The Nuremberg Trials (Vol.9). International Military Tribunal

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ style="font-size:15px;">      MR. ROBERTS: Is it one of the qualities of a man of honor that he keeps his word?

      MILCH: Yes.

      MR. ROBERTS: You knew, of course, did you not, that Germany had pledged her word to respect the neutrality of Belgium, of the Netherlands, and Luxembourg?

      MILCH: I suppose so, but I did not know the various agreements.

      MR. ROBERTS: Did you not know that less than a month before that meeting, namely on the 28th of April, Hitler in the Reichstag gave an assurance of his respect for the neutrality of a large number of countries, European countries, including the three I have mentioned? Did you not know that as a matter of history?

      MILCH: I suppose so, yes.

      MR. ROBERTS: We have seen the film, you know, in this Court, of that very occurrence with the Defendant Göring presiding as President of the Reichstag while that assurance was given.

      MILCH: I have not seen the film. I do not know the film.

      MR. ROBERTS: Yes. It is a German newsreel. Do you remember that at that conference Hitler said these words, which are well known to the Tribunal:

      “The Dutch and Belgian air bases must be occupied by the Armed Forces. Declarations of neutrality must be ignored. . . . An effort must be made to deal 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,” СКАЧАТЬ