Nuremburg Trials
The Decisions of Dr. Michael A. Musmanno
It is idle for defense counsel to say that Milch "was never a good National
Socialist." If joining a political party, accepting its benefits and preferments,
rising to supreme heights in grade and distinction, offering never-flagging loyalty
to the Fuehrer, even in the face of a declared acknowledgment that the Fuehrer
was leading Germany to disaster, if this does not make one a full-fledged
National Socialist, then nothing does.
The defendant has recounted his worries and anguish and has explained that
this mental torment provoked many of his unbridled utterances, but what was the
cause of this bitterness and mortification? Not that Europe had become a
slaughterhouse, not that blood ran like water, not that the four Horsemen of the
Apocalypse were galloping over the continent hurling famine, pestilence, and
death into every city, village, and hamlet. Milch's torment and soul-sickness were
not that the human race and human dignity were being debased and degraded as
they had never been before since man knew shame. It was not for all this that
Milch's heart was breaking. His consternation, his panic was that Germany was
losing the war!
[Volume 2 Page 797]
B. Concurring Opinion by
Judge Michael A. Musmanno
The defendant is Erhard Milch, Field Marshal in the German Luftwaffe,
Inspector General of the Luftwaffe, State Secretary in the Air Ministry,
Generalluftzeugmeister, representative of the Wehrmacht on the Central Planning
Board, Chief of the Jaegerstab and member of the Nazi Party. He stands indicted
of war crimes and crimes against humanity as defined in Control Council Law No.
10, enacted by Allied Control Council on 20 December 1945.
The indictment contains three counts which may be briefly summarized as
follows:
COUNT ONE
Erhard Milch is charged with having knowingly committed war crimes as
principal and accessory in enterprises involving slave labor and having also
willingly and knowingly participated in enterprises involving the use of prisoners
of war in war operations contrary to international convention and the laws and
customs of war.
COUNT TWO
The defendant is accused of having knowingly and willfully participated in
enterprises involving fatal medical experiments upon subjects without their
consent.
COUNT THREE
In the third count the defendant is charged with responsibility for slave
labor and fatal medical experiments, in the same manner as indicated in the first
two counts, except that here the alleged victims are declared to be German
nationals and nationals of other countries.
The defendant has entered a general denial of Not Guilty to all counts. To
the charges of slave labor he has answered in effect.
1. That the term slave labor is a misnomer and that all foreign workmen in
Germany during the war were there of their own free will. [798]
2. That if they did not come voluntarily they were treated humanely,
considerately, and were not subjected to any ill-treatment either in
transportation or while actively employed for the Reich.
3. That if ill-treatment, fatal or otherwise, of foreign workmen occurred, the
defendant was in no way responsible for such ill-treatment.
To the charges of responsibility for fatal medical experiments inflicted on
involuntary subjects, the defendant replies substantially
1. That the high-altitude and freezing experiments were not painful to the
subjects, nor did any illegal deaths result therefrom.
2. That if fatalities did occur, they were suffered by those already
condemned to death, or were caused by persons over whom the defendant
had no control.
3. That in any event, Milch was in no way officially connected with the
illegal and fatal experiments.
I. SLAVE LABOR
(a) Methods of Recruitment
The defense has affirmatively asserted that there was no slave labor in
Germany during the war, or that if it did exist, its scope was negligible. The
Tribunal finds that this assertion is not supported by the testimony in the case. It
concludes, on the contrary, from the evidence presented at this trial that the
German Reich during World War II did actively and plenarily employ slave labor. It
further is of the opinion that the Third Reich used and abused slave labor to an
extent and in a manner hitherto unknown in either modern or ancient history. The
exploitation of human beings by Germany during the years of the war must take
its place, in point of cruelty and inhumaneness, with the most iniquitous slave
practices of the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians, and Persians. The
building of the Pyramids, the Hanging Gardens of. Babylon, and other ancient
landmarks under whip and lash have their modern counterpart in the German
building of. the Western Wall, the Gothic Line, military fortifications,
concentration camps, and munitions factories. The guilt of the German Reich is
greater than that of the ancient empires because in that area of antiquity the
immorality of human bondage was not universally accepted, whereas in 1939 no
country in the sisterhood [ 799] of civilized nations had failed to condemn and
outlaw involuntary servitude in its every form.
It is submitted in behalf of the defendant that foreign workers came to
Germany of their own will. It is true that in the early stages of the European
conflict, Germany offered such inducements in foreign countries as to persuade
numbers of their subjects voluntarily to proceed to that country for remunerative
employment. In those first days of Blitzkrieg when nation after nation fell
helplessly under the invincible Nazi war machine, workers accepted employment
in Germany not only because of promises made, but because exterior evidence to
their bewildered minds seemed to portend that soon the frontiers of Germany
would be coterminous with the boundaries of Europe itself. Thus, but small
choice remained to them; whether they worked at home or in Germany the master
was destined to be the same.
However, when the subjugated peoples perceived at Stalingrad that the
unbeatable German army could be beaten, when they heard the roar of American
propellers in the sky and the clank of British tanks returned once more to the
battle, a light of hope gleamed that it might not be true, as Hitler had said, that his
rule and order were to endure a thousand years, and then these people refused
the coin and currency of the German Reich. From then on the feet of foreign
workers were not turned willingly toward Germany. And in the face of this
defiance, Sauckel, German Plenipotentiary for Labor, declared, "Should we not
succeed in obtaining the necessary amount of labor on a voluntary basis, we
must immediately institute conscription or forced labor." (T-58.)*
There is no adding machine tape to which one can turn to determine the
exact total number of foreign workers impressed into German industry, but Fritz
Sauckel, Plenipotentiary General for Labor, declared, "Out of 5,000,000 workers
who arrived in Germany, not even 200,000 came voluntarily." (T-149.) Heinrich
Himmler placed the number of foreign workers at from 6,000,000 to 7,000,000.
(IMT 243)
On 9 November 1941, Hitler declared in a speech:
"The territory which now works for us contains more than 250,000,000 men,
but the territory which works indirectly for us includes now more than
350,000,000. In the measure in which it concerns German territory, the
domain which we have taken under our administration, it is not doubtful
that we shall succeed in harnessing the very last man to this work."
__________
*The reference "T" is to the page of the mimeographed transcript. "IMT" refers
to Trial of the Major War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal, Vol. I.
Nuremberg, Germany, 1947.
[800]Hitler was never quite able to achieve the fullness of this ambitious
program, but it was not due to any relinquishment of efforts in that direction by
himself or his criminal coadjutors. Of course, this program was in direct violation
of Article 52 of the Hague Convention which declares:
"Requisition in kind and services shall not be demanded from
municipalities or inhabitants, except for the needs of the army of
occupation. They shall be in proportion to the resources of the country,
and of such a nature as not to involve the inhabitants in the obligation of
taking part in military operations against their own country."
In the very initial stages of the German invasions, the officiating agents
phrased their demands for labor in language which gave the recruitment an
aspect of voluntary action on the part of the workers. Thus, when the German
forces entered Lithuania, male and female farm workers were called upon by the
military administration to sign up for six months' employment on large estates,
but after the signatures were obtained the promises were not kept. (T-97.) And it
was not long until all pretense at voluntary recruitment was abandoned and then
Lithuanians, ordered to official agencies "only for registration", were held there
and taken away under military guards to the local barracks where they had
neither the opportunity to bid their families good-by nor to put their most
personal affairs in order. (T-97-98.)
There were other pacific methods to "persuade" foreign workers into
employment for the Reich. Thus, Governor General Frank of Poland
recommended that one way to force Polish workers into Germany was to
withhold their unemployment insurance. (T-112.) However, these genteel methods
in Poland soon gave way to means more direct. Recruitment now degenerated
into a fierce man hunt with unsuspecting victims being seized on the streets, in
railroad stations, from their homes, even in churches. (T-83.)
"Everybody is exposed to the danger of being seized anywhere and at any
time by members of the police, suddenly and unexpectedly, and being
brought into an assembly camp. None of his relatives knows what has
happened to him; only weeks or months later, one or the other gives news
of his fate by a postcard." (T-83.)
In Ukrainia skilled workers whose names had been furnished to the police
by corrupted village elders were "dragged from their beds at night to be locked
up in cellars until shipped." (T-67.) [801] As neither the male nor the female
workers were given time to gather up their belongings they often arrived at the
collecting center without shoes or other adequate clothing for the long and
torturing journey ahead. (T-67. )
A directive applying to recruitment in White Ruthenia declared:
"All permissible means shall be used to obtain manpower from White
Ruthenia. Do not hesitate to apply extraordinary measures."(T-91. )
In the same directive "the recruiters" are told, "Everything you do for
Germany is right, everything else is wrong." (T-93.) So wide-sweeping was this
recruitment drive waged by the SS and police in one area of White Ruthenia that
115,000 hectares of farm land became useless because the whole population had
been removed. (T-93. )
Goering bluntly declared in a speech at the Reich Ministry of Air on 7
November 1941, in connection with the Four Year Plan that Poles, Dutchmen, etc.,
were to be taken, "if necessary as prisoners of war and employ them as such, if
work through free contract cannot be obtained. Strong action." * * * "Foreigners
not to be treated like German workers." (T-53.)
One Leyser in making a report to Rosenberg on the situation in his district
of Zhitomir gives the answer to the assertion of voluntary labor when he says:
"It is certain that a recruitment of labor, in the sense of the word, can
hardly be spoken of. In most cases, it is nowadays a matter of actual
conscription by force. The population has been stirred up to a large extent
and views the transports to the Reich as a measure which does in no way
differ from the former exile to Siberia during the Czarist and Bolshevist
system." (T-94. )
A report on recruitment measures taken in Holland reveals:
"All Jewish Netherlanders, whom the Germans could lay their hands on,
with the exception of a small group of exempted persons, were brought
together here; hospitals, old age homes, institutions for the blind and other
disabled persons were emptied in order to concentrate the inmates in
Westerbork for deportation. Even the inmates of lunatic asylums did
not escape deportation." (T-125. )
On the subject of workers from the Netherlands, Goering said on 28
October 1943, in the presence of the defendant:
[802] "After that has been done once, one has to modify the system for the
second blow. Then the Dutch people will be no longer out in the streets on
Sunday for pleasure promenades * * *. First, all the people must be brought
together in a pen. Then they will be asked individually who works where.
Then the men will be selected accordingly." (T-2094.)
And on the subject of foreign exchange at that same meeting, Goering
contributed this bit of wisdom in finance:
"All we need to do is to fix the rate of exchange * * * today the German
mark equals 20 francs, tomorrow 23, then 27, then 40, and so forth, up to
one million, or one billion. We have had all that. The same holds true for
the guilder. One cigarette now costs in Holland 1.50 guilders; formerly it
cost 10 cents. I merely have to say, 1.50 guilders equal 10 pfennigs or one
mark equals 15 guilders." (T-2095.)
It may be well to note at once that all quotations from the transcript
represent excerpts from records and documents located in the official files of the
German Reich. The evidence advanced by the prosecution in this case was
almost exclusively documentary. Thus, if any observation in this opinion seems
overly emphatic and appears to go beyond the restraint usually found in judicial
pronouncements, it will still fall short of the force of language employed in some
of the original reports made by German officials to their own superiors at the time
of the events described. A top secret memorandum on conditions in occupied
Russian territory declared:
"It is no longer a secret from friend or foe that hundreds of thousands of
them literally have died of hunger or cold in our camps * * * We now
experience the grotesque picture of having to recruit millions of laborers
from the occupied eastern territories, after prisoners of war have died of
hunger like flies, in order to fill the gaps that are formed within Germany.
Now the food question no longer existed. In the prevailing limitless abuse
of the Slavic humanity, recruiting methods were used which probably had
their origin only in the blackest periods of the slave trade." (T-121.)
Even Rosenberg acknowledged the severity and harshness of the
recruitment program and protested, not, to be sure, on humanitarian grounds, but
because "endangered persons prefer to escape their fate" by going over to
guerilla bands. (T-78.)
The fury with which the man hunt for workers was prosecuted [803]
reached such extremes that in many instances villages were burned down as
"retribution for failure to comply with the demand for the appropriation of labor
forces directed to the communities." (T-80.)
And it was not only where large numbers were demanded that savage
reprisals occurred. In a little village where 25 workers had been ordered but none
reported, the German militia set fire to the houses of those who had fled. Then:
"The people who had hurried to the scene were forbidden to extinguish the
flames, beaten and arrested, so that seven homesteads burned down. The
policemen meanwhile ignited other houses. The people fell on their knees and
kissed their hands, but the policemen beat them with rubber truncheons."
(T-80-81.)All because the mighty Reich needed 25 men to throw into its vast
workshop of millions turning out the steel teeth of war.
In the same instance the German militia continued into other villages and
where they did not find the workers they seized the parents. "The workers who
had not appeared until then were shot." Then, in the report we are quoting from,
appears the damning phrase which shows more than anything else to what a low
ebb the dignity of man had been reduced and degraded by the German Reich.
"They are now catching humans like the dog catchers used to catch dogs."
(T-81.) The report closes on a statement which must needs bring a blush of
shame to the cheek of every member of the civilized human race:
"People from many villages went on a certain day to a pilgrimage to the
monastery Potschaew. They were all arrested, locked in, and will be sent to
work. Among them there are lame, blind, and aged people." (T-81.)
It has been asserted that the defendant and others holding high office
cannot and should not be held responsible for the acts of subordinate officers in
far away places, and of whose activities they could have no knowledge. But these
smaller officers were only putting into effect the policies publicly declared over
and over by the chieftains. Thus, when a certain Koch spoke in Kiev and
declared:
"I will draw the very last out of this country. I did not come to spread bliss. I
have come to help the Fuehrer. The population must work, work, and work
again * * * for some people are getting excited that the population may not
get enough to eat. The population cannot demand that. One has only to
remember [804] what our heroes were deprived of in Stalingrad * * * We
definitely did not come here to give out manna; we have come here to
create the basis for Victory." (T-86.)
He was only repeating what had been said by Hitler, Himmler, Goering, and
Milch, in varying forms. The defendant claims that he did not literally mean the
blood and thunder declarations admittedly authored by him, and that phase of the
case will be discussed in detail later. But underlings who heard these wild,
inflammatory utterances did not know that Milch was only barking, if in fact we
are to assume that his ferocious words were only purposeless growlings. The
men in the field did not stop at words, because they were in a position to act and
did act ù directly on the people. Koch was not voicing a concept original with him
when he said in that same speech:
"We are a master race which must remember that the lowliest German
worker is racially and biologically a thousand times more valuable than the
population here." (T-86.)
Unfortunately, however, his utterances were not confined to rhetoric, but
being in a position to put them into flesh and blood effect, he did so.
Quotations from documents furnishing further proof of involuntary foreign
labor in Germany are too numerous to repeat in the judgment. Reference,
however, will be made to but one more before proceeding to the next item for
discussion. In the recruitment of 1 million workers demanded in the Ukraine, SS
Major Christensen, in charge of operations, declared that whatever harsh
treatment was required should be controlled. He thus orders that in arresting
communist functionaries it is no longer necessary to arrest all the close relatives
of a member of the communist party. He decrees further that in searching for
workers "when it becomes necessary to burn down a village, the whole
population will be put at the disposal of the commissioner by force." (T-129.)
This is regarded as a concession, and then comes what must be classified
as the most heart-rending utterance which has come out of this war: "As a rule,
no more children will be shot."
Not an out-and-out prohibition against shooting children; not that more
care should be exercised in the handling of children; but only a general, vague
suggestion that this SS battalion of murderers must not fire at children on sight
just as one might mow down sparrows or rabbits. However, if the situation
requires, then of course, children will be shot with everybody else, for the [805]
order goes on to say, "Slavs will interpret all soft treatment on our part as
weakness." "The most important thing," the directive concludes, "is the
recruitment of workers." (T-129-130.)
(b) Treatment of Workers
On 20 April 1942, Fritz Sauckel announced his labor mobilization program
which contained the one supremely cruel proposition regarding treatment of
foreign workers:
"All the men must be fed, sheltered, and treated in such a way as to exploit
them to the highest possible extent at the lowest conceivable degree of
expenditure." (T-58. )
After the announcement of this inhuman decree of maximum work with
minimum sustenance, Sauckel followed with:
"It has always been natural for us Germans to refrain from cruelty and
mean chicaneries towards the beaten enemy, even if he has proved himself
the most bestial and most implacable adversary, and to treat him correctly
and humanly, even when we expect useful work of him." (T-58-59.)
It can be imagined with what kindness an underling of Sauckel's would
treat a worker whom Sauckel has already characterized as a "bestial and most
implacable adversary".
As a result of the minimum sustenance directive it is not difficult to
understand the report of a Dr. Hupe who stated:
"During the last few days we have established that the food for the
Russians employed here is so miserable that the people are getting weaker
from day to day. Investigations showed that single Russians are not able to
place a piece of metal for turning into position, for instance, because of
lack of physical strength. The same conditions exist at all places of work
where Russians are employed." (T-55.)
Wilhelm Jager, senior camp director at the Krupp Works, reported that diet
prescribed for eastern workers was 1,000 calories less per day than the minimum
prescribed for any Germans. Further, that while German heavy workers received
5,000 calories a day, eastern workers in comparable jobs received only 2,000
calories. Such meat as was allowed the foreign workers was that which had been
"rejected by the veterinary, such as horse meat or tuberculin infested". (T-103.)
The clothing allowed the eastern workers was likewise entirely inadequate. They
had no overcoats and, because of the shortage of shoes, many were forced to go
to [806] work barefoot even in winter. In the work camps tuberculosis was
widespread among the eastern workers, caused by bad housing, insufficient and
poor food, overwork and insufficient rest:
"These workers were likewise afflicted with spotted fever. Lice, the carrier
of this disease, together with countless fleas, bugs, and other vermin
tortured the inhabitants of these camps. As a result of the filthy conditions
of the camps nearly all eastern workers were afflicted with skin disease.
The shortage of food also caused many cases of Hunher-Oedem, Nephritis,
and Shighakruse." (T-103.)
These conditions became infinitely worse, of course, during the time of air
raids:
"The French prisoner-of-war camp in Nogerratstrasse had been destroyed
in an air raid attack and its inhabitants were kept for nearly half a year in
dog kennels, urinals, and in old baking houses. The dog kennels were
three feet high, nine feet long, and six feet wide. Five men slept in each of
them. The prisoners had to crawl into these kennels on all
fours." (T-105.)
A Dr. Stinnesbeck reports on 12 June 1944:
"The PW camp at Nogerratstrasse was in most deplorable condition. The
people live in ashcans, doghouses, old baking stoves, and self-made
huts." (T-106.)
Visiting camp Humboldtstrasse, Dr. Stinnesbeck found 600 Jewish women
who worked at the Krupp factory. They suffered from festering wounds and other
diseases. They had no shoes and went about in their bare feet! "The sole clothing
of each consisted of a sack with holes for their arms and head. Their hair was
shorn. The camp was surrounded by barbed wire and closely guarded by SS
guards." (T-106. ) Concentration camp inmates were made to work, to which there
can be no objection on the grounds of inhumanity. In fact, some useful toil is
preferable to idleness in prison. But camp commanders were instructed that the
"employment must be, in the true meaning of the word, exhaustive, in order to
obtain the greatest measure of performance." (T-61.)
"There is no limit to working hours. Their duration depends on the kind of
working establishments in the camps and the kind of work to be done.
They are fixed by the camp commanders alone." (T-62.)
[807]Certain "antisocial elements" were by special order "to be worked to
death". In the literal Gestapo language "death" was never used rhetorically or
figuratively. Those who were to be killed through work were listed as "under
protective arrest". This included Jews, gypsies, Russians, and Ukrainians; Poles
with more than three-year sentences; Czechs and Germans with more than
eight-year sentences. (T-63.)
In these work camps frequently children of tender age were forced to toil.
"An indication of the awful conditions this may lead to is given by the fact
that in the camps for eastern workers, camp for eastern workers `Waldlust',
Post Office Lauf, Pegnitz, there are cases of eight-year old, delicate and
undernourished children put to forced labor and perishing from such
treatment." (T-99.)
Those who were imported for farm work fared no better than their factory
brothers. A directive issued by the Ministry of Finance and Economy at Baden on
the control of Polish farm workers in Stuttgart and Baden directed that farm
workers were to be quartered in stables, and the employer was urged that "no
remorse should restrict such action." (T-47.)
"Fundamentally", this extraordinary document proclaims, "farm workers of
Polish nationality no longer have the right to complain, and thus no complaints
may be accepted any more by any official agency." (T-46.)
To deprive a human being of the right to complain is in effect to classify
him lower than an animal because even a beast of burden is privileged to
announce his objections to harsh and cruel treatment. Nor were the Polish
workers permitted the consolation and comfort in adversity which religion
affords. "The visiting of churches, regardless of faith, is strictly prohibited." The
edict of the Ministry of Finance said further that this prohibition against
attendance at churches even excluded the visiting of churches when no service
was in progress. The visiting of theatres, motion picture shows, or other cultural
entertainment also was prohibited. (T-46.)
"Gathering of farm workers of Polish nationality after work is prohibited,
whether it is on other farms, in the stables, or in the living quarters of the
Poles. The use of railroads, buses, or other public conveyances by farm
workers of Polish nationality is prohibited." (T-47.)
The difference between slave labor of this type and outright slavery is a
margin faint and indistinguishable. There was no [808] limit to the hours of work,
and the employer was invested with the right, bestially inherent in the
proprietorship of slave owners, to inflict corporal punishment on the worker "if
instruction and good words failed". Nor was there any one to determine whether
good words had failed because the "employer may not be held accountable in
any such cases by an official agency." (T-47.)
Heinrich Himmler took a very active part in the slave labor program.
Concerning commitment of manpower from the East, he laid down strict rules
which, if violated, brought severe punishment. He decreed that:
"In severe cases, that is in such cases where the measures at the disposal
of the leader of the guard do not suffice, the state police office has to act
with its means. Accordingly, they will be treated, as a rule, only with strict
measure, that is with transfer to a concentration camp or with special
treatment."(T-53.)
We learn further on in the directive that the "special treatment" so casually
referred to as if it were some slight deprivation of comfort or convenience means
nothing less than hanging!
"Special treatment is hanging. Hanging should not take place in the
immediate vicinity of the camp. A certain number of the manpower from the
original Soviet Russian territory should attend the special treatment; at that
time they are to be warned about the circumstances which led to this
special treatment." (T-53. )
If workers sought to escape, search measures were to be decreed locally,
and when caught the fugitive must receive special treatment. (T-54.)
Heinrich Himmler was one of the most relentless pursuers of slave labor,
as, of course, he was the most notorious executant of all that was inhuman,
indecent, cruel, and vulgar in the entire Nazi program. Himmler does not defy
description, he invites it. He stands out in the whole hideous camp of Hitler
barbarians as the most savage of them all. A fiend in human shape, a monster in
the clothing of man; there is no wild beast, bound only by jungle code, which, in
point of honor, was not his superior; there is no slimy, maggoty larva, wriggling
in the stagnancy and stench of the foulest cesspool which could be regarded his
inferior. His creed was murder, his religion massacre, his belief kidnapping, his
faith treachery, and his dogma oppression in every form. Only one thing mattered
and that was German blood:
"What happens to a Russian, to a Czech, does not interest me in the
slightest. What the nation can offer in the way of good [809] blood of our
type, we will take, if necessary by kidnapping their children and raising
them here with us. Whether nations live in prosperity or starve to death
interests me only insofar as we need them as slaves for our Kultur ;
otherwise, it is of no interest to me. Whether 10,000 Russian females fall
down from exhaustion while digging an antitank ditch interests me only
insofar as the antitank ditch for Germany is finished * * *. When somebody
comes to me and says, `I cannot dig the antitank ditch with women and
children, it is inhuman, for it would kill them,' then I have to say, `You are a
murderer of your own blood because if the antitank ditch is not dug,
German soldiers will die, and they are sons of German mothers. They are
our own blood.' That is what I want to instill into this SS and what I believe I
have instilled into them as one of the most sacred laws of the future. Our
concern, our duty, is our people and our blood. It is for them that we must
provide and plan, work and fight, nothing else. We can be indifferent to
everything else." (T-145.)
When hundreds of thousands of Russian prisoners of war died from
exhaustion and hunger, his regret was not that they died, but that it was
deplorable "by reason of the loss of labor." (T-144.)
The defense in this case denied that foreign workers and prisoners of war
were maltreated, and produced some evidence to dispute the prosecution's
contentions in this regard, we quote from the affidavit of one Albin Schirmer, a
resident of Nuernberg:
"From the year 1929 onwards, I was employed by the Hercules Works, Ltd.
at Nuernberg (Nuernberger Herkuleswerke G.m.b.H.), and worked there in
the capacity of foreman throughout the war. The necessary workers were
requested by the firm from the Labor Office. The Labor Office allocated
French prisoners of war, free French, and Czech workers to the firm. The
free foreign workers, who also cooperated in executing the commissions
of the Luftwaffe, were treated in every respect in exactly the same way as
the German workers. Some lived in furnished rooms. Some lived in a camp
as it was cheaper there. Working hours, wages, ration cards, and the
supplementary ration cards for workers, whose hours were long, were the
same as for any German. Equally, freedom of movement during leisure
hours, permission to attend theaters, churches, and cinemas, the
protection of the Labor Front and of strength-through-joy, permission to
visit public houses and German families were available to free foreign
workers as well as to German workers. Intercourse with German girls was
also [810] permitted to free foreign workers. This, however, did not apply to
prisoners of war. The sanitary installations of the firm were good, and were
available for the use of foreign workers, as well as of the German workers.
The prisoners of war had fixed times for taking showers whereas the free
foreign workers had their showers at the same time as the Germans. The
free French workers were allowed free postal communication with France,
and they also went there on leave. I know of only two cases in which free
French workers did not return from their leave in France.
"Many French prisoners of war volunteered as free workers, in order to be
eligible for the resultant advantages. Even the prisoners of war had beer
sent to them every day.
"During air raids, the free foreign workers played their part with devotion, a
thing which they would certainly not have done if they had not considered
that they were well-treated.
"After the arrival of the American troops most of the French workers said
good-by to me in a friendly fashion, shaking hands with me, and wishing
me luck. The female workers from the Ukraine too liked it here according to
their statements."
Why should one doubt that in the vast German workshop which employed
a score of millions, here and there some foreign workers were not abused but in
the long run fared well? It would need to be someone wearing spectacles of pitch
and groping in a Cimmerian night of prejudice and pique to assert that the
German people are incapable of hospitality and generosity. The very fact that
there were concentration camps in the land attests to the fact that not everybody
accepted Hitler's and Himmler's crackpot master race ideology. However, even
accepting Albin Schirmer's affidavit at face value, it is but one little flower in a
jungle of evidence establishing that only a very few foreign workers were so
fortunate as to be showered with the care and comforts and allowed to revel and
luxuriate in the liberties vouchsafed those who were so lucky as to be employed
in the Hercules Works, Limited, at Nuernberg.
As against this idyllic picture of happiness in a powder plant or
strength-through-joy in Nuernberg, there is recalled the image of the last witness
at this trial. He also was a German, Joseph Krysiak, and he too worked in a war
factory. In December 1940, he remarked in a conversation to some friends that if
America entered the European conflict, Germany could not win. The ubiquitous
Gestapo learned of his observation and he was committed to a concentration
camp, from which he went daily to work at the Me [ssersmitt] 109 plant at Gusen
1. His living conditions [811] were a trifle less felicitous than those described by
Schirmer. Krysiak worked twelve hours a day, he had coffee for breakfast, watery
soup for lunch, and at night seven men shared a loaf of bread. If he did not reach
the quota of work assigned him for the day, he was beaten. Later he was sent to
another factory, and of working conditions there he said:
"We were working at Saint George, Gusen 11, for twelve hours. Also, the
transport to and from work and back to this camp occupied two to three
hours as well, so that these people altogether had only four to five hours
sleep under the worst imaginable conditions. Four people had to
sleep in one bed.
"Q. Did you work seven days a week?
"We were working at Saint George, Gusen 11, for twelve hours. Also, the
"A. Yes, and the day and night shift, and Sundays, too." (T-2366.)
When asked what effect these conditions had on the health of the workers,
he replied:
"The most dreadful effect, the majority died in Mauthausen and Gusen II. It
was a rule no one was released, but transports which were filled were
where detainees would die."
And as to his own particular condition, he stated:
"All I can say now is that I suffer from TB and I am medically being treated,
and this is what those five years did to me.
"Q. What was your condition before going to the concentration camp?
"A. I was active in sports, and I was a long distance runner. I can say my
lungs were not blemished at all."
The shattering of this man's health is perhaps only a small part of the
disaster which has befallen him. From the witness stand he gave the impression
of one who had been spiritually crushed by his five years' ordeal. His voice
faltered, his shoulders drooped, his eyes looked out into distance. He was alive,
but something within him had perished. Perhaps he reflected on the tragedy that
this awful thing which had happened to him had been inflicted by his own
countrymen, not for opposing his country but for speaking a truth which, if
listened to, could have averted not only his own ruin but the misery of millions of
his brethren.
II. PRISONERS OF WAR
Article 31 of the Geneva Convention provides:
"Work done by prisoners of war shall have no direct connection with the
operations of the war. In particular it is forbidden [812] to employ prisoners
in the manufacture or transport of arms or munitions of any kind, or on the
transport of material destined for the combatant units."
The Hague Convention of 1907, Article 6 provides:
"The State may utilize the labor of prisoners of war according to their rank
and aptitude, officers excepted. The tasks shall not be excessive and shall
have no connection with the operations of the war." (T-155.)
These prohibitions on the use of prisoners of war were flagrantly violated
by the Germans in World War II. On 7 November 1941, Hermann Goering,
speaking at the meeting in the Reich Ministry of Air, already referred to, declared
that "it would be ideal if entire factories could be manned by Russian prisoners
of war." (T-52).
Then, insofar as feeding these prisoners was concerned the notes of the
speech report: "Food is a matter of the Four Year Plan. Supply their own food
(cats, horses, etc.)." (T-52) .
On 20 April 1942, Fritz Sauckel, Plenipotentiary General for Labor
Mobilization, proclaimed that:
"All prisoners of war, from the territories of the West as well as of the East,
actually in Germany, must be completely incorporated into the German
armament and nutrition industries." (T-58.)
On 26 August 1941, the Reich Labor Ministry directed the presidents of the
Regional Labor Offices as follows:
"Upon personal order of the Reich Marshal, 100,000 men are to be taken
from among the French prisoners of war not yet employed in armament
industry, and are to be assigned to the armament industry (airplane
industry). Gaps in manpower supply resulting therefrom will be filled by
Soviet prisoners of war. The transfer of the above-named French prisoners
of war can be utilized only in quite large concentrated groups under the
well-known tougher employment conditions." (T-49-50.)
In a discussion with Sauckel, the defendant, and others on the subject of
manpower available for the armament industry, Goering stated on 28 October
1943, that out of 2,200,000 in armament production, 770,000 were prisoners of
war. (T-2093.)
On 14 April 1943, Sauckel reported to Hitler that "1,622,829 prisoners of
war are employed in the German economy." (T-90.)
Noting that the utilization of prisoners of war in the war pro- 813] gram was
a very profitable enterprise for the Reich, Goering regretted that any had ever
been released. However, it was a mistake easily rectified.
"I should like to see that the prisoners of war who have been released,
Norwegians and so forth, be taken again. Insofar as officers are concerned,
this has been done to a certain extent. It was the greatest nonsense ever
committed by us and for which nobody thanks us. We have made prisoners
of entire armies and we let them go again. We do not get anything from Norway." (T-2096. )
At a Jaegerstab meeting on 19 June 1944, it developed that 300 American
prisoners of war were assigned to work at the Dornier airplane factory at
Oberpfaffenhofen, but with good Yankee obstinacy, knowing their rights, they
refused to work. Lange, of the Speer Ministry, complaining about this said:
"They simply sat down, drank coffee, and ate corned beef, and could not
be persuaded to work in spite of threats of shooting. Now, the question
has been asked if we should not start a shooting action." (T-2102.)
And the only reason they were not shot is that the Fuehrer feared reprisals.
III. PARTICIPATION OF MILCH IN THE
SLAVE LABOR PROGRAM
It was not contended by the prosecution at the trial that the defendant was
aware, nor would it have been physically possible for him to have had knowledge,
of all the excesses, inhumanities, and illegalities encompassed in the far-flung
slave labor program which spread its cruelties into practically every part of
Europe. However, its very bigness and the great production power which it
generated in every department of the German war plant negates the defendant's
position that he was utterly ignorant of its existence. This opinion has gone to
some length in pointing out the numbers involved in the compulsory work
program, and the heinousness of some of its operations, and has quoted from
official decrees promulgated in its unfoldment, not only for the purpose of
demonstrating the basis for condemning the whole illegal enterprise, but also for
the purpose of laying the foundation for consideration of Milch's responsibility in
this phase of German war guilt.
On 23 May 1939, Hitler outlined his plans for war to his fourteen most
trusted and important military chieftains. Milch attended that then secret, and
now notorious, conference. Hitler [814] there said, "The population of
non-German areas will perform no military service and will be available as source
of labor." (T-37.) This statement is taken from the memorandum made by adjutant
Lieutenant Colonel Schmundt, who was present and preserved a drastically
condensed record of the speech for the Reich files. The accuracy of the
Schmundt record was attacked in the IMT trial and came under fire here. The
defendant goes so far as to conjecture that the Schmundt statement was
prepared months, perhaps even a year, after Hitler's speech, and was intended to
demonstrate Hitler's uncanny and possibly supernatural powers of prophecy by
the undeniably sure method of writing up the prophecy subsequent to the
happening of the event predicted. The memorandum obviously is not definitely
precise because it consists of only ten pages whereas the speech lasted four and
one-half hours. As the memorandum manifestly cannot be complete, neither can
human recollection (unaided by notes) be infallible. Milch, who made no notes at
all, testified that labor was not mentioned in the speech, but Admiral Schniewind,
also present, and who testified in court, stated that he did not exclude the
possibility that labor was discussed. (T-1326.)
In any event, whether Hitler did or did not mention labor in his utterances
of that day is not so important as it is that Milch was present when Hitler made
crystal clear his intentions to attack Poland, and, if it became necessary or
expedient, to fight other countries as well, with the inevitable subjugation of the
conquered peoples. Slave labor was an inescapable concomitant of the type of
total war Hitler intended to wage, and the character of which Milch could not fail
to appreciate.
As a field marshal in the German Reich, Milch could not ignore the
existence of Sauckel's proclamation on 20 April 1942 that "the raw materials as
well as the fertility of the conquered territories and their human labor power are
to be used completely and conscientiously to the profit of Germany and her
allies." (T-57.)
But in the evaluation of Milch's criminal responsibility for Germany's use of
slave labor something more is needed in a court of law than presumptions of his
assumed general knowledge of what was taking place. It must be established that
he, himself, participated in the slave labor enterprises, or knowing that such
illegal practices were being committed, he, having the power to do so, made no
effort to curb or halt them. The prosecution contends that the defendant, as a
member of the Central Planning Board and of the Jaegerstab, and as
Generalluftzeugmeister (Aircraft Master General), was thoroughly cognizant of
Sauckel's program and that he, Milch, actively participated in slave labor
practices.
[815](a) Central Planning Board
The Central Planning Board was made up of three members, Speer, Milch,
and Koerner, each having equal authority, although, as it developed, Speer and
Milch dominated the proceedings. The function of the Central Planning Board in
the main was the distribution and allocation of raw materials necessary for the
entire conduct of the German war economy, the planning of intended
construction or enlargement, and the systematization of transportation industry
independent of the shortage of raw materials. During the war this Board had 60
meetings and much time was given to consideration of the manpower problem
confronting the various departments in the huge German war workshop. Sauckel
often appeared before the Central Planning Board to report on the foreign labor
situation. Various other officials came before the Board to express their needs in
connection with foreign workers. Milch often presided at these meetings. He was
absent on several occasions but all quotations from the minutes of the Central
Planning Board meetings, cited in this opinion, are from meetings where he was
present, and he is therefore chargeable with knowledge of their contents.
Wehrmacht representatives were often in attendance at the Central
Planning Board meetings, and on 25 July 1944, Field Marshal von Kluge,
Commander in Chief West, issued an order on labor recruitment:
"As the only limitation, the Fuehrer has ordered that no forcible means
shall be employed against the population in the actual combat area as long
as it shows itself prepared to assist the German Armed Forces. However,
recruiting of volunteers from among refugees from the combat zone is to
be carried out vigorously. Moreover, every means is justified to seize as
much labor as possible, apart from the powers granted to the armed
forces." (T-271.)
It will be noted that the Fuehrer orders that forcible means shall not be
used if the population assists. This is comparable to saying that the armed
robber is thoroughly peaceful in his intentions because he will not shoot if the
victim surrenders his valuables voluntarily.
The proof in this case that foreign workers were brought into Germany
against their will generally does not come from them, but almost exclusively from
their abductors. At one of the meetings of the Central Planning Board, Mr. Timm,
representing the Plenipotentiary General for Labor, reports that they are
encountering resistance to recruitment:
[816] "In all countries we have to change over more or less to registering
the men by age groups and to conscripting them in age groups. They do
appear for registering as such, but as soon as transport is available, they
do not come back so that the dispatch of the men has become more or less
a question for the police. Especially in Poland the situation at the moment
is extraordinarily serious. It is well known that vehement battles occurred
just because of these actions." (T-197-198.)
The word "recruitment" will be used in this opinion not in its literal sense
of voluntary enlistment, but in the broad sense of both voluntary and involuntary
gathering up of workers. It is the contention of the defense that Milch had nothing
to do with the actual recruitment. It is, of course, true that he did not go into
France, Italy, Hungary, Russia, and other countries, to physically rope the
workers and drag them into Germany, but is the guilt any less if one sits back in
his office and signs the order which casts the uncoiling rope for the far-reaching
lasso?
Goering, in an interrogation conducted 6 September 1946, stated that after
the death of Udet it was Milch, as Chief of Supply for the air forces, who put
forward the needs of the Luftwaffe for workers. The requests were forwarded to
Speer, and Speer would ask Sauckel for the workers for the entire armament
branch. Sauckel, on 24 September 1946, made a very important declaration in an
affidavit on the part Milch played in the matter of obtaining workers:
"Milch produced the figures for aviation. The same was done by Speer in
his sphere of activity. Speer and Milch, however, also exerted influence on
the allocation of workers. How far this came within their capacity as
members of the Central Planning Board I cannot say; in any case they did
this in their ministerial capacity." (T-281.)
Thus, if Milch knew how workers were actually being recruited, how they
were being transported, and to what they were being transported, he cannot
claim exoneration in the assertion that he did not take them in hand personally.
And, if this knowledge is established, then he, when he asked for workers, was, in
effect, consigning foreign workers to the suffering and torture of which he had
cognizance. Behind each requisition for foreign labor there shone the inevitable
backdrop of the lurid scenes of labor camps with their "special treatment,"
disease, vermin, starvation, whipping, illness, and death.
On 8 April 1943, Milch wrote Sauckel and Goering, announcing that in
certain sections he had proclaimed an 84-hour week in [817] the air force
industry. (T-196.) The defendant has explained that this applied only to those
engaged in guard work. Witness Krysiak testified that he worked 84 hours a
week.
At the 1 March 1944 meeting of the Central Planning Board, Sauckel
particularly addressed himself to Milch who was presiding, and said:
"Thereupon I even proceeded to employ and train a whole batch of French
male and female agents who for good pay, just as was done in olden times
for `shanghaiing', went hunting men and made them drunk by using liquor
as well as words, in order to dispatch them to Germany." (T-228.)
As evidence that he was encountering difficulty in obtaining foreign
workers, Sauckel pointed out that several dozen of his very able labor executive
officers were shot. (T-228.) In France he wrung from Laval the concession "that
the death penalty be threatened for officials who tried to sabotage the labor
supply." And then he adds that "if the Frenchmen despite all their promises do
not act, then we Germans must make an example of one case, and by reason of
this law, if necessary put Prefect or Burgomaster against the wall." (T-232. )
It is a long speech which Sauckel make, and then Milch replies, analyzing
in his turn the foreign labor question. He complains bitterly that more men have
not been called up from France:
"Four whole age groups have grown up in France; men between 18 and 23
years of age, who are therefore at that age when young people moved by
patriotism or seduced by other people are ready to do anything which
satisfies their personal hatred against us -- and of course they hate us.
These men ought to have been called up in age groups and dispatched to
Germany; for they present the greatest danger which threatens us in case
of invasion." (T-236.)
"If one had shown the mailed fist and a clear executive intention, a
churchyard peace would reign in the rear of the front at the moment the
uproar starts. This I have emphasized so frequently, but still nothing is
happening, I am afraid." (T-237. )
When Sauckel complains about the trouble he is having in getting workers
from Italy, Milch recommends:
"We could take under German administration the entire food supply for the
Italians and tell them, only he gets any food who either works in a
protected factory or goes to Germany." (T-240-241.)
[818] When on another occasion one Kehrl declared that it would be
difficult to control the food situation in France because food was delivered by
parcel post, Milch made the extraordinary pronouncement, "I personally as
military commander would confiscate all goods sent by parcel post." (T-295.)
The Tribunal has not been shown any statement wherein the defendant
advocated that foreign workers be induced to come to Germany by offering them
good wages, good working conditions, pensions, security, and the usual
attractions held out to prospective employees. When he speaks on the
importation of foreign workers it is invariably in an aggressive and domineering
manner. At the 54th meeting of the Central Planning Board, held on 1 March 1944,
he explained that force had to be exercised because there was nothing to attract
the workers to Germany since they believed that Germany would soon be
defeated, and furthermore they were attached to their families and their own
countries. A very cogent observation indeed.
Speaking on the French situation, he said:
"Even if Bichelonne and Laval have the best intentions there will be
resistance from the mayors, the gendarmes, and the prefects, just because
these people are afraid that firstly, they will be called to account afterwards
for this affair, and secondly, because of their national point of view, which
makes them say, `We must not work for the enemy of our country.'
Therefore I would like to have an authority in our administration which
would force these people to do it, because then the French could say, `If
you force us, we will do it, but voluntarily we will not do it.' The same
applies to Italy." (T-292-293.)
Once the transportation of workers got under way it was not always certain
that they would all arrive. Aside from the unsanitary conditions under which they
travelled, frequently without .food and in the wintertime without heat, many in
desperation escaped. To offset these defections en route, Milch recommended:
"If a transport has left a town and has not arrived, 500 to 600 persons from
this place must be arrested and sent to Germany as prisoners of
war."(T-294.)
The defense has asserted many times that the foreign workers were not all
treated as badly as the prosecution's evidence might indicate. It is
unquestionably true that not all foreign workers were starved and tortured,
because if this were so they could not [819] have worked at all, and the German
war machine would have ground to a stop long before the spring of 1945. Thus,
there is no reason to disbelieve the statement made at one of the Central
Planning Board meetings:
"The performance of the Soviet Russians so employed is to be raised by a
premium system. For this purpose, the ban on pay restrictions is to be
lifted and the manager be allowed to distribute among the workmen,
according to his duty and discretion, RM 1 per head per day as premium
for particular services rendered. Furthermore, care will be taken, that
workmen can exchange these premiums, which will be paid out in camp
money for goods. It is intended to put at their disposal various
provisions-beer, tobacco, cigarettes and cigars, small items for daily use,
etc." (T-219.)
If the defendant has much to explain in this case it is principally because of
declarations made by himself. On 16 February 1944 at a meeting of the Central
Planning Board, he announced that the armament industry employed foreign
workmen to the extent of 40 percent, and that in maximum production the foreign
workers prevailed to the extent of 95 percent and higher. He said further that the
Germans' best new engine was made 88 percent by Russian prisoners of war and
the other 12 percent by German men and women. "Only 6 to 8 German men are
working on this machine. The rest are Ukrainian women who have beaten all the
records of trained workers." And yet, despite this apparently creditable
performance on the part of foreign workers, he complains bitterly:
"The list of the shirkers should be entrusted to Himmler's trustworthy
hands who will make them work all right. This is very important for
educating people and has also a deterrent effect on such others who would
likewise feel inclined to shirk." (T-223.)
When Milch recommends entrusting anyone to Himmler's "trustworthy
hands", the world well knows how bloody and homicidal those hands were.
The charges of maltreatment of foreign workers leveled against Milch
could be taken almost literally from his own words:
"It is, therefore, not possible to exploit fully all the foreigner unless we
compel them by piece work or we have the possibility of taking measures
against foreigners who are not doing their bit. But, if the foreman lays
hands on a prisoner of war or smacks him there is at once a terrible row,
the man is put into [820] prison, etc. There are sufficient officials in
Germany who think it their most important duty to stand up for human
rights instead of war production. I am also for human rights. But if a
Frenchman says, 'You fellows will all be hanged and the chief of the factory
will be beheaded first,' and if then the chief says, 'I am going to hit him',
then he is in a mess. He is not protected. I have told my engineers, 'I am
going to punish you if you don't hit such a man; the more you do in this
respect the more I shall praise you. I shall see to it that nothing happens to
you.' This is not yet sufficiently known. I cannot talk to all factory leaders. I
should like to see the man who stays my arm because I can settle accounts
with everybody who stays my arm. If the little factory leader does that he is
put into a concentration camp and runs the risk of losing the prisoners of
war. In one case two Russian officers took off with an airplane but crashed.
I ordered that these two men be hanged at once. They were hanged or shot
yesterday. I left that to the SS. I expressed the wish to leave them hanged
in the factory for the others to see." (T-223-224. )
On the stand Milch denied that he had anything to do with the fate of the
two Russian prisoners of war mentioned above. He further claimed that his
reference to this episode was made at another meeting (a GL meeting), and that
possibly the two stenographers got their notes confused. The defense also
introduced affidavits to the effect that Milch was in no way implicated in this
happening and that if the two Russians were executed, the execution was
performed by shooting and not by hanging. It is probably true that Milch did not
order the hanging of these men, but did author the remarks attributed to him
because they are in keeping with his many other admitted and proved
statements.
Did Milch know that prisoners of war were being used in violation of
international convention, and the laws and customs of war?
On 6 March 1944, Milch, Speer, General Bodenschatz, and Colonel von
Below conferred with Hitler. Hitler was informed of the Reich Marshal's wishes for
the further utilization of the production power of prisoners of war, by giving the
direction of the Stalags to the SS. The Fuehrer considered the proposal good,
and asked Colonel von Below to arrange matters accordingly. (R-124, p. 168. )
At the 42d meeting of the Central Planning Board, held on 23 June 1943,
the intensive discussion on labor needs seemed to settle on the use of Russian
prisoners of war as the solution to the problem. It was recommended that the
Fuehrer be advised that 200,000 Russian prisoners of war, fit for the heaviest
work, should [821] be made available from the Wehrmacht and Waffen SS through
the intermediary of the Chiefs of the Army Groups (T-218.)
However, Milch's participation in the illegal use of prisoners of war is not
confined to his knowledge that it was being done. At the meeting on 30 October
1942, Sauckel suggested that as soon as the army took prisoners in operational
territories they should be immediately turned over to him as Plenipotentiary for
Labor. Instead of objecting to this procedure as contrary to international law,
Milch added:
"The correct thing to do would be to have all Stalags transferred to you by
order of the Fuehrer. The Wehrmacht takes prisoners and as soon as it
relinquishes them, the first delivery goes to your organization. Then
everything will be in order." (T-176. )
Nothing can be more precise and definitive in international law than that
prisoners of war may not be compelled to fight against their own country. But
Milch treats this matter rather lightly at one of the meetings of the Central
Planning Board:
"We have made a request for an order that a certain percentage of men in
the antiaircraft artillery must be Russians. Fifty thousand will be taken
altogether; 30,000 are already employed as gunners. This is an amusing
thing that Russians must work the guns." (T-192.)
On this statement the defendant has various explanations. One, that the
German word which has been translated into "amusing", should really have been
rendered "mad". Thus, it is a mad thing to make Russian prisoners work guns
against their own allies. In support of this interpretation Milch argues that since
he needed these prisoners in his armament program, he could not have approved
their use as gunners. He then also denies that they were in fact used as gunners,
and if they were, he was not responsible for the deed. But other witnesses called
by the defense clearly established that the Russian prisoners were stationed at
the guns, either for servicing the pieces, hauling ammunition to them, or actually
firing them. It is clear that the Russian prisoners were utilized at the guns and
that this type of use of prisoners of war represents an extreme violation of the
laws and customs of war.
It has been argued by the defense that since Russia had denounced
adherence to the Geneva Convention, Germany was not compelled to treat
Russian prisoners with the limitations laid down in that convention. German
Admiral Canaris on 15 September 1941, in a memorandum of counsel to the
German High [822] Command, declared that despite Russia's attitude on the
Geneva Convention her prisoners were yet entitled to immunities guaranteed
under the rules and customs of war:
"The Geneva Convention for the treatment of prisoners of war is not
binding in the relationship between Germany and the U.S.S.R. Therefore,
only the principles of general international law on the treatment of
prisoners of war apply. Since the 18th century these have gradually been
established along the lines that war captivity is neither revenge nor
punishment, but solely protective custody, the only purpose of which is to
prevent the prisoners of war from further participation in the war. This
principle was developed in accordance with the view held by all armies that
it is contrary to military tradition to kill or injure helpless people * * *. The
decrees for the treatment of Soviet prisoners of war enclosed are based on
a fundamentally different viewpoint." (IMT 222.)
Admiral Canaris' position was entirely correct and in accordance with
accepted international law. In the episode of the Russian gunners adverted to by
Milch, he could not help but know the physical facts and could not escape being
aware that such use of prisoners of war violated international law. His
responsibility here is unequivocal.
On 25 March 1944, the defendant complained that prisoners of war were
not being treated with sufficient severity:
"If a decent foreman would sock one of those unruly guys because the
fellow won't work, then the situation would soon change. International law
cannot be observed here. I have asserted myself very strongly, and with the
help of Saur I have represented the point of view very strongly that the
prisoners, with the exception of the English and the Americans, should be
taken away from the military authorities. The soldiers are not in a position,
as experience has shown, to cope with these fellows who know all the
answers. I shall take very strict measures here and shall put such a
prisoner of war before my court martial. If he has committed sabotage or
refused to work, I will have him hanged, right in his own factory. I am
convinced that that will not be without effect." (T-249.)
When a German field marshal, speaking to men subordinate in rank,
declares that "international law cannot be observed here", it can only mean to
those under his command that in the execution of their duties, international law
should go overboard and, thus being unlimited in their treatment of prisoners of
war, the rights of the prisoners of war must sink also.
[823] Defense counsel insists that Milch had, as a matter of fact, a mild and
lenient disposition. Testimony was introduced to show that on several occasions
when he sat on courts martial, his judgments were tempered with mercy. Note will
be taken of this occasional yielding of an apparently implacable and unyielding
spirit, but one must also remark the incongruity that one who, in his references to
foreign workers and prisoners of war, had constant harshness on his lips, could
have possessed in his make-up no harshness at all. In one of his speeches he
complains because the workers collapsed, and that they receive a furlough of
three or four days every eight weeks. This he calls "dirty business of the first
order, and treason to the country!" (T-249. )
Then he adds:
"I further ask for support by the Luftwaffe physicians. With all the rabble
that we have among the foreign workers, there is of course a lot of
shirking. At the moment the Russians --that is, the Russian prisoners of
war – re feigning a lot of fatigue and illness. The incidence of sickness of
one and a half to two percent which we have had up to now has at least
doubled and in some factories it has been increased to eight, nine, and ten
percent. That is, of course, done by previous agreement. There the official
physicians, who have to be very strict, find out that it is not true, and then
we return the fellows to work by means of the whip. Then the whip serves
as a cure." (T-250.)
Recommending the employment of so merciless an instrument as a whip
can hardly be regarded as evidence of a mild disposition. Then he says:
"Let everyone consider that if he does not do his duty, we do not ask
whether there is a law; we ask only whether he is the responsible one and
then we will seize him no matter who he is * * *. Please go wherever you are
going and knock everybody down who blocks your way! We cover up
everything here. We do not ask whether he is allowed to or whether he is
not allowed to. For us, there is nothing but this one task. We are fanatics in
this sphere. We do not even consider letting anything at all distract us from
that task. No order exists which could prevent me from fulfilling this task."
(T-251.)
Then comes the outburst which is an out and out defiance of all law:
"Gentlemen, I know that not every subordinate can say, `For me, the law no
longer exists,' but he has to have someone who covers up for him, not out
of cowardice. But if you act accord- [824]ing to the spirit of the old field
service regulation, `Abstaining from doing something hurts us more than
erring in the choice of the means,' and if, moreover, you keep in touch and
immediately clarify difficult points, so that something can be done, then we
are willing to accept the responsibility, whether this is the law or not. I see
only two possibilities for me and for Germany. Either we succeed and
thereby save Germany, or we continue these slipshod methods and then
get the fate that we deserve. I prefer to fall while I am doing something that
is against the rules but that is right and sensible, and be called to account
for it, and if you like, hanged, rather than be hanged because Papa Stalin is
here in Berlin, or the Englishmen. I have no desire for that. I would rather
die in a different way. But I think we can accomplish this task, too. We are
in the fifth year of war. I repeat, the decision will come during the next six
weeks!" (T-251-252.)
(b) Jaegerstab
We now come to a consideration of the Jaegerstab, formed on 1 March
1944, for the purpose of increasing production of fighter aircraft to meet the
incessant and ever increasingly effective bomber attacks of the Americans and
British which had seriously damaged the entire airplane industry in Germany.
Every airplane factory with the accessory workshops had been hit at least three
times. The Jaegerstab became essentially a concentration of experts drawn from
various ministries. Its programs envisaged a decentralization of plane factories
by transferring them in part to above-surface localities and in part to
subterranean localities. Milch and Speer were joint chiefs of the Jaegerstab, and
Karl Adolph [Otto] Saur functioned as Chief of Staff. SS Obergruppenfuehrer
Kammler had supervision of the construction program. So far as this trial is
concerned, we are interested in the work of the Jaegerstab only to the extent that
it involves employment of foreign labor and prisoners of war. Did the Jaegerstab
employ labor prohibited under international law, and if so, can Milch be held
responsible for such illegal use?
In order to resolve this question we must review the documents submitted
in evidence.
On 6-7 April 1944, Milch and Saur reported to Hitler on the achievements,
up to that time, of the Jaegerstab and discussed with him the plans for further
construction on a second work project. Hitler declared that he desired this
project be set up in the Protectorate and, at this point, the minutes read, "If it
should prove impossible there too to get hold of the necessary workers, the
Fuehrer, himself, will contact the Reichsfuehrer SS and will [825] give an order
that the required 100,000 men are to be made available by bringing in Jews from
Hungary." (T-318.) Here Milch is put directly on notice that forced labor is being
contemplated. Fritz Schmelter, director of the Central Department for
Employment and Distribution of Labor, and because of that a member of the
Jaegerstab, declared in an affidavit on 9 December 1946, that Kammler utilized
concentration camp prisoners placed at his disposal by the SS in order to carry
out his share of the Jaegerstab construction program. Also, that Xaver Dorsch of
the Todt Organization used foreign workers, part of whom were Hungarian Jews,
to accomplish his part of the Jaegerstab construction program. Then Schmelter
states, "Milch, as one of the two responsible chiefs of the Jaegerstab, personally
directed, ordered or approved decisions made in the interests of Jaegerstab
undertakings." (T-322.)
On 13 November 1946, Saur, Chief of Staff of the Jaegerstab, declared in an
interrogation that in the decentralization program Kammler divided 30 factories
into 700 individual workshops, and that the workers used in the project were
concentration camp prisoners. (T-323.)
Speer, in an interrogation made shortly after his capture, declared that
Hungarian Jews were used in the building program. (T-325. )
At one of the Jaegerstab meetings, presided over by Milch,
Stobbe-Dethleffsen, in discussing the matter of labor needed for the Jaegerstab
program, requests a few German key personnel to supervise the concentration
camp inmates "with the other subjugated people." (T-328.)
At a Jaegerstab meeting on 6 March 1944, a Sturmbannfuehrer of the SS
declared he had 5,000 prisoners in readiness for work, but needed 750 guard
personnel. To this statement Milch commented, "We must distribute our German
people as key personnel. That is, out of three construction companies we can
probably make ten complete ones by introducing 70 percent foreigners." (T-331. )
At a meeting on 2 May 1944, Kammler, in Milch's presence declares he had
30 men hanged:
"As usual it is because the people have noticed that they are no longer
treated severely enough. I had 30 people hanged as a special measure.
Since they were hanged, everything has been to some extent in order
again. It is the same old story, whenever people notice that they are not
being treated so severely as before, they take all sorts of liberties. It is not
surprising that a normal soldier, standing guard on people who were
previously [826] always harmless, does not suspect anything of the kind.
They are not, however, harmless people." (T-333-34.)
The minutes of the meeting do not indicate that Milch in any way protested
Kammler's deeds and utterance, although at the trial he doubted that Kammler
had actually hanged 30 people as he had stated.
Although Milch was not present at the meeting on 25 May 1944 of the
Jaegerstab, he approved the minutes of that meeting which revealed a discussion
among Schmelter (labor expert for Jaegerstab), Schlempp (deputy of Jaegerstab)
and Lange, in charge of machinery for Jaegerstab.
Schmelter said:
"The Hungarian Jews are expected now, and they will require some kind of
key personnel. Altogether I need about 250,000 construction workers for
the large bunkers and for Schlett's installations." (T.334.)
To this Lange remarked:
"You can get them all in Hungary. There are still Jews running about
Budapest." (T-334.)
It is to be noted that Lange uses phraseology that one would employ in
speaking of dogs or other animals. There are still dogs running around Budapest.
There are still Jews running about Budapest. At the meeting on 26 May
1944, Schmelter reported that two transports of Hungarian Jews had arrived at
the SS in Auschwitz, but that they consisted primarily of children, women, and
old men. Kammler then declared that he had conscripted his own men by taking
50,000 people into protective custody.
Schlempp, in outlining Dorsch's needs for labor, states:
"Dorsch said yesterday that he wanted to bring 100,000 Jews from
Hungary, 500,000 Italians,* 10,000 men from bomb damage repair, also
1,000 from Waldbrohl; then he wanted to get something from Greiser's
zone by negotiation, then 4,000 Italian officers, 10,000 men from south
Russia, and 20,000 from north Russia. That would be 220,000 altogether."
(T-335-36.)
As early as 20 March 1944, we find Chief of Staff Saur asking Milch to
inform Sauckel that the group mobilization in Hungary
__________
*Original German document read 50,000 but, due to clerical error, translation
of document which was submitted in Court read 500,000. Incorrectness is
obvious by total figure of 220,000 in last sentence.
_________
[827] must be placed primarily at the disposal of the Jaegerstab. "Large, heavy
labor companies must be formed. The people have to be treated like the
prisoners. Otherwise it won't work." (T-342.)
In the face of all these uncontradicted documents and stenographic
records of meetings, it would be fatuous for anyone to say that Milch was
unaware that forced labor and prisoners of war were being used in the
Jaegerstab construction program.
However, there is more than this passive evidence. Milch, himself,
contributes the positive evidence of his full knowledge of and unrestrained
participation in the Jaegerstab slave labor activities.
On 25 April 1944, he said:
"It will only work if we put these workers into barracks. We cannot exactly
treat them as prisoners. It must appear otherwise, but it must be so in
practice. * * * I am personally convinced after talking to the Fuehrer that he
will agree as soon as it is made reasonable. The people should not be able
to mingle with the population and to conspire. Nor should they be allowed
to run around free, so that they can cross the frontier every day. Both
practices must be stopped. * * * I am of the opinion that that must be done
at once. It's all the same to me if individual people do object. Protest does
not interest me at all, whether from the Chief of Prisoners of War Affairs or
from our side. Kleber, would you be so good as to take care of this?"
KLEBER: "As far as prisoners of war are concerned I can take care of it,
but not where it concerns the air force. That must be handled separately."
MILCH: "Naturally. This must be handled by us. There was, in fact, another
proposal but we do not want it. Otherwise someone else will come
complaining."
KLEBER : "I should like to transfer the prisoners further off to Brunswick."
MILCH: "I think it is an excellent idea for the prisoners to go there if
Brunswick continues to be attacked." (T-356-57.)
Article 9 of the Geneva Convention of 1929 provides:
"No prisoner of war may be sent to an area where he would be exposed to
the fire of the fighting zone."
At the 4 May 1944 meeting, Saur reported that the Jaegerstab itself,
independent of Sauckel, had organized an expedition for the procuring of
workers in Italy. On 5 May 1944, Schmelter reported that the Jaegerstab transport
from Italy had been delayed because of the lack of guards, whereupon the
defendant said:
[828] "Is there someone at the escort detachment headquarters in Italy
responsible for seeing that people do not get out and run away during the
journey? That is what the escorting personnel is there for. Someone of
standing? Dr. Wendt is responsible for the whole undertaking. I am of the
opinion that, if anyone jumps out, he should be shot; otherwise a thousand
will get on and only twenty will arrive there. The gendarmerie and all
military posts must look out for those who abscond on the journey. They
will be arrested at once and will appear before a court martial." (T-349-50.)
At a conference held on 22 February 1944, one Rautenbach says:
"That refers to Wernigerode. In Solingen we had the best results with
Frenchmen and the worst with Italians, meaning the Italian workers and not
the prisoners of war. For that reason we do not employ any Italians here in
Wernigerode. They are only 50 to 60 percent efficient." (T-2180.)
And the defendant then remarks:
"Could not the following be done; give the Italians in principle only half of
their food rations, letting them earn the other half when they do their work
well?" (T-2181.)
It is obvious that, as one of the chiefs of the Jaegerstab, the defendant
actively, willingly, and knowingly countenanced, ordered, and participated in
slave labor practices and the use of prisoners of war in activities prohibited by
international law. Aside from his other statements, the one made on 13 June
1944, where he advocates the exportation from France of machinery and men
would, in itself, be enough to convict him of such participation.
"We must write off these areas in France completely, and above all the
factories which are situated further into the country towards the south and
west. For when the invasion begins, the guarding neither of a stretch of
land, nor of a line will be possible, nor will anything function because of
sabotage * * *. No Frenchman will work when the invasion begins. I am of
the opinion that the French should be brought over again by force, as
prisoners."
SAUR: "I should prefer to do it sooner."
LANGE: "We have machines there too, in particular the presses."
MILCH: "Everything must come out; machines and men." (T-358. )
[829] The Jaegerstab functioned from 1 March 1944 to 1 August 1944 and
then it expanded into the Ruestungsstab. When the Jaegerstab concluded its
efforts a report was made to the Fuehrer, which declared that Jaegerstab had, in
spite of air attacks, doubled its aircraft production. (T-360.)
(c) Generalluftzeugmeister
In his capacity as Generalluftzeugmeister, Milch held periodical meetings
and conferences in connection with the Luftwaffe armament production. Labor,
its procurement, disposition, and treatment, was inevitably a subject for frequent
discussion, and in these discussions Milch portrayed himself an intransigent,
implacable taskmaster, uninhibited neither by law nor custom, and unrestrained
by moderation or regard for the helpless vanquished.
At one of these meetings on 5 May 1942, presided over by the defendant,
one Fridag reported:
"The French become worse and worse. I threw out 80 of them who will be
sent to concentration camps in Russia. They refused to work. The French
say at 4 o'clock: 'I won't work another hour', and you cannot make them
work another hour. This happened four weeks ago all of a sudden when the
first bombing attack on Paris took place, while before that the French were
the best people." (T-2106.)
The fact that the bombardment of the beloved Paris of these Frenchmen
would naturally emotionally disturb them was not weighed or considered by the
defendant in spite of the fact that Frydag had reported that prior to the
bombardment they had been excellent workers. Implacable and unyielding as
some story book pagan god, the defendant turns to von Gablenz, Chief of the
Planning Office, and declares:
"I demand if the people refuse to work they immediately be placed against
the wall and shot before all the other workers." (T-2107.)
Further:
"I ask you to get in touch with the Reich Fuehrer SS [Himmler] and to ask
him to discuss the matter with the Fuehrer. Now is the right time; unless we
do something effective now, the others will become bothersome. I ask that
their being sent to concentration camps be taken into consideration too. I
will tell you afterwards how you should act in such a matter." (T-2107.)
[830] Later, on 7 July 1942, he indicated a willingness to try more
peaceable methods, but if they did not succeed, then:
"I intend to fill the new Heinkel Plant in the East entirely with Frenchmen
brought down there by force. If they don't work in France, they may work as
prisoners in . Poland. After all, we have to remember that it is we and not
the French who have won the war." (T-2116.)
On 28 July 1942 we find him again complaining about French production:
"At the present time we receive six to nine planes from the French. I could
well imagine that they would get out 45 for themselves. I shall close up the
shop with a single stroke and have the workers and the machines come to
Germany. If it does not work on a voluntary basis, then we do it by
compulsory contracts. Perhaps I shall first give them a week to think it
over. It is a fact that, on the whole, these people work in silent opposition.
One cannot blame them for it either, it is true, but they should not have
started the war." (T-2117.)
In this outburst we discover two strange utterances. One, "compulsory
contracts", and the other the statement that the French started the war. Since the
word "contract" means a willing agreement between two or more people, a
"compulsory contract" is, of course, meaningless because one cannot be forced
into a contract. If there is any compulsion, then the operation becomes a matter
of outright coercion. With regard to the French starting the war, the defendant
had the grace to state during the trial that he now knows that France did not
initiate hostilities, although he believed to the contrary at the time.
The defendant has declared repeatedly that he had no connection with, or
even knowledge of, concentration camps. He only visited one of them (Dachau) in
1935. At the end of the war he was aware of the existence of but two
concentration camps, although 200 were flourishing in all their ghastliness at the
time. Yet despite this blissful ignorance of concentration camps the phrase
rippled easily from his tongue. At the same meeting above-mentioned he stated
that if two certain individuals, Schneider and Bergen, "make difficulties" he would
put them into a concentration camp for the duration of the war (T-2118.)
When one Petersen, on 30 November 1942, spoke of obtaining 500 men
from a concentration camp, Milch said, "For this purpose we should come to an
agreement with Himmler." (T-2148.)
On 27 April 1943, when one Stahms indicated that concentration camp
inmates are almost 3,000 strong, Milch declares that [831] against a withdrawal of
3,000 foreign workers from the Luftwaffe industry, he attached importance to the
assignment of these 3,000 concentration camp inmates to the Luftwaffe.
(NOKW-413.) At the GL meeting of 4 August 1942, someone reported that the
French might strike in the event of a British attack. This provoked Milch into the
thunderous outburst:
"In such a case I would ask to be appointed military commander myself. I
would band the workers together and have fifty percent of them shot; I
would then publish this fact and compel the other fifty percent to work by
beating if necessary. If they don't work, then they, too, will be shot. I would
get the necessary replacement somehow. But I hope the military
commander will do his duty. I'm not worried about it. The word 'strike' must
never be used. For us there is only 'living or dying' but not 'striking'. That
goes for the educated man as well as for the worker, for the German as
well as for the foreigner. The word 'strike' means death for the man who
uses it." (T-2121-2122.)
On this quotation in court the following colloquy occurred between a
member of the Tribunal and the witness [Milch]:
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Curiosity consumes me as to what would happen if
an officer inferior in rank to yourself took you at your word and actually
executed a number of these workers or prisoners of war. Would that officer
then be punished?
THE WITNESS: No one was there who would have been in a position to do
so. Apart from that, all those who were under my orders knew me and my
way of handling things. They knew exactly that I didn't mean it the way I
said it, and apart from that they always laughed about my remarks when I
used such strong words.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: In other words, the comment of a field marshal in a
matter of this seriousness was really of no value?
THE WITNESS: Because the people knew that I got excited very easily
about certain things, and these incidents here have been selected and
submitted of course. From every one of these meetings, which took place
twice a month, there was a report ù about this thick ù and perhaps, at some
time or another, sometimes once, sometimes twice, due to the many
reports which I received, there was a certain outburst, and then I would
lose my temper as we soldiers used to. However, I didn't intend to do
anything about it and I spoke to those under my orders once in a while.
They pointed out to me that I used such strong words, and they knew
exactly [832] that this was not meant seriously. They knew exactly that no
such order had been given and that I myself would never cause anybody to
be punished, not even when it would have been justified, for the very
simple reason that I did not have the power to give punishments.
(T-2124-2125.)
Then Judge Phillips inquired:
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Well, now, whether you meant it or not, you would say
these things, and by so doing you counselled and advised others under
you at a meeting which you presided over to do such things. Whether you
meant it or not, you did that, didn't you?
THE WITNESS: No. I never gave the order by using these words, because
my people spoke with me, and after all they knew from my words that I
never meant it earnestly.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Didn't you say, 'I would band the workers together and
have fifty percent of them shot? I would then publish this fact and compel
the other fifty percent to work by beating if necessary.' Did you say that or
not?
THE WITNESS: I do not remember to have said that. However, three days
ago I believe I said that I never knew afterwards when I had such outbursts
of rage because I had that rush of blood to my skull due to that injury I had,
and I couldn't remember what I said at that particular moment. I just burst
out in rage. (T-2125-2126.)
The defendant has constantly denied that he was a moving factor in the
foreign workers program. But at the GL meeting on 18 August 1942, we find him
asking for a complete report on the labor question, how it has developed, what
nationalities are involved, how great is the fluctuation:
"What real requests we now have to make in the different sectors in order
to cover the needs for specialists and for skilled and unskilled labor, how
many of them are foreigners, etc. What happens to those who leave the
industry? Are they compelled to work elsewhere? Are they, as I proposed,
under control in the camps supervised by the SS and considered as being
in mild concentration camps or are these gentlemen allowed to remain
outside and do as they please?" (T-2127.)
When questioned as to the significance of "mild" concentration camps, he
explained that these were camps to which people were sent for a short time for
"education".
Complaining about "antisocial elements" who "moved from one factory to
another," Milch rejected the suggestion that the armed [833] forces should take
care of these people in camps. This could not be done because "they have not
been condemned and in no way violated the existing laws."
"That is why Himmler should get these people into his clutches because he
can treat them outside the law." (T-2134.)
At the GL meeting on 19 October 1943, the defendant spoke on the subject
of a possible foreign workers' uprising. He said that he had discussed this
eventuality with Himmler, and that he, Milch, had already given orders to the Chief
AW * and to the training stations to get military training in this field.
"If for instance in the locality X, an uprising is started, then a sergeant with
a few men, or else a lieutenant with 30 men is to turn up in the plant, and
first of all shoot into the crowd with a machine gun. What he should do
after is to shoot down as many people as possible in cases of revolt. I have
given orders to that effect even if our foreign workers are involved. But first
of all he must succeed in getting them all laid out flat on the ground. And
then every tenth man is to be singled out and shot, while the others are
lined up and see it. If our machines are being wrecked, etc., then such
measures have to be applied. I said to Himmler: 'I'll go along with you in
your efforts.'" (T-2153.)
Milch denied at the trial that he had talked to Himmler about this matter and
endeavored to argue incorrectness in the minutes. But the weakness of his
attempted exculpation here lies in the fact that he could well have argued the
necessity for drastic action in such an emergency, without excesses of course. In
fact, he had explained, "If our planes are destroyed in the workshops, an
energetic measure should be taken." But in the desire to extricate himself
completely from the situation, he challenges the record, he refutes the Himmler
conference, and then adds the usual explanation that he was excited at the time.
At a GL conference on 2 March 1943, the defendant was commenting on
the fact that foreign workers were becoming hostile.
"On principle I have to be informed of every case of swinishness. I do not
understand at all why Germany should put up with it when Poles and
Frenchmen explain to the people-today, indeed, you are still sitting in this
work; but later we shall be the owners; and if you treat us properly we shall
see to it then that you are shot dead immediately and not tortured first. In
__________
*Chef Ausbildungswesen (Chief of Training).
__________
[834] all these matters energetic interference must be made. I am of the
opinion that there should be only two types of punishment in such cases;
firstly, concentration camps for foreigners, and secondly, capital
punishment. If a certain number of such hostile elements are removed and
the others are informed, they will then work better. Their love for us
certainly won't become any greater; but neither will their hate, for it is
already strong enough. In this respect, too, energetic interference must be
made and in no case must the works put up with it. The best method is to
give one blow with a sledge hammer to the person concerned; and I shall
treat with distinction every man who does something like that whenever he
hears such stupid nonsense. We are living in total war; and the workers
must be told that they don't have to put up with anything." (T-2169.)
When the above was read to the defendant in court, he stated that he did
not recall the utterance and explained, "that once again it is my well-known rage.
I simply let go." However, upon further cross-examination he seemed to recall
what it was all about and said, "Yes, and I was enraged here through the report
which had been submitted to me as to the fact that our people were being
threatened with death. That enraged me considerably; and I blew up." This is an
interesting observation. This man, from whose lips death threats fell like acorns
from an oak, asks that all his fulminations be ignored. Although he sat on the
victors' bench at the time, yet because a worker who had been dragged from his
home hundreds, or perhaps thousands, of miles away, blurted from the depth of
his misery, that if he got the opportunity he would kill his captor, the captor felt
morally justified in recommending the use of a sledge hammer on the head of the
defenseless captive. The sledge hammer blow was to be delivered not for a deed
committed, but merely for the use of words. To fortify this point, defense
introduced an affidavit which declared that the servant girl in the Milch household
repeated certain statements as to what her people (she was a Ukrainian) would
do in the event they became victorious. On this subject they were so sensitive
that even the gossip and chatter of a maid servant threw fear into their hearts, but
it is solemnly averred in court that the imprecations of a field marshal were
always ignored. At the same meeting above indicated the defendant said:
"But in the abstract, I see no difficulties in the way of getting 100,000 or
200,000 French workers to Germany, nor do I see any difficulties in the way
of keeping them in order. If a case of sabotage occurs in one area, every
tenth man in the area [835] will be shot. Then such acts of sabotage would
cease of themselves. The western peoples are very much afraid of death,
while it is quite different matter with the Russians." (T-2172.)
In explanation of this remark the defendant said that he did not recall
making it. "That was still part of my madness." On 4 November 1943, Milch
conferred with Goering at the Junkers Works at Dessau. Discussing the Italian
workers, the defendant said:
"We have to let certain plants go on working in Italy, such as ball bearings,
steel castings, and others, and we cannot take the people from there. The
same applies to the technical sphere The people there are working for us.
All depends on our policy toward the Italians. I have ordered that they can
be beaten if they do not work. I have also given permission that Italians
caught sabotaging be sentenced to death. If this measure is not desired by
the higher authorities, which seems to be the case, we are powerless. Then
the Italians in the Reich will not be of any use to us." Further, "We could
count on millions all together, if we let them starve if they (do not work!"
(T-2193-2194. )
The defendant denies that he ever gave the order specifically mentioned
here, and since he was talking to Goering, he places himself in the position of
having lied to his superior officer, something of which, considering his vehement
professions of soldier's loyalty to military hierarchy, it would never be expected
he could be guilty.
On the subject of French prisoners of war, the defendant said:
"Don't forget that not even 1,000,000 Frenchmen are here as PW's while we
have 7 to 8 million soldiers. Therefore, the French are still in a very
favorable position. But they must realize that they will be brought to
Germany all together if they don't work hard enough at home." (T-2198.)
As Vichy was working hand in glove with Berlin at the time, the defendant
contends that coercion was not involved since it was the French Government
who had issued the orders for this movement.
Addressing himself on another occasion to the subject of French workers, the
defendant stated, "There is no good will in France, and you can really not expect
it from these fellows. But we will force them to work by not feeding them."
Goering then said, "I can do this here much better." And Milch replied, "That will
get us nowhere. We shall then have to shut down the plants in France."
(NOKW-215.)
[836] At the GL meeting of 27 May 1942, von Gablenz reported, "Yesterday,
the first * has exploded in France, at the Arado plant, an explosive, a float, but no
damage has been done." Milch commented, "What measures have been taken in
consequence? I want to have a report on what has been done-How many people
have been shot and how many hanged. If that guy cannot be found today, fifty
men should be selected and if I were you I would hang three or four of them
whether they are guilty or not. It is the only way!" (NOKW-407.)
IV. MEDICAL EXPERIMENTS
(a) High-Altitude Tests
On 15 May 1941, Dr. Rascher, medical officer in the Luftwaffe and member
of the SS stationed at Munich, wrote Heinrich Himmler asking that Himmler
furnish to him two or three professional criminals to be used as subjects in
high-altitude experiments. He stated that tests had been made with monkeys, but
since their reactions differed from those of human beings, he preferred to work
with live men, it being understood that these individuals could, of course, die in
the experiment. Himmler replied through his adjutant, Rudolf Brandt, that he
would gladly make prisoners available for such high-altitude research, and
authorized that the experiments be carried out by Dr. Rascher, a Dr. Kottenhoff,
and Dr. G. A. Weltz, who was Chief of the Institute for Aviation Medicine in
Munich.
In March 1942, with a low-pressure chamber furnished by the Luftwaffe, the
experiments began at Dachau. The apparatus used for these tests was simply a
wood and metal cabinet in which air pressure could be increased and decreased,
the purpose of the tests being to ascertain the subject's capacity and ability to
take large amounts of pure oxygen, and to observe his reaction to a gradual
decrease of oxygen approaching infinity. In this manner high-altitude
atmospheric pressure would be simulated, and from the results the
experimenters were to be able to determine methods and means of maintaining
and saving lives among aviators compelled to rise to extreme altitudes, and at
times because of war hazards obliged to parachute to the earth. The subjects for
these experiments were to be individuals already sentenced to death.
Stated in strictly academic fashion, one could without too much difficulty
be persuaded that these experiments were not entirely irrational or inhuman. The
subjects were to die anyway, and if in dying they could furnish scientific data not
obtainable other-
__________
*A word is missing here in the German original.
__________
[ 837] wise, data which would save the lives of others, the project would dot seem
as criminally homicidal as it might appear when stated bluntly that experimenters
would kill experimentees.
Whether the project was criminal and inhumane depends upon answers to
the inevitable questions
1. Were the prisoners actually condemned to death previously?
2. If so, for what reasons were they condemned to capital punishment?
3. Were the experiments painful to the subjects?
4. What scientific benefits resulted from the experiments?
If any prisoner used in the experiments was condemned to death merely for
opposing the Nazi Regime without actually having committed any physical crime,
it does not answer the criminal charge to say that the subject was already
doomed to die, because by using that argument the experimenter or his SS
superior could easily take any concentration camp inmate and, by merely
pointing a finger at him, condemn him to death. Obviously in such a case the
slayer could not, after the death, plead innocence on the grounds that the victim
was to die anyway. Exculpation from charge of criminal homicide can possibly be
based only upon b(, fide proof that the subject had committed murder or any of
legally recognized capital offense; and, not even then, unless the sentencing
Tribunal with authority granted by the State in the constitution of the Court,
declared that the execution would he accomplished by means of a low-pressure
chamber.
It has been asserted by the defense in this case that pardons were
promised the subjects of these experiments in the event they survived. But the
whole record reveals but one such shadowy case. It was also stated by one of the
witnesses for the defense (General Wolff of the SS) that the subjects of these
experiments were men who, because of their criminal records, had been denied
the honor of fighting for the Fatherland, but that by submitting to these
experiments they would be allowed, if they survived, to join combat forces at the
front. General Wolff furnished no names or specific instances in this connection,
nor does it appear that he, at any time, was in attendance upon the experiments
at Dachau. Dr. Romberg, under indictment for these same and kindred offenses,
said on 1 November 1946, that he personally witnessed the death of three of Dr.
Rascher's subjects, and that he knows that other experimental subjects were
killed while he was not present. He estimated that the fatalities totaled between
five and ten. He was silent on the character of the victims.
[838] Rudolf Brandt, who is currently on trial in Tribunal I, declared in an
affidavit dated 30 August 1346, that Rascher wrote Himmler asking for
concentration camp subjects for his high-altitude experiments. "Volunteers could
not very well be expected, as the experiments could be fatal under the
circumstances." (T-475.) Also "many experiments ended with the death of the
experimental subject." (T-477.)
Brandt declared further that after Rascher submitted a report on his first
experiments, Himmler ordered him to continue the experiments and authorized
the commutation to life imprisonment of those subjects, previously condemned
to death, who survived the experiments. However, Poles and Russians were
excluded from this declared clemency. For Himmler, to be a Russian or a Pole or
a Jew was an offense that could be expiated only with death. Both Romberg and
Brandt are interested witnesses since they are defendants in another trial on
similar charges. The testimony of one Anton Pacheleff, however, is not burdened
with this possible defect as he is not answering to any charges. An Austrian
patent lawyer, he was an inmate of Dachau, and while his testimony must still be
carefully scrutinized, it does not need to be evaluated on the basis that the affiant
has something to gain in exaggerating the nature, extent, and effect of the
medical experiments. He declared under oath that Dr. Rascher chose the victims
for his researches from the punishment company at Dachau, a group made up of
political prisoners marked for extermination. "A few convicts were among the
political prisoners, having been placed there merely to depress the morale of the
political prisoners, and so a few convicts were killed along with the others."
(T-408.)
The most complete account of this entire operation was contributed by
Walter Neff, an Austrian who had been committed to Dachau because, prior to the
Anschluss, he had testified in an Austrian court against certain Nazi terrorists.
Only by coincidence were the experiments enacted in a ward to which he had
been assigned as an untrained nurse, and thus he became an unofficial observer.
He testified that from 180 to 200 concentration camp inmates were subjected to
the high-altitude experiments, and of these, 10 were volunteers. Of all these
subjects only one man was ever released, and that was an individual called
Zopota.
It was Neff's conclusion that over a period of three months from 70 to 80
persons were killed in the high-altitude experiments. He declared further that
approximately 40 of the persons killed were persons not previously condemned
to death. One man, according to Neff, was deliberately killed in the low-pressure
[839] chamber by Dr. Rascher so that he could perform an autopsy on him after
his death at the atmospheric pressure of 10,000 meters altitude. During one
autopsy it was discovered after the breast had been opened that the heart was
still beating. "This experiment," Neff said, "caused many cases of death because
many more experiments were made in order to see how long the heart of a man
could beat thus autopsied." (T-419.)
In this connection, reference must be made to one of the most cruel and
fiendish decrees scratched by the claw of Himmler on the horror-filled parchment
of his diabolic ingenuity. On 13 April 1942 he wrote Dr. Rascher, "these
experiments should above all be evaluated for the purpose of seeing whether it is
not possible, through this long functioning of the heart, to bring such people
back to life. Should such an experiment of bringing back to life succeed, then it is
understood that the person condemned to death will be commuted to lifelong
imprisonment in a concentration camp." (1971-B-PS.) Thus, if the lifeless and
mutilated body of one of these tortured victims of cold-blooded homicide should
be made to function again, its owner would receive from the benevolent Heinrich
Himmler the assurance of the luxuries of a lifelong imprisonment in an SS
concentration camp!
But this is not the end of the hilarious game of these two death-head
players, as they toss human life back and forth. On 20 October 1942, Rascher
queries Himmler's adjutant on this subject. He desires to know if, amongst the
mythical survivors of his lethal experiments, there should be any Poles or
Russians, whether they were also to receive the boon of lifelong imprisonment in
a concentration camp. Incidentally, Rascher adds, the only ones he has
experimented with have been Poles and Russians. And the reply comes back
from Himmler's adjutant that Dr. Rascher, "please," is to be informed that "the
decree of the Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler concerning pardoning (they called it
pardoning!) of experimental subjects does not apply to Poles and Russians." (! ! !
)
The manner in which some of the victims were selected is material fit for an
Edgar Allen Poe story or a horror magazine. One day after 16 Russian prisoners
had been used as experiments, two Jews were scheduled to be killed. Curious as
to the identity of the two scheduled for extermination, Neff watched the first
victim being placed in the experimental chamber. Something in the man's
features forcibly brought to his mind the image of the prison tailor. Hurrying to
the tailor shop he learned that indeed it was the tailor, and that he had not been
condemned to death, but that an SS-man, one Endres, had placed him among the
list of those scheduled to be killed because this tailor had refused to make a
civilian suit for Endres!
[ 840] Neff further testified that at one time the chamber became damaged,
but after being repaired more deaths occurred, and on the last day Rascher killed
five persons. (T-421. )
On 16 April 1942, Rascher wrote Himmler describing an experiment which
he repeated four times "with the same results."
"When Wagner, the last VP (experimental subject) had stopped breathing, I
let him come back to life by increasing pressure. Since the VP was
assigned for a terminal ('Terminal' meaning 'death-resulting' in this case)
experiment, since a repeated experiment held no prospect for new results,
and since I had not been in possession of your letter at that time, I
subsequently started another experiment through which VP Wagner did not
live. Also in this case the results obtained by electrocardiographic
registration (Herzstromabschreibung) were extraordinary." (T-431-32.)
Here Rascher, in a macabre demonstration worthy of his record, repeated
an experiment four times knowing what the result would be, and then finally killed
the subject because he had been marked for extermination anyway.
(b) Were the Experiments Painful to the Subjects.
The defense contends that the experiments, even though often fatal, were
not accompanied with actual pain to the subjects, and therefore the experiments
could not be characterized cruel or inhuman. Anton Pacheleff often stood by the
apparatus during the experiments and looked through the observation window of
the chamber. He testified:
"I have personally seen through the observation window of the chamber
when a prisoner inside would stand a vacuum until his lungs ruptured.
Some experiments gave men such pressure in their heads that they would
go mad, and pull out their hair in an effort to relieve the pressure.
"They would tear their heads and face with their fingers and fingernails in
an attempt to maim themselves in their madness. They would beat the
walls with their hands and head, and scream in an effort to relieve pressure
on their eardrums. These cases of extreme vacuums generally ended in the
death of the subject. An extreme experiment was so certain to result in
death that in many instances the chamber was used for routine execution
purposes rather than an experiment." (T-409.)
One report made up by Doctors Ruff, Romberg, and Rascher graphically
described the reactions of the subject as he fell from [841] a height of 47,000 feet.
Some of the more unusual reactions are noted:
47,200 ft....Lets the mask fall, severe altitude sickness, spasmodic
(klonische) convulsions.
45,580 ft. ... Opisthotonus.
44,950 ft....Suspended in opisthotonus.
44,920 ft.... Arms stretched stiffly forward; sits up like a dog, legs spread
stiffly apart
43,310 ft....Agonal convulsive breathing.
40,030 ft.... Dyspnea, hangs limp
23,620 ft.... Uncoordinated movements with the extremities.
19,690 ft.... Clonic convulsions, groaning.
18,080 ft....Yells aloud.
9,520 ft....Still yells, convulses arms and legs, head sinks forward.
6,560 ft....Yells spasmodically, grimaces, bites his tongue, does not
respond to speech, gives the impression of someone who is completely
out of his mind.
5 minutes...(after reaching ground level) Reacts for the first time to vocal
stimulation.
11 minutes ...Holds his head turned convulsively to the right; tries
repeatedly to answer the first question concerning his birth date.
28 minutes...Sees nothing; runs against open window sash upon which the
sun is shining, so that large lump is formed on his forehead; says "Excuse
me, please." No expression of pain.
37 minutes...Reacts to pain stimuli.
75 minutes...Still disoriented in time; retrogressive amnesia over three
days.
24 hours...Normal condition again attained; has no recollection of the
experiment itself. (T-455-56. )
(c) Results Achieved
On 11 May 1942, Rascher made his first report to Himmler on the
high-altitude experiments:
"As practical result of the more than 200 experiments conducted at Dachau
the following can be assumed. Flying in altitudes higher than 12 kilometers
without pressure-cabin or pressure-suit is impossible even while breathing
pure oxygen. If the airplane pressure machine is damaged at altitudes of 13
kilometers and higher the crew will not be able to bail out of [842] the
damaged plane themselves since at that height the bends appear rather
suddenly. It must be requested that the crew should be removed
automatically from the plane, for instance, by catapulting the seats by
means of compressed air. Descending with opened parachute without
oxygen would cause severe injuries due to the lack of oxygen besides
causing severe freezing; consciousness would not be regained until the
ground was reached. Therefore, the following is to be requested: (1) A
parachute with barometrically controlled opening. (2) A portable oxygen
apparatus for the jump. For the following experiments Jewish professional
criminals who had committed 'Rassenschande' (race pollution) were used;
the question of the formation of embolism was investigated in ten cases.
Some of the VP's died during a continued high-altitude experiment; for
instance, after one-half hour at a height of 12 kilometers. To find out
whether the severe psychical and physical effects, as mentioned under No.
3, are due to the formation of embolism, the following was done: After
relative recuperation from such a parachute descending test had taken
place, however before regaining of consciousness, some VP's were kept
under water until they died. * * * One VP was made to breathe pure oxygen
for two and one-half hours before the experiment started. After six minutes
at a height of 20 kilometers he died and at dissection also showed ample
air embolism as was the case in all other experiments." (T-384-385.)
Dr. Romberg declared in an interrogation conducted on 29 October 1946,
that he and other doctors had conducted experiments on themselves reaching
altitudes of 17,000 meters (17 kilometers). Beyond that, he said, death was
probable. This seems to contradict the report made by Rascher, above referred
to, in which he speaks of the impossibility of flight at 12 kilometers (12,000
meters). But the whole fallacy of the experiments and their sheer futility are
revealed in a letter which Dr. Hippke, Chief of the Medical Section of the
Luftwaffe, wrote to Himmler under date of 8 October 1942:
"It is true that no conclusions as to the practice of parachuting can be
drawn for the time being, as a very important factor, viz., cold, has so far
not yet been taken into consideration; it places an extraordinary excess
burden on the entire body and its vital movements, so that the results in
actual practice will very likely prove to be far more unfavorable than in the
present experiments." (T-404.)
If it was impossible perfectly to simulate flying conditions in the
low-pressure chamber ù and this, if they were scientists at all [843] worthy of the
name, they should have known and must have known – then the tests were only
the wildest kind of experimenting. And if the experimenting was done with human
lives, as it was, the recklessness and the wanton handling of these human lives,
resulting from 60 to 70 times in death, can only be characterized by what it was --
murder.
(d) Freezing Experiments
On 20 May 1942, [Field] Marshal Milch wrote General Wolff recommending
experiments "in regard to perils at high seas." (T-393.) As German aviators from
time to time were being forced to parachute into the North Seas, and
consequently being subject to extreme cold for extended periods of time, the
purpose of the freezing experiments was to ascertain the most effective way of
rewarming such aviators and thereby saving their lives. (T-480.) The cold-water
experiments were performed between August and October 1942 ; the dry-cold
experiments from February to April 1943. Walter Neff, already identified,
described the experimental basin as being made of wood, two meters long, two
meters high, and 50 centimeters above the floor. He stated that 280 to 300
prisoners were used in the tests, many of them undergoing as high as three
experiments, and that out of the number indicated 80 to 90 died. The selection of
the subjects was left to the political department of the camp after Rascher had
made requests for a certain number. The eventual victims were made up of
political prisoners, foreigners, prisoners of war, and inmates condemned to
death. According to Neff, none of the subjects were volunteers. (T-423.)
The experiment was conducted in the following manner. The basin was
filled with water and then ice was added until the temperature measured 3¦
[centigrade]. Now the subject, either naked or dressed in a flying suit, was forced
into the freezing liquid. When two certain doctors, Holzloehner and Finke, were
performing the experiment, the subjects had narcotics administered to them, but
when Rascher took over he refused narcotics because he maintained that "you
cannot find the exact condition of the blood, and that you would exclude the
willpower of the subject if he was under an anaesthetic." When the subject was
experimented on in a conscious state, a much longer time elapsed before the
so-called freezing narcosis set in. (T-424.)
Neff, describing the operation, declared that the "sinking down of the
temperature until 32¦ [centigrade] was a terrible plight for the experimental
subject." At 32¦ the subject lost consciousness, but these persons "were frozen
down to 25¦ body tempera- [844] ture." When Rascher was handling the
experiments "a large number of the persons involved were kept in the water so
long a time until they were dead." (T-425.) Many others died during the reviving or
during the re-warming procedure. The utterly heartless and fiendish manner in
which some of the experiments were conducted can be gathered from the graphic
description by Neff of the episode of the two Russians:
"It was the worst experiment which was ever carried out. From the bunker
two Russian officers were carried out. We were forbidden to speak to them.
They arrived in the afternoon at approximately 4 o'clock. Rascher had them
undressed and they had to go into the basin in a naked state. Hour after
hour passed and when usually after a short time, 60 minutes, the freezing
would have set in, these two Russians were still conscious even after two
hours. All of our appeals to Rascher, asking him to give them an injection
was without purpose. Approximately in the third hour one Russian said to
the other: 'Comrade, tell that officer that he may shoot us.' Then the other
one replied, 'Don't expect any mercy from this Fascist dog.' And how can
one imagine that we inmates also had to be witnesses of such a death and
could do nothing against it, then you can really estimate how terrible it is to
be condemned to work in such an experimental station. After these words,
which were translated to the Germans by a young Pole in a somewhat
different form, Rascher went back into his office. The young Pole
immediately tried to give them an anaesthetic with chloroform, but Rascher
returned immediately. He threatened us with a pistol, and he said, 'Don't
dare interfere and approach these victims.' The experiment lasted at least
five hours until death set in. Both corpses were sent to Munich for autopsy
in the Schwabisches Hospital there.
"Q. Witness, how long did it normally take to kill a person in these freezing
experiments?
"A. The length of the experiment varied according to the individual case. It
always varied according to whether the subject was clothed or unclothed.
If his physical construction was weak and if in addition to that he was
naked, death often set in already after 80 minutes. But there were a number
of cases where the experimental subject lived up to three hours and
remained that way in the water until finally death set in." (T-426.)
On 20 September 1942, Rascher made an intermediary report on these
experiments:
"The experimental subjects (VP's) were placed in the water dressed in
complete flying uniform, winter or summer combina- [845] tion, and with an
aviator's helmet. A life jacket made of rubber or kapok was to prevent
submerging. The experiments were carried out at water temperatures
varying from 2.5¦ to 12¦ [centigrade]. In one experimental series, the
occiput, the brain stem, protruded above the water, while in another series,
the brain stem and back of the head were submerged in water * * *.
Fatalities occurred only when the brain stem and back of the head were
also chilled. Autopsies of such fatal cases always revealed large amounts
of free blood, up to one-half liter, in the cranial cavity. The heart invariably
showed extreme dilation of the right chamber. As soon as the temperature
in these experiments reached 28¦ the experimental subjects died
invariably, despite all attempts at resuscitation. The above-discussed
autopsy findings conclusively proved the importance of a warming
protective device for the occiput when designing the planned protective
clothing of foam type." (T-398-399.)
The sheer monstrousness of this type of experiment reveals itself in the
last sentence of the report which states with the flourish of a great scientific
discovery that if the back of the head, the occiput is to be submerged in freezing
water, there should be a warm, protective device to cover the occiput. If one is to
have his feet in icy water, he should wear warm, waterproof boots. If he is to dip
his head in the icy water, then his head should also be protected! This, then, is
the weighty conclusion of so-called scientists sacrificing human lives for an
observation that is obvious to a ten-year-old child.
"During attempts to save severely chilled persons (Unterkuehlte) it was
shown that rapid re-warming was in all cases preferable to slow
re-warming, because after removed from the cold water, the body
temperature continued to sink rapidly. I think that for this reason, we can
dispense with the attempt to save intensely chilled subjects by means of
animal heat. Rewarming by animal warmth, animal bodies or women's
bodies, would be too slow. As auxiliary measures for the prevention of
intense chilling, improvements in the clothing of aviators come alone into
consideration. The foam suit with suitable neck protector which is being
prepared by the German Institution for Textile Research (Deutsches
Textilforschungsinstitut), Muenchen-Gladbach, deserves first priority in
this connection. The experiments have shown that pharmaceutical
measures are probably necessary if the flier is still alive at the time of
rescue." (T-399-400.)
Here other amazing, fantastic discoveries were made
[846] 1. That something should be done at once to re-warm a body that has
been floating about in icy water.
2. That aviator suits be made up with suitable neck protectors.
3. And that if the flier is still alive when rescued, medicine should be
prescribed for him. If dead, no pharmaceutical measures are
recommended!
In the year 1942, in the name of science, in the name of progress, men
trained in medicine calmly and deliberately froze the blood in the arteries and
veins of human beings to the point of death to proclaim warm clothing for low
temperatures and re-warming and medicine for those who have succumbed to
coldness.
Dr. Becker-Freyseng, who participated in some of the experiments,
declared that as a result of the freezing experiments conducted at Dachau, they
gave orders to flight surgeons that the warm bath method was to be used in
reviving aviators who had been chilled. And thus another milestone was reached
in science; namely, that warmth revived and comforted these who had been
chilled. (T-470.)
On 22 September 1942, Himmler acknowledged Rascher's report, but
Himmler who was carrion and obscenity incarnate, ordered that further subjects
be frozen, and that re-warming and revival be attempted by the use of naked
women. For this purpose Rascher obtained four gypsy women, and the
experiments began. The subjects were, in accordance with usual procedure,
forced into water in which ice cakes floated and were retained in the freezing
compound until unconscious. Then each frozen victim was put to bed with two
naked women, and the three were covered with blankets. In still other
experiments the unconscious subject was placed in bed with only one woman.
From all this revolting and macabre performance, the scientific deduction was
reached that the re-warming process was better achieved by one woman than two
because with one single partner "personal inhibitions are removed and the
woman nestles up to the chilled victim more intimately." This was the great
scientific revelation achieved from an obscene spectacle which could have
seemed more like the superstitious drum-beating rites of barbarians on some
forgotten savage, jungle-infested isle, than the work of educated doctors in the
year 1942. Nor was this type of experiment without its fatalities. Of one subject,
the report stated, "This person died with symptoms suggesting cerebral
hemorrhage as was confirmed by the subsequent autopsy." The Nazi scientists,
after this experiment, did however, achieve greatness in stating that this type of
re-warming was recommended only when women were available [847] and other
types of re-warming facilities were not available, except in the "case of small
children who are best re-warmed by their mothers with the aid of hot-water
bottles." (?)
In a final report to Himmler on the super-cooling experiments at Dachau,
the ghastly experimenters, after having killed scores of subjects, came to the
conclusion that they did not know whether rescued persons should be re-warmed
quickly or slowly:
"It was not clear, for example, whether those who had been rescued should
be warmed quickly or slowly. According to the current instructions for
treating frozen people, a slow warming- up seemed to be indicated. Certain
theoretical considerations could be adduced for a slow warming.
Well-founded suggestions were missing for a promising medicinal
therapy." The uncertainty is blamed on the "absence of well-founded
suggestions concerning the cause of death by cold in human beings."
(T-433.)
And now, in order to clarify this question, they decided to go back to
animal experiments which would suggest that after all their experimenting and
killing of human beings, they are no closer to any scientific discovery than when
they started. (T-433.)
However, they still continued the experiments with human beings in
another manner. This was the dry-cold process, an operation carried out during
the period January-March 1943. The modus operandi of this experiment was to
place the subject outdoors at night in a nude state, cover him with a linen sheet,
and then pour cold water over him hourly. After several operations of this
character, Rascher complained that it was a mistake to cover the subjects even
with a linen sheet. He must be utterly naked, otherwise "the air cannot get at the
person." And from then on the subjects suffered their torture without covering of
any kind. Even if it could be assumed that the test could have the slightest
modicum of value, it is not understood why the subject had to be utterly naked.
As the purpose of the experiment, it is presumed, was to ascertain the reaction of
a soldier's body to a frozen state, there is no reason why the subject could not
wear some-clothes, if only the merest undergarment, because it is scarcely
conceivable that a soldier or aviator would be without some clothing on his back.
On this subject, Neff testified:
"The next experiment was a mass experiment when the prisoners were
also put outside naked at night. The temperature of one of them was
measured with a galvanometer, the others with a thermometer. Rascher
was present during approximately eighteen to twenty experiments of that
type, but I can not re member exactly how many deaths occurred and if
deaths oc- [848] curred in connection with these experiments. I would like
to say with certain reservations that approximately three deaths occurred
during that period." (T-429.)
On the character of the subjects Neff stated:
"Of the experimental subjects subjected to air-cooling experiments, none
were people who were sentenced to death. They were prisoners of various
nationalities. There were also German political prisoners and 'green'
prisoners.
"Q. And these prisoners had not volunteered, had they?
"A. No." (T-429.)
V. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
(a) Responsibility of Milch as to
Count One of Indictment
Article II of Control Council Law No. 10, promulgated by the Allied Control
Council, representing the nations of the United States, Great Britain, France, and
Russia, proclaims the ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor of civilian
populations of occupied territories, or the ill-treatment of prisoners of war, to be
war crimes, punishable by death, imprisonment, or other penalties. It is sufficient
for this Tribunal to cite Control Council Law No. 10 as authority for its action in
this case. Since, however, the Control Council came into being after the ending of
the war, and since the laws which it published necessarily also followed the
termination of hostilities, it has been argued by defense counsel that it does not
comport with justice and reason that a defendant should be condemned for an
act which, prior to its commission, was not accepted in international law as a
crime. From the day of surrender Germany has been without a government of its
own, and as the Allied powers are exercising quasisovereign jurisdiction in
practically all phases of German relations, both internal and external, the very
circumstances of Germany's present political situation not only justifies but
demands that the Control Council establish government in its three fundamental
phases; namely, the judiciary, the executive, and the legislative. Otherwise chaos
would fling Germany into even a more precipitous abyss than the one into which
she has fallen, and the supreme and perhaps irreparable disaster, arrested by
Allied intervention, would be upon her.
Yet it can be argued and it has been argued that despite the imperative
need of an occupational force with its almost unlimited jurisdiction, such an
occupying force simply represents the [849] authority of victor over vanquished.
In the discharge of its duties under the law which created it, this Tribunal is not
called upon to answer the arguments just indicated, but a respect for the opinion
of mankind invites a listing of the reasons which establish the justice of the
procedure here invoked and the reasons which must invest its judgment with the
solemnity and solidity of accepted international law.
In the first place, it is not Control Council Law No. 10 which makes abuse
of civilian populations an international crime, nor even the decision of the
International Military Tribunal, which in turn derived its power from the London
Charter which had as its antecedent the Moscow Declaration of 1943.
International law is not a body of codes and statutes, but the gradual expression,
case by case, of the moral judgments of the civilized world, and no international
law textbook of the last century ever sanctioned the deportation of a civilian
population for labor. Although under Article 52 of the Hague Regulations, the
inhabitants of occupied countries may be used for the needs of the occupying
army, such civilians may be utilized only in proportion to the resources of the
country, and they may not under any circumstances be required to take part in
military operations against their own country. L. Oppenheim's Treatise on
International Law (Vol. 11, Sixth Edition, page 345) states flatly that there is no
right to deport inhabitants to the country of the occupant for the purpose of
compelling them to work there.
It is submitted, however, that though this is the law and so recognized,
total warfare, as it raged in World War II, suspended, if it did not outrightly
abrogate, all these rules heretofore respected and esteemed as binding on
civilized nations. In this respect defense counsel argues that "modern warfare,
having as its aim total annihilation of the armed production of the enemy, brought
with it to a great extent warfare against the civilian population," and he cites total
blockade as an illustration of his thesis. It is true that total blockade affects the
entire blockaded population, as indeed air raids strike at the most helpless and
harmless of the enemy's civilians. The writer of this opinion was witness many
times to the death and mutilation of inhabitants, including women, children, and
old men, in Luftwaffe air raids aimed at legitimate war targets. German civilians
also paid with their lives for living in their own country. And thus, it would seem
in principle, that if civilians may legitimately be killed through military action,
though noncombatant, they may certainly be made to work. But it does not follow
that because military necessity unintentionally victimizes a civilian population,
political domination may strip them of their civil rights and sub- [850] ject them to
intentional torture and possible death. With all its horror modern war still "is not
a condition of anarchy and lawlessness between the belligerents, but a
contention in many respects regulated, restricted, and modified by law."
(Oppenheim, ibid., 421.)
Though the adversaries descend into the pit of bloody combat, there is
always open to them the means of re-ascending to the level of nonhostile
negotiations. The matter of temporary truces for recovering the dead and
succoring the wounded, the making of arrangements through international relief
organizations for the treatment of prisoners, the granting of safe passage
through the lines of persons mutually agreed upon by the parties, all are
instances which refute the logical development of defense counsel's argument
that total warfare justifies the abandonment of every restriction and authorizes
the combatants to use all manners and means to win the conflict.
And no one was in a better position to understand this than the defendant.
He had participated as a soldier in the First World War; he had, following the war,
entered distinguished private enterprise; he had travelled extensively and was
induced by none other than Hitler himself to enter the Air Ministry long before the
outbreak of World War II because of his talents and abilities. It is idle for defense
counsel to say that Milch "was never a good National Socialist." If joining a
political party, accepting its benefits and preferments, rising to supreme heights
in grade and distinction, offering never-flagging loyalty to the Fuehrer, even in the
face of a declared acknowledgment that the Fuehrer was leading Germany to
disaster, if this does not make one a full-fledged National Socialist, then nothing
does.
Milch did not simply passively ignore international law, he actively
expressed a knowledgeable contempt for it. We have seen how he declared at
one of the Central Planning Board meetings that "International law cannot be
observed here."
Defense counsel made much of the point that the German people did not
want war, and the defendant himself described how when the first tanks moved
through the streets of Berlin, the inhabitants of that city were silent and worried.
But it is not clear how this observation advances the innocence of the defendant.
If anything it adds to his moral guilt because the evidence reveals only too well
that to the fullest extent of his energies he prosecuted a war which he states was
against the will and interests of his people. The indictment has not charged him
with waging aggressive war, but in view of his participation in the 23 May 1939
conference when Hitler outlined quite clearly his aggressive intentions, and in
view of his (Milch's) never tiring [851] efforts in the war's various phases --at the
front, in the air, in production, in inspection --it cannot be said that to his trained
mind the war had the aspects of a defensive and not an aggressive conflict.
Although Milch has here repudiated belief in the master race theory, yet we know
that he went through a formal procedure to establish the absence of Jewish
blood in his veins. This procedure even took the embarrassing turn of statements
concerning his parentage. In doing this, Milch could not help but know that the
Jews were being persecuted by the political party to which he voluntarily
belonged. Nor will the Tribunal believe his declaration that he knew of only two
concentration camps in all of occupied Europe. For the Tribunal to acknowledge
this statement would be to declare Milch weak-minded if not non compos mentis.
Milch was constantly threatening workers with the concentration camp. These
threats he attributes to excessive anger as he does all his outbursts, to which we
have already called attention.
Milch would have the Tribunal believe that his violent language was never
intended to produce results. He explained that his declaration that Italian
prisoners of war attempting to escape should be shot does not constitute cruelty
because, in the words of his counsel, "all countries have prisoners shot who
attempt to escape." This contradicts another statement made in court wherein he
lauded prisoners who sought to regain their freedom. When confronted with
inconsistencies of this character, the defendant invariably sought refuge in the
statement that he was never taken seriously in his threats to shoot, hang, or
whip. He informs us that he never used a whip, that everybody knew he
exaggerated, that nobody took him seriously, and that he did not have full control
of himself. But Erhard Milch was not the village idiot. He carried a field marshal's
baton, and the lifting of that baton compelled obedience no matter how idiotic
might be the demand. Further, Milch's imprecations were not simple interjections;
they frequently carried the appearance of orders already given or about to be
issued. He may never have actually penned a death warrant or called out the SD
with its murder squads, but is it so certain that underlings beyond his cognizance
did not carry into effect his sometimes very clear directions on punishments to
be inflicted ?
Violent language is not as innocuous as Milch would have the present
world believe. Even if it should be true that his immediate circle laughed at his
fulminations, as was testified, there is no assurance that others laughed. A field
marshal's fraternizations are necessarily limited. There were not many who had
the privilege to stand beside him, as did General Vorwald, and philo- [852]
sophically muse; "Now his neck is getting red again." There were necessarily
hundreds in the course of six years of war who, attending his various meetings,
were not informed that his fire and brimstone were froth. Vorwald can laugh at a
field marshal and a field marshal can laugh at a Hitler, but the comedy ceases
there. Milch has ridiculed Hitler's speeches and pointed out that certain portions
of the Fuehrer's orations were known as the "Adam and Eve" section. He
indicated .further that many of Hitler's thunderings were mere bluff, but who can
say today that he was bluffing?
Hitler's most potent force for evil was language. With all that he has to
answer for at the bar of history, it can be doubted that there exists proof that he
with his own hands killed any man or even the proverbial fly. Hitler's armory was
language. It was Hitler's language which mesmerized the German nation. Every
one has said so. He had no other abilities. He was no soldier. All the generals
were agreed on that. He could not ride a horse, he could not drive a car, he could
not build a fence. He could hang paper and he could talk, and the German people
regarded that talk as substance. And on the phosphorescent sea of his wildly
undulating phrases they launched the ship of their well-being with the tragic
result that fragments and splinters of that ship now piteously stare at one from
every nook and corner of this once prosperous and happy land.
The greatest individual force of destruction in Germany for nearly 20 years
was Mein Kampf. And yet Mein Kampf was simply language. To the knowledge of
the writer of this opinion, Mein Kampf was never used as a missile or fired as a
projectile, but is there a German sincerely interested in the welfare of his country
today who doubts that its words were bullets, its phrases bombs, and its pages
poison which, falling into the wells of the nation, corroded the thinking of the
innocent and goaded into action the ambitions of the wicked?
As the record shows, Milch incessantly threatened the wildest excesses,
he orally directed them, and he reported to his chief on one occasion that he had
put certain ones into effect. In spite of his present disavowal, there is nothing in
the transcript to indicate that he repudiated his threats at the time of utterance.
The defense has repeatedly attacked the accuracy of the minutes of the Central
Planning Board, the GL, and the Jaegerstab. All these documents were taken
from the official files of the Reich Air Ministry. Furthermore, the defendant's
constant efforts on the stand to modify the far-reaching implications of his
speeches concede the general correctness of the remarks attributed to him.
Thus, making due allowance for stenographic errors, the de- [853] fendant stands
out through the pages of these reports as a resolute, persevering, determined
worker, unyielding and loyal to his cause, which was the cause of the Fuehrer.
It can be believed that Erhard Milch was not seeking personal enrichment
and a luxurious living, which was so obviously the nefarious and principal goal of
his chief, the super-pilferer Hermann Goering. Milch was seeking victory for
Germany, for which he held an understandable affection, but his intelligence,
training, and experience in the affairs of the world told him inescapably that
Germany was waging an aggressive and culpable war. Milch gave of his talents
and energies to the winning of a war criminally begun and lawlessly prosecuted,
which, had it ended in victory for the aggressors would have resulted in the
heartless subjugation of countless millions of innocent and helpless people. The
defendant has recounted his worries and anguish and has explained that this
mental torment provoked many of his unbridled utterances, but what was the
cause of this bitterness and mortification? Not that Europe had become a
slaughterhouse, not that blood ran like water, not that the four Horsemen of the
Apocalypse were galloping over the continent hurling famine, pestilence, and
death into every city, village, and hamlet. Milch's torment and soul-sickness were
not that the human race and human dignity were being debased and degraded as
they had never been before since man knew shame. It was not for all this that
Milch's heart was breaking. His consternation, his panic was that Germany was
losing the war!
He said, "I had to walk into defeat with open eyes." (T-1948.) Also, "I could
see what was coming and I could not help my people." And in his bitterness he
increased the fury of his verbal lashes over the backs of the foreign workers, he
redoubled his efforts for more importations and screamed for more production.
He knew, as far back as November 1941, that the war was lost; this knowledge
was confirmed after Stalingrad, and every vestige of doubt as to the eventual
result was shattered by the clouds of bombers over Germany every day. He knew
that Hitler was leading Germany over the brink to ruin, and yet he called for more
and more production to make the disaster all the more noteworthy. He was
having difficulties with Goering, Hitler did not want him any more, and yet he
stoked the fires of his wrath to an even higher degree of vengeance against the
workers because they would not turn out more production for the war, every
continuing day of which brought only greater misery to his people. The argument
does not ring true. Milch may have believed Germany might lose the war but he
certainly made every effort to have it end victoriously. This in itself is honorable
for a [ 854] soldier, but he allowed himself to use means and methods which the
code of a soldier does not authorize or countenance, and therein he fell.
He has related several accidents which may have affected his health. He
cracked-up two or three times with his plane and he suffered an automobile
mishap as well. It is suggested, although not vigorously pressed, that all this may
explain his towering wraths and lightning fury. But the plea in this case is not
"Not Guilty because of Insanity." Nowhere is it advanced that the defendant is not
now, nor that at any time throughout the war was not, in the fullest possession of
his mental faculties. If a temporary aberration is being suggested, it is remarkable
that these deviations from the norm occurred only when he was urging the
maximum and severest employment of forced labor and menacing with the direst
punishment those who did not fulfill to the extreme the commitments of this
illegal enterprise. If Milch was at any time deprived of his reasoning faculties, his
temporary unbalance had method in it.
The Tribunal finds Erhard Milch guilty on count one of the indictment.
(b) Count Two
In considering Milch's responsibility under count two, we will need to
enumerate and weigh each reference to him in the testimony in this connection.
The high-altitude experiments began in March and lasted until June 1942.
Cold-water experiments were conducted during the period from the middle of
August until October 1942. The dry-cold experiments lasted from February
through April 1943. During this time Milch was Inspector General of the Air
Forces, State Secretary in the Air Ministry, and Generalluftzeugmeister. As
Inspector General he was in charge of the office which authorized research and
medical experiments conducted in behalf of the Air Forces. General Hippke,
physician in charge of the Luftwaffe Medical Department, was directly
subordinate to the defendant. As Generalluftzeugmeister, Milch was head of air
ordnance. Milch had charge of the development of technical experiments for the
Luftwaffe.
All medical institutes and Luftwaffe medical men were subordinate to the
Medical Inspectorate Chief, Dr. Hippke. The DVL was subordinate to Hippke's
office in technical matters. Dr. Rascher conducted his experiments at Dachau. He
was temporarily assigned to the SS, but retained his status as a Luftwaffe
physician, rising from a second lieutenant to a captain in the Luftwaffe.
__________
*Deutsche Versuchsanatalt fuer Luftfahrt (German Institute for Aviation
Research). In this case, the reference is to the Medical Section of the Institute.
__________
[855] During the period of the experimentations, Rascher was under the
command of the Luftwaffe.
On 20 May 1942, Milch wrote a letter to General Wolff, stating that his
medical inspector had reported to him that the high-altitude experiments
conducted by the SS and the Luftwaffe had been finished, and he did not
recommend that they should be continued. He did, however, authorize
experiments "of some other kind in regard to perils at high seas." On 4 June
1942, Milch authorized Hippke the continued use of the low-pressure chamber.
On 20 July 1942, Rascher sent Brandt a report on the high-altitude experiments
and the accompanying letter stated that it is Himmler's desire that the report
should be sent to Milch. On 25 August 1942, Himmler sent Milch a copy of the
report and asked that he receive Dr. Rascher and Dr. Romberg for a lecture and a
showing of the film made of the experiment.
On 31 August 1942, Milch wrote Himmler acknowledging the report and
promising to receive the two gentlemen for the lecture and showing of the film.
On 23 August 1942, Sievers wrote Brandt discussing a revival of the high-altitude
experiments and stating that a report was to have been made to Milch, but that
the report was not made. On 3 October 1942, Rascher wrote Brandt that the
report to Milch, planned for September, could not be made because Milch was
not present. On 27 November 1942, Wolff wrote Milch a long letter pointing out
the need and the great value of the experiments with human beings, stating that
Himmler "has accepted the responsibility for supplying death-deserving, asocial
persons, and criminals from the concentration camps for these experiments." He
asks Milch to assign Rascher to the SS so that he can continue with the
experiments directly under Himmler's orders. "In any case, these experiments
must not be stopped. We owe that to our men."
Dr. Romberg stated in an affidavit that Milch "was familiar with these
experiments." Neff testified that "Milch's name was mentioned in connection with
the high-altitude experiments." Sievers, Director of the Research and Teaching
Association, stated that "Milch must have known about the experiment's of Dr.
Rascher." Dr. Ruff stated that to his knowledge Milch was informed of these tests
either by Hippke or by the SS. Dr. Becker-Freyseng said that Dr. Kalk told him he
had seen Rascher in Milch's office.
When the film was shown in Milch's office on 11 September 1942, Milch
was not present. Wolfgang Lutz testified that Milch had negotiated directly with
Himmler regarding the execution of such experiments without consulting the
Medical Inspectorate. Rudolf Brandt stated that Milch was fully informed about
the [856] low-pressure experiments. As late as January 1943, Milch had not
replied to the letter sent him by Wolff, asking for the assignment of Rascher to
the SS.
This, in brief, constitutes the case against Erhard Milch in connection with
the medical experiments. In order to find Milch guilty on this count of the
indictment, it must be established that:
1. Milch had knowledge of the experiments.
2. That, having knowledge, he knew they were criminal in scope and
execution.
3. That he had this knowledge in time to act to prevent the experiments.
4. That he had the power to prevent them.
In pressing this count against the defendant, the prosecution has the
burden, as it has the burden in every count, to prove the guilt of the defendant
beyond a reasonable doubt. We begin our deliberations with the cardinal rule that
the defendant is presumed to be innocent. Glancing at the evidence as a whole, it
is a facile matter to say that the defendant must have known of the experiments;
that, with so much smoke, there must be fire. But in addition to smoke, there
must be light.
The proof against Milch on this count is entirely circumstantial, and before
we can find him guilty we must conclude that every hypothesis resulting from the
circumstances is consistent with guilt and inconsistent with innocence. One can
easily reach the hypothesis of guilt from the documents and testimony but that
hypothesis in many of its phases is also consistent with innocence. Thus,
applying the rule of evidence just cited, the test of guilt fails.
So far as chronology is concerned, Milch does not come into the picture of
the experiments until 20 May 1942 with a letter in which he states that his medical
inspector informed him that the high-altitude experiments had been completed.
Obviously if they were completed there was nothing he could do to prevent them.
Nor did the medical inspector or anyone else testify that Milch was informed of
the precise nature of the experiments. Further, there is no evidence that Milch
ever received any reports at all on the freezing experiments.
No one ever suggested that Milch attended the operations at Dachau or
that he ever gave an order that human beings were to be used to the point of
death.
If we can imagine the pieces of evidence on this count as irregularly
shaped blocks of wood floating on water, we find these blocks occasionally
coming together and dovetailing into a [857] pattern of guilt, but then we find
them separating and just as often forming the pattern of innocence. No man
should be convicted on evidence that does not remain fixed and immovable in
granitic solidity. Guilt cannot be founded on a set of facts from which arguments
are equally convincing as to guilt and as to innocence. Remarks such as "the
defendant must have known," or "to the best of my knowledge he knew," and
other similar inconclusive conjectures frequently used in this part of the case are
not the kind of links which are imperatively needed to make up a chain strong
enough to sustain the weight of a conviction.
The defendant is found not guilty on the second count of the indictment.
Though Milch is acquitted of complicity and participation in the medical
experiments, we have nonetheless commented on those experiments at length.
We have done this because otherwise the reference to Milch's acquittal standing
alone might convey impression that the experiments themselves were not
criminal. The Tribunal holds that the corpus delicti was established and a crime
was committed, even though Milch is not guilty of it.
(c) Count Three
The third count of the indictment charges the defendant with crimes
against humanity (slave labor and fatal medical experiments) committed on
German nationals and nationals of other countries. As we have found him not
guilty on count two, we necessarily also find him not guilty of the crime of fatal
medical experiments in count three. We have, however, adjudicated him guilty on
count one, and since the evidence establishes that nationals of other countries
were also victims of slave labor under his control, we thus find Erhard Milch
guilty on that part of the third count which covers the nationals of other
countries. Sufficient proof was not submitted as to slave labor offenses against
German nationals to justify an adjudication of guilt on that ground.
Thus, in recapitulation, we find the defendant guilty on count one, not
guilty on count two, not guilty on count three insofar as it appertains to German
nationals and guilty wherein it refers to "nationals of other countries." In reaching
these conclusions, we inescapably ascertain that Erhard Milch was a full-fledged
member of the National Socialist Party of Germany. Further, that he adhered to
the doctrines of this Party which, with the almost cataclysmic force of planetary
violence, achieved more destruction than has been known since man stood
upright on the shores of history. The conclusion is also unavoidable that it was
individuals like Milch that made the Hitler plan of war [858] and subjugation
possible. Hitler was but one man and it was only because he had brilliant and
able coadjutors that he could develop a war machine which achieved the
incredible and fantastic record of smashing Poland in 18 days, striking France to
her knees in 2 months, driving England from the continent in 6 weeks,
overrunning Holland and Belgium in a few days, vanquishing Norway in several
weeks, and Denmark overnight.
In those days of spectacular triumph, Milch had no complaint against
Hitler. But it was precisely then that Hitler was working his greatest harm to
Germany because it was inevitable that the people he had temporarily crushed
would rise again and not rest until the evil power responsible for their suffering
was destroyed. If Milch had entertained the loyalty to his people which he now
professes, then was the time to withdraw from a program which was wreaking a
devastation so universal that no country, including Germany, could escape.
The defendant stated from the witness stand he could not withdraw
because he owed fealty to Hitler and to the German people. His loyalty to Hitler
was loyalty to a man who he now states had marked him for liquidation, and so
far as allegiance to the German people is concerned, they can feel no gratitude
for an allegiance which increased their ruin, magnified their misery, and pushed
them only deeper into the pit of despair. The Germans could do without a
devotion of that kind.
The defendant apparently gained the impression in our questioning of him
that some heroic sacrifice was expected on his part. We never intended, nor was
it suggested, that he should take any action which could result in the forfeiture of
his life. But he did himself volunteer from the witness stand that on two
occasions he was ready to tell Hitler the truth even if it should mean his
execution. If he was prepared to sacrifice his life on so futile a gesture, he could
have taken some action which involved less hazard. He could thus, at least to
that extent, have contributed to honesty and justice by refraining from
threatening with death and whipping those who did not give of their last ounce of
energy in the production of ordnance whose muzzles would eventually be turned
on Germany itself.
In his last statement in court Milch declared that he was indifferent to his
fate but he was interested in seeing Germany relieved of her suffering and
re-admitted to the community of nations as an equal partner. We do not believe
that any intelligent person can be indifferent to his fate, although one can
summon sufficient spiritual fortitude to rise above an immediate regret. With
regard to Milch's wish for the German people, he has definitely performed one
service in pulling aside the curtain [ 859] to disclose to them the stupidities, the
vanities, and the arrogances of their leaders which brought about their present
state. The record of this case will particularly, of course, expose Milch's own
errors and his transgressions against international law, the laws and customs of
war, the moral code of humanity and even commandments 4 and 7 of the 10
commandments of the German soldier.
The purpose of these postwar trials obviously is not vengeance. The object
aimed at (as in the criminal jurisprudence of all civilized nations) is the
ascertainment of truth. When guilt is established, the penalty imposed is to serve
as a deterrent to all others who might be similarly minded. Albert Speer,
convicted in the first trial, stated here in this courtroom that had trials such as
these followed the First World War, the Second World War might have been
averted. Erhard Milch may obtain some comfort from the realization that by the
publication of the evidence of this trial he is definitely contributing to the
education and well-being of Germany's future, as indeed a precise contribution is
being made to the cause of world justice itself.
Over 155,000 Americans made the supreme sacrifice in Germany in this
war. These lads gave their lives for this ideal of world justice and world peace.
America sought no territorial aggrandizement or material advantage. The
American flag in this courtroom ensured to the defendant all the guarantees of
the United States Constitution as to a fair trial. No person within the continental
limits of the United States itself could have wished for a fuller opportunity to
demonstrate his innocence of the charges brought against him.
America and her Allies bestowed upon Germany what no desire can
achieve and what no money can buy. The Allied nations gave the blood of their
youth to water the roots of the tree of liberty and tolerance which had withered in
the twelve-year drought of National Socialism. It is to reveal who were
responsible and what was responsible for the desiccation of that tree and to
proclaim to the world the inevitable consequences to others who degrade the soil
with the pollution and prussic acid of oppression that these trials have been
established. The present trial is one chapter in the book which will forever
condemn Mein Kampf and offer to the new German nation a volume of proved
fact, whose every page will tell of the sorrow awaiting any people which permit
any man or men to hoist deceit above truth, power above justice, oppression
above tolerance, war above peace and man above God.
[Signed] MICHAEL A. MUSMANNO
JUDGE MILITARY TRIBUNAL II
http://www.mazal.org/archive/nmt/05/NMT05-T1132.htm
http://www.mazal.org/archive/nmt/02/NMT02-T0801.htm
|