\npeople to Germany at all? You make trouble for this area and render our\nexistence there more difficult. To which I can only reply: It is my duty\nto insist on it that labor supply comes from abroad. There is no longer\na German labor supply. That the latter is exhausted I already proved by\nmy ill-famed manifesto of April of last year. But I am not able to\ntransfer the German soil to France. Nor can I transfer the German\ntraffic to France nor the German mines. Nor can I transfer the German\narmament works which still have to release part of their workers, if fit\nfor war service, nor their machines. Here alone 2,500,000 men are in\nquestion as has been calculated in the Fuehrer conference. It is the\nflower of German workers who go to the front and must go there. I have\nalways been one of those who says: If only energetic measures are\napplied in fetching labor from abroad, then we want to release in God\u2019s\nname everybody from armaments work whom we can, in order to strengthen\nour companies. The 1st and 7th Armored Divisions from Thuringia are\nfrequently mentioned in the armed forces report, I can only tell you\nthat the number of soldiers killed in battle in some Thuringian villages\nhas surpassed for some time already the number of soldiers killed in the\nWorld War [I] by twice that amount. This I mention in my capacity as\nGauleiter. It is for this reason that we have to do our duty. The best\nkind of German men, and men in the prime of life, have to go to the\nfront, and German women of more than 50 years of age cannot replace\nthem. Therefore I have to continue to go to France, Belgium, Holland,\nand Italy, and there will be a time again when I shall go to Poland and\nextract workers there as fit and as many of them as I can get. In this\ncircle I only wish to urge that you spread it around that I am not quite\nthe insane fellow I have been said to be during the last quarter of a\nyear. Even the Fuehrer has been told so. It goes without saying that\njust this slander has had the effect that I was unable to deliver in the\nlast quarter at least 1\u00bd million workers whom I would have been able to\ndeliver as long ago as last year, had the atmospheric conditions been\nbetter. It was due to that \u201cartificial atmospheric screen\u201d, that they\ndid not arrive. I am aware that they simply have to arrive this year. My\nduty to the Fuehrer, the Reich Marshal, Minister Speer, and towards you,\nGentlemen, and to agriculture is apparent, and I shall fulfill it. A\nstart has been made, and as many as 262,000 new workers have arrived,\nand I hope and am convinced to be able to deliver the bulk of the order.\nHow the labor is to be distributed will then have to be decided\naccording to the needs of the whole of German industry, and I shall\nalways be prepared to keep the closest contact with you, Gentlemen, and\nto charge the labor exchanges and the district labor exchanges with\nintimately collaborating with you. Everything is functioning if such\ncollaboration exists. * * *\n\n * * * * *\n\nMILCH: * * * I now proceed to the important question, where are we still\nable to get greater amounts of laborers from you, and without a doubt\nthe answer is, from abroad. I have asked Mr. Schieber to make a short\nappearance here in order to give his opinion on Italy. I agree with your\nstatement, Gauleiter, that it is only the bad organization of our work\nabroad which is responsible for the fact that you can\u2019t do your job. Too\nmany people meddle in your work. If someone tells you, there is no\nexecutive in France and Italy, I consider it an impudence, a foolish and\nstupid lie uttered by people who either are unable to think or\nconsciously state an untruth. This kind of person is not interested in\ngiving a clear lead in this respect and in analyzing the situation,\nprobably because they are not smart enough. In this way, however, your\nwork is rendered more difficult or frustrated, and all armament work at\nthe same time. For we have it before our eyes what close relations exist\nbetween the situation in the occupied countries and that in the\narmaments industry. A more foolish policy can hardly be conceived. In\ncase the invasion of France begins and succeeds only to a certain\ndegree, then we shall experience a rising by partisans such as we have\nnever experienced either in the Balkans or in the East, not because this\nwould have happened in any case, but only because we made it possible by\nnot dealing with them in the right manner. Four whole age groups have\ngrown up in France, men between 18 and 23 years of age, who are,\ntherefore, at that age when young people moved by patriotism or seduced\nby other people are ready to do anything which satisfies their personal\nhatred against us\u2014and of course they hate us. These men ought to have\nbeen called up in age groups and dispatched to Germany; for they present\nthe greatest danger which threatens us in case of invasion. I am firmly\nconvinced and have said several times, if invasion starts, sabotage of\nall railways, works, and supply bases will be a daily occurrence, and\nthen it will be really the case that our forces are no longer available\nto survey the execution of our orders within the country, but they will\nhave to fight at the front, thereby leaving in their rear the much more\ndangerous enemy who destroys their communications, etc. If one had shown\nthe nailed fist and a clear executive intention, a churchyard peace\nwould reign in the rear of the front at the moment the uproar starts.\nThis I have emphasized so frequently, but still nothing is happening, I\nam afraid. For if one intends to start to shoot at that moment, it will\nbe too late for it; then we have no longer the men at our disposal to\nkill off the partisans. In the same way, we are aware of the fact that\ntheir supply of arms in the West is rather ample since the English are\ndropping them from planes. I consider it an idiotic statement if you,\nGauleiter, are accused of having made these men into partisans. As soon\nas you arrive the men run away to protect themselves from being sent to\nGermany. Then they are away, and since they do not know how to exist,\nthey automatically fall into the hands of the partisan leaders; but this\nis not the consequence of the fact that you wish to fetch them, but of\nthe fact that your opposite number, the executive is not able to prevent\ntheir escape. You simply cannot act differently. The main crux of the\nproblem is the fact that your work is made so extremely difficult, and\nthis is why you cannot deliver the 4,050,000 workers. As long as it is\nfeasible for these men to get away and not be caught by the executive,\nas long as the men are able not to return from leave and not to be found\nout on the other side, I do not think, Party Comrade Sauckel, that you\nwill have a decisive success through employing your special corps. The\nmen even then will be whisked away unless quite another authority and\npower is on the watch, and this can only be the army itself. The army\nalone can exercise effective executive. If some say they cannot do this\nkind of work, this is incorrect for within France there are training\nforces stationed in every hole and corner town and every place which\ncould all be used for this work. If this would be done in time, the\npartisan nuisance would not emerge, just as it would not have done in\nthe East if one had only acted in time. Once I had this task at\nStalingrad. At Taganrog there were then 65,000 men of the army, and at\nthe front one lieutenant and 6 men were actually available for each km.\nand they would have been only too glad if they had 20-30 for their\nassistance. In the rear there were great masses of men who had retreated\nin time and squatted down in the villages, and who now were available\nneither for fighting at the front nor for fighting the partisans. I am\naware that I am placing myself in opposition to my own side, but I have\nseen such things happen everywhere, and can find no remedy but that the\narmy should assert itself ruthlessly. You, Gauleiter Sauckel, the Reich\nMarshal, and the Central Planning Board ought to report on this question\nto the Fuehrer, and then he ought to decide at the same time on the\nduties of the military commanders. There ought to be orders of such\nlucidity that they could not be misunderstood, and it is then that\nthings will be in order. It never can be too late to do so, but these\nduties and this work will be more difficult to perform with every\npassing day. The same applies to Italy as well.\n\n * * * * *\n\nSAUCKEL: I wish to insist on combing out the protected factories in the\nfuture also for the protected factories are working like a suction pump;\nand since it is known everywhere in Italy and France that every worker\nif he works in a protected factory is protected against any attempt of\nmine to extract him, it is only too natural that the men are pouring\ninto these factories. How difficult my task becomes thereby is proved by\nthe following fact. I intended to extract from Italy a million workers\nwithin the quarter ending 30 May. Hardly 7,000 arrived in the two months\nwhich expired so far. This is indeed the difficulty. The bulk enters the\nprotected factories, and only the chaff remains for my purpose to send\nthem to Germany. At least I hope to accomplish that with regard to\nlarger enterprises as the number of protected factories is restricted in\nItaly, i.e., the number of protected factories, will not be further\nincreased.\n\n * * * * *\n\nSAUCKEL: This indeed is the decisive question, the one we are dealing\nwith now. If half of the program for 4 million workers to be brought to\nGermany\u2014in other words 2 million\u2014cannot be fulfilled, the employment\nof labor in Germany will fall off this year. The more useful workers,\nhowever, are in France, and of course in Italy too, employed in the\nprotected factories. Therefore if I am not to touch the protected\nfactories which are situated in these countries, this will have the\neffect that the less valuable workers instead of the more valuable type\nwill arrive in Germany. And here we have to ponder about what is in fact\nmore important and expedient. If we give up using these people in\nGermany, where we effectively rule the factories, where moreover we keep\nto a different labor discipline and reach better labor results than in\nFrance proper, then we give up the valuable kind, and then I shall only\nbe able to transport to Germany the less valuable kind of people who\nstill can be found on the streets of France or Italy, or people like\nwaiters, hairdressers, small folk from tailor shops, etc.\n\nMILCH: What is the percentage of protected factories in Italy compared\nwith the whole of Italian labor?\n\nSCHIEBER: I think 14 percent, but I don\u2019t have the figures here.\n\nMILCH: Would not the following method be better: We could take under\nGerman administration the entire food supply for the Italians and tell\nthem: Only he gets any food who either works in a protected factory or\ngoes to Germany.\n\nSAUCKEL: True, the French worker in France is better nourished than the\nGerman worker is in Germany, and the Italian worker too, even if he does\nnot work at all, is better nourished in the part of Italy occupied by us\nthan if he works in Germany. This is why I asked the German food\nauthorities over and over again to improve also the food of the German\nworker introducing the \u201cfactory sandwich\u201d. When I am in Paris, of\ncourse, I go to Maxim\u2019s. There one can experience miracles of\nnourishment. The Fuehrer still thinks that in these countries only very\nrich men who can go to Maxim\u2019s are well provided with food. Thereupon I\nsent my assistants to the Paris suburbs, to the estaminets and lunch\nrestaurants and was told that the Frenchmen who eat there did not feel\nthe shortage caused by the war to any degree comparable with what our\nnation has to experience. The average French citizen too can still buy\neverything he wishes.\n\n(Interruption: This is still more so in small places!)\n\nYes. Moreover, the Frenchman can pay for what he can get. Therefore he\nhas no reason for wishing to go to Germany in order to get better food.\nThis unfortunately is the case.\n\nMILCH: Is there nothing we can do? True, we might not be able to control\nthe distribution to the customer, but we ought to be able to intervene\nat an earlier stage of distribution.\n\nKOERNER: We have requested from France really immense amounts of food;\nthese requests have always been fulfilled; often after some pressure,\nbut they have been fulfilled.\n\nMILCH: But there is a simple remedy, let us cease supplying the troops\nfrom Germany, but tell them to provide the food for themselves from\nFrance. Then in a few weeks they will have everything eaten up, and then\nwe can start distributing the food to the Frenchmen.\n\nKOERNER: In France there still is for the time being a rationing system.\nThe Frenchmen had his ration card on which he receives the minimum. The\nrest he provides in other ways, partly by receiving food parcels which\nwe cannot touch at all. Every year we increase our food demands to the\nFrench Government who always satisfied them, though very frequently\nyielding to pressure, and in proportion to the harvest results, were\nthey good or bad. In Italy the situation is that food is not rationed at\nall. The Italian can buy and eat what he wants, and since an Italian\nalways has money and deals in the black market, he is in a much better\nsituation than our German worker who practically has nothing but what he\ngets on his card.\n\nMILCH: But don\u2019t we even send food to Italy?\n\nKOERNER: We are exchanging certain goods.\n\nSAUCKEL: Moreover we are now at the point that the families of French\nand Italian workers are no longer in a better position owing to the\nmoney transfer if their bread-winning members are working in Germany\nthan if they remain abroad; now nothing remains to induce them to go to\nGermany.\n\n * * * * *\n\nMILCH: Unfortunately, Reich Minister Speer is not present today. He\ncertainly must have had an opinion about the whole system. His agreement\nwith Bichelonne was to activate an additional labor supply in France\nitself for our armament with the aid of existing French capacities. We\ncannot compute the result here of what was achieved by that action.\nWhether the result he dreamed of has been achieved cannot be decided\njust yet; that is, have the S-plants given us an increase of armaments\nwhich is greater than what we would have achieved if the people had\nworked in Germany? I would propose that Minister Speer himself one day\nclarify this problem again. Because if only a negative result had been\nachieved, he would automatically change his point of view too.\n\nThe first question is: Is the percentage of trained people in the\nS-plants so great that all the others are to be regarded as rubbish? And\nthe second question is: Is it possible at all, with the lack of\nso-called executive power and differing opinions on this question, to\nseize and transfer to Germany the remaining 80 percent who are not in\nthe S-plants? So, in view of the general political and organizational\nconditions in France, would you be able to transfer some 10-15 percent\nof the best of these 80 percent?\n\nSAUCKEL: I\u2019ll have to get them.\n\nMILCH: Can you do it at all?\n\nSAUCKEL: Today I cannot promise anything. Today I can only do my work.\n\nMILCH: I mean, in reference to the other 80 percent, if your hands are\nnot tied by different circumstances, that first, there is nothing to\nattract these people to Germany; that second, they reckon with Germany\u2019s\ndefeat in a short time; that third, they are attached to their families\nand to their country; and that fourth, they shun work because they can\nstill exist, and without it they look on the whole period as a period of\ntransition. On the other hand you have the fact that the army does not\nassist you and that the German authorities are hostile to each other, a\nfact which is very cleverly utilized by the French.\n\nSAUCKEL: That has changed since my last visit. All German authorities,\nthe Military Commander, Field Marshal von Rundstedt, Field Marshal\nSperrle, have supported me considerably in these affairs.\n\n(MILCH: I refer to the smaller authorities, the executive ones.)\n\nThat has been spoiled\u2014pardon me if I have to bring this up\u2014because all\ndepartments, even armaments over there, were of the opinion up to 4\nJanuary, that my claims and, especially, my figures, were crazy.\n\n(MILCH: But only people who could not understand such figures.)\n\nUp to 4 January it was the same everywhere, from the military commander\nto the German Ambassador and the German armament departments. Up to then\nall the agencies in France had in general held the opinion: it has not\nbeen decided yet by any means, Sauckel\u2019s figures are not correct, so we\nhave to take it easy here. And that penetrated naturally down to the\nlower ranks of French authorities too.\n\nMILCH: That is just what I mean about the differences of opinion between\nyou and Minister Speer. You say: The best thing for me is to approach\nthe protected industries; Speer says: Leave those people alone, take 80\npercent away from the others. And if one is neutral, one has to say,\nalways with the provision that these 20 percent in the S-plants really\nachieve something for us, Speer is right when he says: Please do not\ntouch my 20 percent; there are enough among the 80 percent for your use.\nAnd now I say: Why do you not take the others? Is it so difficult to\napproach them?\n\nSAUCKEL: No. I need the people as well. The fact is that Speer\u2019s plants\nare filling up nowadays. For instance, I received the information the\nday before yesterday that the urge to work for the protected industries\nis especially strong in France just now and so the supply of skilled\nworkers to Germany is practically cut off. Skilled workers can only be\nfound in these plants.\n\nKEHRL: May I explain briefly the opinion of my Minister? Otherwise the\nimpression might be created that the measures taken by Minister Speer\nhad been unclear or unreasonable, and I want to prevent this. Seen from\nour viewpoint, the situation is as follows: Up to the beginning of 1943\nmanufacturing for Germany was done in France only to a relatively modest\nextent, since generally only such work was transferred for which German\ncapacity did not suffice; these were some few individual products, and\nmoreover some basic industries. During all this time a great number of\nFrenchmen were recruited and voluntarily went to Germany.\n\n(SAUCKEL: Some were recruited forcibly.)\n\nThe drafting started after the recruiting no longer yielded adequate\nresults.\n\nSAUCKEL: Out of the five million foreign workers who arrived in Germany,\nnot even 200,000 came voluntarily.\n\nKEHRL: Let us forget for the moment whether or not some slight pressure\nwas used. Formally, at least, they were volunteers. After this\nrecruitment no longer yielded satisfactory results, we started drafting\naccording to age groups, and with regard to the first age group the\nsuccess was rather good. Up to eighty percent of the age group were\nregistered and sent to Germany. This started about June of last year.\nFollowing developments in the Russian war and the hopes raised thereby\nin the western nations, the results of this calling-up of age groups\nbecame considerably worse, as can be proved by the figures noted; viz.,\nthe men tried to dodge this call-up for transport to Germany, partly by\nsimply not registering at all, partly by not arriving for the transport\nor by leaving the transport en route. When they found out through these\nfirst attempts during the months of July and August that the German\nexecutive either was not able or was not willing to catch these shirkers\nand either to imprison them or take them forcibly to Germany, the\nreadiness to obey the call-ups sank to a minimum. Therefore, relatively\nsmall percentages were caught in individual countries. On the other\nhand, these men, moved by the fear the German executive might after all\nbe able to catch them, did not enter French, Belgian, or Dutch\nfactories, but took to the mountains where they found company and\nassistance from the small partisan groups there.\n\n * * * * *\n\nMILCH: Another question. Since now through the transfer of various\nindustries so much is covered by French labor, as in the textile\nindustry, etc., a corresponding number of German workers would\nnecessarily become free as a result of that.\n\nKEHRL: Then they will not be requisitioned here, though they would have\nbeen formerly.\n\nTIMM: Nobody is going to be released. Probably other requests will be\nsent to the same factories.\n\nSAUCKEL: In this respect I must also draw attention to the fact that the\nGerman factories which were shut down were much more up to date and\nprobably worked with less personnel than the French factories.\n\nMILCH: But we want all the factories to work for armaments.\n\nKEHRL: That would also result in spreading the risk in case of air\nwarfare.\n\nMILCH: I believe the system to be good, as a still more severe\ncommitment of workers for Germany would have the effect of making a\nconsiderable part of them remain over there for good. I wish you had\nsomething to back you up so you can have enough power to get it done. I\ndo not think that anyone in France will enforce it.\n\nSAUCKEL: But they will all right, if Germany goes at this thing the\nright way. It is not the insignificant French workman who should be\npunished, but the French policeman, who, instead of supplying people to\nGermany, goes to them beforehand and says: I\u2019m coming tomorrow; you\u2019d\nbetter get out. The French subordinate and intermediary authorities have\nto be punished.\n\nMILCH: Even if Bichelonne and Laval have the best intention there will\nbe resistance from the mayors, the gendarmes, and the prefects, just\nbecause these people are afraid that, first, they will be called to\naccount afterwards for it, and, second, because of their patriotism,\nwhich makes them say: We must not work for the enemy of our country.\nTherefore, I would like to have an authority in our administration which\nwould force these people to do it, because then the French could say: If\nyou force us, we will do it, but voluntarily we will not do it. The same\napplies to Italy. There they say: Who knows who will win, whether it\nwill be Mussolini or Badoglio or the King; only, if you force us, we are\nready to do it. Therefore, we have to have something on our side which\nwill exercise this pressure. I don\u2019t see at all why big divisions should\nbe necessary for this. The existing forces should be sufficient to\naccomplish it.\n\nTIMM: I have the feeling that we are sticking too closely to the figures\nand are neglecting the qualitative side of the question. The present\ndevelopment may permit us to fulfill our programs with regard to\nfigures, but in the demands made by the factories the important thing\nfor them is to have so many metal workers, etc. Then we practically have\nto say: You will only get unskilled workers.\n\nKEHRL: We realize that. The plants are getting unskilled workers, at the\nutmost it may be possible to obtain skilled workers by transferring\nplants from Italy to Germany.\n\nSAUCKEL: Then in the course of the year the factories will declare: We\ncannot use these workers. And over against this you have the fact that\nin France we have a reservoir of unused skilled workers.\n\nMILCH: I am not worrying about that. Naturally our plants will say: We\nwant skilled workers. But they also need a certain number of unskilled\nworkers.\n\nTIMM: Will it not happen that the officers making the demands say one\nday: But we know that in the French plants there is an excess of skilled\nworkers which cannot be justified?\n\nMILCH: That should be discussed again later with Speer himself. First,\nSpeer must have the proper perspective to see what has happened as the\nresult of all his agreements.\n\nI can imagine that first the _numerus clausus_ is introduced at once, so\nthat the extent of the output in the S-plants is fixed, and that\nsecondly it is decided later on that if a part of the S-plants has not\nworked properly after a certain period, they lose their protection again\nand the people from these plants can be transferred as a unit. I can\nforesee already now that in air armaments, part of the plants will turn\nout such bad production that I shall not be interested in keeping them\nup. So, protection for certain plants will simply be discontinued. And\nthis will have a positive effect on the other plants, too, because they\nwill say: If we don\u2019t do our work properly, we shall be transferred. Now\nduring the transfer it is necessary to see that people really do arrive\nand do not run away before or during the transfer. If a transport has\nleft a town and has not arrived, 500 to 600 persons from this place must\nbe arrested and sent to Germany as prisoners of war. Such a thing is\nthen talked about everywhere. If actions like this and other similar\nones are carried out often, they would exert a certain pressure. The\nwhole thing would be made easier if we had control of food. The stuff\noffered by the black market has to come from a certain depot, and there\nwe ought to cut in.\n\nKEHRL: That is difficult. The transport of food by parcel post has taken\non extraordinary proportions in France.\n\nMILCH: If I were military commander, I would simply confiscate the whole\nof the parcel post!\n\n * * * * *\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT R-124\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 48-D\n\n EXTRACTS FROM THE REPORT ON THE FIFTY-SIXTH CONFERENCE\n OF THE CENTRAL PLANNING BOARD, 4 APRIL 1944\n\nThe Plenipotentiary for the Four Year Plan\nCentral Planning Board\nZ.P. 18 Secr. St. Papers Pl. 030056\n\n Berlin, 8 April 1944\n [Signed] DR. GOERNER\n\n Top Secret State Matter\n _REPORT ON THE 56TH CONFERENCE OF THE CENTRAL\n PLANNING BOARD ON 4 APRIL 1944_\n\n _Building Allocation 1944_\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe _Jaegerstab_ is to get a quota of 550 million including 150 million\ndefinitely pledged from the reserve and the _air administration_ is to\nhave a quota of 200 million; both are to be checked against each other.\nRegarding the air administration quota, precise details (as to specific\namounts, number of workers required, quantities of material, etc.) are\nto be submitted, building projects for the supplying industry (optical\nglass) are to be transferred to the office of armament supplies, trial\nprojects are to be discussed between the commissioner of building and\nair H.C., the remaining demands are to be cleared between air chief\nadministration and the Chief of the General Staff.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe quota recipients will be informed of their respective quotas as of\nguiding figures within the limits of which the commissioner of building\nmay give assignments. The quota recipients themselves are, on the basis\nof these guiding figures, to re-plan their projects by concentrating on\npriority issues and to report which of their building projects will have\nto fall out including the resulting figures. Field Marshal Milch will\nreport to the Fuehrer on the total situation of building. Reports on the\nquotas Air Ministry, Navy, Army, and Reichsbahn are to be sent to Field\nMarshal Milch forthwith.\n\nDemands of labor, building materials, etc., as resulting from the quota\nallocations are to be discussed with the planning office by the quota\nrecipients taking into account such amounts of the quota as were already\nused up for building purposes since 1 January 1944.\n\n [Typed signature] STEFFLER.\n\nPresent:\n\n Field Marshal Milch\n Reich Minister Funk\n State Secretary Koerner[97]\n President Kehrl[98]\n Dr. Ing. Goerner\n Min. Rat Steffler\n\n[follow names of 27 others who attended, including Under Secretary\nOhlendorf,[99] Lt. Gen. (Artillery) Von Leeb,[100] and Professor\nKrauch.[101]]\n\n [Signed] STAATSRAT SCHIEBER\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NOKW-287\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 49\n\n LETTER FROM MILCH TO SAUCKEL, 8 APRIL 1943, CONCERNING\n THE PROTECTION OF INDUSTRY\n\n Copy\n\nThe Reich Air Minister and Supreme Commander of the Air Force\nSt/GL\n\n Secret\n\nFile note: 16m 10 No. 220/43 secret (GL/A-W Wi 3 II)\n\n Berlin W 8, 8 April 1943\n 7 Leipziger Street\n Tel. 12 0047, Ext. 5530\n\nTo the Plenipotentiary for the Four Year Plan\nPlenipotentiary General for Labor Allocation\nBerlin SW 11\n96 Saarland Street\n\nSubject: Protection of Industry.\n\nThe continuously increasing drafting of German workers from the\nproduction as well as from the security teams (plant protection and\nplant fireguards) make it necessary to assign more and more foreign\nlabor to the factories of the armament industry. This assignment of\nforeign labor faces the plants of the armament industry with special\ntasks of security, which cannot be guaranteed with the forces at present\nat the disposal of the industry. According to what I have found out the\nstatistics of 31 December 1942 have already shown an unfulfilled demand\nof 15 percent in plant protection personnel. Moreover, the extension of\nthe air force industry brings about a further increase in the\nrequirements for plant protection personnel, an increase which up to now\nhas not been covered by the labor offices.\n\nAn investigation I made in a number of plants of the air force industry\na short while ago has shown that even after the introduction of the\ncompulsory labor law most of the labor offices could not make the\nnecessary forces available for protection and fireguard tasks, while\nother labor agencies could not entirely satisfy the needs. The labor\noffice of Halberstadt has even refused to deal with this requirement\nbecause these men were required for organizations without productive\nvalue.\n\nIn the field of the air force industry I already ordered, at the\nbeginning of the war, the 84-hour week for these sectors. So that no\nfurther increase can be made with these working hours, for otherwise,\nthere would be an increase of illness which would bring about a further\nunwarranted weakening in the numbers of the personnel. Even the decree\nfor the securing of the necessary forces of protectory guards, issued by\nyou on 29 December 1942, (File note: Va 5550.917) has not yet shown any\nresults up to now in the field of the armament industry.\n\nTherefore, you are urgently requested to direct the labor offices to\nplace at the disposal of the armament plants, upon their request as\nquickly as possible the competent forces for plant protection and\nfireguards, because otherwise normal security in the plants does not\nseem to be guaranteed any longer.\n\nIn the field of air force industry, this would involve approximately\n2,500 to 3,000 men.\n\nWe ask you to kindly inform us about the steps taken.\n\nCopy, for information, to:\nOKW W Stb [Economic Staff of the Armed Forces]\n\n BY ORDER:\n MILCH [Typewritten]\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT R-124\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 48-A\n\n SPEER\u2019S MINUTES OF A CONFERENCE WITH HITLER ON 8 JULY 1943\n\n Top Secret State Matter\n Berlin, 10 July 1943\n _CONFERENCE WITH THE FUEHRER, 8 JULY 1943_\n\n * * * * *\n\n17. The Fuehrer laid down in the coal discussion that 70,000 Russian\nprisoners of war fit for mining work should be sent each month to the\nmines. He also pointed out that an approximate minimum of\n150,000-200,000 fit Russian prisoners of war must be earmarked for the\nmines in order to obtain the required number of men suitable for this\nwork.\n\nIf the Russian prisoners of war cannot be released by the army, the male\npopulation in the partisan infested areas should without distinction be\nproclaimed prisoners of war and sent off to the mines.\n\nAt the same time the Fuehrer ordered that prisoners of war not fit for\nthe mines should immediately be placed in the iron industry, in\nmanufacturing and supply industries, and in the armament industry.\n\nThe Fuehrer further ordered that he should receive a monthly report\ngiving (_a_) the total number of Russian prisoners of war, and (_b_) the\nnumber of Russian prisoners of war fit for mining, made available for\nthe mines and a report addressed to Field Marshal Keitel as to why the\nremainder could not be used.\n\nThe joint report of Sauckel and Pleiger is also to be sent to me.\n\n [Signed] SPEER\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT R-124\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 48-A\n\n EXTRACT FROM THE REPORT BY SAUR OF THE CONFERENCE\n WITH THE FUEHRER, 5 MARCH 1944\n\n Top Secret State Matter\n Berlin, 6 March 1944\n _POINTS FROM THE CONFERENCE (SAUR) WITH THE\n FUEHRER ON 5 MARCH 1944_\n\n _Jointly with Field Marshal Milch, Lt. Gen. of the Air Force_\n _Bodenschatz, Colonel von Below_\n\n * * * * *\n\n18. Told the Fuehrer of the Reich Marshal\u2019s wish for the future\nutilization of the productive capacity of prisoners of war by giving the\ndirection of the Stalag to the SS, with the exception of the British and\nAmericans. The Fuehrer considers the proposal a good one and has asked\nColonel von Below to arrange matters accordingly.\n\n * * * * *\n\n (Prepared by Saur)\n (Seen by Speer)\n\n EXCERPTS FROM THE TESTIMONY GIVEN BY DEFENSE WITNESS\n ALBERT SPEER[102] BEFORE COMMISSION ON 19 FEBRUARY 1947\n\n * * * * *\n\n_EXAMINATION_\n\n * * * * *\n\nJUDGE MUSMANNO: Herr Speer, I would like to understand the machinery by\nwhich labor was brought into Germany beginning with the request by any\nparticular department for any particular number of workers. Let us\nsuppose that someone appeared before the Central Planning Board and\nsaid, \u201cI will need fifty thousand men for a factory that I am about to\nconstruct.\u201d Now please tell us just what happened. Would you issue an\norder to somebody? Would he then in turn order someone else and how did\nthese workers finally then arrive in Germany?\n\nWITNESS SPEER: If somebody on the Central Planning Board requested\nlabor, the Central Planning Board did not issue an order that these\nworkers must be supplied, but the Central Planning Board agreed that\nthose workers can be supplied. An order by the Central Planning Board,\nSauckel would not have accepted. That is a definite fact.\n\nIt is quite clear that the requests for labor did not occur in these\nlong intervals between the meetings of the Central Planning Board, but\nthis had to happen in much shorter intervals and in a constant\ncollaboration with the people concerned, for the enemy air raids and\nchanges in programs which became necessary because of the military\nsituation made these changes very often necessary. Therefore, for the\nwhole of our armament industry and also for certain branches of\nproduction outside armament that were in my ministry, we decided on\nso-called framework contingents, and priority lists were drawn up. I do\nnot know whether you are interested in that part.\n\nQ. Well, not particularly. I want very succinctly a statement as to the\nsteps which ensue after the declaration of someone before the Central\nPlanning Board that he needed a certain number of workers. Who was\ninformed of this request? Who authorized the call for the workers? Who\nsubmitted the demand? Who then at the other end gathered the workers?\nNot in detail\u2014I just want the steps in movement from the Central\nPlanning Board until the men actually arrived.\n\nA. The Central Planning Board did not deal with that matter anymore\nafterwards. Let us say the request of labor, say, of the coal mining\nindustry\u2014\u2014\n\nQ. Yes.\n\nA. \u2014\u2014was reported to Sauckel by the coal mining industry itself.\nTherefore, one could call a meeting of the Central Planning Board as a\nstatement for Sauckel that such labor is very important for the coal\nmining industry, and that as far as possible he has to supply them. That\nis necessary within the framework of economic planning, but beyond that\nthe Central Planning Board did not pursue the matter any further or was\nnot even in a position to do so.\n\nQ. Well, did you know there at the fountainhead of labor\u2014because if you\nmade the request originally, that is what started the machinery in\nmotion\u2014did you not know that bringing in workers forcibly from occupied\nterritories to work in the war operation constituted a violation of\ninternational convention? Weren\u2019t you aware of that right at the very\nsource?\n\nA. What I say now is not meant to be an excuse. I really did not know\nit. Up to the beginning of my trial here, the regulations of\ninternational law were unknown to me, and nobody ever drew my attention\nto the fact that such regulations exist; but I want to say once more, I\ndon\u2019t say this in order to excuse myself, here, but it is a fact that it\nwas like this.\n\nQ. Well, you were certainly quite aware from the decision of the\nInternational Military Tribunal just how illegal and improper that was.\n\nA. I took note of it there, and, after all, I received my punishment for\nit now.\n\nQ. Well, could you not have followed the same line of reasoning adopted\nby the Tribunal, which, after all, was based upon international\nconvention? You were a man of education, a man of great cultural\nattainments and of great technical ability, and it was because of these\nattributes that you were chosen by Hitler to become the Minister of\nArmaments. Could you not have reasoned that out by yourself? Wasn\u2019t it\nvery clear and obvious?\n\nA. I believe that the general knowledge of the principles of\ninternational law can only be brought to the knowledge of a wider circle\nof legal laymen if after a war legal offenses committed during the war\nwill be revealed by a public trial, and thereby a more general knowledge\nof offenses against international law becomes known. You know that I was\nan architect and that such knowledge as I had in the field of law I\nmerely received from newspapers, and I knew, for instance, all about\nvarious legal commitments of architects which are fairly extensive as\nfar as construction of buildings goes.\n\nI would say that a great mistake has been committed here by omitting\nafter the First World War to establish international legal conditions by\ntrials, and at the same time to adjust it to the developments of\ntechnical warfare instead of which, after the First World War, the whole\nquestion of the deportation of labor, for instance, was decided by the\nhighest German courts, and as far as I know, the decision of that court\nwas not particularly lucid. This is how the basis of ignorance is laid\nin the field of international law, and I believe that many a mistake and\nmany a violation in this war could have been avoided or at least\nmitigated if a general knowledge of international law had been\nprevalent.\n\nQ. Would you say that had there been, following the First World War,\ntrials such as those we are now conducting, that you then would have\nbeen aware of the illegality of the practices in which you were engaged;\nor rather, you would have been aware of the illegality of such practices\nand you then would not have participated in them?\n\nA. I am of the opinion that trials against the responsible men for the\nFirst World War after its conclusion would have enlightened the public\nand myself on the tenets of international law. I do not wish to go as\nfar as to say that I would not have committed these breaches of law, for\nit is very difficult to excuse one\u2019s self after the event by saying one\ncommitted the act only through ignorance of international law.\nNevertheless, I should say that the observance of international law\nwould have been possible without losing much momentum in my armament\ndrive. Of course only that part of international law is meant here which\ndeals with the recruiting of labor, whereas the other factor, the\nso-called legal looting of occupied territories as it is called, there\nis no doubt that that would have been necessary for an increased output\nof armaments. Violations of international law as far as the assignment\nof labor was concerned were in my opinion not only unnecessary, but\nunreasonable. We would have achieved more if we had observed\ninternational law. This is a very complicated topic; I do not know\nwhether you are interested why this should be so.\n\nQ. Well, I merely want you to enlighten me, if you care to, on this\nspecific angle. You are considered a specialist. Now, had there been an\ninternational trial following the First World War, and the decision in\nthat trial had been very clear and specific\u2014as was the decision in this\ntrial\u2014you would have then known the limitations very specifically on\nthe conduct of war; and having then known that you couldn\u2019t do certain\nthings, would you then have refused to participate as you did in this\nWorld War as a specialist? Having been put on notice that you cannot\ntake labor from other countries forcibly and throw them into the\narmament industries\u2014knowing all that, would you then have refused to\ngive your services to Hitler in the prosecution of this war?\n\nA. As to the first part of the question I wish to say if a trial and a\nclear decision had been handed down after the First World War, then\ncertainly somebody would have put the international laws and regulations\non my desk; that is to say, he would have informed me of it. The second\nquestion\u2014it is not possible to give a simple answer to the second part\nof the question for when I started my office in 1942 the war in all its\naspects had already departed from all existing international\nregulations. Please don\u2019t misunderstand me if I point out here that\neconomic warfare was waged by the British and Americans with extreme\nconcentration on bombing warfare, which was not a matter of national\nreprisal because it hit industries in occupied territories. On the other\nhand the war with Russia had gone beyond the normal limits, if I can\ncall it that. It is difficult for me to say who was the guilty party.\n\nQ. I do not refer to the time after the war had reached such a state\nthat there were no restrictions. I am speaking of the period before the\nwar started. I would like to know whether a man of your education could\nhave been enlisted in a practice which you knew and would then have\nknown was entirely illegal and contrary to international law as well as\nthe precepts and dictates of humanity.\n\nA. I would not have participated if I had known the whole documentary\nmaterial which became known in our first big trial. If I had known that\nHitler since 1938 had prepared for war and had tied the fate of his\npeople to his own to such an extent that his end was the end of his own\nnation\u2014\u2014\n\nQ. I didn\u2019t intend to enter into such a long discussion on this. All I\nhad in mind was that if those in your classification, as specialists,\nwould have observed international law, and would have known clearly what\ninternational law was\u2014the restrictions, the limitations and so on\u2014and\nif we assumed that these specialists were men of character, then, even\nthough Germany had at the helm a navigator who had become mad, he could\nnot have run the ship on to the rocks for the simple reason that you and\nthe other specialists who assisted in the present shipwreck, would have\nrefused to ship on a venture which was so obviously bound for the rocks,\ninternationally speaking. Is that true or not?\n\nA. That is so without a doubt.\n\nQ. And would you go so far as to say that had there been an\ninternational trial of the proportions of the one we have just had, and\nthese which are now following, after the First World War, and the\nknowledge resulting from decisions handed down would have become\nwell-known because of the punishments which would have been inflicted,\nwould you say that that might have served as a bar against a Second\nWorld War?\n\nA. I do not wish to say that it could have stopped and Hitler\u2014\u2014\n\nQ. If Hitler had not had specialists, Hitler could not have wrecked the\nworld himself. Hitler had to have a Speer and had to have the others who\nwere condemned in the first International Military Tribunal. He could\nnot have done it alone.\n\nA. That\u2019s quite clear, but these specialists were taken into their part\nof the war without realizing what the connections were and an\ninternational trial is not a wholly certain method to prevent a new war;\nbut I think it\u2019s a very essential contribution toward that aim. I am\nunable to answer your question by saying that Hitler would have been\nunable to find collaborators if, after the First World War, these trials\nhad been held, but I do wish to say it would have been much more\ndifficult for him, also because our specialists were not very intimately\nconnected with the Party circles.\n\nQ. Well, I think that\u2019s a point I wanted to find out; that, if the\nspecialists had refused to collaborate, knowing that the contribution of\ntheir service meant a completely illegal undertaking, then Hitler could\nnot have conducted a war by himself and therefore there could not have\nbeen a war?\n\nA. In technical warfare the specialists are decisive factors for the\nconduct of war, but the specialists are not to be regarded as being the\nparties principally responsible. They do not have the necessary\nknowledge of the background, the political background\u2014essential in view\nof Hitler\u2019s untruthfulness\u2014to see where he is taking the ship.\n\nQ. The ship could go nowhere without you specialists. That\u2019s all.\n\nA. I thank you.\n\nJUDGE MUSMANNO: Do you have any questions, Dr. Bergold?\n\n_DIRECT EXAMINATION_\n\nDR. BERGOLD: Yes, sir, I have. Witness, his Honor has asked you how it\nwould be if a factory, for instance, would need and would request 50,000\nworkers, which way and in which channel would take this request up to\nthe point in foreign territories where 50,000 foreigners would have been\ngathered and taken to Germany for that purpose. Isn\u2019t it correct that\nsuch a proposal of bringing 50,000 workers to this factory did not mean\nthat 50,000 foreign workers would be brought but meant only that 50,000\nworkers altogether were brought? That meant German workers as well as\nforeign workers which were actually already in Germany and employed\nthere and also new recruits? That included all that, did it not?\n\nSPEER: I was deflected from my answer in that particular case and I did\nnot really give an answer to the question. If 50,000 workers were\nrequested for a certain branch in our industry the request gave a figure\nwhich did not show how many of them were Germans and how many of them\nwere foreign workers. The bigger part of the workers which were supplied\ncame from what was called fluctuation. Fluctuation meant the transfer of\nworkers from one plant to another. It\u2019s quite clear that production is\nin a constant development. One always follows the other and in some\ncases one orders particular workers and then it loses that importance\nfor military reasons. The plan is that some workers available are\nconstantly released and sent on to different plants or industries. A\nsecond source was the newly mobilized German workers, I mean the women\nworkers, and a third source was the sending of foreign workers already\nin Germany, and a fourth source the prisoners of war who were also sent\non from one branch to the next, and the fifth source consisted of some\nthat came in from foreign countries. How these various workers from\nthese various sources were distributed among branches, neither my\noffices nor the factories who had requested workers could find out. That\nwas a matter which had to be decided by the labor exchanges because it\ntook an enormous amount of work to find the proper workers for the\nproper branches. * * *\n\nQ. Thank you. Witness, do you know that when the French Government,\nwhich at that time existed in Paris, had issued an order for the calling\nup of labor did that mean compulsory labor?\n\nA. These details became known to me during the trial. My tasks were\nenormous and at that time I did not bother much about details. I cannot\nsay anything about this from my knowledge.\n\nQ. Witness, you must know this; at the time when you had discussions\nwith Mr. Bichelonne, French Minister, I should think that the existence\nof compulsory labor service in France should have been discussed at that\ntime.\n\nA. Perhaps I misunderstood you. I said quite clearly last time that I\nknew about the fact that in occupied territories workers were taken to\nGermany against their free will. The various districts, etc., are not\nknown to me.\n\nQ. No. I mean if such a decree had been issued at all. That\u2019s what I am\nspeaking of.\n\nA. I had to assume that but I wasn\u2019t actually informed about it.\n\nQ. Did you consider the French Government, which at that time was in\nParis, France\u2014did you consider it a regular government?\n\nA. This is the same sort of question which his Honor put to me too. I\nhad no basis to find out whether the French Government was legal or not,\nbecause these are problems of international law which are beyond me as a\nlayman.\n\nQ. Witness, do you not know that the Government of P\u00e9tain had been\nrecognized and was recognized by the American Government, and that the\nAmerican Government had an ambassador, if I recall correctly\u2014and I am\nnot sure I can pronounce his name\u2014at that time, Mr. Leahy, Admiral\nLeahy?\n\nA. I know that, but I must say frankly that I did not spend my time\nthinking about whether the French Government was legal or not.\n\nQ. Thank you. I have no further questions.\n\nJUDGE MUSMANNO: Herr Speer, what I was endeavoring to elucidate, or have\nyou elucidate for us, was not whether you knew if a government was legal\nor not, if it was recognized internationally or not. I wanted to draw\nyour attention to something quite more fundamental, and that was the\nemployment against its will of population in a war activity, all of\nwhich was prohibited by international law. And if you and all the\nspecialists in the Hitler regime knew of the limitation and were\nthoroughly aware, and the knowledge was so widespread that you couldn\u2019t\nhelp but know that it was illegal and that you would be punished if you\ndid it, that is, to bring in workers from another country and put them\ninto war operations\u2014if that were a matter of such general knowledge\nthat every college man and every person that was well read would know of\nit, would Hitler not have had difficulty in obtaining such a crew to run\na ship, regardless of what he may have had in mind as to the illegal\nport which he hoped to attain by that voyage?\n\nSPEER: I can only speak about the time in which I worked, that is to\nsay, from 1942 onwards. In that time, I am sure that if these legal\nmatters had been made quite clear a large number of technicians or\nindustrial leaders would not have collaborated to the extent they did if\nthey had realized the illegality and the possible punishment.\n\nI would like to stress this particularly for the period from 1943\nonwards. From that time onwards, many intelligent people realized that\nthe war had been lost, and from that time onwards it would have made a\ngreat impression if in former trials heavy punishment was meted out. Not\neverybody would have been impressed; certain people would have followed\nthe old line, but the majority of so-called specialists, certainly\u2014\n\nQ.\u2014would have recognized the illegality of what they were asked to do.\nI understand you to say that the majority of the specialists would have\nrecognized the illegality of what they were asked to do and would have\nrefused. That is what I understand you to say.\n\nA. Yes, that is what I wanted to say.\n\nJUDGE MUSMANNO: Very well. Thank you very much.\n\n * * * * *\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT R-124\n DEFENSE EXHIBIT 5\n\n EXTRACT FROM THE STENOGRAPHIC REPORT OF THE ELEVENTH\n CONFERENCE OF THE CENTRAL PLANNING BOARD,\n 22 JULY 1942\n\n _REPORT OF THE 11TH CONFERENCE OF THE CENTRAL_\n _PLANNING BOARD ON 22 JULY 1942_[103]\n\n[page 2 of original]\n _Safeguarding of Food Supplies_\n\nA net increase of one million foreign workers is anticipated. This\nfigure has not been reached during the past months. Even if more than\none million workers are brought here during the months to come, the\nlimit of one million will actually never be exceeded due to continued\nlosses. Food for this number of workers is guaranteed.\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT R-124\n DEFENSE EXHIBIT 6[104]\n\n EXTRACT FROM THE STENOGRAPHIC MINUTES OF THE\n TWENTY-SECOND CONFERENCE OF THE CENTRAL\n PLANNING BOARD, 2 NOVEMBER 1942\n\n _STENOGRAPHIC MINUTES OF THE 22D CONFERENCE_\n _OF THE CENTRAL PLANNING BOARD CONCERNING_\n _ASSIGNMENT OF LABOR, MONDAY, 2 NOVEMBER_\n _1942, 12:00 O\u2019CLOCK IN THE REICH MINISTRY_\n _FOR AVIATION_\n\n * * * * *\n\nMILCH: In my opinion agriculture has to be provided with its labor. If,\ntheoretically, agriculture could have been given 100,000 more men, there\nwould be 100,000 fairly well-fed men, while those we get now,\nparticularly the prisoners of war, are not exactly fit for work. If\nagriculture will get them in time, they will again be able to feed these\npeople up again. However, it will not be very happy about it. * * *\n\n * * * * *\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT R-124\n DEFENSE EXHIBIT 7\n\n EXTRACT FROM THE STENOGRAPHIC MINUTES OF THE\n THIRTY-SECOND CONFERENCE OF THE CENTRAL\n PLANNING BOARD, 12 FEBRUARY 1943\n\n _STENOGRAPHIC MINUTES OF THE 32D CONFERENCE_\n _OF THE CENTRAL PLANNING BOARD\u2014THE FOUR_\n _YEAR PLAN ON 12 FEBRUARY 1943_\n\n * * * * *\n\nMILCH: Everybody sticks to his old methods until he is literally beaten\naway from them. However, one must not only beat, one must give advice,\ntoo. They must be good experts who will tell people: You will do that\nthis way or that; it is not necessary that you use just this sum. Who\ndoes such a thing will never give in and say, I can do with less. Mining\nhas been partly beaten[105] into iron by saying we cannot give you\nanything but iron on account of the shortage of lumber.\n\n * * * * *\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT R-124\n DEFENSE EXHIBIT 8[106]\n\n EXTRACT FROM THE STENOGRAPHIC MINUTES OF THE\n THIRTY-THIRD CONFERENCE OF THE CENTRAL\n PLANNING BOARD, 16 FEBRUARY 1943\n\n _STENOGRAPHIC MINUTES OF THE 33D CONFERENCE_[107]\n _OF THE CENTRAL PLANNING BOARD_\n\nSubject: Assignment of Labor, 16 February 1943, 16 o\u2019clock, in the Reich\n Ministry for Armament and Munitions, Berlin.\n\n * * * * *\n\nSPEER: We are in complete agreement. You will not receive any list from\nus for this action but the whole armament industry including the\nanticipated deliveries will be devoted to this action. The\nadministrations too must be served at the same time. But the authorities\nincluding army, air and navy shall not get a single person from the\naction. This must be adhered to. You know what the Reich Minister Dr.\nLammers said: That he must therefore have some new women typists at the\nReich Chancellory at once. That makes no sense.\n\nMILCH: Where France is concerned, there exists in France an industry\nwhich makes aircraft motors and parts, all complete. We have transferred\nthere all the things which can be made there without endangering secrecy\nin any way. These are training aircraft, transport aircraft, etc.\nHowever, since we want to make the most of the production in other ways,\nwe have moved away part of it to a large extent. As a whole these things\nmust be kept secret from the French but in every part subject to secrecy\nthere are only a few parts which are real secret. The bulk consists of\nother parts. These have also gone there to a great extent just as we\nengaged aircraft builders in France to a great extent. We now currently\nhave work waiting in France for several thousand aircraft builders. At\nthe moment the industry working for us there needs, according to its\nclaims, some 20,000 men, who are asked of us, in order to be able to\nkeep to the program. The production is still far behind that which was\nagreed upon with you in the program. Whereas we in Germany fully carry\nout our program, only 30 percent of it is carried out in France. In fact\nit has only begun to function in the last weeks and months after we have\nbeen more active there. In principle, we have excluded the State from\nthis whole cooperation with industry and set the German firms to work\nwith the French firms.\n\nSponsor firms have been appointed so as to make the affair operate. This\nsystem is not yet fully completed but has been favorably initiated\neverywhere and indeed brings quite other returns to some extent. The\nreproach is always made to us that nearly all Europe is at our disposal.\nThe production we draw from France, with the exception of motor cars, is\nminute as regards the army. The whole French production potential is not\nyet fully exploited by us or only to a quite small proportion. If it\nwere necessary for us to produce in France, because in Germany the\ncapacity, space machine tools, etc., which are not convenient for\nremoval are lacking, if the accommodation of the people were not so\ndifficult, etc., we would in fact be reduced to the point of taking\neverything to Germany and have the work done here. But this would entail\ntoo great a decrease in the production in our own country, not to\nmention the reluctance of the people.\n\nWe came to an agreement yesterday. I am very thankful that this matter\nis now, thanks to yourself, Gauleiter Sauckel, together with Gen. v. d.\nHeyde and Col. Brueckner, to be settled on the spot. It is difficult to\ninduce Frenchmen to come over here. An official agency alone cannot\neither appreciate or realize this, only a sponsoring firm can realize\nit. I therefore suggest that sponsor firms be called upon to cooperate,\nprecisely because in France the sub-contract system is very widespread.\n\nBehind the factory which actually organizes the thing, there are other\nfactories which belong to the semi-finished goods and preparatory\nindustry. This industry, however, can be supervised by our sponsor\nindustries. We should have to assign to our people the task of\ninvestigating the individual firms and find out which people are working\nfor our program. All others we annex ourselves. When we have got hold of\nthem and annex them in German industry, that is, only those people who\nare really necessary to us, it will be possible to utilize them in the\nright way.\n\nThe proportion of specialist workers there is higher than in this\ncountry. We have indeed drained a certain number of them into our\nfactories last year because they were the easiest to get. The Frenchmen\nmust work with more specialists than we. We must work with more\nspecialists than the Russian, and the Russian must have still more\nspecialists than the American. In America they can place any simpleton\nbefore any machine, he will put it right in a flash. Only the\ninstallation requires a specialist. The man need only have arms; a head\nis a superfluous luxury.\n\nIn France the system is quite different. The Frenchman has adapted\nhimself to it and has always indeed had unemployment. A labor\norganization as we conceive it does not exist. With the same number of\nFrenchmen and all other installations, facilities, etc., being the same,\none will only obtain, as compared with German personnel, half at the\nmost or only one-third of the production, even if the personnel have all\ngood will and zeal. It is a matter of system. This system we cannot\nsimply alter, neither can the sponsor firms, but we must try in this way\nto obtain from them to a certain extent the additional resources which\nwe need for our industry and armament. By proceeding thus, we can put\nthings right. I believe the sponsor firms have an obvious interest in\nthis. If industry has too many specialist workers there working for us,\nlet us draw upon them ourselves, because we are suffering a great\nshortage of them. This resource should be left to our firms after this\nextensive drain on specialist workers has been suffered. We want to\nraise our armament.\n\nNow to another point. I have today ordered in my jurisdiction that an\nextensive action should take place; today, when we are counting upon\nobtaining a great number of women in virtue of the obligatory service\nwhose age limit we hope to see extended to 55. The British have extended\nobligatory service to the age of 65. The additional 10 years are a\ntrifle exaggerated. Women are not able to go to the machines immediately\nand perform heavy work. The few days that are necessary for them to\ninstruct the personnel are immaterial. We can still spare that much time\nif it were not that it would convey to the population an impression to\nthe following effect: Now that we have reported for work, it is months\nbefore we are called up. I have ordered, within my jurisdiction, that\nthe women should as much as possible be employed in offices where men\nare now to be found, for instance in the wage offices, etc. In these,\nwomen and elderly men can be easily trained, as they will be able to do\nwithout further difficulty. In this way, men in the commercial offices,\netc., should be released for the accountancy offices and similar\noffices. This involves, in the case of industry, over 20,000 individuals\nand there are other branches besides.\n\nIt amounts to quite a considerable number consisting solely of people\nwho, in view of the war economy, are unfortunately necessary now. These\nmen must now be placed at our machines insofar as they are not drafted,\nthat is to say, are not soldiers. These people are more likely to be\nable to render better service at the machines or in the factories than\nthe women now assigned, insofar as women are disposed to go to the\nmachines. Of course, there will be women who have done such work before\nand who are now willing to turn to this work but who have not reported\nfor work so far because they have not found it necessary to work for a\nliving on account of the dole.\n\nWhere the assignment of women is concerned, I should suggest that, in\nthe process of the action, only those women be assigned for whom work at\nthe machine is not involved if a man is thereby released.\n\nTIMM: The danger lies in this that the draftees were partly to be\nreleased without replacement having actually been forthcoming.\n\nFIELD MARSHAL MILCH: That is quite another matter. When female\nauxiliaries of the Signal Corps are assigned, it is not additionally but\nonly in the proportion that soldiers are released thereby. There are\nindeed several 100,000 men in the signal corps of the army and air\nforce. In our department, 250 to 300,000 have been such. Whether there\nare so many now, I do not know. They are all young men fit for combat. I\nhave always campaigned against this and said: one ought to assign women\npreferably so as to release soldiers. If that is done now, it will\nreally release a large number, it does not matter whether for the\nworkshop or for the front. Of course, there is a front somewhere in the\nEast too. This front will be maintained for a certain time. The only\nuseful thing the Russian will inherit from the territories evacuated by\nus will be the people. It might be better in principle to withdraw the\npopulation in time as far as 100 km. behind the front. The whole\ncivilian population will move back to 100 km. behind the front. Nobody\nwill now be assigned to trench [digging] work.\n\nTIMM: We tried to withdraw the population of Kharkov. 90 to 120,000\npeople were required by the fortress commandant of Kharkov for trench\nwork alone so that in some cases we had to organize whole convoys.\n\nWEGER: Actual demolitions were even carried out.\n\nFIELD MARSHAL MILCH: But that is done by the engineer corps. There is\ndefinitely no more hope that more prisoners of war will come from the\nEast.\n\nSAUCKEL: The prisoners taken are used there.\n\nFIELD MARSHAL MILCH: We have made the request that there should be a\ncertain percentage of Russians with us in the antiaircraft artillery.\n50,000 altogether are expected. 30,000 are already there as gunners. It\nis a funny thing that Russians must operate the guns. The other 20,000\nare still missing. I received a letter from the High Command of the Army\nyesterday saying: We can no longer turn over a single one, we have too\nfew ourselves. So this thing will not turn out so successfully for us.\n\nSPEER: It would be advisable to make the draft of women somewhat clearer\nin the press.\n\nFIELD MARSHAL MILCH: That would primarily have to be placed in the\nforeground. In this respect the question is whether I will receive the\naccounts from our industry in time. The matter is bound to be settled\nsome time. There will be no deception. People who want to deceive also\ndeceive now, whether they have this personnel or not, whether their\naccounts are up to date or not. The other people are honest. The mass\nhas not engaged in deception. Whether we are a little backward in\nchecking prices will not be very important. The most important thing is\nto work. We know what is produced abroad, having now received the\nfigures. The Russian actually makes 2,000 aircraft a month in the way of\nfront-line aircraft. This figure is far higher than ours. This must not\nbe forgotten. We must get to the assembly line and produce quite other\nfigures.\n\n * * * * *\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT R-124\n DEFENSE EXHIBIT 9\n\n EXTRACT FROM STENOGRAPHIC MINUTES OF THE THIRTY-NINTH\n CONFERENCE OF THE CENTRAL PLANNING BOARD,\n 23 APRIL 1943\n\n _STENOGRAPHIC MINUTES OF THE 39TH CONFERENCE_\n _OF THE CENTRAL PLANNING BOARD_\n\nSubject: Food Situation and Armament Industry.\n\n _Held on Friday 23 April 1943, 9:30 A.M. in the Festival Barrack_\n _near the Zoo, Jebenstrasse_\n\n * * * * *\n\nMILCH: I am convinced that there are more Russian prisoners of war. At\nthat time 4,000,000 were captured. A large part of them died, however\nthe number of those who are still living is higher than we are told now.\nWe reckon here with hundred thousand Russian prisoners of war in the\nagriculture. Altogether, we have 300,000 of them in the Reich. During\nthe First World War I had 200 Italian prisoners of war with me. These\nprisoners were to be turned over, however, we kept ours by reporting\nthem dead in order to keep them. And these people also wanted to stay in\nspite of the fact that we told them that they would be reported dead\neven to their families. We dragged these prisoners around with us till\nthe end of the war.\n\nKEHRL: If the food supplies of the labor brought in from abroad are\ntaken from the German rations then, while we think that we are very rich\nfor having these people, the German rations are in reality reduced, and\nthe decrease in the working capacity of our own workers does more harm\nthan the good done by the new people.\n\nSPEER: But from the figures of this incoming labor we have to deduct\nthose who leave the country because of expired foreign agreements, and\nthe others which we lose because of cases of death or illness. On the\nwhole the increase of labor in our total war economy is not at all so\nvery important. (Interpolation: the more labor we fetch from the East,\nthe more this total figure will increase.)\n\nBACKE: But there is a limit, too, in the number of men we can absorb. At\nthat time we were told that one million was to be taken into the\ncountry, from the East. Now we have already got several millions.\n\nMILCH: You cannot count that way. Before all these measures in the\nsecond year of the war, the air force had 1.8 million men and today it\nhas less than two million. The whole air armament which is a\nconsiderable part of the total war armament, in the course of the war or\nin the last 2\u00bd years of the war has not even increased by 10 percent. In\nreality the total increase in this field amounts to about 125,000 to\n150,000 men. We are always looking for those people. That is our main\nproblem.\n\n * * * * *\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT R-124\n DEFENSE EXHIBIT 31\n\n EXTRACTS FROM THE STENOGRAPHIC MINUTES OF THE\n FIFTY-FOURTH CONFERENCE OF THE CENTRAL PLANNING\n BOARD, 1 MARCH 1944\n\n _STENOGRAPHIC MINUTES OF THE 54TH CONFERENCE[108]\n OF THE CENTRAL PLANNING BOARD_\n\n Re: Labor Allocation on Wednesday, 1 March 1944, 1000 hours, at the\n Reich Air Ministry.\n\nSAUCKEL: * * * I have a Gau armament supervisor in Thuringia and I have\njust been inspecting the plants in Thuringia. At the railroad car\nfactory in Gotha I have set things going so that within a few days it\nwill be turning out 20 percent of its production again. Everything has\nbeen done. But one thing you must bear in mind: Labor allocation as an\ninstitution must be independent and must remain so. Furthermore I must\nask you not to support constantly the opinion of the armament\ninspectors: Sauckel must be put under the control of the Ministry then\neverything will be better. Gentlemen, please see to it that that does\nnot happen this year. As a National Socialist of long standing I am\ndetermined to cooperate unreservedly with you, the Minister for Armament\nand Production, indeed with all those gentlemen, but, in consideration\nof the difficulty in this sphere of work I must be given the amount of\nfreedom to make decisions of my own which was guaranteed me by the\nFuehrer\u2019s decrees and those of the Reich Marshal. I would never have\ntaken on the task without these decrees, because I know it cannot be\naccomplished without them. I beg you therefore, to create such an\natmosphere as is necessary among the lower ranks too so that the Gau\nlabor offices in the first place may be recognized as organizations\nwhich are entrusted to me and put at my disposal for keeping the labor\ncommitment in order on the lower levels. * * *\n\n * * * * *\n\nSAUCKEL: I would like to insist on the fact that, in the future also,\nthe S-plants be checked; for the S-plants form a suction pump, and,\nsince it is known all over Italy and France, that whoever works in the\nS-plants is protected from any interference on my part is proved by the\nfollowing fact. During the first three months I wanted to take out of\nItaly 1 million people before 30 May. In these two months hardly 7,000\nmen have come. That is just the difficulty. The bulk goes to the\nS-plants, and only the dregs are left for employment in Germany. I would\nlike to achieve yet, that for the important plants in Italy, at least\nthe number of S-plants be restricted, that is that the number of\nS-plants be not increased.\n\nSCHIEBER: In Italy for every protected plant there is an agreement made.\nOver, beyond the situation on 15 February or 10 February, S-plants are\nestablished only with the approval of the services under me. We have\nthem registered, and only when we aim at an agreement are they declared\nprotected plants.\n\nSAUCKEL: Now the question arises: If in such a protected plant there are\nmore hands than are needed according to German standards, could they be\nhanded over?\n\nSCHIEBER: They are to be combed through but the people combed through\nare to be put only in other protected plants. Down there in Italy in\nyour services there is a demand for 7,000 hands and more. The gentlemen\nare right to laugh at us saying: What does that mean, you want people,\nbut at the same time our great task must be the transfer of people! I\nspoke with Leyers on Sunday and told him that I wished to have a\nconversation with the Gauleiter about this matter: If the labor offices\nstate that there is still a certain surplus of hands employed, a\ncommissioner appointed by General Leyers must then visit the respective\nplant together with a commissioner of Gauleiter Sauckel\u2019s; they must\nexamine the situation, and these two gentlemen must then come to an\nagreement, as to the people they remove from plants. * * * Besides these\npromises concerning nutrition have not been kept to the extent we\nwished. The extra food, as we had planned it has not yet appeared at all\nso that there is no incentive felt; apart from this certain inner\nevolutions are influencing industry at present in Italy, with the result\nthat especially the leading workmen who are so valuable for us partly\nfail to come to the factory any more. They wait patiently until, during\nthe next three or four weeks, the elections and convocations in the\nfactories concerning socialization and the introduction of commissars,\netc., are over. * * *\n\nSAUCKEL: In Italy, it seems, things are going on smoothly in general,\nbut not yet in France.\n\nMILCH: When workmen are transferred how are their families ensured?\n\nSAUCKEL: Automatically.\n\nSCHIEBER: That is quite easy. If it is possible in any way, we shall\nhave the whole personnel transferred to another factory. * * *\n\n * * * * *\n\nSAUCKEL: Years ago we made an investigation like this in France and saw\nthat in German armament production, corresponding to districts A and B,\nsome 600,000 workers were occupied out of the total of some 2\u00bd to 3\nmillion metal workers we had anticipated. Therefore there must still be\nsome more metal workers hidden in France, people who were formerly in\nmetal trades.\n\nMILCH: So 75 percent are still free, and 25 percent are tied up in the\nS-industries.\n\nSAUCKEL: We have to deduct the prisoners of war who are now in Germany.\nBut there are hundreds of thousands of skilled workers who, according to\nthe agreements made, have returned to France and Belgium month after\nmonth.\n\n * * * * *\n\nSAUCKEL: In reply to that I must ask you the following: What do you want\nto do now in Germany? In Germany you now have plane construction, the\nmanufacture of highly expensive apparatus, complicated engine\nconstruction, you have here in general the most complicated manufactures\nin the world. If I brought the scum of French manpower to Germany for\nyou what would you get as regards production? We of the Labor Allocation\nwere always of the opinion in the French industries we must under all\ncircumstances maintain a certain level of the trained workers and a\ncertain degree of production. And we wanted to compel these French\nindustries to lower their level of a hundred percent skilled personnel\nfor the benefit of the German industries which have been bled of their\nskilled hands.\n\nAs Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor I considered my\ntask to be not the transfer to Germany of the scum of Europe, but the\nbringing of efficient manpower. But a part of your gentlemen in France,\nand in your Ministry too, had no understanding for this. That I must say\nquite plainly. It would be mere child\u2019s play for me to bring you the\nrefuse of Europe if you would be satisfied with it. I would simply grab\nall the whores and gigolos in Paris and put them at your disposal, then\nI would not have to touch your armament industries. But if I have to\nprovide you with real workers who will prove efficient in Germany, then\nin France\u2014and that was just my program\u2014we must do the same as we did\nin every German plant and in every German enterprise: when a German\ncompany is split in two, some of the good workers and some of the bad\nones had to be given up and not just the bad workers. And French\narmaments never were harmed thereby. It is a fact, is it not, that a\nFrench worker of quality produces the double amount if he is put in a\nGerman factory under German discipline, with German supervision and\nGerman welfare?\n\nIf we agree to re-examine all S-plants\u2014and that is all I ask\u2014and if we\ntake out all superfluous expert workers and assistant workers, then we\nput them at the disposal of the other French enterprises which need\nthem, to the extent that they need them, and when they are satisfied, I\nhave to request that if I am to carry out my program, then from these\nplants too, workers must be transferred to Germany. If that is not\napproved of and it is insisted that the severe formula be observed:\nS-plants are out of question for labor commitments to Germany, then,\naccording to my experience, this program of January 4 can hardly be\nachieved. Then you are responsible for the decision of what was better\nat the end of this year, to have these people in France or in Germany.\nThat is the responsibility you have to bear and which I shift from my\nshoulders. I was told: Why did you not take the Russian workers away in\ntime, now they are in the Russian regiments. Exactly the same would\nhappen here. My opinion is that the introducing of S-plants was\naltogether a great mistake which is damaging to the general interests of\nGermany. The French government jumped to that with the greatest\ncleverness. * * * That is the way we did it the first year, and up to\n700,000 Frenchmen came to the Reich according to the program. These were\nall decent French workers. From the fall of this year on this came to an\nend. No more skilled French workers came, nor any others either. It was\nthe entire collapse of the labor allocation built up on the slogan: From\nnow on no worker needs to go from France to Germany.\n\n * * * * *\n\nKEHRL: The consideration which originated at that time with Minister\nSpeer and which led to the arrangement with Bichelonne was the\nfollowing: If I cannot transfer the people by force from France to\nGermany to the extent necessary, which is shown, by developments now,\nand if at the same time I run the danger of having the people leave the\nplants in which they are now working for fear of being taken by force,\nthen it is a lesser evil for me to try and put these people to work in\nFrance and Belgium, in which case I do not have to use German force to\nget them across the frontier. Then at least I am sure that the people\nare not running away from the plants in the first place and secondly\nthat additional employment will be brought there.\n\nHe sent an invitation to Minister Bichelonne. The conferences took place\nbetween the 16th and 18th September. The question was put to Bichelonne\nto what extent the shifting of industries would be possible, and what\nadditional productions he could place, etc. This caused a change in the\npolicy of production. So far Minister Speer had chiefly shifted to\nFrance all the urgent armament productions in those fields in which the\nGerman capacity was insufficient. Now he said: I will not only shift\nthis to France, but I will also shift really important war production,\nwhich is carried out at present in Germany with German labor, so that I\ncan release German labor in Germany and have this production carried out\nin France, Belgium, and Holland. There is sufficient capacity in this\nfield in France and labor is also available in sufficient numbers.\nTherefore a large part of the work can be accomplished there and I can\nrelease the people in Germany. Thereby I am serving two ends: in the\nfirst place I am setting free German labor and secondly I am utilizing\nthe French workers who are not working at all now because industry is at\nstandstill. And there is still a third factor, that Frenchmen will be\nready of their own accord to carry out such production as serves the\nwelfare of the civilian population, because with such work they are no\nlonger in danger of air raids and they are not working directly for the\nwar. So that they will not be considered as traitors to their country,\nbut are working for the advantage of their own country.\n\nThis development has been encouraged in the meantime. The time is still\ntoo short to make any definite statement as to the results. In some\nfields the results are already quite exceptional. In some instances we\nhave transferred up to 50 percent and more of the total German\nrequirements to the West and the manufacturing is done there. The\ntransfer figures are rising rapidly from month to month. The coal and\npower questions are of course great obstacles. We hope, however, to\novercome them in the course of this year, because by the middle of the\nyear we shall have increased 25 percent of the power supply in France by\nwater power, the necessary constructions for which will be finished by\nthem, and by the end of 1944 hydroelectric stations will be ready and\nthey will be equal to 50 percent of the present French power production.\n\nThe idea in fact is this: to carry out there the work which up to now\nhas been done here and to release thereby German labor. There is yet\nanother reason for this. It has been pointed out by you time after time,\nGauleiter, that in these sections of industry, it is not easy to change\nthe workers. According to the Field Marshal\u2019s description of the\nsituation, there is especially a lack of managers and supervising\npersonnel in the works and only German workmen can be considered for\nsuch, and every worker, even if technically he is not so suitable, will\nserve for purposes of management supervision and will lend some backbone\nto the plant.\n\nAs regards the question of the S-plants, Minister Speer put the\nfollowing question to Minister Bichelonne: Are you in a position to\nprovide the labor for such an extensive shifting program, which involves\na certain risk? To which Bichelonne, from his standpoint quite rightly\nreplied: If the people are not running away into the woods for fear of\nbeing deported to Germany I shall get them to work in French plants.\nFrom this discussion there resulted the idea of protected plants which,\nas you said, were supposed to represent a protection against Sauckel.\nWhoever is there is working for Germany and may not be deported to\nGermany. You said that these plants worked like a suction pump. That is\njust what they were meant to do. Labor was to be drawn in with a suction\nprocess so that the plants were full to capacity and could work for us.\nThe existence of the S-plants cannot and may not be undermined. It is\nbacked by the German promise which was given in all solemnity and which\nwas supported by the signature of my Minister.\n\n * * * * *\n\nSAUCKEL: May I again draw attention to the matter of volunteers and to\nthe entire process of the allocation of French labor. There was never\nany program carried out in France on a voluntary basis, but the programs\nhave been carried out for the Todt Organization the building of\nfortresses in France, on the one hand, and for the assignment in France\nto the plants working for Germany and also to the plants working for\ntransferred industries according to concrete agreements which I made\nwith the French government, on the other hand. The French government\nfulfilled these conditions last year. It appointed people for the\nwestern fortifications and for the Atlantic fortifications, it appointed\npeople for the plants and it appointed people for Germany. In the fall\nof last year, towards the end of summer, Laval declared for the first\ntime that he was not going to send any more people to Germany and from\nthen on only very few Frenchmen arrived in Germany.\n\n * * * * *\n\nTIMM: Will it not happen that the offices making the demands say one\nday: But we know that in the French plants there is an excess of skilled\nworkers which cannot be justified?\n\nMILCH: That should be discussed again later with Speer himself. First\nSpeer must have a survey of what has happened as the result of all his\nagreements.\n\n * * * * *\n\n-----\n\n[90] Tr. pp. 161-162.\n\n[91] Defendant in case of Government of France _vs._ Hermann Roechling.\nSee Vol. XIV.\n\n[92] DR. BERGOLD, Milch\u2019s defense counsel, objected as follows (_Tr. p.\n134_): \u201cMay it please the Tribunal, I would like to make a final\nobjection against the introduction of the exhibit just submitted by\nprosecution, namely 41-A, for the following reason: this is an\ninterrogation of Sauckel, who, in conformance with the sentence passed\nupon him, was executed. I am of the opinion that such an interrogation\ncannot be used as evidence here, for, since Sauckel was executed, I have\nno possibility whatsoever to ask him to appear here before the Tribunal\nas a witness and to cross-examine him concerning his statements. In this\nstatement there are certain things which are not correct, and, due to\nthe fact that the person who made them is dead, they cannot be\ncorrected. The International Military Tribunal frequently ruled that\nstatements made by witnesses and affidavits can only be introduced when\nit is possible for the defense counsel to bear these persons as\nwitnesses, and to ask prosecution to produce these people for\ncross-examination. This is absolutely impossible in the case of Sauckel,\nand I should like to ask the Tribunal to issue a ruling on whether or\nnot these statements can be used as evidence here.\n\nThe Court ruled as follows (_Tr. p. 194_):\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE TOMS: The Court has determined that under the Charter\nand the Ordinance this exhibit is admissible. Its weight, however, in\nview of the peculiar circumstances attending it, is, of course, still\nfor the Tribunal to determine. This ruling is made after conference with\nthe judges of Tribunal I, who had a similar problem presented, and who\nmade the same ruling as this Tribunal now makes.\n\nMR. DENNEY: If your Honors please, that question will come up again,\nbecause we have interrogations and affidavits from other defendants in\nthe first trial, who have since either been executed or have taken their\nown lives.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE TOMS: The Tribunal feels that the very broad scope of\nthe section of the Charter and the Ordinance dealing with the admission\nof evidence justifies the admission of this exhibit.\n\n[93] Defense introduced this paragraph as Defense Exhibit 5. See pp.\n509-10.\n\n[94] Another portion of the minutes of this meeting was introduced by\nthe defense as Defense Exhibit 8. See pp. 511-15.\n\n[95] Defendant before International Military Tribunal. See Trial of the\nMajor War Criminals, vols. I-XLII, Nuremberg, 1947.\n\n[96] Another portion of the minutes of this meeting was introduced by\nthe defense as Defense Exhibit 31. See pp. 517 to 523.\n\n[97] Defendants in case of United States _vs._ Ernst von Weizsaecker, et\nal. See Vols. XII, XIII, XIV.\n\n[98] Same as note above.\n\n[99] Defendant in case of United States _vs._ Otto Ohlendorf, et al. See\nVol. IV.\n\n[100] Defendant in case of United States _vs._ Wilhelm von Leeb, et al.\nSee Vols. X, XI.\n\n[101] Defendant in case of United States _vs._ Carl Krauch, et al. See\nVols. VII, VIII.\n\n[102] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 17 Feb.\nand 4 Mar. 47, pp. 1136-1186, 1445-1457.\n\n[103] Prosecution introduced other portions of this report as\nProsecution Exhibit 48-A. See pp. 457-59.\n\n[104] Prosecution also introduced this document.\n\n[105] Defense counsel, Dr. Bergold, explained (_Tr. p. 523_):\n\n \u201cThis document shows that the defendant liked to use strong\n language. It refers merely to the allocation. He speaks of\n \u2018beating\u2019, yet he does not mean this literally but figuratively.\n The high Tribunal will remember at one time he spoke of whips\n being used to force certain people to use suggested methods.\n That is not what he meant.\u201d\n\n[106] Dr. Bergold stated (_Tr. p. 530_): \u201cThis document is submitted to\nshow that Field Marshal Milch was very much endeavouring to leave the\nFrench workers in France with their own firms and only to transfer\norders over there. The International Military Tribunal has accounted as\nexonerating circumstances in the case of Speer that he established in\nFrance the protected plant system (Speer Betriebe); so far as Milch is\nconcerned, we wish to point out that he did the very same thing for the\nairplane industry and that he tried to act in a reasonable way. I also\nwish to say that the man always had in mind reasonable economic\npropositions. Finally the document proves that individual remarks made\nwere of no consequence whatsoever, that they were only verbal flourish\nwhich did not lead to any results. For instance, in the case of\nantiaircraft batteries, the conference passes that point over, which is\nshown by the last words of Speer and Milch. It is simply a marginal\nremark. I will also prove that he did not say that on this occasion and\nthat the minutes were changed, because he had difficulties with Goering.\nI shall show that this passage, criticizing Goering, was taken out of\nthe report because at that time serious difficulties arose between him\nand Goering.\u201d\n\n[107] Another portion of the minutes of this meeting was introduced by\nthe prosecution as Prosecution Exhibit 48-A. See pp. 467-71.\n\n[108] Another portion of the minutes of this meeting was introduced by\nthe prosecution as Exhibit 48-A, See pp. 484 to 498.\n\n\n\n\n 3. THE JAEGERSTAB[109]\n\n _EXCERPT FROM STATEMENT OF THE PROSECUTION\n REGARDING MILCH\u2019S ACTIVITY IN THE\n JAEGERSTAB, 13 JANUARY 1947_[110]\n\nMR. KING: If your Honors please, the prosecution begins now the\npresentation of that phase of its case dealing with the defendant\nMilch\u2019s participation in the Jaegerstab. I might add that that has to do\nwith the slave labor phase of the Milch case.\n\nFirst, I wish to say a few words about the background of the Jaegerstab.\nThe Jaegerstab was formed on 1 March 1944 by decree of Albert Speer\nissued pursuant to an order of Adolf Hitler. Our evidence will show,\nhowever, that it was the defendant Milch who conceived and instigated\nthe formation of the Jaegerstab.\n\nThe purpose of the Jaegerstab was increased production of fighter\naircraft. Fighter plane production had suffered severe set-backs due to\nBritish and American air attacks. Defendant Milch and his Luftwaffe had\nalso suffered in the battle for new raw materials.\n\nFighter aircraft were Germany\u2019s principal defense against bombing raids.\nEarly in 1944 the defendant Milch had concluded that without adequate\nfighter protection the entire German armament industry would soon be\ndestroyed. After repeated urgings, Milch was finally successful in his\nefforts to create a special commission of top officials from various\nministries to undertake a special effort in the field of fighter\nproduction.\n\nThe Jaegerstab, therefore, was actually a concentration of experts drawn\nfrom various ministries. Our evidence will show that the defendant Milch\nand Speer were designated as the joint chiefs of the Jaegerstab with\nKarl Adolf Saur acting as Chief of Staff.\n\nThe methods adopted by the Jaegerstab in the execution of its tasks were\n(1) transfer of German aircraft industry underground, (2) the\ndecentralization of German aircraft industry, (3) quick repair of\nbombed-out plants.\n\nOur proof will show that the labor for this program, which was the\ndecisive consideration in the discussions of the Jaegerstab, was\nobtained from three sources: (1) Sauckel Ministry, (2) concentration\ncamps, (3) direct recruitment from occupied countries.\n\n Evidence\n\n _Prosecution Documents_\n\n Doc. No. Pros. Ex. No. Description of Document Page\n NOKW-017 54 Extracts from the minutes of 527\n the conference with air force\n engineers and chief\n quartermasters under\n chairmanship of Milch, 25\n March 1944.\n NOKW-261 70 Chart of the organization of 535\n the Jaegerstab drawn by Saur\n with letter of transmittal to\n prosecution staff, 14\n November 1946.\n 1584-III-PS 71 Correspondence between Himmler 537\n and Goering, 9 March 1944,\n concerning the use of\n concentration camp prisoners\n in the aircraft industry.\n R-124 48-E Extracts from the minutes of 539\n discussions between Saur and\n the Fuehrer, 6 and 7 April\n 1944.\n NOKW-247 61 Appointment of Field Marshal 540\n Milch as Goering\u2019s\n plenipotentiary for the\n intensification of air force\n armament.\n F-824 57 Order of Field Marshal von 542\n Kluge regarding compulsory\n recruitment of labor in the\n West, 25 July 1944.\n NOKW-337 75 Extracts from transcript of 544\n stenographic minutes of the\n Jaegerstab Conference of 6\n March 1944.\n NOKW-338 75 Extracts from transcript of 545\n stenographic minutes of the\n Jaegerstab Conference on\n Friday, 17 March 1944.\n NOKW-346 75 Extracts from transcript of 546\n stenographic minutes of the\n Jaegerstab Conference under\n chairmanship of Field Marshal\n Milch on Monday, 20 March\n 1944.\n NOKW-388 75 Extracts from transcript of 547\n stenographic minutes of the\n Jaegerstab Conference of 28\n March 1944.\n NOKW-334 75 Extract from transcript of 550\n stenographic minutes of the\n Jaegerstab Conference of 25\n April 1944.\n NOKW-362 75 Extracts from transcript of 552\n stenographic minutes of\n Jaegerstab Conference on the\n occasion of the 5th trip of\n the \u201cHubertus Undertaking\u201d, 2\n and 3 May 1944.\n NOKW-390 75 Extract from transcript of 553\n stenographic minutes of the\n Jaegerstab Conference of 4\n May 1944.\n NOKW-442 75 Extract from transcript of 554\n stenographic minutes of the\n Jaegerstab Conference on 5\n May 1944.\n NOKW-361 75 Extract from transcript of 554\n stenographic minutes of the\n Jaegerstab Conference during\n the 6th journey of the\n \u201cHubertus Undertaking\u201d from\n 8-10 May 1944.\n NOKW-336 75 Extracts from transcript of 555\n stenographic minutes of the\n Jaegerstab Conference on 26\n May 1944.\n NOKW-359 75 Extracts from transcript of 557\n stenographic minutes of the\n Jaegerstab Conference on 27\n June 1944.\n NOKW-320 73 Extract from interrogation of 558\n Karl Otto Saur on 13 November\n 1946, concerning the use of\n concentration camp prisoners\n in Jaegerstab construction.\n NOKW-266 76 Affidavit of Fritz Schmelter, 559\n 19 November 1946, concerning\n the organization of the\n Jaegerstab.\n\n _Defense Documents_\n\n Doc. No. Pros. Ex. No. Description of Document Page\n Speer Ex. 34 17 Order of Hitler, 21 April 1944, 560\n delegating to Dorsch\n authority for Jaegerstab\n constructions.\n NOKW-337 12 Excerpts from the stenographic 561\n minutes of the Jaegerstab\n Conference on 6 March 1944 in\n the Reich Air Ministry.\n NOKW-338 13 Excerpts from the stenographic 562\n minutes of the Jaegerstab\n Conference presided over by\n Field Marshal Milch on\n Friday, 17 March 1944, 1100\n hours, in the Reich Air\n Ministry.\n NOKW-365 15 Extract from the stenographic 563\n minutes of the Jaegerstab\n Conference, 12 April 1944.\n NOKW-334 16 Extracts from stenographic 564\n minutes of the Jaegerstab\n Conference, 25 April 1944.\n NOKW-442 21 Extract from the stenographic 565\n minutes of the Jaegerstab\n Conference, 5 May 1944.\n NOKW-336 23 Excerpts from the stenographic 566\n minutes of the Jaegerstab\n Conference on Friday, 26 May\n 1944, at 10:00 o\u2019clock.\n\n _Testimony_\n\n Extracts of testimony of defense witness Fritz Schmelter 567\n Extracts of testimony of defense witness Xaver Dorsch 583\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NOKW-017\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 54\n\n EXTRACTS FROM THE MINUTES OF THE CONFERENCE WITH AIR\n FORCE ENGINEERS AND CHIEF QUARTERMASTERS UNDER\n CHAIRMANSHIP OF MILCH, 25 MARCH 1944\n\n[Handwritten note] To my files\n Mi.\n _Secret_\n _MINUTES OF THE CONFERENCE WITH AIR FORCE ENGINEERS\n AND CHIEF QUARTERMASTERS UNDER\n THE CHAIRMANSHIP OF FIELD MARSHAL\n MILCH ON SATURDAY, 25 MARCH 1944,\n AT 10 O\u2019CLOCK_\n\nDr. Koppert/Lm.\n25 March 1944\n\nFIELD MARSHAL MILCH: Gentlemen! I welcome you. I have called you\ntogether here in order to discuss with you questions of importance for\nour German defense.\n\nBeginning with the year 1942, the Luftwaffe put special emphasis upon a\nconsiderable increase in the number of fighter planes produced each\nmonth which at that time amounted to 200 to 220. It was possible, by\nJuly of last year, to exceed the figure of one thousand as the norm, in\naccordance with our program. Then the heavy raids, especially against\nour armament industry, began first against the preliminary industry\n[Vorindustrie] in the Ruhr, then against our fighter and airplane\nindustry itself. The enemy enumerated 65 completely destroyed fighter\nfactories and factories producing parts for fighters in his lists.\nBeginning in the middle of 1942 we undertook extensive evacuations, and\ndid so to small localities above ground, smaller places, and the like.\nIn so doing, about 4\u00bd million square meters of factory space, productive\nspace, were evacuated. That was the maximum that could be accomplished\nwith the means at our disposal. We were lacking in transport space, we\nwere lacking in machine tools, and primarily we were lacking in skilled\nworkers and managerial forces, more of whom are of course needed in a\ndispersed system of manufacture than in a centralized system. The\nextraordinary drafting into the Wehrmacht and just at the end also the\nSE 3-drive deprived the Luftwaffe armament industry of its key\npersonnel. We have in our employ today approximately 60 percent\nforeigners and 40 percent Germans, whereby one has to take into\nconsideration that the women work in the factories only half a day.\nTherefore, the ratio of Germans to foreigners becomes considerably more\nunfavorable. The ratio is gradually approaching 90 percent foreign with\n10 percent German supervising them. The rest of the Germans are\nconcentrated in development factories and the like.\n\nThe enemy has now adopted a definite plan\u2014as you as soldiers know\nyourselves and learn constantly from foreign news\u2014of destroying\naircraft production first, and mainly the production of fighter planes\nand night fighters, in order to be able to deal with Germany as he\npleases. The enemy believes that this stage has almost been reached now.\nThere is, however, still some confusion in his news reports. One day he\nexpresses his amazement that the German fighter planes did not appear.\nThen again the newspapers receive a secret directive: \u201cUnpleasant\nsurprises do occur, so do not emphasize so strongly that the enemy has\nalready disappeared from the air.\u201d On the whole, however, the enemy\nhopes that it has come to the point where Germany\u2019s backbone has been\nbroken or that at least that stage has almost been reached where the\nenemy has been granted the possibility of dealing with Germany as he\npleases.\n\nAnother plan our Western enemies have concerns the questions surrounding\nthe concept of the invasion. The invasion and its success would of\ncourse also be favorably influenced by a destruction of German anti-air\nraid defenses.\n\nWe of the Luftwaffe armaments have been asking for over a year already\nthat a strong home defense in the air be set up. We have made efforts to\nestablish the prerequisites necessary for this, namely, the providing of\nsufficient planes to serve as day and night fighters. * * * Being fully\naware that the strength of the Luftwaffe alone is insufficient both as\nregards quotas and with respect to the workers, etc., in order to bring\nabout an extensive change in the field of air armaments, we applied to\nMinister Speer and his colleagues to undertake a common special effort\nin this field. The establishment of a Ruhr staff served as an example\nfor us; it was established at the time when the industry in the Ruhr\narea seemed to be entirely put out of commission by the continuous\nraids. At that time the Ruhr staff was set up and the necessary quotas,\nbuildings, etc., were put at its disposal. Thereby the entire situation\nwas changed. Minister Speer and his colleagues, fully aware that without\nair armaments and without air defense the rest of the armament industry\nwould very soon be destroyed and become useless, agreed to this plan\nenthusiastically and with initiative. Thus it came about that a definite\nproposal was made to the Reich Marshal and the Fuehrer: the Jaegerstab\nwas created. The order of the Fuehrer provides clearly that the fighter\nplane program which the Jaegerstab is starting has priority over all\nother fields of armament, which means, to be sure, that other important\narmaments are not to be infringed upon by it. * * *\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe Jaegerstab is made up as follows: the direction is in the hands of\nReich Minister Speer and myself. Deputy for both of us, and at the same\ntime our chief of staff, is Hauptdienstleiter Dipl. Ing. Saur, who is\nsitting on my left. Saur is the man who carried out the large-scale\narmament program for the army and the navy in the Speer Ministry in\nrecent years in an exemplary manner. Saur again and again during the\npast year and a half succeeded in raising the production figures in all\nimportant fields and sometimes even in multiplying them.\n\nFurther, I name only the leaders of the Jaegerstab. We have put the\nquestion of over-all planning in the hands of Dr. Wegener. Construction\nmatters will be directed by Dipl. Ing. Schlempp. The evacuation\nunderground will be in the hands of SS Gruppenfuehrer Kammler. The\nsupply, one of the most essential factors, and everything in the way of\nsemi-manufactured material that comes to our factories for completion,\nwill be taken care of by Director Schaaf, deputy to Staatsrat Dr.\nSchieber, the chief of the armament supply office\n[Ruestungslieferungsamt] in Speer\u2019s Ministry. Dr. Schmelter will take\ncare of labor commitment. Sites suitable for dispersal, confiscations,\netc., will be in the hands of Ministerialrat Speh of the armaments\nsupply office. Gruppenfuehrer Nagel of the Organization Speer will be in\ncharge of transportation. The supply of power will be in the hands of\nGeneral Director Fischer. Engineer Lange will be in charge of machinery,\nMr. Nobel of repairs. Reich railroad questions will be in the hands of\nthe President of the Reich railroad, Pueckler. Post Office: Oberpostrat\nDr. Zerbel. Health matters: Dr. Poschmann. Social welfare: Dr.\nBirkenholz. Special problems for Me 262 and steel power units: Captain\nDr. Krome. Raw materials and quota system: Dr. Stoffregen. Questions of\ntechnical simplification, etc.: Oberstabsing. Klinker. Office manager:\nPetri.\n\n* * * On the spot the individual gentlemen are then told, supported by\nthe combined authority of the state, the Wehrmacht, and the Party, that\nis, Saur and me\u2014Speer is unfortunately still on sick leave, otherwise\nhe would also be present\u2014what it is all about. That takes ten minutes.\nAfter ten minutes the individual members of the Jaegerstab disappear and\nget together with the men from the factory who are competent for their\nsphere of activity. Thus, all pertinent questions are dealt with in the\nconferences about the commitment of labor, and all competent men, who\nhave anything to do with the commitment of labor meet, especially the\npresident of the competent Provincial Labor Office. Thus it is\ndetermined on the spot, in the individual spheres, what the factory\nlacks. If the circumstances require it, it is immediately demonstrated\nto the factory that their requests are nonsense. Unreasonable demands\nand excessive claims are revised. Well-founded demands are immediately\nfilled. While the discussions are still going on, telegrams are sent to\nthe different offices, and the people are already set to work. In\ngeneral, the people arrive in 24 hours. Unfortunately there are\nexceptions, for which the Wehrmacht sector is responsible. The Wehrmacht\ndoes not work as smoothly and beautifully as civilian offices. It is an\nerror to believe that civilian offices are more bureaucratic than\nmilitary offices. On the basis of my continuous and extensive experience\nI can assure you exactly the opposite is true.\n\n * * * * *\n\n* * * Our entire German ball-bearing industry, and that outside Germany,\nwas eliminated one hundred percent by the enemy in a, I must say,\nbrilliant attacking operation: Erfurt, Schweinfurt, Frankfurt on the\nMain, Stuttgart, Italy. We were faced with the question whether without\nball bearings we could produce new planes at all, new tanks, or whether\nwe had to capitulate as an armament industry. For ball bearings are an\nindispensable factor in modern armament industry. One finds and needs\nthem everywhere, even in places where one does not think of them at\nfirst. Now it became apparent, thank God, that the branches of the\nWehrmacht had hoarded ball bearings and roller bearings in such large\nmasses that we got along for three months with the hoarded material\nalone. In this case it was lucky that we still had so much, that so many\nball bearings had been hoarded. I have to admit that. But that is not\nthe normal way. It is certain that in the whole period up to now too\nmany spare parts have been requested just in order to gather such\nhoards. And this in spite of the fact that not everything has been\nattained by far, but only very large stocks. I should like to say that\nwith the material you have, 20 to 30,000 planes could be newly built or\nnewly equipped without further ado. That is how much material you have!\nAnd this does not concern large parts; for in that field I was always\nstrict\u2014it concerns rather all the accessories and apparatus. In\nconsidering these figures one has to know that about 52 percent of the\ntotal man-hours are spent in equipping a plane and only 48 percent in\nbuilding the aircraft frame and the engine. Only then does one realize\nfully the importance for us of all that small junk that is lying around\nall over. It is not necessary that the troops always take along all\ntheir spare parts. * * *\n\nGentlemen, in this connection I may call your attention to another\nimportant point. If I visit an office and find out that something is\nbeing hidden there, then I ask for the death penalty for such a crime\ntoday! That is fraud! That is sabotage of the German armament industry!\n\n * * * * *\n\nThen there is still the human factor. We often had considerable\ndifficulty with the human factor. The fluctuation there is very\nconsiderable. The quota of the Luftwaffe in the distribution of manpower\nis constantly lowered. The foreigners run away. They do not keep to any\ncontract. There are difficulties with Frenchmen, Italians, Dutch. The\nprisoners of war are partly unruly and fresh. These people are also\nsupposed to be carrying on sabotage. These elements cannot be made more\nefficient _by small means. They are just not handled strictly enough._\nIf a decent foreman would sock one of those unruly guys because the\nfellow won\u2019t work, then the situation would soon change. _International\nlaw cannot be observed here._ I have asserted myself very strongly, and\nwith the help of Saur I have very strongly represented the point of view\nthat the prisoners, with the exception of the English and the Americans,\n_should be taken away from the military authorities_. Soldiers are not\nin a position, as experience has shown, to cope with these fellows who\nknow all the answers. I shall take very strict measures here and shall\nput such a prisoner of war before my court martial. If he has committed\nsabotage or refused to work, I will have him hanged, right in his own\nfactory. I am convinced that that will not be without effect.\n\nAnyhow, the strangest things occur in the treatment of the workers. It\nis said that the people collapse, and then one has to find out that they\nhave a furlough of three or four days every eight weeks. That is dirty\nbusiness of the first order and treason to the country! Then perhaps a\nconstruction battalion arrives and is supposed to be put to work. The\ncommanding officer, perhaps some overfed grade-school teacher, declares\nthat the men must drill and must take part in sports! Damn it, the\nfellows are there to work so that the maximum amount of work will\nresult. One has to act very strictly here. A construction battalion was\nordered to Regensburg. The commanding officer was one of those scholars\nwho said he could not billet the men in peacetime conditions and,\ntherefore, he refused to start work. Such a guy should be convicted by a\ncourt martial and hanged. I would be grateful if the gentlemen would\nproceed in that manner. As with me in industry, so every stupidity is\npossible everywhere else also. As chief, one has to take up these\nmatters. I know what kind of obstacles become apparent. There is\nbureaucracy. It is not easy to go against bureaucracy. But we have to\ncut through that also, and if you, Gentlemen, proceed with the right\nattitude here, then we are already assured of success.\n\n * * * * *\n\n* * * In saying this I do not even consider the fact that the workshops\nhave first-class personnel, whereas we in the Luftwaffe armament\nindustry have Russians, French prisoners of war, Dutch, and members of\n32 other nations. Obtaining interpreters alone presents a big difficulty\nthere. * * *\n\nA further question concerns the efforts for housing the machines. That\nis very important, and I would be very grateful if you would think this\nmatter over also. In this manner you would not only facilitate the\nquestion of spare parts but also the scarce supply of materials. Each\nfighter plane contains about one ton of aluminum. Every small bomber\ncontains four tons of aluminum; and a larger bomber, seven to eight\ntons. The captured bombers contain eleven to twelve tons of aluminum.\nThere are in any case tremendous amounts of material involved here. Let\nus take twelve tons as normal for an American heavy bomber, or let us\nsay only ten tons, and let us assume that we actually shoot down 500\nsuch American bombers a month and that we can salvage them over our own\nterritory; that alone means 5,000 tons of aluminum, 5,000 tons: that is\n25 percent of the aluminum quota at the disposal of the Luftwaffe. You\ncan see how important these questions are, too. We can certainly count\non more Americans being shot down in the future because we will have\nmore fighter planes.\n\n * * * * *\n\nI further ask for support by the Luftwaffe physicians. With all the\nrabble that we have among the foreign workers there is of course a lot\nof shirking. At the moment the Russians\u2014that is, the Russian prisoners\nof war\u2014are feigning a lot of fatigue and illness. The incidence of\nsickness of one-and-a-half to two percent which we have had up to now\nhas at least doubled and in some factories it has been increased to\neight, nine, and ten percent. That is, of course, done by previous\nagreement. There the official physicians must undertake an examination\nand if the physicians, who have to be very strict, find out that it is\nnot true, then we return the fellows to work by means of the whip. Then\nthe whip serves as cure.\n\nA further request which is very important from the point of view of\nleadership! Sometimes we do not know in case of an alert what orders we\nwant to give for our factories. If a factory knows that it is about to\nbe attacked, and it has a few trench shelters but does not have a\nbomb-proof shelter or the like, then the people simply run away from the\nfactory, automatically at each raid, after the first one, and they\nusually cannot be caught the next day, either. That applies particularly\nto the foreigners. We have, therefore, now issued the following order,\nand have equipped the superiors accordingly with weapons and pistols: as\nsoon as a factory which has already been attacked a few times can count\non the raids being aimed at that particular factory again, then the\npersonnel leave the factory; but in closed groups by shops, under the\nleadership of the man in charge of the shop, and, to the extent that\nthey are German personnel, they leave singing military songs. The people\nare led away from the factory to a distance of 1,000 or 1,500 meters.\nThere they have to lie down in slit trenches and watch their factory\nfrom there, so that they can immediately rush to it after the raid in\norder to help and to save what can be saved. That is the only correct\nway to do it. * * *\n\n * * * * *\n\nGentlemen, you come from the fronts, and some of you were perhaps\nsurprised to see how Berlin looks. I recommend to you, if you still have\ntime today, to drive around in a bus and see Berlin. The center still\nlooks quite nice. But have a look at other districts of Berlin too, or\nlook at Frankfurt or Duesseldorf or whatever all of these places are\ncalled, in their present condition; then you will admit to me that the\npopulation will not be able to endure this condition permanently; not\nthat there is any danger of a revolution or any such thing as we know it\nfrom 1918. But at a certain point a human being just cannot endure any\nmore. It is quite surprising how the population has endured this thing\nso far or how it always gets on its feet again, when it is led in the\nproper way by true leaders (Fuehrer) who, thank God, are present among\nthe people through the Party and the rest of the leadership. But you\nmust not forget, Gentlemen, the war of nerves has reached a point which\ncauses us in the leadership group worry. The people cannot endure that\nforever.\n\nOne does not have to see only how the people are working\u2014I have told\nyou that\u2014but also how they live, where they are living today, how they\nare sleeping today. There are hundreds of thousands of Berliners who\nhave not known any heating for months, who have not been able to take a\nbath for months, who have not been able to shave with warm water for\nmonths, and the like. They are happy if they can still put their warm\ncoffee [Plirsch] in their stomachs in the morning and at noon their\nsoup. And with that they work seventy-two hours. It is a damned\ndifficult affair. Whoever does not understand that and whoever does not\nsay on this occasion: From now on our work will be done quite\ndifferently than was the case so far, is a miserable wretch in my\nopinion. And everyone of us and everyone you appoint has to be trained\nto accomplish in this sphere what the others have been accomplishing for\na long time. We have to do that, we have to increase our production so\nthat we can push the enemy back in the next few weeks and months in the\nsame way as he has advanced to Berlin and farther, step by step.\n\n * * * * *\n\nPlease go wherever you are going and knock everybody down who blocks\nyour way! We cover up everything here. We do not ask whether he is\nallowed to or whether he is not allowed to. For us, there is nothing but\nthis one task. We are fanatics in this sphere. We do not even consider\nletting anything at all distract us from that task. No order exists\nwhich could prevent me from fulfilling this task. Nor shall I ever be\ngiven such an order. Now, do not let anything deter you, and get your\npeople to the point that no one deters them. If there is a little\nhindrance from below, this is not due to ill will but to stupidity.\nGentlemen! In the fifth year of war stupidity is a crime!\n\n * * * * *\n\nGentlemen, I know, not every subordinate can say: For me, the law no\nlonger exists, but he has to have someone who covers up for him, not out\nof cowardice; but if you act according to the spirit of the old field\nservice regulation, \u201cAbstaining from doing something hurts us more than\nerring in the choice of the means,\u201d and if, moreover, you keep in touch\nand immediately clarify difficult points so that something can be done,\nthen we are willing to accept the responsibility, whether this is the\nlaw or not. I see only two possibilities for me and for Germany: Either\nwe succeed and thereby save Germany, or we continue these slipshod\nmethods and then get the fate that we deserve. I prefer to fall while I\nam doing something that is against the rules but that is right and\nsensible and be called to account for it and, if you like, hanged,\nrather than be hanged because Papa Stalin is here in Berlin, or the\nEnglishman. I have no desire for that. I would rather die in a different\nway. But I think we can accomplish this task, too. We are in the fifth\nyear of war. I repeat: The decision will come within the next six weeks!\n\n Heil Hitler!\n (End: 12:20 hours)\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NOKW-261\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 70\n\n CHART OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE JAEGERSTAB DRAWN\n BY SAUR WITH LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL TO PROSECUTION\n STAFF, 14 NOVEMBER 1946\n\n Nuernberg, 14 November 1946\n\nK. O. Saur\n\nTO: Mr. King, via Prison Office.\n\nIn accordance with your request enclosed please find the organization\nchart of the Jaegerstab which was founded by decree of Reich Minister\nSpeer on 1 March 1944. The chart was drawn up from memory.\n\nThe working methods of the Jaegerstab are disclosed in their essence by\nthe following paragraph from the Armament Staff Charter issued by Reich\nMinister Speer on 1 August 1944.\n\n \u201cAlso in the future in order to prevent the Armament Staff from\n developing gradually into an extensive agency, the regulation\n concerning the purely personal membership will be maintained, as\n was the case for the Jaegerstab. The technical work will be\n done, therefore, in the office and agencies to which the\n personal members belong, under the responsibility of the\n competent office chiefs or agency directors.\u201d\n\nThe ministries and their offices or agencies responsible for the\ndifferent tasks are mentioned individually in the organization chart.\n\nFor reasons of clarity, the Jaegerstab, as liaison office, has been\nframed in red; the technological office, which then was under my own\nresponsibility has been framed in blue. [See legend on chart.]\n\n [Signed] SAUR\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration: Chart: Responsible Groups and/or Main Departments.]\n\n\n\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 1584-III-PS\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 71\n\n CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN HIMMLER AND GOERING, 9 MARCH\n 1944, CONCERNING THE USE OF CONCENTRATION CAMP\n PRISONERS IN THE AIRCRAFT INDUSTRY\n\n1879/44 Secret 9 March 1944\n\n Field-command office\n\nSubject: Employment of prisoners in the aviation industry.\n\nReference: Teletype of 14 February 1944.\n\n 5 copies, 5th copy\n Top Secret State Matter\nMost honored Reich Marshal,\n\nFollowing my teletype letter of 18 February 1944, I herewith transmit a\nsurvey on the employment of prisoners in the aviation industry.[111]\n\nThis survey indicates that at the present time about _36,000 prisoners_\nare employed for the purposes of the air force. An increase to a total\nof _90,000 prisoners_ is contemplated.\n\nThe production is being discussed, established, and executed between the\nReich Ministry of Aviation and the Chief of my Economic Administrative\nMain Office, SS Obergruppenfuehrer and General of the Waffen SS\nPohl.[112]\n\nWe shall render assistance with all forces at our disposal.\n\nThe task of my Economic Administrative Main Office, however, is not\nsolely fulfilled with the delivery of the prisoners to the aviation\nindustry, as SS Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl and his assistants take care of\nthe required working speed through constant control and supervision of\nthe work-groups [Kommandos] and therefore have some influence on the\nresults of production. In this respect I may suggest consideration of\nthe fact that in enlarging our responsibility through a speeding up of\nthe total work better results can definitely be expected.\n\nWe also have for some time adjusted our own stone quarries to production\nfor the air force. For instance, in Flossenbuerg near Weiden the\nprisoners employed previously in the quarry are working now in the\nfighter plane program for the Messerschmitt corporation, Regensburg,\nwhich saw in the availability of our stonemason shops and labor forces\nafter the attack on Regensburg at that time a favorable opportunity for\nthe immediate partial transfer of their production. Altogether 4,000\nprisoners will work there after the expansion. We produce now with 2,000\nmen 900 sets of engine cowlings and radiator covers as well as 120,000\nsingle parts of various kinds for the fighter Me 109.\n\nIn Oranienburg we are now employing 6,000 prisoners at the Heinkel works\nfor construction of the He 177. With these we are supplying 60 percent\nof the total crew of the plant.\n\nThe prisoners are working without fault. Up till now 200 suggestions\nregarding the improvement of work have been handed in at Heinkel from\nthe ranks of the prisoners, which were used and were rewarded with\npremiums. We are increasing this employment to 8,000 prisoners.\n\nWe also have employed female prisoners in the aviation industry. For\ninstance at the mechanical workshops in Neubrandenburg 2,500 women are\nworking now in the manufacture of devices for dropping bombs and rudder\ncontrol. The plant has adjusted the total aerial production to employ\nprisoners. In the month of January 30,000 devices as well as 500 rudder\ncontrols and altitude regulators have been manufactured. We are\nincreasing employment to 4,000 women. The performance of the women is\nexcellent.\n\nIn our own plant in Butschowitz near Bruenn (Brno) we produce also for\nthe air force, there however with civilian workers. This plant supplies\n14,000 wooden-built rear control apparatus for Me 109 to the\nMesserschmitt Corporation, Augsburg.\n\nThe movement of manufacturing plants of the aviation industry to\nsubterranean locations requires _further_ employment of about 100,000\nprisoners. The plans for this employment on the basis of your letter of\n14 February 1944 are already under way.\n\nI shall keep you, most honored Reich Marshal, currently informed on this\nsubject.\n\n Heil Hitler!\n [Initialed] H.H.\n [HEINRICH HIMMLER]\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT R-124\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 48-E\n\n EXTRACTS FROM THE MINUTES OF DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN SAUR\n AND THE FUEHRER, 6 AND 7 APRIL 1944\n\n Top Secret State Matter\n\nThe Chief of the Technical Office\nTA Ch S/Kr\n\n Berlin, 9 April 1944\n _MINUTES OF DISCUSSIONS WITH THE FUEHRER\n ON 6 AND 7 APRIL 1944_\n\n * * * * *\n\n16. Reports made to the Fuehrer by myself [Saur] and Field Marshal\nMilch, based on tables and drawings, as to the achievements of the\nJaegerstab stressing the satisfactory cooperation of the new\norganization with all offices and plants. Reported in detail that plans\nhave been made for the best part of transfers, and that, as a first\ninstallment, the decentralization above ground will be completed by\nAugust, and, as the second installment, that the most vulnerable plants\nwill be underground by the end of the year.\n\n17. Field Marshal Milch reported on the result of a construction staff\nmeeting of the Central Planning Board according to which the most\nimportant building projects only could materialize due to a great\ntension in general conditions. In spite of this, the Fuehrer demands\nthat the two huge buildings of 600,000 square meters each should be\nerected with all speed. He agrees that one of these buildings is not to\nbe made from concrete but\u2014according to our suggestion\u2014will be set up\nas an extension of, and close to, the Middle Plant [Mittelwerk] as a\nso-called \u201cMiddle-Building\u201d [Mittelbau], and that this plant will be\nplaced under the direction of the Junkers Works. Plans have to be made\nwithout delay to secure production in bottleneck items of the Junkers\nWorks, production of Me 262 at 1,000 per month, and fighters at 2,000\nper month.\n\nSuggested to the Fuehrer that, due to lack of builders and equipment,\nthe second big building project should not be set up in German territory\nbut in close vicinity to the border on suitable soil (preferably on\ngravel base and with transport facilities) on French, Belgian, or Dutch\nterritory. The Fuehrer agrees to this suggestion if the works could be\nset up behind a fortified zone. For the suggestion of setting this plant\nup in French territory speaks mainly the fact that it would be much\neasier to procure the necessary workers. Nevertheless, the Fuehrer asks\nthat an attempt be made to set up the second works in a safer area,\nnamely in the Protectorate. If it should prove impossible there, too, to\nget hold of the necessary workers, the Fuehrer himself will contact the\nReich Leader SS and will give an order that the required 100,000 men are\nto be made available by bringing in Jews from Hungary. Stressing the\nfact that the building organization of the Industry Association Silesia\n[Industriegemeinschaft Schlesien] was a failure, the Fuehrer demands\nthat these works must be built by the O.T. [Organization Todt]\nexclusively and that the workers should be made available by the Reich\nLeader SS. He wants to hold a meeting shortly in order to discuss\ndetails with all the men concerned.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe Fuehrer agrees that these items may be used as a basis for future\nconferences.\n\n [signed] SAUR\n [typed] (SAUR)\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NOKW-247\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 61\n\n APPOINTMENT OF FIELD MARSHAL MILCH AS GOERING\u2019S\n PLENIPOTENTIARY FOR THE INTENSIFICATION OF\n AIR FORCE ARMAMENT\n\n _Copy_\n\nThe Reich Marshal of Greater Germany\nChairman of the Reich Defense Council\n\n Berlin, June [sic]\n _AUTHORIZATION_\n\nThe war situation calls for the utmost intensification of the armament\ncapacity of the German Air Force within the shortest time. The goal of\nthe measures to be taken has to be the fourfold increase of the present\nproduction in all branches of air force armament. I commission the State\nSecretary of the Ministry of Aviation, Field Marshal Milch, with the\nspeediest execution of this intensification of armament ordered by the\nFuehrer. To secure the attainment of the end at which we aim I confer\nherewith the most extensive power of authority on Field Marshal Milch\nwithin the sphere defined as follows:\n\n1. Shutting-down and seizure of factories, decisions about\nexpropriations and forced leases, seizure and expropriation of\nconstruction material in agreement with the Plenipotentiary General for\nConstruction, erection of auxiliary buildings exempted from restricting\nprovisions of the building police, of the office for the supervision of\nindustry, of air-raid protection, social institutions, etc., as far as\nthese provisions are incompatible with the fast completion of the\nbuilding projects.\n\n2. Confiscation, expropriation, and renting of machinery of all kinds\nand its distribution to the armament factories of the Luftwaffe. Forced\ntransfer of workers who are unemployed or employed in industry of any\nkind whatsoever, this not only for the erection of the buildings but\nalso for allocation to Luftwaffe armament factories.\n\n3. Confiscation of raw materials absolutely essential for the Luftwaffe\nprogram; only superfluous raw materials may then be distributed in the\nmanner as now. This refers especially to light metals and gasoline.\n\n4. Removal and transfer of key personnel of the entire armament industry\nirrespective of existing contracts under private law; cancellations of\nor changes in existing powers of authorization, and issue of new powers;\ncreation of industrial associations, patent associations, merger of\ncompanies; creation of new companies, and separation of uneconomically\nworking firms and their coordination or subordination to better managed\nfirms.\n\n5. Deviation from existing regulations about the financing of the war\nand premiums in cases where the utmost intensification of output cannot\nbe achieved otherwise. In this connection due consideration has to be\ngiven to the economical situation and to the financial capacity of the\nfirms involved.\n\n6. All decisions of and all measures taken by my plenipotentiary on the\nbasis of this authorization have to be regarded as if they were ordered\nby me. These decrees and measures have priority in respect to all other\nofficial directions and decrees as far as these are not compatible with\nthe speediest execution of the intensification of the production\ncapacity.\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT F-824\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 57\n\n ORDER OF FIELD MARSHAL VON KLUGE REGARDING\n COMPULSORY RECRUITMENT OF LABOR IN THE WEST,\n 25 JULY 1944\n\n Secret [Stamp]\n\n 2_a_ [Handwritten]\n\n Headquarters, 25 July 1944\n\n 546 [Handwritten]\n\nCommander in Chief West Section\nIaT No. 1731/44 secret\n\nReference: 1. OKW/WFST/Qu. (Adm.1) Qu.2 (West) No. 05201/44 secret of 8\n July 1944 (_distributed only to Commander in Chief West and\n the Military Commanders._)\n\n 2. OKW/WFST/Qu. (Adm.1) Qu.2 (West) No. 05431/44 secret of 19\n July 1944.\n\n (File Notes)\n\nSubject: Procurement of Labor in the West.\n\n With Ref. to 2, Chief OKW has ordered:\n\n\u201cThe communication of Field Marshal Von Kluge of 8 July, addressed to\nthe Reich Minister for Armament and War Production, crossed with my\norder of the same day.\u201d (OKW/WFST/Qu. (Adm. 1) Qu. 2 (West) No. 05201/44\nsecret).\n\nFrom this it is evident that, by order of the Fuehrer, under suspension\nof orders to the contrary, the wishes of the Plenipotentiary for Labor\n[Sauckel] and of Reich Minister Speer must, in principle, be carried\nout. Further, to my teletype, the following additional general\ndirections apply in future, as a result of the conference of ministers\nin the Reich Chancellery on 11 July, about which the Commander in Chief\nWest will have been informed by the military commander:\n\nRejecting justified misgivings with regard to peace and security in the\ninterior of the country, seizures must be carried out wherever the\nopportunities referred to in my above-mentioned teletype offer\nthemselves. As the only limitation, the Fuehrer has ordered that no\nforcible means shall be employed against the population in the actual\ncombat area as long as it [the population] shows itself prepared to\nassist the German Armed Forces. However, recruiting of volunteers from\namong refugees from the combat zone is to be carried out vigorously.\nMoreover, every means is justified to seize as much labor as possible\notherwise, apart from [using] the powers granted to the armed forces.\n\nIn order to render as effective as possible the measures which have been\nintroduced, the troops are furthermore to be instructed in general as to\nthe necessity of the organization for conscription of labor in order to\nput an end to the open and covert resistance which has arisen in many\ninstances. The field commandants and the offices of the military\nadministration must give wide support to the representatives of the\nPlenipotentiary for Labor Allocation and refrain from encroaching on\ntheir sphere of activity.\n\nI now direct that the necessary orders in this sense be given and that I\nbe constantly informed about the measures taken and their execution.\n\n_Indorsement of Commander in Chief West_:\n\nIn accordance with this, Commander in Chief West has reported the\nfollowing to the Chief of the OKW on 23 July 1944:\n\n 1. I have authorized the execution of the Sauekel-Laval agreement\n of 12 May in spite of misgivings because of interior security.\n\n 2. I will issue more detailed directives for the execution of the\n measures in the combat zone in accordance with OKW/WFST/Qu.\n (Adm.1)/2 (West) No. 05201/44 secret of 8 July 1944.\n\n The Commander in Chief West\n [Typewritten] VON KLUGE\n Field Marshal\n\nAdditional orders will follow.\n\n For the Commander in Chief West\n The Chief of Staff\n BY ORDER\n (illegible signature)\n Colonel, GSC\n\nDistribution:\n High Command Army Group B\n High Command Army Group G\n Armored Group Command West\n _Mil. Cmdr. in France_\n Armed Forces Commander in Belgium and northern France\n\nFor Information:\n\n Commander in Chief West/Ic [Intelligence]\nIaT (Draft)\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NOKW-337[113]\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 75\n\n EXTRACTS FROM TRANSCRIPT OF STENOGRAPHIC MINUTES OF\n THE JAEGERSTAB CONFERENCE OF 6 MARCH 1944\n\nSS MAJOR: [unidentified] I have already discussed with Lt. Col. Diesing\nour requirements according to our construction plan in the immediate\nprogram. From tomorrow 5,000 prisoners will be in readiness to carry out\nthis measure. For that we need 750 guard personnel.\n\n * * * * *\n\nFIELD MARSHAL MILCH: We must distribute our German people as key\npersonnel. That is, out of three construction companies we can probably\nmake ten complete ones by introducing 70 percent foreigners.\n\nSS MAJOR: They must be skilled workers. In handling the prisoners, it\nappears best that we should give 5 to 10 of them to one man who knows\nhis job.\n\nSAUR: The construction companies will be dissolved to provide key\npersonnel for teams 10 times or even 100 times their size. That is a\nquestion which must be clarified by 10 a.m. tomorrow between the\nPlenipotentiary General for Construction and the air force construction\nunits on one side and Kammler\u2019s construction staff on the other. That\nwill be clarified by tomorrow and he then must say what he needs. The\nTodt Organization must take part in the discussion, but I cannot consent\nto the inclusion of the Todt Organization in the matter as a third\nleading organization, as we would get confused. The Todt Organization\nmust bleed with the rest. It is the same as your construction companies.\nIt is the donor but he is the organizer and usufructuary. He is by all\nmeans the usufructuary. For besides being organizer, he is the\nusufructuary for the construction sites of the Plenipotentiary General\nfor Construction.\n\nSS MAJOR: Therefore it is important that these construction companies\nshould be under military leadership!\n\nFIELD MARSHAL MILCH: * * * We further appealed to the Fuehrer that we\nshould get the 64 miners who are in Berchtesgaden, as the work there\nwill probably soon be finished. He made the suggestion that we, like the\nSS, should also train miners in the greater degree and mentioned the\nfigure of 10,000 who would have to be trained one after another because\nthey could not all be trained at once.\n\nSAUR: The SS should be told that the training of miners should rest\nentirely with them because the SS runs the best mining school.\n\nFIELD MARSHAL MILCH: We must also ask the SS to get more miners from\nItaly and Slovakia.\n\nSAUR: * * * We must bring more order into the PW base camps [Stalags].\nWe have made a proposal that the PW base camps should be transferred to\nthe SS. The Italians and eastern peoples should be treated more roughly.\n\n * * * * *\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NOKW-338[114]\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 75\n\n EXTRACTS FROM TRANSCRIPT OF STENOGRAPHIC MINUTES OF\n THE JAEGERSTAB CONFERENCE ON FRIDAY, 17 MARCH 1944\n\n * * * * *\n\nSTOBBE-DETHLEFFSEN: * * * We already count on 100,000 men for the tasks\nof the Jaegerstab. To transfer them would mean breaking into the rest of\nthe armament economy to an unheard-of degree.\n\n (SAUR: 100,000 without Kammler!)\n\nIncluding the labor we give Kammler but not including the concentration\ncamp people.\n\nSAUR: Right from the beginning we realized that 200,000 men would be\ntransferred.\n\nSTOBBE-DETHLEFFSEN: I have just spoken to Prinzel about it. It is\nabsolutely necessary that the few German key personnel at our disposal\nshould be taken with the concentration camp inmates or with the other\nsubjugated people in such a proportion as will guarantee the best use of\nthis valuable German strength * * *.\n\n * * * * *\n\nSTOBBE-DETHLEFFSEN: I am always getting demands for German labor. For\nexample: Here are 5,000 concentration camp inmates, give me 1,000 German\nworkers. I do not fulfill these requests in this proportion; otherwise\nmy German labor would soon come to an end. We have filled only a\nfraction of the positions. I distribute German workers only in the ratio\nof 1:10.\n\n * * * * *\n\nMILCH: The air force stresses the importance of getting the whole cave\nfor the purposes of manufacture. * * *\n\nPORSCHE: * * * I shall talk to Weiss again about our getting more\nconcentration camp people for finishing off the work.\n\n (DIESING: We probably shall not get them.)\n\nI\u2019ll get them from the Reich Leader. I already have 3,500. Two of\nObergruppenfuehrer Pohl\u2019s men are going to France to prepare everything\nlocally with regard to housing and feeding.\n\n * * * * *\n\nNOBEL: Can one be responsible for foreigners working as airfield control\npersonnel? The repair works say: yes!\n\n (MILCH: Not as pilots!)\n\nI do not think that is intended. The repair works said yesterday that it\nwould be a help to them if foreigners could be used as airfield control\npersonnel. * * *\n\n * * * * *\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NOKW-346\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 75\n\n EXTRACTS FROM TRANSCRIPT OF STENOGRAPHIC MINUTES OF\n THE JAEGERSTAB CONFERENCE UNDER CHAIRMANSHIP OF\n FIELD MARSHAL MILCH ON MONDAY, 20 MARCH 1944\n\n * * * * *\n\nSAUR: * * * As far as Hungary is concerned, I should be grateful if the\nField Marshal would call up Mr. Sauckel and tell him that the whole\ngroup mobilized in Hungary should be primarily at the disposal of the\nJaegerstab. Large construction [of entrenchments] columns [Schanz\nKolonnen] must be formed. The people have to be treated like prisoners.\nOtherwise it won\u2019t work.\n\n * * * * *\n\nSAUR: Where are the 54,000 Czechs?\n\nMAHNKE: Of the 58,000 Czechs, 17,000 have been earmarked for\nCzechoslovakia. 31,000 are intended for the Reich, and after that 26,000\nhave been divided among the special commissions [Sonderausschusse].\n31,000 were for power units.\n\n * * * * *\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NOKW-388\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 75\n\n EXTRACTS FROM TRANSCRIPT OF STENOGRAPHIC MINUTES OF\n THE JAEGERSTAB CONFERENCE OF 28 MARCH 1944\n\n * * * * *\n\nNOBEL: The labor situation in the repair sector is very unsatisfactory.\nOf the 2,000 people promised me before from the Action Sauckel, not one\nhas yet arrived. There is no point in saying that people should apply to\nthe armament department [Ruestungskommando]. The armament departments\nand inspectorates [Ruestungskommandos and Inspektionen] have not got\nanybody. If these men are not roped in by higher authority, the repair\nworkshops cannot get any labor. My people are not in a position to stop\nproduction because we have not received any men since 11 March.\n\nMEMBER OF THE JAEGERSTAB: I brought this matter up yesterday with\nMinisterialdirigent Dr. Timm of the office of the Plenipotentiary\nGeneral for Labor Allocation, and told him that we handed in our request\non 17 March, but had not yet received any laborers. He could not tell me\nanything but will let us know today. I will ask Schmelter, who is coming\nto this meeting later, to follow up the matter.\n\nMILCH: Tell Schmelter, that if I can help in any way by calling Sauckel,\netc., he should let me know.\n\n * * * * *\n\nSCHMELTER: I have received such high demands, for instance today over\n3,000, tomorrow over 5,000, and the day after, again over 4,000, that it\ncannot possibly be that the labor is really needed, or else the firms do\nnot understand the program. What has been received from you, Mr. Lange,\nhas been passed on. It is also to be expected that these laborers will\ncome within the next 10-14 days. I have arranged with Sauckel that I\nshall give out red tickets for the most urgent demands, first of all a\nconsignment of 10,000. That will do to begin with. These red tickets\nwill have priority, even over other red tickets. Of course, that will\ncause difficulties over skilled workers. When we have a picture of the\nnumber of skilled workers we need, we must decide from which branch of\nmanufacture we can remove them, for Sauckel does not have so many\nskilled workers. Those who have already arrived are, for the most part,\nfrom the East. That is still the most prolific source. Very few come\nfrom the West and they are slowly starting to come from Italy. There are\ncomparatively few skilled workers among them. So we must decide what\nfactories are to be closed or restricted and where we shall take away\nthe skilled workers. I can only let you have details in a few days when\nI have a complete picture of requirements.\n\nNOBEL: If I must speed up repair work in a limited time, I need the\nlabor at once. Since 16 March not one of the 2,000 people that Sauckel\nwas going to send has arrived. That is already two weeks ago. They tell\nme that if they have to deliver 50 machines they must have 60 people\ntoday or tomorrow. But that won\u2019t work because I have not got the\npeople. I have always said\u2014you will not get skilled workers. They\nanswer\u2014then give us others. If we do not fulfill these demands, their\nconfidence in the Jaegerstab will be undermined. This morning I shall\nget material from Hansen & Company in Muenster. The labor office there\nis not yet clear about the set-up of the Jaegerstab and the priority of\nthe fighter program. It is the result of the bureaucracy of the\nauthorities. My men have to argue with the authorities and thereby lose\nvaluable time.\n\nSCHMELTER: It is now customary, if one fails to produce something to put\nthe blame on the labor office. I remind you of the Messerschmitt affair.\n\n (MILCH: That is not so in all cases.)\n\nAssuredly! The gentlemen were with me on Saturday. They had got back 50\ntool makers from the army into the bargain, which they had had in the\nmeantime, and said nothing about. First, they could not employ them,\nsecondly, they did not need them, and thirdly, they got them elsewhere.\nFurthermore Sauckel puts the people at the disposal of the repair\ndepartment. It was immediately reported that the labor offices worked\ntoo slowly.\n\nMILCH: You will make things easier for yourselves if you build up\ngradually a small reserve of a few hundred people, at first 500 which\nyou can later raise to 2,000 so that you can cover immediately any need\nthat arises. Then our work will gain the respect of others. At the\nmoment it is like this\u2014either we must transfer people and leave a gap\nwhere it is less vital, or wait until the people are brought in by\nSauckel. When one sees the figures that Sauckel has produced and\nascertains what the armament industry has received, the comparison is\nridiculous.\n\nSCHMELTER: A letter is on the way from the minister to Mr. Sauckel.\nDuring the first three months Sauckel has brought in between 300,000 and\n400,000 people, but not even a miserable 66,000 red tickets could be\nhonored.\n\nMILCH: I personally cannot get over it! Take the help away from the\nhousewives! In the past year 800,000 domestic servants have been\nnegotiated and we are fighting for 2,000 men!\n\nSCHMELTER: In one year the demand for female domestic servants in\nGermany has risen by 200,000, the demands of the armament industry\nduring the same period by 600. I have arranged that transports that come\nfrom abroad are directed straight to the points of greatest need.\n\nMILCH: Every week 2,000 people come from the East.\n\n (SCHMELTER: Most of them go into agriculture.)\n\nThe Jaegerstab has priority over agriculture. Can you not intercept\nthem?\n\nSCHMELTER: I have arranged that. The 2,000 are disposed of; some of them\nare already at work. But it does not always happen that the reports of\nthe firms are 100 percent correct. We have often checked that up. It\noften happens that firms take the people and put them into another\nbranch of production but still shout for people for the high priority\nprocesses.\n\n(NOBEL: That is not the case in my repair industry!)\n\nFRYDAG: Yesterday, I was in Wiener-Neustadt. The works have a\nconsiderable assignment and a hefty increase. Merely in order to get out\nof the room unscathed I gave them 200 men from the airframes industry.\n\nSCHMELTER: In Wiener Neustadt there was a demand for 1,000 or 1,500. A\nthousand were supposed to come from Air Fleet 2 in Italy. An engineer\nofficial, Weidinger, was going to produce them. On Sunday I received a\nphone call to the effect that the engineer official could not produce\nthem.\n\nFRYDAG: That is quite right. But you must put yourself in the firm\u2019s\nplace. The firm must have these people.\n\nSCHMELTER: Then I must see to it that I take them from somewhere else.\n\nMILCH: You know our position. We are convinced that you do everything\nyou can. But we must now commit a robbery. We can no longer operate\nalong legal lines.\n\n (SCHMELTER: That is the only possibility.)\n\nThere will be abuse but we must accept that.\n\nSCHMELTER: I shall go tomorrow to Mr. Sauckel and tell him that he must\ngive the fighter industry the next transport of workers from the East.\nThe proposal that the fighter industry should not give back the laborers\nit received who originally worked in agriculture has been turned down by\nSauckel. I am commissioned to inform you of this.\n\nMILCH: That is out of the question. Nothing shall go out of the fighter\nindustry!\n\nSCHMELTER: I am commissioned to say that he must have this labor back\nagain.\n\nMILCH: Later, not now! One more thing. We must protect all the factories\nworking for the fighter program. We must say to them: You must not give\nup people for anything whatsoever except on command of the Jaegerstab.\nNone can touch you, not even the local labor offices and the ministerial\nauthorities; requests for personnel must all be directed to the\nJaegerstab. We must put that out clearly as an order.\n\n(PETRI: That is already in previous minutes.)\n\nSCHMELTER: May I request that this order should be extended to the\nmanagement and repair personnel of the electricity and gas works.\n\nMILCH: I can only do it for the Jaegerstab. I am not doing it for the\nbomber and other branches either as we have only that special authority.\n\nSCHMELTER: I should like to ask that it should only be done for\nmanufacture and not construction.\n\nMILCH: Agreed! We must write a letter to Keitel of the OKW and a letter\nto Sauckel saying: Requests are to be made only directly to the\nJaegerstab.\n\n * * * * *\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NOKW-334[115]\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 75\n\n EXTRACT FROM TRANSCRIPT OF STENOGRAPHIC MINUTES OF\n THE JAEGERSTAB CONFERENCE OF 25 APRIL 1944\n\n * * * * *\n\n[page 27]\n\nWEGENER: I have a question for Schmelter: Has the question of the\n_transfer of western Europeans_ been clarified?\n\nWERNER: On this subject I can say that it is especially difficult for\nBMW [Bavarian Motor Works], because we can only transfer Russians and\nconcentration camp inmates, and the guards for these are mainly Belgians\nand French.\n\n * * * * *\n\nWEGENER: As far as I can remember, 200 key personnel are needed for\nMarkirch.\n\nMILCH: Perhaps that must be brought before the Fuehrer again.\n\nSCHAAF: Saur came back and said there was no more to be said on this\nsubject to the Fuehrer.\n\nMILCH: That is out of date now. I have discussed with Saur the fact that\nwe cannot keep up this state of affairs. Saur is of my opinion. It must\nbe discussed once more with the Fuehrer. I can discuss it again with the\nReich Marshal. We shall do what we can, but we cannot throw everything\ninto confusion without due consideration. How should we then manage to\nproduce! I am convinced that the Fuehrer will agree as soon as we can\nput these people reasonably into barracks so that they do not come into\ncontact with the population.\n\n * * * * *\n\nSCHAEDE: Whenever French key personnel are brought to Lorraine, they run\naway without fail in a short time. This one must tell the firm. Already\nthey do not come back from leave.\n\nMILCH: It will only work if we put these workers into barracks. We\ncannot exactly treat them as prisoners. It must appear otherwise, but it\nmust be so in practice.\n\n * * * * *\n\nMILCH: I am personally convinced after talking to the Fuehrer that he\nwill agree as soon as it is made reasonable. The people should not be\nable to mingle with the population and to conspire. Nor should they be\nallowed to run around free, so that they can cross the frontier every\nday. Both practices must be stopped.\n\n * * * * *\n\nHEYNE: I have two short points. Yesterday Maehrisch-Truebau was removed\nfrom the program because the Quartermaster General told me the previous\nnight that it was possible to move in on the morning of 28 April. The\nmatter is already progressing. Last night I was called up again because\nthe Chief of Prisoners of War Affairs did not quite agree with the new\naccommodation in Brunswick of the prisoners from Maehrisch-Truebau for\nsome reasons of security.\n\nI should like to ask Major Kleber, who was also yesterday announced as\nMr. Saur\u2019s liaison officer with the OKW, to exert some pressure here.\n\nApart from that, General Schmidt said that there were also some fighter\nunits and suchlike in the barracks; that he could not move out as\nquickly as that; he would not take orders; otherwise he would go to the\nReich Marshal.\n\nMILCH: I am of the opinion that that must be done at once. It\u2019s all the\nsame to me if individual people do object. Protest does not interest me\nat all, whether from the Chief of Prisoners of War Affairs or from our\nside.\n\nKleber, would you be so good as to take care of this?\n\nKLEBER: As far as prisoners of war are concerned I can take care of it,\nbut not where it concerns the air force. That must be handled\nseparately.\n\nMILCH: Naturally. This matter must be handled by us. There was in fact,\nanother proposal but we do not want it. Otherwise someone else will come\ncomplaining.\n\nKLEBER: I should like to transfer the prisoners further off to\nBrunswick.\n\nMILCH: I think it is an excellent idea for the prisoners to go there if\nBrunswick continues to be attacked.\n\n * * * * *\n\nSAUR: I must come back again to the question of _western European\nworkers_. Make an energetic attempt to make a _compromise within the\nfactories_. I think it will work out. I do not think the Fuehrer will\ngive in even if we put the French into barracks. He has spoken so firmly\nand for reasons which I cannot but recognize. I am all the more thankful\nthat permission has been given for the Protectorate. I am going to see\nState Minister Frank on Friday and I shall discuss with him the whole\nquestion of dispersal in the Protectorate. I shall like Schmelter to\naccompany me to Prague on Friday to discuss the question of transfer of\nworkers.\n\nMILCH: I said before that we wanted to carry out the transfer within the\nfactories. Then if something is left over, we should have to approach\nthe Fuehrer again, but only on condition that they are in barracks and\nthat there are replacements for them.\n\n * * * * *\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NOKW-362\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 75\n\n EXTRACTS FROM TRANSCRIPT OF STENOGRAPHIC MINUTES OF\n JAEGERSTAB CONFERENCE ON THE OCCASION OF THE 5TH\n TRIP OF THE \u201cHUBERTUS UNDERTAKING\u201d, 2 AND 3 MAY 1944\n\n * * * * *\n\n[Page 65]\n\nMILCH: * * * I also ask that every time the civilian population is\nattacked [Translator\u2019s note: by low-flying aircraft], in private cars,\non [rail] roads, etc., the local offices make reports accordingly. The\nFuehrer has ordered extremely severe measures against these enemy crews\nwho harass the civilian population. There is not the slightest military\nnecessity for this and the Fuehrer intends absolutely to act according\nto the Japanese pattern. (Enthusiastic applause!) We must only take\ncases individually so that we have the necessary material and can\nproduce it. We owe that to our boys who are prisoners over there, who\nwill be held as hostages unless we have proper proof.\n\n * * * * *\n\n[Page 110]\n\nSCHNAUDER: * * *\n\n1. At the Heinkel factory at Barth there are 3,300 workers, consisting\nof 300 Germans and 3,000 concentration camp inmates. Of the 3,000\nconcentration camp inmates, 1,500 are men. In order to maintain their\nworking capacity it is necessary to evacuate these men too during\ndaylight air attacks. However, there are not enough guards and sometimes\nthere is a deficit of as many as 20. As guards cannot be drawn from any\nother source, it has been decided that the factory is to arm as guards\ncertain men from its own ranks to guard the concentration camp inmates.\n* * *\n\n * * * * *\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NOKW-390\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 75\n\n EXTRACT FROM TRANSCRIPT OF STENOGRAPHIC MINUTES OF\n THE JAEGERSTAB CONFERENCE OF 4 MAY 1944\n\n * * * * *\n\nSAUR: 12. Can the arrival of the reported 50,000 Italians be relied on?\nBy what date will the first transport arrive? This wording is, frankly,\nunintelligible. It was quite clear that the 50,000 Italians were coming\nso that the transport facilities were guaranteed long ago. How did such\na report get into the minutes of 14 April?\n\n (Comment: The camps into which these people are to go don\u2019t even\n exist yet!)\n\nWe shan\u2019t get any further like this! Inform Mr. Schmelter.\n\nFIELD MARSHAL MILCH: Are they coming via Sauckel?\n\nSAUR: No. This is our own undertaking. Pueckel has clarified various\ndoubtful points with Nagel and got ready a large number of vehicles and\nnow all that comes to nothing. Schmelter must report on it tomorrow, not\nin the sense of whether it can be done, but that this and that must be\ndone, and by such and such means.\n\n * * * * *\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NOKW-442[116]\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 75\n\n EXTRACT FROM TRANSCRIPT OF STENOGRAPHIC MINUTES OF\n THE JAEGERSTAB CONFERENCE ON 5 MAY 1944\n\n * * * * *\n\nSCHMELTER: Then the transport of the Italians. 50,000 Italians have not\nyet been transported. It was due to the fact that the escort for the\ntransport has not yet been appointed. The conversation yesterday with\nthe Plenipotentiary in Milan proved that the transport should leave\ntoday for this place Woerl (?) [sic] where further distribution will be\nundertaken. I booked another call this morning but did not get through.\nI hope to be able to give more details tomorrow.\n\nMILCH: Has a proper reception center been set up in Woerl?\n\n (SCHMELTER: Yes.)\n\nIs it assured that the number of those leaving is in reasonable\nproportion to those arriving? * * *: [sic] That shall be. A man has been\nappointed by Schmelter to travel down there especially and control\ndirectly the conscription of civilians.\n\nMILCH: Is there someone at the Escort Detachment Headquarters in Italy\nresponsible for seeing that people do not get out and run away during\nthe journey?\n\n* * * [sic] That is what the escorting personnel is there for.\n\n (MILCH: Someone of standing?)\n\nDr. Wendt is responsible for the whole undertaking.\n\nMILCH: I am of the opinion that, if anyone jumps out, he should be shot;\notherwise a thousand will get on and only twenty will arrive there. The\nGendarmerie and all military posts must look out for those who abscond\non the journey. They will be arrested at once and will appear before a\ncourt martial.\n\n(End of meeting 1225 hours).\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NOKW-361\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 75\n\n EXTRACT FROM TRANSCRIPT OF STENOGRAPHIC MINUTES OF\n THE JAEGERSTAB CONFERENCE DURING THE 6TH JOURNEY\n OF THE \u201cHUBERTUS UNDERTAKING\u201d FROM 8-10 MAY 1944\n\n * * * * *\n\nGABEL: We must have 1,000 underground workers at once.\n\nSAUR: Definitely.\n\nBORNITZ: The Erzberg [ore mine] has, furthermore, a loss of from 1,400\nto 1,500 men per annum due to climatic conditions. It goes up as high as\n1,500 meters.\n\nSAUR: Do you give the men up systematically, and to whom?\n\nBORNITZ: Not systematically. They collapse, report sick, and the\nforeigners do not come back. Some escape too, as in the mountain country\nit is not possible to seal everything hermetically.\n\n(Comment: A year ago the labor potential of a large concentration camp\nwas thoroughly gone into. That possibility must not be entirely\ndisregarded).\n\nGABEL: Careful! Concentration camp internees are not strong enough to be\nable to work underground.\n\n * * * * *\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NOKW-336[117]\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 75\n\n EXTRACTS FROM TRANSCRIPT OF STENOGRAPHIC MINUTES OF\n THE JAEGERSTAB CONFERENCE ON 26 MAY 1944\n\n * * * * *\n\n[Page 31-32]\n\nREICH MINISTER SPEER: With regard to construction it is important that\nwe should not start more building than we can supply labor and equipment\nfor. Equipment is of secondary importance. We must not continue with the\nmistakes we found in the air force armament industry when we took over,\ni.e., the beginning of no end of buildings for which, at that time, only\n20 to 30 percent of the necessary labor was available.\n\nSAUR: That is the case now unfortunately. We have at least 3 times as\nmany buildings under construction as we have labor available.\n\nREICH MINISTER SPEER: What is the news about the Hungarian Jews?\n\nKAMMLER: They are on the way. At the end of the month the first\ntransports will arrive for surface work on the surface bunkers.\n\n * * * * *\n\n[Page 33]\n\nSCHLEMPP: * * * Dorsch said yesterday that he wanted to bring 100,000\nJews from Hungary, 50,000 Italians, 10,000 men from bomb damage repair,\nalso 1,000 from Waldbroehl (?) [sic]; then he wanted to get something\nfrom Greiser\u2019s zone by negotiation, then 4,000 Italian officers, 10,000\nmen from South Russia and 20,000 from North Russia. That would be\n220,000 altogether.\n\nREICH MINISTER SPEER: We have often made such calculations; but the\npeople never came.\n\n * * * * *\n\n[Page 34]\n\nKAMMLER: For all these measures [Translator\u2019s note: A and B construction\nmeasures which were the responsibility of the SS], I must take in 50,000\nmore people in protective custody [Schutzhaeftlinge].\n\n * * * * *\n\n[Page 43]\n\nREICH MINISTER SPEER: We shall carry out a special operation\n[Sondereinsatz] of our own in order to build up reserves of manpower\n[Schwerpunkte]. It will bring in 90,000 men in three installments of\n30,000.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIt will be experts who are called up. And it would be a good thing if\none linked up with it the conscription of tool makers within the firms\nso that one would have a body of tool makers in the armament industry.\nThese people would get leave from this group and would function as armed\nforces employees. If we make them armed forces employees we have the\nadvantage of being independent of Sauckel\u2019s offices.\n\n * * * * *\n\n[Page 80]\n\nFIELD MARSHAL MILCH: How long do the Italian PW\u2019s actually work here?\n\nSCHMELTER: As long as the factory works. There is a regulation that PW\u2019s\nmust work so long.\n\nFIELD MARSHAL MILCH: Could you not look into this? You can see people on\nthe streets about 4 or 5 o\u2019clock and nobody after that.\n\n (SCHMELTER: I can look into it!)\n\nI do not believe that any Italian prisoner of war works 72 hours.\n\n * * * * *\n\n[Page 81]\n\nSCHMELTER: * * * Dorsch will accompany me to Greiser to try and get 20\nto 30 thousand men out of him.\n\nREICH MINISTER SPEER: Kammler had his doubts about that before.\n\nREPRESENTATIVE OF KAMMLER: He didn\u2019t think the 100,000 Jews would come.\n\nSCHMELTER: To that I can add the following. Till now two transports have\narrived at the SS camp Auschwitz. For fighter construction we were\noffered only children, women, and old men with whom very little can be\ndone. * * * Unless the next transports bring men of an age fit for work\nthe whole action will not have much success.\n\n * * * * *\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NOKW-359\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 75\n\n EXTRACTS FROM TRANSCRIPT OF STENOGRAPHIC MINUTES OF\n THE JAEGERSTAB CONFERENCE ON 27 JUNE 1944\n\n * * * * *\n\n[Page 27]\n\nSCHMELTER: I have another small point to bring up. I said once before\nthat we had fairly large numbers of English and American \u201cTerror Flyers\u201d\nin air force camps, who cannot be used. It is a matter, in all, of about\n17,000 people, approximately half officers and NCO\u2019s who do not need to\nwork. That means that there are 6 to 9 thousand men in camps who just\nsit about doing nothing. The suggestion that they should be put to work\nhas now been turned down on the grounds that it concerns especially\nintelligent people trained in collecting information and, apart from\nthat, inclined to acts of sabotage.\n\nSAUR: Can we put them into the manufacture of component parts?\n\nLANGE: Perhaps we can employ them in underground factories.\n\nSAUR: We could employ them in the manufacture of component parts. Who is\nresponsible for this matter?\n\nKRAUSE: The Commission for Prisoners of War; it comes under the\nQuartermaster General.\n\nSAUR: Will you undertake to put this matter in order? These people must\nbe put at the disposal of the component parts industry. That would be an\nunbelievable help to us.\n\nSCHMELTER: It must be laid down that these people _all_ go into fighter\nproduction or into the component parts industry. Otherwise a part will\nbe sent off elsewhere. The people in question are excellent people, good\nmaterial.\n\n * * * * *\n\n[Page 31]\n\nSCHMELTER: I have a few more points. Up till now 12,000 female\nconcentration camp internees, Jewesses, have been demanded. The matter\nis now in order. The SS has agreed to deliver these Hungarian Jewesses\nin batches of 500. Thus the smaller firms, too, will be in a position to\nemploy these concentration camp Jewesses better. I request that these\npeople should be ordered in batches of 500.\n\nMAHNKE: How many are still there?\n\nSCHMELTER: There are still enough there.\n\n * * * * *\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NOKW-320\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 73\n\n EXTRACT FROM INTERROGATION OF KARL OTTO SAUR ON\n 13 NOVEMBER 1946, CONCERNING THE USE OF CONCENTRATION\n CAMP PRISONERS IN JAEGERSTAB CONSTRUCTION\n\nQ. Were special factories built after the creation of the Jaegerstab?\n\nA. All building of factories above the ground was stopped, and\nsubterranean factories were built. We divided approximately 30 factories\ninto 700 individual workshops to avoid offering targets for attacks.\n\nQ. What kind of workers were used for this construction?\n\nA. The construction was divided into three parts: the two Kammler parts,\n(_a_) new construction underground, and (_b_) expansion underground, and\nthe Todt Organization part.\n\nQ. This expansion program was directed by Kammler,[118] then?\n\nA. Parts (_a_) and (_b_) were directed quite independently by Kammler.\nHe had full authority from Goering as of 4 March 1944 and was then made\na member of the Jaegerstab. * * * The whole affair was carried out by\nKammler alone.\n\nQ. And the workers who were used for this purpose were concentration\ncamp prisoners?\n\nA. To my knowledge, they must have been concentration camp prisoners.\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NOKW-266\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 76\n\n AFFIDAVIT OF FRITZ SCHMELTER, 19 NOVEMBER 1946,\n CONCERNING THE ORGANIZATION OF THE JAEGERSTAB\n\nI, Fritz Schmelter, swear, testify, and state:\n\n 1. That, since about January 1944 until April 1945, I held, in\n the end, the office of Ministerialdirigent in the Ministry for\n Armament and War Production (Ministry Speer); that as\n Ministerialdirigent I was in charge of the Division for Labor\n Assignment, and from December 1944 until April 1945 of the\n Central Department for Labor Assignment and Labor Output, and\n that, as a holder of these positions I was also a member of the\n Jaegerstab.\n\n 2. That Milch and Speer together were in charge of the\n Jaegerstab; that Saur was the Chief of Staff and was, in this\n capacity, the immediate subordinate of Milch and Speer.\n\n 3. That during its existence the Jaegerstab met almost every day\n and that these meetings were presided over in most cases by\n Milch, in the beginning, and later on by Saur; that Speer was\n very rarely present and only on special occasions; that these\n meetings took place, first, in the Reich Air Ministry and after\n this was destroyed in the barrack at Tempelhof.\n\n 4. That in the meetings of the Jaegerstab the supply of labor\n for the Luftwaffe was discussed; that, for the Jaegerstab, the\n labor requirements necessary to the industry of the Luftwaffe\n were discussed with the Plenipotentiary for Labor Allocation\n (Ministry Sauckel); that Sauckel satisfied these requirements as\n far as possible; that the Chief of Staff, in the Jaegerstab,\n Saur occasionally also distributed the available labor to the\n different Luftwaffe plants.\n\n 5. That in the year of 1944 the air raids made it necessary to\n decentralize many of the plants of the Luftwaffe; that this\n decentralization was ordered by the Jaegerstab; that many\n factories of the Luftwaffe were transferred into subterranean\n buildings and that for the completion of these subterranean\n buildings concentration camp inmates and Jews were also used;\n that the whole building program of the Jaegerstab was\n established and controlled by this Jaegerstab itself.\n\n 6. That the above facts are personally known to me; that these\n facts are known to me on account of the position I held and the\n responsibility it gave me in the Jaegerstab and in the Ministry\n Speer.\n\nI have read the above statement which consists of two pages in German,\nand I state that this is the full truth, to the best of my knowledge and\nbelief. I have had the opportunity to make changes and corrections in\nthe above statements. I have given this testimony voluntarily, without\nany promise of reward and without being, in any way, forced or\nthreatened.\n\nNuernberg, 19 November 1946.\n [Signed] DR. FRITZ SCHMELTER\n\n TRANSLATION OF SPEER EXHIBIT 34[119]\n DEFENSE EXHIBIT 17\n\n ORDER OF HITLER, 21 APRIL 1944, DELEGATING TO DORSCH\n AUTHORITY FOR JAEGERSTAB CONSTRUCTIONS[120]\n\n Copy\n\nThe Fuehrer\n\n Fuehrer\u2019s Headquarters\n 21 April 1944\n\nTo the Reich Minister for Armament and War Production and\nHead of the Todt Organization, Reich Minister Speer\n\nBerlin W 8\n\nI delegate Ministerialdirektor Dorsch, Chief of the Todt Central Office,\nto carry out the erection of the six fighter production buildings\nordered by me, while retaining his other functions in your sphere of\nwork.\n\nYou are to be responsible for taking care of all the prerequisites\nnecessary for the speedy erection of these buildings. You are\nparticularly to effect the best possible coordination with the other\nwar-essential buildings, if necessary referring to me for a decision.\n\n [Signed] ADOLF HITLER\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NOKW-337[121]\n DEFENSE EXHIBIT 12\n\n EXCERPTS FROM THE STENOGRAPHIC MINUTES OF THE\n JAEGERSTAB CONFERENCE ON 6 MARCH 1944\n IN THE REICH AIR MINISTRY[122]\n\n * * * * *\n\nSAUR: I see a great many unknown faces and I do not know what business\nall these gentlemen have here. I suggest that a check be made at the\ndoor and that the showing of passes be mandatory. Otherwise there is\ndanger that other people may sneak in here. I demand therefore a\nstricter control under all circumstances. Furthermore I would ask that\ngentlemen remain at meetings only as long and no longer as their\nbusiness makes it necessary. I would therefore request that each\ngentleman report his presence and state whether he has any matters of\ngeneral interest. These things could then be taken up first and that\nwould settle that and the man could leave. We only want one gentleman\nfor one subject, not a whole bunch of them.\n\n * * * * *\n\nSAUR: Does the term \u201cconstruction company\u201d[123] exist at all? I think it\ndoes not exist.\n\nDIESING: We have construction companies with the Luftwaffe, among them\nmasons, slaters, window fitters, etc. That is how we arrived at the term\n\u201cconstruction company\u201d. We cannot again withdraw the six construction\ncompanies which we have taken from Berlin. For each building site we\nneed approximately 100 skilled people, this on the basis of a fixed\ndistribution key and we do not know where to get them.\n\n * * * * *\n\nMILCH: Now we come to the question of foreign exchange. Here the Fuehrer\nhas announced his consent that the requests of the Slovaks to purchase\nantiaircraft guns, etc., be complied with. Saur has reported orally how\nmany antiaircraft guns have actually been finished and how far we have\nexceeded the program. This is a good and acceptable method for us.\n\nWe have furthermore approached the Fuehrer in order to obtain the 64\nminers, at present employed at Berchtesgaden, since the work there\nshould soon be finished. He said that we, like the SS, should train\nminers on a larger scale too, and named the figure of 10,000 to be\ntrained in successive shifts because one cannot train them all at the\nsame time.\n\nSAUR: The gentlemen of the SS should be told of this, that the entire\ntraining of miners is supposed to be done by the SS because the SS has\nthe best school for that.\n\nMILCH: Furthermore we must ask the SS to get hold of further miners from\nItaly and Slovakia.\n\nSAUR: Barowski (?) [sic] must know that! This question must be cleared\nup at once, today, in order to agree on the selection with the SS.\n\n * * * * *\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NOKW-338[124]\n DEFENSE EXHIBIT 13\n\n EXCERPTS FROM THE STENOGRAPHIC MINUTES OF THE\n JAEGERSTAB CONFERENCE PRESIDED OVER BY FIELD MARSHAL\n MILCH ON FRIDAY, 17 MARCH 1944, 1100 HOURS,\n IN THE REICH AIR MINISTRY[125]\n\n * * * * *\n\n[Page 13]\n\nSTOBBE-DETHLEFFSEN:[126] Probably you have not understood me quite\ncorrectly. When I asked this question, I did not have in mind the\nprojects of 600,000 and 800,000 square meters,\n\n (SAUR: But I did!)\n\nbut the original 60,000 square meter works. I now ask: shall these\n60,000 square meter works now be simply cancelled in consideration of\nthe big works, and are they no longer to be taken into consideration?\nThis seems hazardous to me because we must make the following\ndistinction. The construction capacity of underground works in mountains\nand caves is entirely different from the one to be reckoned with at such\nconcrete works. It is available for concrete works and consequently it\nshould be used. It was not as if we had to go into caves or worm\nourselves into the mountain. The question of the big works is a very\ndifficult one for us from the point of view of capacity. It alone\nrequires another 25,000 workers. We reckon already now 100,000 men for\nthe tasks of the Jaegerstab. To switch to some other work would\nconstitute an inroad of unheard of proportions into the remaining\narmament economy.[127]\n\n (SAUR: 100,000 without Kammler!)\n\nIncluding the manpower we give Kammler, but without the people from\nconcentration camps!\n\n * * * * *\n\nMILCH: We have been ordered to carry out these two construction projects\nby the Fuehrer. If I now take a higher compression ratio and thus attain\nmuch higher figures, even this higher figure would not prevent us from\nhaving to deal with further shifting afterwards, besides concrete works\nand cave works, smaller caves, tunnels, etc. It is now doubtless correct\nto ascertain: (1) What has to be constructed, (2) for whom it has to be\nconstructed, (3) where it has to be constructed. We have to distribute\nit in such a way that we can efficiently cope with manpower and all the\nother questions, power, transportation, etc.\n\n * * * * *\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NOKW-365\n DEFENSE EXHIBIT 15\n\n EXTRACT FROM THE STENOGRAPHIC MINUTES OF THE\n JAEGERSTAB CONFERENCE, 12 APRIL 1944\n\n _STENOGRAPHIC MINUTES OF THE JAEGERSTAB CONFERENCE_\n _PRESIDED OVER BY HAUPTDIENSTLEITER_\n _SAUR, LATER ON PRESIDED OVER BY FIELD_\n _MARSHAL MILCH, ON WEDNESDAY, 12 APRIL_\n _1944, 10 O\u2019CLOCK IN THE REICH AIR MINISTRY_\n\n * * * * *\n\nSAUR: Please tell this to Schmelter. We are in an incredible situation\nas a result of lack of manpower. Here we are in the middle of the month\nalready, and the 10,000 people allocated to us according to red slips\nhave not arrived yet. A way must be found to assure priority for\nred-slip matters over all other allocations. Tell Herr Schmelter to\ncontact Gauleiter Sauckel today. Going further than that, the\ndiscontinuation, transfer, or concentration of every other type of\nproduction must be brought about by us at once.\n\nSCHAAF: The 4,000 people from Kahla!\n\nLANGE: Schmelter\u2019s people complain particularly because they have no\nmeans of making pressure demands to Sauckel which will also be complied\nwith.\n\nSAUR: Field Marshal, the best thing would be for you to approach Sauckel\nyourself since he is the man in charge of labor allocation.\n\nMILCH: I shall tell him that the 10,000 red slips were not honored.\n\nBALCKE: On that I can report that the requests were sent out on the 5th\nand that on the 11th they had not yet reached the labor offices. The way\nis long, it is true. Therefore it is not yet possible for the people to\nbe employed.\n\n * * * * *\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NOKW-334[128]\n DEFENSE EXHIBIT 16\n\n EXTRACTS FROM THE STENOGRAPHIC MINUTES OF THE\n JAEGERSTAB CONFERENCE, 25 APRIL 1944\n\n _STENOGRAPHIC MINUTES OF THE JAEGERSTAB CONFERENCE_\n _OF 25 APRIL 1944, 10 O\u2019CLOCK IN THE_\n _REICH AIR MINISTRY_\n\n _PRESIDED OVER BY FIELD MARSHAL MILCH_\n\nHerr Saur does not appear until towards the end of the meeting.\n\n * * * * *\n\nWEGENER: I have a question for Schmelter: Has the question of the\n_transfer of west European workers_ been settled?\n\nWERNER: On this I can say that especially for the Bavarian Motor Works\nmatters are particularly difficult because we can transfer only Russians\nand concentration camp inmates, and the staff used for supervision\nconsists mostly of Belgians and Frenchmen.\n\n * * * * *\n\nKREUTZ: Mueller declared at one time\u2014and he believed he could do\nit\u2014that he would try and shift a part of the head personnel within the\nconcern.\n\nSCHAEDE: If you bring the French key personnel to Lorraine, I can\nguarantee you that they would run away within the shortest possible\ntime. That must be told to the firm. Even now they do not return from\ntheir vacation.\n\nMILCH: It will work only if we place these people into barracks. It is\ntrue we cannot treat them as prisoners of war; the outward appearance\nmust be different, but in actual practice that is just what it must be.\n\nSCHAEDE: I merely wanted to suggest to the firms to take along as few\nFrench people as possible so that they would not lose them altogether,\nand rather follow the system of Mueller.\n\nMILCH: Exactly. And if then there are still some left one can say that\nthis will be limited in terms of time, perhaps to several months, and\nthat in return certain advantages will be granted to them because they\nwill be subject to certain deprivation of their freedom.\n\n * * * * *\n\nMILCH: As early as today at noon, we may face the situation that\nBavarian Motor Works at Allach is completely destroyed and that we have\nto get out. Then we cannot deal with things such as 200 or 300 French\npeople who cannot come to Lorraine. That must be explained to the\nFuehrer once more. Otherwise, I see no possibility for carrying through\nour assignment.\n\nPersonally, I am firmly convinced\u2014after the conversations with the\nFuehrer\u2014that he will then consent provided it is done in a sensible\nway. The people must not sit together with the population and they must\nnot be able to conspire. Nor should they have sufficient freedom of\nmovement to be able to pass the green border line. Both of these things\nmust be prevented.\n\nIn compensation for these restrictions we can, on the other hand, give\nthese people something and make them happy\u2014be it even only cigarettes.\n\n * * * * *\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NOKW-442[129]\n DEFENSE EXHIBIT 21\n\n EXTRACT FROM THE STENOGRAPHIC MINUTES OF THE\n JAEGERSTAB CONFERENCE, 5 MAY 1944\n\n _THE STENOGRAPHIC MINUTES OF THE JAEGERSTAB_\n _CONFERENCE ON FRIDAY, 5 MAY 1944, 10 O\u2019CLOCK_\n _IN THE REICH AIR MINISTRY_\n\n * * * * *\n\nSCHMELTER: I was supposed to report on the employment of labor in the\npenal institutions.[130] The Minister of Justice has not yet forwarded\nthe complete list of workers available in the penal institutions. I have\nmade another inquiry. Dr. Schmelter (?) [sic] has appointed Attorney\nKarl as special official in charge. He is the liaison to the Reich\nMinistry of Justice. * * *\n\nHEYNE: Such conversations have taken place. They do not get us anywhere.\nThe thing we need is a listing of all localities showing how large a\nnumber of prisoners are yet available there. Then we must see whether\nthey are required there. Herr Schmelter planned to concentrate the\nskilled workers in those spots. There are only 2-3 percent skilled\nworkers in all among all prisoners. That is too little.\n\nMILCH: I suggest you are going to submit to me today a letter to\nThierack, to wit: Taking into consideration the extraordinary urgency of\nthe work in connection with the Jaegerstab we need this assistance. We\nhave failed for a long time unfortunately to obtain the compilation from\nthe authorities concerned. We need such and such data. I ask him to\nconcern himself personally with the matter and to let us have the\nmaterial in the very near future.\n\n * * * * *\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NOKW-336[131]\n DEFENSE EXHIBIT 23\n\n EXCERPTS FROM THE STENOGRAPHIC MINUTES OF THE\n JAEGERSTAB CONFERENCE ON FRIDAY, 26 MAY 1944,\n AT 10 O\u2019CLOCK\n\n * * * * *\n\n(Minister Speer and Field Marshal Milch entering.)\n\nMILCH: I welcome our Minister Speer for the first time in the circle of\nthe Jaegerstab, and would like to express my special happiness and at\nthe same time yours, that you, dear Speer, are again with us, well,\ncheerful, and in the old creative spirit.\n\nThis machinery, created by your orders, accomplished excellent things in\nthe three months of its existence. It has made special efforts to bring\nthe production of fighters and all that goes with them to a high level.\n\n * * * * *\n\nSCHMELTER: The reports of the board of examiners show that a larger\nnumber could be deducted from the plants belonging to the Luftwaffe if\none succeeds in establishing joint direction for the department of plane\nconstruction, the technical plant groups and companies. Up to now they\nexist separately under three different commands and leaderships, and\nthat would make it possible to deduct more workers. The board of\nexaminers thinks that hundreds of laborers could be deducted if a single\ncommand would be established. This must be done by Field Marshal Milch.\n\nMILCH: The Quartermaster General to whom all are subordinate! No one is\nsubordinate to me.\n\n * * * * *\n\n (SCHMELTER: Probably they will work in plants where people do\n not work for 72 hours.)\n\nIsn\u2019t it possible\u2014to avoid injustice toward our workers\u2014to have our\nother plants work too, not all of them for 72 hours, but perhaps up to\n64 hours? That should suffice if all would do it.\n\nSCHMELTER: I prepared already for the conference of the chiefs of the\nvarious offices the suggestion that working hours in civilian production\nshould be increased. There are still many production plants working only\n48 hours.\n\nMILCH: Then one can equalize and we need not work all the time for 72\nhours.\n\n * * * * *\n\n EXTRACTS OF TESTIMONY OF DEFENSE WITNESS FRITZ SCHMELTER[132]\n\n_DIRECT EXAMINATION_\n\n[Tr. pp. 717-734]\n\nDR. BERGOLD: Witness, will you give us your first name and your last\nname?\n\nWITNESS SCHMELTER: Fritz Schmelter.\n\nQ. When were you born?\n\nA. On the first of March 1904.\n\nQ. What was your position at the end of the war?\n\nA. At the end of the war, I was Central Department Manager at the\nMinistry of Armament.\n\n * * * * *\n\nQ. Thank you. Witness, when and in what position did you have to do\nofficial business with the defendant?\n\nA. I had some dealings with him on official business after 1944 when I\nbecame Chief of the Amtsgruppeneinsatz in the Ministry of Armament. I\nsaw him again after the Jaegerstab was formed, that is, after March\n1944.\n\nQ. In your position in the Ministry of Armament, did you have anything\nto do with the Central Planning Board?\n\nA. I had something to do with them insofar as the chief of staff of the\narmament office was concerned. He was my chief. I had to write down the\nnecessary figures concerning labor assignments when I accompanied him to\ncertain sessions of the Central Planning Board as assistant.\n\nQ. What month was that, approximately?\n\nA. As far as I can remember the first session in which I participated\nwas in February or March 1944. I did not always participate in these\nsessions, only in a few of them when I accompanied the man I mentioned\nbefore.\n\nQ. Did the sessions of February and March 1944 deal with labor\nassignments?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. During these conferences, were they trying to clear the numbers or\nthe figures which were announced by Sauckel?\n\nA. In one of the conferences I remember they wanted to make Sauckel a\nproposal concerning the distribution of labor he wanted to provide. I\nremember that the Central Planning Board had a written proposal\nsubmitted to him concerning requests about labor assignments. Sauckel\nsaid that he would acknowledge this proposal but would take care of the\ndistribution personally.\n\nQ. Did they, during these sessions, try to find out whether the numbers\nand figures Sauckel reported were correct? If he mentioned figures which\nwere too high, did they speak about those matters in this conference?\n\nA. I do not remember that day. But I know that in various conferences\nthe question of reliability of the figures played a great part. There\nwas always a difference between the figures Sauckel reported and those\nSpeer reported.\n\nQ. Did this apply to figures which Sauckel mentioned as having already\nbeen brought in or did it apply to figures on labor still to come?\n\nA. That applied particularly to the numbers of laborers who had already\nbeen brought. It was not possible to try to control the number of\nlaborers wanted because it was only something that was being planned,\nnothing else.\n\nQ. That is correct, but from previous experiences, weren\u2019t they in a\nposition to find out that Sauckel\u2019s promises were not being kept?\n\nA. At the time they doubted that the figures which Sauckel reported\ncould ever be brought in.\n\n * * * * *\n\nQ. Is it correct that in your position, as a member of the Speer\nministry, or in your capacity as a member of the Todt Organization, you\nvery often participated in the staff meetings of Sauckel?\n\nA. Every month Sauckel would call such a staff meeting where\nrepresentatives of the most important labor assignment ministries took\npart. I almost always participated in those meetings.\n\nQ. What other ministries apart from the Ministry of Armaments\nparticipated in those conferences?\n\nA. The Air Ministry, the OKW, the Ministry of Economics, the\nAgricultural Ministry, and I do not think I can remember anything\nfurther.\n\n * * * * *\n\nQ. Did the defendant Milch ever participate in those sessions?\n\nA. No. Those were conferences in which the experts of the ministries\ntook part; not the leaders and not their representatives, either.\n\nQ. Who was the chief of the Air Ministry?\n\nA. Goering.\n\nQ. At these staff conferences, did Sauckel ever make any statements\nsaying he brought the laborers voluntarily to the Reich?\n\nA. I remember that Sauckel repeatedly said approximately the following:\n\n \u201cThey say that I am forcing laborers to come to Germany. Once\n somebody said I went to foreign countries with a lasso and\n caught people and brought them over to Germany. They said I\n forced them to come to Germany.\u201d\n\nFurthermore, he said:\n\n \u201cI declare all those things are not true. The laborers are\n brought to Germany by me on the basis of contracts with other\n governments, as far as there are governments in those occupied\n territories, or on the orders of the local military commanders\n or other local German agencies.\u201d\n\nHe asked us to tell our superiors his opinion on that question.\n\n * * * * *\n\nQ. Is it known to you that there was an agreement with the French\nGovernment according to which one prisoner of war would be released to\nFrance for two laborers.\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Is it known to you that the French workers during their activity in\nGermany got leave once in a while?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. A leave to France?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Did they ever return from their leave or did they just stay there?\n\nA. The greater part came back from their leave; quite a number did not\ncome back. Part of the laborers who went on leave did not come back.\nSome of them came back.\n\nQ. Was that the larger part that came back or the smaller part?\n\nA. I did not hear any figures concerning that. As far as I know the\ngreatest of them came back. According to the factory manager, the larger\npart always came back, but of course I have no exact figures.\n\n * * * * *\n\nQ. Witness, you then joined the Jaegerstab. Do you know anything about\nthe creation of the Jaegerstab?\n\nA. Approximately on the first of March, I do not remember the exact\ndate, I was asked by my chief of staff to go to the Air Ministry where\nMilch and Mr. Saur were present. He said the air armament was so badly\ndamaged by the air raids that there had to be a fighter program. For\nthat purpose a staff needed to be developed to hold daily conferences\nwhich would be necessary in order to increase the fighter production or\nat least bring it to the same level that it used to be. A number of\ngentlemen from air as well as from the armament industry were designated\nto participate in these sessions and to report to their offices what had\ntaken place and put orders into effect.\n\nAs a representative of the Armament Ministry, I was assigned to labor\nassignment. Later on I heard that this Jaegerstab was under the\nmanagement of Speer and Milch and that Saur was the manager of the\nJaegerstab. Later on there were conferences almost daily, first at the\nAir Ministry and later on at a barracks at the Tempelhof, near Berlin.\nThey dealt, first of all, with the production of the fighters and with\nall the questions in connection with the fighters and also with labor\nassignment.\n\nQ. Who directed these conferences?\n\nA. At the beginning Milch participated almost regularly in those\nsessions and he was the one that actually led or presided over the\nconferences; formally, that is, Mr. Saur was the speaker most of the\ntime. Mr. Speer very seldom, according to my recollection perhaps three\nof four times, participated in those sessions, which on those particular\ndays were transferred to the Armament Ministry.\n\nQ. You just said that Milch at the beginning had the formal leadership.\nFrom what time on did that cease?\n\nA. After the transfer into the Armament Ministry, or rather, into the\nCaserne at Tempelhof\u2014I don\u2019t remember the date\u2014Milch did not\nparticipate as regularly as he did before. At those conferences, after\nthe transfer of the fighter staff into the Armament Ministry, he only\nparticipated once or never.\n\n * * * * *\n\nQ. Witness, concerning the conferences of the staff, there were always\nverbatim records taken. Is that known to you?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Apart from those minutes, were any other minutes taken?\n\nA. Yes. An extract of the verbatim record\u2014I want to call it a \u201cresult\nrecord\u201d\u2014was compiled and these records were sent to all of the offices\nwhich were interested in those conferences. Those verbatim records which\nwere taken down by stenographers during the session, according to my\nknowledge, were sent only to Mr. Speer, and of course they remained with\nboth Saur and Milch. In other words, very few copies were made.\n\nQ. Were these verbatim records ever controlled?\n\nA. No, I don\u2019t think so. I don\u2019t believe that the large records were\nread or checked by someone else.\n\nQ. Can one say then that the decisions of the Jaegerstab were contained\nin the records?\n\nA. Not only the decisions but also the more important deliberations that\ntook place. However, when decisions were made, then they were included\nin the result records.\n\nQ. During these conferences did it ever occur that the participants were\nnot always present?\n\nA. That happened very often because the sessions lasted for a long time\nand it happened many times that I, for instance, was called out and\nordered to take care of my business, at least by telephone, and the\nmembers of the Jaegerstab themselves did not always participate in the\nconferences, but later on\u2014that is, from May on\u2014they had\nrepresentatives or deputies replace them.\n\nQ. Did those sessions often result in individual discussions?\n\nA. That happened once in a while, particularly when technical questions\nwere discussed where very few experts could say something.\n\nQ. I shall now proceed to the labor assignment within the Jaegerstab.\nHow did the Jaegerstab deal with questions of labor assignment?\n\nA. Along with all the production discussions of other programs, labor\nassignment questions were discussed at the sessions of the Jaegerstab. I\nhad the task, concerning these labor assignment questions, to pass them\nthrough my office chief and so far as the tasks I had with the\nJaegerstab overlapped my other duties and tasks with other\norganizations; in other words, if you want to know exactly or if you\nwant to have a detailed description of what my tasks were in general\u2014\n\nQ. I want to know what you had to do with the labor assignment of the\nJaegerstab and what was your main task there; otherwise, we will be here\nabout an hour or so.\n\nA. Among other things, we had the task, on the basis of the reports of\nthe various factories which came over the Armament Inspectorates to me,\nto write up a proposal how those red slips were to be distributed on\neach individual production. In the Jaegerstab, I also had the task to\ndistribute those red slips in such a way that the most important\nfactories would get the necessary number of red slips. The red slips\nwere orders to the labor assignment offices or agencies of Speer; in\nother words, to the Armament Inspectorates and to the armament\ncommandos, and were given from Sauckel to his labor assignment agencies\nwhich were to provide preferentially the necessary amount of workers on\nthe basis of those red slips. I furthermore had the task to take care of\ntransfers of laborers who already were in the armament industry by\ngiving respective orders to my agency and requesting Sauckel to carry\nout the transfer. Since in the fighter production, the question, in the\nfirst place, concerned skilled workers only; transfers of this kind were\ncarried out. Skilled workers were no longer assigned to us by Sauckel in\n1944. My main activity, therefore, concerned transfers from one of the\nindustries to the other, and as regards the Jaegerstab, in transfers\nfrom the destroyed bomber factories or from other aircraft types to the\nfighter factories which were working full time.\n\nI finally had the task to deal with deliveries of armament to the\nWehrmacht soldiers and I had to take care of those. In 1944, through\nseveral actions, many laborers were withdrawn from the armament industry\nand delivered to the army. That concerned particularly skilled workers.\nIt was my task then, together with those responsible for the production,\nto take care of the distribution in such a manner that the armament\nindustry be hampered as little as possible in their production.\n\nQ. Is it known to you that Milch tried to see to it that no one from the\nfighter factories had to go to the Wehrmacht?\n\nA. Yes, from all the factories, and particularly from the fighter\nfactories, they tried to send as few laborers as possible to the army.\nAt the beginning, in the early days of the Jaegerstab\u2014in other words,\nin the months of March and April, approximately\u2014we tried to relieve the\nfighter program from delivering laborers to the Wehrmacht. Later on,\nthis was very difficult. I know, however, that Milch tried his very best\nto give as few people as possible to the Wehrmacht from Jaegerstab\nproduction, that is, of the Jaegerstab factories.\n\nQ. Witness, you just said that, concerning the request for assignment of\nworkers, you made suggestions to Sauckel. In these meetings there is a\nstatement by Saur that says, \u201cWe take care of the labor assignment.\u201d\nWhat is correct now? Did you just request them or did the Jaegerstab\nactually take care of the assignment?\n\nA. The Jaegerstab was not able to give orders to offices which did not\nbelong to the Speer Ministry or to the Air Ministry. In Jaegerstab, very\noften Saur and perhaps Milch\u2014I can\u2019t remember, concerning Milch\u2014used\nsuch words. In reality, however, it was quite different. I appeared at\nSauckel\u2019s and I was ordered to tell him about the creation of the\nJaegerstab and its importance concerning the fighter production, with\nthe request that when labor was distributed, the Jaegerstab production\nshould be considered in first place. An order to Sauckel was never given\nby me and I am sure that Sauckel would certainly not have followed my\nrequest, particularly as he always and repeatedly stressed the point\nthat he was independent and was responsible only to the leader of the\nFour Year Plan and Hitler.\n\nQ. When Saur made such a statement, \u201cWe take care of the labor\nassignment,\u201d why do you think he said that?\n\nA. Well, once in a while such strong words were used. I never took this\nstatement very seriously and I didn\u2019t react to it because I knew exactly\nthat nothing would happen afterwards, and nothing really happened. I was\nsure that the labor assignment should have been taken care of by the\nJaegerstab, but it was impossible to take care of that for one single\nproduction. Everyone who had something to do with labor assignment could\nunderstand that.\n\nQ. Witness, you just spoke concerning boasting remarks. Is it known to\nyou that Milch often used such strongly exaggerated boasting remarks\nduring these meetings?\n\nA. I don\u2019t remember single statements made by Milch but I am sure that\nthey occurred. What I wanted to say now is that it appeared to me that\nMilch very often, particularly concerning the industry and his own\ngenerals, wanted to boast in order to play the strong man. I believe,\nhowever, that these statements did not always make the impression he\nwished to create.\n\nQ. Do you mean to say that they were not taken seriously?\n\nA. Well, not quite seriously, anyway.\n\nQ. Were you present during the conference of the Jaegerstab where Milch\nmade a long speech to the air force engineers and the quartermaster\nchiefs?\n\nA. I was there part of the time. I remember now. That was the session\nwhich took place in the Air Ministry\u2014there were 100 people there at the\ntime, and I have to remind you of the fact that I wasn\u2019t present during\nall those conferences.\n\n * * * * *\n\nQ. Witness, the prosecution introduced a document during the trial where\nGoering gives Himmler a fighter group in exchange for the use of\nconcentration camp inmates which were put at the disposal of the air\nforce armament. Do you know anything about that?\n\nA. What fighter group do you mean?\n\nQ. I mean a squadron\u2014a whole squadron was placed at the disposal of the\nSS, and Goering wanted to have concentration camp inmates from the SS.\nDo you remember anything about that? It was on the 15th of February\n1944.\n\nA. I can\u2019t remember that exactly. Goering, that is the Luftwaffe, put a\ngreat number of soldiers at his disposal for immediate production. They\ngot their leave. But if there ever was such an exchange of concentration\ncamp inmates, I do not know today anymore. It could be possible;\nhowever, I can\u2019t tell for sure.\n\nQ. Witness, is it known to you that in the Jaegerstab they were often\ntransferred from the construction sector of the Plenipotentiary for\nchemistry?\n\nA. No. In any case, I don\u2019t know that this was done to a considerable\nextent. It is possible that it also was said during my presence that the\nPlenipotentiary for chemical industry had too many workers in the\nconstruction sector and a few of them had to be transferred; lots of\ncomplaints were made. However, I can\u2019t remember anything concrete.\n\nQ. Witness, can you remember that Milch tried to be able to free certain\nengineers from Hitler who were working in Berchtesgaden?\n\nA. I believe I can remember that. The question of engineers was\ndiscussed very often because this was a big bottleneck in the\nconstruction sector. I remember also that, concerning the construction\nworks in Berchtesgaden, it was discussed in this connection and that one\nhoped to be able to get not only engineers but other skilled workers\nfrom the construction works carried out in Berchtesgaden for Hitler.\n\n * * * * *\n\nQ. Witness, is it known to you that the use of concentration camp\ninmates was carried out in closed groups?\n\nA. Yes, as far as the SS used concentration camp inmates, outside of\ntheir own factories, this was obviously only done in larger groups of\nabout 500 to 1,000.\n\nQ. Is it possible that during constructions a few miners or engineers\nwere concentration camp inmates?\n\nA. When the rest of the workers were not concentration camp inmates,\nthen, according to the regulations of the SS, personally, I don\u2019t\nbelieve that there were certain concentration camp inmates in there, and\nI don\u2019t know of any such cases. I know that the SS always required that\nthe concentration camp inmates be taken in large numbers and that they\nshould be assigned in groups and billeted in groups.\n\nQ. In other words, is it possible that the SS also used people of their\nown as miners, apart from those concentration camp inmates?\n\nA. I couldn\u2019t tell you, because I did not know the situation with the\nSS. However, that is possible.\n\n * * * * *\n\nQ. The question was: If the SS ever used miners from their own ranks and\nif they trained them?\n\nA. No. I don\u2019t know anything about that either.\n\nQ. Do you know if the SS had a miners\u2019 school?\n\nA. No. I don\u2019t know that either. I never heard of any miners\u2019 school.\nThe miners learned by experience.\n\n * * * * *\n\n[Tr. pp. 743-759]\n\nQ. What do you know about labor utilization of English and American\nprisoners of war? That is to say, Americans and British who were\ncaptured in Germany?\n\nA. In 1944, that is to say, in my time, no new prisoners of war were\nused because we didn\u2019t capture any more. So far as I know, British and\nAmerican prisoners of war were not used in armament factories.\nRepeatedly, proposals in this direction were made also in the case of\nnoncoms and officers. In the case of officers\u2014it was Polish officers,\nif I recall, no change in the regulations was made, so far as I recall.\nInstructions were transmitted to the OKW, but I do not know if anything\ncame of them.\n\nQ. I come now to your two sworn affidavits of 19 November 1946;\nProsecution Exhibit 76 is a sworn affidavit of yours of that date.\nNOKW-266, dated 19 November, * * *.\n\n * * * * *\n\nQ. Did you know that in 1944, in order to protect the aircraft industry,\nunderground and protected factories were built?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. You know who gave the original order for this?\n\nA. So far as I know, the order for this relocation of industries in\nsubterranean plants was given by the Jaegerstab itself. I was not\ncompetent in this matter, but naturally I took part in the discussion of\nthe Jaegerstab and heard it there. I heard that it was decided that a\nbombed-out factory should be relocated to a different place which the\nJaegerstab would determine.\n\nQ. That\u2019s no answer to my question. Witness, I asked: Who gave the\noriginal order for the construction of these subterranean factories? Do\nyou know that?\n\nA. If I may repeat; you want to know who ordered in the first place that\nthese plants should be transferred to subterranean factories? That I do\nnot know.\n\nQ. Do you know Herr Kammler?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Do you know from whom he received the order to construct these\nspecial subterranean factories?\n\nA. Here again I do not know precisely who gave him the original order.\nIn any event, at the first beginning of the Jaegerstab, Kammler became a\nmember and was commissioned to undertake the construction of\nsubterranean buildings for Jaegerstab protection. The Jaegerstab pointed\nout to him individual objectives and he reported from time to time how\nmany square meters were now ready. But who first originally gave these\norders to Kammler, whether it was Himmler or Hitler or some agreement or\nsomething like that, I don\u2019t know.\n\nQ. Was Kammler commissioned into the Jaegerstab because of an order of\nHimmler or because of some special order elsewhere?\n\nA. I am not able to say. I assume that Himmler also gave him an order.\nThe individual orders, what he was to build, he received from the\nJaegerstab.\n\n * * * * *\n\nQ. Did Kammler, within the Jaegerstab, represent Himmler?\n\nA. I do not know his powers or his functions and I cannot say. He was in\nthe construction sector. That I know, but Himmler had charge of more\nthings than construction.\n\n * * * * *\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE TOMS: Will you try to answer these questions as simply\nand briefly as you can? Were Russian prisoners of war used in the\narmament industry?\n\nWITNESS SCHMELTER: In the armaments plant Russian prisoners of war were\nalso employed. At what they were employed, I do not know, since they\nwere already there when I came and I did not myself inspect the plants.\n\nQ. Did you ever see Russian prisoners of war either manufacturing or\ntransporting munitions of war?\n\nA. In plants and in transports? No. Neither in plants nor in transports\ndid I see Russian prisoners of war.\n\nQ. That question is perfectly clear and you understand it?\n\nA. I shall repeat it. I was asked whether these prisoners of war\nworked\u2014whether I saw them in plants or in transport.\n\nQ. That\u2019s right.\n\nA. And I answered in the negative.\n\nQ. Were Russian prisoners of war used in the decentralization of the\nLuftwaffe after the heavy bombings?\n\nA. Not that I know of. So far as I know, after the heavy bombings\nRussian prisoners of war were no longer available. They had already been\nassigned elsewhere. I do know that after the heavy bombings, that is, in\nthe year 1944, new Russian prisoners of war were not used in armaments\nor in the bombed out factories. It is, of course, possible that the\nlocal labor offices used Russian prisoners of war for this purpose, but\nwe in the central offices knew nothing of this.\n\nQ. Will you answer the same questions as to Polish prisoners of war?\n\nA. So far as I know, Polish prisoners of war consisted solely of\nofficers. Only officers were available. The others had been freed. The\nofficers, however, in contradiction to many wishes that were expressed,\nwere not used. At least if they were, I know nothing of it.\n\nQ. Will you answer the same questions as to Hungarian Jews?\n\nA. Hungarian Jews, among other things, were used in the construction of\nfighters\u2014fighter planes. Female Hungarian Jews were also used in the\nactual construction of fighter planes.\n\nQ. Were they voluntary workers?\n\nA. No. Those were inmates of concentration camps, prisoners at the\ndisposal of the SS.\n\nQ. So the Hungarian Jews who were employed in the manufacture of fighter\nplanes were forced to work in that connection?\n\nA. The Hungarian Jews, so far as I recall, were offered by the SS to be\nemployed in armament production. At first there were 1,000 of them or\n500 who were employed. Then a number of plants said that they wanted\nsuch workers and they were then allotted by the SS to these plants and\nthere they were obliged to work.\n\nQ. Then the SS, which was one branch of the German military\nestablishment simply dealt out the Hungarian Jews to anybody who needed\nthem?\n\nA. No. The Hungarian Jews, like all concentration camp inmates, were\nhoused in camps that were either in or near the plants and which were\nconstructed by the SS. They were then taken to work every day, and after\nthe work they were again brought back by the SS to the camps. Also, the\nsupervision of the work, for security reasons, was carried out by the\nSS. So far as the technical side of it was concerned, it was carried out\nby the representatives of the plant.\n\nQ. Of course you don\u2019t claim they were paid for their work?\n\nA. That I do not know. I only know the general regulations concerning\nconcentration camp prisoners, and I know them in part. I know that these\nprisoners, at least toward the end, also received some sort of wages.\nWhat the payment was, I do not know. I do know that the plant had to\ngive the SS a certain amount for each prisoner, but what the prisoner\nhimself received, I do not know.\n\nQ. Do you know whether these Hungarian Jews worked through any contract\nwith a foreign government, as was the case in France?\n\nA. Let me repeat the question whether Hungarian Jews worked on the basis\nof an agreement with a foreign power\u2014foreign government. Was that the\nquestion?\n\nQ. Yes.\n\nA. Not that I know of.\n\nQ. I have no other questions. One more question please. You said that\nyou know that Russian prisoners of war were working in the armament\nfactories but you didn\u2019t know what kind of work they were doing.\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Did you ever see them in any of the factories?\n\nA. No.\n\nQ. What do you think they were doing?\n\nA. I guess some of them were engaged in construction. So far as skilled\nworkers were concerned they were certainly working at tasks that they\nwere qualified to do. So far as they were unskilled workers they might\nhave been doing almost anything.\n\nQ. If they were working in munitions factories they were doing something\nto manufacture munitions, were they not?\n\nA. If they worked in munitions factories then they must, of course, have\nhad something to do with manufacturing munitions. Even if they only\nworked in the courtyard, or something like that, they still had\nsomething to do with the manufacture of munitions.\n\n * * * * *\n\nJUDGE PHILLIPS: Witness, did you ever know of any prisoners of war,\nespecially Russians, being used to man antiaircraft guns?\n\nA. In the construction or in the use of the antiaircraft?\n\nQ. In the use of antiaircraft.\n\nA. Yes, I have heard of that. I heard that Russian prisoners of war were\nused to man antiaircraft guns of that sort.\n\nQ. Do you have any idea how many were used for that purpose?\n\nA. No, I don\u2019t.\n\nQ. Did you ever see them being used for that purpose?\n\nA. No.\n\nQ. On what fronts were they used?\n\nA. I believe they were used on the home front, not on the actual battle\nfront, but that is simply my opinion.\n\nQ. Against American planes, British planes, and Russian planes?\n\nA. They shot at whatever planes were over Germany.\n\n * * * * *\n\nDR. BERGOLD: Witness, you spoke of female Jews. When were these female\nJews employed?\n\nA. I do not know the precise date. It was the summer of 1944. In my\nestimation, it must have been May.\n\nQ. Let me show you Document NOKW-359, Prosecution Exhibit 75. It is the\nnext to the last document of the prosecution, Stenographic Minutes of\nthe Jaegerstab Meeting of 27 June 1944. You said: \u201cI have a few more\npoints. Up until now 12,000 female concentration camp internees,\nJewesses, have been demanded. The matter is now in order. The SS has\nagreed to deliver these Hungarian Jewesses in batches of 500. Thus the\nsmaller firms, too, will be in a better position to employ these\nconcentration camp Jewesses. I request that these people should be\nordered in batches of 500.\u201d\n\nIs this the point from when onward these females were used?\n\nA. Yes. It must have been about this time. The difficulty was the\nfollowing: The SS demanded that the females should be delivered in\nbatches of thousands only. Most factories could not use such a large\nnumber of females. Consequently, the SS was asked if it could not\ndeliver them in smaller groups. That is the reason.\n\nQ. Witness, is there a difference between the concept of\n\u201cRuestungsfabrik\u201d, which means armament factory, and \u201cMunitionsfabrik\u201d,\nwhich means a munitions factory? Is there a difference in Germany?\n\nA. \u201cRuestungsfabrik\u201d took care of all sorts of armament production,\nmaterials, finishing up the deliveries and so on and so forth.\n\u201cMunitionsfabrik\u201d is the narrower concept and contents itself with the\nmanufacture of munitions only.\n\nQ. Did the \u201cMunitionsfabrik\u201d belong inside the concept of\n\u201cLuftruestung\u201d, air armament?\n\nA. So far as the \u201cLuftruestung\u201d is concerned, they did, yes. The\nlimitation of these concepts was not, however, uniform. Unfortunately,\nwe had very few uniform concepts. They were often misused.\n\nQ. Were factories that made sheet metal and so on, armament factories?\nDid they fall under the concept of armaments?\n\nA. They did, yes.\n\nDR. BERGOLD: Thank you.\n\n * * * * *\n\n_CROSS-EXAMINATION_\n\nMR. DENNEY: In one of these interrogations, on 30 December 1946, you\nwere asked what the Jaegerstab did to bring workers from Hungary into\nGermany; do you recall that?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. And do you recall that you made reference to certain trips of the\nJaegerstab to Hungary?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. You made this statement: \u201cThe Jaegerstab, during its existence, made\nat least a total of 10 to 12 trips\u201d?\n\nA. Yes.\n\n * * * * *\n\nQ. All right. You were asked this question: \u201cWho was in charge of these\ntrips?\u201d And your answer was: \u201cSo far as I remember, it was Milch. Milch\nparticipated in most trips of the Jaegerstab.\u201d\n\nA. In most of them, yes.\n\nQ. In the same interrogation on 30 December, the record indicates that\nyou made this statement: \u201cI know about 100,000 workers from Hungary;\nhowever, these were Jews who were allocated to construction. I know\nnothing about 8,000 workers who evidently were skilled workers, intended\nfor the fighter production program.\u201d\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. You were then asked: \u201cIs it known to you that these 100,000 Jews were\nused by Todt in the interests of the Jaegerstab?\u201d and you made the\nfollowing answer: \u201cYes, that is known to me.\u201d\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. You were interrogated on 24 January and asked this question: \u201cDo you\nknow whether the Luftwaffe, in the Luftwaffe industry, used\nconcentration camp prisoners, not in the building program, but for\nproduction?\u201d and your answer was: \u201cI don\u2019t know. I don\u2019t think so,\nexcept for women. The SS once offered us a lot of women. The difficulty\nwas that, at first, at least 1,000 and later 500 were to be employed.\nVarious firms got women after that, and I think that Heinkel, in\nOranienburg, used concentration camp prisoners, not only women, but all\nthe inmates.\u201d\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. The answer was yes, if your Honor please. And Heinkel was an airplane\nfactory, was it not, producing the Heinkel plane?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. On November 15, of last year, you were asked if you knew that Himmler\nused concentration camp inmates for the underground buildings of the\nJaegerstab, and your answer: \u201cYes. You mean the finished buildings, do\nyou not?\u201d And then you were asked: \u201cThe underground ones, the completion\nof the existing caverns or tunnels, or the like, where concentration\ncamp inmates were employed?\u201d and your answer: \u201cYes.\u201d\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. And you were also asked: \u201cWere these constructions built in the\ninterest of the Luftwaffe?\u201d Your answer: \u201cThese new constructions? Yes.\u201d\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. The next question: \u201cExclusively in the interest of the Luftwaffe? And\ndid the orders for the new constructions come from the Jaegerstab?\u201d\nAnswer: \u201cWhether other constructions were also built there? Probably,\nyes.\u201d Question: \u201cI am only interested in the Luftwaffe.\u201d Answer: \u201cAlso\nfor the Luftwaffe. I do not know whether for others. I would not like to\npin myself down.\u201d\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Later you were asked: \u201cDo you know that prisoners of war were at all\nemployed in air armament?\u201d and you stated: \u201cYes, I should like to say,\nthe armament plants. The air armament also employed prisoners of war in\nits plants.\u201d\n\nA. Yes.\n\n * * * * *\n\nQ. In reply to a question: \u201cWhat was Field Marshal Milch\u2019s position in\nthe Jaegerstab?\u201d you stated, \u201cThere were two chairmen in the Jaegerstab,\nSpeer and Milch. In the first session, or rather in most of the\nsessions, Milch participated personally; Speer did not. Speer was\npresent only in exceptional cases. In his position, Saur, who was at the\nsame time manager, initiated the contact with the rest of the armament\nindustry. Milch was Chief of the Jaegerstab, besides Speer.\u201d\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. In the same interrogation of 15 November you made the following\nstatement: \u201cAssignment of labor was involved in every question including\nevery question of production.\u201d\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. On 26 November you made the following statement when you were\ninterrogated: \u201cMobilization of manpower as a matter which is closely\nconnected with production was very much discussed. Everybody had a word\nto say, had a request for something and they suggested or said I could\ndo better, etc.\u201d\n\nA. Yes.\n\n * * * * *\n\n_REDIRECT EXAMINATION_\n\nDR. BERGOLD: Witness, as to the trip to Hungary, were you present when\nthe committee went to Hungary?\n\nA. No, I traveled only as far as Prague and returned.\n\nQ. Do you know the purpose of this trip to Hungary?\n\nA. Not precisely. I know that there was a question of production to take\nplace in Hungary, but precise information I do not have.\n\nQ. Do you know that there was a definite contract with Hungary?\n\nA. I heard about that subsequently.\n\nQ. Did you then hear that this trip had the purpose of bringing\nHungarian Jews to Germany?\n\nA. No.\n\nQ. Thank you. The prosecutor spoke to you of 100,000 Jews. Did you know\nthat these were to be used by Mr. Dorsch?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. And, as far as the tasks that he had, mainly for the construction of\nbombproof factories?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Do you know whether the Jaegerstab ordered these 100,000 Jews or\nwhether somebody else did?\n\nA. The employment of these 100,000 Jews in this construction\norganization took place on Hitler\u2019s orders. I, myself, was not present\nat this discussion. Dorsch, however, was present and told me that Hitler\nhad ordered\u2014had said Himmler had 100,000 Jews for bombproof factories\nand was to make them available.\n\nQ. Do you know whether and in what number and when these Jews arrived to\ncarry out this construction work?\n\nA. I do not know precisely the dates. It was in the summer of 1944. Nor\ndo I know whether all of them arrived. Once I concerned myself with the\nquestion regarding the guarding of these people. At that time the SS did\nnot have enough guard personnel and Hitler ordered Keitel to provide\n10,000 soldiers which were to be withdrawn from the eastern front and to\nmake them available to the SS so that they, the SS, would have the\nnecessary guard personnel. Thereafter, I heard nothing further about the\nmatter and assumed that the Jews for the most part were employed. I\ndeduced this from the fact that I otherwise should have heard of it\nprobably.\n\nQ. I discussed just yesterday with you whether these buildings were\nordered by the Jaegerstab. I do not need to return to that question.\nWere these constructions used exclusively by the Jaegerstab or for other\nadvantages, such as armored cars?\n\nA. Originally they were exclusively planned for fighter construction but\nI do recall that, as time went on, there were also discussions of using\nthem for other manufacture, for instance, tanks, and this construction\nwas to take place in these buildings. Since, however, I had nothing to\ndo with this professionally, I can only report on this from hearsay. In\nother words, I know nothing precisely.\n\nQ. The prosecutor quoted to you a statement of yours from an\ninterrogation; I shall ask you now did you make the statement in the\ninterrogation that Milch was responsible in air armament to seek out\nworkers individually?\n\nA. I don\u2019t know how I should understand the word \u201cseek out\u201d; if you mean\nthat he went to foreign countries and searched for them personally, then\nof course that is wrong. I did state in that interrogation that during\nmy activity in the Jaegerstab in March 1944 no individual actions in\nforeign countries were carried out by Milch or the Jaegerstab. The\nmanpower was provided by Sauckel exclusively, or to the extent that they\nwere prisoners by the SS, or prisoners of war by the Wehrmacht.\n\nQ. And then they were transferred, as you said yesterday, to other\nsectors?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. You also said in this interrogation that in most of the meetings\nMilch was present.\n\nA. At the beginning, I said.\n\nDR. BERGOLD: I have no further questions.\n\n EXTRACTS OF TESTIMONY OF DEFENSE WITNESS XAVER DORSCH[133]\n\n_DIRECT EXAMINATION_\n\n[Tr. p. 1361-1379]\n\nDR. BERGOLD: Please state to the Court your first and last name?\n\nWITNESS DORSCH: Xaver Dorsch.\n\nQ. When were you born?\n\nA. 28 December 1899.\n\nQ. What was your last position in the German Reich?\n\nA. I was Deputy Chief of the Todt Organization, in the Speer Ministry.\n\nQ. On the 28th of December 1946 you signed an affidavit?\n\nA. Yes, sir.\n\nDR. BERGOLD: Your Honor, this is Document NOKW-447, Prosecution Exhibit\n74.\n\nQ. Witness, you made the following statement:\n\n\u201cAs deputy of Minister Speer in his capacity as Chief of the Todt\nOrganization, I received from Hitler, at the end of April 1944, an order\nto construct with the Todt Organization six bombproof fighter factories,\nof which two should have priority.\u201d Can you tell me about the history of\nthis construction?\n\nA. Yes, but I must go into detail.\n\nQ. Proceed.\n\nA. Approximately eight months before this date, I made a suggestion to\nMinister Speer about how bombproof fighter factories above ground could\nbe built, in this way, not only to secure manufacture, but also so that\nthey would be more secure against bomb damage while being built.\n\nThe source was that the Todt Organization in France was doing a similar\nconstruction job as a launching site for V-2 bombs. Speer told me that I\nshould take the plans with me on my next visit to the Fuehrer\u2019s\nHeadquarters, and two weeks later I was with Speer, visiting Hitler, and\nafter other matters had been discussed, and before going, Speer\nmentioned this matter and Hitler said: \u201cWe must absolutely achieve\nbombproof aircraft factories because there is danger that transportation\nmight be attacked, and then we cannot make up the time we have lost.\u201d\nHitler wanted large-size, big scale units, in which planes and fighters\ncould be protected from the beginning to the end, because he saw a\ndanger in the fact that transportation could be attacked and\ninterrupted, and then the different parts, if they were made in various\nfactories, could not be assembled.\n\nHe said that he imagined the matter roughly as follows: In narrow\nmountain valleys in Saxonian Switzerland, for example, caves could be\ndug which would provide these bombproof factory installations. Then\nSpeer said, \u201cDorsch or the Todt Organization has another suggestion.\u201d\nSpeer said that, and I then submitted to him my plans for the special\nTodt Organization construction, which, as I said, had already been built\nin France, and I also pointed out to him that such factories, even as\nthey were being built, were relatively safe against bomb attack.\n\nThis was roughly eight months before this date in April on which this\ncommission of which I spoke in my affidavit was given to me. Hitler said\nto me that it was a matter of indifference to him according to what\nsystem these things were built, but that it was important to him that\nsomething really serious should be done.\n\nOn the next day there was a discussion on the same theme with Goering.\nSpeer\u2019s representative Dethleffsen, as Plenipotentiary for construction\nmatters, and the leader of the main committee for construction,\nGaertner, were present. I had to explain again the thought behind this\nspecial construction which I was proposing. Goering was enthusiastic and\nsaid that that was the solution and that the Todt Organization should\nbegin immediately with that construction. Thereupon Speer said, \u201cThe\nTodt Organization cannot build these factories because it builds only\noutside the Reich, with the exception of the Ruhr district, and in the\nReich itself the Main Committee for Construction should carry out the\nconstruction,\u201d and for that reason, he had called the two gentlemen I\nmentioned above. Goering also said that it was indifferent to him who\nbuilt the factories, that the important thing was that they should be\nbuilt soon.\n\nIn April of 1944, I was visiting Speer near Meran when a call came that\nI should immediately go to Hitler. Speer asked me if I had any idea what\nwas afoot, but I did not. I immediately went to Berchtesgaden. There\nHitler asked me, \u201cWhat has become of your fighter production?\u201d I told\nhim that I did not know precisely, because in the Reich the Todt\nOrganization did not do the constructing but another organization. He\nwas greatly excited and said roughly, that he had heard enough about\nthis other organization, that he did not want it, and he demanded that\nthe Todt Organization should take over that construction immediately.\n\nThen the plans were fetched overnight from Berlin. I explained the whole\nsystem to him once more. I told him that I could only carry out this\nconstruction if it were given priority above all other construction as\nfar as workers, machines, building materials, trucks, and so\non\u2014whatever is needed in construction\u2014were concerned. I was given\nassurances that that priority would be given me, and I then took over\nthis construction project.\n\nI was able to assure myself that the Hauptausschuss Bau\u2014the Main\nCommittee for Construction\u2014which had been in charge before I took over\nhad begun constructions at three locations. On one of these we\nimmediately stopped work, because both architecturally and, as the\nJaegerstab told me, technically the factory was no good.\n\nQ. Witness, you then said that the wish to build these bombproof fighter\nfactories by the Todt Organization was communicated to you by the\nJaegerstab. What do you know about that personally?\n\nA. I know the following: The Jaegerstab, as far as the entire work of\nthe Plenipotentiary for construction was concerned, was not satisfied\nwith the work. Saur complained continuously about how work dragged on\nand asked me repeatedly to step in and do something. He called me to his\nmeetings in the Jaegerstab and asked me to develop further plans. I was\ncalled up continuously by other gentlemen. I remember Major Dr. Krohmer,\nwho also asked me to step in, and again and again I had to say that that\nwould not do because, I said the Todt Organization did not carry out\nconstruction in the Reich. I was pressed continuously by the Jaegerstab,\nbecause it was the organization that would benefit from these\nconstructions.\n\nQ. Do you know whether Milch went in that direction too, or only Saur?\n\nA. That I cannot say. I did not speak about that to him myself. I did\nspeak with Saur and a few other gentlemen\u2014I believe with Schlempp who\nwas later representative of the Todt Organization in the Jaegerstab.\n\nQ. When was that first pressure on the part of Saur? Was that before\nMarch of 1944?\n\nA. Yes. That was even earlier, but I cannot say precisely. It might have\nbeen in February even.\n\nQ. Do you know whether Saur visited the Fuehrer on this matter?\n\nA. I was not present, but I assumed that it must have been so. I cannot\nprove it, however.\n\nQ. So. This afternoon you told me what you thought Milch\u2019s function was\nin the Jaegerstab. You used a rather striking expression. Would you like\nto repeat it here?\n\nA. I called him \u201cthe breakfast director\u201d. I ask the defendant to pardon\nthe expression. He shouldn\u2019t hold it against me.\n\nQ. What do you mean by this \u201cbreakfast director\u201d?\n\nA. Well, it is sort of difficult for me to tell that.\n\nQ. Milch won\u2019t be angry.\n\nA. Well, I only saw him at a Jaegerstab meeting once, when he invited me\nand when he asked for the support of the Todt Organization. He explained\nto me the general situation. He told me what his worries and troubles\nwere, but the real work, the whole functioning of the thing, I don\u2019t\nbelieve he concerned himself with. That is why I used the expression\n\u201cbreakfast director,\u201d but perhaps that was a little exaggerated.\n\nQ. I quite understand. After the end of April 1944, when you were\ncommissioned with these construction matters, what did you do?\n\nA. As I told Hitler very exactly, I took Todt Organization units from\nFrance and from the Atlantic Wall.\n\nQ. How many were there?\n\nA. 2,000 or 3,000\u2014I cannot remember.\n\nQ. Your affidavit says 10,000.\n\nA. No, that is incorrect. That cannot have been the number in France.\nThe second time that I went to the Plenipotentiary General for\nchemistry, Prof. Krauch, and told him of the serious situation, and I\nfinally brought him to the point of giving me 15,000 workers from his\ndepartment.\n\nQ. What workers were those?\n\nA. First of all, in the Baltic States\u2014that was a Todt Organization\nitself\u2014I took away most of the German workers, and took some elsewhere\nas additional workers, engineers, experts of one sort or another,\nmachinists. Then came the attack on Leuna on the 10th or 12th of May\n1944. That was on the occasion of the first attack on Leuna. I had a\ntalk with Hitler at that time. He said, \u201cThis cannot be tolerated\u2014that,\nat the very moment when we are so in need of oil, workers are taken away\nfrom Leuna\u201d.\n\nI then answered him that, first of all, I had undertaken this measure\nbefore the air attack, and secondly, it was not a question of cutting\ndown on oil production, but of oil capacity. Hitler took over and said,\n\u201cNo, that cannot be\u201d. Then Speer said, \u201cIf we don\u2019t get the workers, we\ncan\u2019t do the building\u201d. Hitler said, \u201cQuiet down, you will get 50,000\nItalians,\u201d and then I said, \u201cI don\u2019t believe that\u201d, and I said that for\nthe following reasons: We, the Todt Organization, had such workers from\nItaly for the construction program Riese in Silesia, but we did not do\nthis via Sauckel but by applying to Italian firms to take over\nconstruction commissions in Germany, and then they automatically brought\ntheir workers, their directors and architects, and so on, with them\nparticularly after we had assured them that we with our\norganization\u2014that is to say, with the Todt Organization in Italy\u2014would\ntake care of paying wages, paying for the hospitalization fees,\ninsurance, and so on, but at the moment when workers were fetched by\nSauckel, I understood clearly that workers such as we needed would not\nbe provided in any considerable numbers. At any rate, I told Hitler, \u201cI\ndo not believe in these Italian workers, and I won\u2019t believe in them\nuntil they have crossed the Brenner Pass.\u201d He then said to me, \u201cYou can\nbelieve in them because tomorrow Mussolini is signing an agreement that\n1,000,000 workers will come to Germany.\u201d\n\n* * * If I may mention it, it is also worthy of mention, that in\nJanuary, the beginning of January, I was at a conference with Hitler, or\nrather, I did not take part in it, but I knew of it. There, a new worker\ncontingent was demanded, and in this conference Hitler himself named the\nnumber of 250,000 workers for the construction; for aircraft\nconstruction. In other words, it wasn\u2019t Speer but Hitler who demanded\nthose workers, especially, and it is possible\u2014that, at any rate, is the\nway I construe it now\u2014that he was thinking of these fighter plants.\nThen I asked Hitler to permit me to use 10,000 Todt Organization workers\nfrom Southern Russia. I must mention that here, because I did that as\nSpeer\u2019s representative with Hitler. I could not have said to Speer that\nhe should give me these 10,000 workers. I had to do that through Hitler,\nbecause the commanders in chief, in this case the commander in chief of\nthe army group in Southern Russia, were in charge of these people and\nthey had to be released by them. Thereupon these 10,000 workers got\nunder way toward Germany. However, they unfortunately arrived very\nslowly and some of them never got to the fighter plant, but were taken\nover by Speer to make ball bearings in Wellen, in Thuringia, and then,\nwhen no workers came, the plants were to be built by Hungarian Jews. I\ndo not know precisely when it was, but I do remember an armaments\nconference in Linz\u2014I guess it was about the middle of June or maybe\nlater, but I can\u2019t say for sure\u2014and it was then that the first ones\nbegan to arrive.\n\nQ. Were they approved by Hitler?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Witness, when you of the Todt Organization fetched Italians on your\nown initiative, were they volunteers or were they more or less forced\nlabor?\n\nA. Precisely in Italy, we had a remarkable achievement because as a\nmatter of principle we turned to Italian firms, gave them commissions\nand they provided the workers. I believe I can say that the Todt\nOrganization was known for taking model care of its workers. For\ninstance, in Norway and Holland, the Dutch or Norwegian Todt worker\nreceived higher wages than the German Todt worker who was working right\nbeside him. I could make extensive statements on that if I wanted to, or\nif I were given the opportunity.\n\nQ. But that is not an answer to my question, whether they were\nvolunteers or forced labor?\n\nA. They were not forced. They were brought by their firms.\n\nQ. Through the Italian firms?\n\nA. Yes, that was the intention from the very beginning, so that the\nItalian firms could provide their trained and expert personnel to us,\nand, in this way, they were simply volunteers; they did much better work\nthan if they were forced.\n\nDR. BERGOLD: No further questions.\n\n_CROSS-EXAMINATION_\n\nMR. KING: Witness, you stated that Milch was only present at a few of\nthe early meetings of the Jaegerstab. May I ask you\u2014\n\nA. What I said refers only to those meetings of the Jaegerstab at which\nI was present and that was perhaps four or five.\n\nQ. Now, you said, in your affidavit, which has been submitted as a\nprosecution exhibit referred to by Dr. Bergold, that you received an\norder for the construction of fighter factories at the end of April\n1944?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Do you recall being present at a conference at Berchtesgaden with\nGoering, among others, on the 19th of April 1944?\n\nA. I cannot say whether that was the precise date, but I did take part\nin some such conference.\n\nQ. Do you recall who was present at that conference?\n\nA. Yes. Goering was there, Milch was there, the others I\u2019m not sure\nabout. Saur\u2014I\u2019m not sure he was there. I knew for sure that Milch and\nGoering were present, but as to the others I no longer recall.\n\nQ. Do you recall what was discussed at this conference?\n\nA. The construction of fighter plants was discussed then, and, if I\nremember, Goering pointed out that the Todt Organization was to receive\nall sorts of support but I do not remember the details at the moment.\n\nQ. And a few days later, on 21 April 1944, you received the order from\nHitler to build the six fighter plants?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Do you recall that possible sources of labor were discussed at this\nmeeting? That is, labor for the construction of the fighter factories?\n\nA. I should like to assume that, but I do not remember precisely.\nProbably all sorts of conditions and possibilities were discussed, but I\ncannot answer this precisely.\n\nQ. You were discussing a large-scale construction; you must have known\nwhere this labor was to come from. Can you tell me what possible sources\nwere discussed at that meeting?\n\nA. I do not know whether or not that question was discussed at this\nconference. I assume that it was, but that was such a long time ago that\nit is impossible for me to recall these details. But I was clear in my\nown mind about that fact. That we needed so and so many workers was of\ncourse obvious. I did make the demand that this construction program\nshould receive top priority and I stated previously that I wanted\nprimarily German workers, which was then done, and in the sector of the\nPlenipotentiary General for chemistry I wanted to take some workers;\nthat was the way in Germany that you got workers. Later, when we of the\nTodt Organization took over the construction program in Germany, we saw\nthat a large number of construction offices had so little manpower that\nthey had to stop production and there again we found workers. The whole\nsituation was somewhat unclear because when we took over building these\nfighter factories, the entire construction was turned over to the Todt\nOrganization, and no one could take the responsibility for such\nimportant constructions unless he could control the direction of the\nwhole construction program, but, with the best will in the world, I\ncan\u2019t recall the details. There were so many conferences, one followed\nthe other so rapidly, I do not any longer recall.\n\nQ. Who was your representative at meetings of the Jaegerstab?\n\nA. Schlempp, first of all; even before I was commissioned with this\ntask, he was the technical adviser or expert on construction. Saur asked\nme at that time to regard him as the liaison man between the Todt\nOrganization and the Jaegerstab. Then, about the middle of June,\nSchlempp became group leader of the unit in Prague, for which reason I\nprovided one of my best men, namely, Knipping and I used him in what had\npreviously been Schlempp\u2019s capacity.\n\nQ. Do you recall that Schlempp, and later Knipping, reported on the\nprogress of it to the Jaegerstab?\n\nA. I am convinced that they did, because that was their job.\n\n * * * * *\n\nQ. Now can you give me percentagewise the breakdown of this labor by\ngroups, that is, prisoners of war labor, foreign labor, concentration\ncamp labor, German labor?\n\nA. That I could only do with the most general estimate, with vagueness.\nIn the case of Kaufering, there were perhaps sixty percent from the\nconcentration camps; however, prisoners of war, as far as I know, were\nnot there at all. The rest must have been Germans. In Muehldorf, where\nthe second factory was, the breakdown was roughly the same, but I really\ncannot say. I visited each one of these factories only twice. Because of\nthe transportation situation of the Rhine bridges and the hydrogenation\nplant situation, I did not have the time to visit them.\n\nQ. Now did you obtain any of this labor for the construction project? Do\nyou recall obtaining any of this from Schmelter?\n\nA. I take it that Hitler himself had approved these workers. Our request\nwent to Schmelter, and he was working his own men in that Todt\nOrganization, and in the Jaegerstab, and it was his job to settle the\ndetails when they should come, and what they should be paid, and such\nmatters. That was Schmelter\u2019s job, and Schmelter was told that this is a\ntechnical staff, and he knew that Hitler had approved the workers, and\nso it was his job to take care of the details, and to inform the\nEinsatzgruppe what it should do. I did not carry much of these things in\ndetail after that.\n\nQ. Now do you recall how large a construction was at Kaufering? I am\nspeaking both at Kaufering I and Kaufering II?\n\nA. You mean the technical construction?\n\nQ. Yes.\n\nA. There was one main hall in Kaufering I, three hundred meters long,\nninety meters wide, with six stories. Kaufering II conducted production\nlater, but everything was concentrated in Kaufering I.\n\nQ. Do you recall how much of this construction was completed?\n\nA. I should think three-fourths. At the last time I visited this\nconstruction shortly before the collapse, the machines were being set in\non one side of the building, and that is as far as it went.\n\nQ. And to whom was this plant allocated?\n\nA. That I cannot say. In my opinion the Messerschmitt, but I must be\ncareful in what I say here, because in the last week before the collapse\nthere were negotiations with the armament staff. I cannot remember what\nthat situation was in Kaufering, but in Muehldorf there was constant\ntalk of putting Buna in there. That changed continuously, dependent on\nthe war situation. Once Speer wanted to set up a steel foundry in the\nfighter factory in the Rhineland, which was later changed.\n\nQ. Please answer the question. Now in these inspections at Kaufering, do\nyou recall any Luftwaffe representatives who inspected these\nconstruction sites?\n\nA. That I don\u2019t know. I cannot say. A colonel of the Luftwaffe was there\nbut in his capacity as representative of the armament commando or of an\narmament office.\n\nQ. Now getting back to this meeting of 19 April 1944, do you recall that\nSpeer was present there?\n\nA. No.\n\nQ. How were your relations with Speer at that time?\n\nA. They were tense. Speer did not regard the Todt Organization as a sort\nof construction organization. To make a statement, I should have to go\ninto great detail on this subject.\n\nQ. I think that suffices. Now with regard to the recruitment of these\nfifty thousand Italians, which you discussed with Dr. Bergold, do you\nrecall who was to handle the recruitment of those Italians for work in\nthe Reich?\n\nA. To be sure that I do not make any false statement, is it your concern\nwho recruited the fifty thousand Italians that Hitler approved of?\n\nQ. My concern is through what channel were these Italians that were\npromised Hitler by Mussolini, through what channels were they recruited?\n\nA. That was to be taken care of by Sauckel, but through the Todt\nOrganization, who had their office in Italy apply to Italian firms\nultimately, and that was done through the Todt Organization office in\nItaly.\n\nQ. Now with regard to these Italians, do you know what provision was\nmade for the guarding of those that were to arrive, that is, en route?\n\nA. Of that I know nothing, because they did not arrive. They were not\nwatched, or guarded at all. They were free workers, there was no reason\nto guard them.\n\nQ. Now, Witness, outside of Kaufering, can you tell me where and under\nwhat names these other fighter factories were to be located?\n\nA. In Muehldorf, and then there was a factory in Vaihingen.\n\nQ. Just a minute. Now with regard to Muehldorf, can you tell me what\nthat was to be used for, who was it to be used by?\n\nA. First it was thought of as a fighter factory, and then, a few weeks\nbefore the collapse, there was a conference of the armament gentlemen in\nMunich, at which it was agreed that it could be used for the manufacture\nof Buna; in other words, they changed their minds.\n\nQ. What time did that conference at Munich take place?\n\nA. That must have been about the end of March 1945.\n\nQ. Now, with regard to Muehldorf, can you tell me where, primarily this\nlabor was coming from?\n\nA. These were Hungarian Jews. There were Germans there. Where they came\nfrom, that I don\u2019t know.\n\nQ. Well, now, with regard to these Hungarian Jews, can you tell me\nwhether that was a result of a special action in Hungary?\n\nA. I don\u2019t believe so, but I don\u2019t know. We were only told that we were\ngoing to receive Hungarian Jews. They were already in Germany, if I\nremember, but where they came from I don\u2019t know because I didn\u2019t concern\nmyself with it.\n\nQ. But you do recall that Hungarian Jews were used on that site?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Now, with regard to these other factories, we have covered Kaufering\nand Muehldorf, can you tell me the location of the others?\n\nA. Vaihingen\u2014that was a factory that was already under construction\nbefore the Todt Organization stepped in.\n\nQ. Witness, where was that located?\n\nA. V-a-i-h-i-n-g-e-n, and it is in Wuerttemberg.\n\nQ. And how large was that construction?\n\nA. It was a building about 100 meters by 60, four, five stories high.\n\nQ. And do you recall what type of workers was used in that construction?\n\nA. Concentration camp inmates, but I don\u2019t know the number.\n\nQ. And that was in Thuringia?\n\nA. No, in Wuerttemberg.\n\nQ. Now do you recall that any of these factories was to be located in\nthe Protectorate?\n\nA. One was to be erected there, yes, in the neighborhood of Prague but\nso far as I know they never got around to it. Perhaps the ground work\nwas carried out and the machines were shipped there, but the factory\nitself was not actually built. Then there was to be another one in the\nRhineland. I have already mentioned that.\n\nQ. Witness, with regard to this factory in the Protectorate, can you\ngive me the code name for that factory?\n\nA. No, I don\u2019t know it. It was about 50 kilometers north of Prague.\n\nQ. And that was to be used by what company?\n\nA. I can\u2019t say, I don\u2019t know.\n\nQ. Can you give me any indication of the size of that factory?\n\nA. The one north of Prague? Yes. That would have been about the same\nsize as Kaufering, roughly, but, as I say, I really don\u2019t know whether\nthey got construction under way there.\n\nQ. But you were to construct it?\n\nA. Yes, it would have been done under my supervision, or under my\ndirection. I was Speer\u2019s representative and chief of the Todt\nOrganization.\n\nQ. But you don\u2019t know how far along or whether construction was\ninitiated there?\n\nA. I cannot say for sure. I suppose that they started the construction,\nbut so far as I know they really did not actually get this factory\nbuilt.\n\nQ. Now, with regard to this factory in the Rhineland, can you tell me\nwhere that was to be located?\n\nA. I can\u2019t remember the name any more. I was there once, and I can\nperhaps locate it on the map. It was west of the Rhine, 70 or 80\nkilometers, but I can\u2019t remember the name any longer. It was under\nconstruction, and then the construction was interrupted by military\nevents, that is, about the time when the Americans entered the Rhineland\non the Ruhr. Nor do I know whether concentration camp inmates were used\nthere.\n\nQ. Do you recall whether foreign labor was used?\n\nA. In this factory? That I cannot say.\n\nQ. You don\u2019t recall constructing any factories for Wiener-Neustadt?\n\nA. No.\n\nQ. Or for the automobile works at Steyr, in Austria?\n\nA. No.\n\nQ. Focke-Wulf, in Bremen?\n\nA. No, in Bremen we only built a U-boat factory.\n\nQ. Do you recall constructing any factories for Heinkel?\n\nA. That I don\u2019t know. I wasn\u2019t really interested in such questions,\nbecause I received the data from the Jaegerstab, and the Jaegerstab did\nthe actual construction. The engineer of the Todt Organization built the\nhouse, and then the Jaegerstab took care of the rest. There were no\ndiscussions on my part with construction firms. Moreover, I didn\u2019t even\nhave time to carry out such things.\n\nQ. But you got your labor through Schmelter, who was a member of the\nJaegerstab?\n\nA. Yes, he was a member of the Jaegerstab, and I have already said that\nhe was also the leader of labor allocation in the Todt Organization. He\nwas in charge. At first he was entirely within the Todt Organization,\nand then later he was what you might call the leader for the allocation\nof labor in Speer\u2019s Ministry, and was in charge later of the allocation\nof labor in the Todt Organization. At the same time, he performed the\nsame function in the Jaegerstab, so that automatically there was a\nconnection between the Todt Organization and the Jaegerstab.\n\nMR. KING: I have no further questions, your Honor.\n\n_REDIRECT EXAMINATION_\n\nDR. BERGOLD: Witness, I have one more question. When did these Hungarian\nJews arrive at Muehldorf?\n\nA. I do not know about Muehldorf, but I can recall that at Kaufering the\nfirst ones came\u2014and here I must guess\u2014at the end or the beginning of\nJune 1944.\n\nDR. BERGOLD: Thank you, I have no further questions.\n\nMR. KING: I have one further question, if your Honor pleases.\n\nDR. BERGOLD: I have just heard that the interpreter was inaccurate. The\nwitness spoke of the end and the middle of June, and the interpreter\nsaid \u201cthe beginning of June\u201d.\n\nTHE INTERPRETER: \u201cThe middle or the end of June\u201d is what the witness\nsaid, but he is not sure about it.\n\n_RE-CROSS-EXAMINATION_\n\nMR. KING: Now, Witness, with respect to this construction at Kaufering,\ncan you tell me when that was initiated?\n\nA. In May of 1944 it must have begun, the beginning of May.\n\nQ. And that was also true of the other fighter factories that you were\nto construct under the Hitler order?\n\nA. Perhaps two weeks later the construction in Muehldorf began; the\nconstruction in Vaihingen that I mentioned before was already under way,\nand I took it over. The construction in the Rhineland started\nconsiderably later, it could have been perhaps at the end of June;\nPrague came along much later.\n\nQ. Now, you say that you were at Kaufering on two separate occasions.\nDid you have any opportunity to\u2014\n\nA. (Interposing) I was in Kaufering three times. Do you want to know\nwhen? In May 1944; at the beginning of January 1945; and then once more\njust before the capitulation, perhaps two or three weeks before the\ncapitulation.\n\nQ. Do you recall anything about the conditions at Kaufering; that is,\nthe conditions of labor?\n\nA. I only saw the construction site. When I was in Munich, Niebermann,\nwho was responsible for construction, told me that the Hungarian Jews\nwere poorly clothed and poorly fed in part. I then told the competent SS\nman, whose name I no longer recall\u2014but he was there in Munich, in\nNiebermann\u2019s office\u2014and I pointed out to him that this was the\nresponsibility of the SS and he should see to it that these men were\ndecently clothed.\n\nQ. Witness, do you recall any reports of deaths of Hungarian Jews on the\nproject?\n\nA. Roughly, in October, our physicians told us that the fatalities in\nKaufering were higher than normal. I then commissioned that physician to\ntake up negotiations with the SS to improve conditions.\n\nI should like to say explicitly that the Todt Organization was forbidden\nto enter the camps. The physician tried to send medicines to the camp,\nand was successful. I can remember a date, namely, one on which I was\noperated on\u2014that is why I remember it\u2014in November, at which time the\nphysician told me that he had succeeded in bringing these bad hygienic\nconditions to an end after considerable effort. I remember the date\nbecause it coincided with a sickness of my own.\n\n-----\n\n[109] A group of experts, drawn from various phases of German industry\nand supplemented by representatives of the various ministries.\n\n[110] Tr. pp. 300-1.\n\n[111] Survey is published as part of document in Nazi Conspiracy and\nAggression, vol. IV, pp. 120-126, U.S. Government Printing Office,\nWashington, 1946.\n\n[112] Defendant in case of U.S. _vs._ Oswald Pohl, et al. See Vol. V.\n\n[113] Portions of this document were introduced by the defense as\nDefense Exhibit 12. See pp. 561-62.\n\n[114] Other portions of this document were introduced by the defense as\nDefense Exhibit 13. See pp. 562-63.\n\n[115] Portions of this document were introduced by the defense as Defend\nExhibit 16. See pp. 564-65.\n\n[116] Another portion of this document was introduced by the defense as\nDefense Exhibit 21. See pp. 565-66.\n\n[117] Other portions of this document were introduced by the defense as\nDefense Exhibit 23. See pp. 566-67.\n\n[118] Kammler was one of the leading officials of the Economic\nAdministrative Main Office of the SS\n[Wirtschafts-Verwaltungshauptamt\u2014WVHA]. See case of _United States_ vs.\n_Oswald Pohl, et al._, (_Vol. V_), concerning the WVHA which\nadministered the utilization of concentration camp labor.\n\n[119] Document was Speer Exhibit 34 in Trial before International\nMilitary Tribunal. See Trial of the Major War Criminals, vol. XVI, p.\n589, Nuremberg, 1947.\n\n[120] Defense Counsel, Dr. Bergold, explained (_Tr. p. 580_): \u201cThis\nproves that the Fuehrer himself ordered these large construction works,\nthe execution of which is charged to the defendant.\n\nAlthough I mentioned before that the Jaegerstab was of the opinion that\nit could only build one factory, the order was given by Hitler to build\nsix. That was an impossible number. He delegated this duty to Mr.\nDorsch. That man had his orders from the Fuehrer and not from the\nJaegerstab, which, of course, was no longer responsible for his\nactivities.\u201d\n\n[121] Portions of this document were introduced by the prosecution as\nProsecution Exhibit 75. See pp. 544-45.\n\n[122] DR. BERGOLD stated (_Tr. p. 567_): \u201cI introduce this in order to\nshow that the Jaegerstab meetings not always prove who was there at a\ncertain given time and those meetings changed so that as far as the\ndefendant Milch is mentioned, this does not prove he was there all of\nthe time.\u201d\n\n[123] DR. BERGOLD explained (_Tr. p. 568_): \u201cThere was introduced by the\nprosecution and also presented an exhibit from this Jaegerstab\nconference where the term \u2018construction company\u2019 was mentioned in such a\nway. Those were companies of concentration camp inmates. This explains\nthe term \u2018construction company\u2019 clearly.\u201d\n\n[124] Other portions of this document were introduced by the prosecution\nas Prosecution Exhibit 75. See pp. 545-46.\n\n[125] Chief of the Construction Department in the Speer Ministry.\n\n[126] Ibid.\n\n[127] DR. BERGOLD stated (_Tr. p. 751_): \u201cThe prosecution has alleged\nthat these great plants were made by slave labor, and I want to show\nthat this plant in which, according to the allegations of the\nprosecution, Hungarian Jews were used, was not built by the Jaegerstab\nand that therefore the prosecution has not proved altogether that the\nJaegerstab used Hungarian Jews.\n\nThe passage will show in a very short time that concentration camp\ninmates were not used. * * *\u201d\n\n[128] Portions of this document were introduced by the prosecution as\nProsecution Exhibit 75. See pp. 550-52.\n\n[129] Another portion of this document was introduced by the prosecution\nas Prosecution Exhibit 75. See pp. 554-55.\n\n[130] DR. BERGOLD stated (_Tr. p. 584_): \u201cYour Honors, in all civilized\ncountries, also in Germany, penal prisoners have to work. If\nconcentration camp inmates were put to work in Germany, this was done\nwithin the frame of the law which existed in Germany for the employment\nof criminal prisoners. This was nothing special. This work of\nconcentration camp inmates cannot be considered slave work.\u201d\n\n[131] Other portions of this document were introduced by the prosecution\nas Prosecution Exhibit 75. See pp. 555-57.\n\n[132] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 6, 7\nFeb. 47, pp. 717-759.\n\n[133] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 24 Feb.\n47, pp. 1361-1379.\n\n\n\n\n 4. GENERALLUFTZEUGMEISTER[134]\n\n Evidence\n\n _Prosecution Documents_\n\n Doc. No. Pros. Ex. No. Description of Document Page\n NOKW-311 62 Extract from interrogation of 597\n Hermann Goering on 6\n September 1946, regarding\n Milch\u2019s position as\n Generalluftzeugmeister (GL).\n\n NOKW-418 136 Extracts from stenographic 598\n minutes of GL-Conference, 5\n May 1942.\n\n NOKW-407 137 Extracts from stenographic 599\n minutes of GL-Conference, 27\n May 1942.\n\n NOKW-406 138 Extracts from stenographic 599\n minutes of the GL-Conference,\n 7 July 1942.\n\n NOKW-408 139 Extracts from stenographic 600\n minutes of GL-Conference, 28\n July 1942.\n\n NOKW-409 140 Extracts from stenographic 601\n minutes of GL-Conference, 4\n August 1942.\n\n NOKW-412 141 Extracts from stenographic 602\n minutes of GL-Conference, 18\n August 1942.\n\n NOKW-416 142 Extracts from stenographic 602\n minutes of GL-Conference, 26\n August 1942.\n\n NOKW-286 144 Extracts from stenographic 605\n minutes of GL-Conference, 1\n September 1942.\n\n NOKW-245 157 Extracts from stenographic 606\n minutes of conference with\n Goering, 22 February 1943,\n regarding plans for airplane\n construction.\n\n NOKW-449 148 Extracts from stenographic 607\n minutes of GL-Conference, 2\n March 1943.\n\n NOKW-195 143 Extracts from stenographic 608\n minutes of conference with\n Goering, 28 October 1943.\n\n NOKW-180 155 Extracts from stenographic 613\n notes on the conference at\n the Reich Marshal\u2019s on\n Thursday, 4 November 1943, 11\n o\u2019clock at the Junkers Plant\n in Dessau.\n\n _Testimony_\n\n Extracts from testimony of defense witness Max Koenig 615\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NOKW-311\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 62\n\n EXTRACT FROM INTERROGATION OF HERMANN GOERING ON 6\n SEPTEMBER 1946, REGARDING MILCH\u2019S POSITION AS\n GENERALLUFTZEUGMEISTER (GL)\n\n * * * * *\n\nINTERROGATOR: Now to the Milch case: Who was commissioned after 1941\nwith the labor allocation in the Ministry for Air?\n\nGOERING: What am I to understand by \u201clabor allocation\u201d?\n\nQ. Labor allocation consisted of the drawing in of foreign workers or\nGerman workers, especially of concentration camp inmates, in order to\nfree them for air force production.\n\nA. This matter went through Udet, the Chief of Supply for the Air Force,\nuntil Udet\u2019s death, and then it went through Milch.\n\nQ. In what manner did the Reich Air Ministry submit its requests to\nSauckel and the approximate figure for its requirements, the number of\nworkers, etc.? And if Sauckel received such a request from the Reich Air\nMinistry, how did he undertake the distribution?\n\nA. The requests were made by Milch, it was he who said how many workers\nthe air force needed, and these were forwarded to Speer. Speer then\nasked Sauckel for the workers for the entire armaments branch, almost\nfor the entire industrial branch, and he then made the distribution. It\nwas he in the end who made the final decision as to how many workers\nwent to the air force for instance, how many to the army, etc. As far as\nI know, Sauckel had actually nothing to do with the distribution of\nlabor. The contingent was put at the disposal of the authorities.\nTerrific pressure was continually brought to bear on Sauckel. If the\nrequested number was not brought, he was given hell. I personally\npresided over a meeting where there were differences between Sauckel and\nSpeer. He wanted to have more, etc. There was a mix-up and that\u2019s how I\nknow it; but the needs of the air force were put forward by Milch, that\nis the Chief of Supply for the Air Force. When difficulties arose and\nthey did not get the people, and the program threatened to break down,\nthen they came to me and I supported their demands.\n\n * * * * *\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NOKW-418\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 136\n\n EXTRACTS FROM STENOGRAPHIC MINUTES OF GL-CONFERENCE,\n 5 MAY 1942\n\n[Two handwritten marginal notes at top of document:] Mi. 10.\n Secret\n\n _SHORTHAND TRANSCRIPT ON THE GL-CONFERENCE_\n _PRESIDED OVER BY THE STATE SECRETARY, FIELD_\n _MARSHAL MILCH, ON TUESDAY, 5 MAY 1942,_\n _10 A.M. IN THE REICH AIR MINISTRY_\n\n * * * * *\n\nALPERS: The reason given is shortage of labor. And in fact there are\n2,000 men lacking at Heinkel-Oranienburg.\n\nMILCH: As far as the French are concerned, 60,000 of the ones that we\nhad been promised are still missing.\n\n (Comment: 40,000 are missing.)\n\nIf we get those men I would assign 2,000 to Heinkel-Oranienburg.\n\nFRYDAG: The French become worse and worse; I threw out 80 of them who\nwill be sent to concentration camps in Russia. They refused to work. The\nFrench say at 4 o\u2019clock: \u201cI won\u2019t work another hour,\u201d and you cannot\nmake them work another hour. This happened four weeks ago all of a\nsudden, when the first bombing attack on Paris took place, while before\nthat the French were the best people.\n\nMILCH: We were told in Oranienburg that they were good as long as they\ndidn\u2019t get spoiled by our German people.\n\nFRYDAG: It happened here after we got the French from Messerschmitt;\naccording to the French they got a warm meal twice a day there and had\ntheir laundry done. We cannot do either. We don\u2019t have a warm meal twice\na day either. At Messerschmitt the living conditions were better.\n\nMILCH: Gablenz, I want you to get in touch with Reinecke concerning\nthese French. I demand that if the people refuse to work they\nimmediately be placed against the wall and shot before all the other\nworkers. I ask you to get in touch with the Reich Leader SS and to ask\nhim to discuss the matter with the Fuehrer. Now is the right time;\nunless we do something effective now, the others will become bothersome.\nI ask that their being sent to concentration camps be taken into\nconsideration too. I\u2019ll tell you afterwards how you should act in such a\nmatter.\n\nSo I do not agree. You should make another proposal. At the beginning\nyou cannot expect more.\n\n * * * * *\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NOKW-407\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 137\n\n EXTRACTS FROM STENOGRAPHIC MINUTES OF GL-CONFERENCE, 27 MAY 1942\n\n[Three handwritten marginal notes at top of document:] To my\n\nfiles Mi. 14\n\nVossen/Dr. Reynitz/Ca.\n\n Secret\n\n _SHORTHAND TRANSCRIPT OF THE GL-CONFERENCE_\n _PRESIDED OVER BY THE STATE SECRETARY, FIELD_\n _MARSHAL MILCH ON WEDNESDAY, 27 MAY 1942,_\n _9 A.M. IN THE REICH AIR MINISTRY_\n\n * * * * *\n\nVON GABLENZ: Yesterday, the first[135] has exploded in France, at the\nArade plant, an explosive, a float, but no damage has been done.\n\nFIELD MARSHAL MILCH: What measures have been taken in consequence?\u2014I\nwant to have a report on what has been done. How many people have been\nshot and how many hanged? If that guy cannot be found today, fifty men\nshould be selected and if I were you I would hang three or four of them\nwhether they are guilty or not. It is the only way!\n\n(Mahnke hands another letter to the Field Marshal.)\n\nWhat do you think of that man?\n\n * * * * *\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NOKW-406\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 138\n\n EXTRACTS FROM STENOGRAPHIC MINUTES OF THE GL-CONFERENCE,\n 7 JULY 1942\n\n[Two handwritten marginal notes at top of document:] St/R 21\n\n Secret\n\n _SHORTHAND TRANSCRIPT OF THE GL-CONFERENCE_\n _PRESIDED OVER BY FIELD MARSHAL MILCH ON_\n _7 JULY 1942, 10 A.M. IN THE REICH AIR MINISTRY_\n\n * * * * *\n\nFIELD MARSHAL MILCH: I do not like the engine. I have inspected it and\nfor the time being anyhow, I shall not take the 177 plane as a traveling\nplane.\n\nWith regard to the output of Prague I want to say this: Of course, one\nmust recognize good output, even of a foreigner. On the other hand, as\nfar as the French are concerned, something must be done now. Gablenz,\nring up Toennes and tell him that this is a crazy situation [tolle\nSchweinerei]. However, we would still try first to arrange it in a\nfriendly way through Toennes. If that does not succeed, then I intend to\nfill the new Heinkel plant in the east entirely with Frenchmen brought\ndown there by force. If they don\u2019t work in France, they may work as\nprisoners in Poland. After all we have to remember that it is we, and\nnot the French, who have won the war.\n\n * * * * *\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NOKW-408\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 139\n\n EXTRACTS FROM STENOGRAPHIC MINUTES OF GL-CONFERENCE,\n 28 JULY 1942\n\n[Two handwritten marginal notes at top of document:] St/R 24\n\nVossen/Dr. Jonuschat/C\n\n Secret\n\n _SHORTHAND TRANSCRIPT ON THE GL-CONFERENCE_\n _PRESIDED OVER BY STATE SECRETARY FIELD_\n _MARSHAL MILCH ON TUESDAY, 28 JULY 1942,_\n _10 A.M. IN THE REICH AIR MINISTRY_\n\n * * * * *\n\nALPERS: We have discussed whether a stronger pressure should not be put\nupon French firms by both our liaison office and by us here. I have\ntalked with the French works managers myself. Actually they are all of\nthe same mind; they are willing to exert pressure, but then the workers\nwill leave them. In France there is no law that binds a worker to his\nplace of employment.\n\nMILCH: As far as we are concerned, that is very difficult. But at the\nvery moment when the deadline is passed for me, I shall say: Now there\nis no more French production. The workers are sent on leave or taken\naway immediately for other work. The French always want the proportion\n1:5, but they only reach 1:2.3. In reality they have very much more, as\nwe have received only old French junk. If we consider the actual output\nthat we have received, then the proportion is not even 1:0.2, but\nexactly the contrary: 5:1 in favor of the French! At the present time we\nreceive 8 to 9 planes from the French. I could well imagine that they\nget out 45 for themselves. I shall shut the shop with a single stroke\nand have the workers and the machines come to Germany. If it does not\nwork on a voluntary basis, then we do it by compulsory contracts.\nPerhaps I shall first give them a week to think it over.\n\n (ALPERS: Amio himself is behind. For him the surfaces and tail\n unit factories are situated just right.)\n\n\u2014It is a fact that, on the whole, these people work in silent\nopposition. One cannot blame them for it either, it is true, but they\nshould not have started the war.\n\n * * * * *\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NOKW-409\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 140\n\n EXTRACTS FROM STENOGRAPHIC MINUTES OF GL-CONFERENCE,\n 4 AUGUST 1942\n\n[Handwritten marginal notes] To my files, personally St/R 25\n\n Secret\n\n _SHORTHAND TRANSCRIPT ON THE GL-CONFERENCE_\n _PRESIDED OVER BY FIELD MARSHAL MILCH_\n _TUESDAY, 4 AUGUST 1942, 10 A.M. IN THE_\n _REICH AIR MINISTRY_\n\n * * * * *\n\nGEYER: In the west there is a danger of the French going on strike in\nthe event of a British attack. In that case, the whole of the engine\nsupply would be severely handicapped.\n\nMILCH: In such a case I would ask to be appointed military commander\nmyself. I would band the workers together and have 50 percent of them\nshot; I would then publish this fact and compel the other 50 percent to\nwork, by beatings if necessary. If they don\u2019t work, then they too will\nbe shot. I would get the necessary replacement somehow. But I hope the\nmilitary commander will do his duty. I\u2019m not worried about it. The word\n\u201cstrike\u201d must never be used. For us there is only \u201cliving or dying\u201d, but\nnot \u201cstriking\u201d. That goes for the educated man as well as for the\nworker, for the German [Inlaender] as well as for the foreigner. The\nword \u201cstrike\u201d means death for the man who uses it.\n\n * * * * *\n\nGABLENZ: Sauckel also made an effort but he does not have a completely\nfree hand. Lt. Col. Nickolai and Stending are still standing in between.\n\nMILCH: In spite of all, he has brought in quite a tidy number. Sauckel\nhas brought over 1.6 million people to Germany, 1.3 million from the\neast and the rest from other countries.\n\nGABLENZ: We should not be sorry if Sauckel not only took care of getting\nthe workers, but also of distributing them. That way we would fare\nbetter.\n\n * * * * *\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NOKW-412\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 141\n\n EXTRACTS FROM STENOGRAPHIC MINUTES OF GL-CONFERENCE,\n 18 AUGUST 1942\n\n[page 1874 of original]\n\n[Handwritten marginal notes on attendance list] St/R 27\n\n * * * * *\n\n[page 1932 of original]\n\nFIELD MARSHAL MILCH: As soon as the figures for August are ready I\nrequest an exact account for my report to the Reich Marshal and also for\nthe conferences which I want to hold with Sauckel and Speer beforehand.\nThis account is to show how the labor question has developed, how great\nthe fluctuation is and which nationalities it involves, what real\nrequests we now have to make in the different sectors in order to cover\nthe needs for specialists and for skilled and unskilled labor, how many\nof them can be foreigners, etc.? What happens to those who leave the\nindustry? Are they being compelled to work elsewhere? Are they, as I\nproposed, under control in the camps supervised by the SS and considered\nas being in mild concentration camps, or are these gentlemen allowed to\nremain outside and do as they please?\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NOKW-416\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 142\n\n EXTRACTS FROM STENOGRAPHIC MINUTES OF GL-CONFERENCE,\n 26 AUGUST 1942\n\n[Handwritten marginal notes] St/R 29\n Secret\n\n _SHORTHAND TRANSCRIPT OF THE CONFERENCE OF_\n _THE DIRECTOR OF SUPPLIES PRESIDED OVER BY_\n _FIELD MARSHAL MILCH ON WEDNESDAY, 26_\n _AUGUST 1942, 11 A.M. IN THE REICH_\n _AIR MINISTRY_\n\n * * * * *\n\nMILCH: Is Quartermaster General 6 here?\n\n(Comment: Yes!)\n\nDo you know anything about it?\n\n(Comment: No!)\n\nAsk about it and inform Colonel Brueckner!\n\nFRYDAG: Another important consideration is the letter, which you\nyourself have signed, Field Marshal, dealing with the expiration of the\nlabor contracts of the foreign workers. * * *\n\nMILCH: The Reich Marshal [Goering] wanted to bind these people by law at\none time, that was one idea. The Fuehrer\u2019s plan would be more favorable.\nHe wishes that the workers be gradually all replaced by Russians for\nwhom there is no longer such a thing as expiration of contracts.\n\n(Comment: But there is a certain transition period!)\n\nBRUECKNER: You, Field Marshal, have yourself put your signature to this\nmatter. The contracts are to be extended till 1 October 1943. I hope\nthat it will be done.\n\n * * * * *\n\nMILCH: On the other hand, a number of these people have been drafted\ninto the armed forces. But if I consider the others, I arrive all the\nsame at a monthly total of about 30,000 who loaf around and fluctuate\nfrom job to job. According to the suggestions of the Reich Marshal,\nthese people are to come under the care of Himmler and are to be handled\nseverely there. What has been done, so far, in this regard? Brueckner,\nyou know about this matter, don\u2019t you?\n\n (BRUECKNER: Yes!)\n\nYou do not seem to be informed quite correctly. Sometime ago we were\nquite irritated about the fact that so many workers move about from one\nfactory to another, most of them antisocial elements who do not like to\nwork and whom the firms are possibly glad to get rid of because they do\nnothing but complain and grumble, do no proper work, are constantly\nlate, shirk work where they can, pretend to be sick, etc. These people\nwere supposed to be handled more severely, and about a year ago the\nReich Marshal issued an order and gave the Ministry of Labor the job of\ndealing with this matter firmly. Then the Ministry of Labor issued an\nexplanatory order which was nothing but a sabotage of the order and the\ndesire expressed by the Reich Marshal. I reported to the Reich\nMarshal\u2014in the very words which I have just used\u2014that in this case his\nwill was clearly being sabotaged by some lawyers or other poor fellows\nand that I asked him to take measures against it. He told me that he\nwould talk the matter over with Himmler. That is, I had suggested to him\nthat this matter could only be settled with the help of Himmler\u2019s\norganization. The armed forces are not in a position to do it. The\nsuggestion had been made that the armed forces should take care of these\npeople in camps but these workers are not ready for that. They have not\nbeen condemned and in no way violate the existing laws, but act only\nagainst their country which certainly does not yet come within the\nsphere of the old legal nonsense. That is why Himmler should get these\npeople into his clutches because he can treat them outside the law. My\nsuggestion was that the people should be put into camps or, in part,\njust get numbers. The person involved would have a passport in which it\nis entered that he is a German of this or that category, and that his\nnumber is so and so. Then there are subsequent entries: At this or that\ntime he did not work, at this or that time he was late, etc. If he\n\u201closes\u201d this passport\u2014because he doesn\u2019t want to have it anymore\u2014off\nhe goes to the concentration camp immediately; the same thing happens if\nhe does not show it when ordered to do so. Once every month the pass is\nchecked by the local SD. If it shows that the man has been ill, or late\nthirty times in one month, then the SD takes him along and gives him a\njob in which he has to work 14 hours a day and where he is treated in\nthe way he deserves if he is not willing. The Reich Marshal has approved\nthis suggestion. Nevertheless I have not yet seen anything of the kind\nbeing carried out.\n\nBRUECKNER: I know that such labor camps have been established.\n\nMILCH: In that case I want you to tell me exactly during the next\nconference, where these camps have been established, who is in charge of\nthem, and how do we get these honorable gentlemen who do not want to\nwork into them? * * * It is a simple matter to have these people taken\ncare of somehow by the SD. It has only got to be taken in hand. I want\nto have a report on it as soon as possible. Otherwise I will talk to\nHimmler about it myself and see that this matter is taken very firmly in\nhand. I see in these people the greatest danger for the home front.\n\n * * * * *\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NOKW-286\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 144\n\n EXTRACTS FROM STENOGRAPHIC MINUTES OF GL-CONFERENCE,\n 1 SEPTEMBER 1942\n\n[Handwritten marginal notes] St/R 31 To my files\n Secret\n\n _SHORTHAND TRANSCRIPT OF THE GL-CONFERENCE_\n _PRESIDED OVER BY STATE SECRETARY FIELD_\n _MARSHAL MILCH ON WEDNESDAY, 9 SEPTEMBER_\n _1942, 10 A.M. IN THE REICH_\n _AIR MINISTRY_\n\n * * * * *\n\nDEUTSCHMANN: Reports have come in from front repair workshops that up to\n40 percent of the people simply do not come to work. Because of the\ndifficulties in the food supply they simply go out into the country in\norder to have something to eat. At the plant Mechanical Workshops\n[Mechanische Werkstaetten] I have found out that the Poles have not come\nbecause Russian pilots had dropped propaganda material. In one case, I\nhave seen that about 50 percent of the workers failed to come.\n\nMILCH: What do you do against that?\n\n (DEUTSCHMANN: For the time being, I did not do anything.)\n\nAnd where was that?\u2014In Warsaw? In such a case, orders have to be given\nthat these workers get a good beating. And Russian prisoners of war are\nused to give it to them.\n\nDEUTSCHMANN: Just at the time when the Russians attacked I was planning\nto have 200 Poles transported to western Germany in order to fill a gap\nin the hoop production there. The conditions of procurement in Warsaw\nwere such that I could afford it; therefore, I had no special reason to\ntake measures.\n\nMILCH: If those workers stay away from work just as they please then\nthey need a good beating and this punishment is to be administered by\nRussians. Contact the SD; tell them that these workers had failed to\ncome to work and that I demand that they be punished and not by having\ntheir food taken away from them but by the slightly milder punishment of\n50 strokes each on their behind.\n\nDEUTSCHMANN: Various unfortunate occurrences have happened together.\n\nMILCH: I don\u2019t care, these occurrences are none of my business. The\nunfortunate occurrence for the person involved is when he gets his good\nbeating. And he should not fail to get it.\n\n (DEUTSCHMANN: We have already drawn the attention of the Reich\n Leader SS to it; something is going to be done about it.)\n\nSuch occurrences must not remain unpunished, they must not happen. If\nthose people mutiny and do not work, then I demand that some shooting is\ndone at those occasions. We do the same in Poland as the British do in\nIndia, with the only difference that the British deal with their own\nsubjects, whereas we deal with the enemy. I want none of our people ever\nto show lack of action. I make every section chief responsible to take\nmeasures to that effect immediately. He is not to administer the\nbeatings himself but to go to the SD and demand that this or that is\ndone. What kind of measures they take we will leave to the SD, but I\nwant to have a report on what has been done in such cases! What do you\nthink would happen to a worker in Germany if he went on strike?\n\n * * * * *\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NOKW-245\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 157\n\n EXTRACTS FROM STENOGRAPHIC MINUTES OF CONFERENCE\n WITH GOERING, 22 FEBRUARY 1943, REGARDING PLANS\n FOR AIRPLANE CONSTRUCTION\n\n * * * * *\n\nMILCH: * * * Just now things are not going well. Sauckel has agreed with\nSpeer and myself that von der Heyde is to go to Paris to ascertain on\nthe very spot what may be taken away. If we want to maintain the program\nwe require an additional 80,000 workmen over there. Sauckel said he\nrecognized that and promised to deliver them. If the promise is kept all\nwill be all right.\n\nREICH MARSHAL: What sense does it make to leave the workers there?\n\nMILCH: There is no good will in France, and you can really not expect it\nfrom these fellows. But we will force them to work by not feeding them.\n\nREICH MARSHAL: I can do this here much better.\n\nMILCH: That\u2019ll get us nowhere. We shall then have to shut down the\nplants in France.\n\nREICH MARSHAL: The fault is this: Sauckel should have said: Milch, there\nare too many skilled workers in that plant; take so-and-so many out for\nyour German plants; I am going to replace those skilled workers from our\nFrench workers pool. Otherwise there is no sense in his taking them\naway.\n\nMILCH: Until six months ago we piloted the whole French industry by way\nof the government, but since then we changed and took sponsor-firms. * *\n*\n\nREICH MARSHAL: I\u2019ll tell Sauckel not to touch our industry at all. But\nwe must do it ourselves.\n\nMILCH: I told Sauckel that we will cooperate on all matters on the very\nspot, that we will get the thing done but not smash up anything that is\nproducing for us or is going to produce. He admitted that his men had\nacted wrongly. * * * Speer and myself are of the opinion that he must be\nincorporated somehow in the Central Planning in order to secure manpower\nfor us as well as the material. Now we got the first workers in\nNovember; prior to that date none at all. Of course, by taking into\naccount the many fluctuations he arrives at fantastic figures. We try to\ndiminish the fluctuations with the aid of Himmler and Ley. The military\nphysicians are put in to examine the men. I have proposed that a man who\nleaves his working place more than three times a year, should be put\ninto a detention camp and be released only when he stays on the very\nspot. * * *\n\n * * * * *\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NOKW-449\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 148\n\n EXTRACTS FROM STENOGRAPHIC MINUTES OF GL-CONFERENCE,\n 2 MARCH 1943\n\n[Handwritten marginal notes] To my files Mi\n\n Secret\n\n _SHORTHAND TRANSCRIPT OF THE GL-CONFERENCE_\n _PRESIDED OVER BY THE STATE SECRETARY FIELD_\n _MARSHAL MILCH ON TUESDAY, 2 MARCH 1943,_\n _10 A.M. IN THE REICH AIR MINISTRY_\n\n * * * * *\n\nMILCH: Another question! All the reports from France show that the\nFrench have got their heads full of political thoughts and ideas. On the\nbasis of the news they tell themselves: They are retreating on the\neastern front and the English and Americans are gradually getting afraid\nthat the Russians alone will be victorious. The French go on to say: If\nthe promises made to us by the Americans are really kept, our fortunes\nare made. That has already led to our foreign workers slowly becoming\nhostile. On principle I have to be informed of every case of\nswinishness. I do not understand at all why Germany should put up with\nit when Poles and Frenchmen explain to the people: Today indeed you are\nstill sitting in this work, but later we shall be the owners and if you\ntreat us properly we shall see to it then that you are shot dead\nimmediately and not tortured first. In all these matters energetic\ninterference must be made. I am of the opinion that there should be only\ntwo types of punishment in such cases: firstly, a concentration camp for\nforeigners, and secondly, capital punishment. If a certain number of\nsuch hostile elements are removed and the others are informed, they will\nthen work better. Their love for us certainly won\u2019t become any greater,\nbut neither will their hate, for it is already strong enough. In this\nrespect, too, energetic interference must be made and in no case must\nthe workers put up with it. The best method is to give the person\nconcerned one with a sledge-hammer and I shall treat with distinction\nevery man who does something like that whenever he hears such stupid\nnonsense. We are living in a total war and the workers must be told that\nthey don\u2019t have to put up with anything. Now the question is whether or\nnot the gentlemen believe on the whole that we achieve something worth\nmentioning with our production in France. For then we must consider that\nthe establishments there will be besieged. Then the French would have to\nbe forced to come to Germany. There I must reflect on whether the\navailable means of compulsion are sufficient. That does not depend on\nme. But, in the abstract, I see no difficulties in the way of getting\n100,000 or 200,000 French workers to Germany, nor do I see any\ndifficulties in the way of keeping them in order. If a case of sabotage\noccurs in one area, every tenth man in that area will be shot. Then such\nacts of sabotage would cease of themselves. The western peoples are very\nmuch afraid of death, while it is a quite different matter with the\nRussians.\n\n * * * * *\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NOKW-195\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 143\n\n EXTRACTS FROM STENOGRAPHIC MINUTES OF CONFERENCE WITH GOERING, 28\n OCTOBER 1943\n\n [Handwritten] Notes for Discussion No 116/43/KD st. 4th copy\n [Signature] MILCH\n\n _STENOGRAPHIC TRANSCRIPT OF THE DISCUSSION WITH_\n _THE REICH MARSHAL ON 28 OCTOBER 1943,_\n _12 O\u2019CLOCK AT KARINHALL_\n\nSubject: Allocation of Labor.\n Effects of the Drafting of Laborers.\n\nParticipants:\n Reich Marshal\n Reich Minister Speer\n Field Marshal Milch\n Gauleiter Sauckel\n General von der Heyde\n Staatsrat Gritzbach\n Ministerialrat Dr. Groennert\n Ministerialdirektor Hildebrand\n Landrat Berg\n Lt. Colonel Biesing, GSC\n Lt. Colonel von Brauchitsch, GSC\n Director Frydag\n Dr. Janicke/Dr. Eggeling/Bs\n\n 25 October 1943\n\n * * * * *\n\nMILCH: Interesting are the figures on the decrease of prisoners of war\nwhere one had believed they would remain stable. Between January and\nAugust the figure went down for the Russians from 22,000 to 19,000; for\nthe others, from 48,000 to 28,000. In the summer the prisoners of war\ndecreased from 70,000 to 48,000.\n\n * * * * *\n\nREICH MARSHAL: But here you report to me and to the Fuehrer: From 1\nJanuary to 30 September a total of 2,200,000 in manpower could be made\navailable for armament production,\n\n(Comment by SAUCKEL: But not for the first time.)\n\namong whom there are 770,000 prisoners of war. Through allocation\n300,000 of these who had been drafted for armament and the armed\nservices, and those who left for other reasons, were replaced, and labor\nfor the most important armament industries was increased by 650,000,\nfrom 5.3 million to 5.9 million.\n\n(Reading continued.)\n\nFRYDAG: Those are the total allocations.\n\n(REICH MARSHAL: I took that to be net allocation.)\n\nNo, gross.\n\nMILCH: The Luftwaffe has increased by 150,000 men; the army by 240,000;\nthe navy by 50,000; military administration has remained stable. For the\nWehrmacht armament alone, there has been an increase of 400,000 men.\nThen other industries, including state railway [Reichsbahn], postal\nservice, experts basic materials industry, make a total increase of 5.29\nmillion, i.e., an actual addition of 500,000 men in this whole area\nwithin half a year.\n\n * * * * *\n\nREICH MARSHAL: Then there is one more question which again belongs here\nand which in all seriousness must be discussed. Suppose that, in the\ncentral sector of Holland, between Arnhem, Utrecht, and Dortrecht, I\nplace at your disposal for three days 15,000 young German\nsoldiers\u2014recruits who have been there eight days, together with their\nrespective officers\u2019 corps for handling the executive\u2014to catch the\nyoung Dutchmen (this would have to be carefully prepared, of\ncourse)\u2014would you expect good results? It goes without saying that\neverything must be well organized in advance, transport to move them\nout, camps to receive them here, far away from the Dutch frontier.\n\nSAUCKEL: Considering the Dutch population figure that amounts to\nsomething. However, the same should be done in Poland and France.\n\nREICH MARSHAL: Naturally, after that has been done once, one has to\nmodify the system for the second blow. Then the Dutch people will no\nlonger be out in the streets on Sundays for pleasure promenades.\n\nSPEER: Care should be taken though, not to affect the protected\nindustries which we have established there. Their workers are also out\nfor walks on Sundays.\n\nREICH MARSHAL: First, all of the people must be brought together in a\npen [Pferch]; then they will be asked individually who works where, and\nthen the men will be selected accordingly.\n\nSAUCKEL: We should like to set an example. However, I do not like to\nrely on this alone for the next year; but I should like to ask that one\nhave the confidence in us that, reasonably speaking we are doing things\nin the right way. The factories which Speer barred to us * * *.\n\nREICH MARSHAL: Really I am not imposing. But when I constantly hear: I\ncould do very much if I only had the executive power, then I am ready to\nassist you, not permanently, but then, for five days or one week, by\nputting my men at your disposal. In France also we have training\nregiments, and the army, too, could arrange to make certain units\navailable so as to make a big push.\n\nSAUCKEL: If I may be permitted to speak quite frankly, the conditions\nare as follows: All of our Military Commanders, and also our\nCommissioners General\u2014with the exception of Koch\u2014also the general\ngovernors, take the stand that in all of their regions the supreme law\nis tranquility and order. Also during the present era of war these\nGerman people still feel\u2014after all that is typically German\u2014the\ninherent obligation of maintaining order in their country and of somehow\nprotecting the local population.\n\n (REICH MARSHAL: They do not see Germany, but Seyss-Inquart sees\n Holland only.)\n\nThat is the greatest difficulty which we face, and in spite of the\nobduracy which is there I am of the opinion that we really have more\nfriends in these countries than we imagine. I shall place my reports at\nyour disposal, among them a detailed report of a Flemish man, an\neconomist who lives with his wife in Weimar, works there, and who at the\nsame time looks after the Flemish people in my district. The matter is\nas follows: Our highest political authorities in these countries\ncultivate to some extent social contacts with the local high society;\nthus in Belgium, bluntly stated, with elite circles, the high financial\ncircles, and leaders of industry. They show to the German commanders in\nchief a certain demeanor of courteousness and of conventionality and\nthereby satisfy our gentlemen to a great extent. Under this mask,\nhowever, they permit their nearest subordinate organizations to\npersecute and harass everybody who is in any way friendly to Germany.\nUnwillingly and without being suspected by our gentlemen [Herren] we\nhave in this manner placed the Germans who were there under pressure.\nThey all have become fearful, and they bar their minds against Germany,\nand those who really did something for Germany resign.\n\n * * * * *\n\nREICH MARSHAL: * * * Our method of procedure in the expansion of the\nlarge air fields, Sauckel, would then be that, we try, first of all, to\nget a hold of the available labor in the vicinity of the harbors in\nFrance, Belgium, and Holland which so far has not been recruited in any\nmanner by Speer or by the Luftwaffe, or by you\u2014just as the Russians do,\nand as the British now also are doing in Southern Italy and Sicily.\nThere is a scarcity of water there and he who loafs is not permitted to\ncome near the water tap. They are very strict on this point. Now, in the\nfifth year of the war, we too must be just as strict. And over and above\nthis I still need workers who will be fetched from regions farther away\nif those from the immediate vicinity are not sufficient. And then come\nspecialists, whom Speer makes available from his organization, the\nengine operators and so forth. If I am to rearm the Luftwaffe with\neverything that is conceivable now, I do need a considerable reserve\nstock of laborers. Technical workers must be included. This is in\naddition to the number necessary for fulfilling needs arising from\nactual fluctuation and departure of workers. Now that would have to be\nconsidered in detail.\n\nSAUCKEL: May I call attention to the following: That which makes things\nvery difficult for me at the moment is the question of our currency. It\nis a fact that prices in France, and in the entire west, are very much\nout of proportion. If we bring the workers to Germany and, according to\nGerman standards, we pay them just as well as the German workers, that\ndoes not help them at all because their families living in the occupied\nterritories cannot buy anything with the money that the people transfer.\nI should like to ask you, Herr Reich Marshal, to talk with Reich\nMinister Funk and the other competent officials so that under all\ncircumstances and with all possible means the German mark will preserve\nits purchasing power against the French franc, just as it was done on\nthe other side, during the World War.\n\nREICH MARSHAL: All we need to do is to fix the rate of exchange, just as\nwas done at that time with the dollar, i.e., today the German mark\nequals 20 francs, tomorrow 23, then 27, then 40, etc., etc., up to one\nmillion, or one billion. We have had all that. The same holds true for\nthe guilder. One cigarette now costs in Holland 1.50 guilders; formerly\nit cost 10 cents. I merely have to say: 1.50 guilders equal to 10\npfennigs, or one mark equals 15 guilders.\n\nSAUCKEL: That would solve a big problem in the wage question.\n\nREICH MARSHAL: The same is done in Belgium. I shall schedule a\ndiscussion on that with Mr. Funk. With friendly nations it is more\ndifficult; nevertheless, there, too, we have to do it.\n\nSAUCKEL: There is still something I should like to say. If this\nlarge-scale recruiting is carried into effect, even with coercion, it is\nnothing but compliance with laws which were promulgated there by their\nown governments, except that the governments declare they lack the\nexecutive power.\n\nREICH MARSHAL: That is always the excuse; I simply shall give them the\nexecutive power.\n\nWell, let me summarize it once more. We undoubtedly are agreed on the\nfact that what Sauckel brings to us here, and that which to us appears\nas stocking up, has been subject to a natural compromise and actually a\ngreater number of people was necessary, to make up for the losses. If it\nhad been impossible to obtain more labor there would, of necessity, have\nbeen a decrease, merely by reason of the draft, the increased rate of\ndisease during the war, deaths, etc. The decrease in prisoners of war\nshould really be insignificant unless there are modifications; on the\ncontrary, I should like to see that the prisoners of war who had been\nreleased, Norwegians, and so forth, be taken again. Insofar as officers\nare concerned this has been done to a certain extent. It was the\ngreatest nonsense ever committed by us and for which nobody thanks us.\nWe have made prisoners of entire armies and we let them go again. We do\nnot get anything from Norway?\n\nSAUCKEL: No. Even Russians are being taken there, also French\nspecialists.\n\n (REICH MARSHAL: Why?)\n\nThe tasks there are much bigger than the population could cope with.\n\n * * * * *\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NOKW-180\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 155\n\n EXTRACTS FROM STENOGRAPHIC NOTES ON THE CONFERENCE AT\n THE REICH MARSHAL\u2019S ON THURSDAY, 4 NOVEMBER 1943,\n 11 O\u2019CLOCK AT THE JUNKERS PLANT IN DESSAU\n\n * * * * *\n\nTHE REICH MARSHAL: Give the prisoner-of-war camp [Stalag] commander my\ngreetings and tell him I said the Stalag is the biggest racket in\nGermany and merely a camp where get-aways are being organized wholesale.\nThe men do not even have to bother to dig a tunnel, since they can walk\nout freely in broad daylight. The Italians get beaten up when they do\nnot work. * * * It is absolutely useless to take the Italians as\nsoldiers, for they report for duty, it is true, but then they bolt\nagain. We need them here, however, as workers for the 100,000 men\noperation. In the second place, why do we not get the machines? If I\nwant to have them, I just have to occupy a factory by surprise.\n\nMILCH: There are no transportation facilities to make this possible. We\nhave to let certain plants go on working in Italy, such as ball\nbearings, steel castings, and others, and we cannot take the people from\nthere. The same applies to the technical sphere. The people there are\nworking for us. All depends on our policy toward the Italians. I have\nordered that they can be beaten up if they do not work. I have also\ngiven permission that Italians caught sabotaging be sentenced to death.\nIf this measure is not desired by the higher authorities, which seems to\nbe the case, we are powerless; then the Italians in the Reich will not\nbe of any use to us, and they will not do anything down there either.\nNow the Italian has found the way out, he goes into the militia and,\nonce he is over there, he bolts. There is one other way to make him\nwork; if we do not provide the Italian with food and tell him: only\nthose who fight and work for us will get food.\n\n(THE REICH MARSHAL: That is what the Americans do!)\n\nWhy do we not do it? In my opinion we should try to get the machines by\nforce. We can manufacture 1,000 pursuit planes in Italy and the engines\nfor them. The engines will go only through Junkers, the other parts only\nthrough Messerschmitt. I should like to have the 109 and the 605 in\nItaly while they are still working, so that we can modernize our\nfactories. We have the further advantage that the enemy drops his bombs\nnot only on Germany, but also on Italy. We can disperse industry there\nin small valleys and we need not use the big Milan plants. The situation\nthere is rather favorable.\n\nTHE REICH MARSHAL: Above all, this question must be discussed at once\nwith the Fuehrer.\n\n (End of the conference at 11:45 p.m.)\n\n * * * * *\n\nSt\n149-43 III gK [Stamp]\n\n Top Secret\n\nThe Reich Marshal of the Greater German Reich\nAdjutant\u2019s office\nAdj. 2019-43 top secret\n\n[Pencil note] For my files\n\n Berlin W 8 Leipziger Str. #3\n Telephone: 120044\n Headquarters, 12 Nov. 1943\n\n 2 copies, 1st copy\n\n [initialed] Mi 15 Nov.\n\nTo the State Secretary for Aviation and Inspector General of the Air\nForce, Field Marshal Milch.\n\nReich Air Ministry\n\nForwarded herewith for your attention and further handling are the\nuncorrected stenographic notes on the conference at the Reich Marshal\u2019s\n[Office] on 28 October 1943.\n\nInclosure:\n\nNotes on conference No. 116-13\n\nTop Secret\u20144th copy.\n\n [signature] BRAUCHITSCH\n Lieutenant Colonel, GSC and Chief Adjutant\n\n EXTRACTS FROM TESTIMONY OF DEFENSE WITNESS MAX KOENIG[136]\n\n_DIRECT EXAMINATION_\n\nDR. BERGOLD: Will you please give the Court your first name and second\nname?\n\nWITNESS KOENIG: Max Koenig.\n\nQ. When were you born?\n\nA. 19 August 1897.\n\nQ. What was your last position in the war with the Wehrmacht?\n\nA. Lieutenant colonel in the reserve.\n\nQ. And where were you?\n\nA. With the commander of the Luftwaffe in Rechlin in charge of the\ntesting station.\n\nQ. Is it known to you, Witness, whether and what sort of orders, if at\nall, Milch gave with reference to the treatment of so-called terror\npilots?\n\nA. My department was subordinate to the GL, and therefore received\norders from that office concerning the treatment of pilots who had made\nemergency landings, and such orders were to the effect to inform the\nBuergermeister [mayors] and the councillors that the prisoners who had\nmade emergency landings should be sent to Oberursel at once.\n\nQ. Then were these orders given or were they repeated in certain cases?\n\nA. I myself went there in 1942 to that office and I remember very well\nthat the first orders in this respect were given in 1943 and then in\n1944.\n\nQ. Have these orders provided for the taking of prisoners of all pilots\nby the Luftwaffe and taking them to Oberursel?\n\nA. The GL ordered, followed by the threatening of heavy punishment if\nthe orders were not followed, that all pilots who bailed out or made\nemergency landings should be taken at once in the quickest way possible\nto Oberursel.\n\nQ. Did you transmit these orders to the mayors and councillors of your\ndistrict?\n\nA. These orders were passed on by the commander of the testing station\nto the ground organization of the base, passed on to all Buergermeister\nand the city councillors.\n\nQ. Can you confirm that these orders came from Milch?\n\nA. They came from the GL. It was even ordered how we should proceed. As\nfar as I can recall we were ordered, among other things, that the\ncontents of their pockets should be taken away from the pilots and sent\nto Oberursel with an accompanying letter.\n\nQ. Did you know at that time that the Party wanted the pilots to be\ntreated in a different manner?\n\nA. I did not know that for we in Rechlin had hardly any contact with the\nParty.\n\nQ. Therefore, you never corrected orders from the Party? Or would you\nhave done this?\n\nA. No. We were subordinate to the GL, and, therefore, we could only take\norders from that superior office.\n\nQ. Witness, what do you know within your office as to how concentration\ncamp inmates were treated?\n\nA. I should say this: When labor was requested for the building of a\npillbox, we were given a detachment from Oranienburg. These prisoners\nwere housed by the evacuating of our testing station, that means our\nGerman soldiers, in Laerz, and prisoners from the concentration camp at\nOranienburg were moved into the billets of the German soldiers. There\nwere about a thousand of these.\n\nQ. Were the barracks in good condition?\n\nA. They were not barracks in the bad sense of the word. They were the\nbest billets which we had at our disposal in Laerz. They were new\nbuildings and contained, apart from the living rooms, a theater room,\nand a big kitchen with, I believe, four stoves. I know the camp because\nI visited it repeatedly.\n\nQ. Witness, what orders did you receive for treating of those people by\nthe GL?\n\nA. I remember two orders that were to the effect that all those who\nactually worked, whether foreigners or concentration camp inmates,\nshould be treated well in order to save their good health and in order\nto increase their production.\n\nQ. What has been done for that purpose?\n\nA. As far as their health was concerned, under this order, I repeatedly\nsaw to it that I obtained medical supplies from the hospital [Revier] of\nRechlin.\n\nQ. What you call the Revier is the hospital ward?\n\nA. \u201cRevier\u201d is the sickroom which, considering the bigness of the\nagency, is approximately the equivalent to a hospital * * *.\n\nQ. Let us go back to concentration camp inmates. What has been done in\nhealth matters?\n\nA. Near Rechlin, there was an estate called Boek. This estate consisted\nof several thousand acres and apart from potatoes and turnips also\nproduced wheat. On orders from the GL we received from that estate for\nthe commando in Laerz and for the concentration camp and for the foreign\nworkers large quantities of goods produced there.\n\nQ. These concentration camp inmates; were they exploited unfairly?\n\nA. I can say this\u2014I myself was in the hall east from there up to the\nbuilding of the commander, which was about a kilometer and a half. The\nforeign workers and concentration camp inmates lived in smaller and\nbigger groups and worked in such groups, but I could always observe them\nwhen I walked along the lanes. It seemed that when the civilian and\nother employees there were still working, the concentration camp groups\nhad already stopped working because they had to be in their camp at a\ncertain time. The time they needed to march to and fro was part of their\nworking hours.\n\nQ. Were they told to work particularly fast, or particularly heavy?\n\nA. I can say this that I could really judge them because after all I saw\nthem almost daily. Their work was not particularly slow, it wasn\u2019t\nparticularly fast. And one couldn\u2019t say they were driven on.\n\nQ. Were these people happy or did you hear complaints?\n\nA. Should complaints have occurred I would have been the first to hear\nabout them for it would have been my job to hear them, because I headed\nthe particular office for food and treatment which was the liaison\noffice between ourselves and the Stalags. I even listened at times to\noutbursts of joy. And from the liaison office we bought everything,\nbeginning from cigarettes and other small gifts, foodstuffs, etc. This\nwas used both in the camps and foreign workers, and the foreign workers\nwere always running about freely there.\n\nQ. Did your office ask for concentration camp inmates or were they sent\nto you by labor exchange on the basis of assignment of labor?\n\nA. We had to use two ways, we had to use two channels here\u2014one through\nlabor exchanges and the other through the GL who ordered labor for us\nand on the basis of our application with the labor exchanges and the GL,\nthis special commando and attachment came, whether on the basis of our\napplication I really don\u2019t know.\n\nQ. Did you request concentration camp inmates or simply workers?\n\nA. I may say quite frankly here I asked for German workers and I\nexpected they would turn up but as we were under orders to maintain\nsecrecy, neither did I think of foreign workers nor concentration camp\ninmates.\n\n * * * * *\n\n_CROSS-EXAMINATION_\n\nMR. DENNEY: Just what was your job in Rechlin?\n\nA. I was I B or I Bertha\u2014that means an organization, and my job was\nlooking after the army.\n\n * * * * *\n\nQ. Well, in your position having to do with figures you possibly were\nconcerned with labor in Rechlin?\n\nA. From Rechlin we were ordered to build a shelter in Laerz, and to\ncarry this out we had to ask for labor.\n\nQ. Didn\u2019t they consolidate requests for labor and give them to you and\nyou would send them up?\n\nA. Requests were sent on to the labor offices on the one hand, and on\nthe other hand to the GL.\n\nQ. And they were sent by you?\n\nA. They were sent by the commanding officer of the testing station, that\nis, to say, my superior officer.\n\nQ. But you got them up and gave them to him to send them on?\n\nA. I worked on them and passed them on to my commanding officer.\n\nQ. You said that you had concentration camp workers\u2014you also had\nforeign workers didn\u2019t you?\n\nA. There were about 1,000 concentration inmates and a certain number of\nforeign workers\u2014Russians, French, and Italians.\n\nQ. Did you have any prisoners of war?\n\nA. Yes. We had some prisoners of war.\n\nQ. How many people were employed there altogether?\n\nA. In Rechlin, prisoners of war and foreign workers, Germans, altogether\nthere were 4 to 5 thousand.\n\nQ. Well, now we have got 1,000 concentration camp workers. So that\nleaves 3 to 4 thousand. How were those broken down among prisoners of\nwar, foreign workers, and Germans?\n\nA. Prisoners of war, roughly 500. There were about 300 foreigners, and\nthe rest were German civilians and German military personnel.\n\nQ. Now, these concentration camp workers, were they guarded?\n\nA. They were guarded in their own camps and in some cases on trucks were\ntaken to their places of work on the east Boek airstrip.\n\nQ. And the foreigners, were they guarded?\n\nA. I think they were at first a little guarded or, let us say, not at\nall.\n\nQ. How about the prisoners of war?\n\nA. The prisoners of war were under a similar condition as there were not\nvery many guards at our disposal\u2014guards were very few.\n\nQ. You talked about the concentration camp people marching back and\nforth. Were they marching under guard?\n\nA. Yes. They marched under guard.\n\nQ. In the stockade?\n\nA. They were in large camps or huts under stockade and under guard.\n\nQ. Was there barbed wire around it?\n\nA. Yes. There was barbed wire.\n\nQ. And guards walking around?\n\nA. And guards, yes.\n\nA. Armed guards?\n\nA. Yes. They were armed.\n\nQ. Now, you told about passing on these orders about the terror fliers\nto the Buergermeister [mayor]. The order that you spoke of that you got\nfrom the defendant?\n\nA. From the GL.\n\nQ. The GL was Field Marshal Milch?\n\nA. That was Herr Milch.\n\nQ. And you gave those orders on to the Buergermeister about the\nso-called \u201cterror fliers\u201d?\n\nA. The Buergermeister and county councillors.\n\nQ. And then one day you heard about four fliers who had parachuted or\nmade a forced landing\u2014anyway they came down\u2014and you sent your soldiers\nover there and you were told that they were not available?\n\nA. No. The officer came back and said that the police had arrested the\nfour pilots who had made a forced landing, contrary to our order and\ncontrary to the regulations where the telephone number of our airfield\nhad to be passed on to the Buergermeister. The report to the\nBuergermeister had the purpose to inform the airfield as quickly as\npossible so that from there a truck could pick up the pilots.\n\nQ. Which police had taken these four fliers?\n\nA. Unfortunately, I do not know. The officer of the airfield came back\nand reported that the police had fetched them. He didn\u2019t see the police.\nHe merely was informed by the Buergermeister of this.\n\nQ. And then what did you do? Did you call the Buergermeister up?\n\nA. No. We passed this on to the airfield and the airfield reported this\nto the Luftgau. The Luftgau is the next superior office above the\nairfield.\n\nQ. Did they ever get these four fliers back?\n\nA. No.\n\nQ. They never got them back?\n\nA. I do not know where they were taken to.\n\nQ. You were the second man at Rechlin. You know that these orders were\npassed on to the Buergermeister that you received through your immediate\nsuperior from the Generalluftzeugmeister?\n\nA. I was not the second man. I was E commander\u2014commander of that\noffice. I was purely an expert in I B. I was concerned in this because\nColonel Petersen of the SD commando ordered the airfield should make\ninvestigations because of the Milch order to the effect that every pilot\nshould be at once taken to Oberursel.\n\nQ. At any rate, you didn\u2019t do anything about this after you heard it?\n\nA. Oh, yes. The report was immediately sent to the Luftgau that the\npilots had been taken away.\n\nQ. Did you send the report?\n\nA. No. The report had to be sent by the competent office of the ground\norganization\u2014namely, the airfield.\n\nQ. You never made any effort to find out what happened to these four\nAllied fliers?\n\nA. Oh, yes, that was passed on at once and the airfield having received\nit sent it on to the Luftgau and continued to work on this matter. What\nhappened at the end I could not possibly find out because the Luftgau,\nthe next highest office, had to report on it through those channels of\ncommand.\n\nQ. You never tried to find out, did you? Did you ever call up anybody\nover at the Luftgau and ask them what happened to these four fliers?\n\nA. No. I could hardly do that because I belonged to the testing station\nand there was a certain amount of dualism. It was rather like air\nactivity on the one hand and the ground organization on the other.\n\nQ. You knew what the Hitler order was about terror fliers, didn\u2019t you?\n\nA. Yes. I learned about this much, much later after this emergency\nlanding in 1944. I heard about this in 1945 when I was interrogated in\nMunich by the Reich Marshal Special Court.\n\nQ. What nationality were these pilots?\n\nA. I could not say that. I assumed they were Americans, but I could not\nsay that with certainty because we never saw the insignia of the\naircraft nor even the pilots themselves as we did not take them\nprisoners.\n\nQ. Were there any SD units around where you were?\n\nA. In Rechlin itself, no, but my chief, Petersen, and I myself learned\nlater on that we were supervised by the SD service.\n\nQ. You say that in your position you would have heard complaints from\nany of the workers, of whom you had four to five thousand of whom\napproximately two-thousand were made up of concentration camp workers,\nprisoners of war, and foreign workers. You never got a single complaint\nfrom any of those people, is that right?\n\nA. No. I can only confirm that repeatedly the foreign workers gave\nexpressions of their gratitude for having this liaison office, which\nconsisted of a sergeant, and for the additional supplies which they thus\ngot from the Stalag. Strictly speaking, we would have been forbidden to\nenter the concentration camp compound because it was part of\nOranienburg, and Oranienburg was an SS agency.\n\nQ. So you never were inside, were you, in the concentration camp?\n\nA. I went repeatedly there. I myself attended the hospital hours. That\nis to say, I looked at the ill people before they saw the doctor and I\nasked the doctor afterwards if he needed anything, and thereupon I got\nthe medical supplies from the airfield and for that purpose I was able\nto do this because I was supported by the order of the GL.\n\nQ. The Generalluftzeugmeister was able to arrange it so you could go\ninto the camp and look around?\n\nA. On the basis of the order where it was my duty to look after the\npeople that they should be well-treated and well-looked after and,\ntherefore, I was admitted into their compound.\n\nQ. And the compound was under the jurisdiction of the SS who had\njurisdiction over * * *.\n\nA. (Interrupting) Yes. That was under the jurisdiction of the SS.\n\nQ. And they had jurisdiction over all of the concentration camps?\n\nA. I didn\u2019t know that but all I know is that they came from Oranienburg\nand that the regulations concerning that compound came from Oranienburg.\n\nQ. You knew that Himmler was head of the SS?\n\nA. I heard about that in 1945.\n\nQ. In 1945 you found out that Himmler was the Reich Leader SS?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. I have no more questions.\n\nJUDGE MUSMANNO: Witness, you mean you did not know, before 1945, of the\npower Himmler had in the SS?\n\nA. No, your Honor. Particularly in the testing station we did not\ndiscuss that nor did we receive many reports there. The attitude of my\nchief\u2014I may perhaps say here, of the GL himself\u2014it was known what\ntheir attitude was towards the Party. We ourselves were under the\nGauleiter of Mecklenburg who supervised us. Therefore, we went to no\ntrouble to look into other matters.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE TOMS: This testing station was in Germany, wasn\u2019t it?\n\nA. Yes. Rechlin is roughly 120 kilometers northeast of Berlin on the\nMuelef Lake [northwest of Berlin on Lake Mueritz].\n\nQ. And an officer of the German army, 120 kilometers from Berlin, didn\u2019t\nknow who Himmler was until 1945?\n\nA. Of course, I knew that Himmler was a Party member but that Himmler\nhad all the concentration camps under him I really didn\u2019t know until\nvery much later.\n\nQ. But you knew he was head of the SS?\n\nA. I knew that he was an SS commander. I did not know until then that he\nwas the head of the SS.\n\nJUDGE PHILLIPS: How many concentration camp victims did you hear were\nkilled up to 1945, starved to death and killed?\n\nA. I did not know that and I only learned it from press notices which\ncame out in connection with the Nuernberg trials.\n\nQ. How many concentration camp workers were killed in your camp?\n\nA. Nobody was tortured or killed in our camp; not even one man.\n\nQ. Did any of them die a natural death while you were there?\n\nA. Nobody died; I can confirm to the Court that both the health and the\nindividuals\u2019 happiness was such that there was neither case of death nor\ncomplaint.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE TOMS: The name of this concentration camp I must know.\nWhat was it?\n\nA. The camp was near Rechlin and was an agency attached to Oranienburg.\n\nQ. That was Oranienburg you were talking about?\n\nA. It must have been a branch of Oranienburg. Up to my resignation on 31\nJanuary 1945, neither a torture nor a fatality occurred there. I said\nthat before, your Honor, and I should like to repeat it.\n\nQ. Don\u2019t repeat it.\n\nJUDGE MUSMANNO: How many inmates were there in this camp; what was the\npopulation of this camp?\n\nA. The camp was roughly about 1,000 people strong.\n\nQ. And how long were you there?\n\nA. From October 1942 until 31 January 1945.\n\nQ. And you say that in approximately three years\u2019 time there was not one\ndeath in this camp?\n\nA. Your Honor, the camp was not founded in 1942; as far as I can\nremember, it only came at the end of 1943 or early in 1944. I cannot\ngive you the exact figure of the arrivals. I think it must have been at\nthe end of 1943 or the beginning of 1944.\n\nQ. And in all that time there was not one single death in the entire\ncamp?\n\nA. Your Honor, I had not heard of one single case of death. Should one\ncase of death have occurred, it is possible that the SS in Oranienburg\nwould have been told. We ourselves had not heard of one case of death in\nthat camp, but during the day we assigned SS men in various groups.\n\nQ. Do you mean this camp was functioning as a health resort?\n\nA. On that, I can say, your Honor, that after the end of the war, I\nheard that before the end of the war when people left, they left very\nreluctantly, because there they were given food just as much as was\ncorresponding to their performance and, in turn, they were actually able\nto work there.\n\n-----\n\n[134] Generalluftzeugmeister was translated as: Aircraft Master General,\nAir Ordnance Master General, Chief of Supply for the Air Forces, Chief\nof Air Forces Special Supply and Procurement Service, Director of\nSupplies, and Director General of Air Force Equipment.\n\n[135] Word is missing in German original document.\n\n[136] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 17 Feb.\n47, pp. 1189-1204.\n\n\n\n\n B. Medical Experiments\n\n a. Introduction\n\nThe defendant Milch was charged with participation in criminal medical\nexperiments. On this charge he was acquitted. Both the judgment and the\nconcurring opinions deal extensively with this topic; also Volume I of\nthis series, and the first part of the present volume, contains\nconsiderable documentation from Case I (the Medical Case) on the same\nmedical experiments for participation in which the defendant Milch was\nindicted. Hence, only a small portion of the evidence on medical\nexperiments offered in the Milch Case has been included in the present\nvolume. Some of the prosecution documents which were directly related to\nthe defendant Milch have been included here as well as the testimony of\nthe defense witness SS General Wolff. Documents NO-285, NO-289, NO-224,\n343-A-PS, and 343-B-PS, published as part of the Medical Case, were also\nintroduced in the Milch Case. Further defense testimony on this topic\nmay be found by consulting the official record.\n\nThe following defendants in Case I (the Medical Case) testified as\nwitnesses for the defendant Milch: Hans Wolfgang Romberg, Wolfram\nSievers, Hermann Becker-Freyseng, Georg August Weltz, and Rudolf Brandt.\nIn addition, six other defense witnesses testified regarding the medical\nexperiments: Erich Hippke, Walter Neff, Dr. Leo Alexander, Siegfried\nRuff, Karl Wolff, and Gerhard Engel. See list of witnesses for dates and\ntranscript page references on pages 889-90.\n\n b. Evidence\n\n PROSECUTION DOCUMENTS\n\n Doc. No. Pros. Ex. No. Description of Document Page\n NOKW-041 113 Sworn statement by Hermann 626\n Goering, 27 September 1946,\n concerning Milch\u2019s position\n as Inspector General of the\n Luftwaffe.\n\n NO-219 83 Letter from Dr. Rudolf Brandt 626\n to Dr. Rascher, 27 April\n 1942, concerning medical\n experiment report for Himmler\n and Milch.\n\n NO-261 89 Letter from Milch to Dr. 626\n Hippke, 4 June 1942,\n concerning availability of\n low-pressure air chamber for\n experiments.\n\n 1607-B-PS 115 Letter from Dr. Rascher to Dr. 627\n Brandt, 20 July 1942,\n concerning report on\n high-altitude experiments.\n\n 1607-A-PS 115 Letter from Himmler to Milch, 628\n 25 August 1942, concerning\n Dr. Rascher\u2019s report on\n high-altitude experiments.\n\n 1617-PS 111 Letter from Himmler to Milch, 629\n 13 November 1942, concerning\n Rascher\u2019s transfer to the\n Waffen SS.\n\n NO-262 119 Letter from Dr. Hippke to SS 631\n Obergruppenfuehrer Wolff, 6\n March 1943, concerning\n Rascher\u2019s transfer to the\n Waffen SS.\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NOKW-041\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 113\n\n SWORN STATEMENT BY HERMANN GOERING, 27 SEPTEMBER 1946,\n CONCERNING MILCH\u2019S POSITION AS INSPECTOR GENERAL\n OF THE LUFTWAFFE\n\nI, Hermann Goering, swear, depose, and state:\n\nThat I am the former Reich Marshal of the German Reich and the former\nCommander in Chief of the Luftwaffe, that I have personal knowledge of\nall the facts stated here, and that I know these facts because of the\nposition and responsibility which I had in the German Reich.\n\nThat in approximately 1939 the former Field Marshal Erhard Milch was\nappointed Inspector General [Generalinspekteur] of the Luftwaffe and\nthat as such he was directly responsible to me for the performance of\nhis duties.\n\nThat the Inspector General of the Luftwaffe was in charge of all tasks\nand responsibilities, with the exception of those which were concerned\nwith tactical operations (the latter were handled by my Chief of Staff).\nThe supervision of the inspections, as well as the affairs of the health\nand medical inspections, was included in the tasks of the Office of the\nInspector General. Special questions, however, such as the number of\nhospitals to be put at the disposal of the individual air fleets, fell\nwithin the province of my Chief of Staff.\n\nThat Generaloberstabsarzt [Lt. Gen., Medical Service] Dr. Erich Hippke\nwas Chief of the Medical Service [Sanitaetswesen] of the Luftwaffe\nduring the years 1941 till 1944 inclusive; that the Office of the Chief\nof the Medical Service was directly responsible for the execution of all\nmedical research and experiments; that the Office of the Chief of the\nMedical Service, i.e., Hippke\u2019s office, was directly subordinated to the\nInspector General, the former Field Marshal Milch.\n\nI have read the foregoing deposition consisting of two pages, in the\nGerman language, and declare that it is the full truth to the best of my\nknowledge and belief. I have had the opportunity to make changes and\ncorrections in the above statement. I made this declaration voluntarily\nwithout any promise of reward, and I was not subjected to any duress or\nthreat whatsoever. Nuernberg, 27 September 1946.\n\n [Signed] HERMANN GOERING\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-219\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 83\n\nLETTER FROM DR. RUDOLF BRANDT TO DR. RASCHER, 27 APRIL 1942, CONCERNING\n MEDICAL EXPERIMENT REPORT FOR HIMMLER AND MILCH\n\n Top Secret\n\n XI a-59\n\n Fuehrer Headquarters, 27 April 1942\n\n1198/42\nBra-N\n\nTo SS Untersturmfuehrer Dr. Sigmund Rascher\n\nMunich\n\n56 Troger Street\n\nDear Comrade Dr. Rascher:\n\nThe Reich Leader [Himmler] has seen your letter of 16 April 1942. He has\nshown the same interest in this report as in the one you sent recently.\nHe would like you to make up for him an over-all report on the\nexperiments carried out to date, which he would like to present\npersonally to Field Marshal Milch.\n\nKind regards to your wife and yourself,\n\n Heil Hitler!\n Yours\n\n [initialed] R. Br.\n SS Obersturmbannfuehrer\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-261\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 89\n\n LETTER FROM MILCH TO DR. HIPPKE, 4 JUNE 1942, CONCERNING\n AVAILABILITY OF LOW-PRESSURE AIR CHAMBER FOR EXPERIMENTS\n\nThe State Secretary for Aviation and Inspector General of the\nLuftwaffe\n\n Berlin W 8, Leipziger Street 7, 4 June 1942\n Telephone 12 00 47\nDear Herr Hippke!\n\nAccording to the agreement with the Reich Leader SS the low-pressure air\nchamber for experiments in the neighborhood of Munich is still to be\navailable for two further months.\n\nMoreover, Stabsarzt Dr. Rascher is, in addition to his tests in the\nLuftwaffe, to be on duty for the present for the purposes of the Reich\nLeader SS.\n\n Heil Hitler!\n Yours\n\nGeneraloberstabsarzt Professor Dr. Hippke\n\nBerlin-Tempelhof.\n\n Copy\n\nSS Obergruppenfuehrer and General of the Waffen SS Wolff\n\nBerlin SW 11.\n\n Heil Hitler!\n and kind regards,\n Yours,\n [signature] MILCH\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 1607-B-PS\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 115\n\n LETTER FROM DR. RASCHER TO DR. BRANDT, 20 JULY 1942, CONCERNING REPORT\n ON HIGH-ALTITUDE EXPERIMENTS\n\nStabsarzt Dr. Rascher\n\nAhnenerbe RF-SS\n\n Munich, 20 July 1942\n Top Secret\n\nSS Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. R. Brandt\n\nBerlin, RF-SS.\n\nVery esteemed Dr. Brandt,\n\nEnclosed please find a copy of the work of myself and Romberg,\n\u201cExperiments for Rescue from High Altitudes\u201d.\n\nOn 14 July 1942, I was ordered by the Reich Leader SS to send you the\nabove-mentioned report. The Reich Leader wants that report to be\nforwarded to Field Marshal Milch, accompanied by a letter from him,\nasking Milch to receive Romberg and me for a lecture. I believe to have\nunderstood correctly that the Reich Leader thought you would submit to\nhim a letter to that effect for his signature.\n\nI was very glad to hear that the Reich Leader was satisfied with the\nresult of the work at Dachau and with the film, and that he ordered an\nintensive continuation of the work in that field.\n\nI recommended Romberg for the War Merit Cross 2d Class\n[\u201cKriegsverdienstkreuz II. Klasse\u201d] on the request of SS\nObersturmbannfuehrer Sievers. SS Standartenfuehrer Dr. Wuest ordered me\nto notify you hereof.\n\nThe Reich Leader furthermore decided on 14 July 1942 that the prisoner\nSobota and the two prisoners who work in the dissection room in Dachau\nshould be released and transferred to the group \u201cDirlewanger.\u201d The exact\nnames are in possession of SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Sievers. The Reich\nLeader has also issued an order to that effect to Major Suchaneck.\n\nI thank you cordially for everything and remain\n\n Heil Hitler!\n [handwritten] Very faithfully yours,\n [Signed] DR. S. RASCHER\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 1607-A-PS\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 115[137]\n\n LETTER FROM HIMMLER TO MILCH, 25 AUGUST 1942, CONCERNING\n DR. RASCHER\u2019S REPORT ON HIGH-ALTITUDE EXPERIMENTS\n\n Field Headquarters, 25 August 1942\n\nField Marshal Milch\n\n Secret\nDear Milch:\n\nEnclosed please find a report about experiments for rescue from high\naltitudes, which have been carried out by Stabsarzt Dr. S. Rascher and\nDr. med. H. W. Romberg. I saw a film[138] produced by Dr. Rascher.\n\nI consider the results of those experiments as so important for the air\nforce, that I beg you to receive Dr. Rascher and Dr. Romberg\n\nI consider the results of those experiments as so important for the air\nforce, that I beg you to receive Dr. Rascher and Dr. Romberg that, after\nhaving seen the film, you will also refer the matter to the Reich\nMarshal because of its importance.\n\nI would be obliged if you could let me know your opinion in time.\n\n Friendly greetings and\n Heil Hitler!\n H. H. [initials of Himmler]\n 27 August 1942\n [initial illegible]\n\n1 Enclosure\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 1617-PS\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 111\n\n LETTER FROM HIMMLER TO MILCH, 13 NOVEMBER 1942, CONCERNING RASCHER\u2019S\n TRANSFER TO THE WAFFEN SS\n\nThe Reich Leader SS\n\nBerlin, SW 11, 8 Prinz Albrecht Street\n\nField Command Post\n\n 13 November 1942\n Secret\n\nDear Comrade Milch:\n\nYou will recall that through General Wolff I particularly recommended\nfor your consideration the work of a certain SS Fuehrer Dr. Rascher, who\nis a medical officer of the air force reserve [Arzt des\nBeurlaubtenstandes der Luftwaffe].\n\nThese researches which deal with the behavior of the human organism at\ngreat heights, as well as with manifestations caused by prolonged\ncooling of the human body in cold water and similar problems which are\nof vital importance to the air force in particular, can be performed by\nus with particular efficiency because I personally assumed the\nresponsibility for supplying asocial individuals and criminals, who\ndeserve only to die [todeswuerdig], from concentration camps for these\nexperiments.\n\nUnfortunately, you had no time recently when Dr. Rascher wanted to\nreport on the experiments at the Ministry of Aviation. I had put great\nhopes in that report, because I believed that in this way the\ndifficulties, based mainly on religious objections to Dr. Rascher\u2019s\nexperiments\u2014for which I assumed responsibility\u2014could be eliminated.\n\nThe difficulties are still the same now as before. In these Christian\nmedical circles the standpoint is being taken that it goes without\nsaying that a young German aviator should be allowed to risk his life\nbut that the life of a criminal\u2014who is not drafted into military\nservice\u2014is too sacred for this purpose and one should not stain oneself\nwith this guilt; at the same time it is interesting to note that credit\nis taken for the results of the experiments while excluding the\nscientist who performed them.\n\nI personally have inspected the experiments, and have\u2014I can say this\nwithout exaggeration\u2014participated in every phase of this scientific\nwork in a helpful and inspiring manner.\n\nWe two should not get angry about these difficulties. It will take at\nleast another ten years until we can get such narrow-mindedness out of\nour people. But this should not affect the research work which is\nnecessary for our young, splendid soldiers and aviators.\n\nI beg you to release Dr. Rascher, Stabsarzt of the reserve, from the air\nforce and to transfer him to the Waffen SS. I would then assume the sole\nresponsibility for having these experiments made in this field and would\nput the results, of which we in the SS need only a part for the frost\ninjuries in the East, entirely at the disposal of the air force.\nHowever, in this connection I suggest that with the liaison between you\nand Wolff, a \u201cnon-Christian\u201d doctor should be entrusted who ought to be\nnot only a fully qualified scientist but also a man not prone to\nintellectual theft and who could be informed of the results. This doctor\nshould also have good contacts with the administrative authorities so\nthat the results would really obtain a hearing.\n\nI believe that this solution\u2014to transfer Dr. Rascher to the SS, so that\nhe could carry out the experiments under my responsibility and on my\norders\u2014is the best way. The experiments should not be stopped; we owe\nthat to our men. If Dr. Rascher remained with the air force, there would\ncertainly be much annoyance; because then I would have to submit to you\na number of unpleasant details caused by the arrogance and\npresumptousness which Professor Dr. Holzloehner displayed in the Dachau\nmilitary post\u2014which is under my command\u2014during conversations with SS\nStandartenfuehrer Sievers about my person. In order to save both of us\nthis trouble, I suggest again that Dr. Rascher should be transferred to\nthe Waffen SS as quickly as possible.\n\nI would be grateful if you ordered the low-pressure chamber being put at\nour disposal again, together with the differential pumps\n[Stufenaggregatpumpen], as the experiments should be extended to even\ngreater altitudes.\n\n Cordial greetings and\n Heil Hitler!\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-262\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 119\n\n LETTER FROM DR. HIPPKE TO SS OBERGRUPPENFUEHRER WOLFF,\n 6 MARCH 1943, CONCERNING RASCHER\u2019S TRANSFER\n TO THE WAFFEN SS\n\nThe Inspector of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe\n\n Berlin W 8, Leipziger Street 7, 6 March 1943\n\nFile No. 2299-43 secret Inspectorate\n\nDear Obergruppenfuehrer Wolff!\n\nState Secretary Milch has given me your letter of 21 November last\nyear\u2014Diary No. 1426/42 top secret\u2014regarding the release of Stabsarzt\nof the Luftwaffe Dr. Rascher to the Waffen SS.\n\nI am prepared to release Stabsarzt Dr. Rascher from the Luftwaffe, even\nafter the Reich Physician of the SS, SS Gruppenfuehrer Dr. Grawitz\nexplained to me that he was unable to give me a replacement; I shall put\nhim at the disposal of the Waffen SS if Rascher himself desires this\nrelease. I shall ask him about that.\n\nYour conception that I, as the responsible director of all\nmedical-scientific research work, would have been opposed to the\nchilling experiments on human beings and so retarded their development\nis erroneous. I immediately agreed to the experiments, because our own\nprevious experiments on large animals were concluded and supplementary\nwork was necessary. It is also highly improbable that I, who is\nresponsible for the development of all possibilities for rescuing our\nairmen, would not do everything possible to further such work. When\nRascher explained his wishes to me, I agreed with him immediately. The\ndifficulties, Mr. Wolff, lie in an entirely different sphere: it is a\nquestion of vanity on the part of individual scientists, every one of\nwhom _personally_ wants to bring out new research results, and very\noften it is only with great effort that they can be led to work\nunselfishly for the common good. None of them is without guilt in this\nrespect; Rascher is not either.\n\nIf Rascher wants to build up his own research institute within the\nframework of the Waffen SS, I have no objection. All research work\nwithin the field of aviation medicine\u2014that is, altitude\u2014moreover, is\nunder my scientific supervision in my capacity as director of German\naviation medicine. This institute would then be under the supervision of\nthe Reich Physician of the SS, SS Gruppenfuehrer Dr. Grawitz.\n\nMomentarily, however, this work _cannot_ be carried on because its\ncontinuation would require a low-pressure chamber in which not only the\n_altitude_ of the stratosphere, but also the stratospheric _temperature_\ncan be established. But there is no such chamber available in Germany as\nyet; a large chamber is being built in the new Berlin Research Institute\nfor Aviation Medicine, and I hope I shall be able to have it completed\nin the course of this year.\n\nIf Rascher, on the other hand, wishes to conduct other experiments not\nconcerned with altitude and chilling problems, these would not be under\n_my_ supervision (_aviation_ medicine) but under the supervision of the\nMedical Inspector of the Army (_military_ medicine), whom he would have\nto contact.\n\nI am going to talk over all these problems with Rascher in old\ncomradeship, and I shall again notify you.\n\n With respectful compliments and\n Heil Hitler!\n [Signed] HIPPKE\n\n-----\n\n[137] When this document was introduced, Dr. Bergold made the following\nstatement (_Tr. p. 457_): \u201cPlease let me have the photostatic copy of\nthe original, so that I can make a statement.\n\n\u201cI merely wanted to find out on the copy, whether there was any\n\u2018receiving\u2019 mark. Later on, in the course of the introduction of\nevidence, I shall prove that all letters which are not signed with a red\npencil and do not carry the initials \u2018Mi\u2019 were never seen by the\ndefendant Milch but were forwarded directly. This letter does not show\nthe initials \u2018Mi\u2019.\n\n(Stepping forward and showing the Tribunal the document) \u201cMay it please\nthe Tribunal: Milch, whenever he received the letter, added his initials\n\u2018Mi\u2019; at all times, when Milch received a document, he indicated the\nreceipt with a date; he initialed with a date. These letters, which do\nnot show the initials, were received by his office but were not shown to\nhim. At a later date, I can prove this. I just wanted, at this time, to\ncall the Court\u2019s attention to it.\u201d\n\n[138] When this document was read, Presiding Judge Toms asked (_Tr. p.\n458_): \u201cMr. McMahon, do you know whether the film referred to in this\nletter is available?\u201d\n\nMR. MCMAHON: As far as we know, your Honor, it is not available. In\nregard to the one [letter] just referred to, I would like your Honor to\nunderstand that the copies which we have come from the secret files of\nMr. Himmler, therefore, cannot show the initials of Milch, and so, in\nfact, would not show that Milch had seen that. This letter was received\nfrom the files of Himmler and would not have the initials of Milch,\nsaying that he had received this particular letter.\n\n\n\n\n C. Curriculum Vitae and Excerpts from the Testimony\n of the Defendant Milch\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NOKW-269\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 59\n\n _A SHORT CURRICULUM VITAE OF FIELD MARSHAL\n ERHARD MILCH_\n\n Date Position Activity\n30.3.92 Date of birth.\n24.2.10 Officer candidate First Foot Artillery Regt.\n18.8.11 Lieutenant Recruit training.\n1.8.14 Lieutenant Adjutant, 2d Bn., Reserve,\n First Foot Artillery Regt.\n2.7.15 Lieutenant Air Force, Reconnaissance\n Observer.\n18.8.15 First Lieutenant Air Force, Reconnaissance\n Observer.\nWinter 16-17 First Lieutenant Air Force, Adjutant of a unit.\n1917 First Lieutenant Chief of the Fifth Air\n Squadron.\n1918 First Lieutenant Detached service, commander of\n an Inf. Company; Detached\n service, commander of a\n Field Artillery Battery.\n18.8.18 Captain Air Force, commander of 204th\n Air Squadron, commander of\n Sixth Fighter Group.\n1919 Captain Commander of 412th Border\n Guard Squadron.\n1920 Captain Detached service, commander of\n Police Air Squadron.\nEnd of 1920 Captain Resigned from military\n service.\n1921 Lloyd-Ostflug, later Civilian air transport\n Danziger Luftpost company, Operation chief;\n Civilian air transport\n company, Manager.\n1922 Junkers-Luftverkehr & Head of Traffic\n Danziger Luftpost Department\u2014Organizer of air\n lines with Switzerland,\n Austria, Hungary, Latvia,\n Lithuania, Poland.\n1923 Junkers-Luftverkehr & Id.\n Danziger Luftpost\n1924 Junkers-Luftverkehr & Head of air expedition to\n Danziger Luftpost South America. Business\n travel to the U.S.A.\n1925 Junkers-Luftverkehr Head of General\n Administration.\nNov. 1925 Deutsche Lufthansa Member of Technical Board.\nSummer 1928 Deutsche Lufthansa Id. and Business Director.\n30.1.33 Id. and Deputy Reich Id. concurrently with\n Commissioner for direction of aviation under\n Aviation supervision of Goering.\nMarch 33 Deutsche Lufthansa and Id. in the Reich Ministry of\n State Secretary Aviation.\nMay 1933 Join NSDAP Party member without\n assignment of tasks for\n Party.\nSept. 1933 Activated as Colonel Party membership suspended.\n1934 Brigadier General Reich Air Ministry and\n Deutsche Lufthansa.\n1935 Major General Reich Air Ministry and\n Deutsche Lufthansa.\n1936 Lieutenant General Reich Air Ministry and\n (Air Force) Deutsche Lufthansa.\n Inspector General of the Air\n Force\n1938 General\n1.9.39 General To operational Air Force.\n11.4.-5.5.40 General Commander of Fifth Air Fleet.\nSince 10.5.40 General Inspector General.\n19.7.40 Field Marshal Inspector General.\nNov. 41 Field Marshal Id. and Chief of Air Force\n Material (Development,\n testing, procurement of Air\n Force material).\nApril 42 Field Marshal Central Planning Board;\n Allocation of raw materials.\nMarch 44 Field Marshal Establishment of \u201cJaegerstab\u201d.\n Raising output of fighter\n craft.\n20.6.44 Field Marshal Resign posts of State\n Secretary and Chief of Air\n Force Material.\nJan. 45 Resign post of Inspector\n General.\nMarch 45 Field Marshal Hitler declines my\n reinstatement.\n4.5.45 Field Marshal Taken into British custody in\n Holstein.\n\n1 November 1946. [Signed] ERHARD MILCH\n\n\n\n\n EXCERPTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT MILCH[139]\n\n[March 11]\n\nErhard Milch, the defendant, took the stand and testified as follows:\n\nJUDGE MUSMANNO: The defendant will raise his right hand and repeat after\nme: I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the\npure truth and will withhold and add nothing.\n\n(The defendant repeated the oath.)\n\nJUDGE MUSMANNO: You may be seated.\n\n_DIRECT EXAMINATION_\n\nDR. BERGOLD: Witness, I do not have to tell you the same thing I tell\nall the other witnesses; namely, that you should speak slowly and all\nthat. You have heard that several times.\n\nGive your full name.\n\nDEFENDANT MILCH: Erhard Milch.\n\nQ. When and where were you born?\n\nA. On 30 March 1892, in Wilhelmshaven.\n\nQ. Who were your parents?\n\nA. My father was a clerk with the Kriegsmarine [navy], and my mother was\nborn Vetter.\n\nQ. What education did you have?\n\nA. I attended the Gymnasium in Wilhelmshaven, and then from 1905 on I\nwent to the Joachimsthalsche Gymnasium in Berlin.\n\nQ. When did you matriculate?\n\nA. In February 1910.\n\nQ. What did you study then?\n\nA. I didn\u2019t study, but four days later I went to the First Foot\nArtillery Regiment in Koenigsberg in East Prussia, and I joined that\nregiment as a cadet.\n\n * * * * *\n\nQ. Witness, what was your position in the Third Reich in 1933?\n\nA. I was State Secretary at that time; at first, it was not called a\nministry. It was called the Reich Commissar\u2019s Office, because formal\nmeasures for the formation of a ministry had to be considered both with\nthe Reich President as well as the Reichstag. At first, Goering was\nReich Commissar and I was Deputy Reich Commissar for Aviation. I think\nit was in March that the Reich Ministry was formed; and at that moment I\nbecame State Secretary.\n\n * * * * *\n\n[March 12]\n\nQ. * * * Witness, is it correct to say that in your capacity as\nInspector General you had to make trips abroad too, that is, you had to\ntake care of the comradely relationship with the air forces of other\ncountries?\n\nA. * * * Perhaps I can look up some notes to check the dates of my\ntrips. The visits which I made were only, some of them, in my capacity\nas Inspector General. Some of them were made for purely personal\nreasons, relations with people. For instance, the first visit which I\nmade at the request of Van Zeeland, the Belgian Prime Minister, that\nmust have been about 1936. I visited Belgium. The Belgian Ambassador in\nBerlin, Count Kerkhove [Kerchove de Deuterghem], was a personal friend\nof mine. One day he asked me to go to Belgium with him; the Prime\nMinister Van Zeeland would like to see me. I was very astonished at this\nidea and I asked him what the matter was. I then told him that I had to\nhave the permission of my superior officers. I received it. This was an\nentirely private journey. The purpose of the trip, as I realized in\nBelgium, was that Van Zeeland wished to come to terms with Germany, not\nonly formally but full-heartedly. Belgium, since the First World War,\nhad a treaty with France and was under an obligation to come to France\u2019s\naid militarily by agreement with France. Van Zeeland wished to renounce\nthat treaty, and he wished to have similar terms with France as with\nGermany. Belgium was also prepared in economic matters, which was a very\nurgent point for Germany at the time, to make concessions, far-reaching\nconcessions. The visit started with a brief call on the King, who did\nnot refer to the purpose of the visit. This was purely a courtesy call,\nbut this call gave support to my trip. I saw that the Prime Minister\nacted in accordance with his King. The plan as such\u2014although as I\nemphasized several times I am not a politician and it was not my\nintention to interfere in foreign office matters, but here von Neurath\nentirely agreed with my visit. He had not the bureaucratic mind\u2014the\nplan impressed me. Rather, I saw the possibility to create friendly\nrelations between Germany and Belgium, and via Belgium to France, and\nlater on via France to England itself.\n\nI was convinced that the over-privileged policy of balance of power no\nlonger applied since the First World War. The powers in Europe had been\ndislodged too much and joint friendship between France and Britain was\ndefinitely a British interest in that sense.\n\nWhen I returned I reported orally to von Neurath who entirely agreed\nwith that point of view. I also reported to Field Marshal von Blomberg,\nwho, apart from Goering, was my military superior. He took the same\nline. I reported to Hitler and Goering. Both received my report but did\nnot express their own opinion. To my question whether and what I could\ntell the Belgian Ambassador, I was told that would have to be done\nthrough other channels, not through me. My orders had come to an end by\ngiving this report. This was my first visit and it was entirely\nunofficial.\n\nThen I went to Belgium in May 1987. At that time, as a Luftwaffe man, I\nwas officially received by the Commander in Chief of the Belgian Air\nForce, General Duvivier; also by the Minister of War and other\nofficials. That was a very friendly visit which also led to very good\npersonal relations between ourselves and their pilots.\n\nI was particularly interested in Belgium because in the First World War\nGermany had marched through Belgium, had violated Belgian neutrality,\nand had to make up for this now. I believed that the views as expressed\nby Belgium on both occasions were aimed at finally burying the hatchet.\nI assumed that there was a direct connection between my Belgian visit\nand a visit by the French Ambassador Poncet who came to call on me in my\noffice and extended an invitation by the French Government on the\noccasion of the International Exhibition. That visit took place from 4\nto 9 October 1937 in Paris with the full approval of Goering and Hitler.\nThe visit was most impressive since I believe it was the first time\nsince 1867 that a German officer was able to pay an official friendly\nvisit to France. The French told me with the greatest satisfaction that\nthat was the first time the French Company of Honor had presented its\narms since the Prussian Crown Prince had visited Paris in 1867.\n\nThe French made great efforts to make the visit a success and I must say\nthey succeeded all along the line. The main point was joint military\ninspections. Very cordial words were exchanged with the generals of the\nFrench Air Force. I was accompanied by Udet and Count Kerkhove [Kerchove\nde Deuterghem] who also had very good relations with France from other\ntimes. The central point perhaps of the visit and its real purpose\noccurred after a lunch given by Pierre Cot, the Minister of Aviation. On\nmy other side the Foreign Minister was sitting, and also the Minister of\nthe Navy was there. After lunch the three French Ministers, Wilmer, the\nCommander in Chief of the French Air Force, Udet, and myself remained in\na special room and the French Foreign Minister asked me to take home\nwith me some propositions made by his office.\n\nI should add that our German Ambassador in France was also there, also\nin the smaller circle. When I said that I didn\u2019t want to interfere in\nhis business, he himself did not take any notice of it. He said that the\nmost important thing was to report to Hitler on my impressions. He\nhimself could not approach Hitler. The Ambassador was then Count\nWelczeck. I was extremely surprised; I had no idea. I couldn\u2019t imagine\nthat the Head of State should not see his own Ambassador. On that basis\nI said I would only act as a postman, and as such would transmit what I\nwould be told. I would give my very best own will.\n\nThe contents of the conversation were to have a far-reaching agreement\nbetween the two countries, the main purpose being to establish a really\npermanent and lasting peace between the two countries. I was able to\ntake over this assignment with the best conscience in the world. After\nall, I said yesterday what I thought of military events in Europe in the\nlast thousand years. My impression was that the Foreign Minister was\nvery serious in this business, nor did I have any suspicions that this\nmight be a political trap and the Air Minister Cot who was always\ndescribed as communist in Germany, gave me a very good impression\nindeed, and our conversations were very intimate and very frank.\n\nThe French Foreign Minister at that time was called Delbos. The farewell\non the Le Bourget Airfield led to fraternization between all of us, and\nbetween ourselves and five or six of the highest French generals. I must\nnot forget that one of the oldest French generals, General Keller,\nexpressed with tears in his eyes that he was convinced that the thousand\nyears war between France and Germany was now a matter of the past. We\nalso were deeply moved.\n\nOn 9 October I flew from Paris to Berchtesgaden and reported to Hitler\nat once. He ordered me to report to him as soon as I had returned. I may\nperhaps say quite generally I could only see Hitler if Goering gave me\npermission or ordered me to do so, or, of course, if Hitler himself\nordered me to come and see him. I myself could not go and see him as I\nwas merely a subordinate.\n\nIn the presence of Udet I gave a report to Hitler lasting over two hours\non the evening of the 9th of October, when my impression was still very\nfresh. Hitler listened very attentively, asked a number of detailed\nquestions. I could tell him all about the various details which we saw\nand heard, not so much the military ones, but the political details. I\ncould never talk enough about these things. After all, it was a fairly\nlong conversation with the Head of State. I recommended all these things\nvery warmly and I asked him to take this extended hand and he would\nrepresent the greatest glory if he would succeed in coming to a lasting\nagreement with France based on the very far-reaching economic community\nbetween the two countries.\n\nI compared this with the time of the German Customs League prior to 1870\nwhen the German states were linked together only through this Customs\nLeague. I recalled to his memory that both countries, France and\nGermany, had been a unit and a community for centuries at one time, and\nwhat was greatness at that time today merely meant a normal state. I\nwant to express in particular that nobody pleaded that the two countries\nshould be politically linked together but that political collaboration\nwas a necessity.\n\nOn 11 October, two days later, the Italian Ambassador called on me\u2014\n\nQ. Just a minute. I have to ask another question. Is it correct that\nduring this conversation you also offered to go as a special envoy to\nFrance and to complete this task?\n\nA. Oh yes, I told him that Count Welczeck should be called to Hitler in\norder to give a report. Hitler said no, that is not necessary. I then\nsaid that he must have somebody, if he wished to pursue this matter, who\nenjoyed his confidence and also the confidence of the government to\nwhich he was sent. I told him that I was prepared at all times to serve\nunder Welczeck as a special envoy only for that one task. I explained to\nhim that I regarded Welczeck as a man who enjoyed the confidence of the\nFrench Government, and that it would be a pity if Hitler would not see\nthat man more frequently.\n\nQ. Witness, did Hitler take a position on this question or did he keep\nsilent again as he did before?\n\nA. Apart from putting questions to me he didn\u2019t say anything decisive at\nall. After all, I was not a Foreign Office official, and I could hardly\nexpect him to do so. Perhaps later on I can describe what I did as far\nas Neurath is concerned.\n\nQ. But before that I would ask you one more question. In Belgium and in\nFrance were you told why you of all persons were approached by these\nforeign countries and had the confidence of these countries?\n\nA. The Belgians were explicit on that point. When I told Count Welczeck\nthat, after all, the Foreign Office was concerned here; that it would\nnot serve any useful purpose, he replied, \u201cThat will not be read higher\nup. If you are the soldier coming to Hitler, he will listen to you, for,\nafter all, soldiers are your trump cards at the moment. Also we have\nconfidence in you, confidence that you will at least be able to see\nHitler; and he also has the confidence that you personally will do your\nbest in this respect.\u201d\n\nQ. Witness, at that time did others also approach you, other diplomatic\nrepresentatives, and lend you their confidence?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Did you have the confidence of Mr. Messersmith?\n\nA. Oh, yes, Mr. Messersmith; but that was before all this. I think that\nreally took place in 1933, \u201934 or perhaps in \u201935. He visited me three\ntimes. When he was the Consul General of the United States, he had some\ndifficulties with some American subsidiary companies in Germany. One was\nStandard Oil, as far as I recall. I asked him why he wanted to see me\nsince that was not my business. Then he said that he had full confidence\nthat I would look after his interests. He had been told by other\ndiplomatic representatives that I was able to help him.\n\nQ. All right. Now, Witness, we come to the steps you took after your\nreport to Hitler, the steps you took later on. I ask you to tell about\nthat briefly.\n\nA. Perhaps I\u2019ll do that. It was after my visit to England.\n\nQ. Very well, go ahead.\n\nA. On 11 October 1937, the Italian Ambassador came to see me. That was\nProfessor Attolico. He told me that the Italians had got very excited at\nmy Paris visit. It was believed that I had gone to make arrangements\nthere which were in contradiction to German-Italian agreements. I calmed\nhim down at once without giving him too many details; but he asked me to\npay a brief visit to Italy before going to England. We had been asked to\ngo to England on the 17th of October. An air force exhibition in Milan\nwas the occasion; and I was asked to open that exhibition on the 12th of\nMay. That, of course, was headlined by the Italian papers. Attolico came\nand saw me after this and expressed his gratitude. He said that Delbos\nhad put a trap in front of me.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE TOMS: The witness gives the date as the 12th of May. Is\nthat what he meant for the exhibition in Milan?\n\nA. 12 October.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE TOMS: What year?\n\nA. In October 1937. I went to Italy and then to England. The visit had\nbeen arranged by the Royal Air Force as a reply to the visit paid to us\nby the Royal Air Force in January 1937. At that time figures were\nexchanged between us on planned armaments, that is to say the figures\nconcerning bombers, fighters, and so forth, by agreement with Goering\nand Hitler. Here again the intention existed to know exactly what the\nother was doing. The other point was the intention to come to terms on\nall these questions.\n\nThe visit to England lasted until 25 October. England had quite a lot to\nshow. The air force was very well organized and had first-rate\npersonnel. The visits were very cordial. Political conversations of an\nofficial nature were not held; but unofficially we spent an evening in a\nclub, in a very small circle of ten people, perhaps less than ten. Lord\nSwinton, who was then Minister of Aviation, took part, as well as the\nleader of the opposition, Mr. Churchill, and Lord [Rt. Hon.] Amery,\nSecretary of State for India, and from the British Air Force, Lord\nTrenchard.\n\nWe had brought General Stumpff and of course General Udet. This was more\nin the nature of a personal contact and political questions were not\ntouched upon. The other hosts had told me before, \u201cToday you meet your\nfirst and second best enemy. Don\u2019t be confused by this; but if there is\nan attack, hit back.\u201d That is what happened; but it was a very jolly\nevening.\n\nBefore we took off again, that is to say on 24 October, Mr. Eden, the\nForeign Secretary, rang me up. He said that he had been busy all the\ntime before, but could I see him now. I said that I should be delighted\nbut that a program had been arranged for us by the RAF to visit an\nairfield tomorrow. I asked that if the program could be changed, would\nhe please contact the RAF. He told me that perhaps that would be a bit\ntoo complicated and asked if perhaps I could see him later on. I could\nbe with him in two hours and thirty minutes since that was how long my\naircraft took from Berlin to London at that time. Unfortunately I never\nsaw Mr. Eden.\n\nI reported about that trip to England on 2 November. The report took\nover two hours. Hitler was much more accessible than when I talked to\nhim about France. I reported particularly my talk with Mr. Churchill and\ndrew his attention to the seriousness which was expressed. Hitler\nimmediately interrupted me. He said, \u201cPlease do not worry at all; never\nin my life will I do anything against Britain. The basis of my whole\npolicy is collaboration with Britain.\u201d These words calmed me\nconsiderably. I immediately explained to him once more that the way to\ncome to terms with England would be by Brussels and Paris, and I\nexplained why.\n\nI saw von Neurath on 11 October on the trip to France; and on 28 October\nI reported to him on my trip to England in great detail. All I could\ntell him at the time was what Hitler had said or had failed to say about\nFrance. Neurath again was very impressed with me for having worked for\nhim in this sense. I was in agreement with him that without any further\ninvitations by him or Hitler I must not take any further steps.\n\nThen on 1 November 1937 I went and saw Field Marshal von Blomberg who at\nthat time was Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, that is to say,\nGoering\u2019s military superior. I reported to him. Blomberg in all things\nentirely agreed with me, as had Neurath. Goering at that time did not\nhave enough time to see me. I asked on several occasions to be allowed\nto report to him on these very important matters; but this did not\nhappen because he simply declined.\n\nQ. Witness, I think we can leave this field now. Will you only explain\nbriefly to the Tribunal whether you received foreign delegations, and of\nwhich nations, and what happened at those occasions?\n\nA. I said before that the British had visited us in January 1937. After\nthat I had perhaps five or six visits from Englishmen. The French paid a\nreturn visit in 1938. On that occasion again we returned the very\ncordial welcome which the French had given to us. We showed the French\nour troops and factories. Yesterday, reference was made by the witness\nVorwald[140] to this, who said that we only showed what the troops had\nat their disposal at the time and what expressly had been permitted to\nbe shown by Goering, after a request had been made by the competent\ndepartment of the General Staff. I know that somebody has alleged that\nHitler at the end of the war said I had shown secret methods to foreign\nvisitors and damaged Germany thereby. That is a slanderous statement. It\nwas alleged that I had shown radar instruments, and at that time we\ndidn\u2019t have any radar at all.\n\n * * * * *\n\nQ. Witness, were you ever Goering\u2019s deputy in this capacity, and how\nlong?\n\nA. Until 1937 I was his deputy, and all offices in the Luftwaffe which\nwere subordinate to him were also subordinate to me. This applied to the\nexecution of orders. From 1937 onwards I was his deputy only in my own\nsector, and this automatically as Chief of the General Staff in his\nfield, which applies also to the Generalluftzeugmeister. In any case it\nwas within my capacity to deputize for Goering in all matters as I was\nthe second senior officer of the Luftwaffe, and this was done only by\nway of rank. But Goering reserved the right to appoint a deputy in\ngeneral, that is, especially always only for the Luftwaffe. This\nauthority he did not confer upon me. Even when he was on leave he kept\nthis right, he retained his command. I agreed with this arrangement\npersonally.\n\n * * * * *\n\nQ. Witness, what was the position at the beginning when you took over\nthe duties of GL? What measures did you take, and what was your aim?\n\nA. I can be brief in this connection, at least in regard to the first\npoint. General Vorwald yesterday spoke at length about it. No useful\ndevelopments for the immediate future were available. No bomber aircraft\nof a new type was in existence, and as to mass production we stood very\npoorly, as I previously described to you. Painstakingly we had\nreorganized on 1 September, and it was only because of the extreme\ndevotion of industry and because of the faithful service rendered by our\nGerman workers and those who helped them that it was possible to, shall\nwe say, bring about a miracle.\n\nThe production figure in bombers was reached once more in the shortest\nof time, in the spring of 1942. There was not a single individual\ninstance where our program as we had set it for ourselves was not\nreached. This was something extraordinary. In the case of fighters,\nthere was a good type of fighter aircraft, or even two; namely, the\nFocke-Wulf and the Messerschmitt, but there were no engines for those\nfighters. We had to use incomplete engines to equip these aircraft, and\non the strength of my experience collected in my capacity as director of\nthe Lufthansa, I had to have tests carried out. My testing department in\nRechlin was excellently staffed, the commander being an excellent pilot\nand technician, and it was due to their devotion that in a few months we\nmanaged to get even these new engines ready although, according to human\nestimate, we could not expect it. It was more through luck than\nintelligence that we got that.\n\nNow that was the situation as I found it. The new organization, of\ncourse, had not been started up, and I had to collect a few new,\nextremely good experts. The men who were working there independently\nwere rather downhearted for a long time. As experts they had lost any\ndoubt in the outcome of the war, and they did not believe that it would\nbe possible once again to start up our armament program.\n\nThe total number of aircraft in production was something in the\nneighborhood of 800. That included trainer aircraft, transports, liaison\naircraft, such as the Storch; it even included towing aircraft which\nwere to be used for parachutists. As far as fighters were concerned,\nproduction of those, when it was removed from under my care, had\nincreased by only about ten percent, although \u201937, \u201938, \u201939, \u201940,\n\u201941\u2014four years\u2014five years\u2014had elapsed. The saddest fact was that\namong those 800 there were only 200 fighter aircraft, although both on\nthe British front and in the East, fighter planes were necessary. The\nRussians had at their disposal a very large number of bombers, and even\nif they were an elderly type, after all, we did have to have fighters to\nkeep them in check, and since the transport extended from the North to\nthe South over 2,000 kilometers, a large number of fighter units had to\nbe used in that campaign. This arm could not be supported with 200\nfighters. We needed more.\n\nThe demand which I found from the General Staff, which of course made\nall demands and had them confirmed by Goering, amounted to a total of\n360 fighters which were to be obtained in 1942. It was said yesterday\nthat immediately I ordered a considerable increase. Several figures have\nbeen mentioned by various witnesses. Actually, these increases were not\ndecided upon in one day. To begin with, it was to be doubled and a few\ndays later I said, \u201cLet\u2019s make it 1,000; that\u2019s a round number,\u201d and\nlater, in fact, there were 3,000 and later even we planned 5,000. We\nknew at about that time just what we had to expect from our enemies. We\nknew the types they had.\n\nAmerica, in the initial period, still published their production figures\ncorrectly subdivided according to types, and we also had an excellent\nintelligence, and from analyzing aircraft that had been shot down and\nfrom the numbers which were coded, and which could be deciphered by an\nexpert right away, we could discover right to the very last number what\nthey had produced. That was production that had been actually carried\nout, and the figures found in the United States were not fictitious.\nIndustry, although with a certain amount of reticence and difficulty,\nbut certainly afterwards quite clearly fulfilled these figures. I still\nknow exactly that the plan ran to about 8,000 aircraft, and was\nachieved, and that figure included four-engine bombers. Production under\nBritain\u2019s rearmament, too, was learned in detail, and I remember at the\ntime Great Britain was either already producing 800 four-engine bombers\na month or was just about to produce that number.\n\nYou could calculate from that the number, the quantity of bombs which\ncould be brought to Germany, and regarding the function and size of the\nbombs, of course we knew about that too. This was, of course, the reason\nthat previously as Inspector General I demanded that the entire force\nshould be built to defend our home country, this being the fundamental\nprinciple of warfare, since without armaments and life at home, battles\nat the front were unthinkable. I shall later have to come to this\nquestion in more detail because I am probably the man who remembers this\nmost accurately, and as long as I am still about I would like to state\nthis clearly once again, because this is one of the most important\nquestions which probably existed in every war. This was the biggest\nstruggle that went on, and as I look back on it today I am surprised\nthat I did not despair over that struggle myself.\n\nQ. Witness, those measures which you planned, were they dictated by the\nthought that with the campaign against Russia the situation of Germany\nwould become desperate?\n\nA. As I said earlier, the war on two fronts was the stab in the back of\nthis war as far as I was concerned, that I thought excluded victory once\nand for all, and the only remaining question now was just how badly\nfleeced we might escape from this whole affair. It was no longer\npossible in my opinion to end this war by force of arms. It was only\npossible by means of arms to attain a somewhat satisfactory final\nposition on the strength of which political and diplomatic steps would\nhave to take place. In order to achieve such a final position it was\nnecessary in the first place that Germany should be protected against\ndestruction, because once the war potential was destroyed it was\nimmaterial whether the fronts collapsed a little earlier or a little\nlater. They could not be held any longer. This thought, unfortunately,\nwas not understood by our leaders, or rather they did not agree with it\nand turned it down and just did not come to it. The end did not come\nuntil there was hardly one stone left intact.\n\nQ. Witness, in this connection I should like to ask you to show the\ncorrectness of your present report and to prove that from the very start\nyou had these thoughts, and to submit to the Tribunal the remark you had\nmade in your diary when the Russian campaign started.\n\nA. I wrote in it, \u201cThe attack against Russia: the first day 1,800\naircraft destroyed, mostly on the ground. The Russians left them there.\nThey didn\u2019t expect that we would attack. They overestimated our\nintelligence.\u201d\n\nQ. What did you want to say by these words, \u201cThey overestimated our\nintelligence?\u201d\n\nA. Well, the Russians might have thought that no opponent would be so\nfoolish and so stupid to attack them now and create a war on two fronts.\n\n * * * * *\n\n[March 13]\n\nQ. Witness, do you know at what point the Central Planning Board was\nordered and how did the creation of this institute come about?\n\nA. Its creation must have taken place during the last days of March\n1942. It originated from a discussion which Speer had with Hitler in the\nlatter\u2019s headquarters. At the time when Speer had taken over armament\nthere was no higher authority which was acting according to clear-cut\npoints of view when distributing raw material. Until then we had been\nreceiving raw material through a certain department of the OKW. This\ndepartment in turn had been getting it from the Four Year Plan. The OKW\nwas distributing to the army, navy and air force but this department had\nno expert knowledge. Consequently the continuity of armament suffered\nunder this. Speer quickly recognized the state of affairs and without my\nhaving previous knowledge of it he tackled this question when talking to\nHitler. As a result Hitler appointed Speer as the central planner for\nthis subject. Subsequently Speer made the request that I should take on\nthis task together with him, since Speer had been in the armament\nbusiness rather briefly and since he said I would be able to help\nhim\u2014at least this was the way Speer discussed the matter with me\nshortly afterwards; I, myself, hadn\u2019t been at that conference. Following\nthis, on 2 April 1942, Speer and I together went to see Goering since\nSpeer considered that this task, which, after all, was connected with\nthe Four Year Plan, should be discussed with Goering. Goering expressed\nagreement but he demanded that a representative of State Secretary\nKoerner, who was in official contact with the Four Year Plan should\nenter the Central Planning Board. I know that Speer said at this point:\n\u201cIt seems to me three are rather too many for this job\u201d, and I said\n\u201cWell, I am only too willing to drop out. I have enough work as it is,\u201d\nand Speer interfered and said that was out of the question. Goering\nsaid: \u201cNo, it is my view that there can be three.\u201d That is how the\ncomposition of the Central Planning Board was realized. I can anticipate\nat this point that very much later Minister Funk joined the Central\nPlanning Board as a force which was done at the instance when the\nso-called \u201cWar Production\u201d\u2014and in this case we are not talking about\nthe armament business but civilian requirements and the like\u2014was\ntransferred from Funk\u2019s Ministry to Speer\u2019s Ministry.\n\nQ. Witness, did you, within the framework of the Central Planning Board\nbecome the armed forces\u2019 or air forces\u2019 representative?\n\nA. No, right at the very beginning that had been decided upon by Hitler\nthat, namely, that in no way was I to look after my own interest there,\nthat is to say, the interest of the air force, that I should be above\nthe Party. Later on there were demands from the navy, which had not\nknown about this arrangement. They, too, wanted to have a representative\nin the Central Planning Board. * * *\n\nQ. Witness, what were the actual tasks of this Central Planning Board?\n\nA. The tasks had been communicated to me by Speer and had been confirmed\nthrough Goering. There was only distribution of raw materials to all\nholders of priority permits.\n\nQ. Witness, what is what you call the \u201cholder of a priority\u201d?\n\nA. Well, the armed forces are such priority holders, and within the\narmed forces the navy, army, and air force are holders of these\npriorities. The coal industry holds these priorities; the steel\nindustry; the textile industry; the German cities and municipalities,\nfor their municipal requirements; the power supplying industry.\n\nQ. What about agriculture?\n\nA. Most certainly agriculture, for agricultural machinery requires\nsteel, requires coal, requires all sorts of things. Altogether, the\nforms according to which we used to distribute, and which contained the\nword \u201carmament\u201d on the left, contained on the right all the civilian\npurchasers, all the buyers. There were approximately 40 to 45 civilian\nholders of these priorities.\n\nQ. But then what did the Central Planning Board have to do with the Four\nYear Plan, to which there seemed to be some sort of formal connection\nthrough Speer?\n\nA. The Central Planning Board as such had nothing to do with the Four\nYear Plan; only Speer, in his capacity as Armament Minister.\n\nQ. Did you ever report to Goering about the Central Planning Board?\n\nA. No, with the exception of that first meeting on 2 April 1942, when\nthe matter was reported to him. Apart from that meeting, I have never\ntalked to him or with him about the Central Planning Board. * * *\n\n * * * * *\n\nQ. From whom did the Central Planning Board have instructions?\n\nA. Directly from Hitler.\n\nQ. Through which channels were they given?\n\nA. Speer was with Hitler practically every week, for the reason of army\nsupplies, or other questions, sometimes staying with Hitler for several\ndays. On such occasions Hitler would mention his most important\nproblems. For instance, he would mention the sequence of priorities of\nthe various armament branches, which I explained to you yesterday. Quite\nautomatically, through this, the approximate priority ratings were laid\ndown. However, within the individual spheres, because of the events of\nthe war, there were current changes: At one moment one type of tank, and\nthen at another moment, another type of tank; or first one type of gun,\nand then another type of gun, would be more important. That, of course,\nnecessitated considerable rapid changes in the allotment of raw\nmaterials. That was the case, and to an even stronger degree, in the\ncase of munitions, so that currently, probably during every such\nconference which took place in his office, Hitler used to express\nspecial wishes, which of course meant orders for us.\n\nI personally took part in such conferences on nine occasions.\nOccasionally Speer would take me along to have me appear on the stage\nthere, as he would put it. However, that ceased almost completely during\nthe last years. Anyway, I know for certain, according to my documents,\nthat I was there nine times.\n\nLet me add at this point that State Secretary Koerner[141] was never\nthere. Speer did not think that it was necessary for him to be taken\nalong, and Koerner would not impose his presence either.\n\nQ. So that during such a meeting for the receiving of orders of the\nCentral Planning Board, Koerner was never there?\n\nA. No, he was not there, and he did not know about it either. He didn\u2019t\nknow, therefore, how strongly Hitler interfered in this sphere by giving\norders.\n\nQ. But didn\u2019t you always report to him, either you or Speer, in the case\nof the meetings of Central Planning Board?\n\nA. It might have come as an aside during the meetings; one of us might\nhave said, usually Speer, \u201cHitler has given this or that order,\u201d but\nthat wasn\u2019t anything very noticeable to Koerner.\n\nQ. Was it only because of the Central Planning Board that Speer went to\nsee Hitler?\n\nA. No, that was one very small portion of all the other discussions,\nbecause Hitler was interested, to an extraordinary degree, in army\narmament, and even right down to the most minute detail. He himself\ndecided, on his own initiative, the thickness of armor on armored\nfighting vehicles; he decided upon the caliber and type of gun which\nshould be fitted to tanks; he decided the thickness and the caliber of\nantitank defensive armor; he himself laid down, personally, the supply\nrate of ammunition for every type of gun. I had an awful lot of\ndifficulty with him over antiaircraft ammunition in that connection,\nsince Hitler would never depart during that time, from anything which he\nhad once laid down. He had changed a great deal from his prewar days.\n\n * * * * *\n\nQ. Witness, it is your opinion that even this first record of the\nCentral Planning Board meeting is inexact and does not correspond with\nthe true discussions which took place?\n\nA. May I state quite basically in connection with this that I hardly\never had my deputy with me when I went to the meetings; he had a lot of\nother assignments and their meetings went on for several hours.\nKoerner\u2019s deputy, the representative whom he brought along, always kept\nthe minutes in the sense of observing Koerner\u2019s meaning. Sometimes I did\nread through these brief minutes, and I might say that I pointed out to\nKoerner and Speer that facts always seemed altered considerably, but all\nthree of us used to laugh about it, and with a flick of the wrist we\nused to consider it quite unimportant to have these minutes altered\nafterwards because all of these minutes appeared of no importance\nwhatsoever. What was important were decisions of the Central Planning\nBoard, and they were taken down most exactly, and they contained to my\nknowledge only contingencies of raw materials such as we had\ndistributed. * * *\n\nQ. Witness, on this occasion we might touch upon the value or lack of\nvalue of the so-called verbatim minutes, now that we have come to this\nsubject, don\u2019t you think? These verbatim minutes, which are very\ncomprehensive, very voluminous, even with reference to one meeting,\nthere was a whole volume it seems. Were they examined?\n\nA. No. That wasn\u2019t possible. I might have examined one or the other\nminutes at the beginning, and I did on one occasion try to make\nimprovements, but I found that it contained so many mistakes that the\ntime of reading and improving them would have amounted to fifty percent\nmore time than the actual meeting. These meetings often went on for four\nor more hours or so, and I really did not have the time to sit down for\nsomething like six hours afterwards in order to put the minutes right. I\nknow that there wasn\u2019t any one who read through them, and I didn\u2019t\nreally know why these records, these verbatim records, were prepared. I\nthought perhaps it was a question of supervision for us, and I had no\ncause to state that I would not allow myself to be supervised. If you\nwent to the pains of having one stenographer who would do nothing but\nwrite, but who was stumped by the fact that we sometimes spoke too\nquickly or not too clearly; a stenographer who often sat far away from\nthe man who was speaking, or who didn\u2019t know the name of the man who was\nspeaking, there was bound to be a lot of muddle in that respect. He\ndidn\u2019t know whether the man who was sitting on the left was talking or\nhis neighbor on the right, and one mistake after another occurred. I\ngave it up pretty quickly after looking through these minutes. I once\nasked the others whether they read through the minutes and they just\nlaughed at me, and said that they had more and better jobs on hand, and\nI said so had I.\n\nQ. Witness, you have just said that these stenographers who sat on the\nside could quite often not even distinguish between the speaker, whether\nit was he or his neighbor. What was the custom; did you remain seated\nwhile you were speaking, or did one always rise?\n\nA. No, no, we all stayed seated; we all remained seated and the\nstenographer couldn\u2019t always see who was speaking because on certain\noccasions a lot of people were there. If you invited one man to a\nmeeting in Germany, then possibly he always brought his entire staff\nalong so that he could answer all the questions; and if you invited one,\nsometimes fifteen or twenty showed up. I sometimes asked whether these\nmen didn\u2019t have anything else to do because we were not really concerned\nwith details, only with the basic, larger points, and they used to say,\nwell, everybody is invited.\n\nQ. Witness, did it happen that specific orders were given to\nstenographers to alter certain points or omit them? So that apart from\naccidental mistakes, deliberate mistakes were being made?\n\nA. I have recollections of many occasions that Speer, who used to sit\nnext to me, would shout to the stenographer across the room and say,\n\u201cLeave that out, what the Field Marshal just said.\u201d Unfortunately,\nnotorious before this Tribunal are the expressions and words I used,\nwhich were not always too carefully chosen. I have always said during my\nentire life what came to my mind at the moment, and I, as a soldier, was\nnever taught to hide my opinion. But sometimes, in order to refreshen\nsometimes boring meetings, I used rather forceful language to shake up\nthe others a bit so that they would at last come out with their true\nopinions, because many of the people were only there as experts on\nindividual points. Quite often ministers were there; even in Germany a\nminister and a field marshal have a fairly high-ranking position; and\nthe German is rather more inclined to speak too much than too little.\nNow, if they found that I too would use strong expressions on one\noccasion, or another, then they would loosen up a bit and they would\nstart talking, since they felt that I had let go too. I was keen to have\nclarity, and that the cat wouldn\u2019t always run around the hot porridge,\nbecause, after all, we had to know the truth and the real background.\n\nSince Speer was much more cautious and much more courteous, never having\nbeen a soldier, I could allow myself the exhibition of freedom, and\nunfortunately I did.\n\nQ. Yes, unfortunately. So that statements of that kind of yours were\neither stricken or they were altered?\n\nA. That warning of Speer\u2019s only came into force if I stated my criticism\nof the higher leaders too severely. If, for instance, somewhere Hitler\nhad given assignments or orders which, to my view, were wrong, or even\nas to orders coming from Goering or other people, the Minister of the\nInterior or the Minister of the Police or some other person, then I even\nhere would state my frank criticism amongst these people. Usually I\ndidn\u2019t have any other possibility to state my deviating opinion, and I\nhad the inner urge to say it out aloud. Speer, in my interest, would\nhave it struck out, and he told me a few times afterward, \u201cFor heaven\u2019s\nsake, do be careful. They will hang you one day.\u201d But of course he meant\nby the German side. Sometimes when I myself became aware of the fact\nthat in my criticism of these high-ranking gentlemen I had gone too far,\nI would say to the stenographer, \u201cLeave that out.\u201d And on one or two or\nthree occasions I said, \u201cChange it. Put someone else in there as having\nbeen referred to,\u201d because I myself discovered\u2014mind you, I wasn\u2019t\nalways aware that I criticized too severely, but since Speer told me so\na few times, I controlled myself a little more\u2014that I had said too much\nand that it was a mistake, and so I intervened myself.\n\n * * * * *\n\nQ. Witness, after our discussion concerning labor questions, in\nconnection with the decree concerning the Central Planning Board, I want\nyou to answer my question now, whether and what powers the Central\nPlanning Board had with reference to the Plenipotentiary General for\nLabor, Sauckel?\n\nA. The Central Planning Board had no power to issue orders to Sauckel.\n\nQ. Who was it that gave Sauckel\u2019s orders?\n\nA. Sauckel\u2019s office had been formed by Hitler\u2019s Decree. However, after\nthat it was taken into the Four Year Plan, so that formally Sauckel was\nunder Goering immediately. However, he received his orders from Hitler\nhimself.\n\nQ. As you said, the Central Planning Board had no powers toward Sauckel?\n\nA. None whatsoever.\n\nQ. However, don\u2019t you know that Speer tried to win influence over\nSauckel? Did that occur in his capacity as a member of the Central\nPlanning Board, or did that occur in his capacity as Armament Minister?\n\nA. It only occurred in his capacity as Armament Minister.\n\n * * * * *\n\nQ. Witness, on this occasion I would like to ask you, what then do you\nknow about these concentration camps during the war?\n\nA. I only knew of two concentration camps, namely, Dachau and\nOranienburg. I visited Dachau personally in 1935; in other words, before\nthe war. That was the only time that I visited a concentration camp,\nexcept for now as a prisoner of war. What there was inside the\nconcentration camps I do not know. In 1935 there were only Germans in\nthere; and I was very much surprised to learn after the collapse of\nGermany that there were also foreigners in the concentration camps. I\ndid not know that. I am quite convinced that none of my collaborators\nknew about these things in the concentration camps. We had been told at\nthe time that in these concentration camps criminals of various\ncategories were being detained. What I saw in 1935 were habitual\ncriminals. I thought it a very good idea that these people be not\nallowed to walk around freely. When we were there these people had to\ntell us their sentences; and there were several barriers full of people,\nand there the average criminal record was twenty to thirty times rape of\nsmall children. Therefore, I, being a father, believed that it was best\nfor these people to be locked up.\n\nHowever, I know that there were political people there; and I saw them,\ntoo. There my opinion differed. But I was told that those people were\nthere on a temporary basis and would only be kept in there for a longer\nperiod of time if they actually committed active sabotage against the\nstate. At Dachau most of the political people who were being detained\nthere as prisoners in 1935 were members of the SA, on account of the\nRoehm Putsch in 1934, and that was the basis and reason for their being\nthere.\n\nI should like to add that I asked to be allowed to visit that\nconcentration camp at the time, together with other officers of my\nbranch, in other words, of the Luftwaffe, because during my meetings and\nconversations with foreigners, I repeatedly heard the statement,\nparticularly from the British, \u201cWe understand your Hitler\u2019s system very\nwell. There was no other way for you to go. However, we do not\nunderstand your concentration camps.\u201d That is why I decided to get some\nsort of a picture for myself by seeing the camp. It took a little while,\nbut finally I got the permission to visit the concentration camp. That\nat the time was my only contact with the question.\n\nQ. What was your impression of the camp? Was it clean?\n\nA. In 1935, well, yes, at that time it looked very well. There were good\nbarracks, absolutely waterproof, with two cots, one above the other. Our\nbarracks always had the same system anyway; and I was the only one to\nget that principle in the Luftwaffe, so that there was quite a\nrevolution among the soldiers in the army. I witnessed one of their\nmeals. There was a good portion of food, meat, vegetables, potatoes,\nquite a lot of soup. The people were thus well-fed. Of course, they had\nto work. The work they did was not an easy task. Cleanness was\nnoticeable. The beds had sheets with a special design on them. The\nentertainment of the people was taken care of. There was recreation.\nThey had a special room where they could hold speeches. They had\nfacilities for writing and reading. There was an excellent library there\nwhich even according to its size and contents was very interesting. I\nlooked through the index one time. The man in charge of the library was\na Gruppenfuehrer of the SA and also a concentration camp inmate. I saw\nthe bakery, saw the butcher shop.\n\nAt that time I am sure that there were no cruelties and no inhumane\nequipment of any kind. Of course, I could not speak to these same\nindividuals and ask them how they like it in there. We were allowed to\ntalk to these people; but each of them was allowed only to say what his\nsentence was.\n\nQ. Did you see what kind of work these inmates had to do?\n\nA. That was very hard. They worked on their own equipment, I believe,\nnot only for the camp but for all sorts of purposes and for the SS. In\nother words, they made furniture for themselves and for the Waffen SS\nfor instance, cupboards, chairs, stools, tables. They also had a\nlocksmith shop there. As far as I know they did work outside the camp as\nwell.\n\nI believe there were special commands for cutting down trees; there were\nspecial commands for splitting stones. However, I cannot go into detail\nbecause I inserted this visit into one day\u2014it was in the afternoon\nafter I had an inspection of the troops in Munich, which inspection I\nfinished about 9:30 in the morning, and at four o\u2019clock in the afternoon\nI had another inspection to carry out of the Luftwaffe, and in between I\nsaw the camp. I myself ate or tasted the food which the German inmates\nhad, and I thought it was very tasty, good, and sufficient.\n\nQ. Witness, at a time following that, did you ever hear, even if only\nrumors, that inhumane acts were being committed in the concentration\ncamps?\n\nA. I cannot remember that anything had been mentioned in that\nconnection\u2014anything that had anything to do with the truth or that\nseemed like the truth. I can confirm the fact that there were quite a\nfew rumors during the war. However, all our efforts to find where these\nrumors originated were not successful. We were not able to find out\nanything at all. I had very few connections with the SS itself.\n\nQ. I shall come back to the SS later on. Now, Witness, as witnesses have\nsaid, you yourself saw to it that persons in concentration camps were\nfreed, or were not committed to the concentration camps. Can one not\ndraw the conclusion from that that you were of the opinion that it was\nnot very good in the concentration camps; that bad things were happening\nthere, because in general one who has committed a criminal offense is\nnot protected from imprisonment?\n\nA. At the beginning I was quite convinced that these concentration camps\nwere just a temporary measure. I knew from the press that they had done\nthe same thing in Italy under the Mussolini regime, and that then, after\na few years, these institutions had been dissolved\u2014at least that\u2019s what\nI heard at the time\u2014and, since many things were being imitated here in\nGermany which Mussolini\u2019s Italy had done, I saw at that concentration\ncamp nothing but such an imitation. That certain abuses would occur\nthere, I could understand, because, after all, the National Socialist\nmovement itself, in its early beginnings, was a revolutionary group.\nEven if it weren\u2019t so, at least that\u2019s what people said. I thought that\nthese things were only the childish diseases of the new regime. However,\nif I ever heard anything, if anything was brought to my own personal\nattention, then I thought it my human duty to help. That the parents of\nanybody who is sent to a concentration camp or something are always\nconvinced of his innocence, can be understood and every one of us today\nknows how unpleasant that is. However, certain other reasons prevailed\nat the time, when a family wrote: that is probably the case with one of\nthe cases which was submitted here in an affidavit. The main reason was\nnot that the man was a Social Democrat leader. No. He was blamed for\nother things, and they had to be cleared up. That is why my help took a\nlittle bit longer here, and I believe that the man was vindicated. The\nreproaches which they made to him, and which came from those greatest\npests whom we had at the time, the informers, had to be refuted by\nbringing counter-evidence.\n\nQ. That\u2019s enough, Witness. Now such people were taken out of the camp by\nyou. Then I\u2019m sure that they came to see you and thanked you for it?\n\nA. No. They didn\u2019t do that and I did not pay too much attention to that.\nI told their parents and their relatives to restrain them from doing\nthat. Maybe they wrote a letter though, sometime, but I did not do it in\norder to get their thanks and appreciation.\n\nQ. Witness, didn\u2019t you ever speak to anybody who had been released from\na concentration camp and who then would have given you more details\nabout the concentration camp?\n\nA. I never spoke with anybody who had been released from a concentration\ncamp\u2014at least, not that I know of. I never spoke with anybody about his\nexperience in a concentration camp. However, during my captivity, I\nheard through other people that no one else ever heard about such things\neither, because these people were not only prohibited from speaking, but\nthey were also so scared that they followed that order to the very\nletter.\n\n * * * * *\n\nQ. Witness, you also visited factories, didn\u2019t you, and you saw eastern\nmale or female workers there, didn\u2019t you?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. What was your opinion about these people. Didn\u2019t they complain to you\nor anything?\n\nA. I regarded it as absolutely natural that whenever I visited a factory\nit was natural for me to talk to these workers, even if, in my official\ncapacity, I had nothing to do with that question. However, as a soldier\nI was accustomed to act in that way. On each occasion I asked them how\nthey were, how the food was; I looked at the people and I saw how they\nwere clad and what kind of an impression they gave, generally speaking,\nwhether they looked healthy, whether they looked satisfied or not. I saw\nRussians, and also Russian prisoners of war. Then I saw Russian female\ncivilian workers, namely, Ukrainians. I saw Frenchmen, namely French\ncivilian workers. There could have been prisoners of war among them, but\nthey were wearing protective overalls over their clothes. There could\nhave been workers from Slovakia, who considered themselves our allies,\nbut they were very, very few. Then there were quite a few Italian\nworkers there, those who had come on a voluntary basis at the time;\nthose so-called \u201cImis\u201d (Italians who revolted against Mussolini and were\nsent as prisoners of war to work in Germany) I did not see.\n\nQ. Did eastern workers, male or female, ever complain to you concerning\ntheir work?\n\nA. No, they did not. On the contrary, the general impression of these\nfemale Ukrainians who worked on the Junker 52\u2019s was a very pleasing one.\nThe girls were singing; they were well fed; they were well dressed; and\nthey answered my questions in a nice, cheerful way. I spent about 20\nminutes with these girls. There were quite a few pretty ones among them,\nand towards the end they flirted with me, and the girls were laughing\nall the time.\n\n * * * * *\n\nQ. Witness, I will now enter into the question of what the Central\nPlanning Board has to do with labor questions at all?\n\nA. The Central Planning Board had considerable difficulties connected\nwith the question of getting raw materials. The acquisition of raw\nmaterials was originally the tasks of the Ministry of Economics and then\nof Speer in the Armament Ministry. On such raw materials depended the\narmament program.\n\nThe pacemaker among all these raw materials for the armament program was\nsteel, but the pacemaker in turn for steel was coal or coke production.\nThat was the biggest bottleneck, since, unfortunately, during the first\nyears of the war the youngest and strongest age groups of miners had\nbeen called up for military service. Hitler had given us the order to\ndevelop a steel production program amounting to 3.2 million tons per\nmonth. This was to be done by Speer, and Speer had succeeded in reaching\nthe figure of 2.6 million tons, but that was the maximum. Hitler\u2019s\narmament program, however, had been based on the figure of 3.2 millions.\nHitler had demanded these armament programs and the experts had\ncalculated the amount of steel they needed for those programs.\n\nWe in the Central Planning Board discussed the possibilities of getting\nup to 3.2 million tons of steel, and Speer being the man for that part\nof the production, ordered the men from the steel manufacturers\u2019 union\nto come and see him in a conference in which all steel problems, through\nthe self-administration of the industry, were dealt with. Speer was in\nagreement with me, this is an aside which I must add, to the effect it\nwas a mistake to direct industry through the state, but that industry\nought to govern itself through committees of their own, coming from\ntheir own ranks, and in this sense of course, these main committees and\nrings which we have talked about must be understood.\n\nThese gentlemen from the Reich Association Iron stated that the\npossibilities existed that 3.2 million tons of steel could be\nmanufactured, subject to certain conditions. In that connection the main\nprerequisite was a very much larger allocation of coke. Apart from that\nthey wanted certain additional matters for their own production, some\nlabor too. I remember the question of smelters which was submitted at\nthe time. I am not an expert, but at that time I did gather that we were\nconcerned with specialists with very considerable ability and knowledge,\nsince otherwise a few handful of men wouldn\u2019t have been brought into our\nconversation. At any rate, the main problem was coal.\n\nSpeer, anyhow, during one of our conferences, sent for the men\nrepresenting the coal industry. Such a Reich Association Coal had\nexisted for some considerable time. These people stated that there was\nenough coal in the mines but that human manpower was lacking to bring it\nup. Speer in his capacity as Armament Minister now asked them to tell\nhim in writing what was needed. Now, these men apparently reported the\nfigures regarding workers they had, and during those conferences with\nthe coal representatives, always, of course with reference to the\nquestion of steel, it was stated that all efforts on the part of the\nArmament Ministry would have to fall down because of the labor shortage.\n\nSpeer, as he told me, mentioned this to Hitler dozens of times. It was\nhere for the first time that various controversies arose between Speer\nand Sauckel.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe first difficulties between Speer as Armament Minister and Sauckel\ncame to Hitler for decision. Speer said, \u201cI\u2019m short of workers\u201d. Sauckel\nsaid, \u201cI have fulfilled all your demands\u201d, and as proof he submitted his\nfigures. Between the figures which Speer had and those which Sauckel\nhad, no comparison was ever possible. They were based on different\nsuppositions. Speer was unable to obtain the basis for the figures which\nwere at Sauckel\u2019s disposal. In their conflict Hitler took the side of\nSauckel. He wished thereby to exercise pressure on Speer to increase\narmament. Speer was unable to do so because he did not have the workers\nwho had to produce coal.\n\nThis struggle went on through the years. At first Speer still hoped that\nSauckel would still bring the workers into his factories until in the\nsummer of 1943 he gave up this hope. In the Central Planning Board this,\nof course, was discussed, and it was also discussed how much steel we\ncould obtain for the next three months and how we could distribute it.\nAlways there was this contrast between the figures\u2014Hitler wishes to\nhave 3.2 million tons of steel; we can only distribute 2.6 millions\nbecause Speer is quite unable to produce more. The consequence was again\nthat Hitler reproached Speer for not producing more steel although\nSauckel had supplied the workers. The Central Planning Board was not\nresponsible for the quantity of raw materials at his disposal. Speer\nasked me to give him my support in this question. I did so quite\nfrequently in the meetings and also when I reported to Goering because\nwe wished to convince Goering that we did not have the workers so that\nGoering would intervene with Hitler in that sense.\n\nBut I was unable to obtain Goering\u2019s support. Goering took Hitler\u2019s\nside, and he said, \u201cThe workers are there\u201d. All that was left now was\nfor Speer in the first line and we ourselves who wished to help him in\nthe second line to attack Sauckel. Sauckel escaped all meetings for a\nlong time. Sometimes he sent a representative, and in some cases he\nhimself appeared, but he and his representative pursued the same policy\nby giving us a lot of figures and alleging they had fulfilled\neverything. Our doubts in these figures increased. Hitler became more\nand more impatient and the reproaches for Speer towards the end of 1943\nbecame insufferable. Whereas Hitler supported Speer until roughly the\nmiddle of 1943 and regarded him as one of the first collaborators, the\nrelations became much more cool later on, and I explain that mainly\nthrough this conflict. I myself had the same annoyance both with Goering\nand with Hitler, who maintained in opposition to me that I had been\ngiven all of the workers.\n\nOur mood wasn\u2019t very nice about this, obviously because although we had\nno personal ambition we did not wish to be blamed for something that we\nwere not responsible for, bad armament, and to have stated that because\nof bad armament the war had been lost. That reproach, of course, we\ncould foresee, and it was obvious that we fought against it with every\nmeans within our disposal. We felt ourselves to be quite innocent in\nthis field, but in order to prove our innocence, we were missing one\nlink in the chain, and that was to show beyond doubt that Sauckel\u2019s\nfigures were untrue. They were not wrong by accident; they were\ndeliberately forged, in our opinion, because Sauckel wished to impress\nHitler with his own efficiency in his ability to fulfill all the demands\nof Hitler in the sphere of labor.\n\nSauckel pursued that policy up to 4 January 1944. Only when there was a\nconference with Hitler on 4 January 1944, of which I was a participant,\ndid he there say for the first time to Hitler, \u201cUp to now I always\nfulfilled all your demands, my Fuehrer. Whether that will still be\npossible with the new demands of four million workers, I can no longer\nguarantee.\u201d\n\nQ. Witness, we will come later to this conference. Now, I ask you to go\nback to answer one question. Did the Central Planning Board have\nauthority to request labor and to distribute it?\n\nA. A clear \u201cno\u201d to both parts of the question. The question of labor was\ndiscussed in the Central Planning Board only in the interest of Speer\nbecause Speer needed help and knew I would always give him my support. *\n* *\n\n* * * I may claim, for example, that throughout my activities, anyway\nshortly after the beginning of the war, that is to say, on 9 November,\nthere were about sixty production managers of factories\u2014no, not\nmanagers but so-called men of trust [Vertrauensmaenner], elected by\nworkers\u2014these men came to me and I found out they wanted to ask me to\nget their rations increased. At that time the whole nutrition was based\nupon lower rations; these people in our high industries were not\nentitled to the supplementary rations for heavy workers, and these\npeople explained to me that now that there was a war, and they were\nforced to work in different factories from peacetime, their housing was\nmuch further away from their places of work, and in the morning and at\nnight they had to travel longer; and, therefore, their food was\ninsufficient. That gave me the idea to apply for a new supplementary\nration and as we became very set in this question, it became possible to\nachieve that supplementary ration which was now for the benefit of all\nworkers. And I have now gotten hold of documentary evidence that\nsupplementary rations were also given to foreign workers; that was a\nsupplementary ration for foreign workers working long hours. As this\ndocumentary evidence shows it is an affidavit actually the food of\nGerman and foreign workers was the same. But I also wanted to say that\nit is quite possible that there are cases where this principle was not\nobserved, but that was against the will of the German Government if it\nhappened.\n\nQ. Witness, that means that neither the labor office nor the Armament\nInspectorate were under your supervision, as the GL.\n\nA. Yes that is quite correct.\n\nQ. But Speer has testified that until the very end you did not renounce\nthe command of the air industry. What could you say to this effect?\n\nA. If Speer should mean that my personnel official, in the way I\ndescribed before, talked with his, Speer\u2019s armament office, once a\nmonth, then it is quite correct; but my officials might have used these\noccasions, and how far he worked with my name on these occasions I do\nnot know. I hope he did so in order to get his point through. I was\nnever present. I never heard how these negotiations went on. Should\nSpeer mean, however, that my work in that field was the same as his in\nhis field, then he makes a mistake, for I did not have that organization\nnor did I have the task. My field was only a very specialized one\ncompared to Speer\u2019s field. * * * I might add perhaps, that Speer did not\nknow my organization; of course we never discussed it. He knew, of\ncourse, that I had a technical office; he knew that I had a planning\noffice, and he also knew that I had an economic department for the\ncontracts of industry. After all, he fought a battle to take the whole\neconomic department into his sphere, and when I said he couldn\u2019t\npossibly do it, he waited until the whole armament industry came under\nhis charge. We two always settled everything in a friendly manner after\nthat up to the last moment. Even if there were a certain amount of\nconflicting interests, which sometimes were quite considerable,\nparticularly between our subordinate officers\u2014there were quite severe\nbattles between those subordinate officers at times\u2014but we always\npoured oil on the troubled waters, Mr. Speer and I.\n\nQ. Witness, but couldn\u2019t it be, that in the sphere of the Central\nPlanning Board in presenting the labor demands of your industry, you\nspoke for your own interests?\n\nA. I cannot recall, and I have read some of the records, but in not one\nof them, there is not one word said that I had any special demands for\nthe Luftwaffe. Apart from the fact that once or twice I remarked that I\nwas equally badly off, that I didn\u2019t get anything, but that doesn\u2019t mean\nthat I was looking after my interests in the GL. If I talked about\nworkers at the Central Planning Board, I did so at Speer\u2019s request, to\ngive him in the armament industry all the support. Speer was\nparticularly pleased when I played the wild man and became a little\nstrong. He once told me, \u201cyou are much better at this than I am; I am\nonly a civilian; I can\u2019t do it as well as you can\u201d. And sometimes he\npepped me up and said \u201cSpeak a little more fiercely, please\u201d, which I\nwas only too delighted to do for him. That was meant to achieve\nsomething which you may wish to ask me about a little later on: How we\ncould get Sauckel to speak clearly. How we could get rid of the\nsuspicion that we through our inefficiency cannot bring German industry\nup to the high level, to the right level.\n\n * * * * *\n\nQ. Witness, during these conferences of the Central Planning Board did\nit happen that the bulk of the workers was discussed, or was it rather a\nquestion of bringing new workers into Germany?\n\nA. No, it was only the labor question as such, only inasmuch as it was\nimportant for the increase of raw materials in accordance with Hitler\u2019s\norder, and indeed always as an attack on Sauckel in order to get him to\ngive us the people or to say he cannot do it. As we knew he could not\nsupply them, our main demand which we wished to achieve was an open\nstatement by Sauckel, \u201cI haven\u2019t got the workers whom you need\u201d.\n\nQ. Witness, but if your air force industry, for instance, either the\nlabor offices or the Armament Inspectorates had made requests to Speer,\nand when your planning office had checked these demands in order to find\nout what was really necessary and what was unnecessary, was it a matter\nof proposing what kind of workers you wanted to have and what kind of\nworkers should be distributed into these different production programs?\nWas it a question of deciding whether you needed German workers or\nrather more foreigners?\n\nA. We did that in one sense, that for certain factories we simply had to\nhave skilled workers, which we asked for, but never did we ask, \u201cGive us\nforeigners; give us prisoners of war\u201d, and so forth. Our wishes were to\nthe effect to have Germans, but it was quite clear to us that there\nweren\u2019t enough German workers to fulfill the demands. Had they been\navailable, one needn\u2019t have used prisoners of war or recruited foreign\nworkers or sent the prisoners of war to work unless they volunteered for\nit.\n\n * * * * *\n\n[March 14]\n\nJUDGE PHILLIPS: The Tribunal understands you to say that Polish\nprisoners of war were changed into civilian workers and that you no\nlonger considered them to be prisoners of war. How were they changed\ninto civilian workers from prisoners of war?\n\nA. Personally I cannot give you many details about this because that\nhappened as early as 1939, and at that time I was not connected with the\narmament question. How it was worked I do not know. All I can imagine is\nthat there was no longer a Polish Government and that the Governor\nGeneral gave the order; whether any Polish office was asked, I don\u2019t\nknow; it is only in the files here that I found something about some\nPolish regional authority. I cannot give you any more clear details.\n\nDR. BERGOLD: May it please the Tribunal, perhaps I can clarify the\nmatter.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE TOMS: Let\u2019s let the witness clarify it. Witness, you are\nan old soldier. You have been a soldier for many years. How do you\ntransfer a prisoner of war into a civilian, by discharging him?\n\nA. Yes, he must be released from being a prisoner of war, and then there\nare various possibilities. One possibility would be\u2014and this was\nresorted to by Germany\u2014to make him a free worker and tell him that \u201cYou\nare being released, but you must do some work. That is the conditions\nwhich we put to you. You are being paid properly, and otherwise you live\nas a free man.\u201d\n\nThere is also another possibility, which was the way chosen by the\nAmericans, by which a prisoner of war is released and then regarded as\nan internee. I think that that procedure is not quite so favorable for\nthe man concerned.\n\nQ. You just transposed them from prisoners of war to civilian prisoners,\nthen?\n\nA. No, they were no longer prisoners. They were properly released, but\nthey signed a document which obliged them to do some work for Germany.\n\nQ. You imprisoned them by a document instead of in a stockade?\n\nA. They were no longer locked up, Sir. The Polish workers\u2014I saw them in\nthe country, for instance\u2014live quite freely.\n\nQ. Could they go where they liked?\n\nA. They could not change their places of work without permission. For\ninstance, if they were allocated to a farmer, they had to stay with that\nfarmer. Only if there were special reasons could they change their place\nof work. Then they were transferred.\n\nQ. That is what you call freeing them?\n\nA. It was not complete freedom, but it was a better status than\npreviously when they were prisoners of war.\n\nQ. What would happen to one of these free workers if he walked away from\nhis place of employment?\n\nA. Sir, that is what I do not know myself. But may I say something else?\nA German worker was not allowed to change his place of work either.\nFreedom for a German was not any bigger than freedom for a Pole, as long\nas the war lasted.\n\nQ. The German went home to his family every night, did he not?\n\nA. These Polish soldiers\u2014I cannot speak comprehensively because I am\nnot particularly well informed here\u2014but those I saw were young people,\nand they lived with the farmer\u2019s family.\n\nQ. Witness, you don\u2019t mean to tell this Tribunal seriously that the\nPolish worker, the former prisoner of war, had the same freedom of\nmovement that the German civilian had?\n\nA. I cannot speak on all fields of life because I do not know. All I do\nknow was that he was under the obligation to remain with his employer,\nbut, as I said before, the German worker had to remain with his\nemployer.\n\nQ. Oh, well, we had that in the United States, for that matter. I still\ndon\u2019t remember your answering my question: What would happen to a Polish\nworker who chose to walk away from his place of employment?\n\nA. I am unable to answer that. I know of no such cases, nor was I told\nabout one.\n\nDR. BERGOLD: May it please the Tribunal, the defendant cannot know,\nbecause he was a soldier, what the Polish worker had to do. Like the\nGerman worker, the Polish worker would have been punished and brought\nbefore a tribunal because he broke his contract, and he would have\nreceived a small punishment. Thousands of German workers have been\npunished for the same reason, and I have defended many a German worker\nfor the same charge. That would have happened\u2014nothing else.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE TOMS: Let me ask you, Dr. Bergold. Did you ever defend a\nPolish worker for walking away from his employment?\n\nDR. BERGOLD: Yes, I did.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE TOMS: I have no inclination to dispute you.\n\nDR. BERGOLD: I defended quite a few foreign workers in wartime, not only\nPoles, but Frenchmen, Belgians, and Dutchmen.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE TOMS: Oh, maybe Belgians, Dutchmen, but Poles\u2014?\n\nDR. BERGOLD: Yes, definitely. I am prepared to make that statement on\noath, Sir.\n\nDEFENDANT MILCH: May I supply an observation of my own on the Polish\nquestion? Shortly before I was taken prisoner, I was in the country in\nSchleswig-Holstein. In that region the only foreigners there were Poles.\nThose Poles on the estate where I was, perhaps 30 or 40 of them, said\nthat they did not wish to return home, that they would ask to be allowed\nto remain on the estate just as did their colleagues in the\nneighborhood. These people were dressed very neatly on Sundays. They\nlooked very clean and healthy. They could not be told from any German in\nthe neighborhood there except for certain racial distinctions. All of\nthem had bicycles. On that bicycle they went on Sundays to the nearest\npub and met their girl friends and danced, and they told me themselves\nthat never before had they been so happy as they were in Germany. That\nwas at a time when the British were 50 kilometers away from their\nvillage.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE TOMS: Perhaps that is why they were so happy.\n\nA. No. They said that they did not want to leave there now. They wished\nto remain.\n\nQ. I think you misunderstood my point. Perhaps their happiness arose\nfrom the fact that the British were only 50 kilometers away.\n\nA. No. I understood what you were trying to say, Sir, but I also talked\nto the German employers there. I was there in a totally private\ncapacity, and I knew these people quite well. They were friends of mine,\nand they told me that they were quite satisfied with their Poles, and\nthey also said that the Poles had done very good work and that the Poles\nhad asked to be allowed to remain after the collapse, because in those\ndays they did not wish to return to Poland and they were quite well\nlooked after here.\n\nMay I ask the Court to believe me that we in Germany were not all of us\nhangmen and people who delighted in other people\u2019s misery. I may say\nhere that I think that the majority of the German people are\ngood-hearted and that they treat other people well and that these people\ndid not know that in some isolated places there were isolated criminals\nwho polluted our good name for a long time to come. The people are\nsuffering from that now, and they will suffer in the future. That is\nwhat depresses all of us the most. Otherwise, one has to take the point\nof view that all Germans are criminals and then it might be justified to\nhang the lot. Then, please start on me.\n\n * * * * *\n\nDR. BERGOLD: Witness, after this question was discussed, you received\ninformation that this employment of foreign workers was admissible.\nCould you tell me now what you knew before, prior to that moment,\nconcerning this question?\n\nA. I know that after the First War, the question of deportation of\nBelgium workers had been examined by a committee of the German\nReichstag. I know that this parliamentary committee examined people like\nHindenburg, Ludendorff, I think also Mackensen and others; and that many\nquestions were discussed, including that of Belgian civilian workers. As\nfar as I can recall, that committee was presided over by a man who had\nbeen given the Nobel Prize, Professor Schuecking; I think that was his\nname. However, I was very interested in it, and closely followed it\nbecause Hindenburg whom I worshipped, was put before a court; and as far\nas I can recall, no sentence was passed upon that score; and nobody was\nreproached that international law had been violated. At that time the\nHague Convention existed and the first Geneva Conference had taken\nplace. I am not very well informed, but I think that was so.\n\n * * * * *\n\nQ. Witness, I shall now come to the 54th meeting, concerning two points\nthere. Witness, during that meeting[142] Sauckel mentioned that only a\nvery small percentage of those sent to Germany came on a voluntary\nbasis. This statement has been mentioned repeatedly in this trial and I\nwant you to say something about that.\n\nA. I might say that I do not remember having heard these words from\nSauckel. It is possible that I was not there at the moment when he said\nthat. However, it is possible that I overheard that remark, because\nduring those long meetings, we had discussions among each other. We were\nalso interested in other questions. During those long meetings there was\nat least one meeting, probably more, during which our concentration was\nnot quite what it should have been. Had I heard it, I would have\nbelieved Sauckel just as little as I believed all the figures he gave\nus, because Sauckel had stated the contrary not long before. I know\nexactly it was not so long before that he had declared how well his\nsystem functioned and how he brought all these laborers on a voluntary\nbasis.\n\n * * * * *\n\nQ. Witness, I shall now leave the meetings of the Central Planning Board\nand come to single questions in that connection. What do you know about\nthe use of British and American prisoners of war?\n\nA. According to my opinion and as far as I know, they went into the\nrespective camps and they were not used for labor. I never saw such a\nprisoner of war any place.\n\nQ. * * * What orders did you have toward the middle of January 1943?\nWhat orders did you receive from Hitler?\n\nA. On 15 January 1943, in the evening I was called up and summoned to go\nto Hitler\u2019s Headquarters the next day for a special mission. As far as I\nknow, I believe that it was General Bodenschatz who called me to the\nFuehrer\u2019s Headquarters. The following morning I reported to Goering, who\nhappened to be in Berlin at that time. Goering knew that the question of\nfood for Stalingrad was involved. Stalingrad had been encircled for\nmonths, and the whole Sixth German Army was in it. On the 16th, in the\nmorning, I flew to Hitler\u2019s Headquarters in East Prussia; and then\nHitler either in the afternoon or in the evening gave me the information\nthat I should proceed to Czechoslovakia immediately by air in order to\nsupervise Stalingrad\u2019s food supplies from there.\n\nQ. Witness, make it a little more brief, please.\n\nA. Yes. I tried to carry out this mission. When I received the mission,\nthe last airfield had been lost. The Russians had taken them. We looked\nfor smaller places which were rather difficult to find there in those\nmountainous areas; and within the next few days we succeeded in carrying\nout a considerable air lift of supplies. However, it was too late. The\nresisting force of the defenders had broken down; the people were\nstarving; they had hardly any vehicles or horses. They could not get the\nfood from the landing places for the planes because they were too weak\nto do so. They could not carry the containers so that the air lift of\nsupplies in the case of Stalingrad could not be kept up after the end of\nJanuary or the beginning of February.\n\nQ. Did you have a serious accident then?\n\nA. Yes. At that moment when I wanted to fly into Stalingrad, before I\nhit the airfield, I was hit by a railroad engine, and I was seriously\ninjured.\n\nQ. Then you went back to Hitler?\n\nA. I carried out the mission first. Then when Stalingrad had fallen, I\nwithdrew and went to see Hitler and told him that I could not complete\nmy mission. He told me, however, that it was not I who had not carried\nout the mission but that it was his fault. He said he gave me the orders\ntoo late; he had wanted to give the orders to me much earlier but had\nbeen talked out of it.\n\nQ. Witness, during that occasion, did you tell Hitler your opinion about\nthe war and the general situation of the war?\n\nA. It was on 4 February when I reported back to Hitler. Hitler on that\nparticular day was very crushed due to the loss of Stalingrad. It was\nnot possible to have a quiet talk with him. He did not receive me at\nfirst, or my chief of staff, namely, General of the Tank Corps Model,\nwho had a corps within that fortress. We both were under the impression\nthat day that we would not be able to speak to him. However, he told me\nin a few words, \u201cNow, go right ahead to your GL task, manufacturing. Now\nwe will have transport planes in the first line, transport planes, and\nmore transport planes.\u201d He was talking about Stalingrad. He thought that\nhad he had more transport planes he would have been able to keep\nStalingrad.\n\nWith respect to Stalingrad, I had a long discussion with him on 5 March.\nThat was the last time I saw him. That was about a month later. I was\nordered to see him because he wanted to give me the mission to build\nhigh-altitude and fast bombers and put them in the first line of\nproduction. Those now were more important than transport planes. I\navailed myself of that opportunity on that day and had prepared myself\nin order to tell him my opinion about the general situation. That\ndiscussion took place in the evening. I had dinner with him alone. That\nwas shortly before 9:00 o\u2019clock; and it lasted until 3:15 a.m. Then in\ncontrast to all other discussions I had with him, I was the one who was\nspeaking all the time.\n\n * * * * *\n\nI told him first of all the truth about Stalingrad; and I told him that\nthe question of leaving an army was a military mistake, when according\nto military and strategical points of view it should have withdrawn,\nsomething which had been suggested both by myself and by the army. It\nwas a mistake; and it did end with the loss of 350,000 men on the German\nside. However, a withdrawal in time would have saved the greatest part\nof these soldiers. I told him that, after all, the Russians were not as\nanxious to attack as that; that in the winter they themselves were in a\ndifficult position for attacking a German army and they would not have\ndared. I told him then that that point was the last turning point in the\nfate of the war. I told him that I had tried to reach him before the\nRussian campaign. However, I had been unable to do so because it had\nbeen forbidden. I said that the time was now five minutes past twelve.\nWe use that expression in Germany when something is completed; when it\nis finished. I told him that by that I meant that the war was lost. I\napologized for not considering his nervous condition. There was no time\nfor that any more. I thought it my duty to tell him my sincere opinion;\nas a field marshal I thought myself entitled to do so.\n\nI knew that he did not want to hear this. However, I wished that he\nwould hear me in spite of that. He could do with me whatever he wanted\nto afterwards. I remembered, however, that he himself before the war had\nused strong words against the bad advisers of Wilhelm II, who out of\ncowardice, had not told him the truth. In no case did I wish to stand\nbefore my own conscience with such a reproach on myself. He told me\nthen, \u201cYes, you can say today whatever you wish to say.\u201d\n\nI told him then that he was no more in a position to attack in the East.\nThat those attacks which had already been developed, he should stop.\nThat he could only defend himself, and I was of the direct opinion that\ninstead of building great fortification works in France and Norway, that\nduring the whole of the spring, summer, and autumn, he should\nconcentrate on fortifying the Dnieper position, which lay about 800\nkilometers behind the Russian front, with all the means at his disposal,\nwith fortifications of concrete, etc., in a great width, between\ntwo-hundred and three-hundred kilometers depth, and in that way there\nwould be strong fortifications and good shelter for soldiers, with good\nequipment and food and ammunition, and that then he should take the\ntroops back to that position for the winter, and that he should give up\nthe whole territory in front of that fortification, out of which he\nwould not get anything at all, neither oil, coal, nor ore. By doing that\nhe would shorten the length of the Russian front, and in such a way that\nthe maintenance of those soldiers on the line would be much easier.\nApart from that he should take more care of the eastern forces, and I am\nquite sure that on the whole eastern front of two-thousand kilometers,\nof about ten million German soldiers, not one million of them were\nfighting and he should take measures to change that. That was the only\npoint he carried out later on, and unfortunately only towards the end of\nNovember of that year and the result was that the fighting infantry\nunits on the whole eastern front amounts to 265,000 men of the army. It\nwas impossible to hold that front with such a small number.\n\nI furthermore suggested to him that a great personnel change should be\nmade, namely, he himself should give up command over the army, that he\nshould place a simple general in that position. As it was, he held\nbefore the German people a responsibility, which he could not bear. He\nwas no soldier in that sense, since he was not trained for that. I\nsuggested to him to dissolve my own branch as an independent Wehrmacht\nunit and to put the Luftwaffe entirely under the Wehrmacht, since there\nwas no strategic air force any longer.\n\nNow what I had to say was special for the army, and this was certainly\nof a personal nature, namely, to remove Reich Marshal Goering from the\nLuftwaffe, and give him a different task. I said also that it was now\nthe opportune moment for the Reich Foreign Minister also to be removed\nfrom his position.\n\nQ. Would you give the name?\n\nA. Von Ribbentrop. I suggested to him that the Field Marshal be put in\ncharge of the units at the front, and I gave as a reason that Keitel was\ntoo lenient in reference to Hitler, and did not know how to get his\nideas across to Hitler; that he should have somebody who would force him\nto observe correct military measures. I told him then that the most\nimportant task in my opinion was the home defense of Germany; the air\nhome defense of Germany, and to consider as having the highest priority;\nand also the fighter production should be placed in the first place, and\narmaments. I showed him the figures of the English, the American and the\nRussian armaments explicitly, and I showed him how these armaments would\nhave their effect over Germany, and also at what point, or at what time\nthis would happen. I reported to him that many false reports were made\nto him, and I gave him an exact instance. I told him that he\noverestimated himself, and his allies, and that he also underestimated\nthe Russians, and the attitude of Stalin personally, and that that had\nled to the Stalingrad collapse, and he should be quite clear as to the\nfacts if the attack was continued in the East; that he could hold the\nDnieper position, and that if he held that position, the air defense\nwould be able to prepare a military preparation for peace if the enemy\nwould see that this crushing of Germany from the air was no longer\npossible and if the Russians would see that they would not be able to\ncross the Dnieper without being crushed; that I am sure with that\npreparedness which should be started at once, we ought to be coming to a\npeace. It might be possible to get away with bearable peace terms if\nthey would act immediately.\n\nThen I also discussed the peace question, and I told him he might make a\nreal peace with France without taking territory, and I was sure that\nFrance would still consider that. The same applied to Belgium, and also\nHolland, as well as Norway. A peace with these countries would then\ninduce the greater powers of the Western countries to be able to\nconclude peace with Germany which would be endurable.\n\nThose were the main points of my opinion. I do not wish to recite\ndetails. He listened to and interrupted me only once, and that was on\nthe question whether he could or could not attack in 1943, and I\nremember exactly that I said to him more than twenty times, \u201cYou cannot\nattack\u201d and first he said in a quiet way, then got more excited and more\nexcited until he was very cross, and knocked on the table, \u201cI must\nattack.\u201d I told him at the end, \u201cI know I am very impolite, I don\u2019t want\nto discuss this question of attacking anymore. But be convinced I shall\nnot change my opinion.\u201d\n\nThen he waited for a short while, and I began to speak of something\nelse, and then suddenly he said, \u201cWhat would you say, Milch, if I would\nonly make a short attack in order to be able to push through the Russian\npreparations before they can start developing.\u201d I answered, \u201cWait a\nminute, it is a defensive measure, because a soldier carries out his\ndefense by attacking in turn,\u201d and he said, \u201cThen we agree on that\npoint.\u201d I said, \u201cNo, I don\u2019t think we do. If you are successful you will\ncontinue. I would say all the troops should go back after forty-eight\nhours that no matter what. Think of Verdun in 1916 when the same mistake\nwas made; when they did not succeed in getting through on a surprise\nattempt, they went doggedly on.\u201d\n\n * * * * *\n\nQ. Witness, what was the development after Stalingrad of your\nrelationship to Hitler and Goering?\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE TOMS: Before you go on, will you ask for the date of\nthis conference of Hitler\u2019s again?\n\nA. It was on 5 March 1943.\n\n * * * * *\n\nOn the question of how my relationship to Hitler and Goering developed\nlater on I have to say the following: It became worse and worse from\ntime to time. It was due to a struggle which I had about the German air\ndefense which contradicted Hitler\u2019s idea of waging war, for this was the\nspecific field of the Luftwaffe and I as Inspector General of the\nLuftwaffe was forced to make suggestions. I did not let this matter\ndrop, and I repeatedly brought it to the front, in contrast with\npolitical proposals or proposals in the field of the army and navy,\nwhich were outside of my field of tasks and which I could not bring to\nanyone\u2019s attention unless Hitler gave me his permission or if he wished\nme to.\n\nQ. With respect to this conference, did you inform him of the fact that\nyou wanted to have Goering gone?\n\nA. Yes. I did. I told Goering about that. I did not want to stab him in\nthe back.\n\nQ. Then, what happened to your relationship with Goering?\n\nA. I do not believe that this single incident had any influence on our\nrelationship, which was bad anyway. Goering was not the kind of a man\nwho would hold it against me. He had a certain understanding of the\ncircumstances. There were other things that he did not like about me.\n\n * * * * *\n\n[March 17]\n\nQ. Witness, the last time you were giving us a description of the\nsuggestions you made with Hitler with regard to achieving a change. What\nwas the impression you had afterwards as to whether he was going to\nfollow your suggestions or not?\n\nA. At that time I first of all hoped that he would somehow react to my\nsuggestion, because in the case of the Stalingrad assignment which had\nbeen given to me although too late, I saw indications that at that time\nhe still had confidence in me, and also in my military ability. During\nthe following weeks and months I waited for something to happen, but\nnothing did. In the spring of 1943, after my conference, new attacks\nwere ordered by him on the eastern front. He was not making an attack\nfor the purposes of defense, he was going to try to reestablish the\nfront along the Volga River. He was also going to try again to advance\ntowards the Caucasus. It was only in November 1943 that he followed one\nof my suggestions, namely, to ascertain how many men were fighting in\nthe East, as I said last Friday, and I need not repeat it. The attack\nwas catastrophic, but in spite of that, no basic changes were made after\nthat. All the other suggestions, political, military, and those\nregarding the personnel, were not followed. Through that I lost my last\nhope, namely, that a final basis favorable to Germany could be\nestablished to bring an end to this war through political means, in\nother words, peace negotiations, which might have had certain prospects\nof success.\n\nQ. Witness, now I shall have to put to you this question. Why, after you\nrecognized that fact did you continue your activity at all. What were\nthe reasons which made you place your service at their disposal at all?\n\nA. The main reason was that I was responsible to my people, and even if\nall the plans failed to materialize, I, nevertheless, still had one last\nhope at least, that a proper air defense could be arranged for Germany\nin order to protect our home country and the people from the worst, and\nthe destruction of their homes and places of culture. That was my main\nreason.\n\nQ. What then are the steps that you took in order to achieve your last\nfinal aim for the German people?\n\nA. After 1941 I had a constant struggle, I would like to say, with\nGoering and with Hitler in order to achieve an air defense which I\nconsidered necessary. My last effort then was the foundation of the\nJaegerstab.\n\n * * * * *\n\nQ. Witness, you have just testified that you had founded the Jaegerstab\nin order gradually to leave your post. Did that further have any other\npurpose, for instance, the removal of existing difficulties outside your\nown department?\n\nA. Yes. Air armament within the entire armament program had very small,\nvery negligible powers. As Hitler especially demanded army and naval\nrearmament, Speer\u2019s Ministry for years had encroached on a large scale\nin all matters which were important for my industry. As a result experts\nand other workers had been simply taken away from us. The armament\ninspectors and district military administrative authorities, both of\nwhom were under Speer, were able to carry this through. It was merely by\naccident that I learned of this in individual cases, when, for instance,\none of the industrialists happened to come to see me. We raised\nobjections but we could not alter the situation, I mentioned this the\nother day. I wanted to use the Jaegerstab in order to transfer part of\nthis responsibility for air armament to Speer and his ministry so that\nsuch encroachment, which was particularly noticeable where materials\nwere concerned, should no longer happen.\n\nThe man who had approximately the same task as my own in Speer\u2019s\nMinistry was Mr. Saur. Saur was a very clever man, very able, very\nenergetic, and since he was always sent to report to Hitler personally,\nhe knew Hitler and his intentions very well, and he knew therefore that\nHitler was not so keen on air armament, and from that he drew the\nconclusion which led to these encroachments into our sphere. I was very\nanxious to have him join the Jaegerstab so that there too he would share\nin the responsibility. There was a struggle about this with Speer until\nit finally came about that Saur joined the Jaegerstab. I did not want to\nfound the Jaegerstab without him, and it turned out that Saur now\ntackled this new task very energetically and he did in fact succeed to\nsome extent in bringing Hitler at least to a standstill. But Hitler\u2019s\nviews and Hitler\u2019s orders he could not change. Apart from that it was\nnecessary, if I wanted to transfer armament work to Speer, for the final\narmament would have to go through Saur\u2019s hands eventually, so it was\nessential that Saur should be included right from the start.\n\nQ. Thank you. Did you give him responsibility to a small or a large\nextent within the Jaegerstab?\n\nA. Let me answer that like this: I gave him as much freedom of action as\npossible, since he was going to take it over later, and it was his\nnature that when any matter was placed in his hands he took it up very\nenergetically, and I was happy to see that he was going ahead so\nvigorously.\n\nQ. Witness, you have made notes about everything you did during the war.\nCan you tell this high Tribunal whether you gradually withdrew from the\nJaegerstab and how many meetings you participated in each month?\n\nA. In March, I participated in 15 meetings\u2014they took place daily\u2014and\ntwo trips. In April, I participated in eight meetings, and one journey.\nIn May, I attended five meetings and took part in two journeys. In June\nI attended two meetings only, and had also two journeys. In July, I\ndidn\u2019t attend any meetings at all, neither did I participate in any\njourney. I took more active interest in the journeys, totaling seven, in\norder to go into the provinces and show that the handing over of my task\nto Saur was taking place with my agreement. These are the figures: March\n15, then eight, then five, then two.\n\nQ. You mean the meetings?\n\nA. Yes; that applies to meetings. In other words, I participated in a\ntotal of 30 meetings.\n\nQ. But there was one more on 1 August 1944, wasn\u2019t there?\n\nA. That was after my retirement. It was a meeting when Speer was in the\nchair, in which the Jaegerstab was now finally discontinuing its work,\nas the tasks of the Jaegerstab were now being incorporated with ordinary\narmament under Speer in the armament staff. It was a purely formal\nmeeting of handing over, and I deliberately took part, so as not to\ncreate the impression that I was leaving reluctantly or that I was angry\nabout anything, for, of course, the exact opposite was the case.\n\n * * * * *\n\nQ. Witness, did the Jaegerstab have anything to do with workers?\n\nA. Do you mean building workers?\n\nQ. I mean generally speaking, for the moment.\n\nA. I see. Well, you have to draw a clear dividing line. There were two\ncompletely different conceptions for us, armament workers and building\nworkers. Armament workers came through the existing channels; in other\nwords, requests were made to Sauckel by the industries, and Sauckel\nfulfilled, or did not fulfill such requests. Information about this\nfirst of all went to Speer\u2019s Ministry through the Armament\nInspectorates, and secondly, there were statistical reports monthly from\nindustry to air force. Building workers, on the other hand, did not\nconcern any of us at all, not even statistically speaking; that is,\ninsofar as the GL was concerned and his representatives on the\nJaegerstab. This was entirely a problem for Todt\u2019s Organization. We knew\nabsolutely nothing about this problem as far as we were concerned.\n\nQ. Witness, did the Jaegerstab include a representative of the GBA, the\nPlenipotentiary General for Labor, Sauckel, on its board?\n\nA. I cannot at this moment recollect that accurately, but I believe not.\nAs far as I know, for these questions there was only a representative\nfrom Speer\u2019s Ministry. That was Mr. Schmelter, who has been a witness in\nthis trial, and who on his part used to hear our requests and take our\nrequests to his ministry to help as far as he could.\n\nQ. In order to help in labor problems did Schmelter have to go to\nSauckel on his part?\n\nA. Yes, quite decidedly. He, on his own initiative, could not distribute\nworkers because he did not have any workers reserves of any kind.\n\n * * * * *\n\nQ. Witness, the construction work which Hitler stated had to be\nconstructed either by Kammler or Dorsch, was that all for the purpose of\nthe Jaegerstab or also for other armament purposes?\n\nA. I know that these constructions were meant for many other purposes\nbecause if these questions were discussed in the Jaegerstab I repeatedly\nheard Saur or some of his representatives saying, \u201cWe wish to change\nthis; we want to use this for making tanks; or here, for instance, we\nwill have V-2 rockets.\u201d That is how it fluctuated. In any case, I know\nthat the subterranean constructions or tunnels were meant for other\narmament purposes.\n\nQ. Witness, did you ever hear about the fact that for the construction\nof the surface concrete factories concentration camp inmates were to be\nused?\n\nA. I heard about that in the Jaegerstab, I believe; and that is how we\ncan explain Kammler\u2019s task.\n\nQ. Witness, in your capacities as GL, as member of the Central Planning\nBoard, or member of the Jaegerstab, what did you have to do with the\nconcentration camp inmates? Did you apply for those?\n\nA. No, we had nothing whatsoever to do with it. But they were\nrequisitioned for industry through channels which I did not know at the\ntime. At that time I knew from a conference that in Oranienburg, at\nHeinkel\u2019s, people were being used from the concentration camps which\nwere near there. I heard one of my men say that the work that was being\ndone over there was good work, I myself did not see these inmates\nworking. However, at that time I was convinced of the fact, through my\nvisit to the concentration camp of Dachau in 1935, that these were, in\nthe main, only German criminals.\n\n * * * * *\n\nQ. Witness, did you hear in connection with labor for concrete\nconstruction work, that Hitler gave orders for the use of one hundred\nthousand Jews, or did the Jaegerstab request this?\n\nA. I am sure that the Jaegerstab did not do that. I cannot say for sure\nif before the collapse I knew anything at all about this matter. I know\nfrom the record that Hitler is said to have had a conference on 4\nJanuary 1944 about this question. However, I know that that conference\nlasted for quite a few days, I believe, from 1 to 4 January. I\nparticipated for a very short time in that conference on 4 January. I do\nnot know, or I cannot recall, if during the time I was there they\ndiscussed that point.\n\nQ. Did you later on find out that Jewish concentration camp inmates were\nused in this construction?\n\nA. I never found out for sure.\n\nQ. However, in the sessions of the Jaegerstab they had discussed that\npoint?\n\nA. I cannot remember anything about it. Many things were discussed there\nevery day, so that it is not quite possible to remember every detail\nthat they discussed.\n\nQ. During those conferences or meetings, the number of which you had\nmentioned, did you always participate in these conferences?\n\nA. No. I was called out very often. I left on my own initiative\nsometimes in order to make certain arrangements in connection with my\nother fields of work; otherwise, I should not have been able to do any\nwork whatsoever in my other spheres. At that time I had the whole set-up\nof General Foerster under my orders, and also the entire training of the\nLuftwaffe; on top of that were the questions of the Inspectorate General\nand his problems.\n\nQ. Witness, I shall come now to your speech of 25 March 1944, which has\nbeen repeatedly mentioned here, Document NOKW-017, Prosecution Exhibit\n54. It is your speech to the chief engineers of the Luftwaffe and the\nchief quartermasters. It says here at one point that for construction a\nfew hundred thousand laborers were being used who had been withdrawn\nfrom other places. By that don\u2019t you mean those 100,000 Jews we just\nmentioned?\n\nA. No. Under no circumstances. At that time workers had been transferred\nfor these purposes from many other constructions which were already\nunder way.\n\nQ. Witness\u2014\n\nA. May I add to that, this: I could not possibly imagine why Jews should\nbe used as construction workers. Therefore, I am sure that it would have\nstruck me if I had heard that, for Jews are not used as carpenters and\nbricklayers. They are mostly people who work in offices, and one could\nhardly expect construction work from them. I don\u2019t believe that I\nmyself, as a man who has never done that kind of work, would be of any\nuse for it.\n\nQ. Witness, explain to us now the purpose of this speech of yours, which\nuses rather strong language.\n\nA. During the severe air raids we had lost many stocks of material,\nmainly of parts. The new output of these parts could not possibly keep\npace with the destruction. There was only one way left, namely, to take\nthese parts from troops\u2019 stocks. The troops had large stocks over which\nthe GL himself had no power of disposal whatsoever. He just gave the\norders for the manufacture of them. The requests of the troops, in my\nopinion, were always too high\u20144.2 billion marks\u2019 worth of parts were\nbeing ordered at that time, that is proof of it. If we wanted to have\nthese planes, which were half ready, in time, it was possible only if\nthe troops would give us some of their parts. Prior to this conference\nmany attempts to that effect had been made, but the Quartermaster\nGeneral, because of the veto of his chief quartermasters and chief\nengineers, had refused my wishes. I was very annoyed about that. Saur\ncame to see me and stressed once more that the completion of the planes\nwas impossible. He thought that in the army that would have been taken\ncare of long ago, but in the Luftwaffe there did not seem to be any\ndefinite power to give orders, and he would take this matter up with the\nhigher authorities. That, for the second time, made me very cross, and\nwhen this conference took place immediately after these things, I spoke\nin very strong terms in order that the Quartermaster General with his\nstaff should give me the parts that were needed. That was the purpose\nand the aim of the whole thing, and contrary to what had happened\nbefore, when they had refused me those parts, the harsh military speech\nI made was crowned with success.\n\nQ. Witness, in this speech there are certain passages which in\nthemselves have nothing to do with those aims you just mentioned. I\nwould like to show you these passages. At one spot you come to the\nquestion concerning labor, and you say that the portion assigned to the\nLuftwaffe in the allocation of labor had been constantly diminished,\nthat the foreigners were running away and not keeping their contracts,\nand that if a foreman reprimanded or beat one of these young laborers\nwho was engaged in sabotage, he, the foreman, got into trouble; and that\nthe international law could not be applied here and that you would see\nto it yourself that the prisoners, with the exception of the Americans\nand British, were removed from the power of the military\norganization\u2014then, if a man committed sabotage, he should be hanged in\nhis own factory or workshop. What does that have to do with this speech\nand these aims that you mentioned?\n\nA. As far as prisoners of war were working with the Luftwaffe itself,\nthe Quartermaster General and the Chief Quartermaster had something to\ndo with it. This was to be a threat to that department, namely, that\ncertain rights would be withdrawn from them. Of course, I could not do\nthat. I don\u2019t believe that Goering would have followed such a suggestion\nof mine either.\n\nI have no excuse whatsoever for these words which I used. I have now had\nthe time to read this passage in peace, and I cannot understand it\nmyself. I can only repeat that I myself was in an impossible position. I\ncould see what was coming, and I could no longer help my people. At that\ntime\u2014I do not wish to say this as an excuse, but just in order to\nexplain\u2014I was still suffering very badly from my accident, and I could\nnot quite get over the concussion, because at that time I could not\npossibly be absent for one minute. I knew that because my doctor was\nworried about me and he tried to help me with all sorts of drugs and\nmedicines.\n\nQ. Witness, a number of witnesses who were here have stated that very\noften you had outbursts of rage. At the time when you made that\nstatement did you have the sincere wish to carry through these measures?\n\nA. No. I can say that with a good conscience. Never, never in my life\ndid I do such a thing, and I believe that he who really knows me knows\nexactly that, on the contrary, I was different. However, at that time I\nsimply had to give vent to my feelings, and I could not use strong words\nto the people I really wanted to use them on. That was not consistent\nwith the discipline you have in an army. I also have to say that\nimmediately after such a discussion I myself no longer knew what I had\nsaid during one of those outbursts of rage. Even today I could not say\nfor sure that I said that. However, I cannot deny it.\n\nQ. Witness, did you at that time use such wild expressions with\nreference to these Luftwaffe gentlemen, and did you threaten them as\nwell?\n\nA. Yes. I did. I read now that I did so. I am very sorry even today that\nI used such strong words against my comrades.\n\nQ. Later on in another place you said that people who acted as if they\nwere sick ought to be whipped to work and that the whip should be used\nas a medicine. That is a similar statement?\n\nA. That was just silly talk, so to speak, and I also used strong words\nabout myself and called myself an idiot once in a while.\n\nQ. Did you ever issue orders to drive people to work with the whip?\n\nA. Never, and I am sure that I myself would have intervened in such a\ncase.\n\nQ. Did you ever have anybody hanged because of sabotage at any time.\n\nA. No. First, I did not do it. Second, I could not do it. I never had\nanybody punished for sabotage in any way because that was not within my\ncompetency, not even in the few instances where sabotage had actually\ntaken place.\n\nQ. Witness, weren\u2019t you afraid, however, that if you spoke like that\nbefore this circle of men, that those people would actually act\naccording to your words?\n\nA. In this circle there was nobody who could possibly have the power to\ncarry out such things, and second, I believe that everybody knew me,\nbecause my friends even at that time had told me that I had lost my\ncontrol over myself. It was a very good thing that nobody took me\nseriously at such a time. I also always promised myself that I would not\nburst into rage again. However, at that time I did not have full control\nover myself because the situation was becoming more serious every day.\nMoreover, I knew that all this could have been avoided, that it had\nnever been necessary to go to war, but if so, that the war could have\nbeen terminated long ago, and apart from all this, if nothing else, the\ndestruction of Germany could have been avoided. That thought did not\nleave me alone day or night, and that actually contributed to these\nexplosions. When everything was over, from that day I became more quiet.\n\nQ. Witness, those people you spoke to were soldiers, were they not?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Could those soldiers, according to your knowledge, have possibly been\nled to carry out these orders which were against international law?\n\nA. No, never. They quite rightly thought, as people often told me, that\nI was crazy during such outbursts. I myself was in no position to judge\nthat, however.\n\nQ. Witness, however, a certain number of measures in contradiction to\ninternational law were carried out in Germany. Did you know anything\nabout that, could you have thought then that maybe you were also causing\nsuch measures against international law?\n\nA. No. I did not know about that, with the very few exceptions that were\ndiscussed here. However, I never connected them with myself. There never\nwas any connection at any time.\n\n * * * * *\n\n[March 18]\n\nQ. Witness, after you received the Knight\u2019s Cross in 1940, did you\nreceive any distinctions from Hitler, any decorations?\n\nA. Yes, I did, in 1940 I received the promotion to a field marshal, and\nthat was also in 1940. After 1940 I did not receive anything which I\nconsidered a distinction as a soldier, because the bonus I received in\n1942\u2014yes, I will refer to that later\u2014I couldn\u2019t see any distinction in\nthat as a soldier.\n\nQ. Will you now talk of this bonus which you received? Give us some\ndetails about it.\n\nA. Hitler sent his adjutant on my 50th birthday, with a picture of\nHitler, that is, a photograph, with a dedication, and a letter in which\nhe congratulated me, and there was a check inside to the amount of\n250,000 marks. Hitler wrote in his letter that he knew I was leading a\nvery modest life and he would like to give me in this way the\npossibility of making it a little pleasanter.\n\nI thanked Hitler, and I told him that I gladly accepted the money,\nbecause after all I could not refuse it, as a compensation for the fact\nthat I had earned a little less by this amount than I would have earned\nif I had remained with the Lufthansa, because my salary in the Lufthansa\nwas twice as high, and even later on, three times as high as the money I\nreceived from the State. Consequently, I did not consider that as a gift\nexceeding my merits.\n\nQ. Witness, did the Air Ministry not offer you a bonus, also?\n\nA. That was not a bonus but the President of the Air Ministry told me\nthat the industry wanted to give me a present to the value of 50,000\nmarks. I told him that I rejected this present; it looked to me like\nbribery. He immediately withdrew the offer, especially as he knew that\nnever in my life had I accepted a present from industry while I was in\ngovernment service.\n\n * * * * *\n\nQ. Was it possible for you to remove directors of industry, or to\nappoint them?\n\nA. No. Either there were limited companies [G.m.b.H.], or shareholder\ncompanies, and they had their own organizations, their own\nadministrations. The shareholders appointed the board of directors and\nthe board of directors decided who was to be the general manager, and we\nnever interfered with that.\n\n * * * * *\n\nQ. Witness, will you explain to the Tribunal how overburdened you were\nwith work during all these years?\n\nA. May I refer to my field of tasks which is shown in one exhibit?\n\nDR. BERGOLD: May I ask this Tribunal now to see the charts which are in\nthe document book\u2014the first document?\n\n * * * * *\n\nA. Until the end of 1941 my main task was that of Inspector General of\nthe Luftwaffe. From that point onward, the work as GL took the first\nplace, while in my capacity as Inspector General I was continuously\ntravelling by plane. But as Inspector General I was tied more closely to\nthe Berlin ministry. Oh, I beg your pardon, I mean to say as GL. There\nwe had meetings every day; and in my capacity as GL I took over a\ntechnical staff in the Ministry of over four thousand. I reduced this\nstaff to about half; but in spite of that the number of conferences and\nmeetings could not be reduced. Therefore, I had to go through the\nincredible amount of papers which were to be read and also the papers\nwhich had to be signed; and I had to take them home in the evening. I\nthink that always amounted to two large suitcases and sometimes even\nthree of them. On the average I would work at home until 2:00 o\u2019clock,\na.m. The reading was the main task because in all technical matters I\nhad to be up to the mark myself; and that was not very easy for me\nbecause, after all, I had not studied technique but rather was a\nself-taught man as a soldier who had been a pilot. In the morning I\nwould start my duties at 9:00 o\u2019clock or at 9:15. Generally I would eat\nmy lunch at my desk, and often I even ate my dinner at my desk, so that\nI had the impression that I was overburdened with work. Even apart from\nthese two functions, as GL and Inspector General of the Luftwaffe, the\ndirection of the different other offices in the Ministry made quite a\nlot of work for me, though in my last position the excellent General\nFoerster took most of the work off me.\n\nQ. Witness, are the offices correct as they are shown on this chart\nwhich I have submitted to the Tribunal, and can you confirm them as\nsuch?\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration: _CHART OF MILCH\u2019S POSITION SUBMITTED BY DEFENSE_]\n\n\n\n\nA. Yes.\n\nDR. BERGOLD: May it please the Tribunal, this concludes my\ninterrogation; and I make room now for the prosecution.\n\n_CROSS-EXAMINATION_\n\nMR. DENNEY: You testified as a witness before the International Military\nTribunal on behalf of the defendant Goering, did you not?\n\nA. Yes, I did.\n\nQ. And in the course of your testimony before the Tribunal you stated\nthat you were the second highest officer in the air force?\n\nA. Yes, that was my rank.\n\nQ. So that the only one who ranked higher than you was Goering?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. And that continued up until the time when you told us this morning\nthat you completely withdrew, which, I believe was some time in January\nof 1945?\n\nA. Yes. May I remark here that from 1937 several officers were in the\nsecond place. That is to say, the chief of the general staff, the chief\nof the personnel office, and also the GL. We were all of the same rank,\nas it were, but I was the most senior officer among them.\n\nQ. And under Goering there were really four echelons; that is, the chief\nof staff, the inspector general, the GL, and the director of the\npersonnel office?\n\nA. Yes. They were all equal to each other.\n\nQ. Goering was on top, and then came these four in a parallel line below\nhim; is that right?\n\nA. Yes, under Goering.\n\nQ. And you, from 1941, November, following Udet\u2019s death until sometime\nin the middle of 1944, held both the office of GL and inspector general?\n\nA. That is correct.\n\n * * * * *\n\nMR. DENNEY: If your Honor pleases, I ask that this be marked Prosecution\nExhibit 133 for identification. This is a letter, dated 1 April 1943.\nThe writer of the letter is Sauckel, and the letter is addressed to the\ndefendant.\n\n \u201cMost honored Field Marshal,\n\n \u201cI take the liberty of enclosing in confidence three copies of\n the speech I gave in Poznan on 5 and 6 February 1943, on the\n occasion of the Reich and Gauleiters meeting and beg you kindly\n to peruse it. The figures contained in this speech refer to the\n end of the year 1942. Of course, the figures given concerning\n utilization of labor have again increased in the meantime. I\n would ask for your continued sympathetic understanding of the\n interests of manpower utilization, and your understanding and\n assistance in my task as far as possible. On my side, I can\n assure you that I always have asked the offices of the labor\n allocation administration subordinate to me for close and\n successful cooperation with all departments, and that I will do\n so for the future too.\n\n \u201cHeil Hitler,\n \u201cYours respectfully,\n [Signed] \u201cSauckel\u201d\n\nAnd, on the 7th, the last page, the defendant acknowledges receipt of\nthis letter:\n\n \u201cMost esteemed Gauleiter,\n\n \u201cI thank you most cordially for kindly transmitting to me the\n speech you made in Poznan on 5 and 6 February 1943 on the\n occasion of the Reich and Gauleiters meeting.\n\n \u201cHeil Hitler! Yours.\u201d\n\n * * * * *\n\nQ. Do you recall receiving it from Sauckel on 1 April 1943?\n\nA. No. At the beginning of April I wasn\u2019t there the first few days. I\nsee a remark, by somebody else, on this document. It probably says\u2014I\ncan\u2019t read it very well\u2014\u201cfor the files of the Central Planning Board\u201d.\nPerhaps this letter may have been submitted to me later on\u2014I do not\nknow whether I replied myself. I certainly did not read the report\nbecause otherwise I would be able to recall the figures.\n\nQ. But you did initial the letter, didn\u2019t you?\n\nA. I do not know. I do not recall it at all.\n\n * * * * *\n\nMR. DENNEY: On the copy that your Honors have, I believe it\u2019s apparent\nin the upper left-hand corner of the first page, the defendant\u2019s\ninitials appear there, as well as on the original letter.\n\n * * * * *\n\nQ. Now, do you ever recall saying that you would put the German workers\ninto concentration camps, the ones who did not work well?\n\nA. When I talked about slackers, I referred to education by Himmler, but\nnot to sending them into concentration camps. Himmler had other training\nplaces for workers where such people who were disinclined to work were\nbeing trained by making their supplementary rations dependent on their\nproduction.\n\nQ. Don\u2019t you recall that you asked that certain camps be set up\nespecially to take care of these German workers who weren\u2019t doing well?\n\nA. I did not say that we should make a special camp, but that they\nshould go to the training camps which already existed and we could get\nthem back from there. I do wish to emphasize here these were people,\nGermans, who did not do their duty towards their Fatherland. I thought\nit justified that such people should be trained.\n\n * * * * *\n\nMR. DENNEY: Witness, I believe you said you kept a diary?\n\nA. A diary? You could not call it exactly a diary, I only took some\nshort notes concerning my stay, and I jotted down a few key words which\nconveyed generally the most important matters.\n\nQ. That was lost, was it, or destroyed, when you were captured?\n\nA. It has not been lost. I still have it here.\n\nQ. That is what you are referring to?\n\nA. If I look up where I was at a particular day or what personalities I\nmet, I refer only to the most important questions, not to everything, I\ncan see whom I was with. Sometimes there is a table of contents, too,\nwhich is more detailed, according to the interest I had in those\nquestions. For instance, for 28 October, which you referred to a while\nago, I only have the following: My dispute with Goering he had reported\nto Hitler; he had not obtained anything, and now he started to vent his\nbad humor on me. Then comes a short note again that there was a\nconference afterwards with Goering. That was in Karinhall. It went on\nfor the whole day. It was one hour from Berlin by car. I noted down that\nSpeer was there, that Sauckel was there, Grawitz, von der Heyde, and\nsome others. There is no mention what subjects were discussed, but the\nattendance of Sauckel clarifies the matter for me. That is an example of\nhow I would enter these notes in this book.\n\nQ. Insofar as you recall, you were at that meeting on 28 October?\n\nA. Yes, indeed. I have found it here in my book.\n\n * * * * *\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE TOMS: Mr. Denney, let\u2019s get an unequivocal answer to\nthis. Did you put the initials on the letter from Sauckel?\n\nMILCH: The \u201cMi\u201d, yes, indeed.\n\nQ. You wrote that?\n\nA. Yes, I did. I wrote it. Somebody else wrote \u201cto the files\u2014\u201d\n\nQ. Never mind what somebody else wrote. Now, on the first page of the\npamphlet, the printed speech, there are some initials. Did you write\nthose?\n\nA. On the cover, yes; I did, \u201cMi, 6/4\u201d, that is what I wrote.\n\nQ. All right.\n\nMR. DENNEY: Do you recall saying that Americans were never assigned to\nwork in any of the airplane factories?\n\nMILCH: Yes, I said that.\n\nQ. This is Document NOKW-364, which is a partial translation of the\nminutes of the Jaegerstab, held on 19 June 1944. The cover page, which\nis photostated here in the German, which will be given to the Secretary\nGeneral, bears the initials of the defendant.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE TOMS: Is this a new exhibit?\n\nMR. DENNEY: Yes, your Honor. This will bear Prosecution Exhibit Number\n135 for identification, if your Honor pleases. Document NOKW-364, a\npartial translation of the minutes of the Jaegerstab of a meeting held\n19 June 1944. On the covering page there appear the initials of the\ndefendant. Perhaps the Secretary General would be good enough to let Mr.\nBlakeslee have the original so the cover page can be shown to the\ndefendant. Just show it to him, Mr. Blakeslee.\n\n (The document was handed to the defendant.)\n\n * * * * *\n\nMR. DENNEY: Do your records show that you attended a conference of the\nGL on 4 August 1942?\n\nA. Yes, indeed. These discussions were twice a week. (_NOKW-409, Pros.\nEx. 140._)\n\n * * * * *\n\nJUDGE MUSMANNO: Curiosity consumes me as to what would happen if an\nofficer inferior in rank to yourself took you at your word and actually\nexecuted a number of these workers or prisoners of war. Would that\nofficer then be punished?\n\nA. No one was there who would have been in a position to do that. Apart\nfrom that, all those who were under my orders knew me and my way of\nhandling things. They knew that I didn\u2019t mean it, and apart from that\nthey always laughed about my remarks when I let myself go, as they said.\n\nQ. In other words the comment of the Field Marshal in a matter of this\nseriousness was really of no value?\n\nA. Because the people knew that I got excited very easily about certain\nthings, and these incidents here have been selected and produced. From\nevery one of these meetings which took place twice a month, there was a\nlong report and owing to one or other of these reports, maybe once or\ntwice, there would be a certain outburst or explosion, and then, as we\nsoldiers were accustomed to do, we would just get mad, that is all.\nHowever, I didn\u2019t intend to do anything about it and I spoke to those\nunder my orders when the opportunity offered. They pointed the matter\nout to me. They knew exactly from my words that this was not meant\nseriously. They knew exactly that no such order had been given and that\nI myself would never cause anybody to be punished, not even then when it\nmight have been justified, for the very simple reason that I did not\nhave the power to administer punishments.\n\nJUDGE PHILLIPS: Mr. Denney read this paragraph to you, Document\nNOKW-409, Prosecution Exhibit 140. I understood you to say this, that\nthe paragraph did not contain your attitude there, that you never gave\nsuch an order, that when you were worried you sometimes used strong\nlanguage as a soldier would. Didn\u2019t you say that?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Well, now whether you meant it or not, you would say these things,\nand by so doing you counseled and advised others under you at a meeting\nover which you presided to do such things. Whether you meant it or not\nyou did that, didn\u2019t you?\n\nA. No, I never gave an order by using these words, because my people\nspoke with me, and they knew afterwards from my words that I never meant\nit earnestly.\n\nQ. Didn\u2019t you say, \u201cI would band the workers together and have fifty\npercent of them shot. I would then publish this fact and compel the\nother fifty percent to work by beating if necessary.\u201d Did you say that\nor not?\n\nA. I do not remember having said that. However, three days ago I believe\nI said that, when I had such a rush of blood to my head, due to that\ninjury I had, and I couldn\u2019t remember what I had said at that particular\nmoment. I just burst out with rage.\n\nQ. Well, if you did say that, you were advising and counseling others to\ndo that, were you not?\n\nA. No, that was not a counsel or an advice to anybody else. On the\ncontrary, it was known that if someone had done such a thing I would\nhave intervened myself.\n\n * * * * *\n\n[March 20]\n\nJUDGE MUSMANNO: Since we are on the subject of Jews, I would like to\nrefer to something which occurred at the first trial. Now you are not\ncompelled to discuss this matter if for any reason you prefer not to,\nbut you will recall that you were cross-examined by Justice Jackson on\nthe subject of your being Aryanized. Do you recall that?\n\nA. Yes, I recall it.\n\nQ. Now you gave an explanation at the trial which, however, was not\ndefinite, it seems to have left something in mid-air, and since you have\ngiven us quite a long autobiographical sketch of yourself, if you would\ncare to enlighten us on this point, you are free to do so.\n\nA. My point of view is as I stated at the time.\n\nQ. Yes.\n\nA. That point of view I still adhere to.\n\nQ. Let us see. You were asked certain questions and gave certain answers\nas follows:\n\n \u201cQuestion: At that time\u201d (Goering had referred to 1933) \u201cGoering\n had you\u2014we will have no misunderstanding about this\u2014Goering\n made you what you call a full Aryan; was that right?\n\n \u201cAnswer: I do not think he made me one; I was one.\n\n \u201cQuestion: Well, he had it established, let us say.\n\n \u201cAnswer: He had helped me in clearing up this question, which\n was not clear.\n\n \u201cQuestion: That is, your mother\u2019s husband was a Jew; is that\n correct?\n\n \u201cAnswer: It was not said so.\n\n \u201cQuestion: You had to demonstrate that none of your ancestry was\n Jewish; is that correct?\n\n \u201cAnswer: Yes, everybody had to do that.\n\n \u201cQuestion: And in your case that involved your father, your\n alleged father, is that correct?\n\n \u201cAnswer: Yes.\u201d [There the inquiry rested.]\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Just what had to be done to demonstrate that you were a full Aryan,\nand why did the question arise?\n\nA. The first time that question arose was in 1933, and the occasion was\nthe following: The president of the German Aero Club was reported as\nbeing adverse to the Hitler regime, and I protected that man. Following\nthat, a man who was a member of the SA sent a letter to Goering, and I\nmay add that this was a man who was trying to become a state secretary\nin the Air Ministry, and he had been deeply hurt when he, an old Party\nmember, had to take second place to me. In this letter he said that\nState Secretary Milch was not a full Aryan. This happened in the summer\nof 1933. Goering forwarded this letter to me, and I went to Goering.\nFollowing that I was asked to submit my family tree. That is how this\nmatter arose.\n\nQ. In other words, you had to establish that no Jewish blood flowed in\nyour veins, is that correct?\n\nA. Yes, that is what I was supposed to do.\n\nQ. And you established that to their satisfaction?\n\nA. That was established.\n\n * * * * *\n\nQ. * * * Now, I understand you to say that the first time you learned of\nthe proposed war against Poland was on 21 August, and even then it was\nnot very clearly indicated that a war could actually be unleashed, and\nthat further it was not until the very end of the day, that is to say,\nat five o\u2019clock in the afternoon of 31 August that you were directed to\nput the Luftwaffe, or all your forces, in readiness for the attack. Is\nthat correct? Is that what you said?\n\nA. On 31 August, not to get ready, but I received the order: \u201cThe attack\nstarts tomorrow,\u201d that was the order for an attack, whereas, over-all\npreparations had been made previously at the meeting which took place\nwith Hitler on 22 August, only then there was still the possibility of\nnegotiations which were still going on. These negotiations came to an\nend on 31 August at 1700 hours.\n\nQ. Did you not tell this Tribunal that after the meeting of 23 May 1939\nyou were convinced that war was not intended?\n\nA. 23d of May?\n\nQ. Yes, 23 May 1939?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. That you had no intimation that Hitler intended an aggressive war on\nPoland?\n\nA. Yes, because at that time, according to my recollection, Hitler\nstated again and again that he was certainly going to settle the Polish\nproblem, but that he would not allow war to break out.\n\nQ. And that you had called to his attention the necessity of\nmanufacturing bombs, because you believed that hostilities might break\nout?\n\nA. That was before that date, before the 23d, and also after the 23d,\nbecause I myself did not share Hitler\u2019s optimism. Although he may not\nhave intended to wage war, his policy might nevertheless have led to\nwar, for he alone was not the deciding factor, the others would have\nsomething to say as well.\n\nQ. And that assumption lulled you into the conviction that there would\nbe no war, since he refused you authority to manufacture bombs?\n\nA. Today I must assume that, at that time I was not aware of it.\n\n * * * * *\n\nQ. When did you first learn that an attack on Russia was intended?\n\nA. At the beginning of January 1941\u2014I beg your pardon\u2014yes, that is\nright, 1941, on 13 January actually. It was then that Goering, during a\nconference with a large circle of commanding officers, informed us that\none\u2019s attention should be turned to the East, as Hitler was fearing an\nattack by the Russians.\n\nQ. Yes, and you finally came to the conclusion that the declaration of\nwar, or rather, the undeclared war against Russia was a crime against\nGermany.\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Did you think it was a crime against Russia?\n\nA. Yes, against Russia also.\n\nQ. Also?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Now, you endeavored to see Hitler to persuade him not to enter this\nwar.\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. And your immediate circle, your military friends, realized that it\nwas foolhardy to provoke a war with Russia and thereby establish two\nfronts?\n\nA. Exactly the way I saw it, yes. My immediate circle were of the same\nopinion as I was.\n\nQ. And all the generals were of the same impression\u2014that it was\nhopeless for Germany, and that further it was tragic and suicidal to\nGermany to allow Hitler to take over the control of the armed forces?\nYou were practically unanimous in that belief, were you not?\n\nA. This was never discussed in any larger circles.\n\nQ. But you have testified\u2014it is in the record\u2014that you were all of\nthat belief.\n\nA. It transpired at a later stage, when it was discussed, that they were\nall of the same opinion.\n\nQ. When was that?\n\nA. Later on in the course of the war.\n\nQ. When did you realize that it was a mistake to have Hitler as\nCommander in Chief of the Armed Forces?\n\nA. I, personally?\n\nQ. When was it thoroughly recognized, even though not expressed at a\npublic meeting among the generals, that it was suicidal, a great\nmistake, to have Hitler as Commander in Chief?\n\nA. That was the general point of view after Stalingrad. That is when it\nbecame general.\n\nQ. And when was that?\n\nA. That was the end of January 1943.\n\nQ. Yes. You still had two and a half years of war ahead of you?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Why didn\u2019t you do something about having Hitler removed?\n\nA. It was my duty toward my people to keep allegiance to him. I had\nsworn an oath of allegiance to Hitler. I am only a human being who can\nsee this world subjectively and I cannot presume to be an impartial\njudge on such questions. Moreover, I believe that in the whole of\nGermany\u2019s history there is not one instance of soldiers rising against\ntheir military commander. I certainly do not know of one.\n\nQ. Even though you realized that Hitler was leading Germany into stark\nannihilation and unspeakable hardship, and even though all the generals\nwere of that same belief, yet you upheld this fetish of an allegiance\nwhich was destined, and very clearly so, to bring unparalleled misery to\nthe people that you professed to be faithful to?\n\nA. Your Honor, I personally did not presume to say that my judgment was\nright, and that Hitler\u2019s judgment, and the judgment of all those around\nhim, was wrong.\n\nQ. Then, you modify your statement that Hitler was wrong? You say that\nhe might have been right?\n\nA. No, no, I am not saying that. What I am trying to say is that it was\nmy point of view that the question whether the head of the state was to\nbe overthrown or not was a matter for the constitution, and that for\nthis eventuality the constitution and the state must surely have powers,\nmeans through which in such cases there could be intervention; but then\nit could not be the task of any individual general to take steps in such\nquestions, which were, after all, unlawful.\n\n * * * * *\n\n-----\n\n[139] The defendant Milch testified in his own behalf on eight full\ntrial days (March 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, and 20, 1947). His\ntestimony is recorded in 581 mimeographed pages (_Tr. pp. 1696-2276_).\n\n[140] Wolfgang Vorwald, former Commander of Luftgau (Air Force\nAdministrative Command) VII, Munich.\n\n[141] Defendant in case of United States _vs._ Ernst von Weizsaecker, et\nal. See Vols. XII, XIII, XIV.\n\n[142] Doc. R-124, Pros. Ex. 48-A, Conference of 1 March 1944, pp.\n484-498.\n\n\n\n\n V. CLOSING STATEMENTS\n\n\n A. Closing Statement of the Prosecution[143]\n\nMR. CLARK DENNY: We close today the trial of a major war criminal\u2014a\nleader in a slaving operation, the enormity of which is without\nhistorical parallel; a principal in a crime of murder in the ironic\nmasquerade of scientific progress which has shocked alike the world of\nmedicine and the world of laymen. The evidence set forth before the\nTribunal has shown that Erhard Milch was primarily implicated as a\nleader in a program to bring laborers into Germany by force, of\nallocating them to the various segments of the German war economy, and\nof munitions.\n\nWe deal here with a top military and economic planner who at all times\nwas fully informed as to the aims and objectives of the Nazi plan.\nUnlike his colleagues Speer and Sauckel, Milch entered the conspiracy\nearly. The defendant was one of a small group of men who constituted the\nleadership of the Reich.\n\nBefore dealing directly with the responsibility of the defendant for the\ncrimes charged in the indictment, as shown by the evidence, we should\nlike to review, briefly, the law applicable to these crimes.\n\n _THE LAW_\n\nThe indictment charges and the evidence has connected the defendant with\na wide variety of crimes incident to the enforced labor program of the\nNazi regime. In themselves, these crimes are not new except in their\nenormity. In domestic law they have, from ancient times, borne such\nfamiliar titles as assault, battery, murder, kidnapping and pillage. In\ninternational law the principles which protect the individual from undue\ninterference with his person and his personal freedom have given rise to\na series of kindred precepts governing the conduct of a nation which has\ngained factual control over the citizens of another state. We shall\nconsider briefly some salient precepts and prohibitions of international\nlaw up to, and including the provisions of Control Council Law No. 10.\n\nMuch of the labor which supplied Germany with the tools of total war was\nexacted from people who had been uprooted from their homes in occupied\nterritories and imported to Germany. Displacement of groups of persons\nfrom one country to another is the proper concern of international law\ninsofar as it affects the community of nations.\n\nThe law has recognized that some conditions may justify the transfer of\npeople from one country to another. Correspondingly, and with much more\nrelevance to the present case, international law has enunciated certain\nconditions under which the fact of deportation becomes a crime.\n\nIf the transfer is carried out without a legal title, as is the case\nwhere people are deported from a country occupied by an invader while\nthe occupied enemy still has an army in the field, the deportation is\ncontrary to international law. The rationale of this rule lies in the\nsupposition that the occupying power has prevented temporarily the\nrightful sovereign from exercising power over its citizens.\n\nArticles 43, 46, 49, 52, 55, and 56 of the Hague Regulations, which\nlimit the rights of the belligerent occupant, do not _expressly_ specify\nas a crime the deportation of civilians from an occupied territory.\nHowever, Article 52 states the following conditions under which services\nmay be demanded from the inhabitants of occupied countries:\n\n 1. They must be for the needs of the army of occupation;\n 2. They must be in proportion to the resources of the country; and\n 3. They must be of such a nature as not to involve the inhabitants in\n the obligation to take part in military operations against their\n own country.\n\nInsofar as this section limits the conscription of labor to that\nrequired for the needs of the army of occupation, it is clear that the\nuse of labor from occupied territories outside of the area of occupation\nis forbidden by the Hague Regulations.\n\nThe illegality of the deportation of civilians in territories under\nbelligerent occupation was demonstrated in the First World War when the\nGermans attempted a deportation program of Belgian workers into Germany.\nThis measure met with world-wide protest and was abandoned after about\nfour months.\n\nAmong the voices raised in protest against the deportation of Belgians\nby Germany in 1916-1917 was that of Lansing, Secretary of State. He\nwrote:\n\n \u201cThe Government of the United States has learned with the\n greatest concern and regret of the policy of the German\n Government to deport from Belgium a portion of the civilian\n population for the purposes of forcing them to labor in Germany,\n and is constrained to protest in a friendly spirit but most\n solemnly against this policy which is in contravention of all\n precedent and all principles of international practice which\n have long been accepted and followed by civilized nations in\n their treatment of noncombatants in conquered territory.\u201d\n\nOther protests were lodged with the German Government by Spain,\nSwitzerland, Netherlands, and Brazil, all neutral countries.\nInternational lawyers all over the world condemned Germany\u2019s action in\nthe strongest terms.\n\nThe opposition in the German Reichstag accused the government of\nviolating the Hague Convention and refused to vote for the war budget.\n\nIt is worthy of note, in passing, that the defendant has testified at\nthis trial that he knew of this effort at deportation of labor on the\npart of Germany in the First War and that he was much interested in the\ninvestigation conducted by a Reichstag Committee concerning this matter.\nHe could not have followed this investigation, as he admits he did,\nwithout learning that the deportation in question was a violation of\ninternational law.\n\nThe second condition under which deportation becomes a crime occurs when\nthe purpose of the displacement is illegal. A conspicuous example of\nillegality of purpose is found when the deportation is for the purpose\nof compelling the deportees to manufacture weapons for use against their\nhomeland or to be assimilated in the working economy of the occupying\ncountry.\n\nAn attempt has been made by the defense in this trial to show that\npersons were deported from France into Germany legally and for a legal\npurpose, by pointing out that such deportations were authorized by\nagreements between Nazi and Vichy French authorities. This defense is\nboth technically and substantially deficient. Many of the Vichy\nGovernment\u2019s highest officials, who held office by reason of and under\nthe protection of Nazi power, have been punished for treason by the\npresent legitimate government. And, too, the agreements themselves were\nillegal\u2014because they were exacted under duress, and because they were\nvoid _ab initio_ because of their immoral content. It is common\nknowledge that even the puppets of Vichy did not of their own accord\nagree to the Nazi deportation measures. It is equally clear that these\nagreements were _contra bonos mores_. Then, too, it was illegal for any\nFrench Government to conclude agreements which provided for the\ncompulsory mass deportation of French workers to aid the enemy\u2019s war\neffort. At the time of the agreement between Germany and Vichy there was\nmerely a state of suspension of hostilities. French resistance had not\nceased, and the outcome of the war continued to be uncertain. Lastly,\nthe deportation agreements were invalid because their manifest purpose\nwas to aid Germany in the commission of the crime of aggressive war.\nThat an agreement in furtherance of an act which is illegal in\ninternational law is invalid has been stated by various authorities. For\nexample, Professor Charles Cheney Hyde, of Columbia University, defines\nas internationally illegal \u201cagreements which are concluded for the\npurpose of, and with a view to, causing the performance of acts which it\n(international law) proscribes.\u201d\n\nProfessor Hall, page 382 of the 8th Edition of International Law (1924),\ndeclares:\n\n \u201cThe requirement that contracts shall be in conformity with law\n invalidates, or at least renders voidable, all agreements which\n are at variance with the fundamental principles of international\n law and their undisputed applications * * *.\u201d\n\nLauterpacht on International Law by L. Oppenheim, in volume I, page 706,\nstates:\n\n \u201cIt is a unanimously recognized customary rule of international\n law that obligations which are at variance with universally\n recognized principles of international law cannot be the object\n of a treaty.\u201d\n\nThe final condition under which deportation becomes illegal occurs\nwhenever generally recognized standards of decency and humanity are\ndisregarded. This flows from the established principle of law that an\notherwise permissible act becomes a crime when carried out in a criminal\nmanner.\n\nA study of the pertinent parts of Control Council Law No. 10 strengthens\nthe conclusions of the foregoing statements, that deportation of the\npopulation is criminal whenever there is no title in the deporting\nauthority or whenever the purpose of the displacement is illegal, or\nwhenever the deportation is characterized by inhumane or illegal\nmethods.\n\nArticle II (1) (_b_) lists under war crimes \u201cill-treatment or\ndeportation to slave labor or for any other purpose, of civilian\npopulation from occupied territory.\u201d It is clear that Law No. 10\nestablishes the following separate and distinct crimes: ill-treatment of\ncivilians from occupied territories; deportation to slave labor of such\ncivilians; and deportation for any other purposes of such civilians.\n\nThe prohibition of deportation of civilians from occupied territories\nirrespective of the purpose, as stated in Control Council Law No. 10, is\na recognition of the principle of international law that a power in\nbelligerent occupation has no right or authority (title) to deport the\ncitizens of the occupied territories. The separate specification as a\nwar crime in Law No. 10 of ill-treatment of civilians from occupied\nterritories is a recognition of the rule of international law, as\nheretofore discussed, that even an otherwise lawful deportation (by an\nauthority having title and for a legitimate purpose) is rendered illegal\nwhere the deportees are ill-treated.\n\nWithout entering into a detailed discussion of the evidence, it should\nbe pointed out at this point, that all these conditions for criminal\ndeportation were abundantly present in the enforced labor program of\nGermany during the 2d World War, and that the _knowing connection_ of\nthe defendant with all phases of illegal deportation has been\nestablished.\n\nArticle II (1) (_c_) of Control Council Law No. 10 specifies certain\ncrimes against humanity. Among these is listed the \u201cdeportation * * *\n(of) any civilian population * * *\u201d. The general language of this\nsub-section, as applied to deportation, indicates that Control Council\nLaw No. 10 has indeed unconditionally condemned, as a crime against\nhumanity, every instance of the deportation of civilians. Under this\nsub-section, there would seem to be no room for argument as to the\nlegality of any agreement on the part of any government, legitimate or\nillegitimate, which allows deportation of its subjects in time of war.\n\nWe come now to a consideration of the crime of enslavement. Whereas\nArticle II (_b_) names deportation to slave labor as a war crime,\nArticle II (1) (_c_) states that the \u201censlavement * * * (of) any\ncivilian population\u201d is a crime against humanity. Thus, Law No. 10\ntreats as separate crimes, and different types of crime, \u201cdeportation to\nslave labor\u201d and \u201censlavement.\u201d\n\nArticle II (_b_) does not specify as a crime the detention (as\ndistinguished from the deportation) of civilians for use as slave labor\nor for any other purpose. However, the section does stipulate that any\natrocities or offenses against persons which constitute violations of\nthe laws or customs of war, _including but not limited to_ deportation\nto slave labor, are war crimes. Use or detention of persons from\noccupied territories for slave labor or for any other purpose, in and of\nthemselves, _do_ constitute violations of the laws and customs of war.\nErgo, such use or detention is a _war crime_ within II (1) (_b_) of Law\nNo. 10.\n\nThe _crime against humanity_ which is termed \u201censlavement\u201d in Article II\n(1) (_c_) of Law No. 10 is susceptible of two meanings. It can be\nunderstood to embrace the initial act of deprivation of the freedom of\nanother, and an act whereby such deprivation is continued, or either of\nthem, or it may be interpreted as referring only to the initial measures\nwhereby a person is deprived of his freedom.\n\nIt is the contention of the prosecution in this case that all phases of\nthe slave labor program, the taking, the transportation, the detention,\nthe use and the inhuman treatment of foreign workers as practiced by the\nNazi state and participated in by the defendant, constitute enslavement\nwithin the meaning of Article II (1) (_c_). No sufficient reason appears\nfor the limitation of the crime to the mere initial act. In every true\nand complete sense a person is enslaved from the moment when his liberty\nis taken from him until the time when it is restored to him. It is more\nthan probable that if Law No. 10 is intended to limit the crime of\nenslavement to the initial measures under which a person was deprived of\nhis liberty, there would have been some definite indication, either in\nthe language or in the context of the statute.\n\nEven if we were to concede the narrowest possible meaning for the term\n\u201censlavement\u201d in Article II (1) (_c_), so as to understand by it only\nthe first acts of deprivation of liberty, all acts under which such\npeople were kept in an enslaved status would be crimes against humanity,\nbecause the same section defines as such any atrocities and offenses\ncommitted against the civilian population. By express proviso\n\u201censlavement\u201d and \u201cdeportation\u201d are only illustratively mentioned, and\n\u201cother inhuman acts committed against any civilian population\u201d\nconstitute crimes against humanity.\n\nThe result is that whether we adopt the broad interpretation of the term\n\u201censlavement\u201d or the narrower one, the deportation, the transportation,\nthe retention, the use and the inhuman treatment of civilian populations\nare crimes against humanity. The prosecution charges that the defendant\nwas criminally connected with all the phases of the slave labor program,\nwhether these divisions be comprehended within the technical term\n\u201censlavement\u201d or be divided between the crime of \u201censlavement\u201d and that\nof \u201cother inhuman acts.\u201d\n\nWe shall now make brief comment on the subject of the treatment and use\nof prisoners of war. The Hague and Geneva Conventions merely codify the\nprecepts of the laws and usages of all civilized nations. Article 31 of\nthe Geneva Convention provides that \u201clabor furnished by prisoners of war\nshall have no direct relation to war operations.\u201d Thus the Convention\nforbids:\n\n 1. The use of prisoners of war in manufacture or transportation\n of arms or munitions of any kind, and\n\n 2. The use of prisoners of war for transporting material\n intended for combat units.\n\nThe Hague Regulations contain comparable provisions.\n\nThe essence of the crime of the misuse of prisoners of war derives from\nthe kind of work to which they are assigned\u2014in other words, to work\ndirectly connected with the war effort. The prosecution would like to\nrecall to the court the evidence which connects the defendant with both\nthe _illegal employment_ of prisoners of war and with their abusive\ntreatment. The Tribunal will recall that the defendant ordered the\nmurder of prisoners of war who attempted to escape. We will discuss this\ncrime more fully later. It will be remembered that there never has been\na substantial denial of the fact that prisoners of war were used to man\nGerman antiaircraft batteries. Nor is it subject to doubt that prisoners\nwere used in air armament industries over which the defendant exercised\nsupervisory control.\n\nWe now come to the consideration of the basic charges and the law\ngoverning the defendant\u2019s complicity in, and responsibility for, the\nMedical Experiments Program. The fundamental crime with which the\ndefendant is charged in this connection is murder. Also involved are\nvarious atrocities, tortures, offenses against the person, and other\ninhuman acts.\n\nThe applicable provisions of Control Council Law No. 10, Article II, are\n(_b_) war crimes, (_c_) crimes against humanity. In connection with the\ncriminal Medical Experiments Program, the prosecution submits that the\ndefendant is guilty of\u2014\n\n (_a_) War crimes, namely violations of the laws and customs of\n war, as the medical experiments performed upon involuntary\n persons, some of them nationals of countries at war with the\n German Reich, involved the commission of murders, tortures, and\n other inhuman acts.\n\n (_b_) Crimes against humanity, namely medical experiments\n performed upon involuntary German nationals and nationals of\n other countries, in the course of which, brutalities, murders,\n and other inhuman acts were committed.\n\nBefore we pass from the law involved in this case to a consideration of\nthe evidence, we wish to mention the legal basis for the prosecution\u2019s\ncontention that the defendant must share the guilt which attaches to the\nslave labor program and the conduct of medical experiments upon\nunconsenting human beings. Control Council Law No. 10 defines for us the\ntheory upon which this trial proceeds in Article II, paragraph 2, when\nit says:\n\n \u201cAny person without regard to nationality or the capacity in\n which he acted, is deemed to have committed a crime as defined\n in paragraph 1 of this Article, if he was (_a_) a principal or\n (_b_) an accessory to the commission of any such crime, or\n ordered or abetted the same or (_c_) took a consenting part\n therein or (_d_) _was connected with plans or enterprises\n involving its commission or_ (_e_) _was a member of any\n organization or group connected with the commission of any such\n crime_. * * *\u201d [Emphasis added.]\n\nWithout wishing to limit the scope of the testimony in this case, the\nTribunal\u2019s attention is directed to the evidence which has established\nthat the defendant, as a member of the Central Planning Board, and the\nJaegerstab, and as Generalluftzeugmeister, and in every one of his\ncapacities, was connected with \u201cplans and enterprises\u201d for the\ncommission of war crimes and crimes against humanity, and was a \u201cmember\nof organizations and groups\u201d, within the meaning of subdivisions (_d_)\nand (_e_) of paragraph 2, \u201cconnected with the commission of such\ncrimes\u201d.\n\nCount One, paragraph 6, of the indictment charges the defendant Milch\nwith guilt in the murder of prisoners of war who had attempted to escape\nfrom enforced labor in German war industry. The gist of this crime is\nmurder, which is, and always has been, prohibited by every country which\nlaid any claim to civilization. It was specified as a war crime under\nthe Hague and Geneva Conventions and under the provisions of Article II\nof Control Council Law No. 10. The evidence which connects the defendant\nwith this crime will be discussed in another part of this summation.\n\nLaw Number 10, Article II, paragraph 3 provides that the death penalty\nor lesser sentences may be prescribed for the commission of war crimes\nand crimes against humanity as defined in the statute.\n\nWe turn now from the law to the evidence. In the presentation of its\ncase in chief, the prosecution first offered evidence to describe the\nslave labor program in Germany in all its stark terror. It then turned\nto a presentation of the proof which connected the defendant with the\nslave labor program in two of his principal capacities, as member of the\nCentral Planning Board and as member of the Jaegerstab. Next there was\nput in evidence the documents which established the defendant\u2019s\nconnection with the medical experiments, and finally, after the defense\nhad put in its case, the defendant was confronted with the evidence of\nadditional documents which connected him with the detention and\nmistreatment of slave labor in his capacity as Generalluftzeugmeister.\nIn summing up the evidence the prosecution wants to keep roughly the\nsame order. It will deal in turn with the evidence of the defendant\u2019s\nactivities as member of the Central Planning Board and as member of the\nJaegerstab. The documents relating to the defendant as\nGeneralluftzeugmeister will then be dealt with and, in conclusion, the\ndefendant\u2019s implication in the criminal medical experiments will be\ndiscussed.\n\nWhen, in the course of presenting the evidence, we first turned our\nattention from the general documents which established the body of the\ncrime of slave labor to the documents which were to prove the\ndefendant\u2019s connection with that crime, we asked the Court\u2019s attention\nto certain key words which we said would run like small threads through\nour proof. These words were cited to be \u201cprocurement, allocation and\nuse\u201d. It was stated that we would often use them. We offered many\ndocuments to prove Milch\u2019s connection with each of the functions\ndescribed by these key words. Once again, we ask the Tribunal to keep\nthese words in mind.\n\nThe Central Planning Board, which was established in April 1942, served\nas a means of consolidating in a single agency all controls over German\nwar production. The minutes of the Central Planning Board which have\nbeen submitted to the Tribunal reflect the dominant role played by the\ndefendant at meetings of the Board.\n\nThe best evidence of the scope and authority of the Central Planning\nBoard is contained in the Board\u2019s own minutes. The first conference of\nthe Central Planning Board was held on 27 April 1942. The duties and\nresponsibilities of the Board were announced in these words:\n\n \u201cThe Central Planning in the Four Year Plan (decree of the Reich\n Marshal of Greater Germany [Goering] of 22 April 1942) is a task\n for leaders. It encompasses only principles and executive\n matters. It makes unequivocal decisions and supervises the\n execution of its directives. The Central Planning does not rely\n on anonymous institutions difficult to control but always on\n individuals and fully responsible persons who are free in the\n selection of their working methods and their collaborations, as\n far as there are no directives issued by the Central Planning.\u201d\n\nThen, six months later, on 20 October 1942, the statutes of the Central\nPlanning Board were published and distributed. A portion of these\nstates:\n\n \u201cThe Central Planning Board created by the Fuehrer and Reich\n Marshal in order to unify armament and war economy deals only\n with the decision of basic questions. Professional questions\n remain the task of the competent departments which in their\n field remain responsible within the framework of the decisions\n made by the Central Planning Board.\u201d\n\nIt is addressed to: \u201cThe highest Reich authorities, the Reich Protector,\nthe Governor General and the executive authorities in the occupied\ncountries.\u201d The letter of transmittal stated in part:\n\n \u201cEnclosed I send you for your information the statutes of the\n Central Planning Board with the request to support the office of\n the Central Planning Board in every possible way in its work,\n and to direct, more particularly, your section chiefs and\n reporters to forward all information requested orally, or by\n writing, in the shortest possible time. By this collaboration by\n your section chiefs and reporters, the building up of larger\n machinery in the framework of the Central Planning Board is to\n be avoided.\u201d\n\nThe International Military Tribunal found that the Central Planning\nBoard \u201chad supreme authority for the scheduling of German production and\nthe allocation and development of raw material\u201d.\n\nIt needs no emphasis that the effective performance of these functions\nnecessarily involved the Board in the requisitioning and distribution of\nlabor, and the records of the Board, which have been submitted, leave no\ndoubt that the Board exercised the authority conferred upon it in the\nfield of labor. The International Military Tribunal in its opinion found\nthat the Board requisitioned labor from Sauckel with full knowledge that\nthe demands could be supplied only by foreign forced labor, and that the\nBoard determined the basic allocation of this labor within the German\nwar economy.\n\nIn assessing the guilt of the defendant Funk, the Court said:[144]\n\n \u201cIn the fall of 1943, Funk was a member of the Central Planning\n Board which determined the total number of laborers needed for\n German industry, and required Sauckel to produce them, usually\n by deportation from occupied territories. Funk did not appear to\n be particularly interested in this aspect of the forced labor\n program, and usually sent a deputy to attend the meetings, often\n SS General Ohlendorf, the former Chief of the SD inside of\n Germany and the former Commander of Einsatzgruppe D. But Funk\n was aware that the Board of which he was a member was demanding\n the importation of slave laborers, and allocating them to the\n various industries under its control.\u201d\n\nBearing in mind the fact that Funk was a minor member of the Board, how\nmuch greater is the responsibility of the defendant who was a dominant\nfigure on the Board throughout its existence.\n\nThere is no need to review in historical detail the defendant\u2019s personal\nparticipation in the criminal activities of the Board. A few references\nto the pattern for 1944 will suffice. The Tribunal will recall that\nAlbert Speer, the other dominant member of the Board, was ill during\nmost of this period.\n\nOn 4 January 1944, demands were made at a Hitler conference that Sauckel\nproduce four million new workers from the occupied countries. The\ndefendant was present at the conference, and at this meeting, Sauckel,\nin pledging himself to perform his recruitment tasks, indicated that the\ndemands could be met only by Himmler, and the promise of assistance was\nforthcoming from the Reich Leader SS.\n\nThe allocation of this labor to the various sectors of the German\neconomy was determined by the Board at its 53d meeting. The defendant\nwas the presiding officer at this meeting. The chart compiled by Milch\nand found in his files shows his personal knowledge of the sources of\nthe labor being allocated.\n\nSauckel was, however, unable to satisfy completely these demands. He\nreported this inability at its 54th meeting. This meeting of the Board\nwas presided over by the defendant, and the minutes which we have\nsubmitted show the subordinate position occupied by Sauckel with respect\nto the Board. The Tribunal will recall Sauckel\u2019s opening statement:\n\n \u201cField Marshal, gentlemen, it goes without saying that we shall\n satisfy as far as possible the demands agreed upon by the\n Central Planning Board.\u201d\n\nAnd then later on in the meeting:\n\n \u201cIf I am to fulfill the demands which you present to me * * *.\u201d\n\nWe shall not review in detail the minutes of this meeting, but the\nTribunal\u2019s attention is again directed to the fact that Sauckel was\nquestioned closely by the defendant who suggested that the Wehrmacht be\nassigned to the task of assisting in the recruitment drive. The\ndefendant suggested that French workers be coerced by a system of\npremeditated starvation. In dealing with the problem of Italian\nlaborers, the defendant suggested that only those who went to Germany or\nworked in protected factories be given food.\n\nAs a further means of meeting the manpower shortage, consideration was\ngiven to possible measures for increasing the productive power of\nprisoners of war. Accordingly, on 5 March 1944, a conference was held at\nthe Fuehrer Headquarters. It is evident from the minutes which have been\nsubmitted to the Tribunal that the defendant was in attendance. The\nTribunal will recall that the decision was made to give the direction of\nthe Stalags to the SS, in order to increase the production power of the\nprisoners. This was not to apply to the Americans or the English. The\nTribunal will take judicial notice of the methods of the SS.\n\nOn 7 July 1944, Sauckel issued a report showing new manpower placed at\nthe disposal of German war industry during the first half of 1944. We\nshall not review in detail this report, but merely state that it is\nproof of the Board\u2019s directive to Sauckel.\n\nThis report, however, showed a deficit, and on 11 July 1944 a further\nconference was held to solve the question of how greater compulsion\ncould be exerted on persons to work in Germany. The defendant has\ntestified that he was in virtual retirement from production matters\nsince late June 1944. Yet the record of this conference shows that he\nwas present. The result of this conference was the greater utilization\nof the Wehrmacht in the recruitment of forced labor. The directive of\nField Marshal von Kluge, which has been submitted in evidence, makes\nspecific reference to the results of this conference.\n\nHere, in brief, we have the picture. The defendant and the Board, of\nwhich he was a dominant member, requisitioning forced labor from\nSauckel, allocating this labor to the various sectors of the German war\neconomy, and later improvising new and more brutal techniques of force\nand terror for the recruitment of new labor.\n\nThe defense, besides denying the power and authority of the Central\nPlanning Board, has challenged the authenticity and accuracy of its\ntranscripts. The prosecution has been compelled to rely upon these\nminutes for much of its proof.\n\nIn this connection, it might be said that these same transcripts\nconstituted the basis for findings of fact by the International Military\nTribunal. They are quoted in the decision of that Court.\n\nThe statutes of the Central Planning Board, mentioned a few minutes ago,\nshow the extreme care taken to insure the accuracy of reporting these\nmeetings, as well as action taken or ordered to be taken. The statutes\nof the Board provide in part:\n\n \u201cIn order to have the conferences properly prepared and to have\n the execution of the decisions supervised, the Central Planning\n Board appoints an office. This office consists of the deputies\n appointed by each of three members of the Central Planning\n Board; one of these three deputies shall be appointed chief of\n the office.\u201d\n\nThen follows a handwritten marginal note which I shall omit.\n\n \u201cIn accordance with the attached distribution of work the office\n appoints reporters. These reporters are at the disposal of all\n members of the Central Planning Board. The office appoints one\n reporter to keep the record.\u201d\n\nAnd then, tasks of the office:\n\n \u201cThe office prepares the meetings of the Central Planning Board\n in such a manner that the members of the Central Planning Board\n have the agenda and the material of discussion 24 hours in\n advance. For this purpose the office conducts preliminary talks\n with the competent departments, etc.\n\n \u201cOn the strength of the record made by the reporter, the office\n sees to the execution of the decisions of the Central Planning\n Board by the competent agencies, and sees to it that the\n deadlines fixed are complied with.\n\n \u201cThe members of the office keep the members of the Central\n Planning Board informed between the sessions.\u201d\n\nThe minutes of these meetings which have been submitted to this Tribunal\nshow that these proceedings were recorded and transcribed with\ncharacteristic German detail and accuracy. We need only refer to the\ncharts and tables, and the remarks quoted in the transcripts. Of the 59\nmeetings fully covered by these official reports, 41 were prepared and\nsigned by Ministerialrat Steffler, who was personally responsible for\nthe accuracy and completeness of these reports.\n\nWithout the Central Planning Board the slave labor program could not\nhave functioned.\n\n _THE JAEGERSTAB._\n\nHere we have the defendant in immediate contact with the slave labor\nprogram at its peak. By the testimony of the defendant, it was he who\nconceived and instigated the formation of the Jaegerstab. Speer and the\ndefendant constituted its leadership. Speer\u2019s participation was nominal\nand it was the defendant who directed its activities and acted as its\nchairman. Speer was ill during part of the Jaegerstab\u2019s existence and\nhas stated to the Court that he did not preside at a meeting.\n\nThe Jaegerstab assumed control over fighter production when the\nexploitation of foreign forced labor in air armament had already reached\nunparalleled heights. On 16 February 1944, the defendant had told his\ncolleagues in the Central Planning Board that \u201cour best new engine is\nmade 88 percent by Russian prisoners of war.\u201d On 25 March, he told his\nengineers that soon the percentage of foreign personnel in the aircraft\nindustry would reach 90 percent. Reich Leader SS Himmler, reporting to\nGoering on 9 March 1944 on the employment of concentration camp\npersonnel in the aircraft industry, stated that nearly 36,000 prisoners\nwere employed and that an increase to 90,000 was expected. The formation\nof the Jaegerstab is partly explainable in terms of the battle to\nincrease the manpower resources available for fighter production.\n\nThe Jaegerstab was assigned top priority. Projects for the recruitment\nand commitment of manpower were discussed by the Jaegerstab. The\nevidence presented before the Tribunal has shown that questions of\nmanpower were time and time again referred to the defendant. We have\nseen him agreeing to use his prestige and influence upon Sauckel in\nefforts to obtain new workers for aircraft production. When manpower in\nsufficient numbers was not forthcoming through normal channels, the\nJaegerstab did not shrink from other methods of obtaining its labor.\nWhen necessary the Jaegerstab recruited its own labor, either directly\nor by engineering \u201csnatching\u201d expeditions for the seizure of manpower\narriving on transports from the East.\n\nThe defendant\u2019s frank admission to his subordinates that \u201cinternational\nlaw cannot be observed here\u201d characterizes best his own participation in\nthe activities of the Jaegerstab. Where, as was the case with France,\ntransfers of production facilities were concerned, the defendant\nadvocated the stripping of the country and the deportation of its people\nas prisoners of war. When the discussion turned to PW\u2019s, the defendant\nwas quick to suggest their transfer to places under air attack. When the\ntransportation of Italian civilian conscripts directly recruited by the\nJaegerstab for service in Germany was in question, it was the defendant\nwho advocated the shooting of those who attempted to escape.\n\nThe Jaegerstab was no mere discussion group. As an agency with absolute\nauthority over fighter production, the Jaegerstab acted by orders and\ndirectives. The Jaegerstab fixed hours of labor and conditions of work.\nIt was the Jaegerstab, for example, which established the 72-hour work\nweek in the aircraft industry.\n\nIn addition to its jurisdiction over fighter production, the Jaegerstab\nwas charged with the program for the decentralization of the German\naircraft industry, both to above ground bombproof installations and to\nsubterranean locations. Much of the labor employed in both phases of the\nproject was concentration camp labor. The defendant must have known this\nfact.\n\nOne phase, the transfer to new installations underground, was under the\nimmediate supervision of SS Gruppenfuehrer Heinz Kammler. Kammler was a\nmember of the Jaegerstab. Where, as was the case in some instances,\nlabor was not forthcoming in sufficient quantity, Kammler informed the\nJaegerstab of his intention to take large numbers of persons into\nprotective custody for use on his projects. Members of the Jaegerstab\nknew that manpower shortages on the construction projects were at least\nin part due to the high death rate. The conditions of employment on the\nprojects have not been substantially disputed. The Jaegerstab was well\ninformed of these conditions. While on trips with the Jaegerstab,\nKammler visited these projects and his fellow members of the Jaegerstab\nwere well advised as to the manner in which workers employed on them\nwere treated. Where it was necessary to hang thirty people merely as an\nexample to others, Kammler reported this fact to the Jaegerstab.\n\nA second phase of the program, the transfer of fighter production to\nbombproof factories above ground, was carried out for the Jaegerstab by\nStobbe-Dethleffsen and later Xaver Dorsch. While Stobbe-Dethleffsen and\nDorsch were immediately in charge, it was the Jaegerstab which received\nthe funds and raw materials necessary for the carrying out of this\nproject. When sufficient progress had not been made under\nStobbe-Dethleffsen, the Jaegerstab demanded that Dorsch carry out this\nprogram. The defendant was a leader in the planning which preceded\nDorsch\u2019s appointment.\n\nBy the testimony of Dorsch, Milch was one of a small group which worked\nout with Goering the details of the project, including the question of\nmanpower. Dorsch was represented on the Jaegerstab by Schlempp, and\nlater Knipping, deputies designated for this particular purpose.\nSchlempp informed the Jaegerstab on the progress of the work, both\norally and in writing. Dorsch received manpower from the Jaegerstab.\nThis was the immediate concern of Schmelter.\n\nEarly in April 1944 the defendant represented the Jaegerstab at\nconferences with Hitler where the decision was first taken to carry out\ndeportations. Shortly thereafter, the defendant received written\nconfirmation of the results of this conference, as did Himmler, who was\nto procure the workers. Progress reports were made and delivery dates\nagreed upon. Then came the disappointing news that the first transports\narriving at Auschwitz consisted primarily of old men, women, and\nchildren. Later on there were reports as to the successful allocation of\nthis personnel. The testimony of Dorsch shows that these Jews were used\non the construction projects, that the conditions under which they lived\nwere intolerable, and that the death rate on the project was excessive.\n\nIn closing this phase of the case, it is submitted that the defendant\nnever resigned from the Jaegerstab. While it is true that the defendant\nat Goering\u2019s behest was removed from certain offices in the Air Ministry\nin the summer of 1944, he retained his membership in the Jaegerstab\nuntil its dissolution, the prosecution contends.\n\nAs Generalluftzeugmeister the defendant had complete control over\naircraft production. In this field his authority was unlimited. In\nparticular it has been shown that the defendant requisitioned labor for\nthe aircraft industry with knowledge of the brutal and inhumane\ntechniques employed in recruiting these laborers, and that he gave\ndirectives for the criminal treatment of these laborers at the centers\nof production.\n\nThere is evidence that the defendant presented the labor demands of the\naircraft industry to Sauckel. The Tribunal will recall that in his\naffidavit Sauckel stated that it was the defendant who produced the\nmanpower figures for aviation. In view of the position occupied by\nSauckel in the slave labor program, this statement is of special\nimportance.\n\nThe statement of Sauckel is in agreement with the statements of Hermann\nGoering, the defendant\u2019s superior in the Luftwaffe. In his interrogation\nthe former Reich Marshal stated that the defendant was in charge of the\ndivision for labor employment in the Air Ministry and that the industry\ndemands for labor in air armament were made by the defendant.\n\nEven the defendant\u2019s collaborator Albert Speer testified to the same\neffect when he stated:\n\n \u201cThe requests of the air armament industry for laborers were\n presented by Milch and he did not permit anyone to take this\n right away from him until March 1944.\u201d\n\nThe defendant as Generalluftzeugmeister was acquainted with the methods\nemployed in recruiting this manpower. In fact, many of the practices\nindulged in by Sauckel were formulated at conferences at which the\ndefendant was in attendance. The Tribunal will recall that the defendant\nwas present at a conference in which Goering announced his plan to use\nthe Luftwaffe in the recruitment drive to capture laborers in Holland.\nThe Tribunal\u2019s attention is also drawn to the Generalluftzeugmeister\nmeeting of 25 January 1944 in which methods for the more expeditious\ndeportation of young Czechs for work in the Luftwaffe were discussed.\n\nThe defendant also knew that prisoners of war and concentration camp\npersonnel were included in the manpower he was requisitioning and\ndistributing to the aircraft industry. We have seen him trying to\nincrease their numbers in the industry under his control, and we have\nseen him ordering and abetting the inhumane treatment of this labor.\n\nAs chief of aircraft production, the defendant regulated the treatment\nof foreign forced labor in the German aircraft industry. The defendant\nfixed hours of labor and conditions of work and by directives to his\nsubordinates set basic policies for the handling of this labor within\nthe industry.\n\nWhere foreign workers refused to work, the defendant ordered that they\nbe shot. When these wretched slaves attempted to revolt, the defendant\ndirected that some of their numbers be killed, regardless of personal\nguilt or innocence. In the case of prisoners of war who attempted to\nescape, the defendant ordered that they be shot.\n\nWhen the \u201ccontracts\u201d of workers under his control expired, the defendant\nordered their compulsory extension, and when workers attempted to change\njobs, he advocated that they be put in concentration camps.\n\nIn the case of Italians who refused to work, the defendant ordered that\nthey be beaten and so informed his chief, Goering. And where Frenchmen\nrefused to work in French factories under his control, the defendant\nstated that he would deport them by force and bring them to Germany or\nto the East. Similar policies were applied by the defendant in the case\nof Polish workers.\n\nNo more need be said about the Generalluftzeugmeister. The Tribunal has\nseen the documents containing the minutes of the meetings. The documents\ndealing with this phase of the case are particularly revealing in\nshowing the fanaticism of the defendant and the enthusiasm with which he\nrecommended ruthless treatment of the hapless victims of German\noccupation policies.\n\nWe will now restate the pattern originally presented in terms of the\nproof brought forward at the trial in order to ascertain to what extent\nthe defendant\u2019s culpability has been established with reference to the\nmedical phase.\n\nFirst, the body of the crime. The prosecution contends that in violation\nof the laws of war and all the laws of humanity criminal high-altitude\nand freezing experiments were carried on by Luftwaffe physicians.\n\nThe testimony of Dr. Erich Hippke, the Medical Inspector of the\nLuftwaffe, is of interest on this subject. Hippke stated that Dr.\nRascher, a Luftwaffe physician at the time, came to Hippke with a\nproposal to use prisoners as high-altitude experimental subjects in May\n1941.\n\nHippke was in a receptive frame of mind, for it was essential that the\nscope of these experiments be widened and new human subjects were\nneeded. The researchers working on the tests had developed a certain\nimmunity so that results of self-experimentation did not give a true\npicture of the reactions.\n\nWith the aid of Himmler and the SS, the Luftwaffe was able to proceed\nwith the experiments which were allegedly necessary in the interests of\nGerman military aviation medical knowledge. But lest one be inclined to\nbelieve that these pressure experiments were considered as minor\nnuisances to the subjects concerned, with no real dangers, note the\nwords of Dr. Hippke:\n\n \u201cI asked him,\u201d speaking of Rascher, \u201chow he would be able to\n obtain such persons for experimentation, and he justified\n himself by saying that he had connections with the SS who had\n charge of such penal prisoners. There were such penal prisoners\n in Dachau and he would be in a position to obtain them for these\n purposes. I myself, because of my inner personal feelings on the\n matter, was very much against these experiments and could not\n make up my mind whether I should approve such experimentation.\u201d\n\nFrom the very beginning of the plan to conduct these experiments, Dr.\nHippke had strong mental reservations concerning the moral principles\ninvolved in the task which the Luftwaffe doctors were about to\nundertake. During the coming year Hippke weighed the problem, and it was\nwith some misgiving that he finally allowed his doctors to begin the\nexperiments, saying to them: \u201cPlease, children, go carefully.\u201d\n\nBut, tragically enough, his \u201cchildren\u201d did not go carefully. Instead,\nthey ran amuck with their scientific apparatus and tests. The pressure\nexperiments which were supposed to have been helpful to fliers of the\nLuftwaffe degenerated into so-called \u201cX-experiments\u201d, which meant\n\u201cexecution\u201d experiments.\n\nSeventy to eighty persons were murdered during the spring and summer of\n1942 when the pressure experiments were carried on at Dachau.\n\nDuring the subsequent freezing experiments a comparable number of\nconcentration camp inmates forfeited their lives to the sadistic Dr.\nRascher and his Luftwaffe associates.\n\nDr. Romberg himself admits having seen three persons die in the\nlow-pressure chamber and concedes that at least nine other deaths may\nwell have occurred when he was absent from his post at Dachau.\n\nWolfram Sievers,[145] the manager of the Ahnenerbe, the SS Research\nInstitute, witnessed the death of an experimental subject in the\nfreezing tank.\n\nThere is adequate evidence that the low-pressure and freezing\nexperiments were carried out by Luftwaffe physicians for the benefit of\nthe Luftwaffe. There has been no valid denial of the fact that the\ndefendant was the Luftwaffe official responsible for the deaths and\ncruelties suffered in these twin torture chambers, the pressure chamber\nand the freezing tank.\n\nNow, let us examine in more detail the second basic charge of the\nprosecution, namely, that the defendant was officially connected with\nthese experiments which violated the laws of war and humanity.\n\nWe have the \u201cWolffy\u201d letter of 20 May 1942 in which the defendant tells\nObergruppenfuehrer Wolff of the SS that \u201cthe altitude experiments\ncarried out by the SS and the Luftwaffe at Dachau have been finished.\u201d\nIn this same letter Milch announces that experiments in connection with\nperils on the high seas would be important; that the necessary\narrangements have been made and, since the low-pressure chamber is no\nlonger needed, it must be moved from Dachau. Thus the defendant has\nentered the picture and established his official connection with the\nhigh-altitude experiments and the low-temperature experiments, which\nproved to be considerably more than mere harmless chilling tests.\n\nIf, as the defendant contends, he was not officially responsible for\nthese Luftwaffe medical experiments, then it should follow that other\npersons connected with them would not take cognizance of the defendant\nin this matter. The contention is ridiculous.\n\nThe witness Wolff had the following to say regarding a meeting he had\nwith Milch in August or September 1942:\n\n \u201cThereafter, we had discussed our official questions. I inquired\n about how he was, and if everything between the Luftwaffe and\n the SS was all right. During that occasion we also spoke about\n these experiments very shortly, if at all, and we spoke of the\n invaluable help which the SS was giving us by providing these\n voluntary inmates, which was helping us with our medical\n material which could be used at the front.\u201d\n\nIt is to be noted that they talked about the experiments and Wolff asked\nhow the Luftwaffe SS relations were. It is submitted that this\ndemonstrates that Wolff regarded the defendant as the top man in the\nLuftwaffe Medical Experiments Program, as indeed he was.\n\nThen there are the two letters addressed to Milch by Himmler and Wolff,\nsubstantially alike in content; Himmler\u2019s, dated November 1942, in which\nhe cites the opposition that exists among \u201cChristian medical circles\u201d to\nconducting experiments on helpless, involuntary concentration camp\ninmates. He refers to the narrow-mindedness of such medical men, which\n\u201cwill take at least another ten years\u201d to remove. But this\nnarrow-mindedness did not trouble the consciences of Himmler or the\ndefendant Milch. Decidedly not. In the words of the Reich Leader SS: \u201cWe\ntwo should not get angry about these difficulties.\u201d\n\nThe prosecution submits that Himmler would not have written a letter in\nthis tenor unless he was certain that his good friend Milch would be in\ncomplete agreement with his views.\n\nAnd how did Himmler regard Milch in connection with the experiments? As\na casual onlooker, with a purely academic interest in the results\nobtained? No, Himmler knew that Milch possessed the over-all command,\nthe ultimate authority in the Luftwaffe; that the Inspector General of\nthe Luftwaffe was the man to refer to whenever a question arose as to\nthe disposition of the pressure chamber or the status of Dr. Rascher.\nWitness Himmler\u2019s request in his letter:\n\n \u201cI beg you to release Dr. Rascher, Stabsarzt in the reserve,\n from the air force and to transfer him to me to the Waffen SS. I\n would then assume the sole responsibility for having these\n experiments made in this field and would put the results, which\n we in the SS need only for the frost injuries in the East,\n entirely at the disposal of the air force.\u201d\n\nThe logical corollary to this statement is inescapable. _If_ Rascher was\nnot transferred to the SS and remained with the air force, the\nresponsibility would not be Himmler\u2019s alone. And we must remember that\nRascher did not leave his Luftwaffe post until the year 1943 _after_ the\nexperimental atrocities had been largely completed. Then where did this\nresponsibility rest? Himmler had no doubts; it was on the shoulders of\nthe defendant.\n\nNor did Karl Wolff, Himmler\u2019s right-hand man, have any doubts as to the\nresponsible person in the Luftwaffe, with reference to the medical\nexperiments. He, too, wrote to Milch requesting that Rascher be released\nfrom the Luftwaffe and transferred to the SS. Here was a man, who, by\nhis own testimony, \u201chad a good comradely relationship\u201d with the\ndefendant. On the direct examination, Wolff testified regarding his\nconnection with Milch:\n\n \u201cQ. In your position during the war did you have any official\n dealings with Milch?\n\n \u201cA. Yes.\n\n \u201cQ. In what connection?\n\n \u201cA. During peacetime\u2014that is, from 1933 on, until 1939\u2014there\n was a personal cooperation between Milch and me. _All\n difficulties between the Luftwaffe and the SS were handled at\n personal conferences in a very comradely way. This usage also\n took place during the war._\u201d\n\nIt is because of the situation above described, that the prosecution has\ncalled Wolff the liaison man between Himmler and the SS on the one hand,\nand the defendant and the Luftwaffe, on the other.\n\nThe testimony and affidavit of Walter Neff, the Dachau prisoner who\nlater became a block leader in Dachau, is of interest. This man saw\nRascher often. Was Milch\u2019s name mentioned by Rascher in connection with\nthe medical experiments? It was. In his affidavit, which he did not\nrepudiate when testifying before this Court, Neff said:\n\n \u201cThe name of Field Marshal _Milch_ was frequently mentioned in\n Dachau. Every time I asked Dr. Romberg how long the cars and the\n low-pressure chambers would remain in Dachau, he assured me that\n _Milch_ would attend to everything. Dr. Rascher said to me that\n he had communicated with Milch personally and that the cars\n would remain in Dachau as long as he specified.\u201d\n\nDr. Siegfried Ruff,[146] an important figure in the medical experiments\nprogram, head of the research section of the DVL, recognized the\ndefendant Milch as the supreme authority in the experimental program. In\nhis affidavit Ruff said:\n\n \u201cThe entire medical research for aviation was under General Dr.\n Erich Hippke, in his capacity as Chief of the Medical Service,\n until 1944, and subsequently under Professor Dr. Schroeder. As\n Chief of the Medical Service, General Hippke was immediately\n subordinate to Field Marshal Milch * * *. The chain of command\n for these experiments was Milch\u2014Hippke\u2014Ruff\u2014Romberg.\u201d\n\nAgain there is the chart drawn up by Dr. Oskar Schroeder,[147] outlining\nthe official Luftwaffe channels through which orders flowed from Milch\nto Hippke, and from Hippke to the various doctors engaged in the actual\nprocess of experimentation. Schroeder thus knew definitely that Milch\nwas the Luftwaffe Chief in the medical experiments program. He later\nsucceeded Hippke as Medical Inspector. Consequently, his chart is\nentitled to material weight in the proof offered by the prosecution.\n\nRudolf Brandt,[148] adjutant to Himmler, often had occasion to deal with\ncorrespondence between the Luftwaffe and the SS, regarding the\nexperiments. In referring to Himmler\u2019s request that Milch order Dr.\nRascher to be transferred to the SS, Brandt wrote a letter to Wolfram\nSievers, of the Ahnenerbe Society, stating\u2014\n\n \u201cI assume that the _Field Marshal will of himself give the\n necessary orders_, and then confine himself to sending a brief\n answer to the Reich Leader SS.\u201d\n\nAnd Sievers writing to Brandt about the use of the low-pressure chamber\nsays\u2014\n\n \u201cThe putting at our disposal of the low-pressure chamber,\n however, will be possible then _only if the Reich Leader SS\n writes in person to Field Marshal Milch concerning this_.\u201d\n\nThese two men, Sievers and Brandt, were not uninformed of the course of\nthe medical experiments nor of the competent personnel in the Luftwaffe\nand SS in this matter. On the contrary, Sievers admitted witnessing the\ndeath of an experimental subject in the freezing tank, and the\nsubsequent autopsy, while Rudolf Brandt stated in his affidavit\u2014\n\n \u201cField Marshal E. Milch and Professor Hippke, Inspector of the\n Medical Service of the Luftwaffe, were fully informed about the\n low-pressure experiments. Actually these experiments could not\n have been conducted without the knowledge and approval of these\n men, as they were conducted for the benefit of the Luftwaffe and\n the experimenting persons were mostly Luftwaffe physicians.\u201d\n\nIn the eyes of other persons, the defendant was the dominant force\nbehind the Luftwaffe participation in the Medical Experiments Program.\nThe defense has brought forward no adequate proof to show that they were\nmistaken. It is the conviction of the prosecution that no such proof\nexists.\n\nThe Commander in Chief of the Luftwaffe, Reich Marshal Hermann Goering,\nwas thoroughly familiar with the organization which was his brain child,\nthe Luftwaffe, and the way it functioned. What importance did Milch\u2019s\nposition have in Goering\u2019s mind?\n\nHis affidavit reads\u2014\n\n \u201cIncluded among the responsibilities of the Office of the\n Inspector General was the conduct of all research and\n experiments and of all matters pertaining to health and\n sanitation inspection * * *.\n\n * * * * *\n\n \u201cThat Generaloberstabsarzt Erich Hippke was the Sanitation\n Inspector of the Luftwaffe during the period from 1941 through\n 1944; that the Office of the Sanitation Inspector was directly\n responsible for the conduct of all research and medical\n experiments; that the Office of the Sanitation Inspector, of\n which Generaloberstabsarzt Erich Hippke was the head, was\n directly subordinate to the Inspector General, former Field\n Marshal Milch, and that former Field Marshal Milch was\n responsible for all action taken by Generaloberstabsarzt Hippke,\n or by the Office of the Sanitation Inspector or its\n subordinates.\u201d\n\nIt has been established that criminal experiments, high-altitude and\nfreezing, were carried on at Dachau by Luftwaffe physicians, working\nunder the orders and supervision of competent Luftwaffe authorities.\n\nWe have shown that all Luftwaffe personnel connected with, or knowing\nabout these experiments, from those closest to the place where the\nexperiments were conducted\u2014Dr. Rascher, and Walter Neff\u2014to those high\nup in the positions of command\u2014Goering and Schroeder\u2014looked to Milch\nas the ultimate authority in the Medical Experiments Program. An\ninvestigation of the attitudes and convictions of the SS officials\nconcerned in this program discloses the same picture.\n\nCould all these men have been mistaken? Were they writing to and\nreferring to the wrong man when they contacted the defendant? To put\nforward such a proposition is to deny the facts. There was no error, the\nfacts are indisputable.\n\nThe defendant was and is officially responsible for the Medical\nExperiments Program of the Luftwaffe.\n\nLastly, we come to the question of the defendant\u2019s knowledge of the\nexperiments which were being carried out at Dachau for the Luftwaffe.\n\nThroughout direct examination by his defense counsel, the defendant has\nconsistently denied receiving reports authored by Rascher or in any\nother way being informed of the criminal nature of those experiments,\nuntil the time of this trial.\n\nHowever, he was very much interested in altitude experiments as such.\nThe following excerpt is from his testimony under questioning by Dr.\nBergold:\n\n \u201cQ. Witness, how far were you interested in these high-altitude\n experiments in question as GL?\n\n \u201cA. We were interested in the real altitude tests as I know it\n exactly, because I want to state this figure as 13,500 meters,\n and we added 500 meters in order to get a square figure.\n However, we knew that this last 500 meters, which I have\n mentioned, we were not too interested in that. We were only\n interested in the first place in cabin planes, too, after a\n certain test had been carried out on 388-cabin suits, whether it\n did not succeed or fail, because a person could not move\n properly the way those suits were, due to low pressure up there\n in the air is felt much more than here on the ground.\u201d\n\nThe Tribunal\u2019s attention is directed to this figure of 14,000 meters,\nwhich is approximately ten miles. Milch wanted that altitude simulated\nin the pressure chamber and the human reactions studied.\n\nIt was on 20 May 1942 that Milch wrote his letter to Wolff. Here he said\nthat Hippke had reported to him that the altitude experiments carried\nout by the SS and Luftwaffe at Dachau were finished. Mention was made of\nRascher\u2019s availability for the forthcoming experiments dealing with sea\nperils. And Milch stated that the low-pressure chamber could no longer\nremain at Dachau. In this one letter, the defendant demonstrates his\nknowledge that the SS and the Luftwaffe were conducting, and had\ncompleted, altitude experiments at Dachau and that Dr. Rascher was\ninvolved.\n\nThere is the letter of 4 June 1942 to Hippke, wherein the defendant\nexhibits his authority in regard to the low-pressure chamber and the\ntasks of Dr. Rascher.\n\nOn 25 August 1942, Himmler wrote to the defendant enclosing the report\non the high-altitude experiments. Moreover, he asked Milch to receive\nDrs. Rascher and Romberg for a lecture and presentation of the film on\nthe experiments. Himmler suggested that Milch refer the matter to the\nReich Marshal \u201cbecause of its importance\u201d.\n\nThis last statement should dispel any possible doubts as to the\nattention accorded these experiments by official German military\ncircles. In fact, the defendant himself admitted discussing the\nexperiments with Goering on 13 September 1942. The defendant spoke of\nHimmler\u2019s interest in the program, and the apprehension felt by the\nMedical Inspector Hippke, although \u201che did tell me that everything was\nall right.\u201d The disposal of the pressure chamber was settled in this\ntalk with Goering.\n\nThe defendant has said that the experiments, reports, and other aspects\nof the matter were not known to him, partly because he had no time for\nthis, and partly because he had no technical knowledge of the subject.\nHe would have this Court believe that the experimental program was a\nminor matter\u2014one that the Inspector General of the Luftwaffe would not\npay close attention to. Yet we have seen that it was important enough so\nthat Himmler was frequently corresponding with the defendant or others\non the subject. It was important enough for the defendant to bring the\nmatter to Goering\u2019s attention, even to the details of the disposition of\nthe low-pressure chamber.\n\nOn 31 August 1942, the defendant wrote to Himmler, acknowledging receipt\nof the report on altitude experiments, and telling Himmler that he was\n\u201cinformed about the current experiments\u201d.\n\nWhile on the stand the defendant attempted to explain this letter by\nreferring to the usage of German Ministries, where the form \u201cI\u201d means\nthe Ministry as such. But he admitted that he had written the closing\nsentences of this letter \u201cI remain yours, as ever, etc.\u201d Here he did not\ndeny that \u201cI\u201d was used in its ordinary sense. It is neither logical nor\ncapable of belief that in the same letter to Himmler, defendant would\nuse the word \u201cI\u201d in two different senses.\n\nIt was also on 31 August 1942 that Hippke discussed the experiments with\nthe defendant, expressing _doubts_ and _misgivings_. In reply to Milch\u2019s\nquestion, Hippke told him that these doubts had not been substantiated.\n\nThus it can be seen, from Milch\u2019s testimony itself, that a cloud of\nsuspicion and evil hovered over the entire Medical Experiments Program.\n\nIt is useless, indeed futile, to punish the perpetrators of criminal\nacts on the one hand, and to ignore those in high positions who have\nmade possible the commission of the crimes. The defendant has belabored\nthe term \u201cduty\u201d in the course of his testimony. He has spoken of his\nsolemn oath to Hitler and to the German people. It would seem that it\nwas incumbent upon the defendant to acquaint himself with the activities\nof his subordinates, at least to the extent that he should have known\nthat people were being murdered in experiments, which from the evidence,\nwere useless as far as the advancement of the knowledge of aviation\nmedicine is concerned.\n\nThe present case is not without judicial precedent. A close analogy can\nbe drawn between it and a recent case decided by the Supreme Court of\nthe United States, _in re Yamashita_ [U. S. Reports, Vol. 327, October\nterm 1945, Nos. 61 and 672]. The procedural and jurisdictional questions\ntherein decided are of no moment to us now, but the facts of the\nYamashita case are similar to those of the Milch case, and the opinion\nrendered by the Court is particularly in point in the matter of\nresponsibility for senior officers.\n\nGeneral Yamashita was the Commanding General of the 14th Army Group of\nthe Imperial Japanese Army in the Philippines.\n\nUpon surrendering to United States Forces, he was indicted and tried as\na war criminal before a Military Tribunal on the following\ncharge\u2014\u201cwhile commander of armed forces of Japan at war with the United\nStates of America and its Allies, unlawfully disregarded and failed to\ndischarge his duty as commander to control the operations of the members\nof his command, permitting them to commit brutal atrocities and other\nhigh crimes against people of the United States and of its Allies and\ndependencies, particularly the Philippines, and he * * * thereby\nviolated the laws of war.\u201d\n\nThe Court summed up the issue as follows:\n\n \u201cThe question then is whether the law of war imposes on an army\n commander a duty to take such appropriate measures as are within\n his power to control the troops under his command for the\n prevention of the specified acts which are violations of the law\n of war and which are likely to attend the occupation of hostile\n territory by an uncontrolled soldiery, and whether he may be\n charged with personal responsibility for his failure to take\n such measures when violations result.\u201d\n\nThe Court cited Articles 1 and 43 of the Fourth Hague Convention of\n1907, Article 19 of the Tenth Hague Convention, and Article 26 of the\nGeneva Red Cross Convention of 1929. It then stated\u2014\n\n \u201cThese provisions plainly imposed on petitioner, who at the time\n specified was Military Governor of the Philippines, as well as\n commander of the Japanese forces, an affirmative duty to take\n such measures as were within his power, and appropriate in the\n circumstances, to protect prisoners of war and the civilian\n population. This duty of a commanding officer has heretofore\n been recognized and its breach penalized by our own military\n tribunals.\u201d\n\nThe Court thereupon denied the petition for certiorari and leave to file\npetitions, for writs of habeas corpus, and prohibition.\n\nIn the case of the medical experiments, we have a much less complex\nsituation. There is no question of a senior officer in an occupied\ncountry, rather we are faced with a simple direct chain of command\nproblem: Milch\u2014Foerster\u2014Hippke. Had Milch given the order, the\nexperiments would have been terminated, but no order of termination was\ngiven\u2014people were murdered and Rascher remained in the Luftwaffe until\nhe was transferred to the SS in March 1943. The defendant had an\naffirmative duty to know what was going on, and an affirmative duty to\nact so as to stop the experiments. That he was ignorant of the true\nstate of affairs is unbelievable in view of the letters and the\ntestimony of those who were below him. Field marshals are not made as\nare noncommissioned officers. The road is a long one in any army from\nthe position of private to the lofty peak of a field marshal. The\ndefendant would have you believe that his powers were similar to those\nof a private first class. Yet we have seen him, high in the councils, a\nconfidant of Hitler, one who could disagree with Goering, whose deputy\nhe was on occasion, a man who was so thoroughly skilled a soldier that\nhe seriously requested an assignment as a division commander, although\nhis service had been in the air force for a decade prior to the request.\nIf the defendant was not the responsible officer in connection with the\nmedical experiments, then the scourge of the Wehrmacht has not touched\nthe continent of Europe. There is no one who knows better than the\ndefendant the principle of responsibility in any army. By holding the\noffice which he held, he had the duty to control the activities of those\nwho were his subordinates, to insure that they conducted themselves as\nsoldiers and not as murderers. He has failed woefully in the task.\n\nWe have concluded now our remarks regarding the criminal activities of\nthe defendant in his various capacities with respect to the slave labor\nprogram and the medical experiments. It remains only for us to deal\nbriefly with the defendant\u2019s participation in the murder of two Russian\nescapees, to discuss his defense of irresponsibility because of a bad\ntemper, to discuss the use of PW\u2019s, and to touch upon the testimony of\nsome of the witnesses who appeared in his behalf, and the record of the\nmeeting of 23 May 1939.\n\nThe defendant has maintained that he knew nothing about the shooting of\nthe two Russian officers who attempted to escape in February 1944. We\nhave his own statement, made at a time when the general situation, from\nthe Wehrmacht\u2019s point of view, was acute but not forlorn. The\nInternational Military Tribunal has stated in its judgment concerning\nFritz Sauckel,[149] speaking of a statement made by Sauckel at a Central\nPlanning Board meeting, \u201cAlthough he now claims that the statement is\nnot true, the circumstances under which it was made, as well as the\nevidence presented before the Tribunal, leave no doubt that it was\nsubstantially accurate.\u201d The word \u201ccircumstances\u201d as there used refers\nto a meeting of the Central Planning Board on 1 March 1944. Milch made\nhis statement at the prior meeting held on 16 February 1944 (53d). The\nletters submitted by the defense in connection with this episode are\ninteresting. The first and second from Schmidtke on 10 January, and from\nGangolf on 13 January, refer to a similar incident other than that with\nwhich we are here concerned. The third letter from Winterstein on 12\nJanuary says nothing about the deaths. The affidavit of Prell, other\nthan stating that the deaths occurred on a Saturday, is of no value. The\nwitness Barthelmess, who made an affidavit though a resident of\nNuernberg, was not called. The affidavits of Klein and Popp were\noffered; each is in a prison camp in the American Zone, yet neither was\ncalled. The letter of Janko recites the facts in a context suggestive of\nthe words used by the defendant when he described the incident in the\n53d meeting of the Central Planning Board on 16 February 1944. Here,\ntoo, it is submitted that the circumstances under which the statement\nwas made leave no doubt that it was substantially accurate. The\ndefendant boasted of his prowess as a commander who ordered executions\nwhen he would impress those who curried his favor at the Central\nPlanning Board meetings, but now he says he had no authority to give\norders and if he had given them, they would not have been obeyed.\n\nThe defendant has offered, as a plausible reason for the employment of\nRussian, French, and Italian prisoners of war, the fact that various\nhistorical events made it unnecessary to abide by the terms of the\nconvention concerning prisoners of war. The witness von Neurath\ntestified that Russia had renounced the conventions in question, and\nhence Germany could renounce them as to Russia. As for France, it is\ncontended that the alleged government headed by Pierre Laval had\nconcluded an arrangement with the Reich which made it legal to employ\nprisoners of war in tasks forbidden by the Conventions. A similar reason\nis advanced for the use of Italian prisoners, the concluding of an\narrangement between the Reich and Mussolini. The International Military\nTribunal made a finding with respect to this matter.[150]\n\n \u201cThe argument in defense of the charge with regard to the murder\n and ill-treatment of Soviet prisoners of war, that the U.S.S.R.\n was not a party to the Geneva Convention, is quite without\n foundation. On 15 September 1941 Admiral Canaris protested\n against the regulations for the treatment of Soviet prisoners of\n war, signed by General Reinecke on 8 September 1941.\u201d\n\nI might add that Admiral Canaris was a member of the German Navy.\nResuming the quotation\u2014\n\n \u201cHe\u201d\u2014Canaris\u2014\u201cthen stated, \u2018The Geneva Convention for the\n treatment of prisoners of war is not binding in the relationship\n between Germany and the U.S.S.R. Therefore only the principles\n of general international law on the treatment of prisoners of\n war apply. Since the 18th century these have gradually been\n established along the lines that war captivity is neither\n revenge nor punishment, but solely protective custody, the only\n purpose of which is to prevent the prisoners of war from further\n participation in the war. This principle was developed in\n accordance with the view held by all armies that it is contrary\n to military tradition to kill or injure helpless people * * *.\n The decrees for the treatment of Soviet prisoners of war\n enclosed are based on a fundamentally different viewpoint.\u2019\n\n \u201cThis protest, which correctly stated the legal position, was\n ignored\u201d.\n\nThe defendant was a soldier of some experience, he knew it was improper,\neven criminal, to have the Russian prisoners work in the Luftwaffe\nfactories, but he paid no attention to the breach of this duty of the\nsoldier. The manner in which the Reich bludgeoned a treaty from the\nFrench is too well known to warrant discussion. It cannot be contended\nwith any seriousness that the French prisoners of war, who were\nnegotiated into slavery by a puppet government, were voluntary employees\nof the Germans. Indeed the witness Le Friec has testified that when he\nwas taken to work in the airplane factory, he was told that he would\n\u201cwork on baby carriages\u201d. The position of the defendant with reference\nto Italian prisoners of war and their illegal employment is still more\nabsurd, if that is possible. The Wehrmacht had moved into Italy early in\nthe war, and in 1943, when the Badoglio government concluded an\narmistice with the Allies, the Wehrmacht continued to occupy the\nnorthern part of Italy as an occupying power. They allegedly made a\ntreaty with the by then tottering shadow of the former sawdust C\u00e6sar and\nproceeded to bring the Italian prisoners of war to the Reich to work.\nHere again the soldiery had been sold into bondage by their former\nchief. The record shows that the Russian, French, and Italian prisoners\nof war were used to work in airplane factories. Whether they made the\nfighter plane, Me 109, or the jet fighter, Me 262, or the transport\nplane, Ju 52, is of little moment. In the total warfare in which the\nReich was engaged, there is one certainty, that nothing was being\nconstructed which was not part of the war armament program.\n\nThe International Military Tribunal stated in this connection\u2014[151]\n\n \u201cMany of the prisoners of war were assigned to work directly\n related to military operations, in violation of Article 31 of\n the Geneva Convention. They were put to work in munitions\n factories and even made to load bombers, to carry ammunition and\n to dig trenches, often under the most hazardous conditions. This\n condition applied particularly to Soviet prisoners of war. On 16\n February 1943, at a meeting of the Central Planning Board, * * *\n Milch said: \u2018We have made a request for an order that a certain\n percentage of men in the Ack-Ack artillery must be Russians;\n 50,000 will be taken altogether. Thirty thousand are already\n employed as gunners. This is an amusing thing, that the Russians\n must work the guns\u2019\u201d.\n\nThat every aircraft factory in the Reich had antiaircraft batteries to\nprotect it goes without saying. Who would know better than the defendant\nthat such use was made of the Soviet prisoners of war? Further, this\ntype of artillery was a part of the Luftwaffe and not a separate branch\nin the ground forces, as it is in the U.S. Army. The witness Foerster\nhas testified that Soviet prisoners of war worked at the gun positions.\nIf the number two man in the German air force could not have done\nanything toward arranging that the prisoners of war did not work in the\nfactories, or work the guns, then no one in the Wehrmacht could have\ndone anything about the situation.\n\nWe have heard much of the defendant\u2019s violent temper and the resulting\nstatements which, witnesses assert, were never taken seriously by those\nwho heard them. The explanations offered by the defense are as frivolous\nas the alleged outbursts were frequent. It would have been difficult, if\nnot impossible, for one who occupied the positions held by the\ndefendant, to accomplish anything if his subordinates had to sift all of\nthe strong statements he made, in an effort to determine which of them\nwere seriously said. Further, his strong statements about the\nprocurement and treatment of laborers are closely aligned with the grim\nreality as we have seen it. We submit that this man of violent temper\nbelieved in, and consciously advocated, the ruthless measures he\nrecommended, and that his subordinates, to the best of their ability,\ncomplied with his recommendations. It is not reasonable to assume that\none with his power could have made statements, of the kind of which we\nhave heard here, and that he would then rely on the good offices of\nthose who were around him to insure that nothing was done as a result of\nthese statements. The Reich was not a country of innocent victims of one\ntyrant, but rather it was composed of a series of tyrants, each like the\nmaster tyrant, each with his own group of subordinates, who carried out\nthe wishes and whims of their respective chiefs. If all men who held\npositions of authority in the Reich are to be believed when they say\nthat they were personally opposed to criminal excesses, then we have the\nfantastic conclusion that these crimes were committed in the face of\ninfluential and unanimous opposition.\n\nThe witnesses produced by the defense left a little to be desired.\nWithout indulging in exhaustive detail, a few statements made by some\nare worth comment.\n\nThe witness Koenig said that he didn\u2019t know Himmler was head of the SS\nuntil 1945.\n\nThe witness von Brauchitsch did not know families were broken up and\nsent to concentration camps. It was this man, the aid to Goering, who\npassed on the Terboven letter of May 1942 to the defendant. The Court\nwill recall that the letter told of the attempted escape and the\nresulting concentration camp detention of the Norwegians. It was the\ndefendant who said that an attempt to escape by a prisoner of war is an\nhonorable thing. Would not a similar effort on the part of some\nNorwegians merit something less than a concentration camp? Brauchitsch\nhad said a little earlier that he did not know that foreigners were in\nconcentration camps.\n\nThe witness Felmy has stated that some Yugoslav partisans were sent to\nGermany as laborers.\n\nThe witness Schniewind, who was present at the conference of 23 May\n1939, did not under any circumstances gain the impression that\naggression was announced.\n\nThe witness Vorwald, a subordinate of the defendant and hence his\nconcern for these proceedings, may be assumed as being something short\nof disinterested, was thoroughly glib and exceptionally agreeable. He\neven agreed with the statement, on cross-examination, that the forces of\nthe Reich were no longer in Africa in 1943. It is a matter of historical\nrecord that the invasion of that Continent began in November 1942 and\nthat the campaign was concluded in the spring of the following year.\n\nThe witness Koerner, still laboring under the spell of the former\nleaders, stated that he believed Goering to be the last great man of the\nRenaissance.\n\nThe last witness of whom we shall speak is Karl Wolff. In his affidavit\nhe spoke of meetings between Himmler and Milch over coffee and cigars.\nHe spoke of the great cultural works of the SS. Was he speaking of\nDachau and Mauthausen? With some vehemence, he insisted that he had\ndeported only 1,050 Jews from all of Italy. He knew nothing of Dachau\nthat led him to believe that anything unusual was happening there;\nalthough he did say that, in his visit there in 1942, the place was so\nclean that one could have eaten from the floor.\n\nThese represent a fair cross section of the witnesses, all of whom had\nroles of varying importance in the tragedy with which we are here\nconcerned. Even as the defendant contends that he knew nothing of what\nwent on, so do they echo the same refrain.\n\nMuch time has been spent in attempting to discredit the Schmundt record\nof the 23 May 1939 meeting. The Court is familiar with the findings\nwhich have been made by the International Military Tribunal on this\nsubject. There has been no additional light thrown on the matter by the\nevidence here presented to indicate that the Schmundt record is anything\nother than a correct record of the events which transpired at the\nmeeting.\n\nWe wish to discuss now in conclusion one document offered by the\nprosecution. This we have saved until the last because we believe that\nof all the evidence presented by the prosecution it is most typical of\nthe defendant as a man and as a Nazi. We refer to the minutes of the\nconference of air force engineers and others which was presided over and\nwas addressed by the defendant on 25 March 1944. This document, like so\nmany others in this case, was initialed by the defendant.\n\nThe defendant stated that, as of the date of the conference, \u201cWe have in\nour employ today approximately 60 percent foreigners * * *.\u201d\n\nHe continued, \u201cThe ratio is gradually approaching 90 percent foreigners,\nwith 10 percent German managers.\u201d\n\nThese are statements by a man who said he did not know about the extent\nto which foreign labor was used in his own industry, let alone in\nGermany. He stated that\u2014\n\n \u201cThe Fuehrer order provides clearly that the fighter plane\n program, which the Jaegerstab is starting, has priority over all\n other fields of armament * * *.\u201d\n\nHe showed knowledge of the production of tanks and infantry munitions.\nHe spoke of having the air force production \u201cto an extent safely\nunderground\u201d in four months\u2019 time. It is here that he stated that he was\nhead of the Jaegerstab and that Saur was his deputy and Chief of Staff.\nTouching on his conferences with the various plant officials, he\nstated\u2014\n\n \u201cOn the spot the individual gentlemen are then told\u2014supported\n by the combined authority of the State, the Wehrmacht, and the\n Party, that is Saur and me, Speer is unfortunately still on sick\n leave, otherwise he would also be present\u2014what it is all\n about.\u201d\n\nHe commented on labor\u2014\n\n \u201cThus, all pertinent questions are dealt with in the conferences\n about the commitment of labor and all competent men, who have\n anything to do with the commitment of labor, meet, especially\n the president of the competent provincial labor office. Thus it\n is determined on the spot, in the individual spheres, what the\n factory lacks.\u201d\n\nThis is the man who has constantly maintained that he had nothing to do\nwith labor. One can readily imagine a session between the Luftwaffe\nfield marshal and a labor office chief.\n\nWe have heard the defendant deny and re-deny any knowledge of the slave\nlabor program as such, let alone the extent to which it went. It is our\ncontention that anybody who walked the streets of Germany could not have\nfailed to have become aware of the activities which were being carried\non by Sauckel and his henchmen.\n\nHe makes an interesting reference to bureaucracy:\n\n \u201cIt is an error to believe that civilian offices are more\n bureaucratic than military offices. On the basis of my\n continuous and extensive experience, I can assure you exactly\n the opposite is true.\u201d\n\nThis from one who would have the Tribunal believe that his staff and\nofficers were one big happy family who ran things in a rather casual\ncatch-as-catch-can fashion.\n\nSpeaking of the arrival of laborers, he said\u2014\n\n \u201cIn brief, the people arrive there and are put to work there. If\n any doubts exist as to whether a request is justified\u2014for the\n people are not requested by numbers, but as electricians,\n blacksmiths, fitters, turners, as unskilled laborers, as\n foreigners\u2014then this is settled. If the result shows that the\n request for people is not justified, then the matter is referred\n to a commission and this commission examines the facts within 48\n hours. If it becomes apparent that dirty dealings are going on,\n my special court martial is called into play, and it hands down\n a quick decision.\u201d\n\nThis from a man who has stated that he had no power to give orders. He\nstated further, \u201cthe normal work week in our industry is 72 hours.\u201d The\nwitness Krysiak testified that they worked 84 hours at the factory where\nthe Mauthausen inmates were employed.\n\nSpeaking of the difficulties that resulted from the hoarding of spare\nparts by the various foremen, he said\u2014\n\n \u201cNow it is your task to teach these people some sense and to put\n the entire system of hoarding on a sensible basis. I therefore\n ask you, as the senior authorities in the field: teach that to\n these people by force. There is no sense in writing letters.\n Such letters are not read. They would not understand them\n anyhow.\u201d\n\nThe wish of a field marshal is as an order, and he advocated the use of\nforce on his own people. The extent to which he urged that they go was\nexpressed a few lines further on when he stated\u2014\n\n \u201cWhoever hoards supplies must be punished immediately. By\n punishment I also mean shooting. For if these people are told\n what is at issue here, and they still try to hide parts of their\n supplies or to cover them up, that is dirty dealing and a crime\n against Germany. I want to say that very clearly and I want to\n say it in very sincere words, so that you yourselves will\n realize that we are dealing here with a question which is of\n decisive importance for Germany\u2019s well-being, that we are not\n dealing with an ordinary point of discussion but with a question\n which decides about the life and death of Germany.\u201d\n\nHe advocated killing Germans, not slackers but hoarders. He consciously\nused strong language, yet he would have it believed that he never spoke\nharshly except in a rage and that nothing ever came from his outbursts.\nHe indicated knowledge of the overall figures on the breakdown of\nworking hours.\n\n \u201cIn considering the figures one has to know that 52 percent of\n the total man-hours are spent in equipping a plane and only 48\n percent in building the aircraft frame and engine.\u201d\n\nHe has said that he was powerless to do anything about requests from\nindustry, yet he stated\u2014\n\n \u201cIf I want something from industry, then industry comes and\n says, \u2018Yes, I have those and those requests.\u2019 Only then can I do\n what you want.\u201d\n\nHe again speaks of the death penalty when he says\u2014\n\n \u201cGentlemen, in this connection I may call your attention to\n another important point. If I visit an office and find out that\n something is being hidden there, then I ask for the death\n penalty for such a crime today. That is fraud. That is sabotage\n of the German armament industry.\u201d\n\nCan it be seriously contended that these words were regarded by the\nlisteners as mere outbursts?\n\nNext we have another illuminating passage on his attitude toward\nprisoners of war.\n\n \u201cThen there is still the human factor. We often had considerable\n difficulty with the human factor. The fluctuation there is very\n considerable. The quota of the Luftwaffe in the distribution of\n manpower was considerably lowered. The foreigners run away. They\n do not keep any contract. There are difficulties with Frenchmen,\n Italians, Dutch. The prisoners of war are partly unruly and\n fresh. The people are also supposed to be carrying on sabotage.\n These elements cannot be made more efficient by small means.\n They are just not handled strictly enough. If a decent foreman\n would sock one of those unruly guys because the fellow won\u2019t\n work, the situation would soon change. International law cannot\n be observed here. I have asserted myself very strongly and, with\n the help of Saur, I have represented the point of view very\n strongly that the prisoners, with the exception of the English\n and the Americans, should be taken away from the military\n authorities. The soldiers are not in a position, as experience\n has shown, to cope with these fellows who know all the answers.\n I shall take very strict measures here and shall put such a\n prisoner of war before my court martial. If he has committed\n sabotage or refused to work, I will have him hanged right in his\n own factory. I am convinced that that will not be without\n effect.\u201d\n\nThese words are strangely reminiscent of his speech at the 53d meeting\nof the Central Planning Board. He knew he had advocated and participated\nin flagrant violations of international law and here he went on record\non this subject.\n\nWe see the defendant making a \u201cbig request\u201d of the Quartermaster General\nand calling for \u201cenergetic action\u201d by the chief of supply. This was a\nmeeting of considerable moment and these statements did not go unheeded.\n\nHe spoke of the laborers.\n\n \u201c* * * We in the Luftwaffe armament industry have Russians,\n French prisoners of war, Dutch, and members of 32 other nations.\n The obtaining of interpreters alone presents a big difficulty\n there.\u201d\n\nThen he adds\u2014\n\n \u201cWe, the Quartermaster General and Generalluftzeugmeister, have\n already agreed that we are to balance the personnel also. Above\n all it is necessary that the member of the troops be treated in\n exactly the same way as the industrial worker.\u201d\n\nWe have a strong statement concerning the feelings of the German worker.\nHe said\u2014\n\n \u201cBy unjust treatment the German worker means that the treatment\n is not the same for all. That is what makes the German worker\n indignant. He wants everyone to be treated the same way. He\n wants justice and does not want to be ill-treated in words or\n any other way. He cannot stand it and he is right in not being\n able to stand it.\u201d\n\nThe defendant advocated that the German worker be carefully handled. The\nTribunal has heard from the witnesses Ferrier, Le Friec, and Krysiak how\nthe foreign workers were handled.\n\nHe outlined the working program for the Easter week end\u2014\n\n \u201cFinally I ask that the troops receive the fundamental order to\n work on Good Friday, the Saturday before Easter, and on Easter\n Monday in the same way as the people in the factories. The\n soldiers just do not have to go on furlough either. They must be\n told why.\u201d\n\nAre these the words of a man who is without authority to issue orders\nconcerning the troops?\n\nHe acknowledged his employment of Russian prisoners of war and advocated\nthat shirkers among the factory laborers be whipped back to their jobs.\nHe said\u2014\n\n \u201cI further ask for support by the Luftwaffe physicians. With all\n the rabble that we have among the foreign workers there is of\n course a lot of shirking. At the moment the Russians\u2014that is,\n the Russian prisoners of war\u2014are feigning a lot of fatigue and\n illness. The incidence of sickness of one and a half to two\n percent which we have had up to now has at least doubled, and in\n some factories it has been increased to eight, nine, and ten\n percent. That is, of course, done by previous agreement. There\n the official physicians must undertake an examination and if the\n physicians, who have to be very strict, find out that it is not\n true, then we return the fellows to work by means of the whip.\n Then the whip serves as cure.\u201d\n\nHe again spoke of orders that have been given.\n\n \u201cIf the factory knows: Now we are going to be attacked, and it\n has a few trench shelters but does not have a bombproof shelter\n or the like, then the people simply ran away from the factory\n automatically at each raid after the first one, and they could\n usually not be caught the next day either. That applies\n particularly to the foreigners. We have therefore now issued the\n following order, and have equipped the superiors accordingly\n with weapons and pistols: As soon as a factory which has already\n been attacked a few times can count on the raid\u2019s being aimed at\n that particular factory again, then the personnel leave the\n factory, but in closed groups by shops, under the leadership of\n the man in charge of the shop, and, to the extent that they are\n German personnel, they leave singing military songs.\u201d\n\nAre superiors armed with weapons and pistols to lead contented German\nworkers away from a factory in case of an air-raid? Little wonder that\nthe foreigners who had been brought in like chattels ran away when the\nopportunity presented itself. Were these workers who were fleeing,\nvoluntary workers?\n\nCommenting on the gravity of the task of fighter production, and the\nimportance of the months of April and May 1944, he said\u2014\n\n \u201cThat will be decided in six to eight weeks. If we succeed in\n this, then we will once again have time to carry out all the\n other tasks and jobs of this war and can also achieve greater\n successes in other fields.\u201d\n\nWere the \u201cother fields\u201d tasks to be accomplished in the sowing of seeds\nof the Reich\u2019s culture?\n\nThe defendant has said that he knew nothing about the living conditions\nof the foreigners. It is obvious that he knew something, for he said\u2014\n\n \u201cI also ask you to be of considerable assistance in the question\n of lodging in connection with the question of the relationship\n between our military personnel at the airfields and the workers.\n If we bring the people over to work, we also have to provide\n them with places to live. As far as foreigners are concerned,\n this has to be done in some suitable way. They cannot be put\n together with our people, just like that. But they should not be\n so far away from the airfield that one cannot get them to work\n at all.\u201d\n\nNo, don\u2019t let them live with the native workers, but be sure that they\nlive close enough to the factory so that they can put in their 72 hours\na week!\n\nThe importance of the fighter program is emphasized when he said\u2014\n\n \u201cThere are no laws of bureaucracy, there are no regulations,\n there is nothing at all as important as the task of winning the\n war.\u201d\n\nThe defendant could not agree with anything that Hitler stood for after\nMarch 1943. He was trying to get out, but here he speaks of Hitler and\nhis henchmen\u2014men who, he said, were leading Germany to certain\ncatastrophe:\n\n \u201cIt is quite surprising how the population has endured this\n thing so far and how it always gets on its feet again when it is\n led in the proper way by true leaders who, thank God, are\n present among the people through the Party and the rest of the\n leadership. But you must not forget, gentlemen, war nerves have\n reached a point which cause us in the leadership group worry.\u201d\n\nHe has said that he was not a wholehearted Nazi, but here he referred to\nhimself as one of the true leaders and this at a time when the hands on\nthe clock tolling the hours of the Reich were approaching twelve. Yet he\nwould have you believe that he was a minor man.\n\nHe did not confine his speaking efforts solely to the Luftwaffe; he was\none of the leaders, and as such it was natural that he should address\nthe armament feeder industry. On that subject he said\u2014\n\n \u201cWhat I am telling you today was told the other day to the\n entire armament feeder industry\u2014that includes the blacksmiths,\n foundries, crankshaft workers of the iron producing industry,\n etc. They were likewise exhorted to produce the maximum. In the\n same way the Gauleitungen, all of the provincial offices,\n wherever we were, were addressed by us to that effect. But\n everyone considers that if he does not do his duty, we do not\n ask whether there is a law, we ask only that he is the\n responsible one, and that we will seize him no matter who he\n is.\u201d\n\nHis first peroration is indicative of his attitude.\n\n \u201cPlease go wherever you are going and knock everybody down who\n blocks your way! We cover up everything here. We do not ask\n whether he is allowed to or whether he is not allowed to. For\n us, there is nothing but this one task. We are fanatics in this\n sphere. We do not even consider letting anything at all distract\n us from that task. No order exists which could prevent me from\n fulfilling this task. Nor shall I ever be given such an order.\u201d\n\nYes, the defendant was a fanatic. Too, he was one who could cover up. It\nwas a willful man who could say that.\n\nThere is an interesting statement concerning the number of employees of\nthe Luftwaffe. The defendant set it at 1.8 million. This is somewhat in\nexcess of the .5 million figure that one witness mentioned.\n\nIt has been insisted that he had nothing to do with labor, it has been\ninsisted that he could give no orders, yet in his second peroration to\nthe same speech, he said\u2014\n\n \u201cWe have given orders that will make you laugh. Some labor\n control office or other suddenly declared that the Jaegerstab\n was not entitled, according to paragraph so-and-so, to establish\n a 72-hour workweek; it was not valid. I said: The gentleman is\n herewith informed, if he should say such a thing once more, he\n will be picked up; I have excellent cellars in this house. Then\n the opposition disappears immediately. But you have to count on\n such things, and the difficulty for you is that, in order to get\n through all the junk, one should clean out, first of all, a\n whole lot of little pigsties. Something will come out of this\n whole affair with us, yet. Whoever of my technical people from\n the Ministry does not earn his keep with the Jaegerstab now, and\n does not cooperate, I guarantee that he will never appear again\n in this Ministry, in the machine where I give the orders.\u201d\n\nIs this the man who said he could not have people sent to concentration\ncamps? The witness Krysiak was \u201cpicked up\u201d for having said in 1940 that\nGermany would lose the war. He was arrested by the Gestapo as the result\nof a private conversation. It is unbelievable that a field marshal could\nnot, and did not, exercise the same power.\n\nToday is the third anniversary of the speech of 25 March 1944 made by\nthe defendant. His closing remarks on that day detail decisively the\nphilosophy of the then field marshal of the Luftwaffe. Those assembled\nhad been listening to their chief since midmorning. The hour was late.\nThe hands of the clock were past twelve. Germany was in the fifth year\nof war. The defendant was concluding his speech. He said\u2014\n\n \u201cGentlemen, I know, not every subordinate can say: for me the\n law no longer exists, but he has to have someone who covers up\n for him. Not out of cowardice, but if you act according to the\n spirit of the old field service regulation, \u2018Abstaining from\n doing something hurts us more than erring in the choice of the\n means\u2019, and if, moreover, you keep in touch and immediately\n clarify difficult points so that something can be done, then we\n are willing to accept the responsibility, whether this is the\n law or not. I see only two possibilities for me and for Germany;\n either we succeed and thereby save Germany, or we continue these\n slipshod methods and then get the fate that we deserve. I prefer\n to fall, while I am doing something that is against the rules\n but that is right and sensible, and be called to account for it,\n and, if you like, hanged, rather than be hanged because Papa\n Stalin is here in Berlin or the Englishmen. I have no desire for\n that. I would rather die in a different way. But I think we can\n accomplish this task, too. We are in the fifth year of war\u2014I\n repeat: The decision will come during the next six weeks. Heil\n Hitler!\u201d\n\nThe time is at hand for another decision, a decision which will follow\nthe dictates of sound reason. The record which will be made by this\nTribunal and its judgment will be one that shall give courage to\npeaceful free men everywhere. Indeed, the defendant is fortunate that\nthe decision in the present case is in the hands of those who do believe\nthat the law exists and will continue to exist. There is no place for\npassion or for prejudice in the ceaseless tasks, the seeking of truth\nand the establishing of justice.\n\n-----\n\n[143] Mr. Clark Denney delivered the closing statement before the\nTribunal on 25 March 1947, Tr. pp. 2436-2488.\n\n[144] Trial of the Major War Criminals, vol. I, p. 306, Nuremberg, 1947.\n\n[145] Defendant in case of United States _vs._ Karl Brandt, et al. See\nVol. I.\n\n[146] Defendant in case of United States _vs._ Karl Brandt, et al. See\nVol. I.\n\n[147] Same as preceeding footnote.\n\n[148] Same as preceeding footnote.\n\n[149] Trial of the Major War Criminals, vol. I, p. 321, Nuremberg, 1947.\n\n[150] Ibid., p. 232.\n\n[151] Ibid., p. 246.\n\n\n\n\n B. Closing Statement of the Defense[152]\n\nDR. FRIEDRICH BERGOLD: May it please the Tribunal. In my opening\nstatement I drew a picture of the defendant Milch which differs\nconsiderably from the description given by the prosecution. It is my\nhope that in the long course of producing evidence I have given proof\nthat my conception is the full truth.\n\nAccording to the testimony of the witness Richter, the affidavit of the\nwitness von Mueller and according to the defendant Milch\u2019s own\ntestimony, nobody can doubt that Milch has never been a good National\nSocialist. His love for peace and his longing for a final understanding\nbetween the nations of Europe, especially between Belgium, France,\nEngland, and Germany, became completely obvious. No one who believes in\njustice would refuse to believe him if he states that he regarded the\nwar as a misfortune. He was also one of the few intelligent men to admit\nGermany\u2019s defeat in the First World War. There was no proof supplied\nthat in any way prior to 1933 he supported any armaments. His testimony\nand military affidavit from von Mueller have shown that under his\nmanagement the Luftwaffe was always a peaceful instrument of\ncommunication among the nations. It is to be regretted that the\nexamination of foreign politicians, such as Van Zeeland, Pierre Cot, and\nDelbos, were not permitted, because only then the personality of Milch\nwould have been shown in its true light. He must have been a peaceful\nand just man; otherwise, all these statesmen would not have had\nconfidence in him. Even the witness delegate Messersmith, whose\naffidavit, Document 1760-PS, was introduced in the International\nMilitary Tribunal proceedings, affirmed that Milch condemned the\ncoercive methods of the Nazis. He was different from the other Party\nmembers, so that after 1937 he lost Goering\u2019s confidence. At that time\nhe asked to be allowed to retire but in spite of his threat of suicide,\nhe did not obtain that permission.\n\nSuch a man of such a past must be believed when he testified that even\nin 1939 he had no knowledge of Hitler\u2019s aggressive intentions. Milch had\nmisgivings about Hitler because he regarded the measures taken against\nCzechoslovakia as a breach of peace, and he was sufficiently intelligent\nto see that Britain would no longer tolerate such violations. Hitler was\ndishonest with him and always put before him his intentions for peace,\neven forbidding him the manufacture of bombs. The defendant never\nrequested the manufacture of bombs because he intended to lead a war of\noffense, but only because, understanding the international situation, he\nwas convinced that England would fight against the Nazi regime.\n\nUp to that time, your Honor, nobody can find any inconsistency in the\ndefendant\u2019s outlook. It was no offense if he requested a Wehrmacht for\nhis country in view of the world situation, and therefore he favored a\nreasonable rearmament. As long as all nations were peace-minded and\nmaintained armies, Germany had the right to maintain armed forces as\nwell. I beg you to remember that the defendant demanded from his\nsuperiors that rearmament should be effected in a slow and reasonable\nmanner and that he had differences with them on account of this.\n\nIt was not for nothing, your Honor, I repeat that. Only for one to keep\nall these things in mind will it be possible to judge whether or not the\ndefendant\u2019s statement regarding the conference of 23 May 1939 is\ncorrect. A man who loves peace and works for peace was present at that\nconference and states today, or testified that the speech in question\ndid not contain any mention of aggressive war against Poland or any\nother country. He even testified in this courtroom that this speech did\nnot have the contents as it is laid down in the Schmundt protocol.\n\nI realize that the International Military Tribunal came to the\nconclusion that the Schmundt protocol is correct. All defendants and\nwitnesses who were heard at that time declared that the contents of the\nspeech were not of so aggressive a nature as it is laid down in the\nminutes. The defense counsel made a mistake at that time of not calling\nall the witnesses which I requested. Nobody went to the trouble of\ncritically examining the text of the record. I can understand why the\nIMT reached a different conclusion, having heard only the defendants\u2019\ngeneral objection, which remained unsubstantiated in detail. Nowhere is\nit yet permissible in law to maintain the verdict of a previous court\nwhen new and better evidence has been submitted.\n\nThe witnesses Warlimont, Schniewind, Engel, and Raeder stated that\nseveral passages of the Schmundt record contained a number of false\nassertions regarding Hitler\u2019s words. Warlimont testified that he was not\npresent, although he is listed as among those present. Milch\u2019s testimony\nmade it absolutely definite that Goering was not present. If there were\nonly so few persons present and there were mistakes made concerning the\npresence of persons, the record must have been made up a long time after\nthe event, otherwise no faults of that kind would have been possible.\nSchniewind testified that a number of points contained in the Schmundt\nrecord were never discussed at that time at all. He had the opinion that\nmany ideas laid down in the record were borne out at a later period,\nthat is to say, 1940. These ideas concerned, for example, the use which\ncould be made of war production after the defeat of France, the\nimportance of aircraft carriers for convoys, the collaboration of Italy,\nand the break-through of the Maginot Line by this force, about Japan,\nand last but not least, the so-called Fuehrer Decree. By the statement\nof Felmy it is proved forever that the so-called Fuehrer order was given\nonly on 12 December 1940. Even Raeder stated that the principles of the\nFuehrer order were laid down at another occasion and that they were\naccordingly carried out afterwards. This other occasion was given by the\nstatement of Felmy. Also Raeder did not hear anything about Japan; he\nconsidered it impossible that Italy and the break-through of the Maginot\nLine were discussed and he also states that nobody mentioned a better\nproduction of cruisers. He also testified that in that meeting a\ntwo-front war was not mentioned because he, as an officer, would have\nnoticed that. Furthermore, he testified that Belgium and Holland were\nnot referred to and that after the speech Goering did not open a debate.\nEven though the witness was not present at all times, it is rather\nstrange that he should not have heard mention of any of the very points\nnot heard by the other witnesses. The defendant Milch gave you the\nprecise details of those points of the speech which were not mentioned\nat the time, and he was even in a position to tell you when these\nvarious points were first conceived.\n\nWho, assuming responsibility for justice, can still seriously maintain\nthe findings of the IMT now that these precise statements have shown us\nthe errors of the Schmundt record? A record containing so many grave\nmistakes is no longer of probative value and can never be made the basis\nfor any judgment. I am convinced that after this trial the historians of\nthe whole world will regard the Schmundt record as the product of a\nlater period, i.e., between the fall of 1940 and the spring of 1941 and\nthat they will regard it as the result of time, drawn up to make Hitler,\nthen regarded as the victor, seem possessed of a prophetic gift which in\nreality he never had.\n\nThe conference did take place on 23 May 1939; that is true. Its real\ntopics, however, can no longer be stated on the basis of the Schmundt\nrecord. Thus, the statements made in the first Nuernberg trial gain a\ndifferent and greater significance. Never again, therefore, will it be\npossible for anyone to say that on that occasion Hitler preached war and\nthe enslavement of Europeans.\n\nThere is yet another argument possible against this record, which, it is\nalleged, also contains the plan for slave labor. Document EC-194,\nExhibit 8, and 016-PS, Exhibit 13, submitted by the prosecution, show in\nall clarity that the use of European peoples in German armament works\nwas a measure forced by the emergencies of the war and that the idea was\nborn and realized only by the military difficulties resulting from the\nwar with Russia.\n\nWith clean hands and a pure heart, Milch entered the war in August 1939\nhaving previously advised Goering to fly to Britain to prevent the war.\nHe himself became the victim of Hitler\u2019s deception, and he himself\nbelieved that the war had been forced upon Hitler. Who can disregard\njustice to such an extent as to reproach Milch with having held that\nbelief? It is his misfortune, but not his guilt, to have been deflected\nfrom the truth by misleading propaganda. Who would so misinterpret\npatriotism, heretofore regarded as one of man\u2019s noblest instincts, as to\nreproach Milch for having done in 1939 his duty as a soldier?\n\nHe never prepared any aggressive wars. In every case he was informed\nshortly before the event, and nothing is more typical of the opinion his\nsuperiors held of him than the fact that he chanced to hear about the\npreparations for the war against Russia through a subordinate, who had\nbeen told of Hitler\u2019s plan before the field marshal was told. The first\nNuernberg trial has already shown that Milch saw Goering at once in an\neffort to prevent that war. Goering himself admitted this. Milch\u2019s good\nintentions were of no avail because Goering turned him down. As Milch\u2019s\nsuperior officer, he even went so far as to forbid Milch to see Hitler\nand to tell him that he, Goering, would prevent Milch from being\nadmitted to Hitler\u2019s presence.\n\nOne of your Honors, in putting questions to the defendant, aimed to show\nthat it might be regarded as incriminating to the defendant that he did\nnot resign in 1941 or at least in 1943. Your Honors, only if one has\nlived in Germany these last years is it possible truly to judge that\nproblem. As I said in my opening speech, one can judge the man only\nagainst his background, through his upbringing, from which usually\nnobody can escape no matter in what country he lives. Milch was brought\nup as a soldier. He absorbed ideas which for centuries were regarded as\ntrue and inviolate laws. It is no guilt for him not to have freed\nhimself from them. I have said this once before.\n\nAt that time nobody in Germany was in a position to protest against\ncertain events, against certain aims of the Party. All that one could do\nwas to criticize things within one\u2019s own immediate circle and tell one\u2019s\nintimate collaborators how to improve matters. If in Germany anybody had\nattempted at any time to express criticism publicly, either by word or\nby publicly resigning, nobody would have been the wiser for it. This\nsystem was so ruthless and its stranglehold over public opinion so great\nthat it would and could suppress anything.\n\nYou need only remember that during the first IMT trial it was shown that\nvon Papen\u2019s criticism in his Marburg speech was completely withheld from\nthe German public. Had Milch done anything, nobody would have heard\nabout it, and his action would have been useless, perhaps senseless, as\nnothing would have been changed for the better. Your Honors may not know\nthat six to eight generals, including General von Falkenhausen, once\nCommander in Chief in Belgium, and Colonel General Halder, one of\nGermany\u2019s highest and best leaders, were thrown into concentration camps\nbecause they had deviated from Hitler\u2019s line. This is not connected with\n20 July 1944. Nobody in Germany knew about this. Pictures of General\nCount Sponeck were sold as of a hero two years after this man had\nvanished into a concentration camp. Such were the lies and the\ndeceptions of Goebbels\u2019 propaganda. We have learned since the end of the\nwar that prior to 20 July 1944, there were 50 to 60 generals in Moabit\nprison, without anyone in Germany knowing anything about that. You will\nunderstand the full falsehood of propaganda when you recall the base\ndistortions by which the dismissals of Generals von Blomberg and von\nFritsch were announced to the German public.\n\nBelieve me, your Honors, protests in Germany were not possible at that\ntime. The only result would have been the futile death of the protesting\nperson. If Milch had attempted to fly abroad, his whole family\u2014such\nwere the detestable methods of those in power\u2014would have been put to\ndeath on the basis of what was known as family responsibility.\n\nMilch cannot be reproached with not having refused service and\nallegiance. No soldier could do this. Should a member of the\nAnglo-American Air Forces suddenly have refused to go out on an\noperation which would bring death to innocent women and children, he\nwould not have been regarded as a hero. He would have been put before a\ncourt martial.\n\nThat Milch did not participate in an attempt on Hitler\u2019s life, who would\naccuse him of that? Although he was an energetic man, the defendant was,\nbecause of several concussions of the brain which he suffered, inclined\nto terrifying fits of rage, or ranting speeches, but the evidence has\nshown that in his heart of hearts he was kind and soft. He would\nameliorate sentences already passed, and as the witness Richter\ntestified, he compensated for a fine, which he inflicted himself, by\nsecretly passing into the family of the punished man a very large sum of\nmoney, larger than the fine itself. The witness Vorwald expressly stated\nthat basically Milch was a man soft of heart, who conducted himself\n*self soft, who only in a rage caused by disease and worry utters harsh\nwords never followed by action, is not capable of murder. Thus, no just\nman will charge him with not liquidating Hitler, and Milch did what in\nhis conscience he felt to be possible and necessary. He had the courage\nof telling the dictator to his face what he thought of the situation. He\ndemanded that Hitler desist from his plans, dismiss the most important\nmen, such as Goering, Ribbentrop, and Keitel, give up the supreme\ncommand, and establish a cabinet of equal powers, and he finally desired\nthat peace should be brought about.\n\nYour Honors, it would be easy to say that as a field marshal he did not\nthereby endanger himself. The statement of the next witness Krysiak, the\nfate of the generals which I mentioned to you, show what was done in\nGermany to men who did such things, but the defendant went one step\nfurther. He succeeded in inducing Goering also to demand the end of the\ndictatorship and the instituting of a Reich cabinet. Your Honors, this\nmeans that this defendant thereby risked his life. He could not foresee\nthat nothing would happen to him. That nothing did happen to him was not\ndue to his rank, but to Hitler\u2019s opinion that this man was not yet\ndispensable. Everybody can only be sentenced according to his\npotentialities. Your Honors must not compare conditions in your free and\nnoble country to those in Germany. Only the German world as it was\nshould be the basis of your judgment here. It is not true to say that\nMilch gave his continued support to the objectionable aims of the Party.\nHe continued to do his duty because, as he testified, he wished to\nprevent the worst from happening to his people, the total destruction of\nthe cities and of Germany\u2019s culture. It was his constant hope to\norganize the defense in such manner as to prevent bombing warfare from\ntaking its full effect, that same bombing warfare which is the scourge\nof mankind, whatever one may think of its military value. Would it be\nfor us to judge him on the fact that he did not obtain his aim because\nof the stupidity and failings of his superiors? Milch furthermore\ntestified before you that by an improved defense he hoped to achieve\nbetter peace terms for his people. I can assure your Honors that since\n1941 Goebbels\u2019 propaganda told the German people time and again of the\nhorrible terms the enemy would impose on them in the event of peace.\nThat included an item to the effect that the whole of the German male\npopulation would be castrated should Germany lose the war so that the\nGerman people would perish. Who has the courage to say it is despicable\nfor a man of battle to organize a defensive system under the news impact\nof such items in order to obtain better peace terms?\n\nIt would be a distortion to say that Milch thus believed Hitler\u2019s aim of\ndestroying Europe, for he knew that the war was lost. He was intelligent\nenough to see that with the lost war the end of Hitler\u2019s ideology would\ncome. It was not the Party he wanted to serve when he hoped for less\nsevere peace terms with a better defense, but a lost war that would not\nmean the loss of the legal rights of a whole nation as is the case\nunhappily today. Only he who comprehends and understands all these\nthings can appreciate Milch\u2019s actions and judge them fairly. And later,\nwhen he saw that his objective of saving the German people from the\nworst would fail, Milch withdrew from the regime. He could not resign on\nhis own. That, for a soldier in Germany, was an impossibility. He did\nnot choose to act dishonorably, which no one can expect from a decent\nman. In Germany soldiers are removed from their offices only by their\nsuperiors. Thus, as he put it himself, Milch could only organize his own\nelimination from office by gradually transferring his tasks to Speer\u2019s\nMinistry. As his superiors thereupon regarded him as superfluous and\nwere glad to be rid of this man, Milch was finally free. Then began the\nscheme on the part of his superiors to liquidate him. Such was the\nposition of Milch, the man, and such by and large were his motives. For\nhim to have acted in this and no other way is not dishonorable, and only\nhe can cast the first stone who never in his born days gave in to public\nopinion in defiance of his better judgment, who has never considered his\nsuperiors, and who proved himself to be above his upbringing, and had\nthe courage of fighting for his convictions even with the most brutal\nmethods.\n\nBefore dealing with the details of the indictment I should like to make\nthese basic points. The prosecution created the impression that under\nthe conspiracy count it would hold Milch responsible for everything in\ntotality that was done in connection with labor assignments and\nexperiments within the confines of the Luftwaffe, nay, within the\nconfines of the German government departments. This is not admissible.\nThe indictment may be referred to Control Council Law No. 10. Nothing is\nmentioned there that conspiracy to commit crimes against humanity or war\ncrimes constitutes a punishable offense. Only conspiracy against peace\nis punishable. The way the law is formulated, particularly count 2 of\nArticle 2, makes it clear beyond doubt that activities listed therein\nonly concern participation but no independent types of crime. Where\nthere is an independent crime then also in the case of war crimes and\ncrimes against humanity there would have to be a provision similar in\ncount 1-A, Article 2 of the Control Council law where a crime is defined\nas \u201cparticipation in a common plan or conspiracy for the purpose of\ncommitting one of the crimes above set forth.\u201d In this connection the\nverdict of the IMT must also be considered. At the end of the sixth part\nof the verdict it states:[153] \u201cCount one, however, charges not only the\nconspiracy to commit aggressive war, but also to commit war crimes and\ncrimes against humanity,\u201d but the Charter does not define as a separate\ncrime any conspiracy except the one to commit acts of aggressive war.\nArticle 6 of the Charter provides: \u201cLeaders, organizers, instigators,\nand accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a\ncommon plan or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are\nresponsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such\nplan.\u201d In the opinion of the Tribunal these words do not add a new and\nseparate crime to those already listed. The words are designed to\nestablish the responsibility of persons participating in a common plan.\nThe Tribunal will therefore disregard the charges in count 1, that the\ndefendants conspired to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity,\nand will consider only the common plan to prepare, initiate, and wage\naggressive war. And under figure 8, the IMT states further:[154] \u201cAs\nheretofore stated, the Charter does not define as a separate crime any\nconspiracy except the one set out in Article 6(a) dealing with crimes\nagainst peace.\u201d The verdict was so formulated because the Charter was\nunclear at this point. As above stated, the Control Council law contains\nno such provisions, so much the less because in this case conspiracy\ndoes not constitute a separate crime. The provision set forth in Article\n2, paragraph 2, No. 6, \u201cwhoever was connected with this planning or\nexecution\u201d, is only a form of individual defense and cannot be put on a\npar with the concept of the common plan or conspiracy. Article 2 defines\nclearly the type of crime referred to in paragraph 1, namely (1) the\nindividual crime of violation of peace; (2) conspiracy against peace;\n(3) individual war crimes; (4) individual crimes against humanity; and\nfinally, the form of participation in paragraph 2. Therefore, it is\nrendered that a so-called conspiracy to commit war crimes and crimes\nagainst humanity is not a punishable offense.\n\nIt has to be examined therefore whether Milch made himself guilty of any\nindividual type of participation. It would have to be shown that either\nas a principal or accessory he participated in a crime or that he\nespecially ordered or initiated it. It would have to be proved that he\ngave his approval for a definite crime. That approval, however, cannot\nrefer to a general approbation but can only be considered as\nparticipation in crime if, by his approval, he strengthened and\nstiffened the criminal will of the perpetrators. It must therefore be\nmade clear that he knew of the individual crimes and that he intended to\nput them into action by means of his approval. Even in that case his\nsubsequent approval would not suffice; since still nowhere in the world\nis anyone punished because of an inner or moral attitude. Finally, it\nmust be examined whether Milch was connected with the planning or\ncommission of such crimes. Here again it must be understood, of course,\nthat this connection must be capable of causing the crime, and that\nMilch knew about the connection and therefore the crime. The question of\nmembership in any organization or association which was connected with\nthe execution of crimes requires special examination. It is clear that\nmere membership, as such, in any organization wherein any member may at\none time have committed a punishable act cannot make every other member\nof that organization punishable. Otherwise a monstrous situation would\narise where the commander in chief of a large army was punishable if any\nmember of that army committed a war crime. Where in this world in all\ntime has it happened that in such a huge organization as wartime armies\u2019\nsoldiers did not at one time or another commit punishable acts? This is\ninevitable and it occurs in all armies. It can therefore only be a\nquestion here whether the organization or the association of which the\ndefendant was a member had as its particular purpose the commission of\nwar crimes or crimes against humanity.\n\nLetter (_f_) of Article 2, paragraph 2, must be considered here. Since\nMilch is not charged with a crime against peace, it would also have to\nbe especially proved that he participated in the common plan of\nconspiracy for the commission of crimes against the peace. That he held\nhigh office cannot of its own make him punishable. This is also evident\nfrom the Tribunal of the IMT who acquitted three persons who held\nequally high office in Germany.\n\nBearing in mind these points of view, one has to examine the individual\ncounts of the indictment. In answer to the prosecution\u2019s charge that\nMilch in February 1944 had ordered two Russian officers to be shot,\nExhibits Milch 40 to 44, and the testimony of the witness Vorwald have\nproven that the said officers were shot on the basis of an expressed\norder by Hitler who received, through political channels, the report of\nthe incident earlier than Milch. Exhibits Milch 40 to 44 and the\ntestimony of Vorwald have made it clear that Milch, first of all, had no\npossibility of issuing such an order, and secondly, that he did not\ncause its being ordered, and thirdly, that he only gained knowledge of\nthe incident after the officers had been shot.\n\nThe witness Vorwald was in a position to testify that Milch even angrily\nprotested against such an order.\n\nThe passage in the record of the 53d meeting of the Central Planning\nBoard of 16 February 1944 contained in Defense Exhibit 11, can therefore\nnot be made the basis for a judgment. Whoever, knowing the German\nlanguage, reads the text critically must realize that the utterances of\nMilch recorded therein are contradictory in themselves and, therefore,\ncannot possibly contain the real statements made by Milch. They are\ncontradictory to the true course of events; they are contradictory to\nMilch\u2019s real authority, and finally, they are contradictory to the inner\nattitude of the defendant who himself angrily described this act as a\ncrime.\n\nIt is significant for the question of the probative value of all\nverbatim records submitted to consider that such recording of the true\nevents is found here. Such records containing such mistakes cannot be\nmade the basis for a judgment. If we assume, however, that Milch really\nmade these utterances which are so wrong, then this passage would remove\nall doubt that Milch during moments of excitement was no longer master\nof his thoughts and words and, therefore, cannot be held responsible for\nthem. It would be a serious offense against justice, however, if\njudgment was to be pronounced on the basis of such stenographic notes\ntaken by an unknown person who may have been in error.\n\nMilch is furthermore accused of having abetted, participated in, and\nbeen connected with cruel and inhuman experiments carried out on\nconcentration camp inmates at Dachau. I believe that here, too, evidence\nhas shown that Milch is innocent. It has been proved by the clear,\nalthough long-winded, deposition of the witness Hippke that the\ndefendant had heard for the first time on 31 August 1942 that human\nexperiments were being carried out on others than the volunteering\nmembers of the Luftwaffe; that is, at a moment when the high-altitude\nexperiments were already completed and when the freezing experiments\nwere about to be completed.\n\nIn this connection I recall that the final report on freezing\nexperiments was available in print already on 10 October 1942, so that\nthese experiments too must have been completed by a considerably earlier\ndate. On 31 August 1942, the defendant learned merely from Hippke that\nhuman experiments had been carried out on criminals who had been\nsentenced to death and who had volunteered to obtain a pardon. He was\ntold expressly that nothing had happened so far during these\nexperiments. It is obvious that experiments as such do not in themselves\nconstitute an offense against humanity, whether or not they are in use\nin some foreign countries. At any rate much evidence has already been\nsubmitted by the defense in the medical trial, proving that, also in\ndemocratic states of the world, experiments have been carried out and\nare being carried out on volunteering criminals, experiments which\nconstitute a danger to the life and health of the experimental subject.\n\nThe prosecutor has submitted in evidence his last exhibit, Document\n1971-PS, Prosecution Exhibit 161, showing irrefutably that Himmler too\nhad ordered that only men sentenced to death are to be used for these\nexperiments. Hippke did not even misinform Milch. That, besides the\nexperiments which were of importance to the Luftwaffe, Himmler had also\nstarted secret experiments is shown from this very Exhibit 161 because\ntherein Himmler directs Rascher to continue these special experiments on\nwhich he had reported to him and even to carry out revival experiments.\n\nBoth witnesses Ruff and Romberg have testified unanimously that nothing\nhas happened during these experiments. Death casualties had occurred\nduring Rascher\u2019s own experiments which he carried out on Himmler\u2019s\nbehalf. Only the aim of these experiments remained unclear to the\nwitness, which is now being clarified by Exhibit 161, but Milch had no\nknowledge of all this. He fully believed what Hippke told him, nor did\nhe ever have any cause to distrust Hippke and he could not distrust him\nmore as he knew that high-altitude experiments had already previously\nbeen carried out on Luftwaffe personnel of his own air force without any\ndanger being involved. Not even Hippke has had any knowledge of\ncruelties and death casualties. How much the less can be proved that the\ndefendant could have had any knowledge. It does not say anything against\nthe defendant that he had signed already before 31 August 1942 some\nletters which had been submitted to him by his offices. Nobody has been\nable to state that Milch had dictated these letters at all. It could not\neven be proved that he had seen or read the letters from the SS to which\nthese letters refer. It is impossible for a man who has such a burden of\nwork and such a large sphere of tasks as the defendant to take care of\nevery trifling matter in his office, that these letters\u2014which to\nanybody who has no knowledge of the underlying facts appear harmless and\nunimportant\u2014could also not arouse the defendant\u2019s suspicion. Should he\nbe charged with responsibility for them then, this would be a\nresponsibility which could not be borne by anybody. This would mean to\noverestimate human working capacity. It is the very idea of any great\norganization to relieve the chiefs or the heads of attentions to details\nin order to make them free for the main tasks. If such a man were to be\nasked to take care of everything, then the organization would be\nunsuccessful and no man in the world could form a great work comprising\nmany people, and no man in the world would be willing to head such an\norganization if the chief of the organization should be held responsible\nfor everything that his subordinate agencies commit. Everybody has the\nright generally to trust his subordinates as long as he has no reason to\ndistrust them.\n\nHippke\u2019s descriptions were unimpeachable and gave no reason for\nmisgivings. His tenure of office at that time was irreproachable so that\nMilch had not to distrust Hippke\u2019s activities and all the less so\nbecause already at an earlier date human experiments had been carried\nout by the Luftwaffe in a manner above reproach. Milch has testified to\nthe effect that he had not read the report on high-altitude experiments.\nEvidence has shown that he has not seen the film nor could he have cause\nfor this film to be shown, only if he would have stayed in Berlin, but\nhe was not even in Berlin on that day; therefore, he could not become\nsuspicious from what occurred. Likewise Milch never received the report\non freezing experiments nor did he ever get a final report on this\nmatter.\n\nFinally, Milch had no reason to distrust the fact that the SS\nparticipated in the experiments. He knew that Hippke was part of it and\nwas therefore entitled to believe that everything was in order.\nTherefore, Milch was neither a principal in nor an accessory to, nor has\nhe ordered or instigated these experiments. He has never given his\nconsent to the crimes committed because he had no knowledge whatsoever\nof them nor was he connected with their planning or their execution, nor\nwas he a member of any organization aiming at the commission of such\ncrimes. It is not the aim of the Luftwaffe to carry out such criminal\nexperiments, and with the DVL he had nothing to do at all. It is\nirrelevant that at that time Rascher was a member of the Luftwaffe.\nExhibit 161 proves that Rascher received the orders to execute the\ncrimes as a member of the SS from Himmler himself and also carried them\nout in that capacity. Finally, it must be said that the Wolff letter of\nNovember 1942 was only written after the crimes were committed. It has\nnot been proved that Milch ever saw this letter. He was not in Berlin\nwhen the letter arrived. That he has testified. The letter was sent to\nthe Medical Inspectorate which only answered it in 1943 as Hippke has\ntestified. Also, the fact that Rascher was transferred to the SS had\nnothing to do with the defendant. That was a matter settled outside of\nhis competency. The personnel chief of the Luftwaffe was at no time\nsubordinated to him, and it must also be taken into consideration that,\naccording to the evidence, Milch had no knowledge of Rascher\u2019s having\ncommitted any crimes. One cannot charge Milch with the fact that Rascher\nreferred to him. The testimony of Neff and Defense Exhibit 56, the\naffidavit of Punzengruber, have shown to this Tribunal that Rascher was\na confirmed liar whose statements have no probative value and,\ntherefore, I believe that Milch in this matter too has shown to this\nTribunal his complete innocence.\n\nBefore I go into the charges against Milch for his participation in the\nso-called slave labor program, I must make a few fundamental statements.\nI shall begin by examining the question as to what extent the Hague\nConvention on land warfare and the Geneva Convention of 1929 were valid\nfor the treatment of Russian prisoners of war. By the statements of\nwitness von Neurath, it has been confirmed that the U.S.S.R. in 1919\nspecifically withdrew from the Hague Convention on land warfare as well\nas the former Geneva Convention. Jurists will not dispute the fact that\na formal withdrawal from agreements is of greater importance in the\nrelations between states than the act of joining such a convention. Even\nif one were of the opinion that the Hague Convention on land warfare and\nthe Geneva Convention represented merely the codification of already\nexisting international law, so that the state that did not join the\nconventions would also be bound to this already existing international\nlaw in all details, even in such a case the expressly stated withdrawal\nfrom such a convention must mean also a withdrawal from the natural\ninternational law. If this were not the case, the withdrawal from such\nconventions would be an act without meaning which such intelligent\npoliticians as those found in the U.S.S.R. would never undertake. Nor is\nthis conception of mine contradicted by the expert opinion offered in\nthe first Nuernberg trial (_Canaris Doc. No. EC-338_)[155] because this\nexpert opinion is only concerned with the order of Hitler and Keitel\nregarding the killing and cruel treatment of prisoners. It is, of\ncourse, clear that inhumane acts do not become permissible because of\nwithdrawal from conventions. What we must examine here, however, is\npurely the question whether or not, and for what activities, such\nprisoners of war may be used. Detailed regulations of international law,\nwhich in themselves do not contain atrocities, can in my opinion be\nnullified by expressly withdrawing from a convention codifying existing\ninternational law. Finally, we wish to draw attention to Article 82,\nparagraph 2, of the Geneva Convention of 1929 which contains the\nfollowing regulation: \u201cIf in wartime one of the belligerents is not a\nmember of the convention, the regulations of this convention remain\nvalid, nevertheless, for the belligerents who have signed the\nconvention.\u201d This does not mean that the signatories are bound to the\nGeneva Convention also with regard to the treatment of soldiers of a\nnonsignatory power, but only with regard to soldiers of the signatories\nwho are at war. Article 82, paragraph 2, of the Geneva Convention,\ntherefore, states that with regard to the relations of nonsignatories\nthe convention is not valid. The regulation was made so that it should\nnot be thought that if a nonsignatory participated in the war the Geneva\nConvention would not apply to that war.\n\nThat my opinion was shared by the U.S.S.R. becomes clear beyond doubt\nfrom Defense Exhibit 49 presented by me, which contains the decision of\nthe Council of the Peoples Commissioners of the U.S.S.R. of 1 July 1941.\nThis decision does not mention any limitation with regard to the use of\nprisoners of war for labor except for the regulations under number 25.\nAccording to this, prisoners of war may not be used as workers in the\nbattle zone nor for the personal needs of the administrations, or by\nother prisoners of war (orderly services). Defense Exhibit 51,\nconcerning employment of German women prisoners of war in Russia, also\nreveals the same conception of the U.S.S.R.\n\nThe objections that not Russia\u2019s conception but that of the United\nStates of America matters here is not justified. Existing regulations\nbetween two states can only be judged on the legal relations valid for\nthose two states. If both states regulate a given question in agreement\nwith conclusive acts in the same way, that regulation becomes\ninternational law valid for the relations of those two states and must\nbe taken into consideration by all other states. It is the right of\nsovereign states to regulate their relations as they wish. Other states\nhave no right to interfere in the right of sovereignty and they must\nacquiesce in the legal conception existing between those two states\nregarding any issue concerning their citizens. Therefore, legal opinions\nof another state must not be taken as a basis for the judging of actions\nwhich occurred between the nationals of these two states.\n\nAs in Milch\u2019s sphere of competency Russian prisoners of war were used\nneither at the front nor as orderlies, he cannot be found guilty so far\nas the treatment of Russian prisoners of war is concerned.\n\nAll this also applies to the treatment of the Russian civilian\npopulation whose rights could have been cared for by the Hague\nConvention for land warfare alone. Here, too, Russia\u2019s express\nwithdrawal from the convention is of great importance.\n\nIn my opinion it cannot be argued that Germany attacked Russia and that,\nfor the reason, employment of the civilian population would be illegal\neven if this were not illegal in itself. That alone would mean that\nGermany would be bound to the regulations and that Russia was not. From\nthe point of view of international law, this is an impossible situation.\nFor two belligerent states, there cannot be a different international\nlaw.\n\nMoreover, the validity of the regulations laid down in the Hague\nConvention for land warfare can be cancelled by a special factor which\nprecludes lawlessness. In all codes of law of the civilized world, the\nlaw of so-called emergency situations exists. This conception of law\nmust also be applied to international law. That Germany was in an\nemergency situation in the sense that the use of the civilian population\nfor labor in the occupied territories was only caused by the emergency\nsituation, I showed in detail a little while ago. Modern war means total\nwar and as such has suspended, in several points, international law as\nit existed up to now. It is uncontested that according to the Hague\nConvention for land warfare actions of combat against the civilian\npopulation are forbidden. Modern air warfare, having as its aim total\nannihilation of armament and production of the enemy, brought with it to\na great extent warfare against the civilian population without any of\nthe belligerents regarding such combat actions as forbidden according to\nthe Hague Convention on Land Warfare. This also applies to the total\nblockade of a country which aims at starving the population of that\ncountry. These comprehensive ways of waging war which hit all classes of\nthe population permit, in my opinion, to a state which is at war,\nespecially on account of the fact that its civilian population is\nbrought into the strife, to use for its purposes labor from occupied\ncountries so as to maintain its production and armament.\n\nConcerning the relations of the other nations involved in the war, there\nis no doubt that for the above the Hague Convention on Land Warfare and\nthe Geneva Convention of 1929 are valid. But it is just as clear that it\nis left to the nations to change and abolish these regulations by\nspecial agreements between one another. A good example here is the\nArmistice Treaty signed in 1944 between the Russian and Romanian\ngovernments according to which Romania had to pledge itself to put at\nthe disposal of Russia a large number of people for reconstruction\npurposes. Complying with this agreement, in January 1945 many thousand\nmembers of the Romanian state were deported to Russia by compulsion and\nagainst their will. This case shows what, in such matters, may be legal\nand valid. Moreover, that agreement was made under some force of\nbayonets, as in all history is usually the case with every treaty\nbetween a conquered and conquering state. The Defense Exhibit 47 proves\nthat in the case of Germany the Control Council (_see sec. VI, number 19\nof the Proclamation No._ _2_) imposed on the German authorities even\nwithout a treaty, but simply on unilateral orders, the same obligation,\ni.e., to put at disposal labor for personal services inside and outside\nGermany. That such orders could naturally only be fulfilled by the\nGerman authorities by means of a labor service law will not be contested\nby anybody.\n\nThese one-sided orders given by the victor to the vanquished, whether\nthey be issued on the basis of an armistice brought about by force of\narms or on the basis of command or law following the unconditional\nsurrender of a state, are not contrary to law.\n\nIt should, therefore, be stated that the rules of the Hague Land Warfare\nregulations can be suspended between two states. I have given proof for\nthe fact that there were between Germany and France agreements whereby\nthe French population had to make themselves available for work in\nGermany, first, by volunteering, and later, on the basis of a law for\ncompulsory labor issued by the French Government. No restrictions were\nlaid down to what extent and for what purpose these people were to be\nemployed.\n\nThe objection has been raised that the Vichy Government was a government\nof traitors, but it was that government which concluded the armistice\nwith Germany, and throughout the war all Frenchmen, including those in\nde Gaulle\u2019s camp, would raise passionate protests when they thought that\none of its articles had been violated. Thus, they all acknowledged that\nan armistice could be concluded and was concluded. Once you acknowledge\nthe existence of an armistice agreement, you cannot, logically or\nlegally, deny the legality of the government which has concluded the\narmistice. You must eat your cake as it is and you must not pick out the\nplums alone.\n\nAs for the situation in Holland and Belgium, both those countries\nsurrendered unconditionally. According to international law Germany was,\ntherefore, in a position in its dealings with the authorities of these\ncountries to regulate the labor commitments of the civilian population\nunilaterally in the same manner as this has now been handled in regard\nto the German population by the Control Council.\n\nAs far as Poland is concerned, that country, on the basis of the\npartitioning agreement between Russia and Germany, had lost its\nsovereignty. That such partitioning agreements can abrogate the\nexistence of a state has already been historically proved by the former\npartitioning agreements of the bordering countries in regard to the\nPolish state. Moreover, the agreements concluded between the victorious\nnations after this war have abrogated the sovereignty of the German\nstate over very large areas in the East and thus have created new\nsovereignty for the population of these territories. Germany released\nthe Polish prisoners of war and could at any time issue legal labor\ndirectives as regards the Polish civilian population since the latter\nwere under German sovereignty.\n\nSo far as the Italian prisoners of war are concerned, the evidence has\nshown that the Mussolini Government, which at the time was the covenant\ngovernment in that part of Italy not occupied by the allied forces, made\nthem available for work in the armament industry, especially after\nGermany had to manufacture armaments for Mussolini\u2019s Italy. Here it\nshould also be mentioned that Milch\u2019s opinion that Italian prisoners of\nwar who fled from a transport should be shot does not mean a cruelty.\nAll countries of the world have prisoners shot who attempt to escape as\nproved by me in Defense Exhibit 26. So far as the civilian population of\nother southeastern states are concerned, they were only recruited and\nemployed as free workers based on approval by the legally existing\ngovernments of these countries.\n\nIn addition, it is interesting to point out that the agreement between\nFrance and Germany, according to which France was supposed to allocate\nFrench civilians for the labor commitment in exchange for the release of\nprisoners of war, had a parallel in the discussion of the question\nregarding the fate of German prisoners of war still in allied countries.\nIn France, in particular, the request has been made to make possible the\nrelease of German prisoners of war by making available German civilians\nas workers in place of the prisoners of war. This, too, is evidence to\nthe effect that such an agreement is not contrary to international law.\n\nThat, your Honors, is the legal position as I must present it.\n\nIn regard to the question of guilt, a special point has still to be\nconsidered. All legal theories consider that the defendant is not liable\nfor punishment if after careful consideration and careful inquiries he\nhas gained the conviction that his action was permissible. It has been\nshown that in Germany prisoners of war and foreign civilians were being\nemployed within the war production even at the time when Milch had not\nyet taken over the office of the GL (Generalluftzeugmeister\u2014Air\nOrdnance Master General). In other words, he was already confronted with\nthe situation, the exploitation of which he is being reproached for\ntoday.\n\nThe testimony of the witness Vorwald and that of the defendant himself\nshowed that Milch made inquiries from the competent authority as to\nwhether the employment of prisoners of war and foreign civilians which\nhe planned to use was admissible under the existing regulations. He has\ntestified here that he received an affirmative answer. Furthermore, he\ntestified that the admissibility of the utilization of foreign civilian\nworkers was discussed soon after the First World War in a large staff\ncommittee of the German Reichstag. The chairman of that staff committee\nwas Prof. Dr. Schuecking, a legal authority of repute, who had become\nknown throughout the world as a passionate champion of pacifism and\ndemocracy. This committee, as the defendant gathered from the\ndiscussions held at the time, could not and did not find that employment\nof foreign civilian workers in armament industry was inadmissible.\n\nImpressed by his earlier experience, the defendant had the right to\nbelieve the information given to him by his superior office that\nemployment of foreign manpower and of prisoners of war was admissible.\nMoreover, this information was not issued without reason. The reasons\ngiven for it were rather in accordance with the reasons which I have\ndescribed in detail above. How should Milch, who is not a legal expert,\nwho as a layman did not understand anything about applicable\ninternational law, how could he form a different opinion? It is the\nright of every citizen to believe the legal information supplied by his\nsuperior and the concomitant authorities, for no one can impose upon a\ncitizen the duty to undertake on his own independently an examination of\nthe legal questions involved. In a modern state this would result in an\nuntenable situation whereby every one of the citizens would acquire his\nown conception of law. Differing opinions abroad Milch was not in a\nposition to hear since he was not allowed to read foreign newspapers nor\nlisten to foreign broadcasts, nor did he do so.\n\nHe acted in good faith, and that has to be considered in his favor\ntoday, the more since he knew and may well have assumed that these\nmeasures were only temporary and were forced by the necessities of war.\n\n[At this point the following discussion took place:]\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE TOMS: Is it a principle of the German law that ignorance\nof the law is an excuse for violating it?\n\nDR. BERGOLD: It is a principle inasmuch as if somebody has been misled\nby his superiors on the significance of the law. Everybody must inquire\nwhat the law is, but if his superior authorities give him certain\ninformation, he can rely on that.\n\nQ. Suppose a person is advised by his own counsel as to the law, and\ncounsel is wrong, does that excuse the client?\n\nA. The client\u2019s lawyer is not sufficient. The authority must be a\ngovernment official.\n\nQ. Well, suppose a high government official, a man in high authority who\nwas not a lawyer, advised his subordinate as to his legal rights and\nduties, and that advice was wrong?\n\nA. That would mean that there would be an excusable error, an excusable\nlegal error.\n\nQ. If, for example, Goering, who was a person in high authority, advised\nMilch that he had the legal right to go out and shoot a person, would\nthat be justification for Milch\u2019s doing so, legally?\n\nA. No. Because as to the question of whether you can commit murder or\nnot everybody knows about that; but the point as to whether the\nemployment of foreigners was admissible under international law is a\nvery tricky legal point, and there, of course, there is a difference.\n\nQ. You mean that every one is supposed to know that he cannot shoot a\nman.\n\nA. Yes. Everybody knows that.\n\nQ. But everyone is not supposed to know that he can force a man to\nunwilling labor?\n\nA, No. He is not obliged to know that. That is why Milch applied to\nreceive this information about international law.\n\nQ. You make a distinction between homicide and slavery?\n\nA. Yes. I make a difference not, perhaps, as in this exact example, but\nI make a difference between the natural knowledge of law, which\neverybody has, and special questions and special knowledge not shared by\neverybody in the state. The point whether you can kill or steal is\ncommon knowledge, but the question whether international law permits the\nemployment is not something which everybody knows. This question is one\nwhich only specialists and legal experts can decide, and if any man\nconcerned tries to obtain information as to whether it is permissible,\nand obtains that information from a specialist of a governmental\ndepartment who says, yes, then it does not become permissible in itself,\nbut we have what is known as an excusable legal error.\n\nQ. Would you take the same position as to enforced civilian labor?\n\nA. Yes, on the whole question whether anyone can employ foreign workers\nor prisoners of war.\n\nQ. I would like to get this straightened out.\n\nA. There are a number of other difficult legal points which I need not\ngo into here. This is certainly an example of what occupies us here.\n\nQ. That is true. I want to get your position perfectly clear. I think it\nis\u2014\n\nA. Let\u2019s take, for example, the question whether, in any foreign country\nwhich is occupied, the occupier may issue occupation money; let\u2019s assume\nthat this is punishable according to some international regulation which\nis difficult to interpret and which a layman is not in a position to\nknow. Now, if the Reich Bank, as expert, told the governor of the\noccupied country that it was permissible, then the chief of this\noccupied country, the military authority, would have an erroneous\nopinion for which he could not be held guilty.\n\nQ. Now, that theory of law becomes a very uncertain guide, does it not?\nIt depends upon interpretation of not the lawyers, nor the professors,\nbut of high government officials; they make the law.\n\nA. No. My client inquired of the competent offices, not of Goering, but\nof the competent offices, namely the legal departments. In all the\nministries there were legal departments, also in the Reich Air Ministry\nand in the Wehrmacht itself. They employed specially trained experts. I\ndraw your attention to\u2014\n\nQ. Just a minute. Then the head legal experts make the law as far as the\ndefendant is concerned?\n\nA. No, no, he does not make the law but he tries to, and that is, of\ncourse, the legal error that\u2014\n\nQ. He makes the law by which the defendant may govern himself?\n\nA. Yes, for this special case, as long as he does not hear an opinion to\nthe contrary, let\u2019s assume.\n\nQ. Oh, what happens after he does hear the opinion to the contrary, then\nwhich law does he abide by?\n\nA. In that case he can act no longer at all. If he acts, he acts on what\nis known from the Roman law as \u201ceventual dolus\u201d, an evil intention, in\ncase he comes up against the law. I assume that the term \u201ceventual\ndolus\u201d is known to your country, too.\n\nQ. Supposing that he gets two conflicting opinions from the legal\nministry, or one of the legal advisers in a high place tells him he may\ndo a thing, and another in an equally high place says he may not, how\ndoes that solve the dilemma?\n\nA. In that case he must not commit the act, because his attention has\nbeen drawn to the difference in the legal opinions, and that is where we\nhave the \u201ceventual dolus\u201d. If he does not depend on it, and does it on\nhis own risk, then in that risk he committed a wrong.\n\nQ. I am frank to say that this is a new and startling legal theory. Did\nyou understand that?\n\nA. Yes. I understood.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE TOMS: Well, we have your position.\n\n[Dr. Bergold continues.]\n\nHis good faith, however, was reinforced by the fact that all the\nmeasures against English and American prisoners of war, which are being\nobjected to, were not carried out. That the reasons expressly stated for\nthis were that no agreement except a change in the regulations had been\nconveyed normally to the British and American prisoners of war. Whoever\nhas the least psychological insight will understand that the observing\nof the Geneva Convention principles towards those two countries must\nhave made the deviation from them in respect to other countries appear\nto the defendant as authorized, all the more as this deviation had been\nbased on presence of other agreements, or the lack of other protective\nmeasures.\n\nAs far as the question of actual recruiting and using of manpower is\nconcerned, a differentiation must be made between recruiting, bringing\nforeign laborers to the country, and their treatment on the whole on the\none hand, and on the other hand their use within Germany in the labor\nassignment.\n\nMay it please the Tribunal, the case in chief, and the submitted\ndocuments of the prosecution, especially the Exhibits No. 13, 14, 14-A,\n15, 15-A, and 17 eliminated any doubt as to the fact that Sauckel alone\nwas competent for the recruiting of foreign laborers and their transport\nto Germany and for the treatment of the foreign workers, and that Hitler\nover and over again confirmed against the attacks of Speer that he was\nthe only competent man. Not one single document has been submitted which\nwould show that Milch participated in the recruiting, transfer to\nGermany, and treatment of the workers. The witnesses Speer, Koerner,\nRichter, Hertel, Eschenauer, Pendele, Vorwald, as well as Milch himself,\nhave testified under oath that neither they nor the defendant knew\nanything about all the abuses which have become evident in the sphere of\nSauckel\u2019s work.\n\nI call your attention to Document 407-II-PS, Defense Exhibit 3, which\nreveals how Sauckel always and everywhere emphasized that he took care\nof the foreign workers to the best of his ability. In this exhibit he\nmakes the assertion that foreign workers have never in the history of\nthe world been treated as well as they were treated by him in this most\nsevere of all wars. The testimony of the witness Schmelter and of Milch\nhas shown that Sauckel had made the same declarations and told the same\nlies to them also. There is no need for any further statement to the\neffect that the recruitment and even the forced transport of the workers\ninto the Reich on the basis of an order could have been carried out in\nan absolutely humane manner and that all these atrocities, murders, and\ntortures which took place need not have occurred. Such actions are not\nof necessity connected with such events. The fact that in the East and\nin France, parts of the population were called up and drafted by classes\nby means of labor service decrees could not and did not have to make\nMilch suspicious. Forced drafting of people occurs in all countries\nwhich have a compulsory military service or labor service. Examples of\nthe latter are Germany and Bulgaria. The latter state had ordered\nservice according to each group before the Hitler regime existed, and\nhow could Milch, after all, have found out about the inhuman acts in the\nrecruitment and transport into the Reich and the treatment within the\nReich? Obviously, only if he had observed such incidents himself or if\ncomplaints reached him through his subordinates or through these foreign\nworkers themselves.\n\nMilch testifies here in a creditable manner that during the entire\ncourse of the war he had never observed such conditions. During all\nthese years he made his trips by plane and, in some exceptional cases,\nby special train; that in this way he could naturally not observe such\nfacts is quite clear. The witnesses have confirmed that they never\nreported abuses to him. The only things he heard were isolated\ncomplaints that the food was inadequate at times or that there was a\nlack of clothing and shoes. In themselves, these were conditions which\nresulted at the time from the wartime emergency and applied also to the\nGerman civilian population. All of the above-mentioned witnesses and\nMilch have, however, confirmed that Milch on his own part immediately\nordered that the conditions should be remedied.\n\nThese incidents, however, cannot be called inhuman acts or atrocities,\ncannot be called crimes. The witnesses Pendele, Hertel, and Vorwald, as\nwell as the defendant himself, have testified that the foreign workers\nnever brought any complaints to the defendant. They all expressed their\nhappiness. It may be that they shied away from complaining to Milch.\nThat, however, was not Milch\u2019s fault. He had the right to believe the\nassurances of the persons he questioned, the more so because his\nconversations with them were carried out in the friendliest, even the\nmost cheerful manner.\n\nNow, how could Milch have found out about these incidents? I have\nalready mentioned that he could not obtain knowledge about that from\nforeign reports, because he did not receive such reports. Thus, it\nshould be established that Milch was not responsible, first, for the\ndirective for the so-called slave labor; secondly, the recruitment of\nmanpower; third, the inhuman acts perpetrated in connection with this,\nthe transport to Germany, and the crimes connected therewith, and\nfinally, fifth, the treatment of foreign workers in Germany and the\natrocities committed in connection therewith.\n\nHe knew nothing at all about them. He did not commit these crimes;\nneither as a principal nor as an accomplice. He neither ordered such\ncrimes nor instigated them. He did not take a consenting part in them\neither. On the contrary, he always eliminated minor abuses and\nconstantly saw to it that the conditions of the foreign workers were\nameliorated by special gifts. He was in no way connected in a causative\nmanner with the planning or execution of these crimes, and here I refer\nyou to my earlier legal statement, for he would have had to know about\nthem, that such atrocities, murders, and other inhuman acts occurred in\nconnection with the recruitment, transfer to Germany, and treatment\nwithin Germany if he is to be held responsible for them. Neither did he\nbelong to the organization which was connected with the recruiting,\ntransport, and treatment, namely, the Organization Sauckel. If at all,\nhe could be charged only with the utilization of foreign workers.\n\nNo just man who values that name can, by virtue of knowledge\nsubsequently acquired, condemn the actions which a defendant committed\nat an earlier time in ignorance of what later became known. Today the\nwhole world is full of the horrors which have been brought to light. It\nis not true, however, that these horrors were desired by the supreme\nleadership. That Sauckel acted independently here and that he alone\nbears the guilt is shown by Defense Exhibit 3, in which Sauckel lied to\nHitler, saying that workers had never been treated so well as by him.\n\nI do not wish to defend Hitler. As a German, I myself have every reason\nto raise the most bitter and serious charges against the man whose\naccount of guilt can never be paid up, but here it must be said that\nHitler could hardly have included the commission of atrocities and\nmurders in his plan for the foreign workers, for if that had been the\ncase, Sauckel would not have had to lie as he did. Then he would not\nhave had to pretend to his lord and master that he was treating the\nforeign workers so well. Such lies, such deceit, are practiced only by\nthe subordinate who is aware that he has violated instructions and that\nhe can be punished by his superior.\n\nDocument R-124, Defense Exhibit 32 shows clearly that in two cases\nSauckel acted against Hitler\u2019s instructions in committing his crimes.\nTherefore, even Sauckel\u2019s labor organization was not created for the\npurpose of committing atrocities, murders, and other inhumane acts.\nSauckel and a number of his subordinates made themselves guilty on their\nown accounts, and as guilty persons they strove to keep secret and to\ncover up their crimes. That the defendant cannot be responsible for\nthese secret acts is hardly to be doubted.\n\nI realize that in answer the prosecution will remind me of all the\ndocuments with severe statements by Milch which have been submitted to\nthe Tribunal. This is a serious count of the indictment, but one can\nachieve clarity on the complex of questions thus brought up only if one\nconsiders whether Milch made these severe statements only against\nforeign workers and prisoners of war or whether they were simply a part\nof his nature.\n\nThe witnesses Richter, Foerster, Hertel, Eschenauer, Pendele, and\nVorwald have confirmed that Milch in his tantrums threatened even his\nGerman subordinates, his best workers, with hanging and shooting, and\nhere in this room several men have appeared on the witness stand whom\nthe defendant shot or hanged in words. This clearly shows that the\ndefendant was not one-sidedly filled with hatred of the members of\nforeign nations; besides, this was hardly to be expected in the\ncharacter of a man who for years energetically worked for peaceful\ncollaboration with other peoples and who despised the racial doctrine\nand the idea of the \u201cmaster race\u201d. Rather, it makes it clear that he\nthrew out such wild expressions only when he was excited, so that his\nsubordinates acquired the habit of laying bets on the number of people\nwho would be shot, when they knew that exciting matters were up for\ndiscussion. I read a number of passages to you from the notorious speech\nbefore the quartermasters and fleet engineers, in which he raged against\nthose present and against himself in the same terms as he used against\nthe foreigners. And in other documents submitted by the prosecution, one\ncan find such expressions used against Germans, against members of the\nleading class of the German people, and against German workers. All this\nproves that an unfortunate inclination of Milch is here expressed for\nwhich, like a sick person, he cannot be held responsible, especially\nsince he never carried out the punishments which he threatened. All the\nwitnesses whom I have called to the stand from Milch\u2019s entourage have\ntestified that he used such terms only in tantrums. These tantrums\noccurred frequently, and always when he had met with major difficulties\nin the way of his work to save Germany from complete destruction. He was\na sick man. He suffered several very serious accidents, all with severe\nbrain concussions. It is an old experience of medicine that such people\nare easily excitable, and you must not forget how much this man had on\nhis mind. He was a clairvoyant. He knew that the war was lost for\nGermany. He realized what horrors Germany was doomed to through the\nincreasingly violent air war. He knew what help was possible in the\ndistress of his people, and he had to stand helplessly by while his\nshort-sighted and perhaps malevolent superiors frustrated, hampered, and\nprohibited all his precautions. In such severe physical distress, even a\nhealthy man would become so irritable that he would be subjected to\nviolent outbursts of anger. How much more violent would these outbursts\nbe in the case of the sick defendant. His distressed soul housed in a\nsuffering body, helplessly exposed to its worries, reacted in this way\nto relieve the tension.\n\nMany witnesses, in particular the witness Vorwald, have told you that\nwhen such excitement occurred the defendant even changed physically,\nthat the back of his neck became red and swollen and that afterwards he\nno longer knew what he said while he was in such a state. That this\ntestimony, especially that of the witness Vorwald is true, is shown with\nactual certainty by the incidents between the defendant and Goering on\nthe occasion of the report on the crimes committed by Terboven in Norway\non the civilian population, and Document R-134, Exhibit 159 of the\nprosecution. The prosecution without justification bitterly reproached\nthe defendant for failure to protest against this monstrosity. The\ndefendant in his defense was not able to answer that he had done so.\nVorwald has testified that this process took place in connection with an\noutburst of anger about precisely that incident, and because the\ntestimony of Vorwald that the defendant did not remember afterwards what\nhad happened during his period of excitement is true, the defendant was\nnot able to carry out a full answer in his own defense because of his\nexcitement. He did not remember. Your Honors, it is clear you have\nachieved deep insight into the souls of men. Therefore, surely you are\nable to judge that this incident has revealed the truth of what the\ndefendant and his witnesses have told you. Otherwise he would be able to\ncite his protest as a defense against the charge of the prosecution.\n\nNow, I assume that the prosecution will object that these fits of rage\noccurred much too frequently and that they are therefore not a\npathological symptom but a normal expression of his character. Your\nHonors, this can be disputed by a very simple consideration. The\nso-called GL (Generalluftzeugmeister\u2014Air Ordnance Master General)\nmeetings took place twice a week. That means that from the time when the\ndefendant took office there were a total of about 160 meetings. In\naddition, there were 60 meetings of the Central Planning Board. Finally\nthere were about 30 Jaegerstab meetings, altogether about 250 meetings\nin which the defendant participated. The meetings lasted many hours.\nAccording to my concept the average number of pages of verbatim\ntranscript of the GL was about 200 for a single meeting, or about\n30,000-32,000 pages for the GL alone. If one includes the transcripts of\nother meetings then one comes to figure approximately at least of about\n35,000 pages for all the transcripts at a conservative estimate. This is\nan enormous figure from all these many meetings. From all these many,\nmany pages of transcript, the prosecutor has been able to submit only a\nvery few pages with only very occasional extravagant statements.\nTherefore, the question is asked whether this was the normal tone of the\ndefendant. It is also significant that in the meetings of the GL, such\noutbursts occur much more frequently than in the transcripts of the\nJaegerstab or the transcripts of the Central Planning Board. In the GL\nmeetings the defendant was in his own realm among us \u201cparson\u2019s\ndaughters\u201d, as the witness Vorwald said. Such outbursts naturally\noccurred there more often because according to experience a human being\ncan let himself go more easily among his most intimate friends than\namong his subordinates. Nevertheless the outbursts remained isolated.\n\nHow curious is it that the emotional disturbances of the defendant\noccurred repeatedly in connection with the same subjects of discussion,\nfor example, in the question of the work done by the French industry,\nthe French people, the question of so-called slackers, or the discussion\nof threatening and inciting remarks made by foreigners. Sometimes\nseveral outbursts occurred at brief intervals, one after the other. Why,\nyour Honors? Because the matters that excited the defendant were not\nsettled. But this leads us to the question of whether the defendant\nfollowed up these wild words with deeds. He never did. Just consider,\nfor example, the question of slackers or the question of the work done\nby the French industry, the French people. These apparently so\nmalevolent orders issued in anger were not carried out. These stones\nwere repeatedly laid in the path of the defendant. Here, your Honors, I\nask you to penetrate into the depth of the circumstances with the\nunderstanding that characterizes a legal person. The defendant\nrepeatedly became excited, for example, over the so-called slackers,\nGermans unwilling to work whom he considered to be traitors. Each time\nhe issued strict orders, expressed wild threats, but would it not have\nbeen the most natural thing for this excitable man on all these\noccasions, which followed one on the heels of the other, to shout at his\nsubordinates and to reproach them, to ask them why the orders which he\nhad given and supported before in anger and which he had advanced\nrepeatedly had not long since been carried out? Would that not have been\nthe most natural and the first thing that he would have done in his\nanger if he had really expected and wanted his wild orders carried out?\nYour Honors, look at it from the human point of view. Revive all the\nexperiences of your long and no doubt rich lives and examine with me\nwhether I am not right in what I say.\n\nI challenge my learned opponent to show me in all these instances, which\nare really appalling, one single expression indicating that the\ndefendant objected to the failure to carry out his earlier threatening\norders. Not a single word can be found and here, your Honors, the truth\nbecomes so obvious that no intelligent man can ignore it. It sounded\nincredible in the mouth of the witnesses when they said again and again\nthat no such orders were carried out. It has been put to the defendant\nthat it is improbable that a field marshal did not expect his orders to\nbe carried out and that all his subordinates did not immediately rush to\ncarry out his orders, but the man who is sitting before you told the\ntruth in spite of all appearances to the contrary, for if he as a field\nmarshal had expected his orders issued in anger to be carried out then\nhe would surely at one time or another have expressed dissatisfaction\nbecause they had not been carried out. But he did nothing except to get\nangry from his sickness and his anxiety about his people. It is clear\nnot only from the Terboven case that he actually knew nothing about what\nhe had screamed out and that he never seriously pressed home his\ndemands. The Court has questioned him repeatedly about these\nexpressions. He always supplied that he did not remember them and he did\nnot believe that he had said so. He has often had to tell you that what\nhe shouted was wrong if he had actually said it. That too seemed\nincredible at first, but as this man afterwards no longer knew what he\nsaid in these attacks then he cannot testify about them. It is also\nclear that a man in such a fit speaks many untruths and one cannot\nassert that he lied deliberately. The man, as I say today, has told you\nthe truth as far as he can know it to the best of his knowledge and\nbelief. These transcripts cannot convict him of untrustworthiness.\nMoreover, in many cases the transcripts are no doubt full of mistakes,\ndistortions, and errors. I have shown you a number of passages which\nmust be wrong. I have shown you transcripts such as NOKW-359, Exhibit\n75, which speak of Milch\u2019s presence and statements although on that day\nhe could not have been present in the Jaegerstab. This is also true of\nsome records of ostensible GL meetings. I have also proved that other\ntranscripts make no logical sense in German and that several statements\nmust have been run together there. Today, of course, no one can say\nwhether these various statements were all made by the defendant. Many\nwitnesses which I have examined on this matter, for example, to name but\na few, Richter, Pendele, Hertel, Speer, and Vorwald, have testified that\nthe transcripts contained many errors and that they were never\ncorrected, that they were sometimes even intentionally distorted when\nthe defendant attacked his superiors. Such passages were either left out\nor changed in such a way that the attacks on the person in question were\nno longer recognizable. But who would seriously consider it permissible\nto use such faulty transcripts as evidence?\n\nAll the witnesses from the entourage of the defendant have told you\nfinally that in these Central Planning Board, as well as in the\nJaegerstab and GL meetings, that in addition to transcripts reproducing\nthe individual speeches and opinions so-called records of results were\ndrawn up which contained only the really important decisions, orders,\nand regulations. They alone were valid for the subordinates. Those\nconcerned acted according to them alone. It is noteworthy that the\nprosecution has not submitted a single one of those records of results\ncontaining any inhuman orders issued by the defendant. I beg of you,\nyour Honors, not only to give severe consideration to the weaknesses of\nthe defense, I beg you to draw your severe conclusions from the\nweaknesses of the prosecution as well. The fact that no incriminating\nrecords of results have been submitted proves once more that these\nthreats were never carried out.\n\nYour Honors, in disturbed times other men, too, sometimes say things\nwhich cannot be taken seriously. Men can be charged only according to\ntheir deeds, not according to their chatter. If you have access to\nChurchill\u2019s speech made in his first excitement after Dunkirk, you can\nsee what violations of international law he recommended to the civilian\npopulation of England when he called upon them to prevent a German\nairborne landing. But he never actually issued any such orders, and so\nno one will try him for that. When the late General Patton said at one\ntime that he intended to continue to collaborate with such of the German\nNazis as were specialists, some excited American newspaper ran this\nheadline: \u201cPatton Should Be Shot.\u201d Who would be so stupid as to call\nthese newspapers inhuman? No one in the world; no one takes such excited\nwords seriously. No one can say that these outbursts of anger meant that\nMilch approved the atrocities which occurred elsewhere in Germany.\n\nThe affidavits of Kruedener, Defense Exhibit 37, Lotte Mueller, Defense\nExhibit 38, the testimony of witnesses Koenig, Vorwald, Pendele, have\nall shown that this man always and everywhere tried to help people in\ndistress. He, who ostensibly wanted to force the foreign workers and\nconcentration camp inmates to work by means of starving them, had the\nconcentration camp inmates supplied with food from his estate near\nRechlin in order to improve their diet. Thus, in his actions, he did the\nopposite of what he shouted in his anger. But one could raise a very\nserious charge to the effect that Milch by his thoughtless manner of\nspeaking incited the elements throughout the country which committed\nsuch misdeeds. But this again, your Honors, is untrue. You have not\nheard one single example here of anyone having acted according to\nMilch\u2019s words and having referred to having done so. These displays of\nfury only occurred among people who knew Milch and knew that he could\nnot be taken seriously in such moments. All witnesses have stated for\nyou that these fits only became known to the circle of intimates.\n\nI lived in Germany throughout the war. Although the sins of the\nhigh-ranking leaders of the Reich were eagerly discussed among the\npeople, I never heard one word about Milch\u2019s fits of rage. In reply to\nmy question the witness Vorwald stated convincingly that nobody spoke\nabout these incidents to other persons because they did not wish to\nexpose their superior to whom they were attached. His loyal followers\nsurrounding him with a cordon of silence. Nothing could be more\nunderstandable, and every decent person who respects his superior will\nand must act in the same manner, for, in spite of his occasional\nfierceness, Milch was popular with his subordinates. The witnesses\nRichter, Hertel, Pendele and Vorwald, among others, testified before you\nthat Milch was highly esteemed. Richter actually called him the best and\nfairest superior whom he had ever met in all his life. Here, your\nHonors, in this praise Milch\u2019s true nature appears before our eyes.\n\nI believe, therefore, to be justified in saying that one cannot and must\nnot judge Milch by his wild talk. To infer guilt from that would mean to\npass a judgment which could never be upheld before justice. Nobody may\nbe judged by empty phrases. I would like to tell you a true story here\nwhich occurred in Germany during the discussions about a new, more\nstringent National Socialist penal code. At that time the Party took the\npoint of view that criminal intent in itself was punishable, and thus,\nduring a meeting of the Penal Law Commission in connection with the\nquestion of the meaning of murder, a long debate developed as to whether\na person who intended to bring about the death of an enemy by prayer was\nto be punished by death for murder. The majority of Party members\nconcurred with this mad opinion on the punishment of criminal intent.\nThe sensible ones protested against it for a long time. When the debate\nwas nearing its end, Dr. Guertner, the Reich Minister of Justice at the\ntime, a clear-sighted man, rose and with one single sentence made reason\nprevail. These were his words: \u201cGentlemen, I do not understand you. All\nmy life a corpse has been part of a murder.\u201d The narrow-minded Party\ndoctrinaires had to give in to the scornful laughter that followed these\nwords. And in that way I should like here to think of Milch\u2019s wild talk\nand exclaim, \u201cWhere is the corpse?\u201d\n\nIn my opinion the only remaining question which needs serious discussion\nis merely that of the employment of foreign workers, of PW\u2019s, and of\nconcentration camp inmates. To begin with, it must be mentioned that the\nprosecution in its opening speech maintained that Milch more than\nanybody else in Germany was occupied with the employment of forced labor\nin Germany. That statement, however, is in no way correct. That, at\nleast, has been clarified by the evidence beyond all doubt, it seems to\nme. There can be no doubt that Sauckel and Speer had considerably more\nto do with so-called forced labor than Milch, quite apart from Hitler\nand Goering themselves.\n\nIt is necessary to visualize clearly the scope of Milch\u2019s sphere of\nactivities and of his authority. Your Honors, even if you were only to\ncheck the three part Defense Exhibit 55 which I submitted, even to a\nsuperficial scrutiny only, you would realize immediately that Speer\nalone had a great deal more to do with this work than Milch. Speer was\nin charge of all armaments for the army and navy which, measured in\nhuman beings, by far exceeded the Luftwaffe, and alone exceeded the\nvolume of the Luftwaffe armament many times, in particular as Milch only\ndealt with the construction of airplanes and as all equipment for the\ncrews, in fact were part of the army equipment. Furthermore, Speer was\nin charge of all other productions in the German Reich. Finally, after\nthe establishment of the Jaegerstab, Speer was also placed in charge of\nall armaments for the Luftwaffe. This Defense Exhibit 55, to which the\ndefendant has sworn and which is based on the prosecution\u2019s own Exhibit\n58, reveals a much greater and more comprehensive scope of Speer\u2019s\norganization. It was he, who as the central authority, not only\ncontrolled an apparatus with considerably more tasks, he alone also had\nat his disposal the executive authorities in the country, who dealt with\nall matters which had to be taken, whereas Milch had no executive organs\nat his disposal. He had, therefore, no executive powers whatsoever.\nSpeer alone was in charge of the powerful main committees, the main\nindustrial rings, in which the captains of industry exerted their\ninfluence and power.\n\nHe was also in charge of the armament commissions and armament officials\nof the armament inspectorates and armament detachments in the defense\ndistricts. And lastly, the Gau plenipotentiaries and provincial economic\noffices in the whole country listened to him. He was with Hitler almost\nevery week, and therefore, he possessed much more influence to which\nSauckel\u2019s power\u2014\n\n [At this point, the following discussion took place:]\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE TOMS: May I ask you what was Koerner\u2019s special interest?\n\nDR. BERGOLD: I am not speaking about Central Planning Board here. I am\nonly speaking about the GL.\n\nQ. I know, but in the Central Planning Board what particular field was\nKoerner interested in\u2014the navy?\n\nA. Koerner? No. He was mainly in charge of agriculture. He testified to\nthat effect.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE TOMS: Very well.\n\n[Dr. Bergold continues.]\n\nSpeer was with Hitler almost once a week and had therefore much more\ninfluence to which Sauckel\u2019s power set the only limit. The man, Milch,\nnever possessed such a machine. The GL was nothing but a technical\nagency in the Reich Air Ministry which generally, as the witnesses\nVorwald and Hertel confirmed, was told by the General Staff of the\nLuftwaffe what was to be constructed. If Milch had really been the\npowerful man as the prosecution describes him, it would have been\npossible for him to carry out his plan for Germany\u2019s air defense. But\nthe achievement of this goal for which this man worked with unbelievable\neffort and with all energy was denied to him simply because he was only\nin charge of a technical office which could not make any decisions\nwhatsoever. Hitler, Goering, and the General Staff of the Luftwaffe\ndecided what this man had to construct and what plans he was to carry\nout. He carried them out within the framework of the task with which he\nwas entrusted, always being suspended in the middle, without ground\nunder his feet, without the direct authority to give orders to industry,\nwithout influence on the supply of manpower and materials; he could only\nget influence through the Central Planning Board, and there too the\nfundamental decisions were made by Hitler, by the latter himself, on the\nadvice of Speer. It is not necessary for me to name all the witnesses.\nAll his collaborators have testified to that effect.\n\nMay it please the Tribunal, if you examine the statements made by Hertel\nand Vorwald, you will gather from them beyond any doubt that the GL had\nnothing to do at all with the question of labor, with the recruiting,\ntransportation, and assignment of workers. The GL, and this cannot\npossibly be doubted by anyone after hearing all these witnesses and\nespecially after Milch\u2019s testimony, had merely to make the blueprints\nfor airplanes and the construction necessary for this purpose, and then\nto place the orders with the completely independent industry, following\nin all this the instructions of the General Staff and the orders given\nby Hitler and Goering. All witnesses from the GL have confirmed before\nyou that the GL had nothing to do at all with the labor question; that\nhe did not request one single worker or exert any influence on Sauckel.\nIt is true that requests for labor passed, for statistical reasons as\nwell as for control purposes, through the GL office. But it is important\nto remember and never to forget that industry submitted its real labor\nrequests throughout the country to the labor exchange offices which were\nSauckel\u2019s agencies and to the armament inspectorates and armament\ndetachments which were Speer\u2019s agencies.\n\nVorwald and the defendant himself have shown you with unmistakable\nclearness that the only thing which the GL had to do with these requests\nwas merely that he examined these requests of industry concerning the\nmaterial point as well as the labor point, and that he then reported to\nthe Speer Ministry whether and in how far the requests of industry were\nexaggerated and false and if the GL considered fewer material and less\nmanpower to be adequate.\n\nNow, what does such an activity actually mean? Surely not, as the\nprosecution submits, the enslavement of new workers, but exactly the\ncontrary; namely their reduction. If the GL had not exercised this\nactivity, Sauckel would have got much larger requests from industry and\nhe would have procured this labor by means of more forceful methods than\nhe actually did. That industry had to request workers in order to carry\nout its tasks assigned by Hitler, Goering, and the General Staff of the\nLuftwaffe, who were the authorities who decided on the extent of the\nconstruction program of air armaments, was however not caused by the GL.\nHe was nothing else but an executive organ in the chain of command from\nHitler, Goering, and the General Staff. He was merely the technical\nagency which had to make the blueprints and constructions, and then,\nafter approval by higher authorities, had to submit them to industry for\nthe undertaking of the orders.\n\nThis, your Honors, is the recital of the evidence produced on the\nactivity of the GL, and the only thing which the GL did in the framework\nof this activity was to reduce to the lowest level the requests for\nlabor made by industry, for the many reasons that he was sufficiently\nexpert to look through the exaggerated requests of industry which could\nnever get enough workers. It is significant that the GL minutes which\nhave been submitted nowhere reveal a discussion of real manpower\nguidance, but, at the utmost, that once a few questions were discussed\nfor information purposes. It is furthermore highly significant that\namong the entire organizations of the GL there were no offices for labor\nassignment and labor research as was the case in the Armament Ministry\nof Speer (_see Defense Exhibit 55_), but merely for statistics of the\npersonnel. There is nothing to clarify the real situation better than\nthis fact.\n\nHas the fact that industry, which had to carry out Hitler\u2019s construction\nprogram, employed foreign workers, prisoners of war, concentration camp\ninmates, been caused by the defendant? Industry had employed these\npeople before the beginning of Milch\u2019s tenure; it employed them because\nHitler had ordered through Sauckel that industry had to employ these\npeople\u2014not in order to obtain slave labor for slave labor\u2019s sake\u2014but\nonly for the reason to be able to throw still more Germans into the\ngreedy jaws of the fiendish war and thus surely causing disaster for\nGermans as well as for other peoples.\n\nAs far as the GL is concerned\u2014the least reproach can be cast upon\nMilch, of all the reproaches that can be cast upon him. It only consists\nin that he passed orders on to the air armament industry (and where did\nthis not occur during the war?), and that he saw to it that no\nexaggerated requests for material and manpower were made.\n\nThe prosecution has proved nothing which could contradict these\nstatements. But Milch has\u2014and this, too, has been proved\u2014not only\ncurtailed exaggerated labor requests of industry by means of his\nstatistics, thus preventing the increase of foreign labor, but in\naddition to that, as was stated by the witnesses Brauchitsch, Pendele,\nHertel, Vorwald, and others, he always endeavored seriously and\nsuccessfully to maintain the German workers in the factories; and in\ndoing so he even saved German workers who should have been drafted, at\nleast to the amount of 70,000 for the air armament factories, keeping\nthus on a lower level further requests for foreign workers and their\nassignment. A man who, as the prosecution means, is keen on slave labor\ndoes not act in that way.\n\nFinally, there is another point to be mentioned in this connection. The\nInternational Military Tribunal\u2014which, by the way, states expressly in\nits verdict against Sauckel that there is no doubt of Sauckel having had\nthe over-all responsibility for the slave labor program\u2014that Tribunal\nstated in its verdict against Speer that it has to be considered as a\nmitigating circumstance in his favor, that by setting up protected\nfactories Speer had kept many workers in their homelands. Your Honors\nwill remember the depositions of Hertel, Vorwald, and Milch, of which it\nresults that as early as 1941 Milch, first together with Udet and later\non alone, had factories working in France on the basis of a free\nagreement with the French plants in order to employ French workers in\ntheir home country. These agreements were, as has been testified to by\nFoerster, completely free, because in 1941 the industry of that part of\nFrance which at that time had not yet been occupied had concluded them.\nTherefore, Milch was the inventor of the idea to have labor employed on\nthe spot in foreign countries. It was not only in France that he, being\nthe first, carried that out. You have heard that this occurred also in\nHolland and in Hungary. Now, if the International Military Tribunal\ncounted this circumstance as a mitigating one for Speer, it must all the\nmore be credited to the defendant who acted that way not merely from\n1943 onward, as did Speer according to his own statement in this trial,\nbut already as early as 1941, and was the first to do so. In this\ninstance again the defendant proved to be a man who endeavored to\nmitigate as much as possible the difficulties which had arisen from the\nprevailing emergency. That much as far as the defendant\u2019s activity as GL\nis concerned.\n\nWhen I come to consider in how far Milch\u2019s activity on the Central\nPlanning Board could be charged against him, I am aware that some of the\nminutes of the Central Planning Board could, in themselves, be\ninterpreted as a charge against Milch. But if your Honors consider that\nout of sixty meetings of the Central Planning Board the prosecution\ncould only list fifteen meetings in which labor questions were\ndiscussed\u2014this being done in some instances in a perfunctory and casual\nway\u2014it results from this fact already that the Central Planning Board,\nas to its aim, was not charged with the guiding of manpower, which at\nthat time was the focal point of many schemes in all countries and,\nabove all, in Germany.\n\nIn this trial there was much argument between the prosecution and the\ndefense as to the significance and the essence of the Central Planning\nBoard until, eventually, with the help of the key Document NOKW-245,\nProsecution Exhibit 157, the argument was decided. There it says\nliterally, \u201cSpeer and I (that is, Milch) are of the opinion that he\n(Sauckel) has to be incorporated somehow in the Central Planning Board\nin order to get the labor assignment, as well as the material, into our\nhands. At the present time we have no possibility to steer it.\u201d These\nwords were voiced on 23 February 1943 after the Central Planning Board\nhad been in existence for already one year. These words were not voiced\nat that time for the purpose of _ex post facto_ whitewashing, but they\nexpressed the complete truth and have characterized the situation in\nquite simple and clear words for always and unmistakably. No decree has\nbeen submitted, nor order of Hitler has been proved, to show that this\nsituation was changed. At no time, indeed at no time, was Sauckel a\nmember of the Central Planning Board. If the prosecution wants to\nconsider the wish Milch uttered at that occasion as incriminating, they\nare at liberty to do so. However, this is not a punishable deed, and\nnobody can tell what amount of good Milch could have done if he had\nfactually been in charge of the labor assignment. His other deeds\naccount for the assumption that he would certainly have stopped abuses\nand would have mitigated all that was necessary as far as possible. The\nmembers of this trial would not believe, at first, in the depositions of\nall the witnesses who have been heard here, including Koerner, stating\nthat the Central Planning Board dealt with labor questions merely for\nreasons of information. The wording of the speeches seemed to contradict\nit. But, your Honors, the witnesses have also testified before you that\nthe speeches could only be understood if they are read. Prosecution\nExhibit 157 has put an end to all such doubts. Whoever wants to\npronounce here the verdict with all the necessary seriousness cannot\nbypass this document. Nobody can contend any longer that the defendant\nhas not told you the full truth. Therefore, his statement under oath is\nto be believed, which agrees with Speer\u2019s statement in that the\nso-called labor assignment meetings were held with Sauckel always with\nthe sole aim to obtain from Sauckel, who had reported so many false\nfigures and was not scrupulous about telling the truth, eventually and\nfor once, clear figures. Likewise, Document NOKW-195, Prosecution\nExhibit 143, the report on the meeting of 28 October 1943, held at\nGoering\u2019s place, shows a constant struggle with Sauckel in order to\nobtain true figures because Hitler would not believe that Sauckel\u2019s\nfigures were completely false. It has been proved that factually both\nSpeer and Milch have been reproached because they did not fulfill the\nprogram made by Hitler, although many millions of workers had allegedly\nbeen at their disposal. Alone for air armament, according to Goering\u2019s\ncalculation based on Sauckel\u2019s figures, five million workers should have\nbeen available\u2014whereas the entire air armament employed a much lower\ntotal of people. As Hitler was a dangerous man and his reproaches could\nhave disagreeable consequences, Speer and Milch cannot be blamed for\nwanting to get this subject clear; consequently, if they discussed this\nproblem in detail\u2014especially during the 53d and 54th meetings of the\nCentral Planning Board\u2014this has nothing to do at all with labor\nprocurement. That these meetings have not been summoned by Milch\u2014that\nthey have been summoned by Speer and his ministry\u2014has been proved.\nMilch presided over these meetings only because Speer was ill. But he\nonly carried through the order of his friend Speer. But even these\ndiscussions do not alter the fact that the Central Planning Board as\nsuch had nothing to do with labor procurement. These very discussions\nwere of a purely informative nature. By them the Central Planning Board\ndid not obtain any influence on the carrying out of labor procurement\nnor on its distribution. How characteristic it is, however, for the\npersonality of Milch that he used even this discussion about Sauckel\u2019s\nfigures in order to reduce the millions of new workers whom Hitler had\nordered in January 1944 to quite a considerable extent.\n\nIn all the discussions submitted there is nowhere a word to be found,\neither to the effect that Milch had requested workers for his air\narmament. If the need for workers was under discussion, then always\nonly, as the defendant himself confirmed, in regard to the basic\nindustries\u2014that is, mining and the iron industry and in regard to\nagriculture. It was always a question, as the records show, of the\ncommitment of prisoners of war. But even according to the Geneva\nConvention prisoners of war may be employed in mining, in the production\nof iron, and in agriculture. These places of work are not actual\narmament industries.\n\nThat Milch did not have anything to do with the commitment of Russians\nin antiaircraft defense, which was not under him at all; that, on the\ncontrary, he even opposed it, and that that part of the minutes of the\n33d meeting of the Central Planning Board must be incorrect here, too,\nhas been stated by the witnesses Hertel, Koenig, as well as others\nequally incontestably. It has now been proved that this order was issued\nby the OKW directly via Goering.\n\nThus Milch, in his capacity as member of the Central Planning Board, was\nneither perpetrator of, nor accomplice in, crimes; nor did the Central\nPlanning Board have as its purpose the commission of such crimes. Its\nsole purpose was the distribution of raw materials\u2014an activity which is\nnot prohibited under any conditions.\n\nThe third activity of Milch which could bring him in connection with the\nso-called slave labor was the activity on the Jaegerstab. Were one to\nview this membership in the Jaegerstab from the point of view of the\nprosecution, one could perhaps maintain the previously formed opinion\nthat this activity was limited to the increased use of slave labor. The\ntestimony of Speer, Vorwald, and Milch, however, have shown that the\nJaegerstab had two main aims, namely, first, to raise the production of\nfighter planes and, secondly, to facilitate Milch\u2019s resignation from his\noffice by transferring the entire air armament industry to the ministry\nof Speer.\n\nFormerly, to be sure, Milch was one of the chairmen of this Jaegerstab,\nbut the witnesses\u2014among them Schmelter, Hertel, Eschenauer and\nVorwald\u2014have testified that the actual chairman of this Jaegerstab was\nSaur. Milch very soon withdrew from the Jaegerstab; in March 1944 he\nstill participated in fifteen meetings, in April only eight, in May only\nfive, and in June only two. Nothing proves the veracity of the testimony\nof the defendant more than the quite obvious decrease in his\nparticipation. If one considers the fact that the Jaegerstab held its\nmeetings daily one realizes how rapidly the decrease in the activity of\nthe defendant was. If one considers furthermore that he was not always\npresent at the meetings at all, that he did not hear most of the details\nof the discussions at these meetings, one can say with certainty that he\nwas really not the man who had the biggest influence in the Jaegerstab,\nand who performed the practical work there. The expression \u201cbreakfast\ndirector\u201d, which the witness Dorsch applied to the defendant,\ncharacterizes the situation excellently. The Jaegerstab was concerned\nwith labor questions only insofar as it guided the so-called transfer of\nworkers who were already working in industry, in the event changes in\nproduction occurred, especially effecting, as far as possible, their\ntransfer from closed down bomber factories to fighter plane factories.\nHowever, in this connection it is almost exclusively a question of\nso-called skilled workers, as the witness Schmelter, a specialist in\nthis field, has confirmed. In this process no new workers of any kind\nwere introduced into industry. The witness Schmelter, however, finally\nexpressly confirmed that no real influence was exerted on Sauckel and\nhis offices. Wishes regarding the transfer were merely referred to the\nOrganization Sauckel. This fact in particular was emphasized in the\nstatement of Schmelter with all the clarity desirable.\n\nThus, it has been proved in regard to this committee, too, that it had\nnothing to do with the bringing of workers into Germany from abroad, nor\ndealt with their redistribution. Thus, it was also not the purpose of\nthe Jaegerstab to decide labor questions. Finally, it has thus been\nclarified that the ministry of Speer was the office which handled labor\nquestions, insofar as it was necessary in the framework of the\ntransfers. On the basis of the submitted documents, it seems at first as\nthough the Jaegerstab had initiated and carried out the building of\nunderground factories or of concrete protected factories above ground.\nThe witnesses Speer, Hertel, Eschenauer, Koenig, Pendele, as well as\nMilch, himself, however, all clearly and decisively confirmed that these\nconstructions were ordered directly by Hitler and Goering, and that the\ndefendant had opposed these orders because he considered them senseless.\nIt has furthermore been declared that Hitler himself, handled the needs\nof workers for these undesirable constructions. The Jaegerstab was\nconnected with these constructions, according to all the testimony, only\nto the extent that it had to examine which ones of the fighter plane\nfactories had to be installed in them. In this connection it must be\nremembered that a number of these constructions were also allocated for\narmament factories of the Wehrmacht. Thus, Milch also cannot be charged\nwith any responsibility in this count. He was neither formally nor\nactually in a position to prevent Hitler\u2019s and Goering\u2019s orders.\n\nNor had Milch anything to do with the allocation of Hungarian Jews to\nthese factories, quite apart from the fact that it has been made clear\nthat these Jews were allocated only in the summer of 1944, which was\nstated by the last prosecution witness, Krysiak, that is, at a time when\nMilch had withdrawn from his office for some time. It has been proved\nthat Hitler issued relevant orders here and that the Jaegerstab trip to\nHungary was entirely unconnected with this matter because it was\nundertaken solely for the purpose of a conference with the legal\nHungarian government. These consultations were merely concerned with\nagreements regarding aircraft production by the Hungarian industry in\nthe large caves near the Danube. Not one single document has shown that\nMilch either agreed to or welcomed the employment of Hungarian Jews.\n\nTo sum up, I may say then that even within the Jaegerstab Milch was\nneither a principal nor an abetter in the crimes listed in the\nindictment. I might add that it was not the purpose of the Jaegerstab to\ncarry out such crimes. In any case he was by no means the leading man on\nthat board. It has been found with certainty beyond all doubt that the\nJaegerstab served the purpose of helping the defendant to withdraw from\noffice.\n\nMention must also be made of the question of concentration camp inmates\nworking. Before going into details, I should like to make a few basic\nremarks. From all the trials in which I acted as counsel, from the\nquestions asked in this courtroom, from various discussions I have had\nwith citizens of your country, I have, your Honors, attained the\ncertainty that in your circles no one believes in the truthfulness of\nthe defendants\u2019 and all other witnesses\u2019 statements, namely that the\naverage German knew nothing about the happenings in the concentration\ncamps and that the defendant did not know of the existence of such\ncamps, with the exception of Dachau and Oranienburg. As most Germans\ncertify to this and as all witnesses swear to this under oath, it is\nfirst of all difficult to understand why such statements are not\nbelieved. It can only be explained by the fact that the citizens of your\ncountry have been so much influenced by press propaganda and the newly\ndiscovered facts that they put more trust in the reports of their\nnewspapers than in the assurances of the citizens of a country which is\nnow known throughout the world as the place of origin of many\natrocities.\n\nBut should such prejudice which does not originate from [one\u2019s] own and\nactual experience influence the judgment? I believe and always have\nbelieved that it is one of the essential laws of justice to base one\u2019s\njudgment strictly on facts which have become evident during a trial. It\nis a proven fact that in Germany no one was allowed to write about\nconcentration camps; that the rules of secrecy which had been imposed by\nthe dictatorial regime had to be kept very strictly; and that even the\nGerman authorities in case of their violating these rules of secrecy,\nwere threatened with death, as I have proved by the submission of\nDefense Exhibit 36.\n\nFrom the statement of the witness Roeder, who, incidentally, explained\nthat the defendant had neither the power of passing a death sentence nor\nof sending people to concentration camps, you have learned that the\nconcentration camp inmates spoke to nobody about their condition. Even\nthe prosecution witness Krysiak has told you that the prisoners did not\ndare to lodge complaints to anybody. How could the Germans generally\nlearn about conditions in concentration camps? Milch, too, could not and\ndid not learn about them, as he has told you, for the secrecy was kept\neven among the highest authorities. May the propaganda of your country\ninsist on the contrary as much as it likes, what I have stated here\nstill remains true, and I can certify it myself.\n\nI myself who during the time of the so-called Third Reich often enough\ndefended men who were accused because of their political views, I, who\nwas watched by the Gestapo, who was attacked in the public newspapers of\nNuernberg and especially was mentioned with name in the notorious\n\u201cStuermer\u201d on account of my defense of unhappy Jews, I, too, didn\u2019t\nlearn anything about these camps, although clients came to me after\ntheir release from the concentration camp Dachau. I always asked them\nand I always received the answer that they had nothing special to\nreport. It was, of course, no pleasant life, but they reported that it\nwas not so bad.\n\nI would ask you, your Honors, to consider how we could have learned of\nthese conditions.\n\nMay I remind you in this connection that deeds have been committed in\nthe east of the former German territory, in the Sudeten-German border\nterritories of Czechoslovakia, and other countries, deeds which, even if\none imagines them at their worst, remain far behind the truth. About\nthese atrocities the international press has kept silent although one\nday history will speak and one will learn about them with horror. I have\nrefused to give proof of the events which were brought about by your\narmies after the collapse. I could have mentioned many deeds which can\nbe called nothing but grave infringements against the Geneva Convention.\nI could have given you a picture of how in the prisoners\u2019 camps in the\nearly days hundreds of German prisoners died of starvation. I am not\naccusing anyone. Shortcomings of organization and of human nature but\nnot express orders and rules account for it.\n\nI only mention this, your Honors, in order to point out that you did not\nlearn about this and that it is only our unhappy and wretched people who\nknow about it. But we who have had the bitter experience of the power of\npropaganda and of the force of secrecy know that ignorance of such\nmatters can be excused and believed. Therefore, no one may say from the\noutset that all the unanimous statements by witnesses and the\ndeclarations of Milch are to be disbelieved. They have been sworn to;\nand the verdict must take them into consideration.\n\nAccording to these it is certain that Milch only knew of the employment\nof concentration camp inmates in the Heinkel plant in Oranienburg and\nthat he was of the opinion that these were German criminals and German\npolitical prisoners, of whose mistreatment, however, he had no\nknowledge. The use of prisoners and convicts is not a crime against\nhumanity. This, however, should not have to be mentioned. In all\ncountries in the world it is customary for prisoners to be obliged to\nwork. In Germany this was even regulated by law to such an extent that\nthe prisoners who were condemned to prison, that is, not to the\npenitentiary, also had to work. For a prisoner to have to work is not an\natrocity. An atrocity can be seen only if the prisoner has to do this\nwork under conditions which injure his health or which are inhuman.\n\nBut Milch did not know that the food, the housing, and the treatment of\nthe prisoners were inhuman. One would have to prove such knowledge\nbefore one could punish him for it. You have heard, on the contrary,\nthat he always did everything possible when he heard of individual cases\nof abuse. He even tried to help, as the Kruedener affidavit, Defense\nExhibit 37, proves, in a case where he was not competent. As the\ntestimony of Kruedener revealed this was a case of inadequate\naccommodations. Moreover, as the witness Koenig has testified, he\ninstituted an improvement in the food given the prisoners at Rechlin on\nhis own initiative, and he generally saw to it that workers got better\nrations.\n\nBut that does not mean that he knew that those prisoners were starving.\nIt was unfortunately so that because of the total blockade of Germany by\nthe Allied forces the food available to the civilian population of\nGermany was very poor. I myself had only had the minimum ration card;\nand I could tell you a long story about how difficult it was to work on\nsuch rations. Milch, however, obtained better food for everyone working\nunder him for armament. It was he who was the first to obtain extra\nrations for his air armament industry because the workers worked\novertime. As a number of records of the Central Planning Board and the\nJaegerstab show, he obtained additional rations for the prisoners of war\nand, for example, sent the Russians into agriculture so that they might\nget better food there and be padded a little. He had an office set up in\nthe Jaegerstab in order to obtain additional food and clothing for the\nworkers, as the witness Schmelter has testified.\n\nThe improvement in the food of the inmates of Rechlin concentration camp\nwas part of these measures. If he did this through his estate, it was\nbecause he had no influence with the administration of the concentration\ncamps in respect of the issue of additional ration cards.\n\nIt would not correspond with justice if he was pronounced punishable for\nthe employment of concentration camp inmates under these conditions. The\ncompulsory labor of prisoners has always been lawful in Germany even\nbefore the Third Reich. He knew nothing of cruelties and atrocities or\ninhuman treatment. Therefore, his consent to these cannot be proved.\n\nIf I may summarize then, I believe that my opening statement for the\ndefense had correctly revealed that Milch was not a slave holder,\nmoreover that he never aspired to be one, that he was of the opinion\nthat the employment of such workers was permitted, and finally that he\nhad done everything to keep down the employment of foreign workers as\nmuch as possible and to make it as humane as possible. At any rate the\nprosecution\u2019s description of him is in no way accurate, and could only\noriginate from a misunderstanding of the man, his speeches, and of his\nbackground. Sauckel and Speer had far greater responsibility in this\nconnection. It was they who had real influence, and not Milch, but even\nin the case of Speer who was higher than Milch in his position, the\nInternational Military Tribunal has granted extenuating circumstances in\nconnection with the manpower issue. I am convinced that Milch thought\nemploying such labor was permissible, and that he did everything in his\npower to keep such employment to the lowest level and as human as\npossible.\n\nI am conscious of the fact that the verdict of the International\nMilitary Tribunal is a great obstacle for me, and nevertheless the\nTribunal was merely composed of human beings, and it had passed judgment\nunder particularly difficult circumstances, and in composition it opened\nthe door to politics into the courtroom. I do not need to remind you\nthat in the English speaking countries, several verdicts of the Tribunal\nwere subjected to very serious criticism. I myself here attacked one\npoint of this verdict with better witnesses and better evidence, that\nwith regard to slave labor, for example, the International Military\nTribunal based itself upon a wrong assumption. Nobody stated there that\nthe U.S.S.R. had called off the Hague Convention of Land Warfare. I\nchecked up on those features of defense, and I found that all the time\nit was only talk that the U.S.S.R. had not become a partner of the\nconvention. The statement of von Neurath revealed that notice of\nwithdrawal was expressly given.\n\nHere we not only pronounce penalty verdicts or judgment, but also\npolitical judgments, whether we want to or not. Especially in politics\nthere is always some fluctuation. Every day new facts turn up, which\nthrow different light upon things. The distance of time which always\ngrows greater and greater and separates us from the irritating events of\nthe past allows an ever clearer judgment. The man who returns from\nbattle is always confused. The more he becomes calm the more he admits\njustice towards his enemy.\n\nHonorable Judges of this Tribunal, when you judge please don\u2019t forget\nthe whole personality of Milch. He always concerned himself as a good\nand noble man, and I am not only convinced of that as his counsel but\nalso as a human being. The world would have a different outlook if his\nsuperiors had listened to his advice, which was intended to serve the\npeople of this world, and the common will of the people, and peace. In\nhis heart he always took the side of the fighter who fought for united\nEurope, which now has been joined also by his former enemy number one,\nChurchill. May this statement of Milch which has thrown new light upon\nthings serve this aim. Poor and tortured Europe needs an enduring peace.\nMay his statements also open the eyes of those among the German people\nwho still cannot give up their misconceptions of many years, and show\nthem what crime has been committed against them.\n\nBut you, Honorable Judges, must recognize from the attitude of the\ndefendant Milch that he never became unfaithful to himself, and even if\nhe had been perhaps under the spell of erroneous conception, he has\nalways wanted the best for his and other people.\n\nI have profound confidence in you, Honorable Judges, that you, equally\ndetached from your own people, will find an independent, true and\nrighteous judgment that corresponds to the truth. I shall consider it as\nan honor for my person if I have contributed to this through my\npainstaking labor.\n\n-----\n\n[152] Defense Counsel Dr. Friedrich Bergold delivered the closing\nstatement before the Tribunal on 25 March 1947, Tr. pp. 2377-2435.\n\n[153] Trial of the Major War Criminals, vol. I, p. 226.\n\n[154] Ibid., p. 253.\n\n[155] Memorandum of 15 September 1941 from Canaris to Keitel concerning\nan OKW order regulating the treatment of Soviet prisoners of war,\ncontained in _Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression_, vol. VII, p. 411, U.S.\nGovernment Printing Office, Washington, 1946.\n\n\n\n\n VI. FINAL STATEMENT OF THE DEFENDANT,\n 25 MARCH 1947[156]\n\n\nDEFENDANT ERHARD MILCH: Since I became a soldier in 1910 my work has\nbeen devoted to my German people. In the First World War I was at the\nfront from the first to the last day. Then with others I built up the\nGerman air lines, and when in 1933 the government asked me to enter the\nAir Ministry, despite many misgivings, I could not refuse to take up\nthat task because it was pointed out to me that I could not turn a deaf\near to this call of the German people.\n\nI have remained faithful to the idea which I conceived at the time of\nthe air lines, that all nations must collaborate, particularly the\nEuropean nations. Pressed together in a small area, and whenever\npossible, mostly outside my actual sphere of work, I dedicated myself to\nthat task. I was opposed to war because my experiences from the First\nWorld War showed me that the living standard of any people would not be\nimproved by war, and on the contrary everybody would be grievously\nharmed.\n\nIt was for me a matter of course, even in the late great war, the\nplanning of which was unknown to me, to do my duty in my post. My full\neffort was dedicated to the air defense of the German homeland. This I\nconceived to be the only possibility to obtain bearable peace terms.\nEven though I had nothing to do with the employment of workers,\nincluding foreign workers, I considered it to be my duty to make precise\ninvestigations into the admissibility of work by foreigners,\ninvestigations which were answered in the affirmative; I also made\nefforts to keep the numbers as low as possible and to see to it they\nwould work in protected factories in foreign countries.\n\nI always made efforts to improve the living conditions of all types of\nworkers.\n\nMy statements made to the best of my knowledge and conscience to this\nTribunal were directed to the world at large, and above all to the\nGerman people, in order to show that only by peaceful understanding of\nthe nations among each other could life and civilization be secured in\nfuture and that understanding was not only necessary but also possible\nif good will prevails. But I also wanted to show my fellow Germans quite\nclearly that an autocratic government which is not controlled must end\nin disaster.\n\nMy personal fate is of no consequence in this connection. I am\ninterested only in one thing\u2014that the German people should, as soon as\npossible, be relieved of their untold suffering and should join the\ncommunity of nations as an equal partner.\n\n-----\n\n[156] Tr. pp. 2489-90.\n\n\n\n\n VII. JUDGMENT\n\n\n A. Opinion and Judgment of the United States\n Military Tribunal II[157]\n\nThe indictment in this case contains three counts, which may be\nsummarized as follows:\n\n _Count One_: War crimes, involving murder, slave labor,\n deportation of civilian population for slave labor, cruel and\n inhuman treatment of foreign laborers, and the use of prisoners\n of war in war operations by force and compulsion.\n\n _Count Two_: War crimes, involving murder, subjecting\n involuntary victims to low-pressure and freezing experiments\n resulting in torture and death.\n\n _Count Three_: Crimes against humanity, involving murder and the\n same unlawful acts specified in counts one and two against\n German nationals and nationals of other countries.\n\nFor reasons of its own, the Tribunal will first consider counts two and\none, in that order, followed by consideration of count three.\n\n COUNT TWO\n\nMore in detail, this count alleges that the defendant was a principal\nin, accessory to, ordered, abetted, took a consenting part in and was\nconnected with, plans and enterprises involving medical experiments\nwithout the subjects\u2019 consent, in the course of which experiments, the\ndefendant, with others, perpetrated murders, brutalities, cruelties,\ntortures, and other inhuman acts. The so-called medical experiments\nconsisted of placing the subject in an airtight chamber in which the air\npressure is mechanically reduced so that it is comparable with the\npressure to which an aviator is subjected at high altitudes, and in\nexperimenting upon the effect of extreme dry and wet cold upon the human\nbody. For these experiments inmates of the concentration camp at Dachau\nwere selected. These inmates presented a motley group of prisoners of\nwar, dissenters from the philosophy of the National Socialist Party,\nJews, both from Germany and the eastern countries, rebellious or\nindifferent factory workers, displaced civilians from eastern occupied\ncountries, and an undefined group known as \u201casocial or undesirable\npersons.\u201d\n\nIn approaching a judicial solution of the questions involved in this\nphase of the case, it may be well to set down seriatim the controlling\nlegal questions to be answered by an analysis of the proof.\n\n (1) Were low-pressure and freezing experiments carried on at\n Dachau?\n\n (2) Were they of a character to inflict torture and death on the\n subjects? (The answer to these two questions may be said to\n involve the establishment of the _corpus delicti_.)\n\n (3) Did the defendant personally participate in them?\n\n (4) Were they conducted under his direction or command?\n\n (5) Were they conducted with prior knowledge on his part that\n they might be excessive or inhuman?\n\n (6) Did he have the power of opportunity to prevent or stop\n them?\n\n (7) If so, did he fail to act, thereby becoming _particeps\n criminis_ and accessory to them?\n\nThe periods during which these experiments were conducted become\nextremely significant in determining the responsibility of the\ndefendant. The evidence is uncontradicted that the low-pressure\nexperiments were inaugurated in March 1942, and were concluded by the\nend of June 1942. The cold water experiments extended from August to\nOctober 1942, and the freezing experiments from February to April 1943.\nDuring all of these periods the defendant was Under State Secretary of\nthe Reich Air Ministry, Inspector General and Second in Command under\nGoering of the Luftwaffe, to which post he was appointed 19 November\n1941. In these various capacities, certain military duties devolved upon\nhim, especially as Inspector General. For example, he was ordered by\nHitler to take an air squadron to Norway on a purely military\nexpedition, and during the siege of Stalingrad, early in 1943, he was\nordered by Hitler to attempt to transport into Stalingrad by air food\nand supplies for the beleaguered German Army. His high military standing\nis indicated by the fact that he was one of the twelve field marshals of\nthe German armed forces. The major part of his duties, however, revolved\naround the production of aircraft for the Luftwaffe. He was primarily a\nproduction man, charged with the duty of keeping military airplanes\nsupplied in sufficient quantity to the air arm of Germany\u2019s military\nmachine. This naturally involved the procurement in large quantities of\nthe two essential ingredients of production\u2014labor and raw material\u2014and\nan over-all supervision of any efforts having to do with that arm. One\nof the defendant\u2019s immediate subordinates was Professor Hippke, who held\nthe post of Inspector of the Medical Services of the Luftwaffe. Hippke\nwas a physician, and had supervision of all matters involving the health\nand physical welfare of the personnel of the Luftwaffe.\n\nThe low-pressure experiments at Dachau were conducted by three\nphysicians, Dr. Romberg, Dr. Ruff, and Dr. Rascher. It is quite apparent\nfrom the evidence that Dr. Rascher, who was attached to the Luftwaffe\nbut made frantic efforts to have himself transferred to the SS, was\nprincipally responsible for the nature of the experiments. Dr. Ruff and\nDr. Romberg were also attached to the Luftwaffe and were, therefore,\nremotely under the command and control of the defendant, but the\nevidence is persuasive that, although they were interested in and helped\nconduct the experiments up to a certain point, the excesses which\nresulted in torture and death are attributable to Dr. Rascher. It is\nquite apparent that the actual activities of these three physicians were\nfar removed from the immediate scrutiny of the defendant even though\ntheir activities were conducted within the orbit of the Luftwaffe, over\nwhich the defendant had command.\n\nApproaching now the determinative questions listed above, some progress\ncan quickly be made in arriving at judicially satisfactory answers.\n\n (1) As to the first question, the evidence is overwhelming and\n not contradicted that experiments involving the effect of low\n air pressure and freezing on live human beings were conducted at\n Dachau from March through June 1942.\n\n (2) Approaching the second question, it is claimed by the\n defendant that only legitimate scientific experiments were\n conducted which did not involve pain or torture and could not\n ordinarily be expected to result in death. It is remotely\n possible that so long as the experiments were under the guidance\n of Dr. Ruff and Dr. Romberg some consideration was given to the\n possible effect upon the subjects of the experiments. But it is\n indisputable that the experiments conducted by Dr. Rascher\n involved torture and suffering in the extreme and in many cases\n resulted in death. Under the specific guidance of Dr. Rascher,\n the air pressure was reduced to a point which no flier would\n ever be required to undergo (14,000 meters). The photographs of\n the subjects undergoing these experiments indicate extreme agony\n and leave no doubt that any victim who was fortunate enough to\n survive had undergone a harrowing experience. The Tribunal does\n not hesitate to find that these experiments, performed under the\n specious guise of science, were barbarous and inhuman. It has\n been urged by the defendant that the only persons used as\n subjects of these experiments were habitual criminals who had\n been sentenced to death and who were given the dubious option of\n offering themselves for the experiments and receiving as a\n reward, if they survived, a commutation of the death sentence to\n life imprisonment. This claim scarcely merits serious\n consideration. A number of witnesses stated that they had a\n vague understanding that this was the case, but the record is\n entirely barren of any credible testimony which could possibly\n justify such a finding of fact.\n\n (3) The prosecution does not claim (and there is no evidence)\n that the defendant personally participated in the conduct of\n these experiments.\n\n (4) There is no evidence that the defendant instituted the\n experiments or that they were conducted or continued under his\n specific direction or command. It may perhaps be claimed that\n the low-pressure chamber, which was the property of the\n Luftwaffe, was sent to Dachau at the direction of the defendant,\n but even if this were true it could not be inferred from that\n fact alone that he thereby promulgated the inhuman and criminal\n experiments which followed. The low-pressure chamber was\n susceptible of legitimate use and, perhaps, had Dr. Rascher not\n injected himself into the proceedings, it would have been\n confined to that use.\n\n (5) Assuming that the defendant was aware that experiments of\n some character were to be launched, it cannot be said that the\n evidence shows any knowledge on his part that unwilling subjects\n would be forced to submit to them or that the experiments would\n be painful and dangerous to human life. It is quite apparent\n from an over-all survey of the proof that the defendant\n concerned himself very little with the details of these\n experiments. It was quite natural that this should be so. His\n most pressing problems involved the procurement of labor and\n materials for the manufacture of airplanes. His position\n involved vast responsibilities covering a wide industrial field,\n and there were certainly countless subordinate fields within the\n Luftwaffe of which he had only cursory knowledge. The Tribunal\n is convinced that these experiments, which fell naturally and\n almost exclusively within one of his subordinate departments,\n engaged the attention of the defendant only perfunctorily, if at\n all.\n\n (6) Did the defendant have the power or opportunity to prevent\n or stop the experiments? It cannot be gainsaid that he had the\n authority to either prevent or stop them insofar as they were\n being conducted under the auspices of the Luftwaffe. It seems\n extremely probable, however, that, in spite of him, they would\n have continued under Himmler and the SS. But certainly he had no\n opportunity to prevent or stop them, unless it can be found that\n he had guilty knowledge of them, a fact which has already been\n determined in the negative. As early as 20 May 1942, the\n defendant wrote to Wolff, Himmler\u2019s Adjutant, stating:\n\n \u201c* * * our medical inspector [Dr. Hippke] reports to me that the\n altitude experiments carried out by the SS and Luftwaffe at\n Dachau have been finished. Any continuation of these experiments\n seems essentially unreasonable * * *\n\n \u201cThe low-pressure chamber would not be needed for these\n low-temperature experiments. It is urgently needed at another\n place and therefore can no longer remain in Dachau.\u201d\n\n Certainly the defendant did not have the opportunity to prevent\n or stop the experiments if he had been told and was convinced\n that they had terminated on 20 May 1942, and there is no reason\n to believe that he did not rely upon Dr. Hippke\u2019s report as to\n their termination. Considerable emphasis is laid upon the\n testimony that a motion picture of the experiments was brought\n to Berlin and exhibited in the Air Ministry Building, where the\n defendant had his office. It may even be said that the picture\n was brought to Berlin for the defendant\u2019s edification. But it\n appears that he was not present when it was shown and that, in\n any event, the showing was long after the experiments were\n concluded, at which time the defendant certainly could do\n nothing toward preventing them or stopping them.\n\n (7) In view of the above findings, it is obvious that the\n defendant never became _particeps criminis_ and accessory in the\n low-pressure experiments set forth in the second count of the\n indictment.\n\n As to the other experiments, involving subjecting human beings\n to extreme low temperatures both in the open air and in water,\n the responsibility of the defendant is even less apparent than\n in the case of the low-pressure experiments. The same letter of\n 20 May 1942 to Wolff does indicate that the defendant was aware\n of the proposed sea-water experiments. In it he says\u2014\n\n \u201c* * * the carrying out of experiments of some other kind, in\n regard to perils at high seas, would be important. These have\n been prepared in immediate agreement with the proper offices;\n Oberstabsarzt Weltz will be charged with the execution and\n Stabsarzt Rascher will be made available until further order in\n addition to his duties within the medical corps of the\n Luftwaffe. A change of these measures does not appear necessary,\n and an enlargement of the task is not considered pressing at\n this time.\u201d\n\nIt is true that Rascher wrote interminable reports as to the results of\nthese experiments, but there is no proof that they ever reached the\ndefendant. On the contrary, they were addressed to Himmler and to Rudolf\nBrandt, his adjutant. At the Nuernberg conference in November 1943,\nwhich was held after all experiments had been finished, reports were\nmade which even to a mildly curious lay person might have indicated that\nthe experiments had been tinged with excesses and fatalities. But two\nfacts are striking. First, the defendant was not present at the\nconference and only received a report of it later; and, second, the\nexperiments were at that time all over.\n\nIt must be constantly borne in mind that this is an American court of\njustice, applying the ancient and fundamental concepts of Anglo-Saxon\njurisprudence which have sunk their roots into the English common law\nand have been stoutly defended in the United States since its birth. One\nof the principal purposes of these trials is to inculcate into the\nthinking of the German people an appreciation of, and respect for, the\nprinciples of law which have become the backbone of the democratic\nprocess. We must bend every effort toward suggesting to the people of\nevery nation that laws must be used for the protection of people and\nthat every citizen shall forever have the right to a fair hearing before\nan impartial tribunal, before which all men stand equal. We must never\nfalter in maintaining, by practice as well as by preachment, the\nsanctity of what we have come to know as due process of law, civil and\ncriminal, municipal and international. If the level of civilization is\nto be raised throughout the world, this must be the first step. Any\nother road leads but to tyranny and chaos. This Tribunal, before all\nothers, must act in recognition of these self-evident principles. If it\nfails, its whole purpose is frustrated and this trial becomes a mockery.\nAt the very foundation of these juridical concepts lie two important\npostulates (1) every person accused of crime is presumed to be innocent,\nand (2) that presumption abides with him until guilt has been\nestablished by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.\n\nUnless the court which hears the proof is convinced of guilt to the\npoint of moral certainty, the presumption of innocence must continue to\nprotect the accused. If the facts as drawn from the evidence are equally\nconsistent with guilt and innocence, they must be resolved on the side\nof innocence. Under American law neither life nor liberty is to be\nlightly taken away, and, unless at the conclusion of the proof there is\nan abiding conviction of guilt in the mind of the court which sits in\njudgment, the accused may not be damnified.\n\nPaying reverent attention to these sacred principles, it is the judgment\nof the Tribunal that the defendant is not guilty of the charges embraced\nin count two of the indictment.\n\n COUNT ONE\n\nCount one of the indictment charges the defendant with the commission of\nspecified war crimes, as defined by Article II of Control Council Law\nNo. 10, in that he was a principal in, accessory to, ordered, abetted,\ntook a consenting part in and was connected with, plans and enterprises\ninvolving slave labor and deportation to slave labor, resulting in the\nenslavement, torture and murder of civilians of foreign countries. The\nindictment further charges that he similarly participated in the use of\nprisoners of war in war operations and work having a direct relation to\nwar operations, resulting in inhuman treatment and death to captured\nmembers of the armed forces opposed to Germany. The indictment alleges\nthat these acts were in violation of international law and the\nrecognized principles of civilized warfare and in specific violation of\nnumerous treaties and conventions to which Germany was a party.\n\nIt is claimed by the prosecution that the defendant\u2019s responsibility for\nthese alleged crimes arises from his activities in three capacities (1)\nas Aircraft Master General (Generalluftzeugmeister); (2) member of the\nCentral Planning Board; and (3) chief of the Jaegerstab. The Central\nPlanning Board was established by a decree of the Fuehrer, dated 29\nOctober 1943. That decree fitted the task of production of material\ngoods of every kind into the framework of the Four Year Plan and charged\nthe Central Planning Board with the procurement and distribution of\nmaterial of every description. The Board consisted of Reich Minister\nSpeer, Under Secretary Koerner, and the defendant. On 1 March 1944, the\nJaegerstab was established, consisting of Speer, Saur (a subordinate of\nSpeer), and the defendant. The Jaegerstab concerned itself exclusively\nwith the material needs of the Luftwaffe, and was headed, naturally, by\nthe defendant. It became apparent that neither of these two bodies could\nadequately deal with the problems of production without constantly\ndealing with the question of labor supply. Meetings of the Central\nPlanning Board were held at least weekly and the minutes of those\nmeetings which were offered in evidence show a constant and unremitting\nconcern with the problem of labor. Fritz Sauckel was in supreme command\nof the procurement of labor for the entire war effort, and his conduct\nin carrying out his task has been vividly portrayed in the judgment of\nthe International Military Tribunal:[158]\n\n \u201c* * * As local supplies of raw materials and local industrial\n capacity became inadequate to meet the German requirements, the\n system of deporting laborers to Germany was put into force. By\n the middle of April 1940 compulsory deportation of laborers to\n Germany had been ordered in the General Government; and a\n similar procedure was followed in other eastern territories as\n they were occupied. A description of this compulsory deportation\n from Poland was given by Himmler. In an address to SS officers\n he recalled how in weather 40 degrees below zero they had to\n \u2018haul away thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands.\u2019\n On a later occasion Himmler stated:\n\n \u201c\u2018Whether ten thousand Russian females fall down from exhaustion\n while digging an antitank ditch interests me only insofar as the\n antitank ditch for Germany is finished * * *. We must realize\n that we have 6-7 million foreigners in Germany * * *. They are\n none of them dangerous so long as we take severe measures at the\n merest trifles.\u2019\n\n \u201cDuring the first two years of the German occupation of France,\n Belgium, Holland, and Norway, however, an attempt was made to\n obtain the necessary workers on a voluntary basis. How\n unsuccessful this was may be seen from the report of the meeting\n of the Central Planning Board on 1 March 1944. The\n representative of the defendant Speer, one Koehrl [Kehrl],\n speaking of the situation in France said: \u2018During all this time\n a great number of Frenchmen were recruited, and voluntarily went\n to Germany.\u2019\n\n \u201cHe was interrupted by the defendant Sauckel: \u2018Not only\n voluntary, some were recruited forcibly.\u2019\n\n \u201cTo which Koehrl [Kehrl] replied: \u2018The calling up started after\n the recruitment no longer yielded enough results.\u2019\n\n \u201cTo which the defendant Sauckel replied: \u2018Out of the five\n million workers who arrived in Germany, not even 200,000 came\n voluntarily.\u2019 And Koehrl [Kehrl] rejoined: \u2018Let us forget for\n the moment whether or not some slight pressure was used.\n Formally, at least, they were volunteers.\u2019\n\n \u201cCommittees were set up to encourage recruiting, and a vigorous\n propaganda campaign was begun to induce workers to volunteer for\n service in Germany. This propaganda campaign included, for\n example, the promise that a prisoner of war would be returned\n for every laborer who volunteered to go to Germany. In some\n cases it was supplemented by withdrawing the ration cards of\n laborers who refused to go to Germany, or by discharging them\n from their jobs and denying them unemployment benefit or an\n opportunity to work elsewhere. In some cases workers and their\n families were threatened with reprisals by the police if they\n refused to go to Germany. It was on 21 March 1942 that the\n defendant Sauckel was appointed Plenipotentiary-General for the\n Utilization of Labor, with authority over \u2018all available\n manpower, including that of workers recruited abroad, and of\n prisoners of war\u2019.\n\n \u201cThe defendant Sauckel was directly under the defendant Goering\n as Commissioner of the Four Year Plan, and a Goering decree of\n 27 March 1942 transferred all his authority over manpower to\n Sauckel. Sauckel\u2019s instructions, too, were that foreign labor\n should be recruited on a voluntary basis, but also provided that\n \u2018where, however, in the occupied territories, the appeal for\n volunteers does not suffice, obligatory service and drafting\n must under all circumstances be resorted to.\u2019 Rules requiring\n labor service in Germany were published in all the occupied\n territories. The number of laborers to be supplied was fixed by\n Sauckel, and the local authorities were instructed to meet these\n requirements by conscription if necessary * * *.\n\n \u201c* * * the evidence before the Tribunal establishes the fact\n that the conscription of labor was accomplished in many cases by\n drastic and violent methods. The \u2018mistakes and blunders\u2019 were on\n a very great scale. Manhunts took place in the streets, at\n motion picture houses, even at churches and at night in private\n houses. Houses were sometimes burnt down, and the families taken\n as hostages, practices which were described by the defendant\n Rosenberg as having their origin \u2018in the blackest periods of the\n slave trade.\u2019 The methods used in obtaining forced labor from\n the Ukraine appear from an order issued to SD officers which\n stated:\n\n \u201c\u2018It will not be possible always to refrain from using force * *\n *. When searching villages, especially when it has been\n necessary to burn down a village, the whole population will be\n put at the disposal of the commissioner by force * * *. As a\n rule no more children will be shot * * *. If we limit harsh\n measures through the above orders for the time being it is only\n done for the following reason * * *. The most important thing is\n the recruitment of workers.\u2019\n\n \u201cThe resources and needs of the occupied countries were\n completely disregarded in carrying out this policy. The\n treatment of the laborers was governed by Sauckel\u2019s instructions\n of 20 April 1942 to the effect that\u2014\n\n \u2018All the men must be fed, sheltered and treated in such a way as\n to exploit them to the highest possible extent, at the lowest\n conceivable degree of expenditure.\u2019\n\n \u201cThe evidence showed that workers destined for the Reich were\n sent under guard to Germany, often packed in trains without\n adequate heat, food, clothing, or sanitary facilities. The\n evidence further showed that the treatment of the laborers in\n Germany in many cases was brutal and degrading * * *. They were\n subject to constant supervision by the Gestapo and the SS, and\n if they attempted to leave their jobs they were sent to\n correction camps or concentration camps. The concentration camps\n were also used to increase the supply of labor. Concentration\n camp commanders were ordered to work their prisoners to the\n limits of their physical power. During the latter stages of the\n war the concentration camps were so productive in certain types\n of work that the Gestapo was actually instructed to arrest\n certain classes of laborers so that they could be used in this\n way. Allied prisoners of war were also regarded as a possible\n source of labor. Pressure was exercised on noncommissioned\n officers to force them to consent to work, by transferring to\n disciplinary camps those who did not consent. Many of the\n prisoners of war were assigned to work directly related to\n military operations, in violation of Article 31 of the Geneva\n Convention. They were put to work in munition factories and even\n made to load bombers, to carry ammunition and to dig trenches,\n often under the most hazardous conditions. This condition\n applied particularly to the Soviet prisoners of war. On 16\n February 1943, at a meeting of the Central Planning Board, at\n which the defendants Sauckel and Speer were present, Milch said:\n\n \u201c\u2018We have made a request for an order that a certain percentage\n of men in the ack-ack artillery must be Russians; 50,000 will be\n taken altogether, 30,000 are already employed as gunners. This\n is an amusing thing, that Russians must work the guns.\u2019\u201d\n\nAnd on 4 October 1943, at Poznan, Himmler, speaking of the Russian\nprisoners, captured in the early days of the war, said:\n\n \u201c\u2018At that time we did not value the mass of humanity as we value\n it today, as raw material, as labor. What, after all, thinking\n in terms of generations, is not to be regretted, but is now\n deplorable by reason of the loss of labor, is that the prisoners\n died in tens and hundreds of thousands of exhaustion and\n hunger.\u2019\n\n \u201cThe general policy underlying the mobilization of slave labor\n was stated by Sauckel on 20 April 1942. He said:\n\n \u201c\u2018The aim of this new gigantic labor mobilization is to use all\n the rich and tremendous sources conquered and secured for us by\n our fighting armed forces, under the leadership of Adolf Hitler,\n for the armament of the armed forces, and also for the nutrition\n of the homeland. The raw materials, as well as the fertility of\n the conquered territories and their human labor power, are to be\n used completely and conscientiously to the profit of Germany and\n her allies * * *. All prisoners of war from the territories of\n the West, as well as the East, actually in Germany, must be\n completely incorporated into the German armament and nutrition\n industries * * *. Consequently it is an immediate necessity to\n use the human reserves of the conquered Soviet territory to the\n fullest extent. Should we not succeed in obtaining the necessary\n amount of labor on a voluntary basis, we must immediately\n institute conscription or forced labor * * *. The complete\n employment of all prisoners of war, as well as the use of a\n gigantic number of new foreign civilian workers, men and women,\n has become an indisputable necessity for the solution of the\n mobilization of the labor program in this war.\u2019\u201d\n\nContinuing with the quotation from the IMT decision:[159]\n\n \u201c* * * As the dominant member of the Central Planning Board,\n which had supreme authority for the scheduling of German\n production and the allocation and development of raw materials,\n Speer took the position that the Board had authority to instruct\n Sauckel to provide laborers for industries under its control and\n succeeded in sustaining this position over the objection of\n Sauckel. The practice was developed under which Speer\n transmitted to Sauckel an estimate of the total number of\n workers needed. Sauckel obtained the labor and allocated it to\n the various industries in accordance with instructions supplied\n by Speer.\n\n \u201cSpeer knew when he made his demands on Sauckel that they would\n be supplied by foreign laborers serving under compulsion. He\n participated in conferences involving the extension of the slave\n labor program for the purpose of satisfying his demands. He was\n present at a conference held during 10-12 August 1942 with\n Hitler and Sauckel at which it was agreed that Sauckel should\n bring laborers by force from occupied territories where this was\n necessary to satisfy the labor needs of the industries under\n Speer\u2019s control. Speer also attended a conference in Hitler\u2019s\n headquarters on 4 January 1944, at which the decision was made\n that Sauckel should obtain \u2018at least 4 million new workers from\n occupied territories\u2019 in order to satisfy the demands for labor\n made by Speer, although Sauckel indicated that he could do this\n only with help from Himmler.\n\n \u201cSauckel continually informed Speer and his representatives that\n foreign laborers were being obtained by force. At a meeting of 1\n March 1944, Speer\u2019s deputy questioned Sauckel very closely about\n his failure to live up to the obligation to supply four million\n workers from occupied territories. In some cases Speer demanded\n laborers from specific foreign countries. Thus, at the\n conference 10-12 August 1942, Sauckel was instructed to supply\n Speer with \u2018a further million Russian laborers for the German\n armament industry up to and including October 1942.\u2019 At a\n meeting of the Central Planning Board on 22 April 1943, Speer\n discussed plans to obtain Russian laborers for use in the coal\n mines, and flatly vetoed the suggestion that this labor deficit\n should be made up by German labor.\n\n \u201cSpeer has argued that he advocated the reorganization of the\n labor program to place a greater emphasis on utilization of\n German labor in war production in Germany and on the use of\n labor in occupied countries in local production of consumer\n goods formerly produced in Germany. Speer took steps in this\n direction by establishing the so-called \u2018blocked industries\u2019 in\n the occupied territories which were used to produce goods to be\n shipped to Germany. Employees of these industries were immune\n from deportation to Germany as slave laborers and any worker who\n had been ordered to go to Germany could avoid deportation if he\n went to work for a blocked industry. This system, although,\n somewhat less inhumane than deportation to Germany, was still\n illegal. The system of blocked industries played only a small\n part in the over-all slave labor program, although Speer urged\n its cooperation with the slave labor program, knowing the way in\n which it was actually being administered. In an official sense,\n he was its principal beneficiary and he constantly urged its\n extension.\n\n \u201cSpeer was also directly involved in the utilization of forced\n labor as Chief of the Organization Todt. The Organization Todt\n functioned principally in the occupied areas on such projects as\n the Atlantic Wall and the construction of military highways, and\n Speer has admitted that he relied on compulsory service to keep\n it adequately staffed. He also used concentration camp labor in\n the industries under his control. He originally arranged to tap\n this source of labor for use in small out-of-the-way factories;\n and later, fearful of Himmler\u2019s jurisdictional ambitions,\n attempted to use as few concentration camp workers as possible.\n\n \u201cSpeer was also involved in the use of prisoners of war in\n armament industries but contends that he utilized Soviet\n prisoners of war only in industries covered by the Geneva\n Convention.\n\n \u201cSpeer\u2019s position was such that he was not directly concerned\n with the cruelty in the administration of the slave labor\n program, although he was aware of its existence. For example, at\n meetings of the Central Planning Board he was informed that his\n demands for labor were so large as to necessitate violent\n methods in recruiting. At a meeting of the Central Planning\n Board on 30 October 1942, Speer voiced his opinion that many\n slave laborers who claimed to be sick were malingerers and\n stated: \u2018There is nothing to be said against SS and police\n taking drastic steps and putting those known as slackers into\n concentration camps.\u2019\u201d\n\nUnder the provisions of Article X of Ordinance No. 7, these\ndeterminations of fact by the International Military Tribunal are\nbinding upon this Tribunal \u201cin the absence of substantial new evidence\nto the contrary.\u201d Any new evidence which was presented was in no way\ncontradictory of the findings of the International Military Tribunal,\nbut, on the contrary, ratified and affirmed them.\n\nThe next question to be answered is whether or not the defendant Milch\nin this case knew that foreign slave labor and prisoners of war were\nbeing procured by Sauckel and used in the aircraft industry, which the\ndefendant controlled. The defendant\u2019s own words, as gleaned from the\nminutes of the Central Planning Board and from his own testimony,\nconclusively answer this question in the affirmative. He testified that\nhe knew that prisoners of war were employed in the airplane factory at\nRegensburg and that some twenty thousand Russian prisoners of war were\nused to man antiaircraft guns protecting the various plants. He stated\nfurther that he saw this type of war prisoners manning 8.8 and 10.5\n[centimeter] antiaircraft guns at airplane factories in Luftgau 7 near\nMunich. Sauckel, the Plenipotentiary for Labor, sat in on at least\nfifteen meetings of the Central Planning Board, over which the defendant\npresided, and discussed at great length and in elaborate detail the\nproblems involved in procuring sufficient foreign laborers for the\nGerman war effort. He frankly disclosed the cruel and barbarous methods\nused in forcing civilians of the eastern countries into the Reich for\nwar work. He related the difficulties and resistance which confronted\nhim and the methods which he used and proposed to use in forcibly\nrounding up and transporting foreign workers. The advisability of using\nprisoners of war and inmates of concentration camps in the Luftwaffe was\nfrankly discussed, with the defendant offering advice and suggestions as\nto the most effective methods to be used. In the face of this\noverwhelming evidence, disclosing page after page of discussion between\nSpeer, Sauckel, and the defendant in which the defendant urged more\nsevere and coercive methods of procuring foreign labor from the East, it\nwould violate all reason to conclude that he had no knowledge of the\nsource of this labor or of the methods used in procuring it. His voice\nis constantly heard, pleading for more laborers from this source and\nclamoring for a larger share in Sauckel\u2019s labor pool. Hildebrand and\nSagemeier for the coal mines, Rohland for the foundries, Kehrl for the\ncoal and iron industries, Bruch and Becht for the rubber industry, Speer\nfor the armament industry, and Milch for the aircraft industry\u2014all\nthese and others joined in a pagan chorus, in which the harmony was\nfrequently strained, but all singing the same song, \u201cWe need laborers,\nmen and women. We don\u2019t care where you get them, but give us more.\u201d\n\nAt the 54th meeting of the Central Planning Board, Sauckel stated in the\ndefendant\u2019s presence:\n\n \u201c* * * Thereupon I even proceeded to employ and train a whole\n batch of French male and female agents who for good pay, just as\n was done in olden times for \u2018shanghaiing\u2019, went hunting for men\n and made them drunk by using liquor as well as words, in order\n to dispatch them to Germany. Moreover I charged some able men\n with founding a special labor supply executive of our own, and\n this they did by training and arming, with the help of the\n Higher SS and Police Fuehrer, a number of natives, but I still\n have to ask the Munitions Ministry for arms for the use of these\n men. * * *.\n\n \u201c* * * I and my assistants in fact have sometimes seen things\n happen in France that I was forced to ask, is there no respect\n any more in France for the German lieutenant with his 10 men? *\n * * We Germans must make an example of one case, and, by reason\n of this law, if necessary put Prefect or Burgomaster against the\n wall, if he does not comply with the rules; otherwise no\n Frenchman at all will be dispatched to Germany.\u201d\n\nThe defendant contributed to the discussion by saying:\n\n \u201c* * * As soon as you arrive the men run away to protect\n themselves from being sent to Germany * * *. The men even then\n will be whisked away unless quite another authority and power is\n on the watch, and this can only be the army itself. * * * I can\n find no remedy but that the army should assert itself\n ruthlessly.\u201d\n\nAs indicating that the defendant was not indifferent to the problem, at\nthe same meeting, in referring to procuring labor from Italy, he offered\nthe following suggestion:\n\n \u201cWe could take under German administration the entire food\n supply for the Italians and tell them: only he gets any food who\n either works in a protected factory (that is, a factory in Italy\n manufacturing German war material) or goes to Germany.\u201d\n\nLater in the same conference, the defendant made another contribution to\nthe solution of the problem of foreign labor, saying:\n\n \u201cNow during the transfer it is necessary to see that the people\n really do arrive and do not run away before or during the\n transfer. If a transport has left a town and has not arrived,\n 500 to 600 persons from this place must be arrested and sent to\n Germany as prisoners of war. Such a thing is then talked about\n everywhere. If actions like this and other similar ones are\n carried out often, they would exert a certain pressure. The\n whole thing would be made easier, if we had control of food.\u201d\n\nAt the 53d meeting of the Central Planning Board (16 February 1944), the\ndefendant stated:\n\n \u201cOur best new engine is made 88 percent by Russian prisoners of\n war and the other 12 percent by German men and women.\u201d\n\nInstances could be multiplied in which the defendant not only listened\nto stories of enforced labor from eastern civilians and other prisoners\nof war and thereby became aware of the methods used in procuring such\nlabor, but in which he himself urged more stringent and coercive means\nto supplement the dwindling supply of labor in the Luftwaffe. As\nGermany\u2019s plight became more desperate, her loss of military personnel\npresented an alarming dilemma, resulting in the defection of thousands\nof workmen to the armed forces. This resulted in a shifting of the\ndilemma to industry, and spurs were put to the labor procurement\nofficers to fill the widening gap in the industrial labor ranks. Every\nbranch of war industry constantly clamored for replacements and each\nvied with the others for a greater quota from the labor pool. Confronted\nby the desperate situation, the labor procurement officers, headed by\nthe implacable Sauckel, cast aside all restraint and set out\nsystematically to herd into the Reich any human being who could\ncontribute to Germany\u2019s war effort. Under Sauckel\u2019s whip, no means\nhowever harsh were overlooked, and no person however exempt was spared.\n\nThe defense on this count is ingenious but unconvincing. As to the use\nof prisoners of war, the defendant testified that he had been advised by\nsome unidentified person high in the National Socialist Councils that it\nwas not unlawful to employ prisoners of war in war industries. The\ndefendant was an old and experienced soldier, and his testimony revealed\nthat he was well acquainted with the provisions of the Geneva and Hague\nTreaties on this subject, which are plain and unequivocal. In the face\nof this knowledge, the advice which he claims to have received should\nhave raised grave suspicions in his mind. Presenting an entirely\ndifferent aspect to his defense, he testifies that many of the Russian\nprisoners of war volunteered to serve in the war industries and\napparently enjoyed the opportunity of manufacturing munitions to be used\nagainst their fellow countrymen and their allies. Other Russian\nprisoners of war, he states, were discharged as such and immediately\nenrolled as civilian workers. The photographs introduced in evidence,\nhowever, show that they still retained their Russian army uniforms,\nwhich makes their status as civilians suspect. Be that as it may, it\ndoes not adequately answer the charge that hundreds of thousands of\nPolish prisoners of war were cast into concentration camps and parceled\nout to the various war factories, nor the further fact that thousands of\nFrench prisoners of war were compelled to labor under the most harrowing\nconditions for the Luftwaffe.\n\nAs to the French civilian workers who were employed at war work in\nGermany after the conquest of France, it is the contention of the\ndefendant that these workers were supplied by the French Government\nunder a solemn agreement with the Reich. It is claimed with a straight\nface that the Vichy Government, headed by Laval, entered into an\ninternational compact with the German Government to supply French\nlaborers for work in Germany. This contention entirely overlooks the\nfact that the Vichy Government was a mere puppet set up under German\ndomination, which, in full collaboration with Germany, took its orders\nfrom Berlin. The position of the defendant seems to be that, if any\nforce or coercion was used on French citizens, it was exerted by their\nown government, but this position entirely overlooks the fact that the\ntransports which brought Frenchmen to Germany were manned by German\narmed guards and that upon their arrival they were kept under military\nguard provided by the Wehrmacht or the SS.\n\nIt was sought to disguise the harsh realities of the German foreign\nlabor policy by the use of specious legal and economic terms, and to\nmake such policy appear as the exercise of conventional labor relations\nand labor law. The fiction of a \u201clabor contract\u201d was frequently resorted\nto, especially in the operations of the Todt Organization, which implied\nthat foreign workers were given a free choice to work or not to work for\nGermany military industry. This, of course, was purely fictitious, as is\nshown by the fact that thousands of these \u201ccontract workers\u201d jumped from\nthe trains transporting them to Germany and fled into the woods. Does\nanyone believe that the vast hordes of Slavic Jews who labored in\nGermany\u2019s war industries were accorded the rights of contracting\nparties? They were slaves, nothing less\u2014kidnapped, regimented, herded\nunder armed guards, and worked until they died from disease, hunger, and\nexhaustion. The idea of any Jew being a party to a contract with Germans\nwas unthinkable to the National Socialists. Jews were considered as\noutcasts and were completely at the mercy of their oppressors.\nExploitation was merely a convenient and profitable means of\nextermination, to the end that, \u201cwhen this war ends, there will be no\nmore Jews in Europe\u201d. As to non-Jewish foreign labor, with few\nexceptions they were deprived of the basic civil rights of free men;\nthey were deprived of the right to move freely or to choose their place\nof residence; to live in a household with their families; to rear and\neducate their children; to marry; to visit public places of their own\nchoosing; to negotiate, either individually or through representatives\nof their own choice, the conditions of their own employment; to organize\nin trade unions; to exercise free speech or other free expression of\nopinion; to gather in peaceful assembly; and they were frequently\ndeprived of the right to worship according to their own conscience. All\nthese are the sign-marks of slavery, not free employment under contract.\n\nThe German nation, before the ascendancy of the NSDAP, had repeatedly\nrecognized the rights of civilians in occupied countries. At the Hague\nPeace Conference of 1907, an amendment was submitted by the German\ndelegate, Major General von Guendell, which read:\n\n \u201cA belligerent is likewise forbidden to compel the nationals of\n the adverse party to take part in the operations of war directed\n against their country, even when they have been in his service\n before the commencement of the war.\u201d\n\nThe German manual for war on land (Kriegsbrauch im Landkriege, Edition\n1902) stated:\n\n \u201cThe inhabitants of an invaded territory are persons endowed\n with rights * * * subject to certain restrictions * * * but who\n otherwise may live free from vexations and, as in time of peace,\n under the protection of the laws.\u201d\n\nDuring the First World War, an order of the German Supreme Command (3\nOctober 1916) provided for the deportation of Belgian vagrants and\nidlers to Germany for work, but specified that such labor was not to be\nused in connection with operations of war. The order resulted in such a\nstorm of protest that it was at once abandoned by the German\nauthorities.\n\nIt cannot be contended, of course, that foreign workers were entitled to\ncomforts or luxuries which were not accorded German workers. It is also\nrecognized that, especially during the latter part of the war there was\na universal shortage of food and fuel throughout the Reich and in the\ndiscomforts arising therefrom foreign workers were bound to share. But\nit is an undoubted fact that the foreign workers were subjected to\ncruelties and torture and the deprivation of decent human rights merely\nbecause they were aliens. This was not true in isolated instances, but\nwas universal and was the working out of the German attitude toward\nthose whom it considered inferior peoples. If any decent human\nconsideration was shown these workers, it was merely to maintain their\nproductivity and did not stem from any humanitarian considerations.\n\nThe Tribunal therefore finds the defendant guilty of the war crimes\ncharged in count one of the indictment, to wit, that he was a principal\nin, accessory to, ordered, abetted, took a consenting part in and was\nconnected with, plans and enterprises involving slave labor and\ndeportation to slave labor of the civilian populations of countries and\nterritories occupied by the German armed forces, and in the enslavement,\ndeportation, ill-treatment and terrorization of such persons; and\nfurther that the defendant was a principal in, accessory to, ordered,\nabetted, took a consenting part in, and was connected with, plans and\nenterprises involving the use of prisoners of war in war operations and\nwork having a direct relation to war operations.\n\n COUNT THREE\n\nCount three of the indictment charges the defendant with crimes against\nhumanity committed against \u201cGerman nationals and nationals of other\ncountries.\u201d Sufficient proof was not adduced as to such offenses against\nGerman nationals to justify an adjudication of guilt on that ground. As\nto such crimes against nationals of other countries, the evidence shows\nthat a large number of Hungarian Jews and other nationals of Hungary and\nRomania, which countries were occupied by Germany but were not\nbelligerents, were subjected to the same tortures and deportations as\nwere the nationals of Poland and Russia. In count one of the indictment\nthese acts are charged as war crimes and have heretofore been considered\nby the Tribunal under that count in this judgment. In the judgment of\nthe International Military Tribunal (_Vol. I, Trial of the Major War\nCriminals, p. 254_), the court stated\u2014\n\n \u201cFrom the beginning of the war in 1939, war crimes were\n committed on a vast scale which were also crimes against\n humanity.\u201d\n\nThis is a finding of law and an interpretation of Control Council Law\nNo. 10, with which this Tribunal is in full accord.\n\nOur conclusion is that the same unlawful acts of violence which\nconstituted war crimes under count one of the indictment also constitute\ncrimes against humanity as alleged in count three of the indictment.\nHaving determined the defendant to be guilty of war crimes under count\none, it follows, of necessity, that he is also guilty of the separate\noffense of crime against humanity, as alleged in count three, and this\nTribunal so determines.\n\nIn exculpation, the defendant states that he was a German soldier and\nthat whatever was done by him or with his knowledge or consent was done\nin pursuance of a national military policy promulgated by Hitler and in\nobedience to military orders. He protests that, no matter how violently\nhe disagreed with the methods used by the German Reich in the furthering\nof its policy of aggressive war, he was helpless to extricate himself\nand had no alternative except to stay with the venture to the bitter\nend. It is true that withdrawal may involve risks and dangers, but these\nare incidental to the original affiliation with the unlawful scheme. He\nwho elects to participate in a venture which may result in failure must\nmake his election to abandon the enterprise if it is not to his liking\nor to stay as a participant, and win or lose according to the outcome.\n\nMuch significance must be attached to the meeting of 23 May 1939, at\nwhich the defendant was admittedly present and in which Hitler spoke at\ngreat length as to his plans for the subjugation of friendly minor\nnations and the ultimate conquest of Europe. A purported record of the\nevents at this meeting has been introduced in evidence and has been\nfound to be reliable and accurate by the International Military\nTribunal. The defendant has throughout insisted that this record is\nspurious and was made by Schmundt long after the occasion which it\nrecords. Of course, it was never anticipated that this record, which was\nmarked \u201cTop Secret, To be Transmitted by Officer Only,\u201d would ever be\ncaptured and its contents become known. It is not surprising that those\nwho sat and listened to the astounding program of the Fuehrer now wish\nthat they had been absent. It cannot be denied that there was a meeting\nof some kind which the defendant attended and at which the Fuehrer\nspoke, and further that it was held a few short months before the actual\ninvasion of Poland, as forecast in the report of the meeting. The\nSchmundt paper does not pretend to be a verbatim report of Hitler\u2019s\nexact words, but certainly all of the diabolical plans which it reveals\nwere not manufactured by Schmundt out of thin air, attributed to Hitler,\nand then marked \u201cTop Secret\u201d. Even if Hitler said only a small part of\nwhat is attributed to him by Schmundt, there was enough said to advise\nand warn a man of the defendant\u2019s intelligence and experience that\nmischief was afoot. Every sentence shrieks of war. The record hints at\nnothing else, and, if all references to conquest and war and world\ndomination are eliminated, Hitler did not speak at all. At this early\ndate, the defendant must be charged with knowledge that a war of\naggression, to be ruthlessly pursued, was planned. This, then, was the\ntime for him to have made his decision\u2014the decision which confronts\nevery man daily\u2014to be honorable or dishonorable. Life consists quite\ngenerally in making such decisions. As an old soldier, schooled in the\ncode of war and well aware of the principles to which an honorable\nsoldier must adhere, he sat complacently and listened to a proposed\nprogram which violated national honor, personal integrity and the moral\ncode of an honest soldier. He made his choice and elected to ride with\nthe tyrant.\n\nWhen the defendant joined the National Socialist Party in 1933, Germany\nwas in the throes of dire economic and political distress and was\nburdened by a myriad of political parties, each with its separate\nprogram and all functioning at cross-purposes. The defendant elected to\naffiliate with the NSDAP because, he testified, he believed it offered\nthe most likely agency for bringing order out of chaos. But very soon he\nmust have realized that he had joined a band of villains whose program\ncontemplated every crime in the calendar. The Nazi code was not a\nsecret. It was published and proclaimed by the Party leaders in long\nharangues to the people; decrees and directives were broadcast; the\ninfamous Streicher was spreading anti-Jewish obscenities throughout the\nReich in \u201cDer Stuermer\u201d; Roehm and a large number of the SA were\nmurdered by Hitler\u2019s orders; hundreds of German citizens were cast into\nconcentration camps for \u201cpolitical re-education,\u201d without hearing or\nopportunity for defense; the iniquitous Gestapo stormed through the\nland, with power over life and liberty which could not be questioned; in\npublic view Jews were beaten and killed, their synagogues burned and\ntheir stores destroyed. The Party proclaimed its objectives from the\nhouse-tops and verified them by open public conduct throughout the\nReich. The significant fact which must not be overlooked is that all\nthese things happened _before_ the war was launched, at a time when\nthere was no claim upon the loyalty of the defendant as a soldier to\nprotect his homeland at war. He protests that he never subscribed to the\nmaster race philosophy, but 18 years before he joined the Party in 1933,\nits precepts and demands had been proclaimed, among which was Point 4\u2014\n\n \u201cOnly a member of the race can be a citizen. A member of the\n race can only be one who is of German blood, without\n consideration of creed. Consequently no Jew can be a member of\n the race.\u201d\n\nThe humblest citizens of Germany knew that the iniquitous doctrines of\nthe Party were being implemented by ruthless acts of persecution and\nterrorism which occurred in public view. Thousands of obscure German\ncitizens were only too well aware that they were living under the\nscrutiny of an army of spies and saw their friends and relatives\nsummarily dispatched to concentration camps for the slightest suspicion\nof dissidence. The defendant did not live in a vacuum. He was not blind\nnor deaf. Long before 1939, long before his military loyalty was called\ninto play, long before the door of withdrawal was closed, he could have\nseen the bloody handwriting on the wall, for murder and enslavement of\nhis own countrymen was there written in blazing symbols. But he had\ntaken on the crimson mantle of the Party, with all its ghastly\nimplication, and he wore it with glory and profit to himself to the end.\nOthers with more courage and higher principles and with more loyalty to\nthe ancient German ideals rebelled and withdrew from the brutal\ncrew\u2014von Clausewitz, Yorck von Wartenburg, Schlegelberger, Schmitt,\nEltz von Ruebenach, Tesmer. These men in high positions had the\ncharacter to repudiate great evil, and if in so doing they took risks\nand made sacrifices, nevertheless, they made their choice to stand with\ndecency and justice and honor. The defendant had his opportunity to join\nthose who refused to do the evil bidding of an evil master, but he cast\nit aside and his professed repentance now comes too late.\n\nWhat a sordid picture of a civilized nation\u2014the nation of Goethe and\nHeine, of Beethoven and Schubert, even of Bismarck and von\nHindenburg\u2014fawning and cringing at the feet of a small man with\ndelusions of grandeur. Even when madness crept in to intensify his\nfrenzy and fear of defeat put spurs to his ferocity, they still said,\n\u201cWe are his people. He is our immaculate leader.\u201d Men of large\ncapacities, even of genius, prostituted their talents before a puny\nrenegade who used them impiously and paid off his puppets with medals\nand pelf. But the strutting menials stayed with him. So long as success\nwas on the horizon, they bowed and scraped and sought to outdo each\nother in supine adulation. They tell us now, \u201cHitler was wrong.\u201d But\nthey never told him that. Right or wrong, their only concern was, \u201cCan\nhe win the war? And what will it mean for me?\u201d They heard him proclaim\nas early as November 1937, \u201cThe question for Germany is where the\ngreatest possible conquest could be made at the lowest possible cost,\u201d\nand they nodded and shouted, \u201cHeil Hitler,\u201d and maneuvered to get closer\nto him. Before the invasion of Poland, they heard this bloodthirsty\ntyrant say, \u201cIn starting and making a war, not the right is what\nmatters, but victory.\u201d And this defendant, as part of the unholy array,\nrolled up his sleeves and said, \u201cLet me help. Give me men and more men,\nno matter where you get them.\u201d\n\nIn a civilized state which recognizes the sanctity of human lives and\nhuman rights, no man\u2014no group of men\u2014should be endowed with\nomnipotence. The history of human relations, from Herod to Hitler, has\nrepeatedly demonstrated this to be true. Omnipotence is only for God. Be\na man ever so wise, ever so benevolent, ever so trustworthy, there still\nexists in him the frailty, the fallibility, the susceptibility to\ntemptation that is inherent in every man. If the only protection against\nthe tyranny of an autocrat is his own self-restraint, that is not\nenough, for power feeds on power, and the temptation to stretch\nauthority to its limit is irresistible.\n\nWhat, then, of the responsibility of those who bask in the reflected\nradiance of omnipotence, who get their sustenance from it and who\narrogantly carry out its mandates and crush any resistance to it? Are\nthey not the hands and limbs of the monster, carrying out the orders of\nthe head? Surely, they cannot be allowed to detach themselves from the\ncorpus by saying, \u201cThese arms and legs are innocent\u2014only the head is\nguilty?\u201d\n\nIn an authoritarian state, the head becomes the supreme authority for\nwoe as well as weal. Those who subscribe to such a state submit to that\nprinciple. If they abjectly place all the power in the hands of one man,\nwith no right reserved to check or limit or repudiate, they must accept\nthe bitter with the sweet. This is especially true of those in high\nplaces in the state\u2014those who choose to enjoy the honor, the emoluments\nand the power of such high stations. By accepting such attractive and\nlucrative posts under a head whose power they know to be unlimited, they\nratify in advance his every act, good or bad. They cannot say at the\nbeginning, \u201cThe Fuehrer\u2019s decisions are final; we will have no voice in\nthem; it is not for us to reason why; his will is law,\u201d and then, when\nthe Fuehrer decrees aggressive war or barbarous inhumanities or broken\ncovenants, to attempt to exculpate themselves by saying, \u201cOh, we were\nnever in favor of _those_ things.\u201d\n\nOne cannot escape the conviction that, had the war terminated in victory\nfor Germany, all of the acts of Hitler, including those related to the\ncharges in this indictment, would have been hailed as strokes of genius,\nand that this defendant would now be elbowing his way into the front row\nof those claiming to have successfully and victoriously carried out\nHitler\u2019s orders and policies\u2014in fact, claiming co-authorship in many.\nBut with Germany defeated and Hitler dead, it becomes naively convenient\nto take refuge in the flimsy claim that no one except Hitler was in\nfavor of the invasion of Poland and Russia and France and the rape of\nHolland and Belgium and Norway and Denmark.\n\nThe defendant insists that he knew nothing of the atrocities and\nviolence which were cumulating day by day throughout Europe. Being a\ngood German, he says, he supinely obeyed the decree which forbade\nlistening to foreign broadcasts or reading foreign periodicals. He\nsurrendered to a political philosophy which outlawed the ordinary means\nof knowledge and which prevented the formation of rationalized opinion\nor judgment. No one might read or listen or talk except in predetermined\nchannels. Ignorance was prescribed by law. The first weapon of tyranny\nis to keep its victims in darkness. The Germans were an intelligent,\ncultured people; they were not ignorant serfs. What a travesty to say\nthat a people which has produced some of the greatest intellects in\nhuman history is not fit to be told the truth.\n\nDesperate and discouraged peoples, distraught with the crushing problems\nof hunger and insecurity, have always cried out for a miracle worker to\nlead them out of the wilderness. Then is the golden opportunity for the\nmountebank with bland promises and soothing phrases to provide a\npoisonous panacea for their distress. In their desperation they fail to\nrealize that despotism has a way of beginning with benevolence and ends\nby being merely despotic. Masquerading in the mantle of a messiah, the\nwily opportunist lulls them into subscribing to some glib Fuehrerprinzip\nwhich means, \u201cAsk no questions; leave everything to me.\u201d And when the\ndebacle comes, they realize that they _have_ left everything to\nhim\u2014honor, dignity, self-respect, liberty, even life itself\u2014and they\nend up degraded, ashamed, impoverished, and hopeless. But have they\nended up wiser? The universal fear today is that in their desperation\nthey will repeat the vicious process by saying, \u201cLast time we picked the\nwrong man. Let us seek a new messiah. He will save us.\u201d The lessons of\none generation are quickly forgotten by the next, but the inexorable\nlaws of nature are immutable. The tragic fruits of tyranny and\nintolerance will always be the moral decay of peoples and the\ndegradation of human dignity.\n\nOver the heavy gates which shut in the hapless victims at Dachau is a\nlegend reading, \u201cWork will set you free.\u201d The toil of slaves cannot set\nthem free; it only serves to further enslave them. Some day an\nenlightened German people will storm those gates and all others like\nthem and recast them into an image of Truth\u2014an imperishable figure with\neyes open and unbandaged. So long as Truth stands free and untarnished,\nno future Hitler will ever arise to deceive and degrade the German\nnation. Then there will never be another Dachau.\n\n [Signed] ROBERT M. TOMS\n PRESIDING JUDGE\n FITZROY D. PHILLIPS\n JUDGE\n MICHAEL A. MUSMANNO\n JUDGE\n SENTENCE\n\nThis Tribunal takes no pleasures in performing the duty which confronts\nit, but the deliberate enslavement of millions must not go unexpiated.\nThe barbarous acts which have been revealed here originated in the lust\nand ambition of comparatively few men, but all Germans are paying and\nwill pay for the degradation of their souls and the debasement of the\nGerman honor, caused by following the false prophets who led them to\ndisaster.\n\nIt would be a travesty on justice to permit those false leaders,\nincluding this defendant, to escape responsibility for the deception and\nbetrayal of their people. It would be even a greater injustice to view\nwith complacence the mass graves of millions of men, women, and children\nwhose only crime was that they stood in Hitler\u2019s way. Retribution for\nsuch crimes against humanity must be swift and certain. Future would-be\ndictators and their subservient satellites must know what follows their\ndefilement of international law and of every type of decency and fair\ndealing with their fellow men. Civilization will be satisfied with\nnothing less.\n\nIt is the sentence of this Tribunal that the defendant Erhard Milch be\nconfined to the Rebdorf Prison for the remainder of his natural life.\n\n-----\n\n[157] Concurring opinions were filed by Judge Musmanno, see pp. 797-859,\nand by Judge Phillips, see pp. 860-878.\n\n[158] Trial of the Major War Criminals, vol. I, pp. 243-47, Nuremberg,\n1947.\n\n[159] Ibid., pp. 381-83.\n\n\n\n\n B. Concurring Opinion by Judge Michael A. Musmanno\n\nThe defendant is Erhard Milch, Field Marshal in the German Luftwaffe,\nInspector General of the Luftwaffe, State Secretary in the Air Ministry,\nGeneralluftzeugmeister, representative of the Wehrmacht on the Central\nPlanning Board, Chief of the Jaegerstab and member of the Nazi Party. He\nstands indicted of war crimes and crimes against humanity as defined in\nControl Council Law No. 10, enacted by Allied Control Council on 20\nDecember 1945.\n\nThe indictment contains three counts which may be briefly summarized as\nfollows:\n\n COUNT ONE\n\nErhard Milch is charged with having knowingly committed war crimes as\nprincipal and accessory in enterprises involving slave labor and having\nalso willingly and knowingly participated in enterprises involving the\nuse of prisoners of war in war operations contrary to international\nconvention and the laws and customs of war.\n\n COUNT TWO\n\nThe defendant is accused of having knowingly and willfully participated\nin enterprises involving fatal medical experiments upon subjects without\ntheir consent.\n\n COUNT THREE\n\nIn the third count the defendant is charged with responsibility for\nslave labor and fatal medical experiments, in the same manner as\nindicated in the first two counts, except that here the alleged victims\nare declared to be German nationals and nationals of other countries.\n\nThe defendant has entered a general denial of Not Guilty to all counts.\nTo the charges of slave labor he has answered in effect\u2014\n\n 1. That the term slave labor is a misnomer and that all foreign\n workmen in Germany during the war were there of their own free\n will.\n\n 2. That if they did not come voluntarily they were treated\n humanely, considerately, and were not subjected to any\n ill-treatment either in transportation or while actively\n employed for the Reich.\n\n 3. That if ill-treatment, fatal or otherwise, of foreign workmen\n occurred, the defendant was in no way responsible for such\n ill-treatment.\n\nTo the charges of responsibility for fatal medical experiments inflicted\non involuntary subjects, the defendant replies substantially\u2014\n\n 1. That the high-altitude and freezing experiments were not\n painful to the subjects, nor did any illegal deaths result\n therefrom.\n\n 2. That if fatalities did occur, they were suffered by those\n already condemned to death, or were caused by persons over whom\n the defendant had no control.\n\n 3. That in any event, Milch was in no way officially connected\n with the illegal and fatal experiments.\n\n I. SLAVE LABOR\n (a) Methods of Recruitment\n\nThe defense has affirmatively asserted that there was no slave labor in\nGermany during the war, or that if it did exist, its scope was\nnegligible. The Tribunal finds that this assertion is not supported by\nthe testimony in the case. It concludes, on the contrary, from the\nevidence presented at this trial that the German Reich during World War\nII did actively and plenarily employ slave labor. It further is of the\nopinion that the Third Reich used and abused slave labor to an extent\nand in a manner hitherto unknown in either modern or ancient history.\nThe exploitation of human beings by Germany during the years of the war\nmust take its place, in point of cruelty and inhumaneness, with the most\niniquitous slave practices of the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians,\nAssyrians, and Persians. The building of the Pyramids, the Hanging\nGardens of Babylon, and other ancient landmarks under whip and lash have\ntheir modern counterpart in the German building of the Western Wall, the\nGothic Line, military fortifications, concentration camps, and munitions\nfactories. The guilt of the German Reich is greater than that of the\nancient empires because in that area of antiquity the immorality of\nhuman bondage was not universally accepted, whereas in 1939 no country\nin the sisterhood of civilized nations had failed to condemn and outlaw\ninvoluntary servitude in its every form.\n\nIt is submitted in behalf of the defendant that foreign workers came to\nGermany of their own will. It is true that in the early stages of the\nEuropean conflict, Germany offered such inducements in foreign countries\nas to persuade numbers of their subjects voluntarily to proceed to that\ncountry for remunerative employment. In those first days of Blitzkrieg\nwhen nation after nation fell helplessly under the invincible Nazi war\nmachine, workers accepted employment in Germany not only because of\npromises made, but because exterior evidence to their bewildered minds\nseemed to portend that soon the frontiers of Germany would be\ncoterminous with the boundaries of Europe itself. Thus, but small choice\nremained to them; whether they worked at home or in Germany the master\nwas destined to be the same.\n\nHowever, when the subjugated peoples perceived at Stalingrad that the\nunbeatable German army could be beaten, when they heard the roar of\nAmerican propellers in the sky and the clank of British tanks returned\nonce more to the battle, a light of hope gleamed that it might not be\ntrue, as Hitler had said, that his rule and order were to endure a\nthousand years, and then these people refused the coin and currency of\nthe German Reich. From then on the feet of foreign workers were not\nturned willingly toward Germany. And in the face of this defiance,\nSauckel, German Plenipotentiary for Labor, declared, \u201cShould we not\nsucceed in obtaining the necessary amount of labor on a voluntary basis,\nwe must immediately institute conscription or forced labor.\u201d\n(_T-58._)[160]\n\nThere is no adding machine tape to which one can turn to determine the\nexact total number of foreign workers impressed into German industry,\nbut Fritz Sauckel, Plenipotentiary General for Labor, declared, \u201cOut of\n5,000,000 workers who arrived in Germany, not even 200,000 came\nvoluntarily.\u201d (_T-149._) Heinrich Himmler placed the number of foreign\nworkers at from 6,000,000 to 7,000,000. (_IMT 243_)[161].\n\nOn 9 November 1941, Hitler declared in a speech\u2014\n\n \u201cThe territory which now works for us contains more than\n 250,000,000 men, but the territory which works indirectly for us\n includes now more than 350,000,000. In the measure in which it\n concerns German territory, the domain which we have taken under\n our administration, it is not doubtful that we shall succeed in\n harnessing the very last man to this work.\u201d\n\nHitler was never quite able to achieve the fullness of this ambitious\nprogram, but it was not due to any relinquishment of efforts in that\ndirection by himself or his criminal coadjutors. Of course, this program\nwas in direct violation of Article 52 of the Hague Convention which\ndeclares\u2014\n\n \u201cRequisition in kind and services shall not be demanded from\n municipalities or inhabitants, except for the needs of the army\n of occupation. They shall be in proportion to the resources of\n the country, and of such a nature as not to involve the\n inhabitants in the obligation of taking part in military\n operations against their own country.\u201d\n\nIn the very initial stages of the German invasions, the officiating\nagents phrased their demands for labor in language which gave the\nrecruitment an aspect of voluntary action on the part of the workers.\nThus, when the German forces entered Lithuania, male and female farm\nworkers were called upon by the military administration to sign up for\nsix months\u2019 employment on large estates, but after the signatures were\nobtained the promises were not kept. (_T-97._) And it was not long until\nall pretense at voluntary recruitment was abandoned and then\nLithuanians, ordered to official agencies \u201conly for registration\u201d, were\nheld there and taken away under military guards to the local barracks\nwhere they had neither the opportunity to bid their families good-by nor\nto put their most personal affairs in order. (_T-97-98._)\n\nThere were other pacific methods to \u201cpersuade\u201d foreign workers into\nemployment for the Reich. Thus, Governor General Frank of Poland\nrecommended that one way to force Polish workers into Germany was to\nwithhold their unemployment insurance. (_T-112._)\n\nHowever, these genteel methods in Poland soon gave way to means more\ndirect. Recruitment now degenerated into a fierce manhunt with\nunsuspecting victims being seized on the streets, in railroad stations,\nfrom their homes, even in churches. (_T-83._)\n\n \u201cEverybody is exposed to the danger of being seized anywhere and\n at any time by members of the police, suddenly and unexpectedly,\n and being brought into an assembly camp. None of his relatives\n knows what has happened to him; only weeks or months later, one\n or the other gives news of his fate by a postcard.\u201d (_T-83._)\n\nIn Ukrainia skilled workers whose names had been furnished to the police\nby corrupted village elders were \u201cdragged from their beds at night to be\nlocked up in cellars until shipped.\u201d (_T-67._) As neither the male nor\nthe female workers were given time to gather up their belongings they\noften arrived at the collecting center without shoes or other adequate\nclothing for the long and torturing journey ahead. (_T-67._)\n\nA directive applying to recruitment in White Ruthenia declared\u2014\n\n \u201cAll permissible means shall be used to obtain manpower from\n White Ruthenia. Do not hesitate to apply extraordinary\n measures.\u201d (_T-91._)\n\nIn the same directive \u201cthe recruiters\u201d are told, \u201cEverything you do for\nGermany is right, everything else is wrong.\u201d (_T-93._) So wide-sweeping\nwas this recruitment drive waged by the SS and police in one area of\nWhite Ruthenia that 115,000 hectares of farm land became useless because\nthe whole population had been removed. (_T-93._)\n\nGoering bluntly declared in a speech at the Reich Ministry of Air on 7\nNovember 1941, in connection with the Four Year Plan that Poles,\nDutchmen, etc., were to be taken, \u201cif necessary as prisoners of war and\nemploy them as such, if work through free contract cannot be obtained.\nStrong action.\u201d * * * \u201cForeigners not to be treated like German\nworkers.\u201d (_T-53._)\n\nOne Leyser in making a report to Rosenberg on the situation in his\ndistrict of Zhitomir gives the answer to the assertion of voluntary\nlabor when he says\u2014\n\n \u201cIt is certain that a recruitment of labor, in the sense of the\n word, can hardly be spoken of. In most cases, it is nowadays a\n matter of actual conscription by force. The population has been\n stirred up to a large extent and views the transports to the\n Reich as a measure which does in no way differ from the former\n exile to Siberia during the Czarist and Bolshevist system.\u201d\n (_T-94._)\n\nA report on recruitment measures taken in Holland reveals\u2014\n\n \u201cAll Jewish Netherlanders, whom the Germans could lay their\n hands on, with the exception of a small group of exempted\n persons, were brought together here; hospitals, old age homes,\n institutions for the blind and other disabled persons were\n emptied in order to concentrate the inmates in Westerbork for\n deportation. Even the inmates of lunatic asylums did not escape\n deportation.\u201d (_T-125._)\n\nOn the subject of workers from the Netherlands, Goering said on 28\nOctober 1943, in the presence of the defendant\u2014\n\n \u201cAfter that has been done once, one has to modify the system for\n the second blow. Then the Dutch people will be no longer out in\n the streets on Sunday for pleasure promenades * * *. First, all\n the people must be brought together in a pen. Then they will be\n asked individually who works where. Then the men will be\n selected accordingly.\u201d (_T-2094._)\n\nAnd on the subject of foreign exchange at that same meeting, Goering\ncontributed this bit of wisdom in finance\u2014\n\n \u201cAll we need to do is to fix the rate of exchange * * * today\n the German mark equals 20 francs, tomorrow 23, then 27, then 40,\n and so forth, up to one million, or one billion. We have had all\n that. The same holds true for the guilder. One cigarette now\n costs in Holland 1.50 guilders; formerly it cost 10 cents. I\n merely have to say, 1.50 guilders equal 10 pfennigs or one mark\n equals 15 guilders.\u201d (_T-2095._)\n\nIt may be well to note at once that all quotations from the transcript\nrepresent excerpts from records and documents located in the official\nfiles of the German Reich. The evidence advanced by the prosecution in\nthis case was almost exclusively documentary. Thus, if any observation\nin this opinion seems overly emphatic and appears to go beyond the\nrestraint usually found in judicial pronouncements, it will still fall\nshort of the force of language employed in some of the original reports\nmade by German officials to their own superiors at the time of the\nevents described. A top secret memorandum on conditions in occupied\nRussian territory declared\u2014\n\n \u201cIt is no longer a secret from friend or foe that hundreds of\n thousands of them literally have died of hunger or cold in our\n camps * * *. We now experience the grotesque picture of having\n to recruit millions of laborers from the occupied eastern\n territories, after prisoners of war have died of hunger like\n flies, in order to fill the gaps that are formed within Germany.\n Now the food question no longer existed. In the prevailing\n limitless abuse of the Slavic humanity, _recruiting methods were\n used which probably had their origin only in the blackest\n periods of the slave trade_.\u201d (_T-121._)\n\nEven Rosenberg acknowledged the severity and harshness of the\nrecruitment program and protested, not, to be sure, on humanitarian\ngrounds, but because \u201cendangered persons prefer to escape their fate\u201d by\ngoing over to guerilla bands. (_T-78._)\n\nThe fury with which the manhunt for workers was prosecuted reached such\nextremes that in many instances villages were burned down as\n\u201cretribution for failure to comply with the demand for the appropriation\nof labor forces directed to the communities.\u201d (_T-80._)\n\nAnd it was not only where large numbers were demanded that savage\nreprisals occurred. In a little village where 25 workers had been\nordered but none reported, the German militia set fire to the houses of\nthose who had fled. Then\u2014\n\n \u201cThe people who had hurried to the scene were forbidden to\n extinguish the flames, beaten and arrested, so that seven\n homesteads burned down. The policemen meanwhile ignited other\n houses. The people fell on their knees and kissed their hands,\n but the policemen beat them with rubber truncheons.\u201d\n (_T-80-81._)\n\nAll because the mighty Reich needed 25 men to throw into its vast\nworkshop of millions turning out the steel teeth of war.\n\nIn the same instance the German militia continued into other villages\nand where they did not find the workers they seized the parents. \u201cThe\nworkers who had not appeared until then were shot.\u201d Then, in the report\nwe are quoting from, appears the damning phrase which shows more than\nanything else to what a low ebb the dignity of man had been reduced and\ndegraded by the German Reich. \u201c_They are now catching humans like the\ndog catchers used to catch dogs._\u201d (_T-81._) The report closes on a\nstatement which must needs bring a blush of shame to the cheek of every\nmember of the civilized human race\u2014\n\n \u201cPeople from many villages went on a certain day to a pilgrimage\n to the monastery Potschaew. They were all arrested, locked in,\n and will be sent to work. Among them there are lame, blind, and\n aged people.\u201d (_T-81._)\n\nIt has been asserted that the defendant and others holding high office\ncannot and should not be held responsible for the acts of subordinate\nofficers in far away places, and of whose activities they could have no\nknowledge. But these smaller officers were only putting into effect the\npolicies publicly declared over and over by the chieftains. Thus, when a\ncertain Koch spoke in Kiev and declared\u2014\n\n \u201cI will draw the very last out of this country. I did not come\n to spread bliss. I have come to help the Fuehrer. The population\n must work, work, and work again * * * for some people are\n getting excited that the population may not get enough to eat.\n The population cannot demand that. One has only to remember what\n our heroes were deprived of in Stalingrad * * *. We definitely\n did not come here to give out manna; we have come here to create\n the basis for Victory.\u201d (_T-86._)\n\nHe was only repeating what had been said by Hitler, Himmler, Goering,\nand Milch, in varying forms. The defendant claims that he did not\nliterally mean the blood and thunder declarations admittedly authored by\nhim, and that phase of the case will be discussed in detail later. But\nunderlings who heard these wild, inflammatory utterances did not know\nthat Milch was only barking, if in fact we are to assume that his\nferocious words were only purposeless growlings. The men in the field\ndid not stop at words, because they were in a position to act and did\nact\u2014directly on the people. Koch was not voicing a concept original\nwith him when he said in that same speech\u2014\n\n \u201cWe are a master race which must remember that the lowliest\n German worker is racially and biologically a thousand times more\n valuable than the population here.\u201d (_T-86._)\n\nUnfortunately, however, his utterances were not confined to rhetoric,\nbut being in a position to put them into flesh and blood effect, he did\nso.\n\nQuotations from documents furnishing further proof of involuntary\nforeign labor in Germany are too numerous to repeat in the judgment.\nReference, however, will be made to but one more before proceeding to\nthe next item for discussion. In the recruitment of 1 million workers\ndemanded in the Ukraine, SS Major Christensen, in charge of operations,\ndeclared that whatever harsh treatment was required should be\ncontrolled. He thus orders that in arresting communist functionaries it\nis no longer necessary to arrest all the close relatives of a member of\nthe communist party. He decrees further that in searching for workers\n\u201cwhen it becomes necessary to burn down a village, the whole population\nwill be put at the disposal of the commissioner by force.\u201d (_T-129._)\n\nThis is regarded as a concession, and then comes what must be classified\nas the most heart-rending utterance which has come out of this war\u2014\n\n \u201c_As a rule, no more children will be shot._\u201d\n\nNot an out-and-out prohibition against shooting children; not that more\ncare should be exercised in the handling of children; but only a\ngeneral, vague suggestion that this SS battalion of murderers must not\nfire at children on sight just as one might mow down sparrows or\nrabbits. However, if the situation requires, then of course, children\nwill be shot with everybody else, for the order goes on to say, \u201cSlavs\nwill interpret all soft treatment on our part as weakness.\u201d \u201cThe most\nimportant thing,\u201d the directive concludes, \u201cis the recruitment of\nworkers.\u201d (_T-129-130._)\n\n (b) Treatment of Workers\n\nOn 20 April 1942, Fritz Sauckel announced his labor mobilization program\nwhich contained the one supremely cruel proposition regarding treatment\nof foreign workers\u2014\n\n \u201cAll the men must be fed, sheltered, and treated in such a way\n as to exploit them to the highest possible extent at the lowest\n conceivable degree of expenditure.\u201d (_T-58._)\n\nAfter the announcement of this inhuman decree of maximum work with\nminimum sustenance, Sauckel followed with\u2014\n\n \u201cIt has always been natural for us Germans to refrain from\n cruelty and mean chicaneries towards the beaten enemy, even if\n he has proved himself the most bestial and most implacable\n adversary, and to treat him correctly and humanly, even when we\n expect useful work of him.\u201d (_T-58-59._)\n\nIt can be imagined with what kindness an underling of Sauckel\u2019s would\ntreat a worker whom Sauckel has already characterized as a \u201cbestial and\nmost implacable adversary\u201d.\n\nAs a result of the minimum sustenance directive it is not difficult to\nunderstand the report of a Dr. Hupe who stated\u2014\n\n \u201cDuring the last few days we have established that the food for\n the Russians employed here is so miserable that the people are\n getting weaker from day to day. Investigations showed that\n single Russians are not able to place a piece of metal for\n turning into position, for instance, because of lack of physical\n strength. The same conditions exist at all places of work where\n Russians are employed.\u201d (_T-55._)\n\nWilhelm Jager, senior camp director at the Krupp Works, reported that\ndiet prescribed for eastern workers was 1,000 calories less per day than\nthe minimum prescribed for any Germans. Further, that while German heavy\nworkers received 5,000 calories a day, eastern workers in comparable\njobs received only 2,000 calories. Such meat as was allowed the foreign\nworkers was that which had been \u201crejected by the veterinary, such as\nhorse meat or tuberculin infested\u201d. (_T-103._) The clothing allowed the\neastern workers was likewise entirely inadequate. They had no overcoats\nand, because of the shortage of shoes, many were forced to go to work\nbarefoot even in winter. In the work camps tuberculosis was widespread\namong the eastern workers, caused by bad housing, insufficient and poor\nfood, overwork and insufficient rest\u2014\n\n \u201cThese workers were likewise afflicted with spotted fever. Lice,\n the carrier of this disease, together with countless fleas,\n bugs, and other vermin tortured the inhabitants of these camps.\n As a result of the filthy conditions of the camps nearly all\n eastern workers were afflicted with skin disease. The shortage\n of food also caused many cases of Hunher-Oedem, Nephritis, and\n Shighakruse.\u201d (_T-103._)\n\nThese conditions became infinitely worse, of course, during the time of\nair raids\u2014\n\n \u201cThe French prisoner-of-war camp in Nogerratstrasse had been\n destroyed in an air raid attack and its inhabitants were kept\n for nearly half a year in dog kennels, urinals, and in old\n baking houses. The dog kennels were three feet high, nine feet\n long, and six feet wide. Five men slept in each of them. The\n prisoners had to crawl into these kennels on all fours.\u201d\n (_T-105._)\n\nA Dr. Stinnesbeck reports on 12 June 1944\u2014\n\n \u201cThe PW camp at Nogerratstrasse was in most deplorable\n condition. The people live in ashcans, doghouses, old baking\n stoves, and self-made huts.\u201d (_T-106._)\n\nVisiting camp Humboldtstrasse, Dr. Stinnesbeck found 600 Jewish women\nwho worked at the Krupp factory. They suffered from festering wounds and\nother diseases. They had no shoes and went about in their bare feet!\n\n \u201cThe sole clothing of each consisted of a sack with holes for\n their arms and head. Their hair was shorn. The camp was\n surrounded by barbed wire and closely guarded by SS guards.\u201d\n (_T-106._)\n\nConcentration camp inmates were made to work, to which there can be no\nobjection on the grounds of inhumanity. In fact, some useful toil is\npreferable to idleness in prison. But camp commanders were instructed\nthat the \u201cemployment must be, in the true meaning of the word,\nexhaustive, in order to obtain the greatest measure of performance.\u201d\n(_T-61._)\n\n \u201cThere is no limit to working hours. Their duration depends on\n the kind of working establishments in the camps and the kind of\n work to be done. They are fixed by the camp commanders alone.\u201d\n (_T-62._)\n\nCertain \u201cantisocial elements\u201d were by special order \u201cto be worked to\ndeath\u201d. In the literal Gestapo language \u201cdeath\u201d was never used\nrhetorically or figuratively. Those who were to be killed through work\nwere listed as \u201cunder protective arrest\u201d. This included Jews, gypsies,\nRussians, and Ukrainians; Poles with more than three-year sentences;\nCzechs and Germans with more than eight-year sentences. (_T-63._)\n\nIn these work camps frequently children of tender age were forced to\ntoil.\n\n \u201cAn indication of the awful conditions this may lead to is given\n by the fact that in the camps for eastern workers, camp for\n eastern workers \u2018Waldlust\u2019, Post Office Lauf, Pegnitz, there are\n cases of eight-year old, delicate and undernourished children\n put to forced labor and perishing from such treatment.\u201d\n (_T-99._)\n\nThose who were imported for farm work fared no better than their factory\nbrothers. A directive issued by the Ministry of Finance and Economy at\nBaden on the control of Polish farm workers in Stuttgart and Baden\ndirected that farm workers were to be quartered in stables, and the\nemployer was urged that \u201cno remorse should restrict such action.\u201d\n(_T-47._) \u201cFundamentally\u201d, this extraordinary document proclaims, \u201cfarm\nworkers of Polish nationality no longer have the right to complain, and\nthus no complaints may be accepted any more by any official agency.\u201d\n(_T-46._)\n\nTo deprive a human being of the right to complain is in effect to\nclassify him lower than an animal because even a beast of burden is\nprivileged to announce his objections to harsh and cruel treatment. Nor\nwere the Polish workers permitted the consolation and comfort in\nadversity which religion affords. \u201cThe visiting of churches, regardless\nof faith, is strictly prohibited.\u201d The edict of the Ministry of Finance\nsaid further that this prohibition against attendance at churches even\nexcluded the visiting of churches when no service was in progress. The\nvisiting of theatres, motion picture shows, or other cultural\nentertainment also was prohibited. (_T-46._)\n\n \u201cGathering of farm workers of Polish nationality after work is\n prohibited, whether it is on other farms, in the stables, or in\n the living quarters of the Poles. The use of railroads, buses,\n or other public conveyances by farm workers of Polish\n nationality is prohibited.\u201d (_T-47._)\n\nThe difference between slave labor of this type and outright slavery is\na margin faint and indistinguishable. There was no limit to the hours of\nwork, and the employer was invested with the right, bestially inherent\nin the proprietorship of slave owners, to inflict corporal punishment on\nthe worker \u201c_if_ instruction and good words failed\u201d. Nor was there any\none to determine whether good words had failed because the \u201cemployer may\nnot be held accountable in any such cases by an official agency.\u201d\n(_T-47._)\n\nHeinrich Himmler took a very active part in the slave labor program.\nConcerning commitment of manpower from the East, he laid down strict\nrules which, if violated, brought severe punishment. He decreed that\u2014\n\n \u201cIn severe cases, that is in such cases where the measures at\n the disposal of the leader of the guard do not suffice, the\n state police office has to act with its means. Accordingly, they\n will be treated, as a rule, only with strict measure, that is\n with transfer to a concentration camp or with special\n treatment.\u201d (_T-53._)\n\nWe learn further on in the directive that the \u201cspecial treatment\u201d so\ncasually referred to as if it were some slight deprivation of comfort or\nconvenience means nothing less than hanging!\n\n \u201cSpecial treatment is hanging. Hanging should not take place in\n the immediate vicinity of the camp. A certain number of the\n manpower from the original Soviet Russian territory should\n attend the special treatment; at that time they are to be warned\n about the circumstances which led to this special treatment.\u201d\n (_T-53._)\n\nIf workers sought to escape, search measures were to be decreed locally,\nand when caught the fugitive must receive special treatment. (_T-54._)\n\nHeinrich Himmler was one of the most relentless pursuers of slave labor,\nas, of course, he was the most notorious executant of all that was\ninhuman, indecent, cruel, and vulgar in the entire Nazi program. Himmler\ndoes not defy description, he invites it. He stands out in the whole\nhideous camp of Hitler barbarians as the most savage of them all. A\nfiend in human shape, a monster in the clothing of man; there is no wild\nbeast, bound only by jungle code, which, in point of honor, was not his\nsuperior; there is no slimy, maggoty larva, wriggling in the stagnancy\nand stench of the foulest cesspool which could be regarded his inferior.\nHis creed was murder, his religion massacre, his belief kidnapping, his\nfaith treachery, and his dogma oppression in every form. Only one thing\nmattered and that was German blood\u2014\n\n \u201cWhat happens to a Russian, to a Czech, does not interest me in\n the slightest. What the nation can offer in the way of good\n blood of our type, we will take, if necessary by kidnapping\n their children and raising them here with us. Whether nations\n live in prosperity or starve to death interests me only insofar\n as we need them as slaves for our Kultur; otherwise, it is of no\n interest to me. Whether 10,000 Russian females fall down from\n exhaustion while digging an antitank ditch interests me only\n insofar as the antitank ditch for Germany is finished * * *.\n When somebody comes to me and says, \u2018I cannot dig the antitank\n ditch with women and children, it is inhuman, for it would kill\n them,\u2019 then I have to say, \u2018You are a murderer of your own blood\n because if the antitank ditch is not dug, German soldiers will\n die, and they are sons of German mothers. They are our own\n blood.\u2019 That is what I want to instill into this SS and what I\n believe I have instilled into them as one of the most sacred\n laws of the future. Our concern, our duty, is our people and our\n blood. It is for them that we must provide and plan, work and\n fight, nothing else. We can be indifferent to everything else.\u201d\n (_T-145._)\n\nWhen hundreds of thousands of Russian prisoners of war died from\nexhaustion and hunger, his regret was not that they died, but that it\nwas deplorable \u201cby reason of the loss of labor.\u201d (_T-144._)\n\nThe defense in this case denied that foreign workers and prisoners of\nwar were maltreated, and produced some evidence to dispute the\nprosecution\u2019s contentions in this regard, we quote from the affidavit of\none Albin Schirmer, a resident of Nuernberg\u2014\n\n \u201cFrom the year 1929 onwards, I was employed by the Hercules\n Works, Ltd. at Nuernberg (Nuernberger Herkuleswerke G.m.b.H.),\n and worked there in the capacity of foreman throughout the war.\n The necessary workers were requested by the firm from the Labor\n Office. The Labor Office allocated French prisoners of war, free\n French, and Czech workers to the firm. The free foreign workers,\n who also cooperated in executing the commissions of the\n Luftwaffe, were treated in every respect in exactly the same way\n as the German workers. Some lived in furnished rooms. Some lived\n in a camp as it was cheaper there. Working hours, wages, ration\n cards, and the supplementary ration cards for workers, whose\n hours were long, were the same as for any German. Equally,\n freedom of movement during leisure hours, permission to attend\n theaters, churches, and cinemas, the protection of the Labor\n Front and of strength-through-joy, permission to visit public\n houses and German families were available to free foreign\n workers as well as to German workers. Intercourse with German\n girls was also permitted to free foreign workers. This, however,\n did not apply to prisoners of war. The sanitary installations of\n the firm were good, and were available for the use of foreign\n workers, as well as of the German workers. The prisoners of war\n had fixed times for taking showers whereas the free foreign\n workers had their showers at the same time as the Germans. The\n free French workers were allowed free postal communication with\n France, and they also went there on leave. I know of only two\n cases in which free French workers did not return from their\n leave in France.\n\n Many French prisoners of war volunteered as free workers, in\n order to be eligible for the resultant advantages. Even the\n prisoners of war had beer sent to them every day.\n\n During air raids, the free foreign workers played their part\n with devotion, a thing which they would certainly not have done\n if they had not considered that they were well-treated.\n\n After the arrival of the American troops most of the French\n workers said good-by to me in a friendly fashion, shaking hands\n with me, and wishing me luck. The female workers from the\n Ukraine too liked it here according to their statements.\u201d\n\nWhy should one doubt that in the vast German workshop which employed a\nscore of millions, here and there some foreign workers were not abused\nbut in the long run fared well? It would need to be someone wearing\nspectacles of pitch and groping in a Cimmerian night of prejudice and\npique to assert that the German people are incapable of hospitality and\ngenerosity. The very fact that there were concentration camps in the\nland attests to the fact that not everybody accepted Hitler\u2019s and\nHimmler\u2019s crackpot master race ideology. However, even accepting Albin\nSchirmer\u2019s affidavit at face value, it is but one little flower in a\njungle of evidence establishing that only a very few foreign workers\nwere so fortunate as to be showered with the care and comforts and\nallowed to revel and luxuriate in the liberties vouchsafed those who\nwere so lucky as to be employed in the Hercules Works, Limited, at\nNuernberg.\n\nAs against this idyllic picture of happiness in a powder plant or\nstrength-through-joy in Nuernberg, there is recalled the image of the\nlast witness at this trial. He also was a German, Joseph Krysiak, and he\ntoo worked in a war factory. In December 1940, he remarked in a\nconversation to some friends that if America entered the European\nconflict, Germany could not win. The ubiquitous Gestapo learned of his\nobservation and he was committed to a concentration camp, from which he\nwent daily to work at the Me [ssersmitt] 109 plant at Gusen I. His\nliving conditions were a trifle less felicitous than those described by\nSchirmer. Krysiak worked twelve hours a day, he had coffee for\nbreakfast, watery soup for lunch, and at night seven men shared a loaf\nof bread. If he did not reach the quota of work assigned him for the\nday, he was beaten. Later he was sent to another factory, and of working\nconditions there he said\u2014\n\n \u201cWe were working at Saint George, Gusen II, for twelve hours.\n Also, the transport to and from work and back to this camp\n occupied two to three hours as well, so that these people\n altogether had only four to five hours sleep under the worst\n imaginable conditions. Four people had to sleep in one bed.\n\n \u201cQ. Did you work seven days a week?\n\n \u201cA. Yes, and the day and night shift, and Sundays, too.\u201d\n (_T-2366._)\n\nWhen asked what effect these conditions had on the health of the\nworkers, he replied\u2014\n\n \u201cThe most dreadful effect, the majority died in Mauthausen and\n Gusen II. It was a rule no one was released, but transports\n which were filled were where detainees would die.\u201d\n\nAnd as to his own particular condition, he stated\u2014\n\n \u201cAll I can say now is that I suffer from TB and I am medically\n being treated, and this is what those five years did to me.\n\n \u201cQ. What was your condition before going to the concentration\n camp?\n\n \u201cA. I was active in sports, and I was a long distance runner. I\n can say my lungs were not blemished at all.\u201d\n\nThe shattering of this man\u2019s health is perhaps only a small part of the\ndisaster which has befallen him. From the witness stand he gave the\nimpression of one who had been spiritually crushed by his five years\u2019\nordeal. His voice faltered, his shoulders drooped, his eyes looked out\ninto distance. He was alive, but something within him had perished.\nPerhaps he reflected on the tragedy that this awful thing which had\nhappened to him had been inflicted by his own countrymen, not for\nopposing his country but for speaking a truth which, if listened to,\ncould have averted not only his own ruin but the misery of millions of\nhis brethren.\n\n II. PRISONERS OF WAR\n\nArticle 31 of the Geneva Convention provides\u2014\n\n \u201cWork done by prisoners of war shall have no direct connection\n with the operations of the war. In particular it is forbidden to\n employ prisoners in the manufacture or transport of arms or\n munitions of any kind, or on the transport of material destined\n for the combatant units.\u201d\n\nThe Hague Convention of 1907, Article 6 provides\u2014\n\n \u201cThe State may utilize the labor of prisoners of war according\n to their rank and aptitude, officers excepted. The tasks shall\n not be excessive and shall have no connection with the\n operations of the war.\u201d (_T-155._)\n\nThese prohibitions on the use of prisoners of war were flagrantly\nviolated by the Germans in World War II. On 7 November 1941, Hermann\nGoering, speaking at the meeting in the Reich Ministry of Air, already\nreferred to, declared that \u201cit would be ideal if entire factories could\nbe manned by Russian prisoners of war.\u201d (_T-52._) Then, insofar as\nfeeding these prisoners was concerned the notes of the speech report:\n\u201cFood is a matter of the Four Year Plan. Supply their own food (cats,\nhorses, etc.).\u201d (_T-52._)\n\nOn 20 April 1942, Fritz Sauckel, Plenipotentiary General for Labor\nMobilization, proclaimed that\u2014\n\n \u201cAll prisoners of war, from the territories of the West as well\n as of the East, actually in Germany, must be completely\n incorporated into the German armament and nutrition industries.\u201d\n (_T-58._)\n\nOn 26 August 1941, the Reich Labor Ministry directed the presidents of\nthe Regional Labor Offices as follows:\n\n \u201cUpon personal order of the Reich Marshal, 100,000 men are to be\n taken from among the French prisoners of war not yet employed in\n armament industry, and are to be assigned to the armament\n industry (airplane industry). Gaps in manpower supply resulting\n therefrom will be filled by Soviet prisoners of war. The\n transfer of the above-named French prisoners of war can be\n utilized only in quite large concentrated groups under the\n well-known tougher employment conditions.\u201d (_T-49-50._)\n\nIn a discussion with Sauckel, the defendant, and others on the subject\nof manpower available for the armament industry, Goering stated on 28\nOctober 1943, that out of 2,200,000 in armament production, 770,000 were\nprisoners of war. (_T-2093._)\n\nOn 14 April 1943, Sauckel reported to Hitler that \u201c1,622,829 prisoners\nof war are employed in the German economy.\u201d (_T-90._)\n\nNoting that the utilization of prisoners of war in the war program was a\nvery profitable enterprise for the Reich, Goering regretted that any had\never been released. However, it was a mistake easily rectified.\n\n \u201cI should like to see that the prisoners of war who have been\n released, Norwegians and so forth, be taken again. Insofar as\n officers are concerned, this has been done to a certain extent.\n It was the greatest nonsense ever committed by us and for which\n nobody thanks us. We have made prisoners of entire armies and we\n let them go again. We do not get anything from Norway.\u201d\n (_T-2096._)\n\nAt a Jaegerstab meeting on 19 June 1944, it developed that 300 American\nprisoners of war were assigned to work at the Dornier airplane factory\nat Oberpfaffenhofen, but with good Yankee obstinacy, knowing their\nrights, they refused to work. Lange, of the Speer Ministry, complaining\nabout this said\u2014\n\n \u201cThey simply sat down, drank coffee, and ate corned beef, and\n could not be persuaded to work in spite of threats of shooting.\n Now, the question has been asked if we should not start a\n shooting action.\u201d (_T-2102._)\n\nAnd the only reason they were not shot is that the Fuehrer feared\nreprisals.\n\n III. PARTICIPATION OF MILCH IN THE SLAVE LABOR PROGRAM\n\nIt was not contended by the prosecution at the trial that the defendant\nwas aware, nor would it have been physically possible for him to have\nhad knowledge, of all the excesses, inhumanities, and illegalities\nencompassed in the far-flung slave labor program which spread its\ncruelties into practically every part of Europe. However, its very\nbigness and the great production power which it generated in every\ndepartment of the German war plant negates the defendant\u2019s position that\nhe was utterly ignorant of its existence. This opinion has gone to some\nlength in pointing out the numbers involved in the compulsory work\nprogram, and the heinousness of some of its operations, and has quoted\nfrom official decrees promulgated in its unfoldment, not only for the\npurpose of demonstrating the basis for condemning the whole illegal\nenterprise, but also for the purpose of laying the foundation for\nconsideration of Milch\u2019s responsibility in this phase of German war\nguilt.\n\nOn 23 May 1939, Hitler outlined his plans for war to his fourteen most\ntrusted and important military chieftains. Milch attended that then\nsecret, and now notorious, conference. Hitler there said, \u201cThe\npopulation of non-German areas will perform no military service and will\nbe available as source of labor.\u201d (_T-37._) This statement is taken from\nthe memorandum made by adjutant Lieutenant Colonel Schmundt, who was\npresent and preserved a drastically condensed record of the speech for\nthe Reich files. The accuracy of the Schmundt record was attacked in the\nIMT trial and came under fire here. The defendant goes so far as to\nconjecture that the Schmundt statement was prepared months, perhaps even\na year, after Hitler\u2019s speech, and was intended to demonstrate Hitler\u2019s\nuncanny and possibly supernatural powers of prophecy by the undeniably\nsure method of writing up the prophecy subsequent to the happening of\nthe event predicted. The memorandum obviously is not definitely precise\nbecause it consists of only ten pages whereas the speech lasted four and\none-half hours. As the memorandum manifestly cannot be complete, neither\ncan human recollection (unaided by notes) be infallible. Milch, who made\nno notes at all, testified that labor was not mentioned in the speech,\nbut Admiral Schniewind, also present, and who testified in court, stated\nthat he did not exclude the possibility that labor was discussed.\n(_T-1326._)\n\nIn any event, whether Hitler did or did not mention labor in his\nutterances of that day is not so important as it is that Milch was\npresent when Hitler made crystal clear his intentions to attack Poland,\nand, if it became necessary or expedient, to fight other countries as\nwell, with the inevitable subjugation of the conquered peoples. Slave\nlabor was an inescapable concomitant of the type of total war Hitler\nintended to wage, and the character of which Milch could not fail to\nappreciate.\n\nAs a field marshal in the German Reich, Milch could not ignore the\nexistence of Sauckel\u2019s proclamation on 20 April 1942 that \u201cthe raw\nmaterials as well as the fertility of the conquered territories and\ntheir human labor power are to be used completely and conscientiously to\nthe profit of Germany and her allies.\u201d (_T-57._)\n\nBut in the evaluation of Milch\u2019s criminal responsibility for Germany\u2019s\nuse of slave labor something more is needed in a court of law than\npresumptions of his assumed general knowledge of what was taking place.\nIt must be established that he, himself, participated in the slave labor\nenterprises, or knowing that such illegal practices were being\ncommitted, he, having the power to do so, made no effort to curb or halt\nthem. The prosecution contends that the defendant, as a member of the\nCentral Planning Board and of the Jaegerstab, and as\nGeneralluftzeugmeister (Aircraft Master General), was thoroughly\ncognizant of Sauckel\u2019s program and that he, Milch, actively participated\nin slave labor practices.\n\n (a) Central Planning Board\n\nThe Central Planning Board was made up of three members, Speer, Milch,\nand Koerner, each having equal authority, although, as it developed,\nSpeer and Milch dominated the proceedings. The function of the Central\nPlanning Board in the main was the distribution and allocation of raw\nmaterials necessary for the entire conduct of the German war economy,\nthe planning of intended construction or enlargement, and the\nsystematization of transportation industry independent of the shortage\nof raw materials. During the war this Board had 60 meetings and much\ntime was given to consideration of the manpower problem confronting the\nvarious departments in the huge German war workshop. Sauckel often\nappeared before the Central Planning Board to report on the foreign\nlabor situation. Various other officials came before the Board to\nexpress their needs in connection with foreign workers. Milch often\npresided at these meetings. He was absent on several occasions but all\nquotations from the minutes of the Central Planning Board meetings,\ncited in this opinion, are from meetings where he was present, and he is\ntherefore chargeable with knowledge of their contents.\n\nWehrmacht representatives were often in attendance at the Central\nPlanning Board meetings, and on 25 July 1944, Field Marshal von Kluge,\nCommander in Chief West, issued an order on labor recruitment\u2014\n\n \u201cAs the only limitation, the Fuehrer has ordered that no\n forcible means shall be employed against the population in the\n actual combat area as long as it shows itself prepared to assist\n the German Armed Forces. However, recruiting of volunteers from\n among refugees from the combat zone is to be carried out\n vigorously. Moreover, every means is justified to seize as much\n labor as possible, apart from the powers granted to the armed\n forces.\u201d (_T-271._)\n\nIt will be noted that the Fuehrer orders that forcible means shall not\nbe used if the population assists. This is comparable to saying that the\narmed robber is thoroughly peaceful in his intentions because he will\nnot shoot if the victim surrenders his valuables voluntarily.\n\nThe proof in this case that foreign workers were brought into Germany\nagainst their will generally does not come from them, but almost\nexclusively from their abductors. At one of the meetings of the Central\nPlanning Board, Mr. Timm, representing the Plenipotentiary General for\nLabor, reports that they are encountering resistance to recruitment\u2014\n\n \u201cIn all countries we have to change over more or less to\n registering the men by age groups and to conscripting them in\n age groups. They do appear for registering as such, but as soon\n as transport is available, they do not come back so that the\n dispatch of the men has become more or less a question for the\n police. Especially in Poland the situation at the moment is\n extraordinarily serious. It is well known that vehement battles\n occurred just because of these actions.\u201d (_T-197-198._)\n\nThe word \u201crecruitment\u201d will be used in this opinion not in its literal\nsense of voluntary enlistment, but in the broad sense of both voluntary\nand involuntary gathering up of workers.\n\nIt is the contention of the defense that Milch had nothing to do with\nthe actual recruitment. It is, of course, true that he did not go into\nFrance, Italy, Hungary, Russia, and other countries, to physically rope\nthe workers and drag them into Germany, but is the guilt any less if one\nsits back in his office and signs the order which casts the uncoiling\nrope for the far-reaching lasso?\n\nGoering, in an interrogation conducted 6 September 1946, stated that\nafter the death of Udet it was Milch, as Chief of Supply for the air\nforces, who put forward the needs of the Luftwaffe for workers. The\nrequests were forwarded to Speer, and Speer would ask Sauckel for the\nworkers for the entire armament branch. Sauckel, on 24 September 1946,\nmade a very important declaration in an affidavit on the part Milch\nplayed in the matter of obtaining workers\u2014\n\n \u201cMilch produced the figures for aviation. The same was done by\n Speer in his sphere of activity. Speer and Milch, however, also\n exerted influence on the allocation of workers. How far this\n came within their capacity as members of the Central Planning\n Board I cannot say; in any case they did this in their\n ministerial capacity.\u201d (_T-281._)\n\nThus, if Milch knew how workers were actually being recruited, how they\nwere being transported, and to what they were being transported, he\ncannot claim exoneration in the assertion that he did not take them in\nhand personally. And, if this knowledge is established, then he, when he\nasked for workers, was, in effect, consigning foreign workers to the\nsuffering and torture of which he had cognizance. Behind each\nrequisition for foreign labor there shone the inevitable backdrop of the\nlurid scenes of labor camps with their \u201cspecial treatment,\u201d disease,\nvermin, starvation, whipping, illness, and death.\n\nOn 8 April 1943, Milch wrote Sauckel and Goering, announcing that in\ncertain sections he had proclaimed an 84-hour week in the air force\nindustry. (_T-196._) The defendant has explained that this applied only\nto those engaged in guard work. Witness Krysiak testified that he worked\n84 hours a week.\n\nAt the 1 March 1944 meeting of the Central Planning Board, Sauckel\nparticularly addressed himself to Milch who was presiding, and said\u2014\n\n \u201cThereupon I even proceeded to employ and train a whole batch of\n French male and female agents who for good pay, just as was done\n in olden times for \u2018shanghaiing\u2019, went hunting men and made them\n drunk by using liquor as well as words, in order to dispatch\n them to Germany.\u201d (_T-228._)\n\nAs evidence that he was encountering difficulty in obtaining foreign\nworkers, Sauckel pointed out that several dozen of his very able labor\nexecutive officers were shot. (_T-228._) In France he wrung from Laval\nthe concession \u201cthat the death penalty be threatened for officials who\ntried to sabotage the labor supply.\u201d And then he adds that \u201cif the\nFrenchmen despite all their promises do not act, then we Germans must\nmake an example of one case, and by reason of this law, if necessary put\nPrefect or Burgomaster against the wall.\u201d (_T-232._)\n\nIt is a long speech which Sauckel makes, and then Milch replies,\nanalyzing in his turn the foreign labor question. He complains bitterly\nthat more men have not been called up from France\u2014\n\n \u201cFour whole age groups have grown up in France; men between 18\n and 23 years of age, who are therefore at that age when young\n people moved by patriotism or seduced by other people are ready\n to do anything which satisfies their personal hatred against\n us\u2014and of course they hate us. These men ought to have been\n called up in age groups and dispatched to Germany; for they\n present the greatest danger which threatens us in case of\n invasion.\u201d (_T-236._)\n\n \u201cIf one had shown the mailed fist and a clear executive\n intention, a churchyard peace would reign in the rear of the\n front at the moment the uproar starts. This I have emphasized so\n frequently, but still nothing is happening, I am afraid.\u201d\n (_T-237._)\n\nWhen Sauckel complains about the trouble he is having in getting workers\nfrom Italy, Milch recommends\u2014\n\n \u201cWe could take under German administration the entire food\n supply for the Italians and tell them, only he gets any food who\n either works in a protected factory or goes to Germany.\u201d\n (_T-240-241._)\n\nWhen on another occasion one Kehrl declared that it would be difficult\nto control the food situation in France because food was delivered by\nparcel post, Milch made the extraordinary pronouncement, \u201cI personally\nas military commander would confiscate all goods sent by parcel post.\u201d\n(_T-295._)\n\nThe Tribunal has not been shown any statement wherein the defendant\nadvocated that foreign workers be induced to come to Germany by offering\nthem good wages, good working conditions, pensions, security, and the\nusual attractions held out to prospective employees. When he speaks on\nthe importation of foreign workers it is invariably in an aggressive and\ndomineering manner. At the 54th meeting of the Central Planning Board,\nheld on 1 March 1944, he explained that force had to be exercised\nbecause there was nothing to attract the workers to Germany since they\nbelieved that Germany would soon be defeated, and furthermore they were\nattached to their families and their own countries. A very cogent\nobservation indeed.\n\nSpeaking on the French situation, he said\u2014\n\n \u201cEven if Bichelonne and Laval have the best intentions there\n will be resistance from the mayors, the gendarmes, and the\n prefects, just because these people are afraid that firstly,\n they will be called to account afterwards for this affair, and\n secondly, because of their national point of view, which makes\n them say, \u2018We must not work for the enemy of our country.\u2019\n Therefore I would like to have an authority in our\n administration which would force these people to do it, because\n then the French could say, \u2018If you force us, we will do it, but\n voluntarily we will not do it.\u2019 The same applies to Italy.\u201d\n (_T-292-293._)\n\nOnce the transportation of workers got under way it was not always\ncertain that they would all arrive. Aside from the unsanitary conditions\nunder which they travelled, frequently without food and in the\nwintertime without heat, many in desperation escaped. To offset these\ndefections en route, Milch recommended\u2014\n\n \u201cIf a transport has left a town and has not arrived, 500 to 600\n persons from this place must be arrested and sent to Germany as\n prisoners of war.\u201d (_T-294._)\n\nThe defense has asserted many times that the foreign workers were not\nall treated as badly as the prosecution\u2019s evidence might indicate. It is\nunquestionably true that not all foreign workers were starved and\ntortured, because if this were so they could not have worked at all, and\nthe German war machine would have ground to a stop long before the\nspring of 1945. Thus, there is no reason to disbelieve the statement\nmade at one of the Central Planning Board meetings\u2014\n\n \u201cThe performance of the Soviet Russians so employed is to be\n raised by a premium system. For this purpose, the ban on pay\n restrictions is to be lifted and the manager be allowed to\n distribute among the workmen, according to his duty and\n discretion, RM 1 per head per day as premium for particular\n services rendered. Furthermore, care will be taken, that workmen\n can exchange these premiums, which will be paid out in camp\n money for goods. It is intended to put at their disposal various\n provisions\u2014beer, tobacco, cigarettes and cigars, small items\n for daily use, etc.\u201d (_T-219._)\n\nIf the defendant has much to explain in this case it is principally\nbecause of declarations made by himself. On 16 February 1944 at a\nmeeting of the Central Planning Board, he announced that the armament\nindustry employed foreign workmen to the extent of 40 percent, and that\nin maximum production the foreign workers prevailed to the extent of 95\npercent and higher. He said further that the Germans\u2019 best new engine\nwas made 88 percent by Russian prisoners of war and the other 12 percent\nby German men and women. \u201cOnly 6 to 8 German men are working on this\nmachine. The rest are Ukrainian women who have beaten all the records of\ntrained workers.\u201d And yet, despite this apparently creditable\nperformance on the part of foreign workers, he complains bitterly\u2014\n\n \u201cThe list of the shirkers should be entrusted to Himmler\u2019s\n trustworthy hands who will make them work all right. This is\n very important for educating people and has also a deterrent\n effect on such others who would likewise feel inclined to\n shirk.\u201d (_T-223._)\n\nWhen Milch recommends entrusting anyone to Himmler\u2019s \u201ctrustworthy\nhands\u201d, the world well knows how bloody and homicidal those hands were.\n\nThe charges of maltreatment of foreign workers leveled against Milch\ncould be taken almost literally from his own words\u2014\n\n \u201cIt is, therefore, not possible to exploit fully all the\n foreigners unless we compel them by piece work or we have the\n possibility of taking measures against foreigners who are not\n doing their bit. But, if the foreman lays hands on a prisoner of\n war or smacks him there is at once a terrible row, the man is\n put into prison, etc. There are sufficient officials in Germany\n who think it their most important duty to stand up for human\n rights instead of war production. I am also for human rights.\n But if a Frenchman says, \u2018You fellows will all be hanged and the\n chief of the factory will be beheaded first,\u2019 and if then the\n chief says, \u2018I am going to hit him\u2019, then he is in a mess. He is\n not protected. I have told my engineers, \u2018I am going to punish\n you if you don\u2019t hit such a man; the more you do in this respect\n the more I shall praise you. I shall see to it that nothing\n happens to you.\u2019 This is not yet sufficiently known. I cannot\n talk to all factory leaders. I should like to see the man who\n stays my arm because I can settle accounts with everybody who\n stays my arm. If the little factory leader does that he is put\n into a concentration camp and runs the risk of losing the\n prisoners of war. In one case two Russian officers took off with\n an airplane but crashed. I ordered that these two men be hanged\n at once. They were hanged or shot yesterday. I left that to the\n SS. I expressed the wish to leave them hanged in the factory for\n the others to see.\u201d (_T-223-224._)\n\nOn the stand Milch denied that he had anything to do with the fate of\nthe two Russian prisoners of war mentioned above. He further claimed\nthat his reference to this episode was made at another meeting (a GL\nmeeting), and that possibly the two stenographers got their notes\nconfused. The defense also introduced affidavits to the effect that\nMilch was in no way implicated in this happening and that if the two\nRussians were executed, the execution was performed by shooting and not\nby hanging. It is probably true that Milch did not order the hanging of\nthese men, but did author the remarks attributed to him because they are\nin keeping with his many other admitted and proved statements.\n\nDid Milch know that prisoners of war were being used in violation of\ninternational convention, and the laws and customs of war?\n\nOn 6 March 1944, Milch, Speer, General Bodenschatz, and Colonel von\nBelow conferred with Hitler. Hitler was informed of the Reich Marshal\u2019s\nwishes for the further utilization of the production power of prisoners\nof war, by giving the direction of the Stalags to the SS. The Fuehrer\nconsidered the proposal good, and asked Colonel von Below to arrange\nmatters accordingly. (_R-124, p. 168._)\n\nAt the 42d meeting of the Central Planning Board, held on 23 June 1943,\nthe intensive discussion on labor needs seemed to settle on the use of\nRussian prisoners of war as the solution to the problem. It was\nrecommended that the Fuehrer be advised that 200,000 Russian prisoners\nof war, fit for the heaviest work, should be made available from the\nWehrmacht and Waffen SS through the intermediary of the Chiefs of the\nArmy Groups (_T-218._)\n\nHowever, Milch\u2019s participation in the illegal use of prisoners of war is\nnot confined to his knowledge that it was being done. At the meeting on\n30 October 1942, Sauckel suggested that as soon as the army took\nprisoners in operational territories they should be immediately turned\nover to him as Plenipotentiary for Labor. Instead of objecting to this\nprocedure as contrary to international law, Milch added\u2014\n\n \u201cThe correct thing to do would be to have all Stalags\n transferred to you by order of the Fuehrer. The Wehrmacht takes\n prisoners and as soon as it relinquishes them, the first\n delivery goes to your organization. Then everything will be in\n order.\u201d (_T-176._)\n\nNothing can be more precise and definitive in international law than\nthat prisoners of war may not be compelled to fight against their own\ncountry. But Milch treats this matter rather lightly at one of the\nmeetings of the Central Planning Board\u2014\n\n \u201cWe have made a request for an order that a certain percentage\n of men in the antiaircraft artillery must be Russians. Fifty\n thousand will be taken altogether; 30,000 are already employed\n as gunners. This is an amusing thing that Russians must work the\n guns.\u201d (_T-192._)\n\nOn this statement the defendant has various explanations. One, that the\nGerman word which has been translated into \u201camusing\u201d, should really have\nbeen rendered \u201cmad\u201d. Thus, it is a mad thing to make Russian prisoners\nwork guns against their own allies. In support of this interpretation\nMilch argues that since he needed these prisoners in his armament\nprogram, he could not have approved their use as gunners. He then also\ndenies that they were in fact used as gunners, and if they were, he was\nnot responsible for the deed. But other witnesses called by the defense\nclearly established that the Russian prisoners were stationed at the\nguns, either for servicing the pieces, hauling ammunition to them, or\nactually firing them. It is clear that the Russian prisoners were\nutilized at the guns and that this type of use of prisoners of war\nrepresents an extreme violation of the laws and customs of war.\n\nIt has been argued by the defense that since Russia had denounced\nadherence to the Geneva Convention, Germany was not compelled to treat\nRussian prisoners with the limitations laid down in that convention.\nGerman Admiral Canaris on 15 September 1941, in a memorandum of counsel\nto the German High Command, declared that despite Russia\u2019s attitude on\nthe Geneva Convention her prisoners were yet entitled to immunities\nguaranteed under the rules and customs of war\u2014\n\n \u201cThe Geneva Convention for the treatment of prisoners of war is\n not binding in the relationship between Germany and the U.S.S.R.\n Therefore, only the principles of general international law on\n the treatment of prisoners of war apply. Since the 18th century\n these have gradually been established along the lines that war\n captivity is neither revenge nor punishment, but solely\n protective custody, the only purpose of which is to prevent the\n prisoners of war from further participation in the war. This\n principle was developed in accordance with the view held by all\n armies that it is contrary to military tradition to kill or\n injure helpless people * * *. The decrees for the treatment of\n Soviet prisoners of war enclosed are based on a fundamentally\n different viewpoint.\u201d (_IMT 222._)\n\nAdmiral Canaris\u2019 position was entirely correct and in accordance with\naccepted international law. In the episode of the Russian gunners\nadverted to by Milch, he could not help but know the physical facts and\ncould not escape being aware that such use of prisoners of war violated\ninternational law. His responsibility here is unequivocal.\n\nOn 25 March 1944, the defendant complained that prisoners of war were\nnot being treated with sufficient severity\u2014\n\n \u201cIf a decent foreman would sock one of those unruly guys because\n the fellow won\u2019t work, then the situation would soon change.\n _International law cannot be observed here._ I have asserted\n myself very strongly, and with the help of Saur I have\n represented the point of view very strongly that the prisoners,\n with the exception of the English and the Americans, should be\n taken away from the military authorities. The soldiers are not\n in a position, as experience has shown, to cope with these\n fellows who know all the answers. I shall take very strict\n measures here and shall put such a prisoner of war before my\n court martial. If he has committed sabotage or refused to work,\n I will have him hanged, right in his own factory. I am convinced\n that that will not be without effect.\u201d (_T-249._)\n\nWhen a German field marshal, speaking to men subordinate in rank,\ndeclares that \u201cinternational law cannot be observed here\u201d, it can only\nmean to those under his command that in the execution of their duties,\ninternational law should go overboard and, thus being unlimited in their\ntreatment of prisoners of war, the rights of the prisoners of war must\nsink also.\n\nDefense counsel insists that Milch had, as a matter of fact, a mild and\nlenient disposition. Testimony was introduced to show that on several\noccasions when he sat on courts martial, his judgments were tempered\nwith mercy. Note will be taken of this occasional yielding of an\napparently implacable and unyielding spirit, but one must also remark\nthe incongruity that one who, in his references to foreign workers and\nprisoners of war, had constant harshness on his lips, could have\npossessed in his make-up no harshness at all. In one of his speeches he\ncomplains because the workers collapsed, and that they receive a\nfurlough of three or four days every eight weeks. This he calls \u201cdirty\nbusiness of the first order, and treason to the country!\u201d (_T-249._)\n\nThen he adds\u2014\n\n \u201cI further ask for support by the Luftwaffe physicians. With all\n the rabble that we have among the foreign workers, there is of\n course a lot of shirking. At the moment the Russians\u2014that is,\n the Russian prisoners of war\u2014are feigning a lot of fatigue and\n illness. The incidence of sickness of one and a half to two\n percent which we have had up to now has at least doubled and in\n some factories it has been increased to eight, nine, and ten\n percent. That is, of course, done by previous agreement. There\n the official physicians, who have to be very strict, find out\n that it is not true, and then we return the fellows to work by\n means of the whip. Then the whip serves as a cure.\u201d (_T-250._)\n\nRecommending the employment of so merciless an instrument as a whip can\nhardly be regarded as evidence of a mild disposition. Then he says\u2014\n\n \u201cLet everyone consider that if he does not do his duty, we do\n not ask whether there is a law; we ask only whether he is the\n responsible one and then we will seize him no matter who he is *\n * *. Please go wherever you are going and knock everybody down\n who blocks your way! We cover up everything here. We do not ask\n whether he is allowed to or whether he is not allowed to. For\n us, there is nothing but this one task. We are fanatics in this\n sphere. We do not even consider letting anything at all distract\n us from that task. No order exists which could prevent me from\n fulfilling this task.\u201d (_T-251._)\n\nThen comes the outburst which is an out and out defiance of all law\u2014\n\n \u201cGentlemen, I know that not every subordinate can say, \u2018For me,\n the law no longer exists,\u2019 but he has to have someone who covers\n up for him, not out of cowardice. But if you act according to\n the spirit of the old field service regulation, \u2018Abstaining from\n doing something hurts us more than erring in the choice of the\n means,\u2019 and if, moreover, you keep in touch and immediately\n clarify difficult points, so that something can be done, then we\n are willing to accept the responsibility, whether this is the\n law or not. I see only two possibilities for me and for Germany.\n Either we succeed and thereby save Germany, or we continue these\n slipshod methods and then get the fate that we deserve. I prefer\n to fall while I am doing something that is against the rules but\n that is right and sensible, and be called to account for it, and\n if you like, hanged, rather than be hanged because Papa Stalin\n is here in Berlin, or the Englishmen. I have no desire for that.\n I would rather die in a different way. But I think we can\n accomplish this task, too. We are in the fifth year of war. I\n repeat, the decision will come during the next six weeks!\u201d\n (_T-251-252._)\n\n (b) Jaegerstab\n\nWe now come to a consideration of the Jaegerstab, formed on 1 March\n1944, for the purpose of increasing production of fighter aircraft to\nmeet the incessant and ever increasingly effective bomber attacks of the\nAmericans and British which had seriously damaged the entire airplane\nindustry in Germany. Every airplane factory with the accessory workshops\nhad been hit at least three times. The Jaegerstab became essentially a\nconcentration of experts drawn from various ministries. Its programs\nenvisaged a decentralization of plane factories by transferring them in\npart to above-surface localities and in part to subterranean localities.\nMilch and Speer were joint chiefs of the Jaegerstab, and Karl Adolph\n[Otto] Saur functioned as Chief of Staff. SS Obergruppenfuehrer Kammler\nhad supervision of the construction program. So far as this trial is\nconcerned, we are interested in the work of the Jaegerstab only to the\nextent that it involves employment of foreign labor and prisoners of\nwar. Did the Jaegerstab employ labor prohibited under international law,\nand if so, can Milch be held responsible for such illegal use?\n\nIn order to resolve this question we must review the documents submitted\nin evidence.\n\nOn 6-7 April 1944, Milch and Saur reported to Hitler on the\nachievements, up to that time, of the Jaegerstab and discussed with him\nthe plans for further construction on a second work project. Hitler\ndeclared that he desired this project be set up in the Protectorate and,\nat this point, the minutes read, \u201cIf it should prove impossible there\ntoo to get hold of the necessary workers, the Fuehrer, himself, will\ncontact the Reichsfuehrer SS and will give an order that the required\n100,000 men are to be made available by bringing in Jews from Hungary.\u201d\n(_T-318._) Here Milch is put directly on notice that forced labor is\nbeing contemplated.\n\nFritz Schmelter, director of the Central Department for Employment and\nDistribution of Labor, and because of that a member of the Jaegerstab,\ndeclared in an affidavit on 9 December 1946, that Kammler utilized\nconcentration camp prisoners placed at his disposal by the SS in order\nto carry out his share of the Jaegerstab construction program. Also,\nthat Xaver Dorsch of the Todt Organization used foreign workers, part of\nwhom were Hungarian Jews, to accomplish his part of the Jaegerstab\nconstruction program. Then Schmelter states, \u201cMilch, as one of the two\nresponsible chiefs of the Jaegerstab, personally directed, ordered or\napproved decisions made in the interests of Jaegerstab undertakings.\u201d\n(_T-322._)\n\nOn 13 November 1946, Saur, Chief of Staff of the Jaegerstab, declared in\nan interrogation that in the decentralization program Kammler divided 30\nfactories into 700 individual workshops, and that the workers used in\nthe project were concentration camp prisoners. (_T-323._)\n\nSpeer, in an interrogation made shortly after his capture, declared that\nHungarian Jews were used in the building program. (_T-325._)\n\nAt one of the Jaegerstab meetings, presided over by Milch,\nStobbe-Dethleffsen, in discussing the matter of labor needed for the\nJaegerstab program, requests a few German key personnel to supervise the\nconcentration camp inmates \u201cwith the other _subjugated people_.\u201d\n(_T-328._)\n\nAt a Jaegerstab meeting on 6 March 1944, a Sturmbannfuehrer of the SS\ndeclared he had 5,000 prisoners in readiness for work, but needed 750\nguard personnel. To this statement Milch commented, \u201cWe must distribute\nour German people as key personnel. That is, out of three construction\ncompanies we can probably make ten complete ones by introducing 70\npercent foreigners.\u201d (_T-331._)\n\nAt a meeting on 2 May 1944, Kammler, in Milch\u2019s presence declares he had\n30 men hanged\u2014\n\n \u201cAs usual it is because the people have noticed that they are no\n longer treated severely enough. I had 30 people hanged as a\n special measure. Since they were hanged, everything has been to\n some extent in order again. It is the same old story, whenever\n people notice that they are not being treated so severely as\n before, they take all sorts of liberties. It is not surprising\n that a normal soldier, standing guard on people who were\n previously always harmless, does not suspect anything of the\n kind. They are not, however, harmless people.\u201d (_T-333-34._)\n\nThe minutes of the meeting do not indicate that Milch in any way\nprotested Kammler\u2019s deeds and utterance, although at the trial he\ndoubted that Kammler had actually hanged 30 people as he had stated.\n\nAlthough Milch was not present at the meeting on 25 May 1944 of the\nJaegerstab, he approved the minutes of that meeting which revealed a\ndiscussion among Schmelter (labor expert for Jaegerstab), Schlempp\n(deputy of Jaegerstab) and Lange, in charge of machinery for Jaegerstab.\n\nSchmelter said\u2014\n\n \u201cThe Hungarian Jews are expected now, and they will require some\n kind of key personnel. Altogether I need about 250,000\n construction workers for the large bunkers and for Schlett\u2019s\n installations.\u201d (_T-334._)\n\nTo this Lange remarked\u2014\n\n \u201cYou can get them all in Hungary. There are still Jews running\n about Budapest.\u201d (_T-334._)\n\nIt is to be noted that Lange uses phraseology that one would employ in\nspeaking of dogs or other animals. There are still dogs running around\nBudapest. There are still Jews running about Budapest.\n\nAt the meeting on 26 May 1944, Schmelter reported that two transports of\nHungarian Jews had arrived at the SS in Auschwitz, but that they\nconsisted primarily of children, women, and old men. Kammler then\ndeclared that he had conscripted his own men by taking 50,000 people\ninto protective custody.\n\nSchlempp, in outlining Dorsch\u2019s needs for labor, states\u2014\n\n \u201cDorsch said yesterday that he wanted to bring 100,000 Jews from\n Hungary, 500,000 Italians,[162] 10,000 men from bomb damage\n repair, also 1,000 from Waldbrohl; then he wanted to get\n something from Greiser\u2019s zone by negotiation, then 4,000 Italian\n officers, 10,000 men from south Russia, and 20,000 from north\n Russia. That would be 220,000 altogether.\u201d (_T-335-36._)\n\nAs early as 20 March 1944, we find Chief of Staff Saur asking Milch to\ninform Sauckel that the group mobilization in Hungary must be placed\nprimarily at the disposal of the Jaegerstab. \u201cLarge, heavy labor\ncompanies must be formed. The people have to be treated like the\nprisoners. Otherwise it won\u2019t work.\u201d (_T-342._)\n\nIn the face of all these uncontradicted documents and stenographic\nrecords of meetings, it would be fatuous for anyone to say that Milch\nwas unaware that forced labor and prisoners of war were being used in\nthe Jaegerstab construction program.\n\nHowever, there is more than this passive evidence. Milch, himself,\ncontributes the positive evidence of his full knowledge of and\nunrestrained participation in the Jaegerstab slave labor activities.\n\nOn 25 April 1944, he said\u2014\n\n \u201cIt will only work if we put these workers into barracks. We\n cannot exactly treat them as prisoners. It must appear\n otherwise, but it must be so in practice. * * * I am personally\n convinced after talking to the Fuehrer that he will agree as\n soon as it is made reasonable. The people should not be able to\n mingle with the population and to conspire. Nor should they be\n allowed to run around free, so that they can cross the frontier\n every day. Both practices must be stopped. * * * I am of the\n opinion that that must be done at once. It\u2019s all the same to me\n if individual people do object. Protest does not interest me at\n all, whether from the Chief of Prisoners of War Affairs or from\n our side. Kleber, would you be so good as to take care of this?\u201d\n\n KLEBER: \u201cAs far as prisoners of war are concerned I can take\n care of it, but not where it concerns the air force. That must\n be handled separately.\u201d\n\n MILCH: \u201cNaturally. This must be handled by us. There was, in\n fact, another proposal but we do not want it. Otherwise someone\n else will come complaining.\u201d\n\n KLEBER: \u201cI should like to transfer the prisoners further off to\n Brunswick.\u201d\n\n MILCH: \u201cI think it is an excellent idea for the prisoners to go\n there if Brunswick continues to be attacked.\u201d (_T-356-57._)\n\nArticle 9 of the Geneva Convention of 1929 provides\u2014\n\n \u201cNo prisoner of war may be sent to an area where he would be\n exposed to the fire of the fighting zone.\u201d\n\nAt the 4 May 1944 meeting, Saur reported that the Jaegerstab itself,\nindependent of Sauckel, had organized an expedition for the procuring of\nworkers in Italy. On 5 May 1944, Schmelter reported that the Jaegerstab\ntransport from Italy had been delayed because of the lack of guards,\nwhereupon the defendant said\u2014\n\n \u201cIs there someone at the escort detachment headquarters in Italy\n responsible for seeing that people do not get out and run away\n during the journey? That is what the escorting personnel is\n there for. Someone of standing? Dr. Wendt is responsible for the\n whole undertaking. I am of the opinion that, if anyone jumps\n out, he should be shot; otherwise a thousand will get on and\n only twenty will arrive there. The gendarmerie and all military\n posts must look out for those who abscond on the journey. They\n will be arrested at once and will appear before a court\n martial.\u201d (_T-349-50._)\n\nAt a conference held on 22 February 1944, one Rautenbach says\u2014\n\n \u201cThat refers to Wernigerode. In Solingen we had the best results\n with Frenchmen and the worst with Italians, meaning the Italian\n workers and not the prisoners of war. For that reason we do not\n employ any Italians here in Wernigerode. They are only 50 to 60\n percent efficient.\u201d (_T-2180._)\n\nAnd the defendant then remarks\u2014\n\n \u201cCould not the following be done; give the Italians in principle\n only half of their food rations, letting them earn the other\n half when they do their work well?\u201d (_T-2181._)\n\nIt is obvious that, as one of the chiefs of the Jaegerstab, the\ndefendant actively, willingly, and knowingly countenanced, ordered, and\nparticipated in slave labor practices and the use of prisoners of war in\nactivities prohibited by international law. Aside from his other\nstatements, the one made on 13 June 1944, where he advocates the\nexportation from France of machinery and men would, in itself, be enough\nto convict him of such participation.\n\n \u201cWe must write off these areas in France completely, and above\n all the factories which are situated further into the country\n towards the south and west. For when the invasion begins, the\n guarding neither of a stretch of land, nor of a line will be\n possible, nor will anything function because of sabotage * * *.\n No Frenchman will work when the invasion begins. I am of the\n opinion that the French should be brought over again by force,\n as prisoners.\u201d\n\n SAUR: \u201cI should prefer to do it sooner.\u201d\n\n LANGE: \u201cWe have machines there too, in particular the presses.\u201d\n\n MILCH: \u201cEverything must come out; machines and men.\u201d (_T-358._)\n\nThe Jaegerstab functioned from 1 March 1944 to 1 August 1944 and then it\nexpanded into the Ruestungsstab. When the Jaegerstab concluded its\nefforts a report was made to the Fuehrer, which declared that Jaegerstab\nhad, in spite of air attacks, doubled its aircraft production.\n(_T-360._)\n\n (c) Generalluftzeugmeister\n\nIn his capacity as Generalluftzeugmeister, Milch held periodical\nmeetings and conferences in connection with the Luftwaffe armament\nproduction. Labor, its procurement, disposition, and treatment, was\ninevitably a subject for frequent discussion, and in these discussions\nMilch portrayed himself an intransigent, implacable taskmaster,\nuninhibited neither by law nor custom, and unrestrained by moderation or\nregard for the helpless vanquished.\n\nAt one of these meetings on 5 May 1942, presided over by the defendant,\none Fridag reported\u2014\n\n \u201cThe French become worse and worse. I threw out 80 of them who\n will be sent to concentration camps in Russia. They refused to\n work. The French say at 4 o\u2019clock: \u2018I won\u2019t work another hour\u2019,\n and you cannot make them work another hour. This happened four\n weeks ago all of a sudden when the first bombing attack on Paris\n took place, while before that the French were the best people.\u201d\n (_T-2106._)\n\nThe fact that the bombardment of the beloved Paris of these Frenchmen\nwould naturally emotionally disturb them was not weighed or considered\nby the defendant in spite of the fact that Frydag had reported that\nprior to the bombardment they had been excellent workers. Implacable and\nunyielding as some story book pagan god, the defendant turns to von\nGablenz, Chief of the Planning Office, and declares\u2014\n\n \u201cI demand if the people refuse to work they immediately be\n placed against the wall and shot before all the other workers.\u201d\n (_T-2107._)\n\nFurther\u2014\n\n \u201cI ask you to get in touch with the Reich Fuehrer SS [Himmler]\n and to ask him to discuss the matter with the Fuehrer. Now is\n the right time; unless we do something effective now, the others\n will become bothersome. I ask that their being sent to\n concentration camps be taken into consideration too. I will tell\n you afterwards how you should act in such a matter.\u201d (_T-2107._)\n\nLater, on 7 July 1942, he indicated a willingness to try more peaceable\nmethods, but if they did not succeed, then\u2014\n\n \u201cI intend to fill the new Heinkel Plant in the East entirely\n with Frenchmen brought down there by force. If they don\u2019t work\n in France, they may work as prisoners in Poland. After all, we\n have to remember that it is we and not the French who have won\n the war.\u201d (_T-2116._)\n\nOn 28 July 1942 we find him again complaining about French production\u2014\n\n \u201cAt the present time we receive six to nine planes from the\n French. I could well imagine that they would get out 45 for\n themselves. I shall close up the shop with a single stroke and\n have the workers and the machines come to Germany. If it does\n not work on a voluntary basis, then we do it by compulsory\n contracts. Perhaps I shall first give them a week to think it\n over. It is a fact that, on the whole, these people work in\n silent opposition. One cannot blame them for it either, it is\n true, but they should not have started the war.\u201d (_T-2117._)\n\nIn this outburst we discover two strange utterances. One, \u201ccompulsory\ncontracts\u201d, and the other the statement that the French started the war.\nSince the word \u201ccontract\u201d means a willing agreement between two or more\npeople, a \u201ccompulsory contract\u201d is, of course, meaningless because one\ncannot be forced into a contract. If there is any compulsion, then the\noperation becomes a matter of outright coercion. With regard to the\nFrench starting the war, the defendant had the grace to state during the\ntrial that he now knows that France did not initiate hostilities,\nalthough he believed to the contrary at the time.\n\nThe defendant has declared repeatedly that he had no connection with, or\neven knowledge of, concentration camps. He only visited one of them\n(Dachau) in 1935. At the end of the war he was aware of the existence of\nbut two concentration camps, although 200 were flourishing in all their\nghastliness at the time. Yet despite this blissful ignorance of\nconcentration camps the phrase rippled easily from his tongue. At the\nsame meeting above-mentioned he stated that if two certain individuals,\nSchneider and Bergen, \u201cmake difficulties\u201d he would put them into a\nconcentration camp for the duration of the war (_T-2118._)\n\nWhen one Petersen, on 30 November 1942, spoke of obtaining 500 men from\na concentration camp, Milch said, \u201cFor this purpose we should come to an\nagreement with Himmler.\u201d (_T-2148._)\n\nOn 27 April 1943, when one Stahms indicated that concentration camp\ninmates are almost 3,000 strong, Milch declares that against a\nwithdrawal of 3,000 foreign workers from the Luftwaffe industry, he\nattached importance to the assignment of these 3,000 concentration camp\ninmates to the Luftwaffe. (_NOKW-413._)\n\nAt the GL meeting of 4 August 1942, someone reported that the French\nmight strike in the event of a British attack. This provoked Milch into\nthe thunderous outburst\u2014\n\n \u201cIn such a case I would ask to be appointed military commander\n myself. I would band the workers together and have fifty percent\n of them shot; I would then publish this fact and compel the\n other fifty percent to work by beating if necessary. If they\n don\u2019t work, then they, too, will be shot. I would get the\n necessary replacement somehow. But I hope the military commander\n will do his duty. I\u2019m not worried about it. The word \u2018strike\u2019\n must never be used. For us there is only \u2018living or dying\u2019 but\n not \u2018striking\u2019. That goes for the educated man as well as for\n the worker, for the German as well as for the foreigner. The\n word \u2018strike\u2019 means death for the man who uses it.\u201d\n (_T-2121-2122._)\n\nOn this quotation in court the following colloquy occurred between a\nmember of the Tribunal and the witness [Milch]:\n\n JUDGE MUSMANNO: Curiosity consumes me as to what would happen if\n an officer inferior in rank to yourself took you at your word\n and actually executed a number of these workers or prisoners of\n war. Would that officer then be punished?\n\n THE WITNESS: No one was there who would have been in a position\n to do so. Apart from that, all those who were under my orders\n knew me and my way of handling things. They knew exactly that I\n didn\u2019t mean it the way I said it, and apart from that they\n always laughed about my remarks when I used such strong words.\n\n JUDGE MUSMANNO: In other words, the comment of a field marshal\n in a matter of this seriousness was really of no value?\n\n THE WITNESS: Because the people knew that I got excited very\n easily about certain things, and these incidents here have been\n selected and submitted of course. From every one of these\n meetings, which took place twice a month, there was a\n report\u2014about this thick\u2014and perhaps, at some time or another,\n sometimes once, sometimes twice, due to the many reports which I\n received, there was a certain outburst, and then I would lose my\n temper as we soldiers used to. However, I didn\u2019t intend to do\n anything about it and I spoke to those under my orders once in a\n while. They pointed out to me that I used such strong words, and\n they knew exactly that this was not meant seriously. They knew\n exactly that no such order had been given and that I myself\n would never cause anybody to be punished, not even when it would\n have been justified, for the very simple reason that I did not\n have the power to give punishments. (_T-2124-2125._)\n\nThen Judge Phillips inquired\u2014\n\n JUDGE PHILLIPS: Well, now, whether you meant it or not, you\n would say these things, and by so doing you counselled and\n advised others under you at a meeting which you presided over to\n do such things. Whether you meant it or not, you did that,\n didn\u2019t you?\n\n THE WITNESS: No. I never gave the order by using these words,\n because my people spoke with me, and after all they knew from my\n words that I never meant it earnestly.\n\n JUDGE PHILLIPS: Didn\u2019t you say, \u2018I would band the workers\n together and have fifty percent of them shot? I would then\n publish this fact and compel the other fifty percent to work by\n beating if necessary.\u2019 Did you say that or not?\n\n THE WITNESS: I do not remember to have said that. However, three\n days ago I believe I said that I never knew afterwards when I\n had such outbursts of rage because I had that rush of blood to\n my skull due to that injury I had, and I couldn\u2019t remember what\n I said at that particular moment. I just burst out in rage.\n (_T-2125-2126._)\n\nThe defendant has constantly denied that he was a moving factor in the\nforeign workers program. But at the GL meeting on 18 August 1942, we\nfind him asking for a complete report on the labor question, how it has\ndeveloped, what nationalities are involved, how great is the\nfluctuation\u2014\n\n \u201cWhat real requests we now have to make in the different sectors\n in order to cover the needs for specialists and for skilled and\n unskilled labor, how many of them are foreigners, etc. What\n happens to those who leave the industry? Are they compelled to\n work elsewhere? Are they, _as I proposed, under control in the\n camps supervised by the SS_ and considered as being in mild\n concentration camps or are these gentlemen allowed to remain\n outside and do as they please?\u201d (_T-2127._)\n\nWhen questioned as to the significance of \u201cmild\u201d concentration camps, he\nexplained that these were camps to which people were sent for a short\ntime for \u201ceducation\u201d.\n\nComplaining about \u201cantisocial elements\u201d who \u201cmoved from one factory to\nanother,\u201d Milch rejected the suggestion that the armed forces should\ntake care of these people in camps. This could not be done because \u201cthey\nhave not been condemned and in no way violated the existing laws.\u201d\n\n \u201cThat is why Himmler should get these people into his clutches\n because he can treat them _outside the law_.\u201d (_T-2134._)\n\nAt the GL meeting on 19 October 1943, the defendant spoke on the subject\nof a possible foreign workers\u2019 uprising. He said that he had discussed\nthis eventuality with Himmler, and that he, Milch, had already given\norders to the Chief AW[163] and to the training stations to get military\ntraining in this field.\n\n \u201cIf for instance in the locality X, an uprising is started, then\n a sergeant with a few men, or else a lieutenant with 30 men is\n to turn up in the plant, and first of all shoot into the crowd\n with a machine gun. What he should do after is to shoot down as\n many people as possible in cases of revolt. I have given orders\n to that effect even if our foreign workers are involved. But\n first of all he must succeed in getting them all laid out flat\n on the ground. And then every tenth man is to be singled out and\n shot, while the others are lined up and see it. If our machines\n are being wrecked, etc., then such measures have to be applied.\n I said to Himmler: \u2018I\u2019ll go along with you in your efforts.\u2019\u201d\n (_T-2153._)\n\nMilch denied at the trial that he had talked to Himmler about this\nmatter and endeavored to argue incorrectness in the minutes. But the\nweakness of his attempted exculpation here lies in the fact that he\ncould well have argued the necessity for drastic action in such an\nemergency, without excesses of course. In fact, he had explained, \u201cIf\nour planes are destroyed in the workshops, an energetic measure should\nbe taken.\u201d But in the desire to extricate himself completely from the\nsituation, he challenges the record, he refutes the Himmler conference,\nand then adds the usual explanation that he was excited at the time.\n\nAt a GL conference on 2 March 1943, the defendant was commenting on the\nfact that foreign workers were becoming hostile.\n\n \u201cOn principle I have to be informed of every case of\n swinishness. I do not understand at all why Germany should put\n up with it when Poles and Frenchmen explain to the\n people\u2014today, indeed, you are still sitting in this work; but\n later we shall be the owners; and if you treat us properly we\n shall see to it then that you are shot dead immediately and not\n tortured first. In all these matters energetic interference must\n be made. I am of the opinion that there should be only two types\n of punishment in such cases; firstly, concentration camps for\n foreigners, and secondly, capital punishment. If a certain\n number of such hostile elements are removed and the others are\n informed, they will then work better. Their love for us\n certainly won\u2019t become any greater; but neither will their hate,\n for it is already strong enough. In this respect, too, energetic\n interference must be made and in no case must the works put up\n with it. The best method is to give one blow with a sledge\n hammer to the person concerned; and I shall treat with\n distinction every man who does something like that whenever he\n hears such stupid nonsense. We are living in total war; and the\n workers must be told that they don\u2019t have to put up with\n anything.\u201d (_T-2169._)\n\nWhen the above was read to the defendant in court, he stated that he did\nnot recall the utterance and explained, \u201cthat once again it is my\nwell-known rage. I simply let go.\u201d However, upon further\ncross-examination he seemed to recall what it was all about and said,\n\u201cYes, and I was enraged here through the report which had been submitted\nto me as to the fact that our people were being threatened with death.\nThat enraged me considerably; and I blew up.\u201d This is an interesting\nobservation. This man, from whose lips death threats fell like acorns\nfrom an oak, asks that all his fulminations be ignored. Although he sat\non the victors\u2019 bench at the time, yet because a worker who had been\ndragged from his home hundreds, or perhaps thousands, of miles away,\nblurted from the depth of his misery, that if he got the opportunity he\nwould kill his captor, the captor felt morally justified in recommending\nthe use of a sledge hammer on the head of the defenseless captive. The\nsledge hammer blow was to be delivered not for a deed committed, but\nmerely for the use of words. To fortify this point, defense introduced\nan affidavit which declared that the servant girl in the Milch household\nrepeated certain statements as to what her people (she was a Ukrainian)\nwould do in the event they became victorious. On this subject they were\nso sensitive that even the gossip and chatter of a maid servant threw\nfear into their hearts, but it is solemnly averred in court that the\nimprecations of a field marshal were always ignored.\n\nAt the same meeting above indicated the defendant said\u2014\n\n \u201cBut in the abstract, I see no difficulties in the way of\n getting 100,000 or 200,000 French workers to Germany, nor do I\n see any difficulties in the way of keeping them in order. If a\n case of sabotage occurs in one area, every tenth man in the area\n will be shot. Then such acts of sabotage would cease of\n themselves. The western peoples are very much afraid of death,\n while it is quite different matter with the Russians.\u201d\n (_T-2172._)\n\nIn explanation of this remark the defendant said that he did not recall\nmaking it. \u201cThat was still part of my madness.\u201d\n\nOn 4 November 1943, Milch conferred with Goering at the Junkers Works at\nDessau. Discussing the Italian workers, the defendant said\u2014\n\n \u201cWe have to let certain plants go on working in Italy, such as\n ball bearings, steel castings, and others, and we cannot take\n the people from there. The same applies to the technical sphere.\n The people there are working for us. All depends on our policy\n toward the Italians. I have ordered that they can be beaten up\n if they do not work. I have also given permission that Italians\n caught sabotaging be sentenced to death. If this measure is not\n desired by the higher authorities, which seems to be the case,\n we are powerless. Then the Italians in the Reich will not be of\n any use to us.\u201d Further, \u201cWe could count on millions all\n together, if we let them starve if they do not work!\u201d\n (_T-2193-2194._)\n\nThe defendant denies that he ever gave the order specifically mentioned\nhere, and since he was talking to Goering, he places himself in the\nposition of having lied to his superior officer, something of which,\nconsidering his vehement professions of soldier\u2019s loyalty to military\nhierarchy, it would never be expected he could be guilty.\n\nOn the subject of French prisoners of war, the defendant said\u2014\n\n \u201cDon\u2019t forget that not even 1,000,000 Frenchmen are here as PW\u2019s\n while we have 7 to 8 million soldiers. Therefore, the French are\n still in a very favorable position. But they must realize that\n they will be brought to Germany all together if they don\u2019t work\n hard enough at home.\u201d (_T-2198._)\n\nAs Vichy was working hand in glove with Berlin at the time, the\ndefendant contends that coercion was not involved since it was the\nFrench Government who had issued the orders for this movement.\n\nAddressing himself on another occasion to the subject of French workers,\nthe defendant stated, \u201cThere is no good will in France, and you can\nreally not expect it from these fellows. But we will force them to work\nby not feeding them.\u201d Goering then said, \u201cI can do this here much\nbetter.\u201d And Milch replied, \u201cThat will get us nowhere. We shall then\nhave to shut down the plants in France.\u201d (_NOKW-245._)\n\nAt the GL meeting of 27 May 1942, von Gablenz reported, \u201cYesterday, the\nfirst[164] has exploded in France, at the Arado plant, an explosive, a\nfloat, but no damage has been done.\u201d Milch commented, \u201cWhat measures\nhave been taken in consequence? I want to have a report on what has been\ndone\u2014How many people have been shot and how many hanged. If that guy\ncannot be found today, fifty men should be selected and if I were you I\nwould hang three or four of them whether they are guilty or not. It is\nthe only way!\u201d (_NOKW-407._)\n\n IV. MEDICAL EXPERIMENTS\n (a) High-Altitude Tests\n\nOn 15 May 1941, Dr. Rascher, medical officer in the Luftwaffe and member\nof the SS stationed at Munich, wrote Heinrich Himmler asking that\nHimmler furnish to him two or three professional criminals to be used as\nsubjects in high-altitude experiments. He stated that tests had been\nmade with monkeys, but since their reactions differed from those of\nhuman beings, he preferred to work with live men, it being understood\nthat these individuals could, of course, die in the experiment. Himmler\nreplied through his adjutant, Rudolf Brandt, that he would gladly make\nprisoners available for such high-altitude research, and authorized that\nthe experiments be carried out by Dr. Rascher, a Dr. Kottenhoff, and Dr.\nG. A. Weltz, who was Chief of the Institute for Aviation Medicine in\nMunich.\n\nIn March 1942, with a low-pressure chamber furnished by the Luftwaffe,\nthe experiments began at Dachau. The apparatus used for these tests was\nsimply a wood and metal cabinet in which air pressure could be increased\nand decreased, the purpose of the tests being to ascertain the subject\u2019s\ncapacity and ability to take large amounts of pure oxygen, and to\nobserve his reaction to a gradual decrease of oxygen approaching\ninfinity. In this manner high-altitude atmospheric pressure would be\nsimulated, and from the results the experimenters were to be able to\ndetermine methods and means of maintaining and saving lives among\naviators compelled to rise to extreme altitudes, and at times because of\nwar hazards obliged to parachute to the earth. The subjects for these\nexperiments were to be individuals already sentenced to death.\n\nStated in strictly academic fashion, one could without too much\ndifficulty be persuaded that these experiments were not entirely\nirrational or inhuman. The subjects were to die anyway, and if in dying\nthey could furnish scientific data not obtainable otherwise, data which\nwould save the lives of others, the project would not seem as criminally\nhomicidal as it might appear when stated bluntly that experimenters\nwould kill experimentees.\n\nWhether the project was criminal and inhumane depends upon answers to\nthe inevitable questions:\n\n 1. Were the prisoners actually condemned to death previously?\n 2. If so, for what reasons were they condemned to capital punishment?\n 3. Were the experiments painful to the subjects?\n 4. What scientific benefits resulted from the experiments?\n\nIf any prisoner used in the experiments was condemned to death merely\nfor opposing the Nazi Regime without actually having committed any\nphysical crime, it does not answer the criminal charge to say that the\nsubject was already doomed to die, because by using that argument the\nexperimenter or his SS superior could easily take any concentration camp\ninmate and, by merely pointing a finger at him, condemn him to death.\nObviously in such a case the slayer could not, after the death, plead\ninnocence on the grounds that the victim was to die anyway. Exculpation\nfrom the charge of criminal homicide can possibly be based only upon\nbona fide proof that the subject had committed murder or any other\nlegally recognized capital offense; and, not even then, unless the\nsentencing Tribunal with authority granted by the State in the\nconstitution of the Court, declared that the execution would be\naccomplished by means of a low-pressure chamber.\n\nIt has been asserted by the defense in this case that pardons were\npromised the subjects of these experiments in the event they survived.\nBut the whole record reveals but one such shadowy case. It was also\nstated by one of the witnesses for the defense (General Wolff of the SS)\nthat the subjects of these experiments were men who, because of their\ncriminal records, had been denied the honor of fighting for the\nFatherland, but that by submitting to these experiments they would be\nallowed, if they survived, to join combat forces at the front. General\nWolff furnished no names or specific instances in this connection, nor\ndoes it appear that he, at any time, was in attendance upon the\nexperiments at Dachau.\n\nDr. Romberg, under indictment for these same and kindred offenses, said\non 1 November 1946, that he personally witnessed the death of three of\nDr. Rascher\u2019s subjects, and that he knows that other experimental\nsubjects were killed while he was not present. He estimated that the\nfatalities totaled between five and ten. He was silent on the character\nof the victims.\n\nRudolf Brandt, who is currently on trial in Tribunal I, declared in an\naffidavit dated 30 August 1946, that Rascher wrote Himmler asking for\nconcentration camp subjects for his high-altitude experiments.\n\u201cVolunteers could not very well be expected, as the experiments could be\nfatal under the circumstances.\u201d (_T-475._) Also \u201cmany experiments ended\nwith the death of the experimental subject.\u201d (_T-477._)\n\nBrandt declared further that after Rascher submitted a report on his\nfirst experiments, Himmler ordered him to continue the experiments and\nauthorized the commutation to life imprisonment of those subjects,\npreviously condemned to death, who survived the experiments. However,\nPoles and Russians were excluded from this declared clemency. For\nHimmler, to be a Russian or a Pole or a Jew was an offense that could be\nexpiated only with death. Both Romberg and Brandt are interested\nwitnesses since they are defendants in another trial on similar charges.\nThe testimony of one Anton Pacheleff, however, is not burdened with this\npossible defect as he is not answering to any charges. An Austrian\npatent lawyer, he was an inmate of Dachau, and while his testimony must\nstill be carefully scrutinized, it does not need to be evaluated on the\nbasis that the affiant has something to gain in exaggerating the nature,\nextent, and effect of the medical experiments. He declared under oath\nthat Dr. Rascher chose the victims for his researches from the\npunishment company at Dachau, a group made up of political prisoners\nmarked for extermination. \u201cA few convicts were among the political\nprisoners, having been placed there merely to depress the morale of the\npolitical prisoners, and so a few convicts were killed along with the\nothers.\u201d (_T-408._)\n\nThe most complete account of this entire operation was contributed by\nWalter Neff, an Austrian who had been committed to Dachau because, prior\nto the Anschluss, he had testified in an Austrian court against certain\nNazi terrorists. Only by coincidence were the experiments enacted in a\nward to which he had been assigned as an untrained nurse, and thus he\nbecame an unofficial observer. He testified that from 180 to 200\nconcentration camp inmates were subjected to the high-altitude\nexperiments, and of these, 10 were volunteers. Of all these subjects\nonly one man was ever released, and that was an individual called\nZopota.\n\nIt was Neff\u2019s conclusion that over a period of three months from 70 to\n80 persons were killed in the high-altitude experiments. He declared\nfurther that approximately 40 of the persons killed were persons not\npreviously condemned to death. One man, according to Neff, was\ndeliberately killed in the low-pressure chamber by Dr. Rascher so that\nhe could perform an autopsy on him after his death at the atmospheric\npressure of 10,000 meters altitude. During one autopsy it was discovered\nafter the breast had been opened that the heart was still beating. \u201cThis\nexperiment,\u201d Neff said, \u201ccaused many cases of death because many more\nexperiments were made in order to see how long the heart of a man could\nbeat thus autopsied.\u201d (_T-419._)\n\nIn this connection, reference must be made to one of the most cruel and\nfiendish decrees scratched by the claw of Himmler on the horror-filled\nparchment of his diabolic ingenuity. On 13 April 1942 he wrote Dr.\nRascher, \u201cthese experiments should above all be evaluated for the\npurpose of seeing whether it is not possible, through this long\nfunctioning of the heart, to bring such people back to life. Should such\nan experiment of bringing back to life succeed, then it is understood\nthat the person condemned to death will be commuted to lifelong\nimprisonment in a concentration camp.\u201d (_1971-B-PS._) Thus, if the\nlifeless and mutilated body of one of these tortured victims of\ncold-blooded homicide should be made to function again, its owner would\nreceive from the benevolent Heinrich Himmler the assurance of the\nluxuries of a lifelong imprisonment in an SS concentration camp!\n\nBut this is not the end of the hilarious game of these two death-head\nplayers, as they toss human life back and forth. On 20 October 1942,\nRascher queries Himmler\u2019s adjutant on this subject. He desires to know\nif, amongst the mythical survivors of his lethal experiments, there\nshould be any Poles or Russians, whether they were also to receive the\nboon of lifelong imprisonment in a concentration camp. Incidentally,\nRascher adds, the only ones he has experimented with have been Poles and\nRussians. And the reply comes back from Himmler\u2019s adjutant that Dr.\nRascher, \u201cplease,\u201d is to be informed that \u201cthe decree of the\nReichsfuehrer SS Himmler concerning pardoning (they called it\npardoning!) of experimental subjects does not apply to Poles and\nRussians.\u201d (!!!)\n\nThe manner in which some of the victims were selected is material fit\nfor an Edgar Allen Poe story or a horror magazine. One day after 16\nRussian prisoners had been used as experiments, two Jews were scheduled\nto be killed. Curious as to the identity of the two scheduled for\nextermination, Neff watched the first victim being placed in the\nexperimental chamber. Something in the man\u2019s features forcibly brought\nto his mind the image of the prison tailor. Hurrying to the tailor shop\nhe learned that indeed it was the tailor, and that he had not been\ncondemned to death, but that an SS-man, one Endres, had placed him among\nthe list of those scheduled to be killed because this tailor had refused\nto make a civilian suit for Endres!\n\nNeff further testified that at one time the chamber became damaged, but\nafter being repaired more deaths occurred, and on the last day Rascher\nkilled five persons. (_T-421._)\n\nOn 16 April 1942, Rascher wrote Himmler describing an experiment which\nhe repeated four times \u201cwith the same results.\u201d\n\n \u201cWhen Wagner, the last VP (experimental subject) had stopped\n breathing, I let him come back to life by increasing pressure.\n Since the VP was assigned for a terminal (\u2018Terminal\u2019 meaning\n \u2018death-resulting\u2019 in this case) experiment, since a repeated\n experiment held no prospect for new results, and since I had not\n been in possession of your letter at that time, I subsequently\n started another experiment through which VP Wagner did not live.\n Also in this case the results obtained by electrocardiographic\n registration (Herzstromabschreibung) were extraordinary.\u201d\n (_T-431-32._)\n\nHere Rascher, in a macabre demonstration worthy of his record, repeated\nan experiment four times knowing what the result would be, and then\nfinally killed the subject because he had been marked for extermination\nanyway.\n\n (b) Were the Experiments Painful to the Subjects\n\nThe defense contends that the experiments, even though often fatal, were\nnot accompanied with actual pain to the subjects, and therefore the\nexperiments could not be characterized cruel or inhuman. Anton Pacheleff\noften stood by the apparatus during the experiments and looked through\nthe observation window of the chamber. He testified\u2014\n\n \u201cI have personally seen through the observation window of the\n chamber when a prisoner inside would stand a vacuum until his\n lungs ruptured. Some experiments gave men such pressure in their\n heads that they would go mad, and pull out their hair in an\n effort to relieve the pressure. They would tear their heads and\n face with their fingers and fingernails in an attempt to maim\n themselves in their madness. They would beat the walls with\n their hands and head, and scream in an effort to relieve\n pressure on their eardrums. These cases of extreme vacuums\n generally ended in the death of the subject. An extreme\n experiment was so certain to result in death that in many\n instances the chamber was used for routine execution purposes\n rather than an experiment.\u201d (_T-409._)\n\nOne report made up by Doctors Ruff, Romberg, and Rascher graphically\ndescribed the reactions of the subject as he fell from a height of\n47,000 feet. Some of the more unusual reactions are noted:\n\n 47,200 ft. Lets the mask fall, severe altitude sickness, spasmodic\n (klonische) convulsions.\n 45,580 ft. Opisthotonus.\n 44,950 ft. Suspended in opisthotonus.\n 44,920 ft. Arms stretched stiffly forward; sits up like a dog,\n legs spread stiffly apart.\n 43,310 ft. Agonal convulsive breathing.\n 40,030 ft. Dyspnea, hangs limp.\n 23,620 ft. Uncoordinated movements with the extremities.\n 19,690 ft. Clonic convulsions, groaning.\n 18,080 ft. Yells aloud.\n 9,520 ft. Still yells, convulses arms and legs, head sinks\n forward.\n 6,560 ft. Yells spasmodically, grimaces, bites his tongue, does\n not respond to speech, gives the impression of\n someone who is completely out of his mind.\n 5 minutes (after reaching ground level) Reacts for the first time\n to vocal stimulation.\n 11 minutes Holds his head turned convulsively to the right; tries\n repeatedly to answer the first question concerning\n his birth date.\n 28 minutes Sees nothing; runs against open window sash upon which\n the sun is shining, so that large lump is formed on\n his forehead; says \u201cExcuse me, please.\u201d No expression\n of pain.\n 37 minutes Reacts to pain stimuli.\n 75 minutes Still disoriented in time; retrogressive amnesia over\n three days.\n 24 hours Normal condition again attained; has no recollection of\n the experiment itself. (_T-455-56._)\n\n (c) Results Achieved\n\nOn 11 May 1942, Rascher made his first report to Himmler on the\nhigh-altitude experiments\u2014\n\n \u201cAs practical result of the more than 200 experiments conducted\n at Dachau the following can be assumed. Flying in altitudes\n higher than 12 kilometers without pressure-cabin or\n pressure-suit is impossible even while breathing pure oxygen. If\n the airplane pressure machine is damaged at altitudes of 13\n kilometers and higher the crew will not be able to bail out of\n the damaged plane themselves since at that height the bends\n appear rather suddenly. It must be requested that the crew\n should be removed automatically from the plane, for instance, by\n catapulting the seats by means of compressed air. Descending\n with opened parachute without oxygen would cause severe injuries\n due to the lack of oxygen besides causing severe freezing;\n consciousness would not be regained until the ground was\n reached. Therefore, the following is to be requested: (1) A\n parachute with barometrically controlled opening. (2) A portable\n oxygen apparatus for the jump. For the following experiments\n Jewish professional criminals who had committed \u2018Rassenschande\u2019\n (race pollution) were used; the question of the formation of\n embolism was investigated in ten cases. Some of the VP\u2019s died\n during a continued high-altitude experiment; for instance, after\n one-half hour at a height of 12 kilometers. * * * To find out\n whether the severe psychical and physical effects, as mentioned\n under No. 3, are due to the formation of embolism, the following\n was done: After relative recuperation from such a parachute\n descending test had taken place, however before regaining of\n consciousness, some VP\u2019s were kept under water until they died.\n * * * One VP was made to breathe pure oxygen for two and\n one-half hours before the experiment started. After six minutes\n at a height of 20 kilometers he died and at dissection also\n showed ample air embolism as was the case in all other\n experiments.\u201d (_T-384-385._)\n\nDr. Romberg declared in an interrogation conducted on 29 October 1946,\nthat he and other doctors had conducted experiments on themselves\nreaching altitudes of 17,000 meters (17 kilometers). Beyond that, he\nsaid, death was probable. This seems to contradict the report made by\nRascher, above referred to, in which he speaks of the impossibility of\nflight at 12 kilometers (12,000 meters).\n\nBut the whole fallacy of the experiments and their sheer futility are\nrevealed in a letter which Dr. Hippke, Chief of the Medical Section of\nthe Luftwaffe, wrote to Himmler under date of 8 October 1942\u2014\n\n \u201cIt is true that no conclusions as to the practice of\n parachuting can be drawn for the time being, as a very important\n factor, viz., cold, has so far not yet been taken into\n consideration; it places an extraordinary excess burden on the\n entire body and its vital movements, so that the results in\n actual practice will very likely prove to be far more\n unfavorable than in the present experiments.\u201d (_T-404._)\n\nIf it was impossible perfectly to simulate flying conditions in the\nlow-pressure chamber\u2014and this, if they were scientists at all worthy of\nthe name, they should have known and must have known\u2014then the tests\nwere only the wildest kind of experimenting. And if the experimenting\nwas done with human lives, as it was, the recklessness and the wanton\nhandling of these human lives, resulting from 60 to 70 times in death,\ncan only be characterized by what it was,\u2014murder.\n\n (d) Freezing Experiments\n\nOn 20 May 1942, [Field] Marshal Milch wrote General Wolff recommending\nexperiments \u201cin regard to perils at high seas.\u201d (_T-393._) As German\naviators from time to time were being forced to parachute into the North\nSeas, and consequently being subject to extreme cold for extended\nperiods of time, the purpose of the freezing experiments was to\nascertain the most effective way of rewarming such aviators and thereby\nsaving their lives. (_T-480._)\n\nThe cold water experiments were performed between August and October\n1942; the dry-cold experiments from February to April 1943. Walter Neff,\nalready identified, described the experimental basin as being made of\nwood, two meters long, two meters high, and 50 centimeters above the\nfloor. He stated that 280 to 300 prisoners were used in the tests, many\nof them undergoing as high as three experiments, and that out of the\nnumber indicated 80 to 90 died. The selection of the subjects was left\nto the political department of the camp after Rascher had made requests\nfor a certain number. The eventual victims were made up of political\nprisoners, foreigners, prisoners of war, and inmates condemned to death.\nAccording to Neff, none of the subjects were volunteers. (_T-423._)\n\nThe experiment was conducted in the following manner. The basin was\nfilled with water and then ice was added until the temperature measured\n3\u00b0 [centigrade]. Now the subject, either naked or dressed in a flying\nsuit, was forced into the freezing liquid. When two certain doctors,\nHolzloehner and Finke, were performing the experiment, the subjects had\nnarcotics administered to them, but when Rascher took over he refused\nnarcotics because he maintained that \u201cyou cannot find the exact\ncondition of the blood, and that you would exclude the willpower of the\nsubject if he was under an anaesthetic.\u201d When the subject was\nexperimented on in a conscious state, a much longer time elapsed before\nthe so-called freezing narcosis set in. (_T-424._)\n\nNeff, describing the operation, declared that the \u201csinking down of the\ntemperature until 32\u00b0 [centigrade] was a terrible plight for the\nexperimental subject.\u201d At 32\u00b0 the subject lost consciousness, but these\npersons \u201cwere frozen down to 25\u00b0 body temperature.\u201d When Rascher was\nhandling the experiments \u201ca large number of the persons involved were\nkept in the water so long a time until they were dead.\u201d (_T-425._)\n\nMany others died during the reviving or during the re-warming procedure.\nThe utterly heartless and fiendish manner in which some of the\nexperiments were conducted can be gathered from the graphic description\nby Neff of the episode of the two Russians\u2014\n\n \u201cIt was the worst experiment which was ever carried out. From\n the bunker two Russian officers were carried out. We were\n forbidden to speak to them. They arrived in the afternoon at\n approximately 4 o\u2019clock. Rascher had them undressed and they had\n to go into the basin in a naked state. Hour after hour passed\n and when usually after a short time, 60 minutes, the freezing\n would have set in, these two Russians were still conscious even\n after two hours. All of our appeals to Rascher, asking him to\n give them an injection was without purpose. Approximately in the\n third hour one Russian said to the other: \u2018Comrade, tell that\n officer that he may shoot us.\u2019 Then the other one replied,\n \u2018Don\u2019t expect any mercy from this Fascist dog.\u2019 And how can one\n imagine that we inmates also had to be witnesses of such a death\n and could do nothing against it, then you can really estimate\n how terrible it is to be condemned to work in such an\n experimental station. After these words, which were translated\n to the Germans by a young Pole in a somewhat different form,\n Rascher went back into his office. The young Pole immediately\n tried to give them an anaesthetic with chloroform, but Rascher\n returned immediately. He threatened us with a pistol, and he\n said, \u2018Don\u2019t dare interfere and approach these victims.\u2019 The\n experiment lasted at least five hours until death set in. Both\n corpses were sent to Munich for autopsy in the Schwabisches\n Hospital there. Q. Witness, how long did it normally take to\n kill a person in these freezing experiments? A. The length of\n the experiment varied according to the individual case. It\n always varied according to whether the subject was clothed or\n unclothed. If his physical construction was weak and if in\n addition to that he was naked, death often set in already after\n 80 minutes. But there were a number of cases where the\n experimental subject lived up to three hours and remained that\n way in the water until finally death set in.\u201d (_T-426._)\n\nOn 20 September 1942, Rascher made an intermediary report on these\nexperiments\u2014\n\n \u201cThe experimental subjects (VP\u2019s) were placed in the water\n dressed in complete flying uniform, winter or summer\n combination, and with an aviator\u2019s helmet. A life jacket made of\n rubber or kapok was to prevent submerging. The experiments were\n carried out at water temperatures varying from 2.5\u00b0 to 12\u00b0\n [centigrade]. In one experimental series, the occiput, the brain\n stem, protruded above the water, while in another series, the\n brain stem and back of the head were submerged in water * * *.\n Fatalities occurred only when the brain stem and back of the\n head were also chilled. Autopsies of such fatal cases always\n revealed large amounts of free blood, up to one-half liter, in\n the cranial cavity. The heart invariably showed extreme dilation\n of the right chamber. As soon as the temperature in these\n experiments reached 28\u00b0 the experimental subjects died\n invariably, despite all attempts at resuscitation. The\n above-discussed autopsy findings conclusively proved the\n importance of a warming protective device for the occiput when\n designing the planned protective clothing of foam type.\u201d\n (_T-398-399._)\n\nThe sheer monstrousness of this type of experiment reveals itself in the\nlast sentence of the report which states with the flourish of a great\nscientific discovery that if the back of the head, the occiput is to be\nsubmerged in freezing water, there should be a warm, protective device\nto cover the occiput. If one is to have his feet in icy water, he should\nwear warm, waterproof boots. If he is to dip his head in the icy water,\nthen his head should also be protected! This, then, is the weighty\nconclusion of so-called scientists sacrificing human lives for an\nobservation that is obvious to a ten-year-old child.\n\n \u201cDuring attempts to save severely chilled persons (Unterkuehlte)\n it was shown that rapid re-warming was in all cases preferable\n to slow re-warming, because after removed from the cold water,\n the body temperature continued to sink rapidly. I think that for\n this reason, we can dispense with the attempt to save intensely\n chilled subjects by means of animal heat. Rewarming by animal\n warmth, animal bodies or women\u2019s bodies, would be too slow. As\n auxiliary measures for the prevention of intense chilling,\n improvements in the clothing of aviators come alone into\n consideration. The foam suit with suitable neck protector which\n is being prepared by the German Institution for Textile Research\n (Deutsches Textilforschungsinstitut), Muenchen-Gladbach,\n deserves first priority in this connection. The experiments have\n shown that pharmaceutical measures are probably necessary if the\n flier _is still alive_ at the time of rescue.\u201d (_T-399-400._)\n\nHere other amazing, fantastic discoveries were made.\n\n 1. That something should be done at once to re-warm a body that\n has been floating about in icy water.\n\n 2. That aviator suits be made up with suitable neck protectors.\n\n 3. And that if the flier is still alive when rescued, medicine\n should be prescribed for him. If dead, no pharmaceutical\n measures are recommended!\n\nIn the year 1942, in the name of science, in the name of progress, men\ntrained in medicine calmly and deliberately froze the blood in the\narteries and veins of human beings to the point of death to proclaim\nwarm clothing for low temperatures and re-warming and medicine for those\nwho have succumbed to coldness.\n\nDr. Becker-Freyseng, who participated in some of the experiments,\ndeclared that as a result of the freezing experiments conducted at\nDachau, they gave orders to flight surgeons that the warm bath method\nwas to be used in reviving aviators who had been chilled. And thus\nanother milestone was reached in science; namely, that warmth revived\nand comforted these who had been chilled. (_T-470._)\n\nOn 22 September 1942, Himmler acknowledged Rascher\u2019s report, but Himmler\nwho was carrion and obscenity incarnate, ordered that further subjects\nbe frozen, and that re-warming and revival be attempted by the use of\nnaked women. For this purpose Rascher obtained four gypsy women, and the\nexperiments began. The subjects were, in accordance with usual\nprocedure, forced into water in which ice cakes floated and were\nretained in the freezing compound until unconscious. Then each frozen\nvictim was put to bed with two naked women, and the three were covered\nwith blankets. In still other experiments the unconscious subject was\nplaced in bed with only one woman. From all this revolting and macabre\nperformance, the scientific deduction was reached that the re-warming\nprocess was better achieved by one woman than two because with one\nsingle partner \u201cpersonal inhibitions are removed and the woman nestles\nup to the chilled victim more intimately.\u201d This was the great scientific\nrevelation achieved from an obscene spectacle which could have seemed\nmore like the superstitious drum-beating rites of barbarians on some\nforgotten savage, jungle-infested isle, than the work of educated\ndoctors in the year 1942. Nor was this type of experiment without its\nfatalities. Of one subject, the report stated, \u201cThis person died with\nsymptoms suggesting cerebral hemorrhage as was confirmed by the\nsubsequent autopsy.\u201d The Nazi scientists, after this experiment, did\nhowever, achieve greatness in stating that this type of re-warming was\nrecommended only when women were available and other types of re-warming\nfacilities were not available, except in the \u201ccase of small children who\nare best re-warmed by their mothers with the aid of hot-water bottles.\u201d\n(!)\n\nIn a final report to Himmler on the super-cooling experiments at Dachau,\nthe ghastly experimenters, after having killed scores of subjects, came\nto the conclusion that they did not know whether rescued persons should\nbe re-warmed quickly or slowly\u2014\n\n \u201cIt was not clear, for example, whether those who had been\n rescued should be warmed quickly or slowly. According to the\n current instructions for treating frozen people, a slow\n warming-up seemed to be indicated. Certain theoretical\n considerations could be adduced for a slow warming. Well-founded\n suggestions were missing for a promising medicinal therapy.\u201d\n\nThe uncertainty is blamed on the \u201cabsence of well-founded suggestions\nconcerning the cause of death by cold in human beings.\u201d (_T-433._)\n\nAnd now, in order to clarify this question, they decided to go back to\nanimal experiments which would suggest that after all their\nexperimenting and killing of human beings, they are no closer to any\nscientific discovery than when they started. (_T-433._)\n\nHowever, they still continued the experiments with human beings in\nanother manner. This was the dry-cold process, an operation carried out\nduring the period January-March 1943. The _modus operandi_ of this\nexperiment was to place the subject outdoors at night in a nude state,\ncover him with a linen sheet, and then pour cold water over him hourly.\nAfter several operations of this character, Rascher complained that it\nwas a mistake to cover the subjects even with a linen sheet. He must be\nutterly naked, otherwise \u201cthe air cannot get at the person.\u201d And from\nthen on the subjects suffered their torture without covering of any\nkind. Even if it could be assumed that the test could have the slightest\nmodicum of value, it is not understood why the subject had to be utterly\nnaked. As the purpose of the experiment, it is presumed, was to\nascertain the reaction of a soldier\u2019s body to a frozen state, there is\nno reason why the subject could not wear some clothes, if only the\nmerest undergarment, because it is scarcely conceivable that a soldier\nor aviator would be without some clothing on his back. On this subject,\nNeff testified\u2014\n\n \u201cThe next experiment was a mass experiment when the prisoners\n were also put outside naked at night. The temperature of one of\n them was measured with a galvanometer, the others with a\n thermometer. Rascher was present during approximately eighteen\n to twenty experiments of that type, but I can not remember\n exactly how many deaths occurred and if deaths occurred in\n connection with these experiments. I would like to say with\n certain reservations that approximately three deaths occurred\n during that period.\u201d (_T-429._)\n\nOn the character of the subjects Neff stated\u2014\n\n \u201cOf the experimental subjects subjected to air-cooling\n experiments, none were people who were sentenced to death. They\n were prisoners of various nationalities. There were also German\n political prisoners and \u2018green\u2019 prisoners.\n\n \u201cQ. And these prisoners had not volunteered, had they?\n\n \u201cA. No.\u201d (_T-429._)\n\n V. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS\n (a) Responsibility of Milch as to Count One of Indictment\n\nArticle II of Control Council Law No. 10, promulgated by the Allied\nControl Council, representing the nations of the United States, Great\nBritain, France, and Russia, proclaims the ill-treatment or deportation\nto slave labor of civilian populations of occupied territories, or the\nill-treatment of prisoners of war, to be war crimes, punishable by\ndeath, imprisonment, or other penalties.\n\nIt is sufficient for this Tribunal to cite Control Council Law No. 10 as\nauthority for its action in this case. Since, however, the Control\nCouncil came into being after the ending of the war, and since the laws\nwhich it published necessarily also followed the termination of\nhostilities, it has been argued by defense counsel that it does not\ncomport with justice and reason that a defendant should be condemned for\nan act which, prior to its commission, was not accepted in international\nlaw as a crime. From the day of surrender Germany has been without a\ngovernment of its own, and as the Allied powers are exercising\nquasi-sovereign jurisdiction in practically all phases of German\nrelations, both internal and external, the very circumstances of\nGermany\u2019s present political situation not only justifies but demands\nthat the Control Council establish government in its three fundamental\nphases; namely, the judiciary, the executive, and the legislative.\nOtherwise chaos would fling Germany into even a more precipitous abyss\nthan the one into which she has fallen, and the supreme and perhaps\nirreparable disaster, arrested by Allied intervention, would be upon\nher.\n\nYet it can be argued and it has been argued that despite the imperative\nneed of an occupational force with its almost unlimited jurisdiction,\nsuch an occupying force simply represents the authority of victor over\nvanquished. In the discharge of its duties under the law which created\nit, this Tribunal is not called upon to answer the arguments just\nindicated, but a respect for the opinion of mankind invites a listing of\nthe reasons which establish the justice of the procedure here invoked\nand the reasons which must invest its judgment with the solemnity and\nsolidity of accepted international law.\n\nIn the first place, it is not Control Council Law No. 10 which makes\nabuse of civilian populations an international crime, nor even the\ndecision of the International Military Tribunal, which in turn derived\nits power from the London Charter which had as its antecedent the Moscow\nDeclaration of 1943. International law is not a body of codes and\nstatutes, but the gradual expression, case by case, of the moral\njudgments of the civilized world, and no international law textbook of\nthe last century ever sanctioned the deportation of a civilian\npopulation for labor. Although under Article 52 of the Hague\nRegulations, the inhabitants of occupied countries may be used for the\nneeds of the occupying army, such civilians may be utilized only in\nproportion to the resources of the country, and they may not under any\ncircumstances be required to take part in military operations against\ntheir own country. L. Oppenheim\u2019s Treatise on International Law (Vol.\nII, Sixth Edition, page 345) states flatly that there is no right to\ndeport inhabitants to the country of the occupant for the purpose of\ncompelling them to work there.\n\nIt is submitted, however, that though this is the law and so recognized,\ntotal warfare, as it raged in World War II, suspended, if it did not\noutrightly abrogate, all these rules heretofore respected and esteemed\nas binding on civilized nations. In this respect defense counsel argues\nthat \u201cmodern warfare, having as its aim total annihilation of the armed\nproduction of the enemy, brought with it to a great extent warfare\nagainst the civilian population,\u201d and he cites total blockade as an\nillustration of his thesis. It is true that total blockade affects the\nentire blockaded population, as indeed air raids strike at the most\nhelpless and harmless of the enemy\u2019s civilians. The writer of this\nopinion was witness many times to the death and mutilation of\ninhabitants, including women, children, and old men, in Luftwaffe air\nraids aimed at legitimate war targets. German civilians also paid with\ntheir lives for living in their own country. And thus, it would seem in\nprinciple, that if civilians may legitimately be killed through military\naction, though noncombatant, they may certainly be made to work. But it\ndoes not follow that because military necessity unintentionally\nvictimizes a civilian population, political domination may strip them of\ntheir civil rights and subject them to intentional torture and possible\ndeath. With all its horror modern war still \u201cis not a condition of\nanarchy and lawlessness between the belligerents, but a contention in\nmany respects regulated, restricted, and modified by law.\u201d (Oppenheim,\nibid., 421.)\n\nThough the adversaries descend into the pit of bloody combat, there is\nalways open to them the means of re-ascending to the level of nonhostile\nnegotiations. The matter of temporary truces for recovering the dead and\nsuccoring the wounded, the making of arrangements through international\nrelief organizations for the treatment of prisoners, the granting of\nsafe passage through the lines of persons mutually agreed upon by the\nparties, all are instances which refute the logical development of\ndefense counsel\u2019s argument that total warfare justifies the abandonment\nof every restriction and authorizes the combatants to use all manners\nand means to win the conflict.\n\nAnd no one was in a better position to understand this than the\ndefendant. He had participated as a soldier in the First World War; he\nhad, following the war, entered distinguished private enterprise; he had\ntravelled extensively and was induced by none other than Hitler himself\nto enter the Air Ministry long before the outbreak of World War II\nbecause of his talents and abilities. It is idle for defense counsel to\nsay that Milch \u201cwas never a good National Socialist.\u201d If joining a\npolitical party, accepting its benefits and preferments, rising to\nsupreme heights in grade and distinction, offering never-flagging\nloyalty to the Fuehrer, even in the face of a declared acknowledgment\nthat the Fuehrer was leading Germany to disaster, if this does not make\none a full-fledged National Socialist, then nothing does.\n\nMilch did not simply passively ignore international law, he actively\nexpressed a knowledgeable contempt for it. We have seen how he declared\nat one of the Central Planning Board meetings that \u201cInternational law\ncannot be observed here.\u201d\n\nDefense counsel made much of the point that the German people did not\nwant war, and the defendant himself described how when the first tanks\nmoved through the streets of Berlin, the inhabitants of that city were\nsilent and worried. But it is not clear how this observation advances\nthe innocence of the defendant. If anything it adds to his moral guilt\nbecause the evidence reveals only too well that to the fullest extent of\nhis energies he prosecuted a war which he states was against the will\nand interests of his people. The indictment has not charged him with\nwaging aggressive war, but in view of his participation in the 23 May\n1939 conference when Hitler outlined quite clearly his aggressive\nintentions, and in view of his (Milch\u2019s) never tiring efforts in the\nwar\u2019s various phases\u2014at the front, in the air, in production, in\ninspection\u2014it cannot be said that to his trained mind the war had the\naspects of a defensive and not an aggressive conflict. Although Milch\nhas here repudiated belief in the master race theory, yet we know that\nhe went through a formal procedure to establish the absence of Jewish\nblood in his veins. This procedure even took the embarrassing turn of\nstatements concerning his parentage. In doing this, Milch could not help\nbut know that the Jews were being persecuted by the political party to\nwhich he voluntarily belonged. Nor will the Tribunal believe his\ndeclaration that he knew of only two concentration camps in all of\noccupied Europe. For the Tribunal to acknowledge this statement would be\nto declare Milch weak-minded if not _non compos mentis_. Milch, was\nconstantly threatening workers with the concentration camp. These\nthreats he attributes to excessive anger as he does all his outbursts,\nto which we have already called attention.\n\nMilch would have the Tribunal believe that his violent language was\nnever intended to produce results. He explained that his declaration\nthat Italian prisoners of war attempting to escape should be shot does\nnot constitute cruelty because, in the words of his counsel, \u201call\ncountries have prisoners shot who attempt to escape.\u201d This contradicts\nanother statement made in court wherein he lauded prisoners who sought\nto regain their freedom. When confronted with inconsistencies of this\ncharacter, the defendant invariably sought refuge in the statement that\nhe was never taken seriously in his threats to shoot, hang, or whip. He\ninforms us that he never used a whip, that everybody knew he\nexaggerated, that nobody took him seriously, and that he did not have\nfull control of himself. But Erhard Milch was not the village idiot. He\ncarried a field marshal\u2019s baton, and the lifting of that baton compelled\nobedience no matter how idiotic might be the demand. Further, Milch\u2019s\nimprecations were not simple interjections; they frequently carried the\nappearance of orders already given or about to be issued. He may never\nhave actually penned a death warrant or called out the SD with its\nmurder squads, but is it so certain that underlings beyond his\ncognizance did not carry into effect his sometimes very clear directions\non punishments to be inflicted?\n\nViolent language is not as innocuous as Milch would have the present\nworld believe. Even if it should be true that his immediate circle\nlaughed at his fulminations, as was testified, there is no assurance\nthat others laughed. A field marshal\u2019s fraternizations are necessarily\nlimited. There were not many who had the privilege to stand beside him,\nas did General Vorwald, and philosophically muse; \u201cNow his neck is\ngetting red again.\u201d There were necessarily hundreds in the course of six\nyears of war who, attending his various meetings, were not informed that\nhis fire and brimstone were froth. Vorwald can laugh at a field marshal\nand a field marshal can laugh at a Hitler, but the comedy ceases there.\nMilch has ridiculed Hitler\u2019s speeches and pointed out that certain\nportions of the Fuehrer\u2019s orations were known as the \u201cAdam and Eve\u201d\nsection. He indicated further that many of Hitler\u2019s thunderings were\nmere bluff, but who can say today that he was bluffing?\n\nHitler\u2019s most potent force for evil was language. With all that he has\nto answer for at the bar of history, it can be doubted that there exists\nproof that he with his own hands killed any man or even the proverbial\nfly. Hitler\u2019s armory was language. It was Hitler\u2019s language which\nmesmerized the German nation. Every one has said so. He had no other\nabilities. He was no soldier. All the generals were agreed on that. He\ncould not ride a horse, he could not drive a car, he could not build a\nfence. He could hang paper and he could talk, and the German people\nregarded that talk as substance. And on the phosphorescent sea of his\nwildly undulating phrases they launched the ship of their well-being\nwith the tragic result that fragments and splinters of that ship now\npiteously stare at one from every nook and corner of this once\nprosperous and happy land.\n\nThe greatest individual force of destruction in Germany for nearly 20\nyears was _Mein Kampf_. And yet _Mein Kampf_ was simply language. To the\nknowledge of the writer of this opinion, _Mein Kampf_ was never used as\na missile or fired as a projectile, but is there a German sincerely\ninterested in the welfare of his country today who doubts that its words\nwere bullets, its phrases bombs, and its pages poison which, falling\ninto the wells of the nation, corroded the thinking of the innocent and\ngoaded into action the ambitions of the wicked?\n\nAs the record shows, Milch incessantly threatened the wildest excesses,\nhe orally directed them, and he reported to his chief on one occasion\nthat he had put certain ones into effect. In spite of his present\ndisavowal, there is nothing in the transcript to indicate that he\nrepudiated his threats at the time of utterance. The defense has\nrepeatedly attacked the accuracy of the minutes of the Central Planning\nBoard, the GL, and the Jaegerstab. All these documents were taken from\nthe official files of the Reich Air Ministry. Furthermore, the\ndefendant\u2019s constant efforts on the stand to modify the far-reaching\nimplications of his speeches concede the general correctness of the\nremarks attributed to him. Thus, making due allowance for stenographic\nerrors, the defendant stands out through the pages of these reports as a\nresolute, persevering, determined worker, unyielding and loyal to his\ncause, which was the cause of the Fuehrer.\n\nIt can be believed that Erhard Milch was not seeking personal enrichment\nand a luxurious living, which was so obviously the nefarious and\nprincipal goal of his chief, the super-pilferer Hermann Goering. Milch\nwas seeking victory for Germany, for which he held an understandable\naffection, but his intelligence, training, and experience in the affairs\nof the world told him inescapably that Germany was waging an aggressive\nand culpable war. Milch gave of his talents and energies to the winning\nof a war criminally begun and lawlessly prosecuted, which, had it ended\nin victory for the aggressors would have resulted in the heartless\nsubjugation of countless millions of innocent and helpless people. The\ndefendant has recounted his worries and anguish and has explained that\nthis mental torment provoked many of his unbridled utterances, but what\nwas the cause of this bitterness and mortification? Not that Europe had\nbecome a slaughterhouse, not that blood ran like water, not that the\nfour Horsemen of the Apocalypse were galloping over the continent\nhurling famine, pestilence, and death into every city, village, and\nhamlet. Milch\u2019s torment and soul-sickness were not that the human race\nand human dignity were being debased and degraded as they had never been\nbefore since man knew shame. It was not for all this that Milch\u2019s heart\nwas breaking. His consternation, his panic was that Germany was losing\nthe war!\n\nHe said, \u201cI had to walk into defeat with open eyes.\u201d (_T-1948._) Also,\n\u201cI could see what was coming and I could not help my people.\u201d And in his\nbitterness he increased the fury of his verbal lashes over the backs of\nthe foreign workers, he redoubled his efforts for more importations and\nscreamed for more production. He knew, as far back as November 1941,\nthat the war was lost; this knowledge was confirmed after Stalingrad,\nand every vestige of doubt as to the eventual result was shattered by\nthe clouds of bombers over Germany every day. He knew that Hitler was\nleading Germany over the brink to ruin, and yet he called for more and\nmore production to make the disaster all the more noteworthy. He was\nhaving difficulties with Goering, Hitler did not want him any more, and\nyet he stoked the fires of his wrath to an even higher degree of\nvengeance against the workers because they would not turn out more\nproduction for the war, every continuing day of which brought only\ngreater misery to his people. The argument does not ring true. Milch may\nhave believed Germany might lose the war but he certainly made every\neffort to have it end victoriously. This in itself is honorable for a\nsoldier, but he allowed himself to use means and methods which the code\nof a soldier does not authorize or countenance, and therein he fell.\n\nHe has related several accidents which may have affected his health. He\ncracked-up two or three times with his plane and he suffered an\nautomobile mishap as well. It is suggested, although not vigorously\npressed, that all this may explain his towering wraths and lightning\nfury. But the plea in this case is not \u201cNot Guilty because of Insanity.\u201d\nNowhere is it advanced that the defendant is not now, nor that at any\ntime throughout the war was not, in the fullest possession of his mental\nfaculties. If a temporary aberration is being suggested, it is\nremarkable that these deviations from the norm occurred only when he was\nurging the maximum and severest employment of forced labor and menacing\nwith the direst punishment those who did not fulfill to the extreme the\ncommitments of this illegal enterprise. If Milch was at any time\ndeprived of his reasoning faculties, his temporary unbalance had method\nin it.\n\nThe Tribunal finds Erhard Milch guilty on count one of the indictment.\n\n (b) Count Two\n\nIn considering Milch\u2019s responsibility under count two, we will need to\nenumerate and weigh each reference to him in the testimony in this\nconnection. The high-altitude experiments began in March and lasted\nuntil June 1942. Cold-water experiments were conducted during the period\nfrom the middle of August until October 1942. The dry-cold experiments\nlasted from February through April 1943. During this time Milch was\nInspector General of the Air Forces, State Secretary in the Air\nMinistry, and Generalluftzeugmeister. As Inspector General he was in\ncharge of the office which authorized research and medical experiments\nconducted in behalf of the Air Forces. General Hippke, physician in\ncharge of the Luftwaffe Medical Department, was directly subordinate to\nthe defendant. As Generalluftzeugmeister, Milch was head of air\nordnance. Milch had charge of the development of technical experiments\nfor the Luftwaffe.\n\nAll medical institutes and Luftwaffe medical men were subordinate to the\nMedical Inspectorate Chief, Dr. Hippke. The DVL[165] was subordinate to\nHippke\u2019s office in technical matters. Dr. Rascher conducted his\nexperiments at Dachau. He was temporarily assigned to the SS, but\nretained his status as a Luftwaffe physician, rising from a second\nlieutenant to a captain in the Luftwaffe. During the period of the\nexperimentations, Rascher was under the command of the Luftwaffe.\n\nOn 20 May 1942, Milch wrote a letter to General Wolff, stating that his\nmedical inspector had reported to him that the high-altitude experiments\nconducted by the SS and the Luftwaffe had been finished, and he did not\nrecommend that they should be continued. He did, however, authorize\nexperiments \u201cof some other kind in regard to perils at high seas.\u201d On 4\nJune 1942, Milch authorized Hippke the continued use of the low-pressure\nchamber. On 20 July 1942, Rascher sent Brandt a report on the\nhigh-altitude experiments and the accompanying letter stated that it is\nHimmler\u2019s desire that the report should be sent to Milch. On 25 August\n1942, Himmler sent Milch a copy of the report and asked that he receive\nDr. Rascher and Dr. Romberg for a lecture and a showing of the film made\nof the experiment.\n\nOn 31 August 1942, Milch wrote Himmler acknowledging the report and\npromising to receive the two gentlemen for the lecture and showing of\nthe film. On 23 August 1942, Sievers wrote Brandt discussing a revival\nof the high-altitude experiments and stating that a report was to have\nbeen made to Milch, but that the report was not made. On 3 October 1942,\nRascher wrote Brandt that the report to Milch, planned for September,\ncould not be made because Milch was not present. On 27 November 1942,\nWolff wrote Milch a long letter pointing out the need and the great\nvalue of the experiments with human beings, stating that Himmler \u201chas\naccepted the responsibility for supplying death-deserving, asocial\npersons, and criminals from the concentration camps for these\nexperiments.\u201d He asks Milch to assign Rascher to the SS so that he can\ncontinue with the experiments directly under Himmler\u2019s orders. \u201cIn any\ncase, these experiments must not be stopped. We owe that to our men.\u201d\n\nDr. Romberg stated in an affidavit that Milch \u201cwas familiar with these\nexperiments.\u201d Neff testified that \u201cMilch\u2019s name was mentioned in\nconnection with the high-altitude experiments.\u201d Sievers, Director of the\nResearch and Teaching Association, stated that \u201cMilch must have known\nabout the experiments of Dr. Rascher.\u201d Dr. Ruff stated that to his\nknowledge Milch was informed of these tests either by Hippke or by the\nSS. Dr. Becker-Freyseng said that Dr. Kalk told him he had seen Rascher\nin Milch\u2019s office.\n\nWhen the film was shown in Milch\u2019s office on 11 September 1942, Milch\nwas not present. Wolfgang Lutz testified that Milch had negotiated\ndirectly with Himmler regarding the execution of such experiments\nwithout consulting the Medical Inspectorate. Rudolf Brandt stated that\nMilch was fully informed about the low-pressure experiments. As late as\nJanuary 1943, Milch had not replied to the letter sent him by Wolff,\nasking for the assignment of Rascher to the SS.\n\nThis, in brief, constitutes the case against Erhard Milch in connection\nwith the medical experiments. In order to find Milch guilty on this\ncount of the indictment, it must be established that\u2014\n\n 1. Milch had knowledge of the experiments.\n 2. That, having knowledge, he knew they were criminal in scope and\n execution.\n 3. That he had this knowledge in time to act to prevent the\n experiments.\n 4. That he had the power to prevent them.\n\nIn pressing this count against the defendant, the prosecution has the\nburden, as it has the burden in every count, to prove the guilt of the\ndefendant beyond a reasonable doubt. We begin our deliberations with the\ncardinal rule that the defendant is presumed to be innocent. Glancing at\nthe evidence as a whole, it is a facile matter to say that the defendant\nmust have known of the experiments; that, with so much smoke, there must\nbe fire. But in addition to smoke, there must be light.\n\nThe proof against Milch on this count is entirely circumstantial, and\nbefore we can find him guilty we must conclude that every hypothesis\nresulting from the circumstances is consistent with guilt and\ninconsistent with innocence. One can easily reach the hypothesis of\nguilt from the documents and testimony but that hypothesis in many of\nits phases is also consistent with innocence. Thus, applying the rule of\nevidence just cited, the test of guilt fails.\n\nSo far as chronology is concerned, Milch does not come into the picture\nof the experiments until 20 May 1942 with a letter in which he states\nthat his medical inspector informed him that the high-altitude\nexperiments had been completed. Obviously if they were completed there\nwas nothing he could do to prevent them. Nor did the medical inspector\nor anyone else testify that Milch was informed of the precise nature of\nthe experiments. Further, there is no evidence that Milch ever received\nany reports at all on the freezing experiments.\n\nNo one ever suggested that Milch attended the operations at Dachau or\nthat he ever gave an order that human beings were to be used to the\npoint of death.\n\nIf we can imagine the pieces of evidence on this count as irregularly\nshaped blocks of wood floating on water, we find these blocks\noccasionally coming together and dovetailing into a pattern of guilt,\nbut then we find them separating and just as often forming the pattern\nof innocence. No man should be convicted on evidence that does not\nremain fixed and immovable in granitic solidity. Guilt cannot be founded\non a set of facts from which arguments are equally convincing as to\nguilt and as to innocence. Remarks such as \u201cthe defendant must have\nknown,\u201d or \u201cto the best of my knowledge he knew,\u201d and other similar\ninconclusive conjectures frequently used in this part of the case are\nnot the kind of links which are imperatively needed to make up a chain\nstrong enough to sustain the weight of a conviction.\n\nThe defendant is found not guilty on the second count of the indictment.\n\nThough Milch is acquitted of complicity and participation in the medical\nexperiments, we have nonetheless commented on those experiments at\nlength. We have done this because otherwise the reference to Milch\u2019s\nacquittal standing alone might convey impression that the experiments\nthemselves were not criminal. The Tribunal holds that the _corpus\ndelicti_ was established and a crime was committed, even though Milch is\nnot guilty of it.\n\n (c) Count Three\n\nThe third count of the indictment charges the defendant with crimes\nagainst humanity (slave labor and fatal medical experiments) committed\non German nationals and nationals of other countries. As we have found\nhim not guilty on count two, we necessarily also find him not guilty of\nthe crime of fatal medical experiments in count three. We have, however,\nadjudicated him guilty on count one, and since the evidence establishes\nthat nationals of other countries were also victims of slave labor under\nhis control, we thus find Erhard Milch guilty on that part of the third\ncount which covers the nationals of other countries. Sufficient proof\nwas not submitted as to slave labor offenses against German nationals to\njustify an adjudication of guilt on that ground.\n\nThus, in recapitulation, we find the defendant guilty on count one, not\nguilty on count two, not guilty on count three insofar as it appertains\nto German nationals and guilty wherein it refers to \u201cnationals of other\ncountries.\u201d In reaching these conclusions, we inescapably ascertain that\nErhard Milch was a full-fledged member of the National Socialist Party\nof Germany. Further, that he adhered to the doctrines of this Party\nwhich, with the almost cataclysmic force of planetary violence, achieved\nmore destruction than has been known since man stood upright on the\nshores of history. The conclusion is also unavoidable that it was\nindividuals like Milch that made the Hitler plan of war and subjugation\npossible. Hitler was but one man and it was only because he had\nbrilliant and able coadjutors that he could develop a war machine which\nachieved the incredible and fantastic record of smashing Poland in 18\ndays, striking France to her knees in 2 months, driving England from the\ncontinent in 6 weeks, overrunning Holland and Belgium in a few days,\nvanquishing Norway in several weeks, and Denmark overnight.\n\nIn those days of spectacular triumph, Milch had no complaint against\nHitler. But it was precisely then that Hitler was working his greatest\nharm to Germany because it was inevitable that the people he had\ntemporarily crushed would rise again and not rest until the evil power\nresponsible for their suffering was destroyed. If Milch had entertained\nthe loyalty to his people which he now professes, then was the time to\nwithdraw from a program which was wreaking a devastation so universal\nthat no country, including Germany, could escape.\n\nThe defendant stated from the witness stand he could not withdraw\nbecause he owed fealty to Hitler and to the German people. His loyalty\nto Hitler was loyalty to a man who he now states had marked him for\nliquidation, and so far as allegiance to the German people is concerned,\nthey can feel no gratitude for an allegiance which increased their ruin,\nmagnified their misery, and pushed them only deeper into the pit of\ndespair. The Germans could do without a devotion of that kind.\n\nThe defendant apparently gained the impression in our questioning of him\nthat some heroic sacrifice was expected on his part. We never intended,\nnor was it suggested, that he should take any action which could result\nin the forfeiture of his life. But he did himself volunteer from the\nwitness stand that on two occasions he was ready to tell Hitler the\ntruth even if it should mean his execution. If he was prepared to\nsacrifice his life on so futile a gesture, he could have taken some\naction which involved less hazard. He could thus, at least to that\nextent, have contributed to honesty and justice by refraining from\nthreatening with death and whipping those who did not give of their last\nounce of energy in the production of ordnance whose muzzles would\neventually be turned on Germany itself.\n\nIn his last statement in court Milch declared that he was indifferent to\nhis fate but he was interested in seeing Germany relieved of her\nsuffering and re-admitted to the community of nations as an equal\npartner. We do not believe that any intelligent person can be\nindifferent to his fate, although one can summon sufficient spiritual\nfortitude to rise above an immediate regret. With regard to Milch\u2019s wish\nfor the German people, he has definitely performed one service in\npulling aside the curtain to disclose to them the stupidities, the\nvanities, and the arrogances of their leaders which brought about their\npresent state. The record of this case will particularly, of course,\nexpose Milch\u2019s own errors and his transgressions against international\nlaw, the laws and customs of war, the moral code of humanity and even\ncommandments 4 and 7 of the 10 commandments of the German soldier.\n\nThe purpose of these postwar trials obviously is not vengeance. The\nobject aimed at (as in the criminal jurisprudence of all civilized\nnations) is the ascertainment of truth. When guilt is established, the\npenalty imposed is to serve as a deterrent to all others who might be\nsimilarly minded. Albert Speer, convicted in the first trial, stated\nhere in this courtroom that had trials such as these followed the First\nWorld War, the Second World War might have been averted. Erhard Milch\nmay obtain some comfort from the realization that by the publication of\nthe evidence of this trial he is definitely contributing to the\neducation and well-being of Germany\u2019s future, as indeed a precise\ncontribution is being made to the cause of world justice itself.\n\nOver 155,000 Americans made the supreme sacrifice in Germany in this\nwar. These lads gave their lives for this ideal of world justice and\nworld peace. America sought no territorial aggrandizement or material\nadvantage. The American flag in this courtroom ensured to the defendant\nall the guarantees of the United States Constitution as to a fair trial.\nNo person within the continental limits of the United States itself\ncould have wished for a fuller opportunity to demonstrate his innocence\nof the charges brought against him.\n\nAmerica and her Allies bestowed upon Germany what no desire can achieve\nand what no money can buy. The Allied nations gave the blood of their\nyouth to water the roots of the tree of liberty and tolerance which had\nwithered in the twelve-year drought of National Socialism. It is to\nreveal who were responsible and what was responsible for the desiccation\nof that tree and to proclaim to the world the inevitable consequences to\nothers who degrade the soil with the pollution and prussic acid of\noppression that these trials have been established. The present trial is\none chapter in the book which will forever condemn _Mein Kampf_ and\noffer to the new German nation a volume of proved fact, whose every page\nwill tell of the sorrow awaiting any people which permit any man or men\nto hoist deceit above truth, power above justice, oppression above\ntolerance, war above peace and man above God.\n\n [Signed] MICHAEL A. MUSMANNO\n JUDGE MILITARY TRIBUNAL II\n\n-----\n\n[160] The reference \u201cT\u201d is to the page of the mimeographed transcript.\n\n[161] \u201cIMT\u201d refers to Trial of the Major War Criminals before the\nInternational Military Tribunal, Vol. I, Nuremberg, Germany, 1947.\n\n[162] Original German document read 50,000 but, due to clerical error,\ntranslation of document which was submitted in Court read 500,000.\nIncorrectness is obvious by total figure of 220,000 in last sentence.\n\n[163] Chef Ansbildungawesen (Chief of Training).\n\n[164] A word is missing here in the German original.\n\n[165] Deutsche Versuchsanstalt fuer Luftfahrt (German Institute for\nAviation Research). In this case, the reference is to the Medical\nSection of the Institute.\n\n\n\n\n C. Concurring Opinion by Judge Fitzroy D. Phillips\n\nThis Tribunal has been duly organized and is now existing under the\nauthority of Ordnance No. 7 pursuant to the powers of the Military\nGovernor of the United States Zone of Occupation within Germany\nexpressly conferred therein and further pursuant to the powers conferred\nupon the zone commander by Control Council Law No. 10 and Articles 10\nand 11 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal annexed to\nthe London agreement of 8 August 1945, and by authority of Executive\nOrder No. 9819 signed and issued by Harry S. Truman, President of the\nUnited States of America, the pertinent parts of said order as follows:\n\n \u201cBy virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and\n the statutes, and as President of the United States and\n Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, it\n is ordered as follows:\n\n \u201c1. I hereby designate Fitzroy Donald Phillips, Judge of a\n Superior Court in the State of North Carolina; Robert Morrell\n Toms, Judge of the Third Judicial Circuit Court, Detroit,\n Michigan; and Captain Michael A. Musmanno (S), USNR, 086622, as\n the members, and John Joshua Speight as the alternate member of\n one of the several military tribunals established by the\n Military Governor for the United States Zone of Occupation\n within Germany pursuant to the quadripartite agreement of the\n Control Council for Germany, enacted December 20, 1945, as\n Control Council Law No. 10, and pursuant to Articles 10 and 11\n of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal, which\n Tribunal was established by the Government of the United States\n of America, the Provisional Government of the French Republic,\n the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and\n Northern Ireland, and the Government of the Union of Soviet\n Socialist Republics, for the trial and punishment of major war\n criminals of the European Axis. Such members and alternate\n member may, at the direction of the Military Governor of the\n United States Zone of Occupation, serve on any of the several\n military tribunals above mentioned.\u201d\n\nand as such Tribunal, has jurisdiction to try and determine this case.\n\nSubsequent to the organization of said Tribunal, Telford Taylor,\nBrigadier General, United States Army, Chief of Counsel for War Crimes,\nprepared and caused to be prepared a bill of indictment charging the\ndefendant, Erhard Milch, with certain war crimes and crimes against\nhumanity as will appear more specifically hereinafter in this judgment\nand on 14 November 1946 caused said bill of indictment to be duly served\nupon the defendant, Erhard Milch, by the Marshal for the United States\nMilitary Tribunals according to the provisions of law.\n\nThereafter said bill of indictment was made returnable and said cause\nset for trial before United States Military Tribunal No. II. Whereupon,\nDr. I. Friedrich Bergold of the Nuernberg, Germany, bar was duly\nappointed as counsel for the defendant and accepted such appointment.\n\nOn 20 December 1946, at 9:30 a.m. in the Palace of Justice, Nuernberg,\nGermany, the defendant, Erhard Milch, being present in court and\nrepresented by his counsel, Dr. I. Friedrich Bergold, and the United\nStates of America being represented by Telford Taylor, Brigadier\nGeneral, United States Army, Chief of Counsel for War Crimes, and\nHonorable Clark Denney of counsel, the Tribunal duly arraigned the\ndefendant upon the charges contained in the bill of indictment against\nhim, and the defendant when called upon to plead to the bill of\nindictment entered a plea of Not Guilty. Whereupon the Tribunal set the\ndate of 2 January 1947, for the trial of said case and adjourned until\nsaid time.\n\nOn 2 January 1947, United States Military Tribunal No. II met in the\nPalace of Justice, Nuernberg, Germany, and commenced the trial of this\ncase.\n\nThe bill of indictment charging the defendant, Erhard Milch, with\ncertain and specific war crimes and crimes against humanity is\nsummarized as follows:\n\n_Count One_: War crimes involving murder, slave labor, deportation of\ncivilian populations for slave labor, cruel and inhuman treatment of\nforeign laborers, and the use of prisoners of war in war operations by\nforce and compulsion.\n\n_Count Two_: War crimes involving murder, subjecting involuntary victims\nto low-pressure and freezing experiments, resulting in torture and\ndeath.\n\n_Count Three_: Crimes against humanity, involving murder and the same\nunlawful acts specified in counts one and two against German nationals\nand nationals of other countries.\n\nThe trial was conducted in two languages in the main, English and\nGerman, and in English, German, and French when French witnesses were\ntestifying.\n\nThe hearing of evidence and the arguments of counsel concluded on 25\nMarch 1947.\n\nThe prosecution offered three witnesses who gave evidence orally and 161\nwritten exhibits, several exhibits containing many documents. The\ndefense offered 27 witnesses who gave evidence orally and the defendant\nalso testified in his own behalf, and in addition to oral evidence the\ndefendant offered 51 written exhibits. The exhibits as offered by both\nthe prosecution and defense contained documents, photographs,\naffidavits, interrogatories, letters, maps, charts, and other written\nevidence.\n\nA complete stenographic record of everything said and done in court has\nbeen made as well as an electrical recording of all the proceedings.\n\nCopies of all the documents and written evidence offered by the\nprosecution have been supplied to the defense in the German language.\nThe applications made by the defendant for the production of witnesses\nand documents were passed upon by the Tribunal and orders made in\npursuance thereof. The Tribunal, after examination, granted all of the\ndefense applications which in their opinion were relevant to the defense\nof the defendant and denied a few that the Tribunal found not to be\nrelevant. Facilities were provided for obtaining those witnesses and\ndocuments granted through the Office of the Secretary General of the\nTribunal.\n\nMuch of the evidence presented to the Tribunal on behalf of the\nprosecution was documentary evidence captured by the Allied armies in\nGerman army headquarters, government buildings, and elsewhere, and some\nof said documents were captured in the private files of the defendant\nhimself. The case therefore against the defendant rests in a large\nmeasure on the documents thus obtained. The documents offered against\nthe defendant on the part of the prosecution were in a large measure of\nhis own making or those that were made in the organizations of which he\nwas a member and largely under his control, and the authenticity of\nwhich has not been challenged except in a few cases and in those he\nchallenged them mainly on the correctness of the transcript and not upon\nthe subject matter as a whole. The evidence, oral and written, together\nwith exhibits and documents contain approximately 3,000 pages which\nconstitutes the record in this case.\n\nThe trial was conducted generally along the lines as are usually\nfollowed in trial courts of the United States except as to the rules of\nevidence, and as to those the Tribunal was not bound by technical rules\nof evidence and admitted any and all evidence which it deemed to have\nprobative value and in strict compliance with the provisions of Article\nVII of Ordnance No. 7.\n\nThe Tribunal has kept in mind throughout the entire trial that this was\na Tribunal established for the purpose of trying major war criminals and\nin this particular case a fallen military field marshal of a conquered\nnation, and that he was entitled to the Anglo-Saxon and English common\nlaw presumption that he was innocent until his guilt was established\nbeyond a reasonable doubt.\n\nArticle II of Control Council No. 10 is as follows:\n\n \u201cARTICLE II\n\n \u201c1. Each of the following acts is recognized as a crime:\n\n \u201c(_a_) _Crimes against Peace._ Initiation of invasions of other\n countries and wars of aggression in violation of international\n laws and treaties, including but not limited to planning,\n preparation, initiation or waging a war of aggression, or a war\n in violation of international treaties, agreements or\n assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for\n the accomplishment of any of the foregoing.\n\n \u201c(_b_) _War Crimes._ Atrocities or offenses against persons or\n property constituting violations of the laws or customs of war,\n including but not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or\n deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose, of civilian\n population from occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of\n prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages,\n plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of\n cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by\n military necessity.\n\n \u201c(_c_) _Crimes against Humanity._ Atrocities and offenses,\n including but not limited to murder, extermination, enslavement,\n deportation, imprisonment, torture, rape, or other inhumane acts\n committed against any civilian population, or persecutions on\n political, racial or religious grounds whether or not in\n violation of the domestic laws of the country where perpetrated.\n\n \u201c(_d_) Membership in categories of a criminal group or\n organization declared criminal by the International Military\n Tribunal.\n\n \u201c2. Any person without regard to nationality or the capacity in\n which he acted is deemed to have committed a crime as defined in\n paragraph 1 of this Article, if he (_a_) was a principal or\n (_b_) was an accessory to the commission of any such crime or\n ordered or abetted the same or (_c_) took a consenting part\n therein or (_d_) was connected with plans or enterprises\n involving its commission or (_e_) was a member of any\n organization or group connected with the commission of any such\n crime or (_f_) with reference to paragraph 1 (_a_), if he held a\n high political, civil or military (including General Staff)\n position in Germany or in one of its Allies, co-belligerents or\n satellites or held high position in the financial, industrial or\n economic life of any such country.\n\n \u201c3. Any person found guilty of any of the crimes above-mentioned\n may upon conviction be punished as shall be determined by the\n Tribunal to be just. Such punishment may consist of one or more\n of the following:\n\n \u201c(_a_) Death.\n\n \u201c(_b_) Imprisonment for life or a term of years, with or without\n hard labor.\n\n \u201c(_c_) Fine, and imprisonment with or without hard labor, in\n lieu thereof.\n\n \u201c(_d_) Forfeiture of property.\n\n \u201c(_e_) Restitution of property wrongfully acquired.\n\n \u201c(_f_) Deprivation of some or all civil rights.\n\n \u201cAny property declared to be forfeited or the restitution of\n which is ordered by the Tribunal shall be delivered to the\n Control Council for Germany, which shall decide on its disposal.\n\n \u201c4. (_a_) The official position of any person, whether as Head\n of State or as a responsible official in a Government\n Department, does not free him from responsibility for a crime or\n entitle him to mitigation of punishment.\n\n \u201c(_b_) The fact that any person acted pursuant to the order of\n his Government or of a superior does not free him from\n responsibility for a crime, but may be considered in mitigation.\n\n \u201c5. In any trial or prosecution for a crime herein referred to,\n the accused shall not be entitled to the benefits of any statute\n of limitation in respect of the period from 30 January 1933 to 1\n July 1945, nor shall any immunity, pardon, or amnesty granted\n under the Nazi regime be admitted as a bar to trial or\n punishment.\u201d\n\nThe defendant stands indicted for the violation particularly of the\nprovisions of section _b_, which defines war crimes, and for the\nviolation of the provisions of section _c_, which defines crimes against\nhumanity, and for the violations of certain provisions of international\nconventions, particularly of Articles 4, 5, 6, 7, 46, and 52 of the\nHague Regulations, 1907, and of Articles 2, 3, 4, 6, and 31 of the\nPrisoner-of-War Convention, Geneva, 1929, the laws and customs of war,\nthe general provisions of criminal law as derived from the criminal laws\nof all civilized nations, the internal penal laws of the countries in\nwhich such crimes were committed, and further as particularly defined in\nArticle II of the Control Council Law No. 10.\n\nThe first count in the bill of indictment has been designated by the\nprosecution as \u201cSlave Labor,\u201d the second count as \u201cMedical Experiments\u201d\nand the third count as \u201cSlave Labor and Medical Experiments upon German\nNationals.\u201d The pertinent rules of law that are applicable in this case\nwill now be considered, and we shall consider briefly some salient\nprecepts and prohibitions of international law up to and including the\nprovisions of Control Council Law No. 10.\n\nThe prosecution has offered evidence which tended to show that much of\nthe labor which supplied Germany with the tools of absolute and total\nwar was extracted from people who had been uprooted from their homes in\noccupied territories and imported to Germany against their will and\noften under the most trying and difficult circumstances. Displacement of\ngroups of persons from one country to another is the proper concern of\ninternational law in as far as it affects the community of nations.\nInternational law has enunciated certain conditions under which the fact\nof deportation of civilians from one nation to another during times of\nwar becomes a crime. If the transfer is carried out without a legal\ntitle, as in the case where people are deported from a country occupied\nby an invader while the occupied enemy still has an army in the field\nand is still resisting, the deportation is contrary to international\nlaw. The rationale of this rule lies in the supposition that the\noccupying power has temporarily prevented the rightful sovereign from\nexercising its power over its citizens. Articles 43, 46, 49, 52, 55, and\n56, Hague Regulations, which limit the rights of the belligerent\noccupant, do not expressly specify as crime the deportation of civilians\nfrom an occupied territory. Article 52 states the following provisions\nand conditions under which services may be demanded from the inhabitants\nof occupied countries:\n\n 1. They must be for the needs of the army of occupation.\n\n 2. They must be in proportion to the resources of the country.\n\n 3. They must be of such a nature as not to involve the\n inhabitants in the obligation to take part in military\n operations against their own country.\n\nInsofar as this section limits the conscription of labor to that\nrequired for the needs of the army of occupation, it is manifestly clear\nthat the use of labor from occupied territories outside of the area of\noccupation is forbidden by the Hague Regulations.\n\nThe second condition under which deportation becomes a crime occurs when\nthe purpose of the displacement is illegal, such as deportation for the\npurpose of compelling the deportees to manufacture weapons for use\nagainst their homeland or to be assimilated in the working economy of\nthe occupying country. The defense as contained in this case is that\npersons were deported from France into Germany legally and for a lawful\npurpose by contending that such deportations were authorized by\nagreements and contracts between Nazi and Vichy French authorities. The\nTribunal holds that this defense is both technically and substantially\ndeficient. The Tribunal takes judicial notice of the fact that after the\ncapitulation of France and the subsequent occupation of French territory\nby the German army, a puppet government was established in France and\nlocated at Vichy. This government was established at the instance of the\nGerman Army and was controlled by its officials according to the\ndictates and demands of the occupying army and a contract made by the\nGerman Reich with such a government as was established in France\namounted to in truth and in fact a contract that on its face was null\nand void. The Vichy Government, until the Allies regained control of the\nFrench Republic, amounted to no more than a tool of the German Reich. It\nwill be borne in mind that at no time during the Vichy regime a peace\ntreaty had been signed between the French Republic and the German Reich\nbut merely a cessation of hostilities and an armistice prevailed, and\nthat French resistance had at no time ceased and that France at all\ntimes still had an army in the field resisting the German Reich.\n\nThe third and final condition, under which deportation becomes illegal,\noccurs whenever generally recognized standards of decency and humanity\nare disregarded. This flows from the established principle of law that\nan otherwise permissible act becomes a crime when carried out in a\ncriminal manner. A close study of the pertinent parts of Control Council\nLaw No. 10 strengthens the conclusions of the foregoing statements that\ndeportation of the population is criminal whenever there is no title in\nthe deporting authority or whenever the purpose of the displacement is\nillegal or whenever the deportation is characterized by inhumane or\nillegal methods.\n\nArticle II (1) (_c_) of Control Council Law No. 10 specifies certain\ncrimes against humanity. Among those is listed the deportation of any\ncivilian population. The general language of this sub-section as applied\nto deportation indicates that Control Council Law No. 10 has\nunconditionally contended as a crime against humanity every instance of\nthe deportation of civilians. Article II (1) (_b_) names deportation to\nslave labor as a war crime. Article II (1) (_c_) states that the\nenslavement of any civilian population is a crime against humanity. Thus\nLaw No. 10 treats as separate crimes and different types of crime\n\u201cdeportation to slave labor\u201d and \u201censlavement.\u201d The Tribunal holds that\nthe deportation, the transportation, the retention, the unlawful use,\nand the inhumane treatment of civilian populations by an occupying power\nare crimes against humanity.\n\nThe Hague and Geneva Conventions codify the precepts of the law and\nusages of all civilized nations. Article 31 of the Geneva Convention\nprovides that labor furnished by prisoners of war shall have no direct\nrelation to war operations. Thus the convention forbids (1) the use of\nprisoners of war in manufacture or transportation of arms or ammunitions\nof any kind; and (2) the use for transporting of mat\u00e9riel intended for\ncombat units. The Hague Regulations contain comparable provisions. The\nessence of the crime is the misuse of prisoners of war derived from the\nkind of work to which they are assigned, in other words, to work\ndirectly connected with the war effort. The Tribunal holds as a matter\nof law that it is illegal to use prisoners of war in armament factories\nand factories engaged in the manufacture of airplanes for use in the war\neffort.\n\nNow, considering the basic charges and the law governing the charge\nagainst the defendant in which it alleges his responsibility for and\nparticipation in the medical experiment program, the fundamental crime\nwith which the defendant is charged in this connection is murder. Also\ninvolved are various atrocities, tortures, offenses against the person,\nand other inhumane acts. The provisions of Control Council Law No. 10,\nwhich are applicable to this charge, to wit, Article II, are \u201c_b._ War\ncrimes\u201d and \u201c_c._ Crimes against humanity.\u201d The bill of indictment\ncharges:\n\n \u201cA. War crimes, namely violations of the laws and customs of war\n as to medical experiments performed involuntarily upon persons,\n some of whom were prisoners of war and citizens of countries who\n were at war with the German Reich, and other deported citizens\n from other countries who were at war with the German Reich\n involving the commission of murders, tortures, and other\n inhumane acts.\n\n \u201cB. Crimes against humanity, namely medical experiments\n performed upon involuntary German nationals and nationals of\n other countries in the course of which brutalities, murders, and\n other inhumane acts were committed.\u201d\n\nThe prosecution contends that the defendant Milch did not personally\nparticipate in or personally direct, counsel, or initiate such medical\nexperiments but that the same was done by members of his command and\nthat he was personally responsible for their conduct by virtue of the\nauthority that he held over his subordinates.\n\nIn this connection in the recent case before the United States Supreme\nCourt in re Yamashita, the opinion of which was handed down by the\nSupreme Court of the United States at the October term, 1945, of said\nCourt, some of the pertinent holdings in this case are as follows:\n\n \u201cIt is evident that the conduct of military operations by troops\n whose excesses are unrestrained by the orders or efforts of\n their commander would almost certainly result in violations\n which it is the purpose of the law of war to prevent. Its\n purpose to protect civilian populations and prisoners of war\n from brutality would largely be defeated if the commander of an\n invading army could with impunity neglect to take reasonable\n measures for their protection. Hence the law of war presupposes\n that its violation is to be avoided through the control of the\n operations of war by commanders who are to some extent\n responsible for their subordinates.\n\n \u201cThis is recognized by the annex to Fourth Hague Convention of\n 1907, respecting the laws and customs of war on land. Article I\n lays down the condition which an armed force must fulfill in\n order to be accorded the rights of lawful belligerents, that it\n must be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates.\n\n \u201cThese provisions plainly imposed on petitioner, who at the time\n specified, was Military Governor of the Philippines, as well as\n commander of the Japanese forces, an affirmative duty to take\n such measures as were within his power and appropriate in the\n circumstances to protect prisoners of war and the civilian\n population. This duty of a commanding officer has heretofore\n been recognized, and its breach is penalized by our own military\n tribunals.\n\n \u201c* * * It is plain that the charge on which petitioner was tried\n charged him with a breach of his duty to control the operations\n of the members of his command, by permitting them to commit the\n specified atrocities. This was enough to require the commission\n to hear evidence tending to establish the culpable failure of\n the petitioner to perform the duty imposed on him by the law of\n war and to pass upon its sufficiency to establish guilt.\u201d\n\nI am of the opinion and find as a fact from the evidence in this case\nthat the defendant Milch between the years 1939 and 1945 was State\nSecretary in the Air Ministry, Inspector General of the Air Force,\nDeputy to the Commander in Chief of the Air Force, a member of the Nazi\nParty. The defendant Milch was also Field Marshal in the Luftwaffe, 1940\nto 1945; Air Quartermaster General, 1941 to 1944; member of the Central\nPlanning Board, 1942 to 1945; and Chief of the Jaegerstab, 1944 to 1945.\n\nAfter hearing the evidence of both the prosecution and defense, and\nafter having heard the arguments of counsel, and after having fully\nconsidered all of the evidence, the following facts are concluded:\n\n COUNT NO. I\n _SLAVE LABOR_\n\nThat the defendant, Erhard Milch, was born in Germany on 30 March 1892,\nthat he was a member of the Air Force of the German Army in World War I\nand was a contemporary in said air force with Goering, Udet, and others;\nthat after the termination of World War I he returned to Germany, had a\nbusiness and later was connected with the manufacture of civilian\nairplanes.\n\nPrior to the outbreak of World War II he became a member of the Nazi\nParty and materially aided in the rebuilding of the air force of the\nGerman Reich. Shortly prior to the outbreak of World War II he visited\nvarious countries as a personal emissary of the Fuehrer, Hitler; to\nFrance, England, Holland, Italy and other countries in an effort to\nestablish so-called permanent peace between the German Reich and these\nnations. That on 23 May 1939, the defendant attended a conference for\nthe purpose of planning World War II with the following present: Hitler,\nGoering, Col. Gen. von Brauchitsch, Col. Gen. Keitel, Gen. Halder, Gen.\nBodenschatz, Rear Admiral Schniewind, Col. (GSC.) Jeschonnek, Col.\nWarlimont, Lieut. Col. Schmundt, Captain Engel, Lieut. Commander\nAlbrecht, and Captain v. Below. At the time of this meeting the\ndefendant held a high position in the German Army, to wit, the rank of\ncolonel general.[166]\n\nAt this meeting the Fuehrer, Hitler, gave his plan of aggressive war,\nand in this plan was included the attack of Poland at the first suitable\nopportunity; what the struggle would be like; the question of a short or\nlong war; England\u2019s weakness; the consequences of such a war; the\nunrestricted use of all resources available; the plan of attack; and the\nworking principles of an entire and complete program. Aggressive war was\nplanned and initiated at this meeting, and the defendant was one of the\nhigh-ranking officers who counseled and approved of the plan.\n\nAfter the outbreak of the war and the subsequent attack on Poland, the\ndefendant actively participated in the prosecution of aggressive war\nuntil after the capitulation and fall of France. From that time on he\ndid not participate as a combat officer but was used in the general\neconomy for the prosecution of war in Germany, and particularly as to\nthe building and maintenance of the Luftwaffe. Later he was elevated to\nthe rank of field marshal in the Luftwaffe and was second in command\nonly to Goering.\n\nThe defendant was a member of the Central Planning Board which was\nestablished and organized in April 1942, and said organization served as\na means of consolidating in a single agency all controls over German war\nproduction. The Central Planning Board held regular meetings, and the\ndefendant presided over and was present at a majority of such meetings.\nThe Central Planning Board at each meeting kept full minutes, and a\ngreat number of said minutes have been submitted to the Tribunal and\nreflect the fact that the defendant had a dominant role in the meetings\nof said board. The scope and authority of the Central Planning Board is\ncontained in the minutes of a meeting held on 27 April 1942, and the\nduties and responsibilities of the board, according to said minutes,\nwere announced as follows:\n\n \u201cThe Central Planning in the Four Year Plan (Decree of the Reich\n Marshal of Greater Germany of 22 April 1942) is a task for\n leaders. It encompasses only principles and executive matters.\n It makes unequivocal decisions and supervises the execution of\n its directives. The Central Planning does not rely on anonymous\n institutions difficult to control but always on individuals and\n fully responsible persons who are free in the selection of their\n work methods and their collaboration as far as there are no\n directives issued by the Central Planning.\u201d\n\nOn 20 October 1942, the statutes of the Central Planning Board were\npublished and distributed, a portion of which are as follows:\n\n \u201cThe Central Planning Board, created by the Fuehrer and the\n Reich Marshal in order to unify armament and war economy, deals\n only with the decision of basic questions. Professional\n questions remain the task of the competent departments, which in\n their field remain responsible within the framework of the\n decisions made by the Central Planning Board.\u201d\n\nThe Central Planning Board was superior to \u201cthe highest Reich authority,\nthe Reich protector, the Governor General, and the executive authorities\nin the occupied countries.\u201d\n\nThe International Military Tribunal found that the Central Planning\nBoard \u201chad supreme authority for the scheduling of German production and\nthe allocation and development of raw materials.\u201d The International\nTribunal found further in its opinion, in the case of United States vs.\nGoering and others, \u201cthat the Central Planning Board requisitioned labor\nfrom Sauckel with full knowledge that the demands could be supplied only\nby foreign forced labor and that the board determined the basic\nallocation of this labor within the German war economy.\u201d The\nInternational Military Tribunal found further in its opinion the\nfollowing:\n\n \u201cIn the fall of 1943 Funk (who was then indicted before said\n Tribunal in regard to deportation and the use of foreign forced\n labor in the German Reich) was a member of the Central Planning\n Board which determined the total number of laborers needed for\n German industry, and required Sauckel to produce them, usually\n by deportation from occupied territories * * * but Funk was\n aware that the board of which he was a member was demanding the\n importation of slave laborers, and allocating them to the\n various industries under his control.\u201d\n\nThe prosecution offered evidence which tended to show that Albert Speer\nwas the Plenipotentiary for Armament and was the nominal head of the\nCentral Planning Board and that the defendant was a member of said board\nand was, by the order of Hitler, assigned to assist Speer as the head of\nsaid board. During much of the time of the existence of said board Speer\nwas ill and unable to attend the meetings and look after the duties of\nthe board and during this time the defendant was the acting head of said\nboard and presided over its meetings as chairman.\n\nFritz Sauckel was Plenipotentiary for Labor and was directly responsible\nfor the procurement and allocation of labor to the various war\nindustries. However, the Tribunal finds as a fact that although Sauckel\nhad the primary duty of procuring and allocating labor, the Central\nPlanning Board on many occasions, as the minutes of the meetings of said\nboard show, called Milch into conference with the members of the Central\nPlanning Board and in such conferences labor was assigned and allocated\nby the Central Planning Board and Sauckel. The minutes of the Central\nPlanning Board, as introduced by the prosecution, show that the members\nof the Central Planning Board knew and discussed the fact that labor was\nbeing deported from occupied countries against their will and were being\nused in various factories manufacturing armaments, airplanes, and other\narticles essential and necessary to the war effort, that such foreign\nworkers were being forcibly taken from their homes without knowledge of\ntheir destination, and by force and against their will, crowded into box\ncars without food or water or toilet facilities, transported great\ndistances, and forced to work in factories manufacturing war materials\nand other necessary items for the prosecution of the war as slave\nlaborers.\n\nI find as a fact that the defendant Milch had knowledge of the way and\nmanner in which such labor was procured and the work that they were\nforced to do, and that he aided, abetted, counseled, advised, and\nassisted in the deportation, allocation, and work of said slave\nlaborers.\n\nThe documents and reports of the meetings as offered by the prosecution\nare too voluminous to incorporate herein, but said records clearly show\nthat the defendant was one of the authorized agents who dealt with the\nprocurement, deportation, and work of thousands and thousands of slave\nlaborers from occupied countries.\n\n _JAEGERSTAB_\n\nI find as a fact that it was the defendant who conceived and instigated\nthe formation of the Jaegerstab, and that the defendant directed its\nactivities and acted as its chairman. The Jaegerstab assumed control\nover fighter production and exploited foreign forced labor in the\narmament industry and directed the use of the same. The Jaegerstab was\nassigned top priority for their projects, for the recruitment and\ncommitment of manpower in the air armament industry. From the meetings\nof said board as offered in evidence by the prosecution, the question of\nmanpower was time and time again referred to by the defendant. When\nother methods of obtaining its labor was not forthcoming, the Jaegerstab\nrecruited its own labor either directly or by engineering snatching\nexpeditions for the seizure of manpower arriving on transports from the\nEast.\n\nAt one of the meetings of the Jaegerstab, Prosecution Exhibit 54, page\n28, the defendant made this statement to his subordinates, that\n\u201cinternational law cannot be observed here.\u201d When the question of\nItalian civilian labor was being discussed at a meeting of the\nJaegerstab, the defendant made the statement and advocated the shooting\nof those who attempted to escape in transit.\n\nI find as a fact that the Jaegerstab was not a mere discussion group but\nwas an agency with absolute authority over fighter production and acted\nby orders and directives, fixed hours of labor and conditions of work,\nand on one occasion fixed the established hours of work per week in the\naircraft industry at seventy-two hours.\n\nMuch of the labor employed by the Jaegerstab in aircraft production and\nin the air armament industry was from concentration camp inmates and\nforeign forced labor. The defendant was well acquainted with the\nprocurement and allocation of this labor.\n\nI find as a fact, from the evidence offered in the case, that after the\narrival of forced slave labor from occupied countries they were poorly\nfed, poorly clothed, were forced to work an excessive amount of hours\neach week, and that their general condition and treatment as a result of\nsuch forced labor resulted in the death of a great many and the\npermanent disability of others, both in body and in mind.\n\n _GENERALLUFTZEUGMEISTER_\n\nI find as a fact from the evidence offered in the case, that the\ndefendant, as Generalluftzeugmeister, had complete control of aircraft\nproduction and that he requisitioned labor for the aircraft industry\nwith knowledge of the brutal and inhuman techniques in recruiting these\nlaborers; and that he gave directives for the criminal treatment of the\nsame in the centers of production. Fritz Sauckel, Plenipotentiary for\nLabor, stated that it was \u201cMilch who produced manpower figures for\naviation.\u201d Albert Speer testified as follows: \u201cThe requests of the air\narmament industry for laborers were presented by Milch, and he did not\npermit anyone to take this right away from him until March 1944.\u201d\n\nI find as a fact from the evidence offered on the part of the\nprosecution, that prisoners of war were included in the manpower that\nthe defendant was requisitioning and distributing to the aircraft\nindustry with full knowledge that they were prisoners of war. As chief\nof aircraft production, the defendant regulated the treatment of foreign\nforced labor in the German aircraft industry, fixed hours of labor and\nconditions of work, and by directives to his subordinates formulated the\nbasic policy for the handling of such labor within the industry.\n\nThe evidence presented by the prosecution tended to show that the\ndefendant advocated the most extreme measures in dealing with foreign\nforced labor, inhuman measures which violated every recognized principle\nof decency. When foreign forced laborers refused to work, the defendant\nordered that they be shot. When they attempted to revolt the defendant\ndirected that some of their numbers be killed, regardless of their\npersonal guilt or innocence. In the case of prisoners of war who\nattempted to escape, the defendant ordered that these prisoners be shot\nand later hanged in the factory for all to see. On one occasion the\ndefendant made the following statement, Prosecution Exhibit 145:\n\n \u201cThe other day I talked to Himmler about it, and I told him that\n his main task should be to see to the production of German\n industry in case of internal uprisings of the foreign workers. I\n said that consequently a well established method should exist,\n and I have already given orders to the Chief A. W.[167] and to\n the training stations to get military training in this field.\n If, for instance, in the Locality X an uprising is started, then\n a sergeant with a few men, or else a lieutenant with thirty men\n has to turn up in the plant, and first of all shoot into the\n crowd with a machine gun. What he should do after is to shoot\n down as many people as possible in case of revolt. I have given\n orders to that effect, and even if our own foreign workers are\n involved\u2014and then every tenth man is to be singled out and shot\n while the others are lined up and see him.\u201d\n\nOn another occasion, Prosecution Exhibit 148, when the defendant was\nspeaking of the treatment of foreign workers, he made the following\nstatement.\n\n \u201cIn all these matters energetic interference must be made. I am\n of the opinion that there should be only two types of punishment\n in such cases; firstly, a concentration camp for foreigners, and\n secondly, capital punishment.\u201d\n\nThe prosecution offered a great number of documents containing\nstatements made by the defendant in regard to orders and threats of\nviolence, for mistreatment and punishment, tortures, killings, and\nhangings of foreign workers. Space is too short to quote in this\njudgment all of such pertinent documents.\n\nAlthough the defendant denied making a number of these statements\nappearing in the documents, he admitted the authenticity and utterances\nof many, with the excuse that he was a man of very violent temper, who,\nwhen worried from overwork, was not wholly responsible for many\nutterances made by him. He protested further that he did not actually\nmean nor intend for orders given in such fits of temper to be carried\nout, but they were simply the result of uncontrolled anger, and\nunderstood by his associates and subordinates to have been uttered in\nsuch vein. In further extenuation he declared that head injuries\nresulting from two serious accidents were largely responsible for such\nuncontrollable temper.\n\nI have given due consideration to the explanation given by the defendant\nand am compelled to reject it. If but only a few of such remarks could\nbe attributed to the defendant, his protestations might be given some\ncredence; but when statements such as appear in the documents have been\npersistently made over long periods of time, at many places and under\nsuch varying conditions, the only logical conclusion that can be reached\nis that they reflect the true and considered attitude of the defendant\ntoward the Nazi foreign labor policy and its victims and are not mere\naberrations brought on by fits of uncontrollable anger. I find as a\nfact, therefore, that the true attitude of the defendant toward foreign\nlaborers and prisoners of war is that reflected in the documents of the\nprosecution and was not the result of uncontrollable fits of temper. I\nfind, further, that the defendant ordered, advised, counselled, and\nprocured inhumane and illegal treatment of foreign workers resulting in\npermanent injury and death to many.\n\n COUNT NO. 2\n _MEDICAL EXPERIMENTS_\n\nThe prosecution contends that in violation of the laws of war and of\ncrimes against humanity, high-altitude and freezing experiments were\ncarried out by the Luftwaffe physicians at Dachau, and that said\nphysicians who conducted such experiments were under the command of and\nsubordinate to the defendant Milch.\n\nI am of the opinion from the evidence offered on the part of the\nprosecution that illegal and inhuman medical experiments were conducted\nat Dachau by Luftwaffe physicians who were under the command and\nsubordinate to the defendant Milch and from which a great number of\ndeaths ensued to concentration camp inmates and that great pain and\nsuffering and permanent disability resulted to many others. I find as a\nfact from the evidence offered on the part of the prosecution that Dr.\nErich Hippke was the Medical Inspector of the Luftwaffe and was the\ndirect subordinate of the defendant Milch; that Hippke gave authority\nand ordered Dr. Rascher, a Luftwaffe physician, in the early spring of\n1941 to use concentration camp inmates and prisoners of war as\nhigh-altitude experimental subjects for the benefit of the Luftwaffe. I\nfurther find, as a fact, that the witness Hippke at no time communicated\nthis information to the defendant Milch, nor has the prosecution offered\nany direct evidence to the effect that the defendant Milch knew that\nsuch experiments had been conducted until after their completion. All of\nthe testimony and the evidence, both for the prosecution and the\ndefense, is to the effect that the defendant Milch did not have such\nknowledge of the high-altitude or low-pressure experiments which were\ncarried out and completed by Luftwaffe physicians at Dachau until after\nthe completion of such experiments. The evidence offered as to the\nknowledge or responsibility of the defendant Milch was not of such a\nnature as to show guilty knowledge on his part of said experiments.\n\nAs to the cooling or freezing experiments performed at concentration\ncamp, Dachau, for which the defendant is charged with responsibility, I\nfind as a fact that the defendant ordered experiments to be conducted at\nthe camp for the benefit of the Luftwaffe. In a letter from Milch to\nObergruppenfuehrer Wolff of the SS, dated 20 May 1942, the following is\nstated:\n\n \u201cIn reference to your telegram of 12 May our medical inspector\n reports to me that the altitude experiments carried out by the\n SS and Luftwaffe at Dachau have been finished. Any continuation\n of these experiments seems essentially unreasonable. However,\n the carrying out of experiments of some other kind in regard to\n perils at high sea would be important. These have been prepared\n in immediate agreement with the proper offices. Oberstabsarzt\n Weltz will be charged with the execution and Stabsarzt Rascher\n will be made available until further order in addition to his\n duties with the medical corps of the Luftwaffe. A change of\n these measures does not appear necessary and an enlargement of\n the task is not considered pressing at this time.\u201d\n\nFurther evidence makes it manifestly plain that subsequent to the\nreceipt of the letter of Wolff, officers of the Luftwaffe, under the\ncommand and subordinate to the defendant, conducted medical experiments\non concentration camp inmates at Dachau, against their will, by placing\nsuch experimental subjects in tanks of water of freezing temperatures,\nand requiring them to remain there for long periods of time while\ncertain medical data concerning such subjects was gathered; and that as\na result of such experiments, many of the human subjects died or were\ngravely injured.\n\nThe defendant admits giving orders for the conduct of experiments within\nthe scope of the authority conferred by the letter, but contends that he\ndid not know of, or contemplate, that the experiments would be conducted\nin an illegal manner or would result in the injury or death of any\nperson. The defendant further asserts that he did not know or have any\nreason to believe that the experiments were conducted in such manner\nuntil after they had been completed. He therefore insists that he was\nand is not responsible for the unlawful manner in which the experiments\nwere actually conducted by the Luftwaffe officers, and that he is not\nguilty of any crime as a result thereof.\n\nThe Tribunal, in its majority opinion, has fully considered the decision\nof the United States Supreme Court in the judgment in re Yamashita, and\nhas found that said decision is not controlling in the case at bar. In\nweighing the evidence, the Tribunal was mindful of the fact that the\ndefendant gave the order and directed his subordinates to carry on such\nexperiments, and that thereafter he failed and neglected to take such\nmeasures as were reasonably within his power to protect such subjects\nfrom inhumane treatment and deaths as a result of such experiments.\nNotwithstanding these facts, the Tribunal is of the opinion that the\nevidence fails to disclose beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant\nhad any knowledge that the experiments would be conducted in an unlawful\nmanner and that permanent injury, inhumane treatment or deaths would\nresult therefrom.\n\nTherefore, the Tribunal found that the defendant did not have such\nknowledge as would amount to participation or responsibility on his part\nand therefore found the defendant not guilty on charges contained in\ncount 2.\n\n CONCLUSIONS\n\n(1) I concur in the opinion of the Tribunal that war crimes and crimes\nagainst humanity were committed by the defendant, including deportation,\nenslavement, and mistreatment of millions of persons; and that as a\nresult thereof and in furtherance of such treatment, murders,\nbrutalities, cruelties, tortures, atrocities, and other inhumane acts\nwere committed in a large scale measure upon citizens of occupied\ncountries, prisoners of war, Jews, and other nationals. I agree further\nthat the defendant was a principal in, accessory to, ordered, abetted,\nand took a consenting part therein. I also agree that for such acts and\nconduct on the part of the defendant, he is guilty of charges contained\nin count number one of the indictment.\n\nThe evidence produced during the trial upon the charges contained in\nthis count showed conclusively that countless millions of persons were\nunlawfully deported, enslaved, and murdered. Especially were the Jews\nmistreated, tortured and murdered merely because they were Jews and\ntheir extermination desired. History discloses the fact that as early as\nthe year 1349 in the city of Nuernberg, and within sight of where this\nopinion is being written, the citizens of Nuernberg drove the Jews from\ntheir city, confiscated their property, and erected a market place on\nthe site of the Ghetto and the Liebfrauenkirche in place of the\nSynagogue. The hatred of the Aryan German for the Jew seems to have been\nconstant during the many intervening years. History will record such\nconduct as a blot upon the name of the present German generation for\nmany years to come.\n\n(2) The Tribunal found the defendant not guilty of the charges contained\nin count number two, and I concur in such finding.\n\nUnder the American concept of liberty, as brought to us by our\nAnglo-Saxon heritage and the English Common Law, every person accused of\ncrime is presumed to be innocent until proof of his guilt is established\nby the evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt. This presumption follows\nhim throughout the trial and until he is found guilty beyond a\nreasonable doubt. In applying this God-given principle of liberty, one\neminent American jurist uttered the following words:\n\n \u201cAfter considering and weighing all of the evidence you then\n find that your minds are disturbed, your convictions\n tempest-tossed, and your judgment, like the dove of the deluge,\n finds no place to rest; the law says you must acquit.\u201d\n\nThe defendant was given the full benefit of these great and lasting\nrules of law and has received at the hands of the Tribunal a fair and\nimpartial trial in full accord with the American concepts of justice\nunder the law.\n\n(3) Count three of the indictment charges the defendant with crimes\nagainst \u201cGerman nationals and nationals of other countries.\u201d I am of the\nopinion that sufficient evidence was not produced by the prosecution to\njustify an adjudication by the Tribunal of guilt as to German nationals\nalone. However, as to such crimes against nationals of other countries,\nthe Tribunal has heretofore considered such charges and has made an\nadjudication concerning the same in count number one of the indictment.\nThe conclusion of the Tribunal is that the same unlawful acts of\nviolence which constituted war crimes under count one of the indictment\nalso constitute crimes against humanity as alleged in count three of the\nindictment. Therefore, the Tribunal found the defendant guilty of crimes\nagainst humanity under count three, with which finding I concur.\n\nIn weighing the evidence, the Tribunal simulated the ancient customs of\nusing the seed of the oriental carob tree to balance the scales of\njustice. The defendant should not now complain.\n\nTherefore, for the reasons stated, I am in full agreement with the\njudgment of the Tribunal and concur therein.\n\n Respectfully submitted this the 15th day of April, 1947\n [Signed] FITZROY D. PHILLIPS\n Fitzroy D. Phillips\n Judge, Military Tribunal No. II\n\n-----\n\n[166] See Table of Comparative Ranks, p. 331.\n\n[167] Chef Ausbildungswesen (Chief of Training).\n\n\n\n\n VIII. PETITIONS\n\n\n A. Extract from Petition for Clemency to Military\n Governor of United States Zone of Occupation\n\n Nuernberg, 2 May 1947\n\nTo the Military Governor\n\n PETITION\n\n of\n\n Attorney-at-law Dr. Friedrich Bergold,\n Nuernberg, Prinzregenten-Ufer 7/III,\n Defense Counsel, Military Court II\n\n Nuernberg\n\n in Case II against the defendant\n Erhard Milch, General Field Marshal,\n at present in the Court Prison, Nuernberg,\n to modify the sentence of the Military Court II\n\n Nuernberg\n\n on 16/17 April 1947.\n\n * * * * *\n\n A\n\nThe sentence passed on counts I and III contains actual inaccuracies,\nwhich are inconsistent with the recorded evidence. Obviously, these\nerrors have had an influence on the sentence as far as the award of\npunishment is concerned. A correction of these errors would necessarily\nlead to a less severe sentence.\n\n1. The statements on page 3 of the judgment that Milch since 19 November\n1941 was the second highest commander of the Luftwaffe is not in\nagreement with the evidence. The witnesses have testified that from\n1938-1941 Milch held only one of the four highest commanding posts under\nGoering, and since 1941 two of the four highest Luftwaffe commanding\nposts. Only in regard to seniority he was the oldest officer of these\nfour highest commands. This is important because evidence has been given\nfor the fact that the general staff of the Luftwaffe had the\nresponsibility for the armament program of the Luftwaffe.\n\n2. It is not consistent with recorded evidence that the Central Planning\nBoard had been created by a decree of the Fuehrer of 29 October 1943. It\nhas been proved by the statement of Speer that the decree of 29 October\n1943 was a decree issued by Speer a long time after the creation of the\nCentral Planning Board and without authorization of the defendant Milch.\nSince this decree was issued by Speer for his sphere of administration\nonly, no conclusion can be drawn therefrom against the defendant.\n\n3. It is not consistent with recorded evidence that the Court finds that\nthe Central Planning Board handled the labor problem as such. Exhibit\n151 of the prosecution proved the opposite. The witnesses who have been\nheard have confirmed that the Central Planning Board handled the labor\nproblem only for information purposes for the distribution and\nproduction of raw materials and in order to clarify the untrue\nstatements of Sauckel. This Exhibit 151 constitutes essential new\nevidence which is of greatest importance in regard to the verdict of the\nInternational Military Tribunal.\n\n4. It is not consistent with recorded evidence that the defendant had\nadmitted having seen Russian prisoners of war at service at 8.8 and 10.5\ncm. antiaircraft guns in aircraft factories in Luftgau 7. The witness\nVorwald made this statement on the basis of his own observation.\n\nIt has been proved that Milch had nothing to do with the allocation of\nRussians to the antiaircraft artillery (flak), and that he declared\nhimself against it.\n\n5. It is not consistent with recorded evidence that Milch said that\nRussian prisoners of war had volunteered for work in war plants. What he\ndid state\u2014and this was in agreement with the witnesses Vorwald and\nFoerster\u2014was that Russian prisoners of war had volunteered for service\nat the antiaircraft artillery (flak), with the reservation that they\nwould not be used for combatting Russian airplanes. This condition was\nfulfilled. Thus, there is no question of an inadmissible use of\nprisoners of war for war service.\n\n6. It is not consistent with recorded evidence that Sauckel, the\nPlenipotentiary for the Allocation of Labor, participated in at least 15\nsessions of the Central Planning Board. Only 15 minutes concerning the\nsessions [minutes of 15 sessions] of the Central Planning Board have\nbeen submitted. These minutes prove that Sauckel was not present at most\nof these sessions.\n\n7. It is not consistent with recorded evidence that the defendant was\ninformed about the methods employed and the cruelties on the occasion of\nthe recruiting and utilization of foreign workers. All witnesses who\nhave been heard have stated the opposite. It is therefore not\npermissible to assume without the basis of exact proof that Milch was\ninformed about these matters. The Court concludes from the fact that\nforeign workers and prisoners of war had been used that Milch must\nnecessarily have recognized that the methods must have been cruel. Speer\nhas stated explicitly that the cruel methods were not necessary and\nthat, therefore, they were an error. But if they were not necessary then\nthe conclusion drawn from them without any explicit proof was not\npermissible.\n\n8. It is not consistent with recorded evidence that 100,000 Polish\nprisoners of war were deported to concentration camps. The opposite has\nbeen proved, viz., that Polish prisoners of war, in accordance with the\nagreement between Russia and Germany were released from captivity and\nemployed as civilians.\n\n9. It is not consistent with recorded evidence that Romanian nationals\nwere subjected to deportation. Not one single piece of evidence for that\nhas been submitted. Romania was mentioned by the defense only in\nconnection with the armistice agreement between Russia and Romania.\n\n10. It is not consistent with recorded evidence that Milch used\nHungarian Jews. It is proved by the evidence that this did not happen\nbefore the summer of 1944 when Milch had resigned from his positions.\n\n11. It is not consistent with recorded evidence that the Schmundt\nminutes must be correct, for the reason that if any allusion to a war\nhad been omitted, Hitler would not have spoken at all. It has been\nproven that Hitler spoke merely theoretically about the world situation\nin case there should be a war at some time. He did not mention that he\nwanted to foment aggressive wars.\n\n B\n\nThe judgment states that the defendant recommended more drastic and more\ncruel measures in regard to the recruiting and utilization of workers.\n(Page 18 of the judgment.)\n\nThis is in discrepancy with the recorded evidence.\n\nHere the defense does not argue about the separate reasons given by\nJudge Michael A. Musmanno, since these reasons do not constitute the\nofficial judgment. These reasons also contain factual errors and even\nuse material which has not been discussed during the trial.\n\nThese separate reasons, however, make it possible to draw a conclusion\nin regard to the sentence of the judgment which states that the\ndefendant recommended more drastic and more cruel measures.\n\nIt has been proved through the evidence that utterances to that effect\nwere made by the defendant only in smaller circles and while he was in a\nstate of excitement. It has been proved that no action was ever taken in\nconformity with these utterances. It has been proved that the defendant\nnever asked for action pursuant to such utterances. It has been proved\nthat he did not have any executive power in regard to any measures\nwhatsoever. It has finally been proved that the record concerning such\nutterances must in part be incorrect.\n\nTherefore, it has not been proved that the defendant approved such\ncruelties or demanded them in earnest.\n\n C\n\nThe objection must be raised that the Military Tribunal did not clarify\nat all the legal questions which were raised by the defense in\nconnection with the fact that the Russian Government has explicitly\nrenounced the Hague Convention concerning Land Warfare and the previous\nGeneva Conventions. Since the Decree Number 7 of the Military Government\nfor Germany provides, in Article XV, that reasons have to be given for\nthe sentence, the Tribunal would have had to state its position in\nregard to these questions. This also constitutes a defectiveness of the\nverdict and this defect may possibly have had an influence on the award\nof the punishment.\n\n D\n\nThe Military Tribunal has extensively referred on page 14 and 15 to the\nverdict of the International Military Tribunal against Speer. The\nTribunal has therefore made the reasons of the International Military\nTribunal its own to a large extent.\n\nBut consequently the Military Tribunal would have had to examine the\nproblem of extenuating circumstances. The defense has already pointed\nout that the fact that he organized protected factories constituted for\nSpeer an extenuating circumstance. During the trial it has been clearly\nproved that Milch was the first who already in 1941 organized protected\nfactories, and that he was, therefore, the inventor of this kind of\nemployment.\n\nThe problem of extenuating circumstances involves further the\nexamination of the question, whether Milch had more to do with the\nutilization of foreign workers and prisoners of war than Speer. This\nexamination was omitted. Exhibit Milch 55 and also all the evidence\nproved that Speer\u2019s participation in the utilization of foreign workers\nand prisoners of war was considerably more extensive.\n\nIf the Tribunal had examined the extenuating circumstances, then the\nresult would undoubtedly have been that the defendant would have been\nallowed extenuating circumstances on a large scale. Due to the fact that\nthe responsibility of Speer was greater than that of Milch, Milch should\nnot have received a more severe sentence than Speer.\n\nConsideration should also have been given to the fact that it was proved\nthat Milch continually advocated restrictions in the employment of\nforeign workers and of prisoners of war, and that he did indeed succeed\nin achieving such restrictions.\n\nFinally, consideration should also have been given to the fact that\nMilch withdrew from his positions as early as spring and summer 1944,\nand that he had nothing to do with the extraordinary aggravation of all\nconditions which took place toward the end of the war.\n\nThis weighs more than what Speer did\u2014the nonexecution of some insane\norders which Hitler issued at the end of the war in 1945.\n\nThis consideration too should have led the Tribunal to a much less\nsevere sentence. The fact that this was not taken into consideration is\ntherefore made a part of this petition.\n\n (Signed) DR. BERGOLD\n\n\n\n\n B. Petition to the Supreme Court of the United States\n for Writ of Habeas Corpus\n\nErhard Milch,\nPetitioner _vs._ United States of America\n\n Nuernberg, 2 May 1947\n\nIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES\n\nApplication for Leave to File Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus\n\n Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus\n\nI, the undersigned Erhard Milch, have been charged in Case No. II before\nthe Military Court No. II Nuernberg of illegally, deliberately, and\nintentionally having committed war crimes and crimes against humanity,\nas defined in Control Council Law No. 10 Article II, viz. the following:\n\n_Count One of the Indictment._ War crimes, including murder, slave\nlabor, deportation of the civilian population for slave labor, cruel and\ninhuman treatment of foreign workers, and the employment of prisoners of\nwar by force and duress in actions connected with warfare.\n\n_Count Two of the Indictment._ War crimes, including murder, whereby\ninvoluntary victims were exposed to sub-pressure and cold, experiments\nresulting in torture and death.\n\n_Count Three of the Indictment._ Crimes against humanity, including\nmurder and the unlawful acts listed in counts one and two of the\nindictment, committed against Germans and foreigners.\n\n (page 2 of original)\n\nI have been acquitted on count II of the indictment and found guilty by\nthe sentence passed by the Military Court II on 16/17 April 1947 in\nrespect of counts I and III of the indictment, and am condemned\ntherefore to lifelong imprisonment.\n\nI hereby make application for the sentence of the Military Court II\npassed on 16/17 April 1947 to be completely quashed, as being\ninadmissible according to Articles 63 and 64 of the Geneva Convention of\n1929.\n\n _Substantiation_\n\nDecree No. 7 of the Military Government of Germany concerning the\nconstitution and competency of certain military courts, constitutes a\nviolation of Article 63 of the Geneva Convention of 1929, insofar as\nDecree No. 7 is applied to prisoners of war as well, and in its Article\nII appoints special courts for passing sentences on prisoners of war.\nArticle 63 of the Geneva Convention of 1929 lays down, \u201cSentence against\na prisoner of war may only be passed by the same courts and according to\nthe same procedure as a sentence against persons belonging to the\nfighting forces of the country where he is a prisoner\u201d. A field marshal\nis equal to a five-star general of the United States of America. The\npresent Court consisted of three judges, of which not one has the\nmilitary rank which I have. It therefore does not correspond to the\ncourt which, according to the laws of the United States of America,\ncould pass sentence on a five-star general. The authority of the present\nCourt is, however, expressly recognized by me.\n\nFurthermore, Decree No. 7 of the Military Government of Germany\nconstitutes a violation in Article XV of Article 64 of the Geneva\nConvention of 1929, because Article XV declares the sentence of the\ncourt in finding the defendant guilty, to be final and incontestable.\nArticle 64 of the Geneva Convention of 1929 stipulates that prisoners of\nwar must be allowed to employ the same legal means against a verdict as\nare granted to members of the fighting forces\n\n(page 3 of original)\n\nof the country where they are detained.\n\nThe rules laid down by the Geneva Convention of 1929 represent\ncompulsory international law of a universal character and cannot be\naltered either by a signatory power alone or by an agreement between\nseveral signatory powers, but only by the consent of all signatory\npowers. In no case may they be altered by a decree of Military\nGovernment, not even by a decree of the Control Council. The rights of a\nprisoner of war, which are based upon the regulations of the Geneva\nConvention of 1929, can neither be waived nor cancelled.\n\nThe violation of the regulations of the Geneva Convention has now come\nabout with the passing of sentence and the now existing restrictions\nplaced in the way of contesting the verdict, not already by the trial as\nsuch.\n\nI am still a prisoner of war. I have not been released from captivity. I\nam therefore still under the protection of the Geneva Convention, the\nsame as before.\n\nThe violation of the Geneva Convention is all the more serious, in that\nI am still a prisoner of war of the British. True, the defense counsel\nwas told at the beginning of the trial in reply to an express question,\nthat my transfer to the jurisdiction of the United States of America was\nalready effected, but it was not proved until the conclusion of the\npassing of sentence. That should have been absolutely necessary.\n\nAfter the serving of the indictment and the beginning of the actual\ntrial, an attempt was made on 4 January 1947 to gain my veiled consent\nto my release without saying anything, whereby I was asked to accept\nrelease money. On the receipt, however, I expressly noted, \u201cWithout\nrecognizing my release\u201d. I declared that release by American officers\nwas not\n\n(page 4 of original)\n\npermissible at that moment and moreover a German field marshal could not\nbe released in any case under existing German law.\n\nAfter this explanation on my part, the American major conducting the\nproceedings revealed to me that another separate release proceeding\nwould have to be carried out against me then.\n\nThereby it is clear that I am still a prisoner of war today. At any\nrate, I was when the trial begun and therefore in accordance with\nArticle 60 of the Geneva Convention the protecting power for German\nprisoners of war, viz., Switzerland, should have been informed of the\nproceedings. This too constitutes a violation of the Geneva Convention\nof 1929. If the public prosecution authorities, however, were to refer\nto the fact that I was released after the trial had begun, then they\nshould be confronted with the assertion that such a release is invalid.\nIt would represent nothing but an evasion of the regulations of the\nGeneva Convention of 1929. I was not set at large for a single day. But\nthat is demanded by a release from captivity as a prisoner of war. A\nrelease from captivity as a prisoner of war while maintaining captivity\nwould be a release in fraudem legis.\n\nTherefore the sentence constitutes a violation of international law. At\nthe same time this violation is also a violation of the Habeas Corpus\nAct. None, under whatever pretext, may be deprived of the rights of\nlegal proceedings and of a legal judge.\n\nI therefore request the Supreme Court in Washington to examine whether\nthe Decree No. 7 of the Military Government of Germany may be applied in\nmy case, and whether, with due regard to the regulations of Article\n60-65 of the Geneva Convention, the present Military Court II\n\n(page 5 of original)\n\nNuernberg was in a position to pass sentence on me.\n\nFurthermore I enclose a copy of my petition to the Governor-General\n[Military Governor of U. S. Zone of Occupation].\n\n [Signed] ERHARD MILCH\n\n [Note: Another petition with the same text was submitted to the\n United States Supreme Court by Dr. Bergold, Defense Counsel.]\n\n\n\n\n IX. AFFIRMATION OF SENTENCE BY THE\n MILITARY GOVERNOR OF THE UNITED\n STATES ZONE OF OCCUPATION\n\n\n Military Tribunal II, Case No. 2\n\nIn the Case of\n\nThe United States of America\n\n _vs._\n\nErhard Milch, Defendant\n\n _Order with Respect to Sentence_\n\nIn the case of the United States of America against Erhard Milch, tried\nby United States Military Tribunal II, Case 2, Nuernberg, Germany, the\ndefendant on 17 April 1947 was sentenced by the Tribunal to be\ntransported to the Rebdorf Prison and there confined for the remainder\nof his natural life. A petition to modify the sentence, filed on behalf\nof the defendant by Dr. Friedrich Bergold, his defense counsel, has been\nreferred to me pursuant to delegation by the Military Governor under the\nprovisions of Article XXIII of Military Government Ordinance No. 7 and\nparagraph 6_b_ of Regulation No. 1 under said Ordinance. I have duly\nconsidered the petition and the record of the trial, and in accordance\nwith Article XVII of said Ordinance and paragraph 6_b_ of said\nRegulation it is hereby ordered that\u2014\n\nThe sentence imposed by Military Tribunal II, upon Erhard Milch be, and\nhereby is, in all respects affirmed.\n\n [Signed] FRANK A. KEATING\n FRANK A. KEATING\n Major General USA\n Deputy Military Governor\n 17 June 1947\n\n\n\n\n X. ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME\n COURT, 20 OCTOBER 1947, DENYING\n WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS\n\n\nPresent: Mr. Chief Justice Vinson, Mr. Justice Black, Mr. Justice Reed,\nMr. Justice Frankfurter, Mr. Justice Douglas, Mr. Justice Murphy, Mr.\nJustice Jackson, Mr. Justice Rutledge, and Mr. Justice Burton.\n\n\n\nNo. 50, Misc. Erhard Milch, petitioner, _vs._ The United States of\nAmerica. The motion for leave to file petition for writ of habeas corpus\nis denied. Mr. Justice Black, Mr. Justice Douglas, Mr. Justice Murphy,\nand Mr. Justice Rutledge are of the opinion that the petition should be\nset for hearing on the question of the jurisdiction of this Court. Mr.\nJustice Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision of this\napplication.\n\n\n\n\n APPENDIX\n\n\n\n\n List of Witnesses in Case 2\n\n\n [NOTE.\u2014With the exception of Constantin von Neurath, Erich\n Raeder, and Albert Speer, all witnesses in this case appeared\n before the Tribunal. Prosecution witnesses are designated by the\n letter \u201cP,\u201d defense witnesses by the letter \u201cD\u201d, Tribunal\n witness by the letter \u201cT\u201d. The name not preceded by any\n designation represents the defendant testifying in his own\n behalf. Extracts from testimony in this Case are listed in the\n index of documents and testimonies.]\n\n Name \u2502 Date of Testimony \u2502 Pages\n \u2502 \u2502 (mimeographed\n \u2502 \u2502 transcript)\nD ALEXANDER, Dr. Leo \u250214 Feb 47 \u25021074-1092\nD BECKER-FREYSENG, Hermann \u250214 Feb 47 \u25021061-1066\nD BRANDT, Rudolf \u250224 Feb 47 \u25021330-1354\nD BRAUCHITSCH, Berndt von \u250220 Feb 47 \u25021271-1289\nD DORSCH, Xaver \u250224 Feb 47 \u25021361-1379\nD ENGEL, Gerhard \u250224 Feb 47 \u25021355-1361\nD ESCHENAUER, Artur \u250213 Feb 47 \u2502980-996\nD FELMY, Helmut \u250220 Feb 47 \u25021290-1296\nP FERRIER, Roland \u25025, 6 Mar 47 \u25021481-1548\nD FOERSTER, Helmut \u250212 Feb 47 \u2502915-938\nD HERTEL, Walter \u250212 Feb 47 \u2502944-979\nD HIPPKE, Erich \u25027, 11 Feb 47 \u2502759-870\nD KOENIG, Max \u250217 Feb 47 \u25021189-1204\nD KOERNER, Paul \u25025 Feb 47 \u2502652-710\nP KRYSIAK, Joseph \u250221 Mar 47 \u25022362-2376\nP LE FRIEC, Paul \u25026 Mar 47 \u25021550-1584\nT LICHTENSTEIN, Walter \u25023 Mar 47 \u25021428-1432\n MILCH, Erhard \u250211, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18,\u25021696-2276\n \u2502 19, 20 Mar 47 \u2502\nD NEFF, Walter \u250212 Feb 47 \u2502939-943\nD NEURATH, Constantin von \u250219 Feb 47 \u25021440-1443\nD PENDELE, Max \u250218 Feb 47 \u25021205-1227\nD RAEDER, Erich \u25024 Mar 47 \u25021434-1439\nD REINECKE, Hermann \u250220 Mar 47 \u25022277-2287\nD RICHTER, Karl Eitel \u250211 Feb 47 \u2502871-900\nD ROEDER, Manfred \u25023 Mar 47 \u25021381-1403\nD ROMBERG, Hans Wolfgang \u250214 Feb 47 \u25021021A-1050\nD RUFF, Siegfried \u250214, 17 Feb 47 \u25021092-1122\nD SCHMELTER, Fritz \u25026, 7 Feb 47 \u2502717-759\nD SCHNIEWIND, Otto \u250224 Feb 47 \u25021307-1329\nD SCHROEDER, Oskar \u2502 \u2502(withdrawn)\nD SIEVERS, Wolfram \u250214 Feb 47 \u25021050-1057\nD SPEER, Albert \u250217, 19 Feb 47 \u25021136-1186; 1445-1457\nD VORWALD, Wolfgang \u250210, 11, 20, 21 Mar 47 \u25021586-1696; 2287-2340\nD WARLIMONT, Walter \u250220 Feb 47 \u25021296-1299\nD WELTZ, Georg August \u250214 Feb 47 \u25021066-1072\nD WOLFF, Karl \u250218 Feb 47 \u25021228-1268\n\n\n\n\n INDEX OF DOCUMENTS AND TESTIMONY\n\n\nDocument No. Exhibit No. Description Page\nEC-68 Pros. Ex. 6 Letter from the Ministry of Finance 389\n and Economics of Baden, 6 March\n 1941, containing directives\n regarding the treatment of Polish\n farm workers.\nEC-194 Pros. Ex. 8 Memorandum of Keitel, 31 October 1941, 393\n concerning the use of PW\u2019s in the\n armament industry.\nF-824 Pros. Ex. 57 Order of Field Marshal von Kluge 542\n regarding compulsory recruitment of\n labor in the West, 25 July 1944.\nL-61 Pros. Ex. 20 Letter from Sauckel to the presidents 413\n of Labor Offices, 26 November 1942,\n concerning deportation and\n employment of Poles and Jews.\nL-79 Pros. Ex. 3 Extract from minutes of Fuehrer 387\n conference, 23 May 1939.\nNI-1098 Pros. Ex. 63 Extracts from affidavit of Fritz 456\n Sauckel, 22 September 1946,\n regarding the jurisdiction of the\n Central Planning Board.\nNO-219 Pros. Ex. 83 Letter from Dr. Rudolf Brandt to Dr. 626\n Rascher, 27 April 1942, concerning\n medical experiment report for\n Himmler and Milch.\nNO-261 Pros. Ex. 89 Letter from Milch to Dr. Hippke, 4 626\n June 1942, concerning availability\n of low pressure air chamber for\n experiments.\nNO-262 Pros. Ex. 119 Letter from Dr. Hippke to SS 631\n Obergruppenfuehrer Wolff, 6 March\n 1943, concerning Rascher\u2019s transfer\n to the Waffen SS.\nNOKW-017 Pros. Ex. 54 Extracts from the minutes of the 527\n conference with Air Force Engineers\n and Chief Quartermasters under\n chairmanship of Milch, 25 March\n 1944.\nNOKW-041 Pros. Ex. 113 Sworn statement by Hermann Goering, 27 625\n September 1946, concerning Milch\u2019s\n position as Inspector General of the\n Luftwaffe.\nNOKW-180 Pros. Ex. 155 Extracts from stenographic notes on 613\n the conference at the Reich\n Marshal\u2019s on Thursday, 4 November\n 1943, 11 o\u2019clock at the Junkers\n Plant in Dessau.\nNOKW-195 Pros. Ex. 143 Extracts from stenographic minutes of 608\n conference with Goering, 28 October\n 1943.\nNOKW-245 Pros. Ex. 157 Extracts from stenographic minutes of 606\n conference with Goering, 22 February\n 1943, regarding plans for airplane\n construction.\nNOKW-247 Pros. Ex. 61 Appointment of Field Marshal Milch as 540\n Goering\u2019s plenipotentiary for the\n intensification of air force\n armament in June 1944.\nNOKW-261 Pros. Ex. 70 Chart of the organization of the 535\n Jaegerstab drawn by Saur with letter\n of transmittal to prosecution staff,\n 14 November 1946.\nNOKW-266 Pros. Ex. 76 Affidavit of Fritz Schmelter, 19 559\n November 1946, concerning the\n organization of the Jaegerstab.\nNOKW-269 Pros. Ex. 59 A short curriculum vitae of Field 633\n Marshal Erhard Milch.\nNOKW-286 Pros. Ex. 144 Extracts from stenographic minutes of 605\n GL-Conference, 1 September 1942.\nNOKW-287 Pros. Ex. 49 Letter from Milch to Sauckel, 8 April 499\n 1943, concerning the protection of\n industry.\nNOKW-311 Pros. Ex. 62 Extract from interrogation of Hermann 597\n Goering on 6 September 1946,\n regarding Milch\u2019s position as\n Generalluftzeugmeister (GL).\nNOKW-320 Pros. Ex. 73 Extract from interrogation of Karl 558\n Otto Saur on 13 November 1946,\n concerning the use of concentration\n camp prisoners in Jaegerstab\n construction.\nNOKW-334 Pros. Ex. 75 Extract from transcript of 550\n stenographic minutes of the\n Jaegerstab Conference of 25 April\n 1944.\nNOKW-334 Def. Ex. 16 Extracts from stenographic minutes of 564\n the Jaegerstab Conference, 25 April\n 1944.\nNOKW-336 Pros. Ex. 75 Extracts from transcript of 555\n stenographic minutes of the\n Jaegerstab Conference on 26 May\n 1944.\nNOKW-336 Def. Ex. 23 Excerpts from the stenographic minutes 566\n of the Jaegerstab Conference on\n Friday, 26 May 1944, at 10:00\n o\u2019clock.\nNOKW-337 Pros. Ex. 75 Extracts from transcript of 544\n stenographic minutes of the\n Jaegerstab Conference of 6 March\n 1944.\nNOKW-337 Def. Ex. 12 Excerpts from the stenographic minutes 561\n of the Jaegerstab Conference on 6\n March 1944 in the Reich Air\n Ministry.\nNOKW-338 Pros. Ex. 75 Extracts from transcript of 545\n stenographic minutes of the\n Jaegerstab Conference on Friday, 17\n March 1944.\nNOKW-338 Def. Ex. 13 Excerpts from the stenographic minutes 562\n of the Jaegerstab Conference\n presided over by Field Marshal Milch\n on Friday, 17 March 1944, 1100\n hours, in the Reich Air Ministry.\nNOKW-346 Pros. Ex. 75 Extracts from transcript of 546\n stenographic minutes of the\n Jaegerstab Conference under\n chairmanship of Field Marshal Milch\n on Monday, 20 March 1944.\nNOKW-359 Pros. Ex. 75 Extracts from transcript of 557\n stenographic minutes of the\n Jaegerstab Conference on 27 June\n 1944.\nNOKW-361 Pros. Ex. 75 Extract from transcript of 554\n stenographic minutes of the\n Jaegerstab Conference during the 6th\n journey of the \u201cHubertus\n Undertaking\u201d from 8-10 May 1944.\nNOKW-362 Pros. Ex. 75 Extracts from transcript of 552\n stenographic minutes of Jaegerstab\n Conference on the occasion of the\n 5th trip of the \u201cHubertus\n Undertaking\u201d, 2 and 3 May 1944.\nNOKW-365 Def. Ex. 15 Extract from the stenographic minutes 563\n of the Jaegerstab Conference, 12\n April 1944.\nNOKW-388 Pros. Ex. 75 Extracts from transcript of 547\n stenographic minutes of the\n Jaegerstab Conference of 28 March\n 1944.\nNOKW-390 Pros. Ex. 75 Extract from transcript of 553\n stenographic minutes of the\n Jaegerstab Conference of 4 May 1944.\nNOKW-406 Pros. Ex. 138 Extracts from stenographic minutes of 599\n the GL-Conference, 7 July 1942.\nNOKW-407 Pros. Ex. 137 Extracts from stenographic minutes of 599\n GL-Conference, 27 May 1942.\nNOKW-408 Pros. Ex. 139 Extracts from stenographic minutes of 600\n GL-Conference, 28 July 1942.\nNOKW-409 Pros. Ex. 140 Extracts from stenographic minutes of 601\n GL-Conference, 4 August 1942.\nNOKW-412 Pros. Ex. 141 Extracts from stenographic minutes of 602\n GL-Conference, 18 August 1942.\nNOKW-416 Pros. Ex. 142 Extracts from stenographic minutes of 602\n GL-Conference, 26 August 1942.\nNOKW-418 Pros. Ex. 136 Extracts from stenographic minutes of 598\n GL-Conference, 5 May 1942.\nNOKW-442 Pros. Ex. 75 Extract from transcript of 554\n stenographic minutes of the\n Jaegerstab Conference on 5 May 1944.\nNOKW-442 Def. Ex. 21 Extract from the stenographic minutes 565\n of the Jaegerstab Conference, 5 May\n 1944.\nNOKW-449 Pros. Ex. 148 Extracts from stenographic minutes of 607\n GL-Conference, 2 March 1943.\n016-PS Pros. Ex. 13 Letter from Sauckel to Rosenberg, 24 405\n April 1942, and extracts from report\n on Sauckel\u2019s labor mobilization\n program, 20 April 1942.\n084-PS Pros. Ex. 16-A Extracts from interdepartmental report 408\n of the Ministry for Occupied Eastern\n Territories, 30 September 1942,\n concerning the status of Eastern\n laborers.\n204-PS Pros. Ex. 39 Extracts from memorandum of a 424\n conference, 18 February 1944,\n concerning the release of indigenous\n labor for purposes of the Reich.\n208-PS Pros. Ex. 55 Report by Sauckel, 7 July 1944, on the 428\n accomplishments of labor\n mobilization in the first half of\n 1944.\n265-PS Pros. Ex. 35 Extracts from report by Leyser to 423\n Rosenberg, 30 June 1943, on\n conditions in the district Zhitomir.\n294-PS Pros. Ex. 19-A Extracts from top secret memorandum, 411\n signed by Braeutigam, 25 October\n 1942, concerning effects of slave\n labor program.\n407-II-PS Def. Ex. 3 Report from Sauckel to Hitler, 10 439\n March 1943, concerning difficulties\n originating from the draft of\n manpower in former Soviet\n territories.\n407-V-PS Pros. Ex. 30 Extracts from letter from Sauckel to 418\n Hitler, 14 April 1943, concerning\n labor questions.\n407-IX-PS Pros. Ex. 33 Letter from Sauckel to Hitler, 3 June 420\n 1943, concerning foreign labor\n situation.\n1063-D-PS Pros. Ex. 21 Extract from order of Mueller, 17 415\n December 1942, concerning prisoners\n qualified for work to be sent to\n concentration camps.\n1206-PS Pros. Ex. 9 Outlines of directives of Goering 395\n regarding the employment of PW\u2019s in\n the armament industry, 7 November\n 1941.\n1510-PS Pros. Ex. 58 Extracts from decree of 16 September 450\n 1943, defining the duties of the\n Planning Office of the Central\n Planning Board.\n1526-PS Pros. Ex. 25 Extracts from letter from 416\n German-appointed Ukrainian main\n committee to Frank, February 1943.\n1584-III-PS Pros. Ex. 71 Correspondence between Himmler and 537\n Goering, 9 March 1944, concerning\n the use of concentration camp\n prisoners in the aircraft industry.\n1607-A-PS Pros. Ex. 115 Letter from Himmler to Milch, 25 628\n August 1942, concerning Dr.\n Rascher\u2019s report on high-altitude\n experiments.\n1607-B-PS Pros. Ex. 115 Letter from Dr. Rascher to Dr. Brandt, 627\n 20 July 1942, concerning report on\n high-altitude experiments.\n1617-PS Pros. Ex. 111 Letter from Himmler to Milch, 13 629\n November 1942, concerning Rascher\u2019s\n transfer to the Waffen SS.\n3000-PS Pros. Ex. 34 Extracts from report rendered to 422\n Riecke, Ministerialdirektor in the\n Ministry of Agriculture, 28 June\n 1943, on experiences in political\n and economic problems in the East.\n3005-PS Pros. Ex. 7 Extracts from letter from the Reich 392\n Labor Ministry to presidents of\n Regional Labor Offices, 26 August\n 1941, concerning the use of French\n and Russian PW\u2019s.\n3040-PS Pros. Ex. 10 Extracts from secret order of Himmler, 399\n 20 February 1942, concerning the\n commitment and treatment of manpower\n from the East.\n3721-PS Pros. Ex. 41-A Testimony of Fritz Sauckel, 22 452\n September 1945, regarding the\n jurisdiction of the Central Planning\n Board.\n3819-PS Pros. Ex. 56 Minutes of a conference on 11 July 430\n 1944 attended by Milch, concerning\n the labor problem.\nR-103 Pros. Ex. 40 Extracts from a letter from the 426\n (German-appointed) Polish main\n committee to the General Government\n of Poland on the conditions of\n Polish workers in Germany, 17 May\n 1944.\nR-124 Pros. Ex. 48-B Stenographic record of the first 447\n conference of the Central Planning\n Board on 27 April 1942.\nR-124 Pros. Ex. 48-A Extracts from report on the eleventh 457\n conference of the Central Planning\n Board, 22 July 1942.\nR-124 Def. Ex. 5 Extract from the stenographic report 509\n of the eleventh conference of the\n Central Planning Board, 22 July\n 1942.\nR-124 Pros. Ex. 48-A Extracts from report on the 459\n seventeenth conference of the\n Central Planning Board, 28 October\n 1942.\nR-124 Pros. Ex. 48-A Extracts from stenographic minutes of 461\n twenty-first conference of Central\n Planning Board, 30 October 1942.\nR-124 Def. Ex. 6 Extract from the stenographic minutes 510\n of the twenty-second conference of\n the Central Planning Board, 2\n November 1942.\nR-124 Pros. Ex. 48-B Extracts from stenographic minutes of 465\n the twenty-third conference of the\n Central Planning Board, 3 November\n 1942.\nR-124 Def. Ex. 7 Extract from the stenographic minutes 510\n of the thirty-second conference of\n the Central Planning Board, 12\n February 1943.\nR-124 Pros. Ex. 48-A Extracts from stenographic minutes of 467\n the thirty-third conference of the\n Central Planning Board, 16 February\n 1943.\nR-124 Def. Ex. 8 Extract from the stenographic minutes 511\n of the thirty-third conference of\n the Central Planning Board, 16\n February 1943.\nR-124 Pros. Ex. 48-A Extracts from stenographic minutes of 471\n the thirty-sixth conference of the\n Central Planning Board, 22 April\n 1943.\nR-124 Def. Ex. 9 Extract from stenographic minutes of 516\n the thirty-ninth conference of the\n Central Planning Board, 23 April\n 1943.\nR-124 Pros. Ex. 48-A Report of the forty-second conference 475\n of the Central Planning Board, 23\n June 1943.\nR-124 Pros. Ex. 48-A Extracts from stenographic minutes of 478\n the fifty-third conference of the\n Central Planning Board, 16 February\n 1944.\nR-124 Pros. Ex. 48-B Report on the fifty-third conference 479\n of the Central Planning Board, 16\n February 1944.\nR-124 Pros. Ex. 48-A Extracts from the stenographic minutes 484\n of the fifty-fourth conference of\n the Central Planning Board, 1 March\n 1944.\nR-124 Def. Ex. 31 Extracts from the stenographic minutes 517\n of the fifty-fourth conference of\n the Central Planning Board, 1 March\n 1944.\nR-124 Pros. Ex. 48-D Extracts from the report on the 498\n fifty-sixth conference of the\n Central Planning Board, 4 April\n 1944.\nR-124 Def. Ex. 1 Extract from report on Fuehrer 438\n conference attended by Milch on 19\n February 1942.\nR-124 Def. Ex. 32 Extract from the Fuehrer conference 438\n minutes, 21 and 22 April 1942.\nR-124 Pros. Ex. 48-B Letter of 20 October 1942 transmitting 448\n the statutes of the Central Planning\n Board.\nR-124 Def. Ex. 2 Extract from the Fuehrer conference 439\n minutes of 3, 4, 5 January 1943.\nR-124 Def. Ex. 33 Extract from report on Fuehrer 441\n conference of 30 May 1943.\nR-124 Pros. Ex. 124 Speer\u2019s minutes of a conference with 501\n Hitler on 8 July 1943.\nR-124 Def. Ex. 4 Extract from report of Fuehrer 442\n conference of 11-12 September 1943.\nR-124 Def. Ex. 34 Extract from Fuehrer conference of 1-4 443\n January 1944, concerning Speer\u2019s\n report on the French labor\n situation.\nR-124 Pros. Ex. 48-A Extract from the report by Saur of the 502\n conference with the Fuehrer, 5 March\n 1944.\nR-124 Pros. Ex. 48-E Extracts from the minutes of 539\n discussions between Saur and the\n Fuehrer, 6 and 7 April 1944.\nSpeer Ex. 34 Def. Ex. 17 Order of Hitler, 21 April 1944, 560\n delegating to Dorsch authority for\n Jaegerstab constructions.\n\n TESTIMONIES\n\nExcerpts from the testimony of defendant _Milch_ 635\nExtracts of testimony of defense witness Fritz _Schmelter_ 567\nExtracts of testimony of defense witness Xaver _Dorsch_ 583\nExtracts from testimony of defense witness Max _Koenig_ 615\nExcerpts from the testimony given by defense witness Albert _Speer_ 502\nbefore Commission on 19 February 1947\n\n\n\n\n TRANSCRIBER NOTES\n\nPunctuation and spelling has been maintained except where obvious\nprinter errors have occurred such as missing periods or commas for\nperiods. American spelling occurs throughout the document. Multiple\noccurrences of the following spellings which differ and are found\nthroughout this volume are as follows:\n\n border line borderline\n front line front-line\n Jewish Bolshevik Jewish-Bolshevik\n Fraeulein Frau\n\nAlthough some sentences may appear to have incorrect spellings or verb\ntenses, the original text has been maintained as it represents what the\ntribunal read into the record and reflects the actual translations\nbetween the German, English, Russian and French documents presented in\nthe trial(s). This volume had no German, Polish, Russian or other\neastern European diacritics, only French diacritics. As a result,\nGoering and Fuehrer are spelled without umlauts throughout.\n\nAn attempt has been made to produce this ebook in a format as close as\npossible to the original document's presentation and layout.\n\nSome illustrations were moved to facilitate page layout.\n\n[The end of _Trials of War Criminals before the Nuernberg Military\nTribunals under Control Council Law No. 10 (Oct 1946-Apr 1949) (Vol.\n2)_, by Anonymous.]","title":"Trials of war criminals before the Nuernberg military tribunals under control council law no. 10, volume II","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":351054}