Chapter LIV: Section 2: A III f (19)

“It has always been natural for us Germans to refrain from
cruelty and mean chicaneries towards the beaten enemy, even if
he has proved himself the most bestial and most implacable
adversary, and to treat him correctly and humanly, even when we
expect useful work of him.” (_T-58-59._)

It can be imagined with what kindness an underling of Sauckel’s would treat a worker whom Sauckel has already characterized as a “bestial and most implacable adversary”.

As a result of the minimum sustenance directive it is not difficult to understand the report of a Dr. Hupe who stated—

“During the last few days we have established that the food for
the Russians employed here is so miserable that the people are
getting weaker from day to day. Investigations showed that
single Russians are not able to place a piece of metal for
turning into position, for instance, because of lack of physical
strength. The same conditions exist at all places of work where
Russians are employed.” (_T-55._)

Wilhelm Jager, senior camp director at the Krupp Works, reported that diet prescribed for eastern workers was 1,000 calories less per day than the minimum prescribed for any Germans. Further, that while German heavy workers received 5,000 calories a day, eastern workers in comparable jobs received only 2,000 calories. Such meat as was allowed the foreign workers was that which had been “rejected by the veterinary, such as horse meat or tuberculin infested”. (_T-103._) The clothing allowed the eastern workers was likewise entirely inadequate. They had no overcoats and, because of the shortage of shoes, many were forced to go to work barefoot even in winter. In the work camps tuberculosis was widespread among the eastern workers, caused by bad housing, insufficient and poor food, overwork and insufficient rest—

“These workers were likewise afflicted with spotted fever. Lice,
the carrier of this disease, together with countless fleas,
bugs, and other vermin tortured the inhabitants of these camps.
As a result of the filthy conditions of the camps nearly all
eastern workers were afflicted with skin disease. The shortage
of food also caused many cases of Hunher-Oedem, Nephritis, and
Shighakruse.” (_T-103._)

These conditions became infinitely worse, of course, during the time of air raids—

“The French prisoner-of-war camp in Nogerratstrasse had been
destroyed in an air raid attack and its inhabitants were kept
for nearly half a year in dog kennels, urinals, and in old
baking houses. The dog kennels were three feet high, nine feet
long, and six feet wide. Five men slept in each of them. The
prisoners had to crawl into these kennels on all fours.”
(_T-105._)

A Dr. Stinnesbeck reports on 12 June 1944—

“The PW camp at Nogerratstrasse was in most deplorable
condition. The people live in ashcans, doghouses, old baking
stoves, and self-made huts.” (_T-106._)

Visiting camp Humboldtstrasse, Dr. Stinnesbeck found 600 Jewish women who worked at the Krupp factory. They suffered from festering wounds and other diseases. They had no shoes and went about in their bare feet!

“The sole clothing of each consisted of a sack with holes for
their arms and head. Their hair was shorn. The camp was
surrounded by barbed wire and closely guarded by SS guards.”
(_T-106._)

Concentration camp inmates were made to work, to which there can be no objection on the grounds of inhumanity. In fact, some useful toil is preferable to idleness in prison. But camp commanders were instructed that the “employment must be, in the true meaning of the word, exhaustive, in order to obtain the greatest measure of performance.” (_T-61._)

“There is no limit to working hours. Their duration depends on
the kind of working establishments in the camps and the kind of
work to be done. They are fixed by the camp commanders alone.”
(_T-62._)

Certain “antisocial elements” were by special order “to be worked to death”. In the literal Gestapo language “death” was never used rhetorically or figuratively. Those who were to be killed through work were listed as “under protective arrest”. This included Jews, gypsies, Russians, and Ukrainians; Poles with more than three-year sentences; Czechs and Germans with more than eight-year sentences. (_T-63._)

In these work camps frequently children of tender age were forced to toil.

“An indication of the awful conditions this may lead to is given
by the fact that in the camps for eastern workers, camp for
eastern workers ‘Waldlust’, Post Office Lauf, Pegnitz, there are
cases of eight-year old, delicate and undernourished children
put to forced labor and perishing from such treatment.”
(_T-99._)

Those who were imported for farm work fared no better than their factory brothers. A directive issued by the Ministry of Finance and Economy at Baden on the control of Polish farm workers in Stuttgart and Baden directed that farm workers were to be quartered in stables, and the employer was urged that “no remorse should restrict such action.” (_T-47._) “Fundamentally”, this extraordinary document proclaims, “farm workers of Polish nationality no longer have the right to complain, and thus no complaints may be accepted any more by any official agency.” (_T-46._)

To deprive a human being of the right to complain is in effect to classify him lower than an animal because even a beast of burden is privileged to announce his objections to harsh and cruel treatment. Nor were the Polish workers permitted the consolation and comfort in adversity which religion affords. “The visiting of churches, regardless of faith, is strictly prohibited.” The edict of the Ministry of Finance said further that this prohibition against attendance at churches even excluded the visiting of churches when no service was in progress. The visiting of theatres, motion picture shows, or other cultural entertainment also was prohibited. (_T-46._)

“Gathering of farm workers of Polish nationality after work is
prohibited, whether it is on other farms, in the stables, or in
the living quarters of the Poles. The use of railroads, buses,
or other public conveyances by farm workers of Polish
nationality is prohibited.” (_T-47._)

The difference between slave labor of this type and outright slavery is a margin faint and indistinguishable. There was no limit to the hours of work, and the employer was invested with the right, bestially inherent in the proprietorship of slave owners, to inflict corporal punishment on the worker “_if_ instruction and good words failed”. Nor was there any one to determine whether good words had failed because the “employer may not be held accountable in any such cases by an official agency.” (_T-47._)

Heinrich Himmler took a very active part in the slave labor program. Concerning commitment of manpower from the East, he laid down strict rules which, if violated, brought severe punishment. He decreed that—

“In severe cases, that is in such cases where the measures at
the disposal of the leader of the guard do not suffice, the
state police office has to act with its means. Accordingly, they
will be treated, as a rule, only with strict measure, that is
with transfer to a concentration camp or with special
treatment.” (_T-53._)

We learn further on in the directive that the “special treatment” so casually referred to as if it were some slight deprivation of comfort or convenience means nothing less than hanging!

“Special treatment is hanging. Hanging should not take place in
the immediate vicinity of the camp. A certain number of the
manpower from the original Soviet Russian territory should
attend the special treatment; at that time they are to be warned
about the circumstances which led to this special treatment.”
(_T-53._)

If workers sought to escape, search measures were to be decreed locally, and when caught the fugitive must receive special treatment. (_T-54._)

Heinrich Himmler was one of the most relentless pursuers of slave labor, as, of course, he was the most notorious executant of all that was inhuman, indecent, cruel, and vulgar in the entire Nazi program. Himmler does not defy description, he invites it. He stands out in the whole hideous camp of Hitler barbarians as the most savage of them all. A fiend in human shape, a monster in the clothing of man; there is no wild beast, bound only by jungle code, which, in point of honor, was not his superior; there is no slimy, maggoty larva, wriggling in the stagnancy and stench of the foulest cesspool which could be regarded his inferior. His creed was murder, his religion massacre, his belief kidnapping, his faith treachery, and his dogma oppression in every form. Only one thing mattered and that was German blood—

“What happens to a Russian, to a Czech, does not interest me in
the slightest. What the nation can offer in the way of good
blood of our type, we will take, if necessary by kidnapping
their children and raising them here with us. Whether nations
live in prosperity or starve to death interests me only insofar
as we need them as slaves for our Kultur; otherwise, it is of no
interest to me. Whether 10,000 Russian females fall down from
exhaustion while digging an antitank ditch interests me only
insofar as the antitank ditch for Germany is finished * * *.
When somebody comes to me and says, ‘I cannot dig the antitank
ditch with women and children, it is inhuman, for it would kill
them,’ then I have to say, ‘You are a murderer of your own blood
because if the antitank ditch is not dug, German soldiers will
die, and they are sons of German mothers. They are our own
blood.’ That is what I want to instill into this SS and what I
believe I have instilled into them as one of the most sacred
laws of the future. Our concern, our duty, is our people and our
blood. It is for them that we must provide and plan, work and
fight, nothing else. We can be indifferent to everything else.”
(_T-145._)

When hundreds of thousands of Russian prisoners of war died from exhaustion and hunger, his regret was not that they died, but that it was deplorable “by reason of the loss of labor.” (_T-144._)

The defense in this case denied that foreign workers and prisoners of war were maltreated, and produced some evidence to dispute the prosecution’s contentions in this regard, we quote from the affidavit of one Albin Schirmer, a resident of Nuernberg—

“From the year 1929 onwards, I was employed by the Hercules
Works, Ltd. at Nuernberg (Nuernberger Herkuleswerke G.m.b.H.),
and worked there in the capacity of foreman throughout the war.
The necessary workers were requested by the firm from the Labor
Office. The Labor Office allocated French prisoners of war, free
French, and Czech workers to the firm. The free foreign workers,
who also cooperated in executing the commissions of the
Luftwaffe, were treated in every respect in exactly the same way
as the German workers. Some lived in furnished rooms. Some lived
in a camp as it was cheaper there. Working hours, wages, ration
cards, and the supplementary ration cards for workers, whose
hours were long, were the same as for any German. Equally,
freedom of movement during leisure hours, permission to attend
theaters, churches, and cinemas, the protection of the Labor
Front and of strength-through-joy, permission to visit public
houses and German families were available to free foreign
workers as well as to German workers. Intercourse with German
girls was also permitted to free foreign workers. This, however,
did not apply to prisoners of war. The sanitary installations of
the firm were good, and were available for the use of foreign
workers, as well as of the German workers. The prisoners of war
had fixed times for taking showers whereas the free foreign
workers had their showers at the same time as the Germans. The
free French workers were allowed free postal communication with
France, and they also went there on leave. I know of only two
cases in which free French workers did not return from their
leave in France.

Many French prisoners of war volunteered as free workers, in
order to be eligible for the resultant advantages. Even the
prisoners of war had beer sent to them every day.

During air raids, the free foreign workers played their part
with devotion, a thing which they would certainly not have done
if they had not considered that they were well-treated.

After the arrival of the American troops most of the French
workers said good-by to me in a friendly fashion, shaking hands
with me, and wishing me luck. The female workers from the
Ukraine too liked it here according to their statements.”

Why should one doubt that in the vast German workshop which employed a score of millions, here and there some foreign workers were not abused but in the long run fared well? It would need to be someone wearing spectacles of pitch and groping in a Cimmerian night of prejudice and pique to assert that the German people are incapable of hospitality and generosity. The very fact that there were concentration camps in the land attests to the fact that not everybody accepted Hitler’s and Himmler’s crackpot master race ideology. However, even accepting Albin Schirmer’s affidavit at face value, it is but one little flower in a jungle of evidence establishing that only a very few foreign workers were so fortunate as to be showered with the care and comforts and allowed to revel and luxuriate in the liberties vouchsafed those who were so lucky as to be employed in the Hercules Works, Limited, at Nuernberg.

As against this idyllic picture of happiness in a powder plant or strength-through-joy in Nuernberg, there is recalled the image of the last witness at this trial. He also was a German, Joseph Krysiak, and he too worked in a war factory. In December 1940, he remarked in a conversation to some friends that if America entered the European conflict, Germany could not win. The ubiquitous Gestapo learned of his observation and he was committed to a concentration camp, from which he went daily to work at the Me [ssersmitt] 109 plant at Gusen I. His living conditions were a trifle less felicitous than those described by Schirmer. Krysiak worked twelve hours a day, he had coffee for breakfast, watery soup for lunch, and at night seven men shared a loaf of bread. If he did not reach the quota of work assigned him for the day, he was beaten. Later he was sent to another factory, and of working conditions there he said—

“We were working at Saint George, Gusen II, for twelve hours.
Also, the transport to and from work and back to this camp
occupied two to three hours as well, so that these people
altogether had only four to five hours sleep under the worst
imaginable conditions. Four people had to sleep in one bed.

“Q. Did you work seven days a week?

“A. Yes, and the day and night shift, and Sundays, too.”
(_T-2366._)

When asked what effect these conditions had on the health of the workers, he replied—

“The most dreadful effect, the majority died in Mauthausen and
Gusen II. It was a rule no one was released, but transports
which were filled were where detainees would die.”

And as to his own particular condition, he stated—

“All I can say now is that I suffer from TB and I am medically
being treated, and this is what those five years did to me.

“Q. What was your condition before going to the concentration
camp?

“A. I was active in sports, and I was a long distance runner. I
can say my lungs were not blemished at all.”

The shattering of this man’s health is perhaps only a small part of the disaster which has befallen him. From the witness stand he gave the impression of one who had been spiritually crushed by his five years’ ordeal. His voice faltered, his shoulders drooped, his eyes looked out into distance. He was alive, but something within him had perished. Perhaps he reflected on the tragedy that this awful thing which had happened to him had been inflicted by his own countrymen, not for opposing his country but for speaking a truth which, if listened to, could have averted not only his own ruin but the misery of millions of his brethren.

II. PRISONERS OF WAR

Article 31 of the Geneva Convention provides—

“Work done by prisoners of war shall have no direct connection
with the operations of the war. In particular it is forbidden to
employ prisoners in the manufacture or transport of arms or
munitions of any kind, or on the transport of material destined
for the combatant units.”

The Hague Convention of 1907, Article 6 provides—

“The State may utilize the labor of prisoners of war according
to their rank and aptitude, officers excepted. The tasks shall
not be excessive and shall have no connection with the
operations of the war.” (_T-155._)

These prohibitions on the use of prisoners of war were flagrantly violated by the Germans in World War II. On 7 November 1941, Hermann Goering, speaking at the meeting in the Reich Ministry of Air, already referred to, declared that “it would be ideal if entire factories could be manned by Russian prisoners of war.” (_T-52._) Then, insofar as feeding these prisoners was concerned the notes of the speech report: “Food is a matter of the Four Year Plan. Supply their own food (cats, horses, etc.).” (_T-52._)

On 20 April 1942, Fritz Sauckel, Plenipotentiary General for Labor Mobilization, proclaimed that—

“All prisoners of war, from the territories of the West as well
as of the East, actually in Germany, must be completely
incorporated into the German armament and nutrition industries.”
(_T-58._)

On 26 August 1941, the Reich Labor Ministry directed the presidents of the Regional Labor Offices as follows:

“Upon personal order of the Reich Marshal, 100,000 men are to be
taken from among the French prisoners of war not yet employed in
armament industry, and are to be assigned to the armament
industry (airplane industry). Gaps in manpower supply resulting
therefrom will be filled by Soviet prisoners of war. The
transfer of the above-named French prisoners of war can be
utilized only in quite large concentrated groups under the
well-known tougher employment conditions.” (_T-49-50._)

In a discussion with Sauckel, the defendant, and others on the subject of manpower available for the armament industry, Goering stated on 28 October 1943, that out of 2,200,000 in armament production, 770,000 were prisoners of war. (_T-2093._)

On 14 April 1943, Sauckel reported to Hitler that “1,622,829 prisoners of war are employed in the German economy.” (_T-90._)

Noting that the utilization of prisoners of war in the war program was a very profitable enterprise for the Reich, Goering regretted that any had ever been released. However, it was a mistake easily rectified.

“I should like to see that the prisoners of war who have been
released, Norwegians and so forth, be taken again. Insofar as
officers are concerned, this has been done to a certain extent.
It was the greatest nonsense ever committed by us and for which
nobody thanks us. We have made prisoners of entire armies and we
let them go again. We do not get anything from Norway.”
(_T-2096._)

At a Jaegerstab meeting on 19 June 1944, it developed that 300 American prisoners of war were assigned to work at the Dornier airplane factory at Oberpfaffenhofen, but with good Yankee obstinacy, knowing their rights, they refused to work. Lange, of the Speer Ministry, complaining about this said—

“They simply sat down, drank coffee, and ate corned beef, and
could not be persuaded to work in spite of threats of shooting.
Now, the question has been asked if we should not start a
shooting action.” (_T-2102._)

And the only reason they were not shot is that the Fuehrer feared reprisals.

III. PARTICIPATION OF MILCH IN THE SLAVE LABOR PROGRAM

It was not contended by the prosecution at the trial that the defendant was aware, nor would it have been physically possible for him to have had knowledge, of all the excesses, inhumanities, and illegalities encompassed in the far-flung slave labor program which spread its cruelties into practically every part of Europe. However, its very bigness and the great production power which it generated in every department of the German war plant negates the defendant’s position that he was utterly ignorant of its existence. This opinion has gone to some length in pointing out the numbers involved in the compulsory work program, and the heinousness of some of its operations, and has quoted from official decrees promulgated in its unfoldment, not only for the purpose of demonstrating the basis for condemning the whole illegal enterprise, but also for the purpose of laying the foundation for consideration of Milch’s responsibility in this phase of German war guilt.

On 23 May 1939, Hitler outlined his plans for war to his fourteen most trusted and important military chieftains. Milch attended that then secret, and now notorious, conference. Hitler there said, “The population of non-German areas will perform no military service and will be available as source of labor.” (_T-37._) This statement is taken from the memorandum made by adjutant Lieutenant Colonel Schmundt, who was present and preserved a drastically condensed record of the speech for the Reich files. The accuracy of the Schmundt record was attacked in the IMT trial and came under fire here. The defendant goes so far as to conjecture that the Schmundt statement was prepared months, perhaps even a year, after Hitler’s speech, and was intended to demonstrate Hitler’s uncanny and possibly supernatural powers of prophecy by the undeniably sure method of writing up the prophecy subsequent to the happening of the event predicted. The memorandum obviously is not definitely precise because it consists of only ten pages whereas the speech lasted four and one-half hours. As the memorandum manifestly cannot be complete, neither can human recollection (unaided by notes) be infallible. Milch, who made no notes at all, testified that labor was not mentioned in the speech, but Admiral Schniewind, also present, and who testified in court, stated that he did not exclude the possibility that labor was discussed. (_T-1326._)

In any event, whether Hitler did or did not mention labor in his utterances of that day is not so important as it is that Milch was present when Hitler made crystal clear his intentions to attack Poland, and, if it became necessary or expedient, to fight other countries as well, with the inevitable subjugation of the conquered peoples. Slave labor was an inescapable concomitant of the type of total war Hitler intended to wage, and the character of which Milch could not fail to appreciate.

As a field marshal in the German Reich, Milch could not ignore the existence of Sauckel’s proclamation on 20 April 1942 that “the raw materials as well as the fertility of the conquered territories and their human labor power are to be used completely and conscientiously to the profit of Germany and her allies.” (_T-57._)

But in the evaluation of Milch’s criminal responsibility for Germany’s use of slave labor something more is needed in a court of law than presumptions of his assumed general knowledge of what was taking place. It must be established that he, himself, participated in the slave labor enterprises, or knowing that such illegal practices were being committed, he, having the power to do so, made no effort to curb or halt them. The prosecution contends that the defendant, as a member of the Central Planning Board and of the Jaegerstab, and as Generalluftzeugmeister (Aircraft Master General), was thoroughly cognizant of Sauckel’s program and that he, Milch, actively participated in slave labor practices.

(a) Central Planning Board

The Central Planning Board was made up of three members, Speer, Milch, and Koerner, each having equal authority, although, as it developed, Speer and Milch dominated the proceedings. The function of the Central Planning Board in the main was the distribution and allocation of raw materials necessary for the entire conduct of the German war economy, the planning of intended construction or enlargement, and the systematization of transportation industry independent of the shortage of raw materials. During the war this Board had 60 meetings and much time was given to consideration of the manpower problem confronting the various departments in the huge German war workshop. Sauckel often appeared before the Central Planning Board to report on the foreign labor situation. Various other officials came before the Board to express their needs in connection with foreign workers. Milch often presided at these meetings. He was absent on several occasions but all quotations from the minutes of the Central Planning Board meetings, cited in this opinion, are from meetings where he was present, and he is therefore chargeable with knowledge of their contents.

Wehrmacht representatives were often in attendance at the Central Planning Board meetings, and on 25 July 1944, Field Marshal von Kluge, Commander in Chief West, issued an order on labor recruitment—

“As the only limitation, the Fuehrer has ordered that no
forcible means shall be employed against the population in the
actual combat area as long as it shows itself prepared to assist
the German Armed Forces. However, recruiting of volunteers from
among refugees from the combat zone is to be carried out
vigorously. Moreover, every means is justified to seize as much
labor as possible, apart from the powers granted to the armed
forces.” (_T-271._)

It will be noted that the Fuehrer orders that forcible means shall not be used if the population assists. This is comparable to saying that the armed robber is thoroughly peaceful in his intentions because he will not shoot if the victim surrenders his valuables voluntarily.

The proof in this case that foreign workers were brought into Germany against their will generally does not come from them, but almost exclusively from their abductors. At one of the meetings of the Central Planning Board, Mr. Timm, representing the Plenipotentiary General for Labor, reports that they are encountering resistance to recruitment—

“In all countries we have to change over more or less to
registering the men by age groups and to conscripting them in
age groups. They do appear for registering as such, but as soon
as transport is available, they do not come back so that the
dispatch of the men has become more or less a question for the
police. Especially in Poland the situation at the moment is
extraordinarily serious. It is well known that vehement battles
occurred just because of these actions.” (_T-197-198._)

The word “recruitment” will be used in this opinion not in its literal sense of voluntary enlistment, but in the broad sense of both voluntary and involuntary gathering up of workers.

It is the contention of the defense that Milch had nothing to do with the actual recruitment. It is, of course, true that he did not go into France, Italy, Hungary, Russia, and other countries, to physically rope the workers and drag them into Germany, but is the guilt any less if one sits back in his office and signs the order which casts the uncoiling rope for the far-reaching lasso?

Goering, in an interrogation conducted 6 September 1946, stated that after the death of Udet it was Milch, as Chief of Supply for the air forces, who put forward the needs of the Luftwaffe for workers. The requests were forwarded to Speer, and Speer would ask Sauckel for the workers for the entire armament branch. Sauckel, on 24 September 1946, made a very important declaration in an affidavit on the part Milch played in the matter of obtaining workers—

“Milch produced the figures for aviation. The same was done by
Speer in his sphere of activity. Speer and Milch, however, also
exerted influence on the allocation of workers. How far this
came within their capacity as members of the Central Planning
Board I cannot say; in any case they did this in their
ministerial capacity.” (_T-281._)

Thus, if Milch knew how workers were actually being recruited, how they were being transported, and to what they were being transported, he cannot claim exoneration in the assertion that he did not take them in hand personally. And, if this knowledge is established, then he, when he asked for workers, was, in effect, consigning foreign workers to the suffering and torture of which he had cognizance. Behind each requisition for foreign labor there shone the inevitable backdrop of the lurid scenes of labor camps with their “special treatment,” disease, vermin, starvation, whipping, illness, and death.

On 8 April 1943, Milch wrote Sauckel and Goering, announcing that in certain sections he had proclaimed an 84-hour week in the air force industry. (_T-196._) The defendant has explained that this applied only to those engaged in guard work. Witness Krysiak testified that he worked 84 hours a week.

At the 1 March 1944 meeting of the Central Planning Board, Sauckel particularly addressed himself to Milch who was presiding, and said—

“Thereupon I even proceeded to employ and train a whole batch of
French male and female agents who for good pay, just as was done
in olden times for ‘shanghaiing’, went hunting men and made them
drunk by using liquor as well as words, in order to dispatch
them to Germany.” (_T-228._)

As evidence that he was encountering difficulty in obtaining foreign workers, Sauckel pointed out that several dozen of his very able labor executive officers were shot. (_T-228._) In France he wrung from Laval the concession “that the death penalty be threatened for officials who tried to sabotage the labor supply.” And then he adds that “if the Frenchmen despite all their promises do not act, then we Germans must make an example of one case, and by reason of this law, if necessary put Prefect or Burgomaster against the wall.” (_T-232._)

It is a long speech which Sauckel makes, and then Milch replies, analyzing in his turn the foreign labor question. He complains bitterly that more men have not been called up from France—

“Four whole age groups have grown up in France; men between 18
and 23 years of age, who are therefore at that age when young
people moved by patriotism or seduced by other people are ready
to do anything which satisfies their personal hatred against
us—and of course they hate us. These men ought to have been
called up in age groups and dispatched to Germany; for they
present the greatest danger which threatens us in case of
invasion.” (_T-236._)

“If one had shown the mailed fist and a clear executive
intention, a churchyard peace would reign in the rear of the
front at the moment the uproar starts. This I have emphasized so
frequently, but still nothing is happening, I am afraid.”
(_T-237._)

When Sauckel complains about the trouble he is having in getting workers from Italy, Milch recommends—

“We could take under German administration the entire food
supply for the Italians and tell them, only he gets any food who
either works in a protected factory or goes to Germany.”
(_T-240-241._)

When on another occasion one Kehrl declared that it would be difficult to control the food situation in France because food was delivered by parcel post, Milch made the extraordinary pronouncement, “I personally as military commander would confiscate all goods sent by parcel post.” (_T-295._)

The Tribunal has not been shown any statement wherein the defendant advocated that foreign workers be induced to come to Germany by offering them good wages, good working conditions, pensions, security, and the usual attractions held out to prospective employees. When he speaks on the importation of foreign workers it is invariably in an aggressive and domineering manner. At the 54th meeting of the Central Planning Board, held on 1 March 1944, he explained that force had to be exercised because there was nothing to attract the workers to Germany since they believed that Germany would soon be defeated, and furthermore they were attached to their families and their own countries. A very cogent observation indeed.

Speaking on the French situation, he said—

“Even if Bichelonne and Laval have the best intentions there
will be resistance from the mayors, the gendarmes, and the
prefects, just because these people are afraid that firstly,
they will be called to account afterwards for this affair, and
secondly, because of their national point of view, which makes
them say, ‘We must not work for the enemy of our country.’
Therefore I would like to have an authority in our
administration which would force these people to do it, because
then the French could say, ‘If you force us, we will do it, but
voluntarily we will not do it.’ The same applies to Italy.”
(_T-292-293._)

Once the transportation of workers got under way it was not always certain that they would all arrive. Aside from the unsanitary conditions under which they travelled, frequently without food and in the wintertime without heat, many in desperation escaped. To offset these defections en route, Milch recommended—

“If a transport has left a town and has not arrived, 500 to 600
persons from this place must be arrested and sent to Germany as
prisoners of war.” (_T-294._)

The defense has asserted many times that the foreign workers were not all treated as badly as the prosecution’s evidence might indicate. It is unquestionably true that not all foreign workers were starved and tortured, because if this were so they could not have worked at all, and the German war machine would have ground to a stop long before the spring of 1945. Thus, there is no reason to disbelieve the statement made at one of the Central Planning Board meetings—

“The performance of the Soviet Russians so employed is to be
raised by a premium system. For this purpose, the ban on pay
restrictions is to be lifted and the manager be allowed to
distribute among the workmen, according to his duty and
discretion, RM 1 per head per day as premium for particular
services rendered. Furthermore, care will be taken, that workmen
can exchange these premiums, which will be paid out in camp
money for goods. It is intended to put at their disposal various
provisions—beer, tobacco, cigarettes and cigars, small items
for daily use, etc.” (_T-219._)

If the defendant has much to explain in this case it is principally because of declarations made by himself. On 16 February 1944 at a meeting of the Central Planning Board, he announced that the armament industry employed foreign workmen to the extent of 40 percent, and that in maximum production the foreign workers prevailed to the extent of 95 percent and higher. He said further that the Germans’ best new engine was made 88 percent by Russian prisoners of war and the other 12 percent by German men and women. “Only 6 to 8 German men are working on this machine. The rest are Ukrainian women who have beaten all the records of trained workers.” And yet, despite this apparently creditable performance on the part of foreign workers, he complains bitterly—

“The list of the shirkers should be entrusted to Himmler’s
trustworthy hands who will make them work all right. This is
very important for educating people and has also a deterrent
effect on such others who would likewise feel inclined to
shirk.” (_T-223._)

When Milch recommends entrusting anyone to Himmler’s “trustworthy hands”, the world well knows how bloody and homicidal those hands were.

The charges of maltreatment of foreign workers leveled against Milch could be taken almost literally from his own words—

“It is, therefore, not possible to exploit fully all the
foreigners unless we compel them by piece work or we have the
possibility of taking measures against foreigners who are not
doing their bit. But, if the foreman lays hands on a prisoner of
war or smacks him there is at once a terrible row, the man is
put into prison, etc. There are sufficient officials in Germany
who think it their most important duty to stand up for human
rights instead of war production. I am also for human rights.
But if a Frenchman says, ‘You fellows will all be hanged and the
chief of the factory will be beheaded first,’ and if then the
chief says, ‘I am going to hit him’, then he is in a mess. He is
not protected. I have told my engineers, ‘I am going to punish
you if you don’t hit such a man; the more you do in this respect
the more I shall praise you. I shall see to it that nothing
happens to you.’ This is not yet sufficiently known. I cannot
talk to all factory leaders. I should like to see the man who
stays my arm because I can settle accounts with everybody who
stays my arm. If the little factory leader does that he is put
into a concentration camp and runs the risk of losing the
prisoners of war. In one case two Russian officers took off with
an airplane but crashed. I ordered that these two men be hanged
at once. They were hanged or shot yesterday. I left that to the
SS. I expressed the wish to leave them hanged in the factory for
the others to see.” (_T-223-224._)

On the stand Milch denied that he had anything to do with the fate of the two Russian prisoners of war mentioned above. He further claimed that his reference to this episode was made at another meeting (a GL meeting), and that possibly the two stenographers got their notes confused. The defense also introduced affidavits to the effect that Milch was in no way implicated in this happening and that if the two Russians were executed, the execution was performed by shooting and not by hanging. It is probably true that Milch did not order the hanging of these men, but did author the remarks attributed to him because they are in keeping with his many other admitted and proved statements.

Did Milch know that prisoners of war were being used in violation of international convention, and the laws and customs of war?

On 6 March 1944, Milch, Speer, General Bodenschatz, and Colonel von Below conferred with Hitler. Hitler was informed of the Reich Marshal’s wishes for the further utilization of the production power of prisoners of war, by giving the direction of the Stalags to the SS. The Fuehrer considered the proposal good, and asked Colonel von Below to arrange matters accordingly. (_R-124, p. 168._)

At the 42d meeting of the Central Planning Board, held on 23 June 1943, the intensive discussion on labor needs seemed to settle on the use of Russian prisoners of war as the solution to the problem. It was recommended that the Fuehrer be advised that 200,000 Russian prisoners of war, fit for the heaviest work, should be made available from the Wehrmacht and Waffen SS through the intermediary of the Chiefs of the Army Groups (_T-218._)

However, Milch’s participation in the illegal use of prisoners of war is not confined to his knowledge that it was being done. At the meeting on 30 October 1942, Sauckel suggested that as soon as the army took prisoners in operational territories they should be immediately turned over to him as Plenipotentiary for Labor. Instead of objecting to this procedure as contrary to international law, Milch added—

“The correct thing to do would be to have all Stalags
transferred to you by order of the Fuehrer. The Wehrmacht takes
prisoners and as soon as it relinquishes them, the first
delivery goes to your organization. Then everything will be in
order.” (_T-176._)

Nothing can be more precise and definitive in international law than that prisoners of war may not be compelled to fight against their own country. But Milch treats this matter rather lightly at one of the meetings of the Central Planning Board—

“We have made a request for an order that a certain percentage
of men in the antiaircraft artillery must be Russians. Fifty
thousand will be taken altogether; 30,000 are already employed
as gunners. This is an amusing thing that Russians must work the
guns.” (_T-192._)

On this statement the defendant has various explanations. One, that the German word which has been translated into “amusing”, should really have been rendered “mad”. Thus, it is a mad thing to make Russian prisoners work guns against their own allies. In support of this interpretation Milch argues that since he needed these prisoners in his armament program, he could not have approved their use as gunners. He then also denies that they were in fact used as gunners, and if they were, he was not responsible for the deed. But other witnesses called by the defense clearly established that the Russian prisoners were stationed at the guns, either for servicing the pieces, hauling ammunition to them, or actually firing them. It is clear that the Russian prisoners were utilized at the guns and that this type of use of prisoners of war represents an extreme violation of the laws and customs of war.

It has been argued by the defense that since Russia had denounced adherence to the Geneva Convention, Germany was not compelled to treat Russian prisoners with the limitations laid down in that convention. German Admiral Canaris on 15 September 1941, in a memorandum of counsel to the German High Command, declared that despite Russia’s attitude on the Geneva Convention her prisoners were yet entitled to immunities guaranteed under the rules and customs of war—

“The Geneva Convention for the treatment of prisoners of war is
not binding in the relationship between Germany and the U.S.S.R.
Therefore, only the principles of general international law on
the treatment of prisoners of war apply. Since the 18th century
these have gradually been established along the lines that war
captivity is neither revenge nor punishment, but solely
protective custody, the only purpose of which is to prevent the
prisoners of war from further participation in the war. This
principle was developed in accordance with the view held by all
armies that it is contrary to military tradition to kill or
injure helpless people * * *. The decrees for the treatment of
Soviet prisoners of war enclosed are based on a fundamentally
different viewpoint.” (_IMT 222._)

Admiral Canaris’ position was entirely correct and in accordance with accepted international law. In the episode of the Russian gunners adverted to by Milch, he could not help but know the physical facts and could not escape being aware that such use of prisoners of war violated international law. His responsibility here is unequivocal.

On 25 March 1944, the defendant complained that prisoners of war were not being treated with sufficient severity—

“If a decent foreman would sock one of those unruly guys because
the fellow won’t work, then the situation would soon change.
_International law cannot be observed here._ I have asserted
myself very strongly, and with the help of Saur I have
represented the point of view very strongly that the prisoners,
with the exception of the English and the Americans, should be
taken away from the military authorities. The soldiers are not
in a position, as experience has shown, to cope with these
fellows who know all the answers. I shall take very strict
measures here and shall put such a prisoner of war before my
court martial. If he has committed sabotage or refused to work,
I will have him hanged, right in his own factory. I am convinced
that that will not be without effect.” (_T-249._)

When a German field marshal, speaking to men subordinate in rank, declares that “international law cannot be observed here”, it can only mean to those under his command that in the execution of their duties, international law should go overboard and, thus being unlimited in their treatment of prisoners of war, the rights of the prisoners of war must sink also.

Defense counsel insists that Milch had, as a matter of fact, a mild and lenient disposition. Testimony was introduced to show that on several occasions when he sat on courts martial, his judgments were tempered with mercy. Note will be taken of this occasional yielding of an apparently implacable and unyielding spirit, but one must also remark the incongruity that one who, in his references to foreign workers and prisoners of war, had constant harshness on his lips, could have possessed in his make-up no harshness at all. In one of his speeches he complains because the workers collapsed, and that they receive a furlough of three or four days every eight weeks. This he calls “dirty business of the first order, and treason to the country!” (_T-249._)

Then he adds—

“I further ask for support by the Luftwaffe physicians. With all
the rabble that we have among the foreign workers, there is of
course a lot of shirking. At the moment the Russians—that is,
the Russian prisoners of war—are feigning a lot of fatigue and
illness. The incidence of sickness of one and a half to two
percent which we have had up to now has at least doubled and in
some factories it has been increased to eight, nine, and ten
percent. That is, of course, done by previous agreement. There
the official physicians, who have to be very strict, find out
that it is not true, and then we return the fellows to work by
means of the whip. Then the whip serves as a cure.” (_T-250._)

Recommending the employment of so merciless an instrument as a whip can hardly be regarded as evidence of a mild disposition. Then he says—

“Let everyone consider that if he does not do his duty, we do
not ask whether there is a law; we ask only whether he is the
responsible one and then we will seize him no matter who he is *
* *. Please go wherever you are going and knock everybody down
who blocks your way! We cover up everything here. We do not ask
whether he is allowed to or whether he is not allowed to. For
us, there is nothing but this one task. We are fanatics in this
sphere. We do not even consider letting anything at all distract
us from that task. No order exists which could prevent me from
fulfilling this task.” (_T-251._)

Then comes the outburst which is an out and out defiance of all law—

“Gentlemen, I know that not every subordinate can say, ‘For me,
the law no longer exists,’ but he has to have someone who covers
up for him, not out of cowardice. But if you act according to
the spirit of the old field service regulation, ‘Abstaining from
doing something hurts us more than erring in the choice of the
means,’ and if, moreover, you keep in touch and immediately
clarify difficult points, so that something can be done, then we
are willing to accept the responsibility, whether this is the
law or not. I see only two possibilities for me and for Germany.
Either we succeed and thereby save Germany, or we continue these
slipshod methods and then get the fate that we deserve. I prefer
to fall while I am doing something that is against the rules but
that is right and sensible, and be called to account for it, and
if you like, hanged, rather than be hanged because Papa Stalin
is here in Berlin, or the Englishmen. I have no desire for that.
I would rather die in a different way. But I think we can
accomplish this task, too. We are in the fifth year of war. I
repeat, the decision will come during the next six weeks!”
(_T-251-252._)

(b) Jaegerstab

We now come to a consideration of the Jaegerstab, formed on 1 March 1944, for the purpose of increasing production of fighter aircraft to meet the incessant and ever increasingly effective bomber attacks of the Americans and British which had seriously damaged the entire airplane industry in Germany. Every airplane factory with the accessory workshops had been hit at least three times. The Jaegerstab became essentially a concentration of experts drawn from various ministries. Its programs envisaged a decentralization of plane factories by transferring them in part to above-surface localities and in part to subterranean localities. Milch and Speer were joint chiefs of the Jaegerstab, and Karl Adolph [Otto] Saur functioned as Chief of Staff. SS Obergruppenfuehrer Kammler had supervision of the construction program. So far as this trial is concerned, we are interested in the work of the Jaegerstab only to the extent that it involves employment of foreign labor and prisoners of war. Did the Jaegerstab employ labor prohibited under international law, and if so, can Milch be held responsible for such illegal use?

In order to resolve this question we must review the documents submitted in evidence.

On 6-7 April 1944, Milch and Saur reported to Hitler on the achievements, up to that time, of the Jaegerstab and discussed with him the plans for further construction on a second work project. Hitler declared that he desired this project be set up in the Protectorate and, at this point, the minutes read, “If it should prove impossible there too to get hold of the necessary workers, the Fuehrer, himself, will contact the Reichsfuehrer SS and will give an order that the required 100,000 men are to be made available by bringing in Jews from Hungary.” (_T-318._) Here Milch is put directly on notice that forced labor is being contemplated.

Fritz Schmelter, director of the Central Department for Employment and Distribution of Labor, and because of that a member of the Jaegerstab, declared in an affidavit on 9 December 1946, that Kammler utilized concentration camp prisoners placed at his disposal by the SS in order to carry out his share of the Jaegerstab construction program. Also, that Xaver Dorsch of the Todt Organization used foreign workers, part of whom were Hungarian Jews, to accomplish his part of the Jaegerstab construction program. Then Schmelter states, “Milch, as one of the two responsible chiefs of the Jaegerstab, personally directed, ordered or approved decisions made in the interests of Jaegerstab undertakings.” (_T-322._)

On 13 November 1946, Saur, Chief of Staff of the Jaegerstab, declared in an interrogation that in the decentralization program Kammler divided 30 factories into 700 individual workshops, and that the workers used in the project were concentration camp prisoners. (_T-323._)

Speer, in an interrogation made shortly after his capture, declared that Hungarian Jews were used in the building program. (_T-325._)

At one of the Jaegerstab meetings, presided over by Milch, Stobbe-Dethleffsen, in discussing the matter of labor needed for the Jaegerstab program, requests a few German key personnel to supervise the concentration camp inmates “with the other _subjugated people_.” (_T-328._)

At a Jaegerstab meeting on 6 March 1944, a Sturmbannfuehrer of the SS declared he had 5,000 prisoners in readiness for work, but needed 750 guard personnel. To this statement Milch commented, “We must distribute our German people as key personnel. That is, out of three construction companies we can probably make ten complete ones by introducing 70 percent foreigners.” (_T-331._)

At a meeting on 2 May 1944, Kammler, in Milch’s presence declares he had 30 men hanged—

“As usual it is because the people have noticed that they are no
longer treated severely enough. I had 30 people hanged as a
special measure. Since they were hanged, everything has been to
some extent in order again. It is the same old story, whenever
people notice that they are not being treated so severely as
before, they take all sorts of liberties. It is not surprising
that a normal soldier, standing guard on people who were
previously always harmless, does not suspect anything of the
kind. They are not, however, harmless people.” (_T-333-34._)

The minutes of the meeting do not indicate that Milch in any way protested Kammler’s deeds and utterance, although at the trial he doubted that Kammler had actually hanged 30 people as he had stated.

Although Milch was not present at the meeting on 25 May 1944 of the Jaegerstab, he approved the minutes of that meeting which revealed a discussion among Schmelter (labor expert for Jaegerstab), Schlempp (deputy of Jaegerstab) and Lange, in charge of machinery for Jaegerstab.

Schmelter said—

“The Hungarian Jews are expected now, and they will require some
kind of key personnel. Altogether I need about 250,000
construction workers for the large bunkers and for Schlett’s
installations.” (_T-334._)

To this Lange remarked—

“You can get them all in Hungary. There are still Jews running
about Budapest.” (_T-334._)

It is to be noted that Lange uses phraseology that one would employ in speaking of dogs or other animals. There are still dogs running around Budapest. There are still Jews running about Budapest.

At the meeting on 26 May 1944, Schmelter reported that two transports of Hungarian Jews had arrived at the SS in Auschwitz, but that they consisted primarily of children, women, and old men. Kammler then declared that he had conscripted his own men by taking 50,000 people into protective custody.

Schlempp, in outlining Dorsch’s needs for labor, states—

“Dorsch said yesterday that he wanted to bring 100,000 Jews from
Hungary, 500,000 Italians,[162] 10,000 men from bomb damage
repair, also 1,000 from Waldbrohl; then he wanted to get
something from Greiser’s zone by negotiation, then 4,000 Italian
officers, 10,000 men from south Russia, and 20,000 from north
Russia. That would be 220,000 altogether.” (_T-335-36._)

As early as 20 March 1944, we find Chief of Staff Saur asking Milch to inform Sauckel that the group mobilization in Hungary must be placed primarily at the disposal of the Jaegerstab. “Large, heavy labor companies must be formed. The people have to be treated like the prisoners. Otherwise it won’t work.” (_T-342._)