As far as Poland is concerned, that country, on the basis of the partitioning agreement between Russia and Germany, had lost its sovereignty. That such partitioning agreements can abrogate the existence of a state has already been historically proved by the former partitioning agreements of the bordering countries in regard to the Polish state. Moreover, the agreements concluded between the victorious nations after this war have abrogated the sovereignty of the German state over very large areas in the East and thus have created new sovereignty for the population of these territories. Germany released the Polish prisoners of war and could at any time issue legal labor directives as regards the Polish civilian population since the latter were under German sovereignty.
So far as the Italian prisoners of war are concerned, the evidence has shown that the Mussolini Government, which at the time was the covenant government in that part of Italy not occupied by the allied forces, made them available for work in the armament industry, especially after Germany had to manufacture armaments for Mussolini’s Italy. Here it should also be mentioned that Milch’s opinion that Italian prisoners of war who fled from a transport should be shot does not mean a cruelty. All countries of the world have prisoners shot who attempt to escape as proved by me in Defense Exhibit 26. So far as the civilian population of other southeastern states are concerned, they were only recruited and employed as free workers based on approval by the legally existing governments of these countries.
In addition, it is interesting to point out that the agreement between France and Germany, according to which France was supposed to allocate French civilians for the labor commitment in exchange for the release of prisoners of war, had a parallel in the discussion of the question regarding the fate of German prisoners of war still in allied countries. In France, in particular, the request has been made to make possible the release of German prisoners of war by making available German civilians as workers in place of the prisoners of war. This, too, is evidence to the effect that such an agreement is not contrary to international law.
That, your Honors, is the legal position as I must present it.
In regard to the question of guilt, a special point has still to be considered. All legal theories consider that the defendant is not liable for punishment if after careful consideration and careful inquiries he has gained the conviction that his action was permissible. It has been shown that in Germany prisoners of war and foreign civilians were being employed within the war production even at the time when Milch had not yet taken over the office of the GL (Generalluftzeugmeister—Air Ordnance Master General). In other words, he was already confronted with the situation, the exploitation of which he is being reproached for today.
The testimony of the witness Vorwald and that of the defendant himself showed that Milch made inquiries from the competent authority as to whether the employment of prisoners of war and foreign civilians which he planned to use was admissible under the existing regulations. He has testified here that he received an affirmative answer. Furthermore, he testified that the admissibility of the utilization of foreign civilian workers was discussed soon after the First World War in a large staff committee of the German Reichstag. The chairman of that staff committee was Prof. Dr. Schuecking, a legal authority of repute, who had become known throughout the world as a passionate champion of pacifism and democracy. This committee, as the defendant gathered from the discussions held at the time, could not and did not find that employment of foreign civilian workers in armament industry was inadmissible.
Impressed by his earlier experience, the defendant had the right to believe the information given to him by his superior office that employment of foreign manpower and of prisoners of war was admissible. Moreover, this information was not issued without reason. The reasons given for it were rather in accordance with the reasons which I have described in detail above. How should Milch, who is not a legal expert, who as a layman did not understand anything about applicable international law, how could he form a different opinion? It is the right of every citizen to believe the legal information supplied by his superior and the concomitant authorities, for no one can impose upon a citizen the duty to undertake on his own independently an examination of the legal questions involved. In a modern state this would result in an untenable situation whereby every one of the citizens would acquire his own conception of law. Differing opinions abroad Milch was not in a position to hear since he was not allowed to read foreign newspapers nor listen to foreign broadcasts, nor did he do so.
He acted in good faith, and that has to be considered in his favor today, the more since he knew and may well have assumed that these measures were only temporary and were forced by the necessities of war.
[At this point the following discussion took place:]
Presiding Judge Toms: Is it a principle of the German law that ignorance of the law is an excuse for violating it?