The Nuremberg Trials (Vol.9). International Military Tribunal. Читать онлайн. Newlib. NEWLIB.NET

Автор: International Military Tribunal
Издательство: Bookwire
Серия:
Жанр произведения: Языкознание
Год издания: 0
isbn: 4064066308506
Скачать книгу
the enemy a heavy or decisive final blow right at the start. Considerations of right or wrong, or treaties, do not enter into the matter.”

      Do you remember those words being said?

      MILCH: I cannot remember exactly what the words were. I know that it was a question of the Polish Corridor and Danzig, that in this connection Hitler explained what complications might follow in the West, and what he intended to do about it; but what he said in detail I can no longer remember.

      MR. ROBERTS: Was any protest made by any of these honorable men at the breach of Germany’s pledged word?

      MILCH: During this meeting it was impossible for anyone present to speak at all. Hitler addressed us from his desk, and after the speech he left the room. A discussion did not take place; he did not allow it.

      MR. ROBERTS: You say it is impossible for an honorable man to protect his honor, Witness?

      MILCH: I cannot remember Hitler’s actual words shown here.

      MR. ROBERTS: Can you give the Tribunal your opinion of it?

      MILCH: At this meeting I did not have the impression that Hitler said anything contrary to the obligations entered into. That I cannot remember.

      MR. ROBERTS: Are you now saying that those minutes are wrong?

      MILCH: No, I cannot say that either. I can only say I have no recollection of the exact words used. Whether the minutes are completely correct I do not know either. As far as I know they were recorded subsequently by one of the adjutants present.

      MR. ROBERTS: Because we know that is exactly what Germany did 12 months after, when she broke her pledged word to Belgium, to the Netherlands, and Luxembourg, and brought misery and death to millions. You know that now, do you not?

      MILCH: That I know, yes; but as soldiers we had nothing to do with the political side. We were not asked about that.

      MR. ROBERTS: Do you call the honoring of . . .

      DR. RUDOLPH DIX (Counsel for the Defendant Schacht): I do not speak now for the Defendant Schacht, but for the entire Defense. I ask the Tribunal that the witness be questioned about facts, and not about his opinion as to moral standards.

      THE PRESIDENT: He is being asked about facts.

      MR. ROBERTS: You have just said that you know now—we know, that 12 months later Germany did violate the neutrality of Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg.

      MILCH: But we do not know what the reasons were for this, and what other obligations these countries might have entered into. It was not a job of the soldiers to judge this.

      MR. ROBERTS: Was it not a job of the soldier to object if he was asked to break his country’s word?

      MILCH: I fully agree with you, if a soldier breaks his word in matters which are his province and where he has a say as a soldier. As regards matters quite outside his province, which he cannot judge and about which he knows nothing, he cannot be made responsible and called to account.

      MR. ROBERTS: You can only speak for your own knowledge. Are you saying that you did not know that your country was pledged to observe the neutrality of these three small countries?

      MILCH: That I have read in the Reichstag speech. But I did not know how the other side had reacted to that promise. It was not known to me, and it could easily be that the other side did not at all want this protection, or this promise, or this guarantee. The soldier could not judge this at all; only the political authorities could know this.

      MR. ROBERTS: Well, we perhaps will have to ask that of the soldiers in the High Command, who are now in the dock, when they get in the witness box. But I put it to you it must have been common knowledge in Germany that Hitler was giving guarantees and assurances to all these smaller countries?

      MILCH: Hitler proposed and offered many things. He offered limitations of armaments for all countries; he offered not to use bombers; but in these cases also his proposals were not accepted. Therefore the political authorities alone could know what they should and could demand from their soldiers. The only duty of a soldier is to obey.

      MR. ROBERTS: Will you please answer my question. That was not an answer at all to my question. We know the facts now, Witness, from the documents, from your own German documents. I want to test your knowledge and your ideas of honor. Did you not think it grossly dishonorable to give a pledge on 28 April, and to make secret resolution to break it on 23 May?

      MILCH: You are right, if the situation had not changed in any way, and that I cannot judge.

      MR. ROBERTS: You must have your own code of honor, even though you are in the service. You know, of course, that the neutrality of Norway was violated?

      MILCH: Yes, according to our knowledge and in our opinion it was violated twice.

      MR. ROBERTS: Do you know that on the 12th and 13th of March 1940 Jodl was putting in his diary, “The Führer is still looking for a pretext” to give out to the world for an invasion of Norway? Do you know that?

      MILCH: I do not know this diary and this entry.

      MR. ROBERTS: You took an active part in the invasion of Norway, did you not?

      MILCH: A few days after the invasion started I was in command of the air force up there for a short time.

      MR. ROBERTS: You had actually a command in Norway?

      MILCH: Yes.

      DR. JAHRREISS: I think it necessary to clear up a point which apparently concerns a misunderstanding by the interpreter. I have just heard that a diary entry by the Defendant Jodl has been wrongly translated back into German. The German text says “nach einer Begründung,” that is “for a justification.” I also believe the word “justification” is in the English translation. It should not have been interpreted as “Ausrede,” that would be “prétexte” in French and that is something quite different.

      MR. ROBERTS: Whatever it reads in the translation, Witness, would you agree that according to the entry in the diary, the Führer was still looking for it, whether it was a reason or an excuse?

      Now I want to ask you only one more question on this side of the case.

      You know that Belgrade was bombed in, I think, April 1941?

      MILCH: I heard about that from the Army report at the time.

      MR. ROBERTS: Without any declaration of war, or any warning to the civilian population at all, you heard that?

      MILCH: That I do not know, no.

      MR. ROBERTS: Did you not discuss it with Göring?

      MILCH: The attack on Belgrade? No; I cannot remember.

      MR. ROBERTS: Did not even he express regret, shall we say, regarding the large-scale bombing of a large capital without even one hour warning to the civilian population?

      MILCH: I do not know. I cannot remember any such conversation.

      MR. ROBERTS: That is murder, is it not?

      [There was no response.]

      MR. ROBERTS: Perhaps you would rather not answer that question?

      MILCH: I cannot answer “yes” or “no,” because I know nothing of the circumstances of the attack. I do not know whether war had been declared; I do not know whether a warning had been given. Neither do I know whether Belgrade was a fortress, nor which targets were attacked in Belgrade. I know of so many bombing attacks about which the same questions could be asked in the same manner.

      MR. ROBERTS: I asked the question, Witness, because we had the use of the document in front of us, and knew that it was Hitler’s order that Belgrade was to be suddenly destroyed by waves of bombers, without any ultimatum, or any diplomatic arguments, or negotiations at all. Would I put that question if I had not known of the document? Let me turn to something else.

      MILCH: May I say I have heard of this document only today because you quoted it.

      MR.