Milch Casefertig.Rtf
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
TRIALS OF WAR CRIMINALS BEFORE THE NUERNBERG MILITARY TRIBUNALS UNDER CONTROL COUNCIL LAW No. 10 VOLUME II NUERNBERG OCTOBER 1946-APRIL 1949 ________ For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office Washington 25, D. C. - Price $2.75 (Buckram "The Milch Case " CASE NO. 2 MILITARY TRIBUNAL NO. II THE UNITED STATES OP AMERICA —against — ERHARD MILCH VII.JUDGMENT........................................................................................................................ 5 A. Opinion and Judgment of the United States Military Tribunal II* ................................... 5 COUNT TWO.................................................................................................................... 5 COUNT ONE..................................................................................................................... 9 COUNT THREE .............................................................................................................. 18 SENTENCE ............................................................................................................................. 22 B. Concurring Opinion by Judge Michael A. Musmanno.................................................... 23 COUNT ONE................................................................................................................... 23 COUNT TWO.................................................................................................................. 23 COUNT THREE .............................................................................................................. 23 I. SLAVE LABOR ............................................................................................................... 24 (a) Methods of Recruitment ............................................................................................. 24 (b) Treatment of Workers................................................................................................. 29 II. PRISONERS OF WAR ................................................................................................... 34 III. PARTICIPATION OF MILCH IN THE SLAVE LABOR PROGRAM ...................... 35 (a) Central Planning Board............................................................................................... 36 (b) Jaegerstab.................................................................................................................... 43 (c) Generalluftzeugmeister............................................................................................... 46 IV. MEDICAL EXPERIMENTS......................................................................................... 52 (a) High-Altitude Tests..................................................................................................... 52 (b) Were the Experiments Painful to the Subjects ........................................................... 55 (c) Results Achieved ........................................................................................................ 56 (d) Freezing Experiments................................................................................................. 57 V. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS........................................................................... 61 (a) Responsibility of Milch as to Count One of Indictment............................................. 61 (b) Count Two .................................................................................................................. 66 (c) Count Three ................................................................................................................ 68 C. Concurring Opinion by Judge Fitzroy D. Phillips........................................................... 70 "ARTICLE II.................................................................................................................... 72 COUNT NO. I.................................................................................................................. 77 SLAVE LABOR .......................................................................................................... 77 JAEGERSTAB............................................................................................................. 79 GENERALLUFTZEUGMEISTER ............................................................................. 80 COUNT NO. 2 ................................................................................................................. 81 MEDICAL EXPERIMENTS ....................................................................................... 81 CONCLUSIONS.............................................................................................................. 83 VIII. PETITIONS..................................................................................................................... 85 A. Extract from Petition for Clemency to Military Governor of United States Zone of Occupation ........................................................................................................................... 85 B. Petition to the Supreme Court of the United States for Writ of Habeas Corpus ............. 88 Substantiation................................................................................................................... 89 IX. AFFIRMATION OF SENTENCE BY THE MILITARY GOVERNOR OF THE UNITED STATES ZONE OF OCCUPATION......................................................................................... 92 Order with Respect to Sentence ....................................................................................... 92 X. ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, 20 OCTOBER 1947, DENYING WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS............................................................................. 93 APPENDIX ...................................................................................................................... 94 List of Witnesses in Case 2 .................................................................................................. 94 List of Witnesses Cont'd....................................................................................................... 95 INDEX OF DOCUMENTS AND TESTIMONY................................................................ 95 TESTIMONIES.......................................................................................................... 102 VII.JUDGMENT A. Opinion and Judgment of the United States Military Tribunal II* The indictment in this case contains three counts, which may be summarized as follows: Count One : War crimes, involving murder, slave labor, deportation of civilian population 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. For reasons of its own, the Tribunal will first consider counts two and one, in that order, followed by consideration of count three. COUNT TWO More in detail, this count alleges that the defendant was a principal in, accessory to, ordered, abetted, took a consenting part in and was connected with, plans and enterprises involving medical experiments without the subjects' consent, in the course of which experiments, the defendant, with others, perpetrated murders, brutalities, cruelties, tortures, and other inhuman acts. The so-called medical experiments consisted of placing the subject in an airtight chamber in which the air pressure is mechanically reduced so that it is comparable with the pressure to which an aviator is subjected at high altitudes, and in experimenting upon the effect of extreme dry and wet cold upon the human body. For these experiments inmates of the concentration camp at Dachau were selected. These inmates presented a motley group of prisoners of war, dissenters from the philosophy of the National Socialist Party, Jews, both from Germany and the eastern countries, rebellious or indifferent factory workers, displaced civilians from eastern occupied countries, and an undefined group known as "asocial or undesirable persons." __________ * Concurring opinions were filed by Judge Muamanno, see pp. 797-859, and by Judge Phillips, see pp. 860-878. {773} In approaching a judicial solution of the questions involved in this phase of the case, it may be well to set down seriatim the controlling legal questions to be answered by an analysis of the proof. (1) Were low-pressure and freezing experiments carried on at Dachau? (2) Were they of a character to inflict torture and death on the subjects? (The answer to these two questions may be said to involve the establishment of the corpus delicti .) (3) Did the defendant personally participate in them? (4) Were they conducted under his direction or command? (5) Were they conducted with prior knowledge on his part that they might be excessive or inhuman? (6) Did he have the power of opportunity to prevent or stop them? (7) If so, did he fail to act, thereby becoming particeps criminis and accessory to them? The periods during which these experiments were conducted become extremely significant in determining the responsibility of the defendant. The evidence is uncontradicted that the low-pressure experiments were inaugurated in March 1942,