Nuremberg Trial Proceedings Volume 14

Previous Day Volume 14 Menu Next Day
Nuremberg Trials Page

Tuesday, 28 May 1946

Morning Session

MARSHAL: May it please the Tribunal, the report is made that Defendant Goering is absent.

THE PRESIDENT: We were going to deal with Defendant Bormann's documents, were we not?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Your Lordship pleases.

DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, two witnesses only have arrived so far for the Defendant Sauckel. Three essential witnesses are still missing. Perhaps the Court can help to bring these witnesses quickly so that the case will not be delayed. They are the witnesses Stothfang, Dr. Jager, and Hildebrandt. I have repeatedly asked the Prosecution to get them but they are not here yet. I have not yet spoken to the witnesses.

THE PRESIDENT: Have they been located?

DR. SERVATIUS: Yes. One is in a camp in Kassel, which is only a few hours from here, and the other is in Neumunster. That is a little farther, perhaps 6 or 7 hours from here. Dr. Jager is free.

THE PRESIDENT: That is not in accordance with the information which the Tribunal has. The Tribunal has the information that they cannot be found.

DR. SERVATIUS: I received the information that their whereabouts has been ascertained.

THE PRESIDENT: From whom did you receive that information?

DR. SERVATIUS: Officially, from the General Secretary.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, we will make inquiries into it.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, first, with regard to the witnesses applied for for the Defendant Bormann. They are, as I understand it, Fraulein Kruger, to whom we have no objection. The witness Muller is no longer applied for?

DR. BERGOLD: Yes, I have dispensed with that witness.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Then, Klopfer, and lastly, Friedrich. These are with regard to Bormann's law-making activities, and the Prosecution have no objections.


28 May 46

DR. BERGOLD: Your Lordship, in place of the witness Muller, whom I have withdrawn, I have an additional request for the witness Gerta Christian on the same subject for which I had requested the witness Muller.

THE PRESIDENT: The first witness, Miss Kruger, is going to speak to exactly the same facts, is she not, to the death of Bormann?

DR. BERGOLD: Yes, Your Lordship. The circumstances concerning Bormann's death are not very clear. It is very necessary to hear all the available witnesses on this subject because only in this way can one be convinced of the fact, which I am trying to establish that the Defendant Bormann is already dead.

THE PRESIDENT: It does not seem to be a very relevant fact It is very remotely relevant whether he is dead or whether he i' alive. The question is whether he is guilty or innocent.

DR. BERGOLD: Your Lordship, my point of view is that sentence cannot be passed against a dead man. That is not provided for in the Charter. According to the Charter, the Court can only sentence an absent person, but a dead person cannot be included under the term "absent." If the defendant is dead, the Charter does not provide the possibility of continuing proceedings against him.

THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, have you any objection to that other witness?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, My Lord, the Prosecution does not make any objections.


SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, My Lord, with regard to the documents, the first batch of documents is a series of treaties and diplomatic pronouncements and documents to counteract the statement of Sir Hartley Shawcross as to the position of international law before the Charter, the statement that the law of nations had constituted aggressive war an international crime before this Tribunal was established and this Charter became part of the public law of the world. The position of the Prosecution is that evidence on that point is really irrelevant because after all, the Tribunal is covered by the Charter, and it seems unnecessary to translate and publish, by way of document books, all these matters which the learned counsel has set out in his application. That is, shortly, the position of the Prosecution with regard to that first batch of documents. Especially, I do not want to discuss the problem' for the reason that I have given.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. What are the numbers of them?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: They are 1 to 11-no, 7, in the application.


28 May 46

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Are they long documents?

DR. BERGOLD: Your Lordship, I have not seen them yet. I applied for these documents 3 months ago in order to look them over, but unfortunately I have not received them yet and therefore I cannot give the Court any information as to whether they are long or not and what parts of them I will need for my defense.

THE PRESIDENT: Number 2 looks like a long document.


DR. BERGOLD: But I will not use all these documents if I receive them. I shall probably take some of them, Your Lordship; I shall only...

THE PRESIDENT: When you say you applied for them 3 months ago, you do not mean you applied to the Tribunal, do you?

DR. BERGOLD: I applied to the General Secretary, but perhaps it was put aside when Your Lordship decided that my case should be postponed to the end. Perhaps it was forgotten.

THE PRESIDENT: Was there any order on your application?


THE PRESIDENT: You applied, I think, for an adjournment, did you not, in order that the matter might be brought up later?

DR. BERGOLD: Yes, Your Lordship; I am in an especially difficult situation. I have questioned many witnesses and have tried very hard, but I can find nothing exonerating. All the witnesses are filled with great hatred toward the Defendant Bormann, and they want to incriminate him in order to exonerate themselves. That makes my case especially difficult. The man himself is probably dead and can give me no information. Any day now I might get new information. For example, a few days ago one of Bormann's co-workers, a Dr. Von Hummeln, was arrested in Salzburg. I will go to see him and perhaps I shall get fresh information-perhaps none. I must also assume...

THE PRESIDENT: We need not bother about that now. We are only inquiring about your application with reference to the documents.

Sir David, have you anything further you want to say about the documents?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, that is my short point. I do not want to discuss the merits of my points because that is the issue, that I am saying is irrelevant.

THE PRESIDENT: What about Number 11?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am not disposed to object to any of the other documents, My Lord.


28 May 46

THE PRESIDENT: Are there any others besides...

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Number 11-I can see a possible argument on that, My Lord; therefore I am not going to object to it. The other documents we certainly have no objection to; the ordinances of the Fuehrer's Deputy and...

THE PRESIDENT: All under "B"?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes. The Prosecution makes no objection to these.


Now, what do you say to Sir David's objection to these documents, 1 to 7?

DR. BERGOLD: Well, Your Lordship, I have already made my point of view clear in my application. In order to save the time of the Court, I will merely refer to this written application. I will not say any more at the moment on the subject, but if Your Lordship wants me to explain it here now I am ready to do so.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider the matter.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Did Your Lordship wish to deal with the other outstanding applications or would Your Lordship prefer to deal with that later on at the end of the case of Van Schirach?

THE PRESIDENT: I do not think we have the papers here. We were only going to deal with Bormann this morning.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Your Lordship pleases.

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Dodd, we have got a document here, D-880, said to be extracts from testimony of Admiral Raeder, taken at Nuremberg on 10 November 1945 by Major John Monigan. Have you offered that document in evidence or not?

MR. DODD: May I have just a minute to check it? I am not certain.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, we will give you the document.

MR. DODD: I believe not, Mr. President; I do not believe it has been offered in evidence.

THE PRESIDENT: It seems to have been handed up yesterday or the day before.. .

MR. DODD: I think through a mistake.

THE PRESIDENT: . . . or last week. Yes. But you will find out about that and let us know.

MR. DODD: Very well, Sir.


28 May 46

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, you were still examining Gustav Hoepken, were you not?

DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, I shall continue my examination of the witness Hoepken.

[The witness Hoopken resumed the stand.]

DR. SAUTER: Herr Hoopken, we stopped yesterday when discussing the question whether the Defendant Von Schirach during his time in Vienna was opposed to the Church or was tolerant in this connection. The last answer you gave me yesterday referred to the relations of the Defendant Von Schirach to the Viennese Cardinal, Innitzer. Is it correct, Witness, that at the suggestion and with the knowledge of the Defendant Von Schirach during his time in Vienna you periodically had talks with a Catholic priest there, a Dean, Professor Ens, for the purpose of discussing Church questions with him and removing any differences which might arise?

HOEPKEN: Yes, that is true. Professor Ens was not, as you assume, Catholic, but Protestant. He was Dean of the faculty of theology of the University of Vienna. When he visited me he submitted many Church and religious questions to me. I discussed them with him. He then asked me to report on them to Herr Von Schirach so that, if it were in his power, he could make redress. This was done as far as possible.

DR. SAUTER: Do you know, Witness, that the Defendant Von Schirach, for example, ordered that at the Party Christmas celebrations new National Socialist Christmas songs were not to be sung, but the old Christian Christmas hymns?

HOEPKEN: Yes, I know that at the Christmas celebrations of the Party and of the Hitler Youth, and the Christmas celebration for wounded soldiers, the old Christian Christmas carols. such as "Es ist ein Ros' entsprungen," and "Silent Night, Holy Night..."

THE PRESIDENT: This is surely not a matter which is worthy to be given in evidence.

DR. SAUTER: Witness, do you know that the Defendant Von Schirach, in the official magazine of the Hitler Youth, had a special number published which was in favor of humane treatment of the people of the Eastern Territories, and when was that?

HOEPKEN: I know that it was the quarterly number for April to June 1943.

DR. SAUTER: Do you know that in the same official magazine of the Hitler Youth, at the request of the Defendant Bormann, a special anti-Semitic number was to appear, but that Von Schirach refused it?


28 May 46

HOEPKEN: I know that it was requested at that time by the

Propaganda Ministry and also by the Party Chancellery. Von Schirach refused each time.

DR. SAUTER: Witness, do you know that Von Schirach once inspected a concentration camp?

HOEPKEN: Yes, I know that.

DR. SAUTER: Which one?

HOEPKEN: The concentration camp Mauthausen.

DR. SAUTER: In regard to this point, which has already been more or less cleared up by the testimony of other witnesses, I am interested only in one question. When was this visit to Mauthausen?

HOEPKEN: I cannot say exactly. I can say with certainty, however, that it was not after April 1943.

DR. SAUTER: Why can you say that?

HOEPKEN: In April 1943 I was discharged from hospital and began my service in Vienna. From that day on until April 1945 I knew every day where Von Schirach was. Moreover, immediately after my arrival in Vienna in April 1943, when I asked him, as I was rather run-down physically because of my wound and was also a sports teacher, whether I might do some sports between 7 and 8 in the morning...

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, we do not want to know about the witness' health, do we?

DR. SAUTER: Witness, you heard what the President just said. I have already told you I am interested in when this visit to Mauthausen was. You said, if I understood you correctly...

THE PRESIDENT: He said he could not say when it was and it was after April 1943. He said he could not say when it was.

DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, I believe you misunderstood the witness. Witness, please pay attention as to whether this is correct. I understood the witness to say that it was before April 1943. The

visit must have been before April 1943. It could not have been later.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, he also said, according to the conversation I heard and took down, that he could not say when the particular time was.

DR. SAUTER: Yes, but through the testimony of the witness I

should like to settle the fact that it was not later than April 1943.

THE PRESIDENT: He said that already. He said it. He said, "I cannot say when it was, but it was not after April 1943." He said: "In April 1943 I was discharged from the hospital and began my service in Vienna. I knew every day where Schirach was." I have got that all written down.


28 May 46

DR. SAUTER: Very well. Witness, in this conversation about his visit to Mauthausen did the Defendant Von Schirach tell you anything to the effect that on this visit he got to hear of any atrocities, ill-treatment, and such things?

HOEPKEN: No, he said nothing about that.

DR. SAUTER: Witness, I now turn to the question of the deportation of Jews from Vienna. As far as I know you were an earwitness of a conversation between the Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler and the Defendant Sebirach. Will you tell us what was said in this conversation on the question of the deportation of Jews?

HOEPKEN: I believe it was in November 1941; Himmler and Sebirach were motoring through East Prussia from Himmler's quarters to his special train. In the car Himmler asked Von Sebirach: "Tell me, Von Schirach, how many Jews are still in Vienna?" Von Schirach answered, "I cannot say exactly. I estimate 40,000 to 50,000." And Himmler said: "I must evacuate these Jews as quickly as possible from Vienna." And Schirach said: "The Jews do not give me any trouble, especially as they are now wearing the yellow star." Then Himmler said: "The Fuehrer is already angry that Vienna, in this matter as in many others, is made an exception, and I will have to instruct my SS agencies to carry this out as speedily as possible." That is what I remember of this conversation.

DR. SAUTER: Do you know anything about the anti-Semitic speech made by the Defendant Von Schirach in September 1942 at a Congress in Vienna, which the Prosecution submitted to the Court?

HOEPKEN: Yes, the contents of the speech are known to us.

DR. SAUTER: I want to know whether you know anything about it, especially whether Schirach said anything to you about why he made this anti-Semitic speech?

HOEPKEN: I know from the press officer Gunther Kaufmann, who was mentioned yesterday, that directly after this speech Von Schirach instructed Kaulmann that every point in the speech should be telephoned to the DEB (Deutsches Nachrichtenburo) in Berlin, with the remark that he had every reason to make a concession to Bormann on this point.

DR. SAUTER: Why a concession?

HOEPKEN: I assume that Schirach knew that his position in Vienna was precarious, and that he constantly heard, especially from the Party Chancellery, that he must take a stricter course in Vienna.

DR. SAUTER: You were Chief of the Central Bureau with Sebirach in Vienna. In this capacity, did all Schirach's incoming mail go through you?


28 May 46

HOEPKEN: Not all of his malt the great majority of it. Mail stamped "only direct" and "personal" did not go through my hands.

DR. SAUTER: But the other mail?

HOEPKEN: That went through my office.

DR. SAUTER: Witness, we have here a number of documents which have been submitted to the Court. They are the activity and situation reports which the Chief of the Security Police made, I believe, monthly or weekly and which have been submitted to the Court under Number 3943-PS. These reports came from Vienna, and since you know the situation in the Central Bureau in Vienna and are well-informed about its activity, I will now hand you several of these documents. Please look at the documents and then tell us whether from these documents, which are photostat copies, you can determine whether these reports of the SS came to you or to the Defendant Von Schirach, or whether they went to a different office. I call your special attention to the manner in which these documents are annotated. Please note on the individual documents who initialed the document and what was done with the document after that. And then please tell us who these of finials are who figure in the documents as officials of the Reich Defense Commission; for instance, a Dr. Fischer, et cetera.

Those are the documents, Mr. President, about which the Court asked questions the other day,

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I know they are, but I do not know what the question is exactly. It seems to me there are a great number of questions. Well, let us get on, Dr. Sauter. We shall have to consider these documents, you know, and the witness ought to be able to give his answer.

DR. SAUTER: Yes, Mr. President. Of course, the witness has to look at the documents first. He must especially note which officials initialed the documents and what the officials did with them. That is what I must ask the witness, in order to ascertain what the documents . . .

THE PRESIDENT: I should have thought that he had seen these documents before.

DR. SAUTER: No; they were just handed over in cross-examination. I could not discuss them previously with the witness.

THE PRESIDENT: They were certainly handed over before this morning.

DR. SAUTER: Not to the witness-to me, yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, get on, Dr. Sauter, get on.


28 May 46

DR. SAUTER: Witness, what do these documents tell you? Did they come to the knowledge of the Defendant Von Schirach, or how were they dealt with?

HOEPKEN: These documents did not go through the Central Bureau. I see here that they are initialed by a Dr. Felber. I know him. He was the expert assigned to the Regierungsprasident in Vienna for all matters concerning the Reich Defense Commissioner.

From the treatment given these documents, I must assume that the Berlin SD agency sent them directly to the office of the Regierungsprasident, and from there they were entered into the files, as I see here. I do not see Von Schirach's initials here.

DR. SAUTER: The Regierungsprasident was a certain Dellbrugge?

HOEPKEN: Dr. Dellbrugge.

DR. SAUTER: And this Dr. Felber whom you mentioned was an official of the Regierungsprasident?

HOEPKEN: Yes, an official of the Regierungsprasident.

DR. SAUTER: And when such a document as you have there arrived, where did the post office or any other agency deliver it? Was it delivered to you or did the Regierungsprasident have his own office for incoming mail, or how was it?

HOEPKEN: I already said that they must have been sent directly to the office of the Regierungsprasident, who had his own office for incoming mail.

DR. SAUTER: How can you tell that the Defendant Von Schirach had no knowledge of these documents?

HOEPKEN: Because he did not initial these documents. If documents were submitted to him, they were initialed "z.K.g."-noted- "B.v.S.," and that does not appear on these documents.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, I do not think the prosecution suggested that they were initialed by Von Schirach. It was quite clearly brought out in Von Schirach's evidence that he had not initialed them, and that fact was not challenged by Mr. Dodd.

DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, I believe it is a decisive point whether Defendant Von Schirach had any knowledge of these documents.

THE PRESIDENT: Why do you keep asking whether they were initialed by him or not? That fact, as I have pointed out, has already been proved and not challenged.

DR. SAUTER: Witness, I have here an additional collection of documents under Number 3876-PS. They are additional reports from the Chief of the Security Police. There is another address


28 May 46

on these. It says here, among other things: "To the Reich Defense Commissioner for the Defense District XVII"-that was Vienna- "for the attention of Oberregierungsrat Dr. Fischer in Vienna."

I am interested in knowing who Dr. Fischer was. Was he in the Central Bureau, or who was he?

HOEPKEN: I do not know a Dr. Fischer either in the Central Bureau or in the Reichsstatthalterei.

DR. SAUTER: Then how do you explain the fact that in these reports it always says, "To the Reich Defense Commissioner for the Defense District XVII, for the attention of Oberregierungsrat Dr. Fischer?"

HOEPKEN: I assume he was a colleague of Oberregierungsrat Dr. Felber, who specialized in these matters. Also I see they were secret letters, and were therefore addressed to him personally.

DR. SAUTER: As far as you know, did not the Regierungsprasident Dellbrugge report to the Defendant Von Schirach on these reports which reached him, or have one of his officials report about them?

HOEPKEN: The Regierungsprasident reported directly to Herr Von Schirach about matters concerning the Reich Governor and the Reich Defense Commissioner. I was not present at these conversations; consequently I cannot say to what extent he reported to Von Schirach on these matters.

DR. SAUTER: If the Regierungsprasident or one of his officials reported to the Defendant Von Schirach on these reports, would that be shown in the documents?

HOEPKEN: Probably yes. In that case the Regierungsprasident or the officials would have had to write on them "To be filed after being reported to the Reich Governor," or "for further action."

DR. SAUTER: On the documents which I submitted to you there is no such indication?

HOEPKEN: On these documents, no.

DR. SAUTER: And on the documents which I have here, there is no such note either. Do you conclude from this that the Defendant Von Schirach received no report on them?

HOEPKEN: I must conclude that Von Schirach vitas not informed on these matters.

DR. SAUTER: Witness, the Defendant Von Schirach was chief of the state administration in Vienna in his capacity as Reich Governor, as well as chief of the local administration to a certain extent as mayor, and finally chief of the Party as Gauleiter. Now, we hear that in each of these capacities he had a permanent representative.


28 May 46

I should like to know who normally administered the affairs of the Reich Defense Commissioner and the Reich Governor; that is, the affairs of the state administration?

HOEPKEN: I have already said that it was the Regierungsprasident, Dr. Dellbrugge.

DR. SAUTER: And then what did the Defendant Von Schirach do in the field of state administration?

HOEPKEN: He was given regular reports by the Regierungsprasident. Von Schirach then made his decision, and these decisions were then carried out by the officials or departments.

DR. SAUTER: If I understand you correctly, the Defendant Von Schirach concerned himself only with such matters as were reported to him by the Regierungsprasident or which were brought to his special attention in writing; is that true?

HOEPKEN: Yes, that is true.

DR. SAUTER: Witness, were you yourself a member of the SS?

HOEPKEN: No, I was never a member of the SS.

DR. SAUTER: Of the SA?


DR. SAUTER: Do you know that these three permanent representatives, whom the Defendant Von Schirach had in Vienna, namely the Regierungsprasident, the Deputy Gauleiter, and the Mayor, were all three SS Fuehrer?

HOEPKEN: Yes, I know that.

DR. SAUTER: How was that? Did the Defendant Von Schirach select these men himself, or how do you explain the fact that all three of his representatives were SS Fuehrer?

HOEPKEN: The Deputy Gauleiter, Scharizer, was an honorary SS Fuehrer and, as far as I recall, he was Oberbefehlsleiter of the Party. When Von Schirach came to Vienna, Scharizer had already been active for several years in Vienna.

DR. SAUTER: As what?

HOEPKEN: As Deputy Gauleiter. I do not know when the Regierungsprasident, Dr. Dellbrugge, came to Vienna; but I assume either before or at about the same time as Von Schirach. Moreover, the Regierungsprasidenten were appointed by the Ministry of the Interior, so that I think he could hardly have had sufficient influence to refuse or select a particular Regierungsprasident.

As for the mayor, the situation was similar.

DR. SAUTER: He was a certain Blaschke?


28 May 46

HOEPKEN: Yes. He was SS Brigadefuehrer Blaschke, he was also appointed by the Ministry of the Interior as acting mayor.

DR. SAUTER: By the Ministry of the Interior?


DR. SAUTER: When was that?

HOEPKEN: I believe that was in 1944, in January or February of 1944.

DR. SAUTER: Do you know that this SS Brigadefuehrer, or whatever he was, this Blaschke, before the time of the Defendant Von Schirach, was active in Vienna as a town councillor, and I believe also as vice mayor?

HOEPKEN: He was a town councillor before; and I believe he was vice mayor before I came to Vienna.

DR. SAUTER: Do you know that the Defendant Von Schirach for a long time opposed this SS Oberfuehrer or Brigadefuehrer Blaschke being appointed mayor of Vienna?

HOEPKEN: I should say he opposed this for about 6 or 9 months, and I believe later he refused to allow the Minister of the Interior finally to confirm his appointment as mayor.

DR. SAUTER: Witness, what were the relations between the Defendant Von Schirach and the SS and the SS officers? Were they especially friendly and cordial or what were they like?

HOEPKEN: As far as I know, Schirach associated with the SS Fuehrer as far as was officially necessary and no more.

DR. SAUTER: Was he friendly with SS men?

HOEPKEN: No; I do not know. In any case I knew of no such friendship.

DR. SAUTER: Did he not express to you his attitude toward the SS?

HOEPKEN: I have already said that he always had the feeling that he was under a certain supervision from them and for that reason he was rather distrustful.

DR. SAUTER: Distrustful of . ..


DR. SAUTER: Witness, do you know how the Defendant Von Schirach received his information about the foreign press and foreign press reports?

HOEPKEN: He received them from the Reich Propaganda Office in Vienna. They were excerpts which the Propaganda Ministry


28 May 46

issued in collaboration with the Reich Press Chief, Dr. Dietrich. As far, as I know, however, they were selected and screened.

DR. SAUTER: Did you live for a long time with Von Schirach in Vienna?

HOEPKEN: From 1944 on I lived in Schirach's house.

DR. SAUTER: You also took your meals with him?

HOEPKEN: Yes, I also took meals with him.

DR. SAUTER: Did not the Defendant Von Schirach obtain information from the foreign radio?

HOEPKEN: No, I am almost certain he did not, because after every meal he listened to the official German news services with me and a few other co-workers. Besides, if he had done so it would in my opinion have become known very soon for, as I said already, he had the feeling that he was being watched.

TEE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, the witness can only tell us what he knows. How could he know whether Von Schirach ever listened to any foreign news? If he does not know, why do you not take him on to something else?

DR. SAUTER: The witness said, Mr. President, that during the latter part of his time in Vienna, from the spring of 1944 I believe he said, he lived in the house of the Defendant Von Schirach.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I know he said that, and he said that he did not think he heard foreign news. What more can he give? What more evidence can he give on that subject?

DR. SAUTER: I wanted to hear that, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: But he said it already. I have taken it down. Thy do you not go on to something else?

DR. SAUTER: Witness, do you know that in the last weeks of the resistance an order came to Vienna from Berlin according to which all defeatists, whether men or women, were to be hanged? What attitude did Schirach take toward this order?

HOEPKEN: I know that so-called courts martial were to be set up with the purpose of speedily sentencing people who objected to the conduct of the war or who showed themselves to be defeatists. This court martial was set up in Vienna, or rather appointed, but it did not meet once, and thus did not pronounce any sentences.

DR. SAUTER: Did the court-martial of the Defendant Von Schirach carry on any proceedings at all?

HOEPKEN: No, not to my knowledge.

DR. SAUTER: Do you know anything about it?


28 May 46

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, that fact, again, was given in evidence by Von Schirach and was not cross-examined to-that that court martial did not meet.

DR. SAUTER: Witness, do you know anything about the fact that in the last weeks an order came to form franc-tireur units? What was Von Schirach's attitude to that?

HOEPKEN: I do not know that franc-tireur units were to be formed, but I do know that a "Freikorps Hitler" was to be formed. They were to be in civilian clothes. Schirach ordered that no people from the Reichsgau Vienna were to be assigned to this "Freikorps."

DR. SAUTER: Why not?

HOEPKEN: Because at that time he considered resistance senseless. Secondly, because he considered it contrary to international law.

DR. SAUTER: My last question to you, Witness. You were with Schirach to the last, until he left Henna?


DR. SAUTER: Did Schirach give an order to destroy bridges or churches, residential quarters, and so form, in Vienna?

HOEPKEN: No, I do not know of that.

DR. SAUTER: What was the position he took?

HOEPKEN: That orders to blow up bridges or to take any defense measures were given only by the military authorities, as far as I know.

DR. SAUTER: But not by Schirach?


DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, I have no more questions to put to this witness.

THE PRESIDENT: Does any other defendant's counsel want to ask questions? The Prosecution?

MR. DODD: Witness, would you see all of the files that were in Von Schirach's office during the time that you were his adjutant?

HOEPKEN: I have already told you, or I told the defense counsel, that most of the mail went through the Central Bureau.

MR. DODD: I want to show you a document that is in evidence here and ask you if you can tell us whether or not you have seen this before.

[A document was handed to the witness.]

Have you ever seen that document before?


28 May 46

HOEPKEN: I do not know this document officially, as I see it is dated 28 May 1942, at which time I was an officer in the Luftwaffe.

MR. DODD: I see, you did not mean the Tribunal to understand that you were familiar with everything that was in Von Schirach's files, because certainly this document was there during the years that you were his adjutant. You never saw it. It is marked "Central Bureau," and you had charge of these very files, yet you never saw this teletype to Bormann? So you certainly did not know everything that was in his files, did you?

HOEPKEN: I said that the majority of the mail went through my offices but, of course, since I was not in Vienna at this time but only came to Vienna in April 1943, I was not able to look through all the back documents and letters in the files of the Reich Governor. That would have taken years.

MR. DODD: Let me ask you something else. You were there in the last days, I assume, when the city was taken by the Allied Forces, were you not?

HOEPKEN: I was in Vienna until April 1945.

MR. DODD: What was done with Von Schirach's files when the end was very obviously coming? What did you do with all those files over which you had control?

HOEPKEN: I was not in charge of any files. I was chief of the bureau, and I,..

MR. DODD: Well, you know what I mean chief of the bureau or of the office where these files were kept. What I want to know is what did you do with the files?

HOEPKEN: I gave no orders in this connection.

MR. DODD: Do you know what became of the files?

HOEPKEN: No, I do not.

MR. DODD: They were taken out of the of lice sometime before the city was captured; do you not know that?

HOEPKEN: No, I did not know that.

MR. DODD: Were the files there the last day that you were there?

HOEPKEN: Probably, yes.

MR. DODD: I do not want a "probably." I want to know if you know and if you do, to tell us. Were they there or not the last day that you were in the office?

HOEPKEN: I gave no orders to destroy them or to remove them.


28 May 46

MR. DODD: I did not ask you if you gave orders. I asked you if you know what became of them and whether or not they were in the of lice the last day that you were there?

HOEPKEN: I do not know what happened to them. Nor can I say whether they were still there on the last day.

MR. DODD: Do you not know that they were all moved to a salt mine in Austria?

HOEPKEN: No, I do not know that.

MR. DODD: You have never heard that, or that they were taken out of the office and were later found by the Allied Forces in a salt mine?

HOEPKEN: No, I do not know that.

MR. DODD: I do not mean that you heard they were found there, but you certainly knew that they were taken out of the of lice?

HOEPKEN: No, I do not know. I also gave no orders.

MR. DODD: Well, now, let me put this proposition to you, and then perhaps you can give an explanation of it to the Tribunal. This document that I have just shown to you and these reports that you examined for Dr. Sauter were all found in Schirach's files in a salt mine. Would you have any explanation for that?

HOEPKEN: No, I cannot explain that.

MR. DODD: They were found together. Would that mean anything to you, or would you have any explanation for it?

HOEPKEN: No, I have not. I can only explain that by saying that probably the Chief of the Reich Governor's office or one of his officials who was in charge of these things gave the order to that effect, of course without my knowledge and without any order from me.

MR. DODD: Tell the Tribunal exactly what day you closed up your office in Vienna, or the last day that you were in this office.

HOEPKEN: It might have been the 3rd or 4th of April.

MR. DODD: When was the city taken?

HOEPKEN: I read in the newspaper afterwards that the city finally fell into the hands of the Allies on 13 April

MR. DODD: Did you all leave your office on the ad or 4th of April? Did Von Schirach leave as well, and all the clerical staff, et cetera?

HOEPKEN: Schirach and I and his adjutant left the office on this day, or rather, Schirach had previously set up his of lice at his home and was working there.


28 May 46

MR. DODD: Had he taken any files from his of lice to his home?

HOEPKEN: Only what he needed immediately to carry on his business; that is, the matters which were being dealt with at the moment.

MR. DODD: Did you leave someone in charge of the files when you left there, you and Von Schirach- on the ad of April; and if you did, who was it that you left in charge?

HOEPKEN: I did not leave anyone to supervise. The file clerks did that of their own accord.

MR. DODD: I am trying to understand-and I think it would be helpful to the Tribunal-whether or not you just walked out of this of lice and left everything there, or whether just you and Von Schirach left and left other people there, or whether the place was in such chaos that nobody remained. I have not any accurate picture of it, and I think it is of some importance. You ought to be able to tell us. You left there with him. What was the situation on the ad or 4th of April? The city was practically to be taken in another 10 days. It was under siege. There was much confusion. What were you doing about your files and all of your other papers in your office when you walked out of there that day? You certainly just did not walk out and not give some directions.

HOEPKEN: I believe that we are not clear about the character of the Central Bureau. The Central Bureau, of which I was in charge for the last few months, had no powers, no executive powers, but all of these things were done by the competent Reich Governor, that is, the Regierungsprasident, and he probably...

MR. DODD: I do not need any explanation of how your office was set up. I want to know if the papers were left there or not, or if anybody was left with them.

HOEPKEN: The papers, as far as I know, were left there, and the archivists were instructed to take care of them.

MR. DODD: Did you order any papers to be destroyed before you walked out that day, the ad or 4th of April, anything at all?

HOEPKEN: I gave no orders to destroy anything in the Reich Governor's Office; I had no authority to do that.

MR. DODD: Did anybody to your knowledge order anything destroyed, whether you did or not?

HOEPKEN: Whether such an order was given and who gave it, I do not know.

MR. DODD: I have no further questions.

THE PRESIDENT: What is the document you put to him?


28 May 46

MR. DODD: Number USA-865. It is Document 3877-PS, a teletype to Bormann from Von Schirach on 28 May 1942.

THE PRESIDENT: Do you want to re-examine the witness, Dr. Sauter?

DR. SAUTER: Witness, I should like to go back to what the Prosecution just asked you.

The documents of the Reich Governor's office apparently are supposed to have been found in a salt mine. Did you have any supervision over the documents of the Reich Governor's office?

HOEPKEN: No, I had no supervision over these documents. I just explained that. For that reason, I could not give any order to remove them. I know that valuable objects, pictures, and so on, were removed, but much earlier.

DR. SAUTER: And the other employees of the Central Bureau, were they Viennese? Did they stay in the office, or what do you know about that?

HOEPKEN: Most of them were Viennese, of course, and probably remained behind. I shook hands and said goodbye to them, and then we separated. I also asked whether I could do anything for them, and then I left Vienna.

DR. SAUTER: I have no more questions, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: The witness can retire.

Perhaps we had better adjourn now.

[A recess was taken.]

THE PRESIDENT: With reference to the application on behalf of the Defendant Bormann the Tribunal allows witness Number 1, Miss Else Kruger.

The Tribunal allows witnesses Numbers 3 and 4, Dr. Klopfer and Helmuth Friedrich.

The Tribunal also allows the witness whose name I have got inserted instead of Number 2, Christians, I think it was.

With reference to the documents applied for, Numbers 1 to 7, the application is refused. But the Tribunal will consider any application for documents which the defendants' counsel, who may be appointed to argue the general questions of law on behalf of all the defendants, may wish to have translated.

Document Number 11 may be translated.

Counsel for the Defendant Bormann may see the documents which are mentioned under Roman Number III in the application


28 May 46

and counsel for the Defendant Bormann may also use the documents contained under heading "B."

The final decision upon the admissibility of all these documents is, of course, a matter which will be decided at the time the documents are presented.

There is one other thing that I want to announce, and it is in answer to the application of Dr. Servatius on behalf of the Defendant Sauckel.

I am told that the witness Timm is in Nuremberg prison. The witness Biedemann is also in Nuremberg prison. The witness Hildebrandt will probably arrive in Nuremberg today. His whereabouts had been lost and he has only just been rediscovered. The witness Jager is in the British zone, and the British secretary is trying through the military authorities to obtain his attendance. The witness Stothfang has not been located. There appears to be a mistake in the identity of the person who was reported to the General Secretary previously. The witness Mitschke has never been located, although every effort is now being made to locate him.

That is all.

DR. SAUTER: I ask permission to call a further witness, Fritz Wieshofer. I shall examine this witness only very briefly, because most points have already been clarified through the other witnesses.

[The witness Wieshofer took the stand.]

THE PRESIDENT: Will you state your full name?

FRITZ WIESHOFER (Witness): Fritz Wieshofer.

THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath after me: I swear by God-the Almighty and Omniscient-that I will speak the pure truth-and will withhold and add nothing.

[The witness repeated the oath.]

THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down.

DR. SAUTER: Herr Wieshofer, how old are you?

WIESHOFER: 31 years old.

DR. SAUTER: Married?


DR. SAUTER: Children?


DR. SAUTER: Were you a member of the Party?

WIESHOFER: I applied for membership in 1938.

DR. SAUTER: You only applied for membership?



28 May 46

DR. SAUTER: Were you a member of the SS or the SA?

WIESHOFER: I was in the Waffen-SS.

DR. SAUTER: Since when?

WIESHOFER: Since June 1940.

DR. SAUTER: Are you Austrian by birth?

WIESHOFER: I am Austrian.

DR. SAUTER: When did you join the Reich Youth Leader's Of lice?

WIESHOFER: I joined Herr Von Schirach on 3 October 1940.

DR. SAUTER: And what did you do before that?

WIESHOFER: Before that I had a temporary post in the Foreign Of lice.

DR. SAUTER: For how long?

WIESHOFER: Only from May until October 1940.

DR. SAUTER: And before that?

WIESHOFER: Before that I was employed in the Gauleiter's office in Carinthia.

DR. SAUTER: Did you have anything to do with the Hitler Youth? WIESHOFER: No.

DR. SAUTER: In October of 1940, then, you came to Vienna to join Von Schirach?

WIESHOFER: Yes, to Vienna.

DR. SAUTER: In what capacity did you go there?

WIESHOFER: I went there as Von Schirach's adjutant.

DR. SAUTER: And what did your duties mostly consist of?

WIESHOFER: As adjutant I was responsible for the handling of the mail, engagements for conferences, seeing to it that files were presented on time at conferences, travel arrangements, and so on.

DR. SAUTER: Did you only work for Schirach in his capacity as Reich Governor, as Gauleiter, or did you act for him only as mayor?

WIESHOFER: I was adjutant for Herr Von Schirach in all his capacities.

DR. SAUTER: Did you also have access to the secret files?


DR. SAUTER: Witness, I shall only have a very few brief questions to put to you. First of all, I am interested in this: Who was responsible for the forced evacuation of Jews from Vienna?


28 May 46

WIESHOFER: The forced evacuation of Jews from Vienna, as far as I know, was handled by the RSHA. The representative in Vienna was a certain Dr. Brunner, an Obersturmfuehrer in the SS.

DR. SAUTER: Did you often visit Dr. Brunner officially in connection with the forced evacuation of Jews, and for what reason?

WIESHOFER: In some cases, Jews who were affected by this forced evacuation made written applications to Von Schirach to be left out of the transport. In such cases, Von Schirach, through the Chief of his Central Bureau, took the matter up with Dr. Brunner's office and asked that the request of the applicant be granted. I would say that generally this was done by the Chief of the Central Bureau. I remember two cases where I myself received instructions to intervene with Dr. Brunner, not by writing or telephoning, but by going to see him personally.

DR. SAUTER: And what did this SS Sturmfuehrer Dr. Brunner tell you about what was actually going to happen to the Jews when they were taken away from Vienna?

WIESHOFER: Dr. Brunner only told me, on the occasion of one of these interventions, that the action of resettling the Jews would be a resettlement from the district of Vienna into the zone of the former Government General. He also told me in what way this was being carried out. For instance he said that women and small children would travel in second-class carriages; that sufficient rations for the journey and milk for small children would be provided. He also told me that these resettled persons, upon arrival at their destination, insofar as they were capable of working, would immediately be put to work. First of all, they would be put into assembly camps, but that as soon as accommodation was available, they would be given homes, et cetera. He also told me that because of the numerous interventions by Herr Von Schirach his work had been made very difficult.

DR. SAUTER: Did you, or have you-I will put my next question this way: Did you ever see an order in which Gauleiter were forbidden to intervene in any way on behalf of Jews, and did you discuss that order with Von Schirach?

WIESHOFER: I recollect a written order which we received either at the end of 1940 or at the beginning of 1941. It stated that "There are reasons which make it necessary once more to point out," et cetera. It obviously was a repetition of an order which had already been given. The purport of the order was that because of certain reasons, Gauleiter were prohibited from intervening on behalf of Jews in the future.

DR. SAUTER: Did you talk about that with Schirach?


28 May 46

WIESHOFER: I talked to Herr Von Schirach about it.

DR. SAUTER: What did he say?

WIESHOFER: As far as I can recollect, Von Schirach wrote on the order "To be filed." He did not say anything more about it.

DR. SAUTER: I have another question, Witness. The Defendant Von Schirach was once in the concentration camp at Mauthausen. Can you tell us when that was?

WIESHOFER: I cannot tell you that exactly. All I can say on that subject is that when I came back from the front-and this was either in the autumn of 1942 or in June 1943-the adjutant who was on duty at the time told me that he had accompanied Herr Von Schirach to a concentration camp, Mauthausen Camp. Some time afterwards-it must have been when I came back from the front the second time, at the end of 1943-Herr Von Schirach also told me that he had been to Mauthausen. I only recollect that he said that he had heard a symphony concert there.

DR. SAUTER: Well, we are not interested in that; we have heard that. I am only interested in one thing: Did he visit Mauthausen or another concentration camp again later on? Can you give us reliable information on that or not?

WIESHOFER: I can give you reliable information on that. That is quite out of the question, because from November 1943 until the collapse I was continuously on duty and I knew where Von Schirach was, day and night.

DR. SAUTER: Did he go to Mauthausen again in 1944?

WIESHOFER: No, certainly not, that is out of the question.

DR. SAUTER: Witness, you remember that toward the end of the war there were orders coming from some source or other stating that enemy airmen who had been forced to land were no longer to be protected. Do you know of that?


DR. SAUTER: That somewhere such orders were issued?


DR. SAUTER: What was the attitude of Defendant Von Schirach regarding such orders, and how do you know about it?

WIESHOFER: I talked about these orders with Herr Von Schirach. Von Schirach was always against the idea contained in the order, and he always said that these airmen, too, should be treated as prisoners of war. Once he said: "If we do not do that, then there is the danger that our enemies, too, will treat their prisoners, that is Germans, in the same manner."


28 May 46

DR. SAUTER: Do you yourself know of cases where Defendant Von Schirach actuary intervened on behalf of enemy airmen in that way?


DR. SAUTER: Will you please tell us about it?

WIESHOFER: During one of the last air attacks on Vienna, in March 1945, an American plane was shot down and crashed near the headquarters of the Gau command post. That command post was on a wooded hill in Vienna to which part of the population used to go during air attacks. Von Schirach was watching from a 32-meter high iron structure on which he would always stand during air attacks, and he observed that a member of the American crew bailed out of the aircraft. He immediately ordered the commander in charge of this command post to drive to the place of the landing so as to protect the American soldier against the crowd and bring him to safety. The American soldier was brought to the command post and after the air attack he was handed over to the Air Force Command XVII as a prisoner of war.

DR. SAUTER: When did you leave Vienna?

WIESHOFER: I left Vienna with Herr Von Schirach on 13 April 1945.

DR. SAUTER: On 13 April together with the Defendant Von Schirach?

WIESHOFER: Together with Herr Von Schirach.

DR. SAUTER: Now, this is the last question I have to put to you: Witness, have you ever heard from Schirach's lips anything to the effect that Henna was to be held "to the last man" at all costs, or that destruction should be carried out in Vienna?

WIESHOFER: I have never heard him say either the one or the other.

DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, I have no further questions to put this witness.

DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, do you know the Prater in Vienna?

WIESHOFER: Yes, of course, I am Viennese.

DR. SERVATIUS: What sort of an institution is that?

WIESHOFER: The Prater is, or at least was, a pleasure park.

DR. SERVATIUS: Was it closed during the war?

WIESHOFER: The Prater was not closed during the war.

DR. SERVATIUS: What sort of people used to go there?

WIESHOFER: During the war you mean?


28 May 46


WIESHOFER: Workers, employees, civil servants, that is the Viennese, the whole of Vienna.

DR. SERVATIUS: Did you also see foreign workers there?


DR. SERVATIUS: A great many or just a few?

WIESHOFER: The situation in Vienna was such that we used to say that if you wanted to go to the Prater then you would have to be able to speak French and Russian, because with Viennese alone you could not get along. The Prater was overcrowded with foreign workers.

DR. SERVATIUS: How were these foreigners dressed, badly or well?

WIESHOFER: These foreigners were well dressed, so that you could not distinguish them from the population. Only when they talked could you recognize that they were foreigners.

DR. SERVATIUS: How did they look otherwise? As regards food, did they look starved?

WIESHOFER: As far as I myself could see, the workers looked perfectly well fed.

DR. SERVATIUS: Did the people have money?

WIESHOFER: They had lots of money. It was known that the "black market" in Vienna was almost entirely dominated by foreign workers.

DR. SERVATIUS: Could foreigners be seen only in the Prater or were they to be seen everywhere in the town?

WIESHOFER: Not only in the Prater, but also in the rest of the town, in cafes, of which there are so many in Vienna, in restaurants, and in hotels.

DR. SERVATIUS: I have no further questions.

MR. DODD: Whom, besides the Defendant Von Schirach, do you know of these defendants? And by "know" I mean know personally, or have some acquaintanceship with the person, or had something to do with the person?

WIESHOFER: Personally, I only know Herr Funk.

MR. DODD: Do you know Sauckel?


MR. DODD: Wed, who else?

WIESHOFER: I know Herr Seyss-Inquart, but I did not have any personal dealings with him. I was the adjutant of Von Schirach.


28 May 46

MR. DODD: How do you know Funk?

WIESHOFER: I was invited by Herr Funk a few times. Officially, as adjutant of Herr Von Schirach, I had some dealings with hint, and apart from that, he invited me several times privately.

MR. DODD: Were you in the SS at that time, when you were invited by Funk?

WIESHOFER: At that time I was in the Waffen-SS as an officer.

MR. DODD: By the way, when did you first join the SS?

WIESHOFER: I joined the Waffen-SS on 26 June 1940.

MR. DODD: Were you in any other branch of the SS besides the Waffen-SS?

WIESHOFER: I was also in the General SS.

MR. DODD: When did you join the General SS?

WIESHOFER: In June or July 1939.

MR. DODD: So you were actually in the SS from as far back as 1939?

WIESHOFER: In the General SS; yes.

MR. DODD: Now, you also became an SS Obersturmfuehrer at one time, did you not?


MR. DODD: When was that?

WIESHOFER: I became Obersturmfuehrer about 21 June 1944.

MR. DODD: When did you join the SA?

WIESHOFER: I joined the SA on 9 May 1932.

MR. DODD: Did you know the Strasshof Camp, S-t-r-a-s-s-h-o-f?

WIESHOFER: This is the first time I have heard that name.

MR. DODD: Wen, it may have been mispronounced. It was a camp located outside Vienna.

WIESHOFER: I do not know which camp you mean. I understood Strasshof. I do not know of any such camp.

MR. DODD: Yes, something like that. You never heard of that camp?


MR. DODD: And you were in Vienna from what year?-19 . . .?

WIESHOFER: I was born in Vienna.

MR. DODD: Wen, I know you were, but I am talking about your service with the Defendant Schirach. You were there with him for how long?


28 May 46

WIESHOFER: From the beginning of October 1940.

MR. DODD: And you never heard of Strasshof?


MR. DODD: Did you have much to do with the files of this Defendant Von Schirach?


MR. DODD: What would you say you had to do with them? What was your responsibility?

WIESHOFER: I merely had to see to it that files were presented in good time for the conference, and that after they had been used they were returned to the Central Bureau.

MR. DODD: Where would you go to get a file for Von Schirach that had to do with the Reich Defense Commission for that district or that defense district? Where would you go to get a file that had to do with matters concerning the Reich Defense Commission? Now, let us assume a situation-let me make it clear to you. Say that Von Schirach tells you he wants a file about a certain matter that has to do with the Reich Defense Commission. You had to have it on his desk by a certain hour and see that it was there, as you say. Tell the Tribunal just what you would do, where you would go, who you would talk to, and how you would get that for him.

WIESHOFER: That would be simple for me. I would apply to the Chief of the Central Bureau, knowing that he would probably have to go to the Regierungsprasident to obtain that file. That is what I assume. I myself would only have gone to the Central Bureau.

MR. DODD: You had a central filing place, did you not, for all of your files, whether they were under the Reich Defense Commission or the Gauleiter or the civil government of Vienna; is that not so? They were all kept in one place?

WIESHOFER: They were not all together in one place; only a part of the files were in the Central Bureau. I cannot tell you which part because I have never had anything to do with that.

MR. DODD: You left Vienna on 13 April, you say, with Von Schirach?


MR. DODD: I suppose, as his adjutant, you had to make considerable preparations for leaving for some days previously, did you not?


MR. DODD: What did you pack up? What did you take with you?


WIESHOFER: We did not take anything with us from Vienna. Von Schirach went by car, and the gentlemen on his staff went in two or three other cars. Nothing else was taken along from Vienna.

MR. DODD: Well, what did you do in the of lice; how did you leave it?

WIESHOFER: We had not used the office since, I think, the spring or early summer of 1944, because the "Ballhausplatz," that is, the of lice of the Reich Governor, had a direct hit and Von Schirach could no longer work there. He was working in his apartment.

MR. DODD: In his apartment? And did he have an his files in his apartment or somewhere near at hand?

WIESHOFER: He had no files whatever in his apartment. They remained in the office, in that part of the Reich Governor's building which was still being used and in which one could still work.

MR. DODD: Were any files taken out of the filing department of the Reich Governor's Office when you left Vienna, or before you left Vienna?

WIESHOFER: I do not know anything about that. I know that an order existed, both for the State Administration as well as for the Party, that files must be destroyed when the enemy approached. Whether that was done or what actually happened to the files, I do not know.

MR. DODD: Who got that order?

WIESHOFER: The order, as far as the Party channels were concerned, went to the deputy Gauleiter, and as far as the State Administration was concerned, to the Regierungsprasident.

MR. DODD: Did you also receive an order to start moving your files to places of safety some time in the spring of 1945 or even the late winter of 1944?

WIESHOFER: I have no recollection of such an order.

MR. DODD: Do you know that some 250 folders of your files were moved to a salt mine outside Henna? Do you know anything about that?

WIESHOFER: No, I hear that for the first time.

MR. DODD: Do you know that there is such a mine near Vienna? You have lived there quite a while, I gather.

WIESHOFER: No. It is not near Vienna-if I may be permitted to put this matter right-but near Salzburg; we never lived there. I only know that this mine exists.

MR. DODD: How far is it from Vienna?

WIESHOFER: Approximately 350 kilometers.


28 May 46

MR. DODD: You do not know anything about any files being taken there. You are sure about that, are you?

WIESHOFER: I am absolutely certain; I do not know anything about that.

MR. DODD: I have just one other question to ask. I suppose you knew the defendant pretty well. He is a little older than you, but you had worked for him for some time. Is that not so?


MR. DODD: Why did you not join the Army instead of the SS when you wanted to do something for your country?

WIESHOFER: When I was called up, the Waffen

SS was considered the elite unit and I preferred to serve in such a guards unit, if I may say so, than in the general Armed Forces.

MR. DODD: Was it partly due to the fact that you had been in the General SS since 1939?

WIESHOFER: No. That had nothing to do with it. Many members of the General SS went to the Forces.

MR. DODD: Did you talk this matter over with your superior, the Youth Leader Von Schirach, before you joined the SS in 1939, and the Waffen

SS later on?

WIESHOFER: No. Might I remind you that I did not join Von Schirach until October 1940, whereas I joined the Waffen

SS on 26 June 1940.

MR. DODD: Yes, but you were, I suppose, a young man and you were in touch with the Reich Youth organization in 1939 when you joined the General SS. Is that not a fact? Were you not a part of the Youth organization in 1939?

WIESHOFER: No. I was not taken into the Youth Officers Corps until April 1944 when I became Bannfuehrer. Before that I had nothing to do with it.

MR. DODD: Well, I do not think you understand me. It is not too important, but how old were you in 1939? You were 24, approximately, were you not?


MR. DODD: And were you not then in some way affiliated with the Hitler Youth or the Youth organization in Germany, either as a member, or having something to do with it?

WIESHOFER: No. Neither as a member nor in any other way. Of course I knew Youth Leaders in Carinthia, yes.

MR. DODD: You were quite a speech maker for the Party, were you not, during your lifetime?


28 May 46

WIESHOFER: I spoke at several meetings in Carinthia between April 1938 and May 1940.

MR. DODD: At about how many meetings would you say you spoke in that period of 2 years?

WIESHOFER: During that time I spoke at about 80 meetings.

MR. DODD: Before an average of about, say, 3,000 persons per meeting?

WIESHOFER: I also spoke in very small villages. I would say that the average attendance would be about 200.

MR. DODD: That is all I have.

THE PRESIDENT: Do you want to re


DR. THOMA: What were the subjects you talked about at these meetings?

WIESHOFER: Our subject was given to us by the Reich Propaganda Ministry. The meetings were conducted in such a way that every speaker was able to talk on general matters. For instance the subject might have been "With the Fuehrer to Final Victory," or "Why Welfare for the Nation?" or "Why Winter Relief?" Such subjects were always given.

DR. THOMA: Did you read Rosenberg's Myth of the 20th Century?


DR. THOMA: Did you speak about such subjects?

WIESHOFER: Never; in view of my education I would not have been in a position to do so.

DR. THOMA: Have you ever read this Myth?

WIESHOFER: I have not read the Myth.

DR. THOMA: Did you speak to youth at these meetings?

WIESHOFER: I did not speak to youth-that is, not particularly to youth.

DR. THOMA: Thank you.

DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, I do not wish to put any questions to the witness; thank you very much.

THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Witness, did Schirach have any authority to intervene in case of Jews who were being deported from Henna?

WIESHOFER: He had no authority to do so, but he did it.

THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): How many times did he intervene?

WIESHOFER: I cannot recollect a single case where Von Schirach did not intervene when he received a petition.


28 May 46

THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I did not ask that; I asked how many times he intervened.

WIESHOFER: I cannot give you any figure without being inaccurate. It is difficult to say.

THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Did he intervene many times, or a few?

WIESHOFER: No. He intervened often.

THE TRIBUNAL (MR. Biddle): Did you see the order to the Police not to protect aviators? You said it was in writing, did you not?


THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Who signed it?

WIESHOFER: The order was signed by Bormann.

THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And was it distributed to the Police in Vienna?

WIESHOFER: By the Police? If I have understood you rightly, you were talking about the order that Gauleiter must not intervene on behalf of Jews.

THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): No. This was the order about not protecting aviators who had crashed. You said you saw that order, did you not?

WIESHOFER: I did see the order, yes. I can no longer remember whom it came from and to whom, it was addressed. It was merely sent to our office for our information. We were not called upon to take any action.

THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Do you not know whether or not the Police had a copy of it?

WIESHOFER: Please, will you be good enough to repeat the question?

THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Do you know whether or not the Police in Vienna had copies of the order?

WIESHOFER: That I do not know.

THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Did you ever know Himmler?

WIESHOFER: I have seen him.

THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Did he give you any instructions?


THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Did you get any instructions from the SS?

WIESHOFER: In which way do you mean?


28 May 46

THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Any instructions from the SS directly when you were in Von Schirach's of lice?


THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): None at all?

WIESHOFER: None at all. I cannot recollect any.

THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I think you said once that Schirach sent a command to save American aviators from the crowd, did you not? Do you not understand?

WIESHOFER: Yes, I understand, and I did say that.

THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And what other efforts did Von Schirach make to protect aviators from the crowd? Did he make any other efforts?


THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Did he issue any orders to the Police or take it up with the Police?

WIESHOFER: Von Schirach's opinion was known. In the circles . . .

THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I did not ask you the

opinion. Did he issue any orders to the Police or talk to the Police?

WIESHOFER: I have no recollection of that.

THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well, you would know if he had, would you not?

WIESHOFER: If I had been present when he gave the orders then I would know it, but it is possible that he talked when I was not there.

THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Did you say you had access to the secret files?


THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): What was kept in the secret files?

WIESHOFER: I did not understand the question.

THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I asked you what was kept, what was put in the secret files, what sort of papers?

WIESHOFER: There were secret files which came from the Supreme Party Headquarters, secret files which came from the Minister of the Interior; there were things which made one wonder why they were called "secret." But as far as details of these files are concerned, I cannot, of course, today remember them.

THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And I suppose any documents, any reports, that were marked "secret" would be put in those secret files, would they not?


28 May 46

WIESHOFER: Reports from us to higher departments, or do you mean from the top downwards?

THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Reports coming in to you.

WIESHOFER: They would then have been filed in the secret archives.

THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And SS secret reports would go in the secret files, would they not?

WIESHOFER: SS reports did not come to us, because we were not a service department of the SS.

THE PRESIDENT: If you have no questions yourself, Dr. Sauter, then the witness may retire.


[The witness Wieshofer left the stand.]

DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, in Schirach's document book there are still a few documents which, up to now, have not been expressly presented; but I believe it is not necessary to read these documents to you. To save time, I should like, if I may, to refer to the documents and ask you to take judicial notice of them; for instance, of the affidavit of Frau Hoepken, which is incorporated in the document book under Number 3 and which has already been submitted somewhere else.

There is only one document, Mr. President, about which I want to give a very brief explanation. In the Schirach document book, under Number 118(a), there is the farewell letter of the explorer Dr. Colin Ross. With reference to this Dr. Colin Ross, when the documents were dealt with, the Prosecutor said that the body of Dr. Ross had not been discovered. My first reaction was of course surprise, and I made inquiries as to what actually had been done with these bodies and I discovered that in fact on 30 April 1945, the day before the arrival of American troops, the bodies of Dr. Colin Ross and his wife were found in the house of Defendant Von Schirach at Urfeld, on Lake Walchen. They had both first taken poison and then, to be quite sure, Or. Ross shot his wife and then himself. German soldiers who were still at Urfeld on Lake Walchen as patients at the time then buried the bodies quite close to the house of the Defendant Von Schirach.

In the autumn the American Governor ordered that the bodies were to be transferred to the cemetery, but eventually he rescinded that order and permitted the bodies to remain where they had originally been buried.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, can you indicate in what way you will submit this document has any relevance at all? We have


28 May 46

read the document. N does not appear to have any striking relevance.

DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, we have submitted this document because it is to prove, or at least indicate, that the Defendant Von Schirach, together with this Dr. Colin Ross, continuously worked to maintain peace, and later on to limit the war. Therefore it is submitted only to show that the Defendant Von Schirach worked for peace.

THE PRESIDENT: The document does not mention Von Schirach or in any way indicate that he had worked for peace.

DR. SAUTER: But it says in the document, "We have done every

thing in our power to prevent this war, or. .."

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, the word "We" must mean the people who "leave this world by our own will," namely Dr. Colin Ross and his wife. It does not refer to Von Schirach.

DR. SAUTER: We do not know that. Why should it not also refer to Von Schirach?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, because there is such a thing as grammar. The document begins "We leave this world by our own will."

DR. SAUTER: As to that, Mr. President, may I remind you that this name, Dr. Colin Ross, has been mentioned very often during this trial in connection with the peace efforts of the Defendant Von Schirach, and that Dr. Colin Ross, together with his wife, was living in Schirach's apartment when they committed suicide.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, very well, Dr. Sauter, if you wish to draw our attention to it, you may do so.

DR. SAUTER: Thank you. Mr. President, this letter was not really meant for the public; the original of the letter was left behind by Dr. Ross, and a number of carbon copies were sent to personal friends. In this way we found this letter of Dr. Colin Ross. I do not think there is anything else I have to say.

THE PRESIDENT: I have not said anything critical of the letter. If you want to read some sentences of it, read them; if you do not we will take judicial notice of it. As I tell you, we have already read this letter.


THE PRESIDENT: I am not stopping your reading a sentence of it, if you want to read a sentence of it.

DR. SAUTER: It is of course not necessary, Mr. President, if you have taken cognizance of it. I have nothing else to say, and at this point I can end my case for the Defendant Von Schirach.


28 May 46

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, have you offered in evidence all the documents which are in these books?


THE PRESIDENT: Then they will be numbered with the numbers which are in the books.


THE PRESIDENT: Very well, then we will take judicial notice of them all.

MR. DODD: Well, Mr. President, there is one here which the Tribunal expressly ruled on-the affidavit of Uiberreither. The Defendant Von Schirach was told he would have to present Uiberreither if he were to use this affidavit.

He has not been presented here and now the affidavit is being offered. We expressly asked that he be called here if this affidavit was to be submitted to the Tribunal.

DR. SAUTER: I am not making any reference to Uiberreither's affidavit, and I will forego calling the witness Uiberreither.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well, Dr. Sauter.

MR. DODD: Then the affidavit is not offered?

THE PRESIDENT: No, it is not being offered.

MR. DODD: That is Page 135.

THE PRESIDENT: Then it will not be admitted, and we will adjourn now.

The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours.]


28 May 46

Afternoon Sessions

MR. DODD: Mr. President, during the presentation of the case involving the Defendant Funk, there was a number of documents that we did not submit in evidence at the time; and I asked the Tribunal's permission to do so at a later time. I am prepared to do so now if the Tribunal would care to have me.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I think it would be quite convenient now.

MR. DODD: Very well, Sir.

The first one is a matter of clarifying the record with respect to it. It is Document 2828 PS. It has already been offered in evidence as Exhibit USA 654. But the excerpt, or the extract, which was read will be found on Page 105 of the document. We cited another page, which was in error. Reference to this Document USA 654 will be found on Page 9071 (Volume XIII, Page 141) of the record.

We also offered our Document EC 440, which consisted of a statement made by the Defendant Funk, and we quoted a sentence from Page 4 of that document. I wish to offer that as Exhibit USA 874.

Then Document 3952 PS was an interrogation of the Defendant Funk dated 19 October 1945. We wish to offer that as USA 875.

I might remind the Tribunal that the excerpt quoted from that interrogation had to do with the statement made by Funk that the Defendant Hess had notified him of the impending attack on the Soviet Union. That excerpt has been translated into the four languages, and therefore will be readily available to the Tribunal

Then there is also another interrogation dated 22 October 1945. We read from Pages 15 and 16 of that interrogation, as it appears in the record at Page 9169 for 7 May (Volume XIII, Page 214). The document is Number 3953 PS; we offer it as Exhibit USA 876.

We next referred to Document Number 3894 PS, the interrogation of one Hans Posse. We offered it as Exhibit USA 843 at the time, as appears on Page 9093 of the record for 6 May (Volume xii, Page 158). At that time I stated to the Tribunal that we would submit the whole interrogation in French, Russian, German, and English. We are now prepared to do that, and do so.

Then we have Document 3954 PS. This is an affidavit by one Franz B. Wolf, one of the editors of the Frankfurter Zeitung. Reference to it will be found at Page 9082 of the transcript, where we stated that we would have more to say about the reason for the retention of the editorial staff of the Frankfurter Zeitung (Volume XIII, Page 150). That Document, 3954-PS, is also now available to the Tribunal in French, Russian, German, and English; and we offer it as Exhibit USA 877.


28 May 46

Then, Mr. President, a motion picture film was shown during this cross examination of the Defendant Funk; and the Tribunal inquired as to whether or not we would be prepared to submit affidavits giving its source, and so on. We are now prepared to do so; and we offer first an affidavit by Captain Sam Harris who arranged to have the pictures taken, which becomes Exhibit USA 878. The second affidavit is by the photographer who actually took the picture. We offer that as Exhibit USA 879.

Finally, I should also like to clear up one other matter. On March 25, during the cross examination of the witness Bohle, witness for the Defendant Hess, Colonel Amen quoted from the interrogation of Von Strempel, as appears in the record beginning at Page 6482 (Volume X, Page 40). We have had the pertinent portions translated into the operating languages of the Tribunal, and we ask that this interrogation, which bears our Document Number 3800 PS, be admitted in evidence as Exhibit USA


I believe, Mr. President, that clears up all of the documents that we have not offered formally, up to this date.

THE PRESIDENT: Now, counsel for the Defendant Sauckel.

DR. SERVATIUS: With the permission of the Tribunal, I Will now call Defendant Sauckel to the witness stand.

Am; PRESIDENT: Certainly.

The Defendant Sauckel took the stand.]

THE PRESIDENT: Will you state your full name?

FRITZ SAUCKEL (Defendant): Ernst Friedrich Christoph Sauckel.

THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath after me: I swear by God-the Almighty and Omniscient-that I will speak the pure truth-and will withhold and add nothing.

[The defendant repeated the oath.]

THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down.

DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, please describe your career to the Tribunal.

SAUCKEL: I was the only child of the postman Friedrich Sauckel, and was born at Hassfurt on the Main near Bamberg. I attended the elementary school at Schweinfurt and the secondary school.

DR. SERVATIUS: Mow long were you at the secondary school?

SAUCKEL: For 5 years. As my father held only a very humble position, it was my mother, a seamstress, who made it possible for me to go to that school. When she became very ill with heart trouble, I saw that it would be impossible for my parents to


28 May 46

provide for my studies, and I obtained their permission to go to sea to make a career for myself there.

DR. SERVATIUS: Did you join the merchant marine, or where did you go?

SAUCKEL: First of all I joined the Norwegian and Swedish merchant marine so that I could be thoroughly trained in seaman ship on the big sailing vessels and clippers.

DR. SERVATIUS: How old were you at the time?

SAUCKEL: At that time I was 15 1/2.

DR. SERVATIUS: What were you earning?

SAUCKEL: As a cabin boy on a Norwegian sailing ship I earned 5 kronen in addition to my keep.

DR. SERVATIUS: And then, in the course of your career at sea, where did you go next?

SAUCKEL: In the course of my career as a sailor, and during my training which I continued afterwards on German sailing vessels, I sailed on every sea and went to every part of the world.

DR. SERVATIUS: Did you come into contact with foreign families?

SAUCKEL: Through the Young Men's Christian Association, principally in Australia and North America, as well as in South America, I came into contact with families of these countries.

DR. SERVATIUS: Where were you when the first World War started?

SAUCKEL: It so happened that I was on a German sailing vessel on the way to Australia when the ship was captured, and on the high seas I was made prisoner by the French.

DR. SERVATIUS: How long did you remain prisoner?

SAUCKEL: Five years, until November 1919.

DR. SERVATIUS: And did you return home then?

SAUCKEL: Yes, I returned home then.

DR. SERVATIUS: And then what did you do?

SAUCKEL: Although I had finished my trading and studies in seamanship required of me, I could not go to sea again and take my examination, since my savings made during those years at sea had become worthless because of the German inflation. There were also few German ships and very many unemployed German seamen, so I decided to take up work in a factory in my home town of Schweinfurt.


28 May 46

DR. SERVATIUS: Did you remain in your home town?

SAUCKEL: At first I remained in my home town. I learned to be a turner and engineer in the Fischer ball

bearing factory in order to save money so that I later could attend a technical school, an engineering college.

DR. SERVATIUS: Were you already interested in politics at that time?

SAUCKEL: Although as a sailor I despised politics-for I loved my sailor's life and still love it today-conditions forced me to take up a definite attitude towards, political problems. No one in Germany at that time could do otherwise. Many years before I had left a beautiful country and a rich nation and I returned to that country 6 years later to find it fundamentally changed and in a state of upheaval, and in great spiritual and material need.

DR. SERVATIUS: Did you join any party?

SAUCKEL: No. I worked in a factory which people in my home town described as "ultra

Red." I worked in the tool shop, and right and left of me Social Democrats, Communists, Socialists, and Anarchists were working-among others my present father

law- and during all the rest periods discussions went on, so that whether one wanted to or not one became involved in the social problems of the time.

DR. SERVATIUS: You mention your father-in-law. Did you marry then?

SAUCKEL: In 1923 I married the daughter of a German workman I had met at that time. I am still happily married to her today and we have 10 children.

DR. SERVATIUS: When did you join the Party?

SAUCKEL: I joined the Party definitely in 1923 after having already been in sympathy with it before.

DR. SERVATIUS: What made you do it?

SAUCKEL: One of those days I heard a speech of Hitler's. In this speech he said that the German factory worker and the German laborer must make common cause with the German brain worker. The controversies between the proletariat and the middle class must be smoothed out and bridged over by each getting to know and understand the other. Through this a new community of people would grow up, and only such a community, not bound to middle class or proletariat, could overcome the dire needs of those days and the splitting up of the German nation into parties and creeds. This statement took such hold of me and struck me so forcibly, that


28 May 46

I dedicated my life to the idea of adjusting what seemed to be almost irreconcilable contrasts. I did that all the more, if I may say so, because I was aware of the fact that there is an inclination to go to extremes in German people, and in the German character generally. I had to examine myself very thoroughly to find the right path for me personally. As I have already said, I had hardly taken any interest in political questions. My good parents, who are no longer alive, brought me up in a strictly Christian but also in a very patriotic way. However, when I went to sea, I lived a sailor's life. I loaded saltpeter in Chile. I did heavy lumber work in Canada, in Quebec. I trimmed coal on the equator, and I sailed around Cape Horn several times. All of this was hard work; I ask...

DR. SERVATIUS: Please, come back to the question of the Party.

SAUCKEL: This has to do with the question of the Party, for we must an give some reasons as to how we got there. I myself ...

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, I stated at the beginning of the defendant's case that we had heard this account from the Defendant Goering and that we did not propose to hear it again from 20 defendants. It seems to me that we are having it inflicted upon us by nearly every one of the defendants.

DR. SERVATIUS: I believe, Mr. President, that we are interested in getting some sort of an impression of the defendant himself. Seen from various points of view, the facts look different. I will now briefly...

THE PRESIDENT: It is quite true, Dr. Servatius, but we have had half an hour, almost, of it now.

DR. SERVATIUS: I shall limit it now.

The Party was dissolved in 1923, and refounded in 1925. Did you join it again?


DR. SERVATIUS: Did you take an active part in the Party or were you just a member?

SAUCKEL: From 1925 on I took an active part in it.

DR. SERVATIUS: And what position did you hold?

SAUCKEL: I was then Gauleiter in Thuringia.

DR. SERVATIUS: Did you do that to get work, to earn your living, or for what reason?

SAUCKEL: As Gauleiter in Thuringia I earned 150 marks. In any other profession I would have had accommodations and earned more money.


28 May 46

DR. SERVATIUS: When did you make Hitler's acquaintance? SAUCKEL: I met him briefly in 1925.

DR. SERVATIUS: When did you become Gauleiter?

SAUCKEL: I became Gauleiter in 1927.

DR. SERVATIUS: And how were you appointed?

SAUCKEL: I was appointed by letter.

DR. SERVATIUS: Did you receive any special instructions which pointed to secret intentions of the Party?

SAUCKEL: At that time we were very definitely told that under no circumstances should there be any secret chapters or any other secrecy in the life of the Party, but that everything should be done publicly.

DR. SERVATIUS: Who was your predecessor?

SAUCKEL: Dr. Dinter.

DR. SERVATIUS: Why was he relieved of his post?

SAUCKEL: Dr. Dinter was dismissed because he wanted to found a new religious movement within the Party.

DR. SERVATIUS: In 1929 you became a member of the Thuringian Diet?


DR. SERVATIUS: Were you elected to that?

SAUCKEL: I was elected to the Diet in the same way as at every parliamentary election.

DR. SERVATIUS: Was dictatorship in power there already at the time?

SAUCKEL: That was not possible; the province was governed in accordance with the Thuringian constitution.

DR. SERVATIUS: How long were you a member of the Diet?

SAUCKEL: I was a member of the Diet as long as it existed, until May 1933.

DR. SERVATIUS: How was it dissolved?

SAUCKEL: The Diet was dissolved by a Reich Government decree.

DR. SERVATIUS: Then in 1932, you were a member of the Provincial Government of Thuringia. How did you get into that position?

SAUCKEL: In 1932, in the month of June, new elections took place for the Thuringian Diet, and the NSDAP obtained 26 out of 60 seats.


28 May 46

DR. SERVATIUS: Was any mention made of a dictatorship which was to be aimed at?

SAUCKEL: No, a government was elected according to parliamentary principles. '

DR. SERVATIUS: Wed, you had a majority in the Thuringian Government, had you not, and you could use your influence?

SAUCKEL: Together with the bourgeois parties, by an absolute majority, a National Socialist government was elected.

DR. SERVATIUS: What happened to the old officials? Were they dismissed?

SAUCKEL: I myself became the President and Minister of the Interior in that government; the old officials, without exception, remained in their offices.

DR. SERVATIUS: And with what did that first National Socialist government concern itself in the field of domestic politics?

SAUCKEL: In the field of domestic politics there was only one question at that time, and that was the alleviation of an indescribable distress which is only exceeded by that of today.

DR. SERVATIUS: In this connection, Mr. President, may I submit two government reports from which I only wish to draw your attention briefly to two passages. One is the report contained in Document Number 96, which shows the activity of the government and its fight against social distress. What is particularly important when you run through it, is what is not mentioned, that is, there is no mention of the question of war or other such matters, but again and again the alleviation of distress is mentioned. And important, too, is the work that was carried out. That is in Document Number 97. In this book, on Page 45, there is a statement of the work undertaken by the government-bridge building, road making, and so on-and in no way had this work anything to do with war.

Then I am submitting Document Number 95 from the same period. It is a book called Sauckel's Fighting Speeches. Here, too, the book is remarkable for what does not appear in it, namely preparations for war. Instead it emphasizes the distress which must be alleviated. It becomes clear from the Individual articles that these are speeches made during a number of years, which show in a similar way what the preoccupations were of the Defendant Sauckel It begins in 1932 with a speech dealing with the misery of the time, and ends with the final questions where reference is made once again to the alleviation of social need and the preservation of peace. The Tribunal will be able to read these articles in the document book.


28 May 46

In 1933 you also became Reich Regent of Thuringia. How did you manage to get to that position?

SAUCKEL: I was appointed Reich Regent of Thuringia by Field Marshal Von Hindenburg, who was Reich President at that time.

DR. SERVATIUS: What were the instructions you received when you took up your offices?

SAUCKEL: When I took over my office as Reich Regent I received instructions to form a new Thuringian Government, as the Reich Regent was to keep out of the administrative affairs of a German state...

DR. SERVATIUS: You need not tell us these technical details. I mean what political task were you given?

SAUCKEL: I was given the political task of administering Thuringia as Reich Regent within the existing Reich law and prevailing Constitution, and of guaranteeing the unity of the Reich.

DR. SERVATIUS: And did the words "guarantee the unity of the Reich" mean the overpowering of others, in particular the authorities in Thuringia?

SAUCKEL: No, the authorities remained.

DR. SERVATIUS: Now, you held both the position of Gauleiter and that of Reich Regent. What was the aim of that?

SAUCKEL: Both positions were entirely separate in their organizations. Under the Regent were officials in office, and under the Gauleiter were employees of the Party. Both positions were administered absolutely separately, as is the case in any other state where members of a party are at the same time party officials or leaders and exercise both these functions simultaneously.

DR. SERVATIUS: So you received no order that one position should absorb the other?

SAUCKEL: No, I had no such orders. The tasks were entirely different.

DR. SERVATIUS: Were you a member of the SA?

SAUCKEL: I myself was never an SA man. I was an honorary Obergruppenfuehrer in the SA.

DR. SERVATIUS: How did you receive that appointment?

SAUCKEL: I cannot tell you. It was honorary.

DR. SERVATIUS: Were you appointed SS Obergruppenfuehrer by Himmler?

SAUCKEL: No, the Fuehrer made me honorary SS Obergruppenfuehrer for no special reason and without functions.


28 May 46

DR. SERVATIUS: Were you a member of the Reichstag?

SAUCKEL: Yes, from 1933 on.

DR. SERVATIUS: As a member of the Reichstag, did you know anything in advance about the beginning of the war? Were you informed?

SAUCKEL: I was never informed in advance about the start of the war or about foreign political developments. I merely remember that quite suddenly-it may have been during the days between 24 August and the end of August-we were called to a session of the Reichstag in Berlin. This session was canceled at the time, and we were later ordered to go to the Fuehrer, that is, the Gauleiter and Reichsleiter. But a number had already left so that the circle was not complete. The conference, or Hitler's speech, only lasted a short time. He said, roughly, that the meeting of the Reichstag could not take place as things were still in the course of development. He was convinced that there would not be a war. He said he hoped there would be some settlement in a small way and meant by that, as I had to conclude, a solution without the parts of Upper Silesia lost in 1921. He said-and that I remember exactly-that Danzig would become German, and apart from that Germany would be given a railway line with several tracks, like a Reichsautobahn, with a strip of ground to the right and left of it. He told us to go home and prepare for the Reich Party Rally, where we would meet again.

DR. SERVATIUS: Did you have any close connections with the Fuehrer?

SAUCKEL: I personally, as far as I know the Fuehrer, had a great deal of admiration for him. But I had no close connection with him that one could describe as personal. I had a number of discussions with him about the administration of my Gau and in particular about the care he wished to be given to cultural buildings in Thuringia-in Weimar, Eisenach, and Meiningen; and later on there were more frequent meetings because of my position as Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor.

DR. SERVATIUS: We shall come to that later. What connections did you have with the Reichsleiter?

SAUCKEL: My connections with the Reichsleiter were no different from my connections with the Fuehrer. They were of an official and Party nature. As regards personal relationships I cannot say that I had any particularly personal intercourse with anyone.

DR. SERVATIUS: What about your connection with the Reich Ministers?


28 May 46

SAUCKEL: My connection with the Reich Ministers was of a purely official nature and was very infrequent.

DR. SERVATIUS: What about the Wehrmacht?

SAUCKEL: I could not have the honor of being a German soldier because of my imprisonment in the first World War. And in this World War the Fuehrer refused to allow me to serve as a soldier.

DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, you have held a number of high positions and offices. You knew the Reich Ministers and Reichsleiter. Will you please explain why you went aboard the submarine at that time?

SAUCKEL: I had repeatedly made written requests to the Fuehrer that I might be allowed to join the Wehrmacht as an ordinary soldier. He refused to give me this permission. So I arranged in secret for someone to take my place and went aboard Captain Salmann's submarine with his agreement. As a former sailor and now a politician in a high position I wanted to give these brave submarine men a proof of my comradeship and understanding and of my sense of duty. Apart from that I had 10 children for whom, as their father, I had to do something too.

DR. SERVATIUS: I should like now, in a number of questions, to refer to your activities. Were you a member of a trade union?


DR. SERVATIUS: Do you know what the aims of German trade unions were?

SAUCKEL: Yes, I do.

DR. SERVATIUS: Were they economic or political?

SAUCKEL: As I, as a worker, came to know them, the aims of German trade unions were political, and there were a number of different trade unions with varied political views. I considered that a great misfortune. As workman in the workshop I had had experience of the arguments among the trade unionists between the Christian Socialist trade unions and the Red trade unions, between the syndicalist, the anarchist and the communist trade unions.

DR. SERVATIUS: The trade unions in your Gau were then dissolved. Were the leaders arrested at the time?


DR. SERVATIUS: Did you approve of the dissolution of the trade unions?

SAUCKEL: The dissolution of the trade unions was in the air then. The question was discussed in the Party for a long time and


28 May 46

there was no agreement at all as to the position trade unions should hold, nor as to their necessity, their usefulness and their nature. But a solution had to be found because the trade unions which we, or the Fuehrer, or Dr. Ley, dissolved all held different political views. From that time on, however, there was only one party in Germany and it was necessary, I fully realize, to come to a definite decision as to the actual duties of the trade unions, the necessary duties indispensable to every calling and to workers everywhere.

DR. SERVATIUS: Was not the purpose of removing the trade unions to remove any opposition which might stand in the way of an aggressive war?

SAUCKEL: I can say in all good conscience that during those years not one of us ever thought about a war at all. We had to overcome such terrible need that we should have been only too glad if German economic life could have been started again in peace and if the German worker, who had suffered the most during that frightful depression, could have had work and food once more.

DR. SERVATIUS: Did members of trade unions suffer economically through the dissolution?

SAUCKEL: In no way. My own father law, who was a member of a trade union and still is today, and whom I repeatedly asked for information, whom I never persuaded to join the Party- he was a Social Democrat and never joined the Party-confirmed the fact that even when he was getting old and could no longer work, the German Labor Front never denied him the rights due to him as an old trade unionist and by virtue of his long trade union membership, but allowed him full benefits. On the other hand, the German State-since in Germany old age and disability insurance and the accident insurance, et cetera, were paid and organized by the State-the National Socialist State guaranteed him all these rights and made full payment.

DR. SERVATIUS: Were all Communist leaders arrested in your Gau after the Party came to power?

SAUCKEL: No. In my Gau, as far as I know, only Communists who had actually worked against the State were arrested.

DR SERVATIUS: And what happened to them?

SAUCKEL; The State Police arrested and interrogated them and detained them according to the findings.

DR. SERVATIUS: Did you have Kreisleiter in your Gau who had been members of a former opposition party?

SAUCKEL: The Party's activity was recruiting. Our most intensive work was the winning over of political opponents. I am very


28 May 46

proud of the fact that many workers in my Gau, numerous former Communists and Social Democrats, were won over by us and became local group leaders and Party functionaries.

DR. SERVATIUS: But were there not two Kreisleiter from the extreme left appointed by you?

SAUCKEL: One Kreisleiter from the extreme left was appointed. Also, besides a number of other leaders, the Gau sectional manager of the German Labor Front had belonged to the extreme left for a long time.

DR. SERVATIUS: How did you personally deal with your political opponents?

SAUCKEL: Political opponents who did not work against the State were neither bothered nor harmed in my Gaul

DR. SERVATIUS: Do you know the Socialist Deputy Frohlich?

SAUCKEL: The Socialist Deputy August Frohlich was my strongest and most important opponent. He was the leader of the Thuringian Social Democrats and was for many years the Social Democrat Prime Minister of Thuringia. I had great respect for him as an opponent. He was an honorable and upright man. On 20 July 1944, through my own personal initiative, I had him released from detention. He had been on the list of the conspirators of 20 July, but I had so much respect for him personally that, in spite of that, I asked for his release and obtained it.

DR. SERVATIUS: Did you treat other opponents similarly?

SAUCKEL: I also had a politician of the Center Party I knew in my home town of Schweinfurt released from detention.

DR. SERVATIUS: The Concentration Camp of Buchenwald was in your Gaul Did you establish it?

SAUCKEL: The Buchenwald Camp originated in the following manner: The Fuehrer, who came to Weimar quite often because of the theater there, suggested that a battalion of his SS Leibstandarte should be stationed at Weimar. As the Leibstandarte was considered a picked regiment I not only agreed to this but was very pleased, because in a city like Weimar people are glad to have a garrison. So the State of Thuringia, the Thuringian Government, at the request of the Fuehrer, prepared a site in the Ettersburg Forest, north of the incline outside the town.

After some time Himmler informed me, however, that he could not bring a battalion of the SS Leibstandarte to Weimar, as he could not divide up the regiment, but that it would be a newly established Death's Head unit, and Himmler said it would amount to the same thing. It was only some time later, when the site had


28 May 46

already been placed at the disposal of the Reich, that Himmler declared that he now had to accommodate a kind of concentration camp with the Death's Head units on this very suitable site. I opposed this to begin with, because I did not consider a concentration camp at ail the right kind of thing for the town of Weimar and its traditions. However, he-I mean Himmler-making use of his position, refused to have any discussion about it. And so the camp was set up neither to my satisfaction nor to that of the population of Weimar.

DR. SERVATIUS: Did you have anything to do with the administration of the camp later on?

SAUCKEL: I never had anything to do with the administration of the camp. The Thuringian Government made an attempt at the time to influence the planning of the building by saying that the building police in Thuringia wished to give the orders for the sanitary arrangements in the camp. Himmler rejected this on the grounds of his position, saying that he had a construction office of his own and the site now belonged to the Reich.

DR. SERVATIUS: Did you visit the camp at any time?

SAUCKEL: As far as I can remember, on one single occasion at the end of 1937 or at the beginning of 1938, I visited and inspected the camp with an Italian commission.

DR. SERVATIUS: Did you find anything wrong there?

SAUCKEL: I did not find anything wrong. I inspected the accommodations-I myself had been a prisoner for 5 years, and so it interested me. I must admit that at that time there was no cause for any complaint as such. The accommodations had been divided into day and night rooms. The beds were covered with blue and white sheets; the kitchens, washrooms, and latrines were beyond reproach, so that the Italian officer or officers who were inspecting the camp with me said that in Italy they would not accommodate their own soldiers any better.

DR. SERVATIUS: Later on did you hear about the events in that camp which have been alleged here?

SAUCKEL: I heard nothing about such events as have been alleged here.

DR. SERVATIUS: Did you have anything to do with the evacuation of the camp at the end of the war, before the American Army approached?

SAUCKEL: When the mayor of Weimar informed me that they intended to evacuate the camp at Buchenwald and to use the camp guards to fight the American troops, I raised the strongest objections.


28 May 46

As I had no authority over the camp, and since for various reasons connected with my other office I had had considerable differences with Himmler and did not care to speak to him, I telephoned the Fuehrer's headquarters in Berlin and said that in any case an evacuation or a transfer of prisoners into the territory east of the Saale was impossible and madness, and could not be carried through from the point of view of supplies. I demanded that the camp should be handed over to the American occupation troops in an orderly manner. I received the answer that the Fuehrer would give instructions to Himmler to comply with my request. I briefly reported this to some of my colleagues and the mayor, and then I left Weimar.

DR. SERVATIUS: The witness Dr. Blaha has stated that you had also been to the concentration camp at Dachau on the occasion of an inspection.

SAUCKEL: No, I did not go to the Dachau Concentration Camp and, as far as I recollect, I did not take part in the visit of the Gauleiter to Dachau in 1935 either. In no circumstances did I take part in an inspection in Dachau such as Dr. Blaha has described here; and consequently, above all, I did not inspect workshops or anything of the sort.

DR. SERVATIUS: Did you not, as Gauleiter, receive official reports regarding the events in the concentration camp, that is to say, orders which passed through the Gau administrative offices both from and to the camp?

SAUCKEL: No. I neither received instructions for the Buchenwald Camp, nor reports. It was not only my personal opinion but it was the opinion of old experienced Gauleiter that it was the greatest misfortune, from the administrative point of view, when Himmler as early as 1934 - 35 proceeded to separate the executive from the general internal administration. There were continual complaints from many Gauleiter and German provincial administrations. They were unsuccessful, however, because in the end Himmler incorporated even the communal fire brigades into the Reich organization of his Police.

DR. SERVATIUS: Did you have any personal relations with the Police and the SS at Weimar?

SAUCKEL: I had no personal relations with the SS and the Police at ale I had official relations inasmuch as the trade police and the local police of small boroughs still remained under the internal administration of the State of Thuringia.

DR. SERVATIUS. Did not the Police have their headquarters near you, at Weimar?


28 May 46

SAUCKEL: No, it was the ridiculous part of the development at that time that, as I once explained to the Fuehrer, we had been changed from a Party state, and a state made up of provinces, into a departmental state. The Reich ministries had greatly developed, their departments being fairly well defined, and the individual district departments of the various administrations did not agree among one another. Until 1934 Thuringia had its own independent police administration in its Ministry for Home Affairs. But from that time the headquarters of the Higher SS and the Police Leader were transferred to Kassel, so that Himmler, in contrast to the rest of the State and Party organizations, obtained new spheres for his Police. He demonstrated this in Central Germany where for example the Higher SS and Police Leader for Weimar and the State of Thuringia was stationed in Kassel, whereas for the Prussian part of the Gau of Thuringia-that is to say the town of Erfurt which is 20 kilometers away from Weimar-the Higher SS and Police Leader and the provincial administration had their seat in Magdeburg. It is obvious that we, as Gau authorities, did not in any way agree with such a development and that there was great indignation among the experienced administrators.

DR. SERVATIUS: The question is: Did you cooperate with these offices and did you have a friendly association with the officials in the regime and therefore know what was going on in Buchenwald?

SAUCKEL: On the contrary, it was a continual bathe. Each separate organization shut itself off from the others. At such a period of world development this was most unfortunate. For the people it was disadvantageous and it made things impossible for any administration.

DR. SERVATIUS: Was there persecution of the Jews in your Gau?


DR. SERVATIUS: What about the laws concerning the Jews and the execution of those laws?

SAUCKEL: These Jewish laws were proclaimed in Nuremberg. There were actually very few Jews in Thuringia.

DR. SERVATIUS: Were there no violations in connection with the well known events, following the murder of the Envoy Vom Rath in Paris, which have repeatedly become the subject of discussion in this Trial?

SAUCKEL: I cannot recollect in detail the events in Thuringia. As I told you, there were only a few Jews in Thuringia. The Gauleiter were in Munich at the time, and had no influence at all on that development, for it happened during the night, when all the Gauleiter were in Munich.


28 May 46

DR. SERVATIUS: My question is this: What happened in your Gau of Thuringia, and what instructions did you give as a result?

SAUCKEL: There may have been a few towns in Thuringia where a window was smashed or something of that sort. I cannot tell you in detail. I cannot even tell you where or whether there were synagogues in Thuringia.

DR. SERVATIUS: Now one question regarding your financial position.

On the occasion of your fiftieth birthday the Fuehrer made you a donation. How much was it?

SAUCKEL: On my fiftieth birthday in October 1944 I was surprised to get a letter from the Fuehrer through one of his adjutants. In that letter there was a check for 250,000 marks. I told the adjutant that I could not possibly accept it-I was very surprised. The Fuehrer's adjutant-it was little Bormann, the old Bormann, not Reichsleiter Bormann-told me that the Fuehrer knew quite well that I had neither money nor any landed property and that this would be a security for my children. He told me not to hurt the Fuehrer's feelings. The adjutant left quickly and I sent for Demme who was both a colleague and a friend of mine and the president of the State Bank of Thuringia. He was unfortunately refused as a witness as being irrelevant...

THE PRESIDENT: I think it is enough if we know whether he ultimately accepted it or not.

DR. SERVATIUS: Let us drop that question. What happened to the money?

SAUCKEL: Through the president of the State Bank in question the money was placed into an account in the State Bank of Thuringia.

DR. SERVATIUS: What other income did you receive from your official positions?

SAUCKEL: The only income I had from my official positions was the salary of a Reich Regent.

DR. SERVATIUS: How much was that?

SAUCKEL: The salary of a Reich Minister; I cannot tell you exactly what it was. I never bothered about it. It was something like 30,000 marks.

DR. SERVATIUS: And what means have you today apart from the donation in that bank account?

SAUCKEL: I have not saved any money and I never had any property.


28 May 46

DR. SERVATIUS: That, Mr. President, brings me to the end of those general questions and I am now coming to the questions relating to the Allocation of Labor.

THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn.

[A recess was taken.]

DR. SERVATIUS: To aid the Court I have prepared a plan showing how the direction of labor was managed, which should help to explain how the individual authorities cooperated and how the operation was put into motion.

I will concern myself mainly with the problem of meeting the demand, that is with the question of how the labor was obtained. I shall not concern myself much with the question of the use made of the labor and the needs of industry. That is more a matter for Speer's defense, which does not quite fit in with my presentation of things. But those are details which occurred in error because I did not go into such matters thoroughly when the plan was being prepared. Fundamentally there are no differences.

If I may explain the plan briefly: At the top there is the Fuehrer, in red; under him is the Four Year Plan; and under that, as part of the Four Year Plan, there is the of lice of Sauckel, who was Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor and came directly under the Four Year Plan. He received his instructions and orders from the Fuehrer through the Four Year Plan, or, as was the Fuehrer's way, from him direct.

Sauckel's headquarters were at the Reich Ministry of Labor. It is the big space outlined in yellow to the left, below Sauckel's office which is in brown. Sauckel only became included in the Reich Labor Ministry by having a few of flees put at his disposal The Reich Minister of Labor and the whole of the Labor Ministry remained.

In the course of time Sauckel's position became somewhat stronger, individual departments being necessarily incorporated into his, over which, to a certain extent, he obtained personal power; but the Reich Ministry of Labor remained until the end.

I should now Like to explain how the "Arbeitseinsatz" was put into operation. Owing to operations in Russia and the great losses in the winter, there arose a need for 2 million soldiers. The Wehrmacht, OKW, marked in green at the top next to the Fuehrer, demands soldiers from the industries. It is marked here in the green spaces which run downwards below the OKW. The line then turns left downwards to the industries which are marked as having 30 million workers. The Wehrmacht withdraws 2 million workers but can only do so when new labor is there. It was at that moment that Sauckel was put into of lice in order to obtain this labor.


28 May 46

The number of men needed was determined by the higher authorities through the socalled "Requirements Board," marked at the top in yellow, which represented the highest offices: the Armaments and Production Ministries, the Ministry of Air, Agriculture, Shipping, Traffic, and so on. They reported their requests to the Fuehrer and he decided what was needed.

Sauckel's task was carried out as follows: Let us go back to the brown square. On the strength of the right of the Four Year Plan to issue orders, he applied to the space on the right where the squares are outlined in blue. They are the highest district offices in the occupied territories, the Reich Ministry for the Eastern Territories, that is, Rosenberg; then come the military authorities; and as things were handled a little differently in each country, here are the various countries, Belgium, Northern France, Holland, et cetera, marked in yellow. These agencies received the order to make labor available. Each through its own machinery referred the order to the next agency below and so on down to the very last, the local labor offices which are under the district authorities, and here the workers were assigned to the factories. That is the reserve of foreigners. Beside that there are two other sources of labor available, the main reserve of German workers, which is marked in blue to the left at the bottom, and the reserve of prisoners of war.

Sauckel had to deal with all these three agencies. I will now put relevant questions to the witness. This is only to refresh our memories and to check the explanation.

I will submit other charts later. There is a list of the witnesses drawn up according to their offices so that we know where they belong; and later there will be another chart showing the inspection and controls which were set up.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, you will no doubt be asking the witness whether he is familiar with the chart and whether it is correct.

DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, you have seen this chart. Is it correct? Do you acknowledge it?

SAUCKEL: To the best of my memory and belief it is correct, and I acknowledge it.

DR. SERVATIUS: On 21 March 1942 you were made Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor. Why were you chosen for this office?

SAUCKEL: The reason why I was chosen for this office was never known to me and I do not know it now. Because of my engineering studies and my occupation I took an interest in questions concerning labor systems, but I do not know whether that was the reason.


28 Mast 46

DR. SERVATIUS: Was your appointment not made at Speer's suggestion?

SAUCKEL: Reichsleiter Bormann stated that in the preamble to his official decree. I do not know the actual circumstances.

DR. SERVATIUS: I beg to refer to Sauckel Document Number 7. It is in Document Book 1, Page 5.

SAUCKEL: I should like to add that this appointment came as a complete surprise to me, I did not apply for it in any way. I never applied for any of my offices.

THE PRESIDENT: What number are you giving to this document?

DR. SERVATIUS: Document Number 7.

THE PRESIDENT: I mean the chart. What number are you giving to the chart?

DR. SERVATIUS: Document 1.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I see, and Document Number 7, Page 5.

DR. SERVATIUS: Yes. This document is a preamble added by Reichsleiter Bormann to the decree and which shows that it was Speer who suggested Sauckel for this position.

Was it an entirely new office which you then entered?

SAUCKEL: No. The Arbeitseinsatz had been directed by the Four Year Plan before my appointment. A ministerial director, Dr. Mansfeld, held the of lice then. I only learned here, during these proceedings, that the office was already known before my time as the office of the Plenipotentiary General.

DR. SERVATIUS: On taking up your office did you talk to Dr.Mansfeld, your socalled predecessor?

SAUCKEL: I neither saw Dr. Mansfeld nor spoke to him, nor did I take over any records from him.

DR. SERVATIUS: To what extent was your office different from that of the previous Plenipotentiary General?

SAUCKEL: My office was different to this extent: The department in the Four Year Plan was given up and was no longer used by me. I drew departments of the Reich Labor Ministry more and more closely into this work as they had some of the outstanding experts.

DR. SERVATIUS: What was the reason for this reconstruction of the office?

SAUCKEL: The reason was to be found in the many conflicting interests which had been very prominent up to the third year of the war in the political and state offices, internal administration offices,


28 May 46

Party agencies and economic agencies, and which now for territorial ยท considerations opposed the interdistrict equalization of the labor potential, which had become urgent.

DR. SERVATIUS: What sort of task did you have then? What was your sphere of work?

SAUCKEL: My chief sphere of work was in directing and regulating German labor.

DR. SERVATIUS: What task were you given then?

SAUCKEL: I had to replace with suitably skilled workers those men who had to be freed from industry for drafting into the German Wehrmacht, that is, into the different branches of the Wehrmacht. Moreover, I also had to obtain new labor for the new war industries which had been set up for food production as well as for the production of armaments, of course.

DR. SERVATIUS: Was your task definitely defined?

SAUCKEL: It was at first in no way definitely defined. There were at that time about 23 or 24 million workers to be directed, who were available in the Reich but who had not yet been fully employed for war economy.

DR. SERVATIUS: Did you look on your appointment as a permanent one?

SAUCKEL: No. I could not consider it as permanent.


SAUCKEL Because in addition to me the Reich Labor Minister and his state secretaries were in office and at the head of things; and then there was the whole of the Labor Ministry.

DR. SERVATIUS: What sources were at your disposal to obtain this labor?

SAUCKEL: First, there were the workers who were already present in the Reich from all sorts of callings who, as I have said, had not yet been directed to war economy, not yet completely incorporated in the way that was necessary for the conduct of the war. Then further there were the prisoners of war as far as their labor was made available by the army authorities.

DR. SERVATIUS: At first then, if I have understood you correctly, proper distribution, and a thrifty management of German labor?

SAUCKEL: When my appointment...

DIE PRESIDENT: Defendant, I do not understand the German language, but it appears to me that if you would not make pauses between each word it would make your sentences shorter; and pause


28 May 46

at the end of the sentence. It would be much more convenient for the interpreter. I do not know whether I am right in that. That is what it looks like. You are pausing between each word, and there

fore it is difficult, I imagine, to get the sense of the sentence.

SAUCKEL: I beg your pardon, Your Lordship.

THE PRESIDENT: Go on, Dr. Servatius.

DR. SERVATIUS: What did you do to carry out your task?

SAUCKEL: I will repeat. First, as I had received no specific instructions I understood my task to mean that I was to fill up the gaps and deficiencies by employing labor in the most rational and economic way.

DR. SERVATIUS: What was the order you received? How many people were you to obtain?

SAUCKEL: That question is very difficult to answer, for I received the necessary orders only in the course of the development of the war. Labor and economy are fluid, intangible things. However I then received the order that if the war were to continue for some time I was to find replacements in the German labor sector for the Wehrmacht, whose soldiers were the potential of peacetime economy.

DR. SERVATIUS: You drew up a program. What was provided for in your program?

SAUCKEL: I drew up two programs, Doctor. At first, when I took up my office, I drew up one program which included a levee en masse, so to speak, of German women and young people, and, another, as I already said, for the proper utilization of labor from the economic and technical point of view.

DR. SERVATIUS: Was the program accepted?

SAUCKEL: The program was rejected by the Fuehrer when submitted it to him and, as was my duty, to the Reich economic authorities and ministries which were interested in the employment of labor.


SAUCKEL: The Fuehrer sent for me and in a lengthy statement explained the position of the German war production and also the economic situation. He said that he had nothing against my program as such if he had the time; but that in view of the situation, he could not wait for such German women to become trained and experienced. At that time 10 million German women were already employed who had never done industrial or mechanical work. Further, he said that the results of such a rationalization of working methods as I had suggested, something like a mixture of Ford and Taylor methods...


28 May 46

DR. SERVATIUS: One moment. The interpreters cannot translate your long sentences properly. You must make short sentences and divide your phrases, otherwise no one can understand you and your defense will suffer a great deal. Will you please be careful about that.

SAUCKEL: In answer to my proposal the Fuehrer said that he could not wait for a rationalization of the working methods on the lines of the Taylor and Ford systems.

DR. SERVATIUS: And what did he suggest?

SAUCKEL: May I explain the motives which prompted the Fuehrer's decision. He described the situation at that time, at the end of the winter of 1941 42. Many hundreds of German locomotives, almost all the mechanized armed units, tanks, planes, and mechanical weapons had become useless as a result of the catastrophe of that abnormally hard winter.

Hundreds of thousands of German soldiers had suffered terribly from the cold; many divisions had lost their arms and supplies. The Fuehrer explained to me that if the race with the enemy for new arms, new munitions, and new dispositions of forces was not won now, the Soviets would be as far as the Channel by the next winter. Appealing to my sense of duty and asking me to put into it all I could, he gave me the task of obtaining new foreign labor for employment in the German war economy.

DR. SERVATIUS: Did you have no scruples that this was against international law?

SAUCKEL: The Fuehrer spoke to me in such detail about this question and he explained the necessity so much as a matter of course that, after he had withdrawn a suggestion which he had made himself, there could be no misgivings on my part that the employment of foreign workers was against international law.

DR. SERVATIUS: You also negotiated with other agencies and there were already workers within the Reich. What were you told about that?

SAUCKEL: None of the higher authorities, either military or civilian, expressed any misgivings. Perhaps I may add some things which the Fuehrer mentioned as binding upon me. On the whole, the Fuehrer always treated me very kindly. On this question, he became very severe and categorical and said that in the West he had left half the French Army free and at home, and he had released the greater part of the Belgian Army and the whole of the Dutch Army from captivity. He told me that under certain circumstances he would have to recall these prisoners of war for military reasons, but that in the interests of the whole of Europe and the Occident,


28 May 48

so he expressed himself, only a united Europe, where labor was properly allocated, could hold out in the fight against Bolshevism.

DR. SERVATIUS: Did you know the terms of the Hague land warfare regulations?

SAUCKEL: During the first World War I myself was taken prisoner as a sailor. I knew what was required and what was laid down with regard to the treatment and protection of prisoners of war and prisoners generally.

DR. SERVATIUS: Did foreign authorities-I am thinking of the French-ever raise the objection that what you planned with your Arbeitseinsatz was an infringement of the Hague land warfare regulations?

SAUCKEL: No. In France, on questions of the Arbeitseinsatz, Manly negotiated with the French Government through the military commander and under the presidency of the German Ambassador in Paris. I was convinced that as far as the employment of labor in France was concerned, agreements should be made with a proper French Government. I negotiated in a similar manner with the General Secretary in Belgium.

DR. SERVATIUS: Now a large part-about a third-of the foreign workers were socalled Eastern Workers. What were you told about them?

SAUCKEL: With regard to the employment of workers from the East I was told that Russia had not joined the Geneva Convention, and so Germany for her part was not bound by it. And I was further told that in the Baltic countries and in other regions, Soviet Russia had also claimed workers or people, and that in addition about 3 million Chinese were working in Soviet Russia.

DR. SERVATIUS: And what about Poland?

SAUCKEL: As regards Poland I had been told, just as in the case of other countries, that it was a case of total capitulation; and that on the grounds of this capitulation Germany was justified in introducing German regulations:

DR. SERVATIUS: Did you consider the employment of foreign labor justifiable from the general point of view?

SAUCKEL: On account of the necessities which I have mentioned, I considered the employment of foreign workers justifiable according to the principles which I enforced and advocated and to which I also adhered in my field of work. I was, after all, a German and I could feel only as a German.

DR. SERVATIUS: Herr Sauckel, you must formulate your sentences differently, the interpreters cannot translate them. You must not insert one sentence into another.


28 May 46

So you considered it justifiable, in view of the principles you wished to apply and, which as you said, you enforced in your field of work?


DR. SERVATIUS: Did you also think of the hardships imposed on the workers and their families through this employment?

SAUCKEL: I knew from my own life even if one goes to foreign countries voluntarily, a separation is very sad and heartbreaking and it is very hard for members of a family to be separated from each other. But I also thought of the German families, of the German soldiers, and of the hundreds of thousands of German workers who also had to go away from home.

DR. SERVATIUS: The suggestion has been made that the work could have been carried out in the occupied territories themselves, and it would not then have been necessary to fetch the workers away. Why was that not done?

SAUCKEL: That is, at first sight, an attractive suggestion. If it had been possible, I would willingly have carried out the suggestion which was made by Funk and other authorities, and later even by Speer. It would have made my life and work much simpler. On the other hand, there were large departments in this system which had to provide for and maintain the different branches of German economy and supply them with orders. As the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor I could not have German fields, German farming, German mass production with the most modern machinery transferred to foreign territories-I had no authority for that-and those offices insisted that I should find replacements for the agricultural and industrial workers and the artisans whose places had become vacant in German agriculture or industry because the men had been called to the colors.

DR. SERVATIUS: You said before that the manner in which you had planned the employment of workers was such that it could have been approved. What then were your leading principles in carrying out your scheme for the employment of labor?

SAUCKEL: When the Fuehrer described the situation so drastically, and ordered me to bring foreign workers to Germany, I clearly recognized the difficulties of the task and I asked him to agree to the only way by which I considered it possible to do this, for I had been a worker too.

DR. SERVATIUS: Was not your principal consideration the economic exploitation of these foreign workers?

SAUCKEL: The Arbeitseinsatz has nothing to do with exploitation. It is an economic process for supplying labor.


28 May 46

DR. SERVATIUS: You said repeatedly in your speeches and on other occasions that the important thing was to make the best possible economic use of these workers. You speak of a machine which must be properly handled. Did you want to express thereby the thought of economic exploitation?

SAUCKEL: At all times a regime of no matter what nature, can only be successful in the production of goods if it uses labor economically-not too much and not too little. That alone I consider economically justifiable.

DR. SERVATIUS: It was stated here in a document which was submitted, the French Document RF 22, a government report, that the intention existed to bring about a demographic deterioration, and in other government reports mention is made that one of the aims was the biological destruction of other peoples. What do you say about that?

SAUCKEL: I can say most definitely that biological destruction was never mentioned to me. I was only too happy when I had workers. I suspected that the war would last longer than was expected, and the demands upon my office were so urgent and so great that I was glad for people to be alive, not for them to be destroyed.

DR. SERVATIUS: What was the general attitude toward the question of foreign workers before you took office? What did you find when you came?

SAUCKEL: There was a controversy when I took up my office. There were about two million foreign workers in Germany from neutral and allied states and occupied territories of the East and the West. They had been brought to the Reich without order or system. Many industrial concerns avoided contacting the labor authorities or found them troublesome and bureaucratic. The conflict of interests, as I said before, was very great. The Police point of view was most predominating, I think.

DR. SERVATIUS: And propaganda? What was the propaganda with regard to Eastern Workers, for example?

SAUCKEL: Propaganda was adapted to the war in the East. I may point out now-you interrupted me before when I was speaking of the order given me by the Fuehrer-that I expressly asked the Fuehrer not to let workers working in Germany be treated as enemies any longer, and I tried to influence propaganda to that effect.

DR. SERVATIUS: What else did you do with regard to the situation which confronted you?


28 May 46

SAUCKEL: I finally received approval from the Fuehrer for my second program. That program has been submitted here as a document. I must and will bear responsibility for that program.

DR. SERVATIUS: It has already been submitted as Document 016-PS. It is the Program for the Allocation of Labor of 20 April 1942, Exhibit USA


In this program you made fundamental statements. I will hand it to you and I ask you to comment on the general questions only, not on the individual points.

There is a paragraph added to the last part, "Prisoners of War and Foreign Workers." Have you found the paragraph?


DR. SERVATIUS: If you will look at the third paragraph you will find what you want to explain.

SAUCKEL: I should like to say that I drew up and worked out this program independently in 1942 after I had been given that difficult task by the Fuehrer. It was absolutely clear to me what the conditions would have to be if foreign workers were to be employed in Germany at all. I wrote those sentences at that time and the program went to. all the German authorities which had to deal with the matter. I quote:

"All these people must be fed, housed, and treated in such a way that with the least possible effort"-here I refer to economics as conceived by Taylor and Ford, whom I have studied closely-"the greatest possible results will be achieved. It has always been a matter of course for us Germans to treat a conquered enemy correctly and humanely, even if he were our most cruel and irreconcilable foe, and to abstain from all cruelty and petty chicanery when expecting useful service from him."

DR. SERVATIUS: Will you put the document aside now, please.

What authority did you have to carry out your task?

SAUCKEL: I had authority from the Four Year Plan to issue instructions. I had at my disposal-not under me, but at my disposal-Sections 3 and 5 of the Reich Labor Ministry.

DR. SERVATIUS: What departments did they represent?

SAUCKEL: The departments, "Employment of Labor" and "Wages."

DR. SERVATIUS: Could you issue directives and orders?

SAUCKEL: I could issue directives and orders of a departmental nature to those offices.

DR. SERVATIUS: Could you carry on negotiations with foreign countries independently?


28 May 46

SAUCKEL: I could carry on negotiations with foreign countries only through the Foreign Of lice or, when I had received permission, with the ambassadors or ministers in question.

DR. SERVATIUS: Could you give your orders independently or was agreement and consultation necessary?

SAUCKEL: My field of work, as in every large branch of an administration, made it absolutely necessary for me to discuss the questions and have consultations about them with neighboring departments. I was obliged to do so according to instructions.

DR. SERVATIUS: With whom did you have to consult, apart from the Four Year Plan under which you were placed?

SAUCKEL: I had first of all to consult the departments themselves from which I received the orders, and in addition the Party Chancellery, the office of Reich Minister Lammers-the Reich Chancellery, the Reich Railways, the Reich Food Ministry, the Reich Defense Ministry.

DR. SERVATIUS: Did things go smoothly, or were there difficulties?

SAUCKEL: There were always great difficulties.

DR. SERVATIUS: Did you have any dealings with Himmler?

SAUCKEL: I had dealings with Himmler only insofar as he gave instructions. He was Reich Minister and was responsible for security, as he said.

DR. SERVATIUS: Was not that a question which was very important for you in regard to the treatment of workers?

SAUCKEL: During the first months or in the first weeks, I believe, of my appointment I was called to see Heydrich. In a very precise way, Heydrich told me that he considered my program fantastic, such as it had been approved by the Fuehrer, and that I must realize that I was making his work very difficult in demanding that barbed wire and similar fences should not and must not be put around the labor camps, but rather taken down. He then said curtly that I must realize that if it was I who was responsible for the allocation of labor, it was he who was responsible for security. That is what he told me.

DR. SERVATIUS: Did you accept the fact that these strict police measures now existed?

SAUCKEL: Through constant efforts I had these police measures

gradually reduced as far as they concerned the workers who were employed in Germany through my agency and my office.

DR. SERVATIUS: What did your authority to issue instructions consist of? Could you issue orders or had you to negotiate, and how was this carried out in practice?


20 May 46

SAUCKEL: The authority I had to issue instructions was doubt ful from the beginning because, owing to the necessities of war, the lack of manpower, and so on, I was forbidden to establish any office of my own or any other new office or organization. I could only pass on instructions after negotiation with the supreme authorities of the Reich and after detailed consultation. These instructions were, of course, of a purely departmental nature. I could not interfere in matters of administration.

DR. SERVATIUS: How was this right to issue instructions exercised with regard to the high authorities in the occupied territories?

SAUCKEL: It was exactly the same, merely of a departmental nature. In practice it was the passing on of the Fuehrer's orders which were to be carried out there through the individual machinery of each separate administration.

DR. SERVATIUS: Could you give binding instructions to military authorities, to the Economic Inspectorate East, for example?

SAUCKEL: No, there was a strict order from the Fuehrer that in the Army areas, the operational areas of the Commanders-in-Chief, the latter only were competent, and when they had examined military conditions and the situation, everything had to be regulated according to the needs of these high military commands.

DR. SERVATIUS: Did that apply to the military commander in France, or could you act directly there?

SAUCKEL: In France I could, of course, proceed only in the same way, by informing the military commander of the instructions which I myself had received. He then prepared for discussions with the German Embassy and the French Government, so that with the Ambassador presiding, and the military commander taking an authoritative part, the discussion with the French Government took place.

DR. SERVATIUS: And what happened as far as the Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories was concerned?

SAUCKEL: In the case of that Ministry I had to transmit my orders to the Reich Minister for the Occupied Eastern Territories and had to consult with him. With Reich Minister Rosenberg we always succeeded in arranging matters between ourselves in a way that we considered right. But in the Ukraine there was the Reich Commissioner who was on very intimate terms himself with headquarters, and, as is generally known, he was very independent and acted accordingly by asserting this independence.

DR. SERVATIUS: How did these authorities in the occupied territories take your activities at first?


28 May 46

SAUCKEL: In the occupied territories there was naturally much opposition at the start of my work, because I brought new orders and new requirements and it was not always easy to reconcile conflicting interests.

DR. SERVATIUS: Was there any apprehension that you would intervene in the administration of the territories?

SAUCKEL: From my own conviction I refrained entirely from any such intervention and I always emphasized that in order to dispel any such apprehensions, since I myself was not the administrator there; but there were many selfish interests at work.

DR. SERVATIUS: We Will discuss this on another occasion. Now I should like to ask you: You had deputies for the Arbeitseinsatz- when did you obtain them?

SAUCKEL: I was given these deputies for the occupied territories through a personal decree of the Fuehrer on 30 September 1942, as far as I remember.

DR. SERVATIUS: What was the reason?

SAUCKEL: The reason for appointing these deputies was to do away more easily with the difficulties and the lack of direction which prevailed to some extent in these areas.

DR. SERVATIUS: I refer in this connection to Document 12, "The Fuehrer's Decree Concerning the Execution of the Decree of the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor." No, it is Document 13. "Decree Concerning the Appointment of Deputies"- on Page 13 of the English document book, and I also refer to Document 12 which has already been submitted as 1903-PS, Exhibit USA-206.

Did you not have two different kinds of deputies, I mean, were there already some deputies previously?

SAUCKEL: There were previously deputies of the Reich Labor Ministry who in allied or neutral countries were assigned to the German diplomatic missions. They must be distinguished from those deputies who were assigned to the chiefs of the German military or civilian administration in the occupied territories.

DR. SERVATIUS: What position did the deputies hold in the occupied territories?

SAUCKEL: In the occupied territories the deputies had a dual position. They were the leaders of the labor sections in the local government there-a considerable burden for me-and at the same time my deputies who were responsible for the uniform direction and execution of the principles of the allocation of labor as laid down by me.


28 May 46

DR. SERVATIUS: Did you have your own organization with the deputy at the head, or was that an organization of the local government?

SAUCKEL: I did not have any organization of my own. The local governments were independent separate administrations with an administrative chief as head to whom the various departments were subordinated.

DR. SERVATIUS: How many such deputies were there in one area?

SAUCKEL: In the various countries I had one deputy in each of the highest offices.

DR. SERVATIUS: What was the task of the deputy?

SAUCKEL: The task of the deputy, as I have already said, was to guarantee that German orders were carried out in a legal way and, as member of the local administration, to regulate labor questions which arose there.

DR. SERVATIUS: What tasks did they have as regards the interest of the Reich and the distribution of labor for local employment and in the Reich?

SAUCKEL: It was expressly pointed out that they were to produce labor in reasonable proportions with consideration for local conditions; they also had to see to it that my principles were observed with respect to the treatment, feeding, and so forth of workers from the occupied zones. That is laid down in the form of a directive.

DR. SERVATIUS: Did you not have your own recruiting commissions?

SAUCKEL: There were no recruiting commissions in the sense in which the expression is often used here and in our own documents. It was a question of reinforcements of experts which were requested by the local government, in order to carry out the tasks in the countries concerned.

DR. SERVATIUS What instructions did these recruiting commissions have?

SAUCKEL: They received the instructions which are frequently and clearly expressed in my orders and which, as they have been laid down, I need not mention.

DR. SERVATIUS: I refer here to Document 15 which has already been submitted as 3044-PS; Exhibit Number USA-206, and also USSR-384.

That is the Order Number 4 of 7 May 1942, which settles in principle all the problems relating to this question, and gives the necessary directives to the deputies regarding recruitment.


28 May 46

Were those directives which you issued always adhered to?

SAUCKEL: The directives I issued were not always adhered to as strictly as I had demanded. I made every effort to impose them through constant orders, instructions, and punishment which, however, I myself could not inflict.

DR. SERVATIUS: Were these orders meant seriously? The French Prosecution has submitted in the government report one of your speeches, which you made at that time in Posen. It was termed a speech of apology. I ask you whether these principles were meant seriously or whether they were only for the sake of appearances, since you yourself believed, as the document stated, that they could not be carried out?

SAUCKEL: I can only emphasize that in my life I had worked so much myself under such difficult conditions that these instructions expressed my full conviction as to their necessity. I ask to have witnesses heard as to what I thought about it and what I did in order to have these instructions carried out.

DR. SERVATIUS: Was there any noticeable opposition to your principles?

SAUCKEL: I have already said that to a certain extent my principles were considered troublesome by some authorities and injudicious as far as German security was concerned.

When I was attacked on that account, I took occasion, in addition to a number of instructions to the German Gauleiter, to issue a manifesto to all the highest German government of flees concerned.

DR. SERVATIUS: May I remark that this is Document S-84, in Document Book 3, Page 215.

I submit the document once more in German because of the form in which it is printed. It is in the form of an urgent warning and was sent to all the authorities.

THE PRESIDENT: Is it Document Number 84?


Witness, did you, in a meeting of the Central Planning Board. . .

SAUCKEL: May I be allowed to say a word with regard to l this manifesto?


SAUCKEL: When I issued the manifesto, I was met with the objection, mainly from Dr. Goebbels, that a manifesto should really be issued only by the Fuehrer and not by a subordinate authority such as myself. Then I found that I was having difficulties in getting the manifesto printed. After I had had 150,000 copies printed for all the German economic offices, for all the works


28 May 46

managers and all the other offices which were interested, I had it printed again myself in this emphatic form and personally sent it once more, with a covering letter, to all those offices.

In this manifesto, in spite of the difficulties which I encountered, I especially advocated that in the occupied territories themselves the workers should be treated in accordance with my principles and according to my directives and orders.

I respectfully ask the Court to be allowed to read a few sentences from it:

"I therefore order that for all the occupied territories, for the treatment, feeding, billeting, and payment of foreign workers, appropriate regulations and directives be issued similar to those valid for foreigners in the Reich. They are to be adjusted to the respective local conditions and applied in accordance with prevailing conditions.

"In a number of the Eastern Territories indigenous male and female civilian labor working for the German war industry or the German Wehrmacht is undernourished. In the urgent interests of the German war industry in this territory this condition should be remedied. It is checking production and is dangerous. And endeavor must therefore be made by all means available to provide additional food for these workers and their families. This additional food must be given only in accordance with the output of work.

"It is only through the good care and treatment of the whole of the available European labor on the one hand, and through its most rigid concentration"-here I mean organizational- "leadership and direction on the other hand, that the fluctuation of labor in the Reich and in the occupied territories can be limited to a minimum, and a generally stable, lasting and reliable output be achieved." May I read one more sentence: "The foreign workers in the Reich and the population in the occupied territories who are being employed for the German war effort must be given the feeling that it is to their own interests to work loyally for Germany and that therein alone will they see and actually find their one real guarantee of life."

May I read still one sentence in the next paragraph:

"They must be given absolute trust in the justness of the German authorities and of their German employers."

THE PRESIDENT: I think we had better not go further in this document. Can you indicate to us at all how long you are likely to be with this defendant?


28 May 46

DR. SERVATIUS: I shall probably need the whole day tomorrow. THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Dodd, would it be convenient for you some time to deal with the documents of the remaining defendants?

MR. DODD: Yes, Mr. President, any time that you might set aside.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, you know how far the negotiations and agreements with reference to documents have gone.

MR. DODD: I do with some, but not with all. I can ascertain the facts tonight, or before the morning session, and advise you at that time.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, and you will let us know tomorrow what time will be convenient?

MR. DODD: Yes, Sir.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn.

[The Tribunal adjourned until 29 May 1946 at 1000 hours.]


Previous Day Volume 14 Menu Next Day
Nuremberg Trials Page

127 Wall Street, New Haven, CT 06511.