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 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 remember
exactly how many deaths occurred and if deaths occurred 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
quasi-sovereign 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 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.
II, 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 subject 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 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 philosophically 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 defendant 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
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[165] 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. 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 experiments 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 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 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 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 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
-----
[160] The reference “T” is to the page of the mimeographed transcript.
[161] “IMT” refers to Trial of the Major War Criminals before the
International Military Tribunal, Vol. I, Nuremberg, Germany, 1947.
[162] 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.
[163] Chef Ansbildungawesen (Chief of Training).
[164] A word is missing here in the German original.
[165] Deutsche Versuchsanstalt fuer Luftfahrt (German Institute for
Aviation Research). In this case, the reference is to the Medical
Section of the Institute.
C. Concurring Opinion by Judge Fitzroy D. Phillips
This Tribunal has been duly organized and is now existing under the
authority of Ordnance No. 7 pursuant to the powers of the Military
Governor of the United States Zone of Occupation within Germany
expressly conferred therein and further pursuant to the powers conferred
upon the zone commander by Control Council Law No. 10 and Articles 10
and 11 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal annexed to
the London agreement of 8 August 1945, and by authority of Executive
Order No. 9819 signed and issued by Harry S. Truman, President of the
United States of America, the pertinent parts of said order as follows:
“By virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and
the statutes, and as President of the United States and
Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, it
is ordered as follows:
“1. I hereby designate Fitzroy Donald Phillips, Judge of a
Superior Court in the State of North Carolina; Robert Morrell
Toms, Judge of the Third Judicial Circuit Court, Detroit,
Michigan; and Captain Michael A. Musmanno (S), USNR, 086622, as
the members, and John Joshua Speight as the alternate member of
one of the several military tribunals established by the
Military Governor for the United States Zone of Occupation
within Germany pursuant to the quadripartite agreement of the
Control Council for Germany, enacted December 20, 1945, as
Control Council Law No. 10, and pursuant to Articles 10 and 11
of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal, which
Tribunal was established by the Government of the United States
of America, the Provisional Government of the French Republic,
the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland, and the Government of the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics, for the trial and punishment of major war
criminals of the European Axis. Such members and alternate
member may, at the direction of the Military Governor of the
United States Zone of Occupation, serve on any of the several
military tribunals above mentioned.”
and as such Tribunal, has jurisdiction to try and determine this case.
Subsequent to the organization of said Tribunal, Telford Taylor,
Brigadier General, United States Army, Chief of Counsel for War Crimes,
prepared and caused to be prepared a bill of indictment charging the
defendant, Erhard Milch, with certain war crimes and crimes against
humanity as will appear more specifically hereinafter in this judgment
and on 14 November 1946 caused said bill of indictment to be duly served
upon the defendant, Erhard Milch, by the Marshal for the United States
Military Tribunals according to the provisions of law.
Thereafter said bill of indictment was made returnable and said cause
set for trial before United States Military Tribunal No. II. Whereupon,
Dr. I. Friedrich Bergold of the Nuernberg, Germany, bar was duly
appointed as counsel for the defendant and accepted such appointment.
On 20 December 1946, at 9:30 a.m. in the Palace of Justice, Nuernberg,
Germany, the defendant, Erhard Milch, being present in court and
represented by his counsel, Dr. I. Friedrich Bergold, and the United
States of America being represented by Telford Taylor, Brigadier
General, United States Army, Chief of Counsel for War Crimes, and
Honorable Clark Denney of counsel, the Tribunal duly arraigned the
defendant upon the charges contained in the bill of indictment against
him, and the defendant when called upon to plead to the bill of
indictment entered a plea of Not Guilty. Whereupon the Tribunal set the
date of 2 January 1947, for the trial of said case and adjourned until
said time.
On 2 January 1947, United States Military Tribunal No. II met in the
Palace of Justice, Nuernberg, Germany, and commenced the trial of this
case.
The bill of indictment charging the defendant, Erhard Milch, with
certain and specific war crimes and crimes against humanity is
summarized as follows:
_Count One_: War crimes involving murder, slave labor, deportation of
civilian populations for slave labor, cruel and inhuman treatment of
foreign laborers, and the use of prisoners of war in war operations by
force and compulsion.
_Count Two_: War crimes involving murder, subjecting involuntary victims
to low-pressure and freezing experiments, resulting in torture and
death.
_Count Three_: Crimes against humanity, involving murder and the same
unlawful acts specified in counts one and two against German nationals
and nationals of other countries.
The trial was conducted in two languages in the main, English and
German, and in English, German, and French when French witnesses were
testifying.
The hearing of evidence and the arguments of counsel concluded on 25
March 1947.
The prosecution offered three witnesses who gave evidence orally and 161
written exhibits, several exhibits containing many documents. The
defense offered 27 witnesses who gave evidence orally and the defendant
also testified in his own behalf, and in addition to oral evidence the
defendant offered 51 written exhibits. The exhibits as offered by both
the prosecution and defense contained documents, photographs,
affidavits, interrogatories, letters, maps, charts, and other written
evidence.
A complete stenographic record of everything said and done in court has
been made as well as an electrical recording of all the proceedings.
Copies of all the documents and written evidence offered by the
prosecution have been supplied to the defense in the German language.
The applications made by the defendant for the production of witnesses
and documents were passed upon by the Tribunal and orders made in
pursuance thereof. The Tribunal, after examination, granted all of the
defense applications which in their opinion were relevant to the defense
of the defendant and denied a few that the Tribunal found not to be
relevant. Facilities were provided for obtaining those witnesses and
documents granted through the Office of the Secretary General of the
Tribunal.
Much of the evidence presented to the Tribunal on behalf of the
prosecution was documentary evidence captured by the Allied armies in
German army headquarters, government buildings, and elsewhere, and some
of said documents were captured in the private files of the defendant
himself. The case therefore against the defendant rests in a large
measure on the documents thus obtained. The documents offered against
the defendant on the part of the prosecution were in a large measure of
his own making or those that were made in the organizations of which he
was a member and largely under his control, and the authenticity of
which has not been challenged except in a few cases and in those he
challenged them mainly on the correctness of the transcript and not upon
the subject matter as a whole. The evidence, oral and written, together
with exhibits and documents contain approximately 3,000 pages which
constitutes the record in this case.
The trial was conducted generally along the lines as are usually
followed in trial courts of the United States except as to the rules of
evidence, and as to those the Tribunal was not bound by technical rules
of evidence and admitted any and all evidence which it deemed to have
probative value and in strict compliance with the provisions of Article
VII of Ordnance No. 7.
The Tribunal has kept in mind throughout the entire trial that this was
a Tribunal established for the purpose of trying major war criminals and
in this particular case a fallen military field marshal of a conquered
nation, and that he was entitled to the Anglo-Saxon and English common
law presumption that he was innocent until his guilt was established
beyond a reasonable doubt.
Article II of Control Council No. 10 is as follows:
“ARTICLE II
“1. Each of the following acts is recognized as a crime:
“(_a_) _Crimes against Peace._ Initiation of invasions of other
countries and wars of aggression in violation of international
laws and treaties, including but not limited to planning,
preparation, initiation or waging a war of aggression, or a war
in violation of international treaties, agreements or
assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for
the accomplishment of any of the foregoing.
“(_b_) _War Crimes._ Atrocities or offenses against persons or
property constituting violations of the laws or customs of war,
including but not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or
deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose, of civilian
population from occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of
prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages,
plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of
cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by
military necessity.
“(_c_) _Crimes against Humanity._ Atrocities and offenses,
including but not limited to murder, extermination, enslavement,
deportation, imprisonment, torture, rape, or other inhumane acts
committed against any civilian population, or persecutions on
political, racial or religious grounds whether or not in
violation of the domestic laws of the country where perpetrated.
“(_d_) Membership in categories of a criminal group or
organization declared criminal by the International Military
Tribunal.
“2. Any person without regard to nationality or the capacity in
which he acted is deemed to have committed a crime as defined in
paragraph 1 of this Article, if he (_a_) was a principal or
(_b_) was an accessory to the commission of any such crime or
ordered or abetted the same or (_c_) took a consenting part
therein or (_d_) was connected with plans or enterprises
involving its commission or (_e_) was a member of any
organization or group connected with the commission of any such
crime or (_f_) with reference to paragraph 1 (_a_), if he held a
high political, civil or military (including General Staff)
position in Germany or in one of its Allies, co-belligerents or
satellites or held high position in the financial, industrial or
economic life of any such country.
“3. Any person found guilty of any of the crimes above-mentioned
may upon conviction be punished as shall be determined by the
Tribunal to be just. Such punishment may consist of one or more
of the following:
“(_a_) Death.
“(_b_) Imprisonment for life or a term of years, with or without
hard labor.
“(_c_) Fine, and imprisonment with or without hard labor, in
lieu thereof.
“(_d_) Forfeiture of property.
“(_e_) Restitution of property wrongfully acquired.
“(_f_) Deprivation of some or all civil rights.
“Any property declared to be forfeited or the restitution of
which is ordered by the Tribunal shall be delivered to the
Control Council for Germany, which shall decide on its disposal.
“4. (_a_) The official position of any person, whether as Head
of State or as a responsible official in a Government
Department, does not free him from responsibility for a crime or
entitle him to mitigation of punishment.
“(_b_) The fact that any person acted pursuant to the order of
his Government or of a superior does not free him from
responsibility for a crime, but may be considered in mitigation.
“5. In any trial or prosecution for a crime herein referred to,
the accused shall not be entitled to the benefits of any statute
of limitation in respect of the period from 30 January 1933 to 1
July 1945, nor shall any immunity, pardon, or amnesty granted
under the Nazi regime be admitted as a bar to trial or
punishment.”
The defendant stands indicted for the violation particularly of the
provisions of section _b_, which defines war crimes, and for the
violation of the provisions of section _c_, which defines crimes against
humanity, and for the violations of certain provisions of international
conventions, particularly of Articles 4, 5, 6, 7, 46, and 52 of the
Hague Regulations, 1907, and of Articles 2, 3, 4, 6, and 31 of the
Prisoner-of-War Convention, Geneva, 1929, the laws and customs of war,
the general provisions of criminal law as derived from the criminal laws
of all civilized nations, the internal penal laws of the countries in
which such crimes were committed, and further as particularly defined in
Article II of the Control Council Law No. 10.
The first count in the bill of indictment has been designated by the
prosecution as “Slave Labor,” the second count as “Medical Experiments”
and the third count as “Slave Labor and Medical Experiments upon German
Nationals.” The pertinent rules of law that are applicable in this case
will now be considered, and we shall consider briefly some salient
precepts and prohibitions of international law up to and including the
provisions of Control Council Law No. 10.
The prosecution has offered evidence which tended to show that much of
the labor which supplied Germany with the tools of absolute and total
war was extracted from people who had been uprooted from their homes in
occupied territories and imported to Germany against their will and
often under the most trying and difficult circumstances. Displacement of
groups of persons from one country to another is the proper concern of
international law in as far as it affects the community of nations.
International law has enunciated certain conditions under which the fact
of deportation of civilians from one nation to another during times of
war becomes a crime. If the transfer is carried out without a legal
title, as in the case where people are deported from a country occupied
by an invader while the occupied enemy still has an army in the field
and is still resisting, the deportation is contrary to international
law. The rationale of this rule lies in the supposition that the
occupying power has temporarily prevented the rightful sovereign from
exercising its power over its citizens. Articles 43, 46, 49, 52, 55, and
56, Hague Regulations, which limit the rights of the belligerent
occupant, do not expressly specify as crime the deportation of civilians
from an occupied territory. Article 52 states the following provisions
and conditions under which services may be demanded from the inhabitants
of occupied countries:
1. They must be for the needs of the army of occupation.
2. They must be in proportion to the resources of the country.
3. They must be of such a nature as not to involve the
inhabitants in the obligation to take part in military
operations against their own country.
Insofar as this section limits the conscription of labor to that
required for the needs of the army of occupation, it is manifestly clear
that the use of labor from occupied territories outside of the area of
occupation is forbidden by the Hague Regulations.
The second condition under which deportation becomes a crime occurs when
the purpose of the displacement is illegal, such as deportation for the
purpose of compelling the deportees to manufacture weapons for use
against their homeland or to be assimilated in the working economy of
the occupying country. The defense as contained in this case is that
persons were deported from France into Germany legally and for a lawful
purpose by contending that such deportations were authorized by
agreements and contracts between Nazi and Vichy French authorities. The
Tribunal holds that this defense is both technically and substantially
deficient. The Tribunal takes judicial notice of the fact that after the
capitulation of France and the subsequent occupation of French territory
by the German army, a puppet government was established in France and
located at Vichy. This government was established at the instance of the
German Army and was controlled by its officials according to the
dictates and demands of the occupying army and a contract made by the
German Reich with such a government as was established in France
amounted to in truth and in fact a contract that on its face was null
and void. The Vichy Government, until the Allies regained control of the
French Republic, amounted to no more than a tool of the German Reich. It
will be borne in mind that at no time during the Vichy regime a peace
treaty had been signed between the French Republic and the German Reich
but merely a cessation of hostilities and an armistice prevailed, and
that French resistance had at no time ceased and that France at all
times still had an army in the field resisting the German Reich.
The third and final condition, under which deportation becomes illegal,
occurs whenever generally recognized standards of decency and humanity
are disregarded. This flows from the established principle of law that
an otherwise permissible act becomes a crime when carried out in a
criminal manner. A close study of the pertinent parts of Control Council
Law No. 10 strengthens the conclusions of the foregoing statements that
deportation of the population is criminal whenever there is no title in
the deporting authority or whenever the purpose of the displacement is
illegal or whenever the deportation is characterized by inhumane or
illegal methods.
Article II (1) (_c_) of Control Council Law No. 10 specifies certain
crimes against humanity. Among those is listed the deportation of any
civilian population. The general language of this sub-section as applied
to deportation indicates that Control Council Law No. 10 has
unconditionally contended as a crime against humanity every instance of
the deportation of civilians. Article II (1) (_b_) names deportation to
slave labor as a war crime. Article II (1) (_c_) states that the
enslavement of any civilian population is a crime against humanity. Thus
Law No. 10 treats as separate crimes and different types of crime
“deportation to slave labor” and “enslavement.” The Tribunal holds that
the deportation, the transportation, the retention, the unlawful use,
and the inhumane treatment of civilian populations by an occupying power
are crimes against humanity.
The Hague and Geneva Conventions codify the precepts of the law and
usages of all civilized nations. Article 31 of the Geneva Convention
provides that labor furnished by prisoners of war shall have no direct
relation to war operations. Thus the convention forbids (1) the use of
prisoners of war in manufacture or transportation of arms or ammunitions
of any kind; and (2) the use for transporting of matériel intended for
combat units. The Hague Regulations contain comparable provisions. The
essence of the crime is the misuse of prisoners of war derived from the
kind of work to which they are assigned, in other words, to work
directly connected with the war effort. The Tribunal holds as a matter
of law that it is illegal to use prisoners of war in armament factories
and factories engaged in the manufacture of airplanes for use in the war
effort.
Now, considering the basic charges and the law governing the charge
against the defendant in which it alleges his responsibility for and
participation in the medical experiment program, the fundamental crime
with which the defendant is charged in this connection is murder. Also
involved are various atrocities, tortures, offenses against the person,
and other inhumane acts. The provisions of Control Council Law No. 10,
which are applicable to this charge, to wit, Article II, are “_b._ War
crimes” and “_c._ Crimes against humanity.” The bill of indictment
charges:
“A. War crimes, namely violations of the laws and customs of war
as to medical experiments performed involuntarily upon persons,
some of whom were prisoners of war and citizens of countries who
were at war with the German Reich, and other deported citizens
from other countries who were at war with the German Reich
involving the commission of murders, tortures, and other
inhumane acts.
“B. Crimes against humanity, namely medical experiments
performed upon involuntary German nationals and nationals of
other countries in the course of which brutalities, murders, and
other inhumane acts were committed.”
The prosecution contends that the defendant Milch did not personally
participate in or personally direct, counsel, or initiate such medical
experiments but that the same was done by members of his command and
that he was personally responsible for their conduct by virtue of the
authority that he held over his subordinates.
In this connection in the recent case before the United States Supreme
Court in re Yamashita, the opinion of which was handed down by the
Supreme Court of the United States at the October term, 1945, of said
Court, some of the pertinent holdings in this case are as follows:
“It is evident that the conduct of military operations by troops
whose excesses are unrestrained by the orders or efforts of
their commander would almost certainly result in violations
which it is the purpose of the law of war to prevent. Its
purpose to protect civilian populations and prisoners of war
from brutality would largely be defeated if the commander of an
invading army could with impunity neglect to take reasonable
measures for their protection. Hence the law of war presupposes
that its violation is to be avoided through the control of the
operations of war by commanders who are to some extent
responsible for their subordinates.
“This is recognized by the annex to Fourth Hague Convention of
1907, respecting the laws and customs of war on land. Article I
lays down the condition which an armed force must fulfill in
order to be accorded the rights of lawful belligerents, that it
must be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates.
“These provisions plainly imposed on petitioner, who at the time
specified, was Military Governor of the Philippines, as well as
commander of the Japanese forces, an affirmative duty to take
such measures as were within his power and appropriate in the
circumstances to protect prisoners of war and the civilian
population. This duty of a commanding officer has heretofore
been recognized, and its breach is penalized by our own military
tribunals.
“* * * It is plain that the charge on which petitioner was tried
charged him with a breach of his duty to control the operations
of the members of his command, by permitting them to commit the
specified atrocities. This was enough to require the commission
to hear evidence tending to establish the culpable failure of
the petitioner to perform the duty imposed on him by the law of
war and to pass upon its sufficiency to establish guilt.”
I am of the opinion and find as a fact from the evidence in this case
that the defendant Milch between the years 1939 and 1945 was State
Secretary in the Air Ministry, Inspector General of the Air Force,
Deputy to the Commander in Chief of the Air Force, a member of the Nazi
Party. The defendant Milch was also Field Marshal in the Luftwaffe, 1940
to 1945; Air Quartermaster General, 1941 to 1944; member of the Central
Planning Board, 1942 to 1945; and Chief of the Jaegerstab, 1944 to 1945.
After hearing the evidence of both the prosecution and defense, and
after having heard the arguments of counsel, and after having fully
considered all of the evidence, the following facts are concluded:
COUNT NO. I
_SLAVE LABOR_
That the defendant, Erhard Milch, was born in Germany on 30 March 1892,
that he was a member of the Air Force of the German Army in World War I
and was a contemporary in said air force with Goering, Udet, and others;
that after the termination of World War I he returned to Germany, had a
business and later was connected with the manufacture of civilian
airplanes.
Prior to the outbreak of World War II he became a member of the Nazi
Party and materially aided in the rebuilding of the air force of the
German Reich. Shortly prior to the outbreak of World War II he visited
various countries as a personal emissary of the Fuehrer, Hitler; to
France, England, Holland, Italy and other countries in an effort to
establish so-called permanent peace between the German Reich and these
nations. That on 23 May 1939, the defendant attended a conference for
the purpose of planning World War II with the following present: Hitler,
Goering, Col. Gen. von Brauchitsch, Col. Gen. Keitel, Gen. Halder, Gen.
Bodenschatz, Rear Admiral Schniewind, Col. (GSC.) Jeschonnek, Col.
Warlimont, Lieut. Col. Schmundt, Captain Engel, Lieut. Commander
Albrecht, and Captain v. Below. At the time of this meeting the
defendant held a high position in the German Army, to wit, the rank of
colonel general.[166]
At this meeting the Fuehrer, Hitler, gave his plan of aggressive war,
and in this plan was included the attack of Poland at the first suitable
opportunity; what the struggle would be like; the question of a short or
long war; England’s weakness; the consequences of such a war; the
unrestricted use of all resources available; the plan of attack; and the
working principles of an entire and complete program. Aggressive war was
planned and initiated at this meeting, and the defendant was one of the
high-ranking officers who counseled and approved of the plan.
After the outbreak of the war and the subsequent attack on Poland, the
defendant actively participated in the prosecution of aggressive war
until after the capitulation and fall of France. From that time on he
did not participate as a combat officer but was used in the general
economy for the prosecution of war in Germany, and particularly as to
the building and maintenance of the Luftwaffe. Later he was elevated to
the rank of field marshal in the Luftwaffe and was second in command
only to Goering.
The defendant was a member of the Central Planning Board which was
established and organized in April 1942, and said organization served as
a means of consolidating in a single agency all controls over German war
production. The Central Planning Board held regular meetings, and the
defendant presided over and was present at a majority of such meetings.
The Central Planning Board at each meeting kept full minutes, and a
great number of said minutes have been submitted to the Tribunal and
reflect the fact that the defendant had a dominant role in the meetings
of said board. The scope and authority of the Central Planning Board is
contained in the minutes of a meeting held on 27 April 1942, and the
duties and responsibilities of the board, according to said minutes,
were announced as follows:
“The Central Planning in the Four Year Plan (Decree of the Reich
Marshal of Greater Germany of 22 April 1942) is a task for
leaders. It encompasses only principles and executive matters.
It makes unequivocal decisions and supervises the execution of
its directives. The Central Planning does not rely on anonymous
institutions difficult to control but always on individuals and
fully responsible persons who are free in the selection of their
work methods and their collaboration as far as there are no
directives issued by the Central Planning.”
On 20 October 1942, the statutes of the Central Planning Board were
published and distributed, a portion of which are as follows:
“The Central Planning Board, created by the Fuehrer and the
Reich Marshal in order to unify armament and war economy, deals
only with the decision of basic questions. Professional
questions remain the task of the competent departments, which in
their field remain responsible within the framework of the
decisions made by the Central Planning Board.”
The Central Planning Board was superior to “the highest Reich authority,
the Reich protector, the Governor General, and the executive authorities
in the occupied countries.”
The International Military Tribunal found that the Central Planning
Board “had supreme authority for the scheduling of German production and
the allocation and development of raw materials.” The International
Tribunal found further in its opinion, in the case of United States vs.
Goering and others, “that the Central Planning Board requisitioned labor
from Sauckel with full knowledge that the demands could be supplied only
by foreign forced labor and that the board determined the basic
allocation of this labor within the German war economy.” The
International Military Tribunal found further in its opinion the
following:
“In the fall of 1943 Funk (who was then indicted before said
Tribunal in regard to deportation and the use of foreign forced
labor in the German Reich) was a member of the Central Planning
Board which determined the total number of laborers needed for
German industry, and required Sauckel to produce them, usually
by deportation from occupied territories * * * but Funk was
aware that the board of which he was a member was demanding the
importation of slave laborers, and allocating them to the
various industries under his control.”
The prosecution offered evidence which tended to show that Albert Speer
was the Plenipotentiary for Armament and was the nominal head of the
Central Planning Board and that the defendant was a member of said board
and was, by the order of Hitler, assigned to assist Speer as the head of
said board. During much of the time of the existence of said board Speer
was ill and unable to attend the meetings and look after the duties of
the board and during this time the defendant was the acting head of said
board and presided over its meetings as chairman.
Fritz Sauckel was Plenipotentiary for Labor and was directly responsible
for the procurement and allocation of labor to the various war
industries. However, the Tribunal finds as a fact that although Sauckel
had the primary duty of procuring and allocating labor, the Central
Planning Board on many occasions, as the minutes of the meetings of said
board show, called Milch into conference with the members of the Central
Planning Board and in such conferences labor was assigned and allocated
by the Central Planning Board and Sauckel. The minutes of the Central
Planning Board, as introduced by the prosecution, show that the members
of the Central Planning Board knew and discussed the fact that labor was
being deported from occupied countries against their will and were being
used in various factories manufacturing armaments, airplanes, and other
articles essential and necessary to the war effort, that such foreign
workers were being forcibly taken from their homes without knowledge of
their destination, and by force and against their will, crowded into box
cars without food or water or toilet facilities, transported great
distances, and forced to work in factories manufacturing war materials
and other necessary items for the prosecution of the war as slave
laborers.
I find as a fact that the defendant Milch had knowledge of the way and
manner in which such labor was procured and the work that they were
forced to do, and that he aided, abetted, counseled, advised, and
assisted in the deportation, allocation, and work of said slave
laborers.
The documents and reports of the meetings as offered by the prosecution
are too voluminous to incorporate herein, but said records clearly show
that the defendant was one of the authorized agents who dealt with the
procurement, deportation, and work of thousands and thousands of slave
laborers from occupied countries.
_JAEGERSTAB_
I find as a fact that it was the defendant who conceived and instigated
the formation of the Jaegerstab, and that the defendant directed its
activities and acted as its chairman. The Jaegerstab assumed control
over fighter production and exploited foreign forced labor in the
armament industry and directed the use of the same. The Jaegerstab was
assigned top priority for their projects, for the recruitment and
commitment of manpower in the air armament industry. From the meetings
of said board as offered in evidence by the prosecution, the question of
manpower was time and time again referred to by the defendant. When
other methods of obtaining its labor was not forthcoming, the Jaegerstab
recruited its own labor either directly or by engineering snatching
expeditions for the seizure of manpower arriving on transports from the
East.
At one of the meetings of the Jaegerstab, Prosecution Exhibit 54, page
28, the defendant made this statement to his subordinates, that
“international law cannot be observed here.” When the question of
Italian civilian labor was being discussed at a meeting of the
Jaegerstab, the defendant made the statement and advocated the shooting
of those who attempted to escape in transit.
I find as a fact that the Jaegerstab was not a mere discussion group but
was an agency with absolute authority over fighter production and acted
by orders and directives, fixed hours of labor and conditions of work,
and on one occasion fixed the established hours of work per week in the
aircraft industry at seventy-two hours.
Much of the labor employed by the Jaegerstab in aircraft production and
in the air armament industry was from concentration camp inmates and
foreign forced labor. The defendant was well acquainted with the
procurement and allocation of this labor.
I find as a fact, from the evidence offered in the case, that after the
arrival of forced slave labor from occupied countries they were poorly
fed, poorly clothed, were forced to work an excessive amount of hours
each week, and that their general condition and treatment as a result of
such forced labor resulted in the death of a great many and the
permanent disability of others, both in body and in mind.
_GENERALLUFTZEUGMEISTER_
I find as a fact from the evidence offered in the case, that the
defendant, as Generalluftzeugmeister, had complete control of aircraft
production and that he requisitioned labor for the aircraft industry
with knowledge of the brutal and inhuman techniques in recruiting these
laborers; and that he gave directives for the criminal treatment of the
same in the centers of production. Fritz Sauckel, Plenipotentiary for
Labor, stated that it was “Milch who produced manpower figures for
aviation.” Albert Speer testified as follows: “The requests of the air
armament industry for laborers were presented by Milch, and he did not
permit anyone to take this right away from him until March 1944.”
I find as a fact from the evidence offered on the part of the
prosecution, that prisoners of war were included in the manpower that
the defendant was requisitioning and distributing to the aircraft
industry with full knowledge that they were prisoners of war. As chief
of aircraft production, the defendant regulated the treatment of foreign
forced labor in the German aircraft industry, fixed hours of labor and
conditions of work, and by directives to his subordinates formulated the
basic policy for the handling of such labor within the industry.
The evidence presented by the prosecution tended to show that the
defendant advocated the most extreme measures in dealing with foreign
forced labor, inhuman measures which violated every recognized principle
of decency. When foreign forced laborers refused to work, the defendant
ordered that they be shot. When they attempted to revolt the defendant
directed that some of their numbers be killed, regardless of their
personal guilt or innocence. In the case of prisoners of war who
attempted to escape, the defendant ordered that these prisoners be shot
and later hanged in the factory for all to see. On one occasion the
defendant made the following statement, Prosecution Exhibit 145:
“The other day I talked to Himmler about it, and I told him that
his main task should be to see to the production of German
industry in case of internal uprisings of the foreign workers. I
said that consequently a well established method should exist,
and I have already given orders to the Chief A. W.[167] 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 thirty men
has 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 case of revolt. I have given
orders to that effect, and even if our own foreign workers are
involved—and then every tenth man is to be singled out and shot
while the others are lined up and see him.”
On another occasion, Prosecution Exhibit 148, when the defendant was
speaking of the treatment of foreign workers, he made the following
statement.
“In 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, a concentration camp for foreigners, and
secondly, capital punishment.”
The prosecution offered a great number of documents containing
statements made by the defendant in regard to orders and threats of
violence, for mistreatment and punishment, tortures, killings, and
hangings of foreign workers. Space is too short to quote in this
judgment all of such pertinent documents.
Although the defendant denied making a number of these statements
appearing in the documents, he admitted the authenticity and utterances
of many, with the excuse that he was a man of very violent temper, who,
when worried from overwork, was not wholly responsible for many
utterances made by him. He protested further that he did not actually
mean nor intend for orders given in such fits of temper to be carried
out, but they were simply the result of uncontrolled anger, and
understood by his associates and subordinates to have been uttered in
such vein. In further extenuation he declared that head injuries
resulting from two serious accidents were largely responsible for such
uncontrollable temper.
I have given due consideration to the explanation given by the defendant
and am compelled to reject it. If but only a few of such remarks could
be attributed to the defendant, his protestations might be given some
credence; but when statements such as appear in the documents have been
persistently made over long periods of time, at many places and under
such varying conditions, the only logical conclusion that can be reached
is that they reflect the true and considered attitude of the defendant
toward the Nazi foreign labor policy and its victims and are not mere
aberrations brought on by fits of uncontrollable anger. I find as a
fact, therefore, that the true attitude of the defendant toward foreign
laborers and prisoners of war is that reflected in the documents of the
prosecution and was not the result of uncontrollable fits of temper. I
find, further, that the defendant ordered, advised, counselled, and
procured inhumane and illegal treatment of foreign workers resulting in
permanent injury and death to many.
COUNT NO. 2
_MEDICAL EXPERIMENTS_
The prosecution contends that in violation of the laws of war and of
crimes against humanity, high-altitude and freezing experiments were
carried out by the Luftwaffe physicians at Dachau, and that said
physicians who conducted such experiments were under the command of and
subordinate to the defendant Milch.
I am of the opinion from the evidence offered on the part of the
prosecution that illegal and inhuman medical experiments were conducted
at Dachau by Luftwaffe physicians who were under the command and
subordinate to the defendant Milch and from which a great number of
deaths ensued to concentration camp inmates and that great pain and
suffering and permanent disability resulted to many others. I find as a
fact from the evidence offered on the part of the prosecution that Dr.
Erich Hippke was the Medical Inspector of the Luftwaffe and was the
direct subordinate of the defendant Milch; that Hippke gave authority
and ordered Dr. Rascher, a Luftwaffe physician, in the early spring of
1941 to use concentration camp inmates and prisoners of war as
high-altitude experimental subjects for the benefit of the Luftwaffe. I
further find, as a fact, that the witness Hippke at no time communicated
this information to the defendant Milch, nor has the prosecution offered
any direct evidence to the effect that the defendant Milch knew that
such experiments had been conducted until after their completion. All of
the testimony and the evidence, both for the prosecution and the
defense, is to the effect that the defendant Milch did not have such
knowledge of the high-altitude or low-pressure experiments which were
carried out and completed by Luftwaffe physicians at Dachau until after
the completion of such experiments. The evidence offered as to the
knowledge or responsibility of the defendant Milch was not of such a
nature as to show guilty knowledge on his part of said experiments.
As to the cooling or freezing experiments performed at concentration
camp, Dachau, for which the defendant is charged with responsibility, I
find as a fact that the defendant ordered experiments to be conducted at
the camp for the benefit of the Luftwaffe. In a letter from Milch to
Obergruppenfuehrer Wolff of the SS, dated 20 May 1942, the following is
stated:
“In reference to your telegram of 12 May our medical inspector
reports to me that the altitude experiments carried out by the
SS and Luftwaffe at Dachau have been finished. Any continuation
of these experiments seems essentially unreasonable. However,
the carrying out of experiments of some other kind in regard to
perils at high sea would be important. These have been prepared
in immediate agreement with the proper offices. Oberstabsarzt
Weltz will be charged with the execution and Stabsarzt Rascher
will be made available until further order in addition to his
duties with the medical corps of the Luftwaffe. A change of
these measures does not appear necessary and an enlargement of
the task is not considered pressing at this time.”
Further evidence makes it manifestly plain that subsequent to the
receipt of the letter of Wolff, officers of the Luftwaffe, under the
command and subordinate to the defendant, conducted medical experiments
on concentration camp inmates at Dachau, against their will, by placing
such experimental subjects in tanks of water of freezing temperatures,
and requiring them to remain there for long periods of time while
certain medical data concerning such subjects was gathered; and that as
a result of such experiments, many of the human subjects died or were
gravely injured.
The defendant admits giving orders for the conduct of experiments within
the scope of the authority conferred by the letter, but contends that he
did not know of, or contemplate, that the experiments would be conducted
in an illegal manner or would result in the injury or death of any
person. The defendant further asserts that he did not know or have any
reason to believe that the experiments were conducted in such manner
until after they had been completed. He therefore insists that he was
and is not responsible for the unlawful manner in which the experiments
were actually conducted by the Luftwaffe officers, and that he is not
guilty of any crime as a result thereof.
The Tribunal, in its majority opinion, has fully considered the decision
of the United States Supreme Court in the judgment in re Yamashita, and
has found that said decision is not controlling in the case at bar. In
weighing the evidence, the Tribunal was mindful of the fact that the
defendant gave the order and directed his subordinates to carry on such
experiments, and that thereafter he failed and neglected to take such
measures as were reasonably within his power to protect such subjects
from inhumane treatment and deaths as a result of such experiments.
Notwithstanding these facts, the Tribunal is of the opinion that the
evidence fails to disclose beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant
had any knowledge that the experiments would be conducted in an unlawful
manner and that permanent injury, inhumane treatment or deaths would
result therefrom.
Therefore, the Tribunal found that the defendant did not have such
knowledge as would amount to participation or responsibility on his part
and therefore found the defendant not guilty on charges contained in
count 2.
CONCLUSIONS
(1) I concur in the opinion of the Tribunal that war crimes and crimes
against humanity were committed by the defendant, including deportation,
enslavement, and mistreatment of millions of persons; and that as a
result thereof and in furtherance of such treatment, murders,
brutalities, cruelties, tortures, atrocities, and other inhumane acts
were committed in a large scale measure upon citizens of occupied
countries, prisoners of war, Jews, and other nationals. I agree further
that the defendant was a principal in, accessory to, ordered, abetted,
and took a consenting part therein. I also agree that for such acts and
conduct on the part of the defendant, he is guilty of charges contained
in count number one of the indictment.
The evidence produced during the trial upon the charges contained in
this count showed conclusively that countless millions of persons were
unlawfully deported, enslaved, and murdered. Especially were the Jews
mistreated, tortured and murdered merely because they were Jews and
their extermination desired. History discloses the fact that as early as
the year 1349 in the city of Nuernberg, and within sight of where this
opinion is being written, the citizens of Nuernberg drove the Jews from
their city, confiscated their property, and erected a market place on
the site of the Ghetto and the Liebfrauenkirche in place of the
Synagogue. The hatred of the Aryan German for the Jew seems to have been
constant during the many intervening years. History will record such
conduct as a blot upon the name of the present German generation for
many years to come.
(2) The Tribunal found the defendant not guilty of the charges contained
in count number two, and I concur in such finding.
Under the American concept of liberty, as brought to us by our
Anglo-Saxon heritage and the English Common Law, every person accused of
crime is presumed to be innocent until proof of his guilt is established
by the evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt. This presumption follows
him throughout the trial and until he is found guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt. In applying this God-given principle of liberty, one
eminent American jurist uttered the following words:
“After considering and weighing all of the evidence you then
find that your minds are disturbed, your convictions
tempest-tossed, and your judgment, like the dove of the deluge,
finds no place to rest; the law says you must acquit.”
The defendant was given the full benefit of these great and lasting
rules of law and has received at the hands of the Tribunal a fair and
impartial trial in full accord with the American concepts of justice
under the law.
(3) Count three of the indictment charges the defendant with crimes
against “German nationals and nationals of other countries.” I am of the
opinion that sufficient evidence was not produced by the prosecution to
justify an adjudication by the Tribunal of guilt as to German nationals
alone. However, as to such crimes against nationals of other countries,
the Tribunal has heretofore considered such charges and has made an
adjudication concerning the same in count number one of the indictment.
The conclusion of the Tribunal is that the same unlawful acts of
violence which constituted war crimes under count one of the indictment
also constitute crimes against humanity as alleged in count three of the
indictment. Therefore, the Tribunal found the defendant guilty of crimes
against humanity under count three, with which finding I concur.
In weighing the evidence, the Tribunal simulated the ancient customs of
using the seed of the oriental carob tree to balance the scales of
justice. The defendant should not now complain.
Therefore, for the reasons stated, I am in full agreement with the
judgment of the Tribunal and concur therein.
Respectfully submitted this the 15th day of April, 1947
[Signed] FITZROY D. PHILLIPS
Fitzroy D. Phillips
Judge, Military Tribunal No. II
-----
[166] See Table of Comparative Ranks, p. 331.
[167] Chef Ausbildungswesen (Chief of Training).
VIII. PETITIONS
A. Extract from Petition for Clemency to Military
Governor of United States Zone of Occupation
Nuernberg, 2 May 1947
To the Military Governor
PETITION
of
Attorney-at-law Dr. Friedrich Bergold,
Nuernberg, Prinzregenten-Ufer 7/III,
Defense Counsel, Military Court II
Nuernberg
in Case II against the defendant
Erhard Milch, General Field Marshal,
at present in the Court Prison, Nuernberg,
to modify the sentence of the Military Court II
Nuernberg
on 16/17 April 1947.
* * * * *
A
The sentence passed on counts I and III contains actual inaccuracies,
which are inconsistent with the recorded evidence. Obviously, these
errors have had an influence on the sentence as far as the award of
punishment is concerned. A correction of these errors would necessarily
lead to a less severe sentence.
1. The statements on page 3 of the judgment that Milch since 19 November
1941 was the second highest commander of the Luftwaffe is not in
agreement with the evidence. The witnesses have testified that from
1938-1941 Milch held only one of the four highest commanding posts under
Goering, and since 1941 two of the four highest Luftwaffe commanding
posts. Only in regard to seniority he was the oldest officer of these
four highest commands. This is important because evidence has been given
for the fact that the general staff of the Luftwaffe had the
responsibility for the armament program of the Luftwaffe.
2. It is not consistent with recorded evidence that the Central Planning
Board had been created by a decree of the Fuehrer of 29 October 1943. It
has been proved by the statement of Speer that the decree of 29 October
1943 was a decree issued by Speer a long time after the creation of the
Central Planning Board and without authorization of the defendant Milch.
Since this decree was issued by Speer for his sphere of administration
only, no conclusion can be drawn therefrom against the defendant.
3. It is not consistent with recorded evidence that the Court finds that
the Central Planning Board handled the labor problem as such. Exhibit
151 of the prosecution proved the opposite. The witnesses who have been
heard have confirmed that the Central Planning Board handled the labor
problem only for information purposes for the distribution and
production of raw materials and in order to clarify the untrue
statements of Sauckel. This Exhibit 151 constitutes essential new
evidence which is of greatest importance in regard to the verdict of the
International Military Tribunal.
4. It is not consistent with recorded evidence that the defendant had
admitted having seen Russian prisoners of war at service at 8.8 and 10.5
cm. antiaircraft guns in aircraft factories in Luftgau 7. The witness
Vorwald made this statement on the basis of his own observation.
It has been proved that Milch had nothing to do with the allocation of
Russians to the antiaircraft artillery (flak), and that he declared
himself against it.
5. It is not consistent with recorded evidence that Milch said that
Russian prisoners of war had volunteered for work in war plants. What he
did state—and this was in agreement with the witnesses Vorwald and
Foerster—was that Russian prisoners of war had volunteered for service
at the antiaircraft artillery (flak), with the reservation that they
would not be used for combatting Russian airplanes. This condition was
fulfilled. Thus, there is no question of an inadmissible use of
prisoners of war for war service.
6. It is not consistent with recorded evidence that Sauckel, the
Plenipotentiary for the Allocation of Labor, participated in at least 15
sessions of the Central Planning Board. Only 15 minutes concerning the
sessions [minutes of 15 sessions] of the Central Planning Board have
been submitted. These minutes prove that Sauckel was not present at most
of these sessions.
7. It is not consistent with recorded evidence that the defendant was
informed about the methods employed and the cruelties on the occasion of
the recruiting and utilization of foreign workers. All witnesses who
have been heard have stated the opposite. It is therefore not
permissible to assume without the basis of exact proof that Milch was
informed about these matters. The Court concludes from the fact that
foreign workers and prisoners of war had been used that Milch must
necessarily have recognized that the methods must have been cruel. Speer
has stated explicitly that the cruel methods were not necessary and
that, therefore, they were an error. But if they were not necessary then
the conclusion drawn from them without any explicit proof was not
permissible.
8. It is not consistent with recorded evidence that 100,000 Polish
prisoners of war were deported to concentration camps. The opposite has
been proved, viz., that Polish prisoners of war, in accordance with the
agreement between Russia and Germany were released from captivity and
employed as civilians.
9. It is not consistent with recorded evidence that Romanian nationals
were subjected to deportation. Not one single piece of evidence for that
has been submitted. Romania was mentioned by the defense only in
connection with the armistice agreement between Russia and Romania.
10. It is not consistent with recorded evidence that Milch used
Hungarian Jews. It is proved by the evidence that this did not happen
before the summer of 1944 when Milch had resigned from his positions.
11. It is not consistent with recorded evidence that the Schmundt
minutes must be correct, for the reason that if any allusion to a war
had been omitted, Hitler would not have spoken at all. It has been
proven that Hitler spoke merely theoretically about the world situation
in case there should be a war at some time. He did not mention that he
wanted to foment aggressive wars.
B
The judgment states that the defendant recommended more drastic and more
cruel measures in regard to the recruiting and utilization of workers.
(Page 18 of the judgment.)
This is in discrepancy with the recorded evidence.
Here the defense does not argue about the separate reasons given by
Judge Michael A. Musmanno, since these reasons do not constitute the
official judgment. These reasons also contain factual errors and even
use material which has not been discussed during the trial.
These separate reasons, however, make it possible to draw a conclusion
in regard to the sentence of the judgment which states that the
defendant recommended more drastic and more cruel measures.
It has been proved through the evidence that utterances to that effect
were made by the defendant only in smaller circles and while he was in a
state of excitement. It has been proved that no action was ever taken in
conformity with these utterances. It has been proved that the defendant
never asked for action pursuant to such utterances. It has been proved
that he did not have any executive power in regard to any measures
whatsoever. It has finally been proved that the record concerning such
utterances must in part be incorrect.
Therefore, it has not been proved that the defendant approved such
cruelties or demanded them in earnest.
C
The objection must be raised that the Military Tribunal did not clarify
at all the legal questions which were raised by the defense in
connection with the fact that the Russian Government has explicitly
renounced the Hague Convention concerning Land Warfare and the previous
Geneva Conventions. Since the Decree Number 7 of the Military Government
for Germany provides, in Article XV, that reasons have to be given for
the sentence, the Tribunal would have had to state its position in
regard to these questions. This also constitutes a defectiveness of the
verdict and this defect may possibly have had an influence on the award
of the punishment.
D
The Military Tribunal has extensively referred on page 14 and 15 to the
verdict of the International Military Tribunal against Speer. The
Tribunal has therefore made the reasons of the International Military
Tribunal its own to a large extent.
But consequently the Military Tribunal would have had to examine the
problem of extenuating circumstances. The defense has already pointed
out that the fact that he organized protected factories constituted for
Speer an extenuating circumstance. During the trial it has been clearly
proved that Milch was the first who already in 1941 organized protected
factories, and that he was, therefore, the inventor of this kind of
employment.
The problem of extenuating circumstances involves further the
examination of the question, whether Milch had more to do with the
utilization of foreign workers and prisoners of war than Speer. This
examination was omitted. Exhibit Milch 55 and also all the evidence
proved that Speer’s participation in the utilization of foreign workers
and prisoners of war was considerably more extensive.
If the Tribunal had examined the extenuating circumstances, then the
result would undoubtedly have been that the defendant would have been
allowed extenuating circumstances on a large scale. Due to the fact that
the responsibility of Speer was greater than that of Milch, Milch should
not have received a more severe sentence than Speer.
Consideration should also have been given to the fact that it was proved
that Milch continually advocated restrictions in the employment of
foreign workers and of prisoners of war, and that he did indeed succeed
in achieving such restrictions.
Finally, consideration should also have been given to the fact that
Milch withdrew from his positions as early as spring and summer 1944,
and that he had nothing to do with the extraordinary aggravation of all
conditions which took place toward the end of the war.
This weighs more than what Speer did—the nonexecution of some insane
orders which Hitler issued at the end of the war in 1945.
This consideration too should have led the Tribunal to a much less
severe sentence. The fact that this was not taken into consideration is
therefore made a part of this petition.
(Signed) DR. BERGOLD
B. Petition to the Supreme Court of the United States
for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Erhard Milch,
Petitioner _vs._ United States of America
Nuernberg, 2 May 1947
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Application for Leave to File Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
I, the undersigned Erhard Milch, have been charged in Case No. II before
the Military Court No. II Nuernberg of illegally, deliberately, and
intentionally having committed war crimes and crimes against humanity,
as defined in Control Council Law No. 10 Article II, viz. the following:
_Count One of the Indictment._ War crimes, including murder, slave
labor, deportation of the civilian population for slave labor, cruel and
inhuman treatment of foreign workers, and the employment of prisoners of
war by force and duress in actions connected with warfare.
_Count Two of the Indictment._ War crimes, including murder, whereby
involuntary victims were exposed to sub-pressure and cold, experiments
resulting in torture and death.
_Count Three of the Indictment._ Crimes against humanity, including
murder and the unlawful acts listed in counts one and two of the
indictment, committed against Germans and foreigners.
(page 2 of original)
I have been acquitted on count II of the indictment and found guilty by
the sentence passed by the Military Court II on 16/17 April 1947 in
respect of counts I and III of the indictment, and am condemned
therefore to lifelong imprisonment.
I hereby make application for the sentence of the Military Court II
passed on 16/17 April 1947 to be completely quashed, as being
inadmissible according to Articles 63 and 64 of the Geneva Convention of
1929.
_Substantiation_
Decree No. 7 of the Military Government of Germany concerning the
constitution and competency of certain military courts, constitutes a
violation of Article 63 of the Geneva Convention of 1929, insofar as
Decree No. 7 is applied to prisoners of war as well, and in its Article
II appoints special courts for passing sentences on prisoners of war.
Article 63 of the Geneva Convention of 1929 lays down, “Sentence against
a prisoner of war may only be passed by the same courts and according to
the same procedure as a sentence against persons belonging to the
fighting forces of the country where he is a prisoner”. A field marshal
is equal to a five-star general of the United States of America. The
present Court consisted of three judges, of which not one has the
military rank which I have. It therefore does not correspond to the
court which, according to the laws of the United States of America,
could pass sentence on a five-star general. The authority of the present
Court is, however, expressly recognized by me.
Furthermore, Decree No. 7 of the Military Government of Germany
constitutes a violation in Article XV of Article 64 of the Geneva
Convention of 1929, because Article XV declares the sentence of the
court in finding the defendant guilty, to be final and incontestable.
Article 64 of the Geneva Convention of 1929 stipulates that prisoners of
war must be allowed to employ the same legal means against a verdict as
are granted to members of the fighting forces
(page 3 of original)
of the country where they are detained.
The rules laid down by the Geneva Convention of 1929 represent
compulsory international law of a universal character and cannot be
altered either by a signatory power alone or by an agreement between
several signatory powers, but only by the consent of all signatory
powers. In no case may they be altered by a decree of Military
Government, not even by a decree of the Control Council. The rights of a
prisoner of war, which are based upon the regulations of the Geneva
Convention of 1929, can neither be waived nor cancelled.
The violation of the regulations of the Geneva Convention has now come
about with the passing of sentence and the now existing restrictions
placed in the way of contesting the verdict, not already by the trial as
such.
I am still a prisoner of war. I have not been released from captivity. I
am therefore still under the protection of the Geneva Convention, the
same as before.
The violation of the Geneva Convention is all the more serious, in that
I am still a prisoner of war of the British. True, the defense counsel
was told at the beginning of the trial in reply to an express question,
that my transfer to the jurisdiction of the United States of America was
already effected, but it was not proved until the conclusion of the
passing of sentence. That should have been absolutely necessary.
After the serving of the indictment and the beginning of the actual
trial, an attempt was made on 4 January 1947 to gain my veiled consent
to my release without saying anything, whereby I was asked to accept
release money. On the receipt, however, I expressly noted, “Without
recognizing my release”. I declared that release by American officers
was not
(page 4 of original)
permissible at that moment and moreover a German field marshal could not
be released in any case under existing German law.
After this explanation on my part, the American major conducting the
proceedings revealed to me that another separate release proceeding
would have to be carried out against me then.
Thereby it is clear that I am still a prisoner of war today. At any
rate, I was when the trial begun and therefore in accordance with
Article 60 of the Geneva Convention the protecting power for German
prisoners of war, viz., Switzerland, should have been informed of the
proceedings. This too constitutes a violation of the Geneva Convention
of 1929. If the public prosecution authorities, however, were to refer
to the fact that I was released after the trial had begun, then they
should be confronted with the assertion that such a release is invalid.
It would represent nothing but an evasion of the regulations of the
Geneva Convention of 1929. I was not set at large for a single day. But
that is demanded by a release from captivity as a prisoner of war. A
release from captivity as a prisoner of war while maintaining captivity
would be a release in fraudem legis.
Therefore the sentence constitutes a violation of international law. At
the same time this violation is also a violation of the Habeas Corpus
Act. None, under whatever pretext, may be deprived of the rights of
legal proceedings and of a legal judge.
I therefore request the Supreme Court in Washington to examine whether
the Decree No. 7 of the Military Government of Germany may be applied in
my case, and whether, with due regard to the regulations of Article
60-65 of the Geneva Convention, the present Military Court II
(page 5 of original)
Nuernberg was in a position to pass sentence on me.
Furthermore I enclose a copy of my petition to the Governor-General
[Military Governor of U. S. Zone of Occupation].
[Signed] ERHARD MILCH
[Note: Another petition with the same text was submitted to the
United States Supreme Court by Dr. Bergold, Defense Counsel.]
IX. AFFIRMATION OF SENTENCE BY THE
MILITARY GOVERNOR OF THE UNITED
STATES ZONE OF OCCUPATION
Military Tribunal II, Case No. 2
In the Case of
The United States of America
_vs._
Erhard Milch, Defendant
_Order with Respect to Sentence_
In the case of the United States of America against Erhard Milch, tried
by United States Military Tribunal II, Case 2, Nuernberg, Germany, the
defendant on 17 April 1947 was sentenced by the Tribunal to be
transported to the Rebdorf Prison and there confined for the remainder
of his natural life. A petition to modify the sentence, filed on behalf
of the defendant by Dr. Friedrich Bergold, his defense counsel, has been
referred to me pursuant to delegation by the Military Governor under the
provisions of Article XXIII of Military Government Ordinance No. 7 and
paragraph 6_b_ of Regulation No. 1 under said Ordinance. I have duly
considered the petition and the record of the trial, and in accordance
with Article XVII of said Ordinance and paragraph 6_b_ of said
Regulation it is hereby ordered that—
The sentence imposed by Military Tribunal II, upon Erhard Milch be, and
hereby is, in all respects affirmed.
[Signed] FRANK A. KEATING
FRANK A. KEATING
Major General USA
Deputy Military Governor
17 June 1947
X. ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME
COURT, 20 OCTOBER 1947, DENYING
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
Present: Mr. Chief Justice Vinson, Mr. Justice Black, Mr. Justice Reed,
Mr. Justice Frankfurter, Mr. Justice Douglas, Mr. Justice Murphy, Mr.
Justice Jackson, Mr. Justice Rutledge, and Mr. Justice Burton.
No. 50, Misc. Erhard Milch, petitioner, _vs._ The United States of
America. The motion for leave to file petition for writ of habeas corpus
is denied. Mr. Justice Black, Mr. Justice Douglas, Mr. Justice Murphy,
and Mr. Justice Rutledge are of the opinion that the petition should be
set for hearing on the question of the jurisdiction of this Court. Mr.
Justice Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision of this
application.
APPENDIX
List of Witnesses in Case 2
[NOTE.—With the exception of Constantin von Neurath, Erich
Raeder, and Albert Speer, all witnesses in this case appeared
before the Tribunal. Prosecution witnesses are designated by the
letter “P,” defense witnesses by the letter “D”, Tribunal
witness by the letter “T”. The name not preceded by any
designation represents the defendant testifying in his own
behalf. Extracts from testimony in this Case are listed in the
index of documents and testimonies.]
Name │ Date of Testimony │ Pages
│ │ (mimeographed
│ │ transcript)
D ALEXANDER, Dr. Leo │14 Feb 47 │1074-1092
D BECKER-FREYSENG, Hermann │14 Feb 47 │1061-1066
D BRANDT, Rudolf │24 Feb 47 │1330-1354
D BRAUCHITSCH, Berndt von │20 Feb 47 │1271-1289
D DORSCH, Xaver │24 Feb 47 │1361-1379
D ENGEL, Gerhard │24 Feb 47 │1355-1361
D ESCHENAUER, Artur │13 Feb 47 │980-996
D FELMY, Helmut │20 Feb 47 │1290-1296
P FERRIER, Roland │5, 6 Mar 47 │1481-1548
D FOERSTER, Helmut │12 Feb 47 │915-938
D HERTEL, Walter │12 Feb 47 │944-979
D HIPPKE, Erich │7, 11 Feb 47 │759-870
D KOENIG, Max │17 Feb 47 │1189-1204
D KOERNER, Paul │5 Feb 47 │652-710
P KRYSIAK, Joseph │21 Mar 47 │2362-2376
P LE FRIEC, Paul │6 Mar 47 │1550-1584
T LICHTENSTEIN, Walter │3 Mar 47 │1428-1432
MILCH, Erhard │11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18,│1696-2276
│ 19, 20 Mar 47 │
D NEFF, Walter │12 Feb 47 │939-943
D NEURATH, Constantin von │19 Feb 47 │1440-1443
D PENDELE, Max │18 Feb 47 │1205-1227
D RAEDER, Erich │4 Mar 47 │1434-1439
D REINECKE, Hermann │20 Mar 47 │2277-2287
D RICHTER, Karl Eitel │11 Feb 47 │871-900
D ROEDER, Manfred │3 Mar 47 │1381-1403
D ROMBERG, Hans Wolfgang │14 Feb 47 │1021A-1050
D RUFF, Siegfried │14, 17 Feb 47 │1092-1122
D SCHMELTER, Fritz │6, 7 Feb 47 │717-759
D SCHNIEWIND, Otto │24 Feb 47 │1307-1329
D SCHROEDER, Oskar │ │(withdrawn)
D SIEVERS, Wolfram │14 Feb 47 │1050-1057
D SPEER, Albert │17, 19 Feb 47 │1136-1186; 1445-1457
D VORWALD, Wolfgang │10, 11, 20, 21 Mar 47 │1586-1696; 2287-2340
D WARLIMONT, Walter │20 Feb 47 │1296-1299
D WELTZ, Georg August │14 Feb 47 │1066-1072
D WOLFF, Karl │18 Feb 47 │1228-1268
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS AND TESTIMONY
Document No. Exhibit No. Description Page
EC-68 Pros. Ex. 6 Letter from the Ministry of Finance 389
and Economics of Baden, 6 March
1941, containing directives
regarding the treatment of Polish
farm workers.
EC-194 Pros. Ex. 8 Memorandum of Keitel, 31 October 1941, 393
concerning the use of PW’s in the
armament industry.
F-824 Pros. Ex. 57 Order of Field Marshal von Kluge 542
regarding compulsory recruitment of
labor in the West, 25 July 1944.
L-61 Pros. Ex. 20 Letter from Sauckel to the presidents 413
of Labor Offices, 26 November 1942,
concerning deportation and
employment of Poles and Jews.
L-79 Pros. Ex. 3 Extract from minutes of Fuehrer 387
conference, 23 May 1939.
NI-1098 Pros. Ex. 63 Extracts from affidavit of Fritz 456
Sauckel, 22 September 1946,
regarding the jurisdiction of the
Central Planning Board.
NO-219 Pros. Ex. 83 Letter from Dr. Rudolf Brandt to Dr. 626
Rascher, 27 April 1942, concerning
medical experiment report for
Himmler and Milch.
NO-261 Pros. Ex. 89 Letter from Milch to Dr. Hippke, 4 626
June 1942, concerning availability
of low pressure air chamber for
experiments.
NO-262 Pros. Ex. 119 Letter from Dr. Hippke to SS 631
Obergruppenfuehrer Wolff, 6 March
1943, concerning Rascher’s transfer
to the Waffen SS.
NOKW-017 Pros. Ex. 54 Extracts from the minutes of the 527
conference with Air Force Engineers
and Chief Quartermasters under
chairmanship of Milch, 25 March
1944.
NOKW-041 Pros. Ex. 113 Sworn statement by Hermann Goering, 27 625
September 1946, concerning Milch’s
position as Inspector General of the
Luftwaffe.
NOKW-180 Pros. Ex. 155 Extracts from stenographic notes on 613
the conference at the Reich
Marshal’s on Thursday, 4 November
1943, 11 o’clock at the Junkers
Plant in Dessau.
NOKW-195 Pros. Ex. 143 Extracts from stenographic minutes of 608
conference with Goering, 28 October
1943.
NOKW-245 Pros. Ex. 157 Extracts from stenographic minutes of 606
conference with Goering, 22 February
1943, regarding plans for airplane
construction.
NOKW-247 Pros. Ex. 61 Appointment of Field Marshal Milch as 540
Goering’s plenipotentiary for the
intensification of air force
armament in June 1944.
NOKW-261 Pros. Ex. 70 Chart of the organization of the 535
Jaegerstab drawn by Saur with letter
of transmittal to prosecution staff,
14 November 1946.
NOKW-266 Pros. Ex. 76 Affidavit of Fritz Schmelter, 19 559
November 1946, concerning the
organization of the Jaegerstab.
NOKW-269 Pros. Ex. 59 A short curriculum vitae of Field 633
Marshal Erhard Milch.
NOKW-286 Pros. Ex. 144 Extracts from stenographic minutes of 605
GL-Conference, 1 September 1942.
NOKW-287 Pros. Ex. 49 Letter from Milch to Sauckel, 8 April 499
1943, concerning the protection of
industry.
NOKW-311 Pros. Ex. 62 Extract from interrogation of Hermann 597
Goering on 6 September 1946,
regarding Milch’s position as
Generalluftzeugmeister (GL).
NOKW-320 Pros. Ex. 73 Extract from interrogation of Karl 558
Otto Saur on 13 November 1946,
concerning the use of concentration
camp prisoners in Jaegerstab
construction.
NOKW-334 Pros. Ex. 75 Extract from transcript of 550
stenographic minutes of the
Jaegerstab Conference of 25 April
1944.
NOKW-334 Def. Ex. 16 Extracts from stenographic minutes of 564
the Jaegerstab Conference, 25 April
1944.
NOKW-336 Pros. Ex. 75 Extracts from transcript of 555
stenographic minutes of the
Jaegerstab Conference on 26 May
1944.
NOKW-336 Def. Ex. 23 Excerpts from the stenographic minutes 566
of the Jaegerstab Conference on
Friday, 26 May 1944, at 10:00
o’clock.
NOKW-337 Pros. Ex. 75 Extracts from transcript of 544
stenographic minutes of the
Jaegerstab Conference of 6 March
1944.
NOKW-337 Def. Ex. 12 Excerpts from the stenographic minutes 561
of the Jaegerstab Conference on 6
March 1944 in the Reich Air
Ministry.
NOKW-338 Pros. Ex. 75 Extracts from transcript of 545
stenographic minutes of the
Jaegerstab Conference on Friday, 17
March 1944.
NOKW-338 Def. Ex. 13 Excerpts from the stenographic minutes 562
of the Jaegerstab Conference
presided over by Field Marshal Milch
on Friday, 17 March 1944, 1100
hours, in the Reich Air Ministry.
NOKW-346 Pros. Ex. 75 Extracts from transcript of 546
stenographic minutes of the
Jaegerstab Conference under
chairmanship of Field Marshal Milch
on Monday, 20 March 1944.
NOKW-359 Pros. Ex. 75 Extracts from transcript of 557
stenographic minutes of the
Jaegerstab Conference on 27 June
1944.
NOKW-361 Pros. Ex. 75 Extract from transcript of 554
stenographic minutes of the
Jaegerstab Conference during the 6th
journey of the “Hubertus
Undertaking” from 8-10 May 1944.
NOKW-362 Pros. Ex. 75 Extracts from transcript of 552
stenographic minutes of Jaegerstab
Conference on the occasion of the
5th trip of the “Hubertus
Undertaking”, 2 and 3 May 1944.
NOKW-365 Def. Ex. 15 Extract from the stenographic minutes 563
of the Jaegerstab Conference, 12
April 1944.
NOKW-388 Pros. Ex. 75 Extracts from transcript of 547
stenographic minutes of the
Jaegerstab Conference of 28 March
1944.
NOKW-390 Pros. Ex. 75 Extract from transcript of 553
stenographic minutes of the
Jaegerstab Conference of 4 May 1944.
NOKW-406 Pros. Ex. 138 Extracts from stenographic minutes of 599
the GL-Conference, 7 July 1942.
NOKW-407 Pros. Ex. 137 Extracts from stenographic minutes of 599
GL-Conference, 27 May 1942.
NOKW-408 Pros. Ex. 139 Extracts from stenographic minutes of 600
GL-Conference, 28 July 1942.
NOKW-409 Pros. Ex. 140 Extracts from stenographic minutes of 601
GL-Conference, 4 August 1942.
NOKW-412 Pros. Ex. 141 Extracts from stenographic minutes of 602
GL-Conference, 18 August 1942.
NOKW-416 Pros. Ex. 142 Extracts from stenographic minutes of 602
GL-Conference, 26 August 1942.
NOKW-418 Pros. Ex. 136 Extracts from stenographic minutes of 598
GL-Conference, 5 May 1942.
NOKW-442 Pros. Ex. 75 Extract from transcript of 554
stenographic minutes of the
Jaegerstab Conference on 5 May 1944.
NOKW-442 Def. Ex. 21 Extract from the stenographic minutes 565
of the Jaegerstab Conference, 5 May
1944.
NOKW-449 Pros. Ex. 148 Extracts from stenographic minutes of 607
GL-Conference, 2 March 1943.
016-PS Pros. Ex. 13 Letter from Sauckel to Rosenberg, 24 405
April 1942, and extracts from report
on Sauckel’s labor mobilization
program, 20 April 1942.
084-PS Pros. Ex. 16-A Extracts from interdepartmental report 408
of the Ministry for Occupied Eastern
Territories, 30 September 1942,
concerning the status of Eastern
laborers.
204-PS Pros. Ex. 39 Extracts from memorandum of a 424
conference, 18 February 1944,
concerning the release of indigenous
labor for purposes of the Reich.
208-PS Pros. Ex. 55 Report by Sauckel, 7 July 1944, on the 428
accomplishments of labor
mobilization in the first half of
1944.
265-PS Pros. Ex. 35 Extracts from report by Leyser to 423
Rosenberg, 30 June 1943, on
conditions in the district Zhitomir.
294-PS Pros. Ex. 19-A Extracts from top secret memorandum, 411
signed by Braeutigam, 25 October
1942, concerning effects of slave
labor program.
407-II-PS Def. Ex. 3 Report from Sauckel to Hitler, 10 439
March 1943, concerning difficulties
originating from the draft of
manpower in former Soviet
territories.
407-V-PS Pros. Ex. 30 Extracts from letter from Sauckel to 418
Hitler, 14 April 1943, concerning
labor questions.
407-IX-PS Pros. Ex. 33 Letter from Sauckel to Hitler, 3 June 420
1943, concerning foreign labor
situation.
1063-D-PS Pros. Ex. 21 Extract from order of Mueller, 17 415
December 1942, concerning prisoners
qualified for work to be sent to
concentration camps.
1206-PS Pros. Ex. 9 Outlines of directives of Goering 395
regarding the employment of PW’s in
the armament industry, 7 November
1941.
1510-PS Pros. Ex. 58 Extracts from decree of 16 September 450
1943, defining the duties of the
Planning Office of the Central
Planning Board.
1526-PS Pros. Ex. 25 Extracts from letter from 416
German-appointed Ukrainian main
committee to Frank, February 1943.
1584-III-PS Pros. Ex. 71 Correspondence between Himmler and 537
Goering, 9 March 1944, concerning
the use of concentration camp
prisoners in the aircraft industry.
1607-A-PS Pros. Ex. 115 Letter from Himmler to Milch, 25 628
August 1942, concerning Dr.
Rascher’s report on high-altitude
experiments.
1607-B-PS Pros. Ex. 115 Letter from Dr. Rascher to Dr. Brandt, 627
20 July 1942, concerning report on
high-altitude experiments.
1617-PS Pros. Ex. 111 Letter from Himmler to Milch, 13 629
November 1942, concerning Rascher’s
transfer to the Waffen SS.
3000-PS Pros. Ex. 34 Extracts from report rendered to 422
Riecke, Ministerialdirektor in the
Ministry of Agriculture, 28 June
1943, on experiences in political
and economic problems in the East.
3005-PS Pros. Ex. 7 Extracts from letter from the Reich 392
Labor Ministry to presidents of
Regional Labor Offices, 26 August
1941, concerning the use of French
and Russian PW’s.
3040-PS Pros. Ex. 10 Extracts from secret order of Himmler, 399
20 February 1942, concerning the
commitment and treatment of manpower
from the East.
3721-PS Pros. Ex. 41-A Testimony of Fritz Sauckel, 22 452
September 1945, regarding the
jurisdiction of the Central Planning
Board.
3819-PS Pros. Ex. 56 Minutes of a conference on 11 July 430
1944 attended by Milch, concerning
the labor problem.
R-103 Pros. Ex. 40 Extracts from a letter from the 426
(German-appointed) Polish main
committee to the General Government
of Poland on the conditions of
Polish workers in Germany, 17 May
1944.
R-124 Pros. Ex. 48-B Stenographic record of the first 447
conference of the Central Planning
Board on 27 April 1942.
R-124 Pros. Ex. 48-A Extracts from report on the eleventh 457
conference of the Central Planning
Board, 22 July 1942.
R-124 Def. Ex. 5 Extract from the stenographic report 509
of the eleventh conference of the
Central Planning Board, 22 July
1942.
R-124 Pros. Ex. 48-A Extracts from report on the 459
seventeenth conference of the
Central Planning Board, 28 October
1942.
R-124 Pros. Ex. 48-A Extracts from stenographic minutes of 461
twenty-first conference of Central
Planning Board, 30 October 1942.
R-124 Def. Ex. 6 Extract from the stenographic minutes 510
of the twenty-second conference of
the Central Planning Board, 2
November 1942.
R-124 Pros. Ex. 48-B Extracts from stenographic minutes of 465
the twenty-third conference of the
Central Planning Board, 3 November
1942.
R-124 Def. Ex. 7 Extract from the stenographic minutes 510
of the thirty-second conference of
the Central Planning Board, 12
February 1943.
R-124 Pros. Ex. 48-A Extracts from stenographic minutes of 467
the thirty-third conference of the
Central Planning Board, 16 February
1943.
R-124 Def. Ex. 8 Extract from the stenographic minutes 511
of the thirty-third conference of
the Central Planning Board, 16
February 1943.
R-124 Pros. Ex. 48-A Extracts from stenographic minutes of 471
the thirty-sixth conference of the
Central Planning Board, 22 April
1943.
R-124 Def. Ex. 9 Extract from stenographic minutes of 516
the thirty-ninth conference of the
Central Planning Board, 23 April
1943.
R-124 Pros. Ex. 48-A Report of the forty-second conference 475
of the Central Planning Board, 23
June 1943.
R-124 Pros. Ex. 48-A Extracts from stenographic minutes of 478
the fifty-third conference of the
Central Planning Board, 16 February
1944.
R-124 Pros. Ex. 48-B Report on the fifty-third conference 479
of the Central Planning Board, 16
February 1944.
R-124 Pros. Ex. 48-A Extracts from the stenographic minutes 484
of the fifty-fourth conference of
the Central Planning Board, 1 March
1944.
R-124 Def. Ex. 31 Extracts from the stenographic minutes 517
of the fifty-fourth conference of
the Central Planning Board, 1 March
1944.
R-124 Pros. Ex. 48-D Extracts from the report on the 498
fifty-sixth conference of the
Central Planning Board, 4 April
1944.
R-124 Def. Ex. 1 Extract from report on Fuehrer 438
conference attended by Milch on 19
February 1942.
R-124 Def. Ex. 32 Extract from the Fuehrer conference 438
minutes, 21 and 22 April 1942.
R-124 Pros. Ex. 48-B Letter of 20 October 1942 transmitting 448
the statutes of the Central Planning
Board.
R-124 Def. Ex. 2 Extract from the Fuehrer conference 439
minutes of 3, 4, 5 January 1943.
R-124 Def. Ex. 33 Extract from report on Fuehrer 441
conference of 30 May 1943.
R-124 Pros. Ex. 124 Speer’s minutes of a conference with 501
Hitler on 8 July 1943.
R-124 Def. Ex. 4 Extract from report of Fuehrer 442
conference of 11-12 September 1943.
R-124 Def. Ex. 34 Extract from Fuehrer conference of 1-4 443
January 1944, concerning Speer’s
report on the French labor
situation.
R-124 Pros. Ex. 48-A Extract from the report by Saur of the 502
conference with the Fuehrer, 5 March
1944.
R-124 Pros. Ex. 48-E Extracts from the minutes of 539
discussions between Saur and the
Fuehrer, 6 and 7 April 1944.
Speer Ex. 34 Def. Ex. 17 Order of Hitler, 21 April 1944, 560
delegating to Dorsch authority for
Jaegerstab constructions.
TESTIMONIES
Excerpts from the testimony of defendant _Milch_ 635
Extracts of testimony of defense witness Fritz _Schmelter_ 567
Extracts of testimony of defense witness Xaver _Dorsch_ 583
Extracts from testimony of defense witness Max _Koenig_ 615
Excerpts from the testimony given by defense witness Albert _Speer_ 502
before Commission on 19 February 1947
TRANSCRIBER NOTES
Punctuation and spelling has been maintained except where obvious
printer errors have occurred such as missing periods or commas for
periods. American spelling occurs throughout the document. Multiple
occurrences of the following spellings which differ and are found
throughout this volume are as follows:
border line borderline
front line front-line
Jewish Bolshevik Jewish-Bolshevik
Fraeulein Frau
Although some sentences may appear to have incorrect spellings or verb
tenses, the original text has been maintained as it represents what the
tribunal read into the record and reflects the actual translations
between the German, English, Russian and French documents presented in
the trial(s). This volume had no German, Polish, Russian or other
eastern European diacritics, only French diacritics. As a result,
Goering and Fuehrer are spelled without umlauts throughout.
An attempt has been made to produce this ebook in a format as close as
possible to the original document's presentation and layout.
Some illustrations were moved to facilitate page layout.
[The end of _Trials of War Criminals before the Nuernberg Military
Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10 (Oct 1946-Apr 1949) (Vol.
2)_, by Anonymous.]