4000bce - 399
400 - 1399
1400 - 1499
1500 - 1599
1600 - 1699
1700 - 1799
1800 - 1899
1900 - 1999
THE PRESIDENT (Lord Justice Sir Geoffrey Lawrence): The Tribunal will adjourn this afternoon at 4 o'clock in order to sit in closed session.
MR. THOMAS J. DODD (Executive Trial Counsel for the United States): Mr. President, the day before yesterday the Tribunal asked if we would ascertain whether or not Document Number D-880 had been offered in evidence. It consists of extracts from the testimony of Admiral Raeder, and we have ascertained that it was offered, and it is Exhibit Number GB-483. It was put to a witness by Mr. Elwyn Jones in the course of cross-examination, and it has been offered in evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
MR. DODD: Also, with respect to the Court's inquiry concerning the status of other defendants and their documents, we are able to say this morning that with respect to the Defendant Jodl the documents are now being translated and mimeographed, and there is no need for any hearing before the Tribunal.
The Seyss-Inquart documents have been heard and are now being translated and mimeographed.
The Von Papen documents are settled; there is no disagreement between the Prosecution and the Defendant Von Papen, And they are in the process of being mimeographed and translated.
With respect to the Defendant Speer, we think there will be no need for any hearing, and I expect that by the end of today they will be sent to the translating and mimeographing departments.
The documents for the Defendant Von Neurath have not yet been submitted by the defendant to the Prosecution.
And with respect to the Defendant Fritzsche, our Russian colleagues will be in a position to advise us more exactly in the course of the day. I expect that I shall be able to advise the Tribunal as to the Defendant Fritzsche before the session ends today.
THE PRESIDENT: Does that conclude all questions of witnesses?
MR. DODD: Yes, I believe-at least, we have no objection to any of the witnesses.
29 May 46
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, then; there need not be any further hearing in open court on the cases of the Defendants Jodl, Seyss-Inquart, Von Papen, and Speer until their actual cases are presented.
MR. DODD: Yes, Sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
DR. ROBERT SERVATIUS (Counsel for the Defendant Sauckel): Mr. President, I have a technical question to bring up. Yesterday the witness Hildebrandt arrived, but again it was the wrong Hildebrandt. This is the third witness who has appeared here in this comedy of errors. It was the wrong one for Mende, the wrong one for Stothfang, and the wrong one for Hildebrandt. But this witness knows where the right ones are.
The witnesses had received information in their camp that they were to appear here and they were then taken to the collecting center for Ministerial Directors in Berlin-Lichterfelde. Perhaps it will still be possible to bring these two witnesses here. Especially the witness Hildebrandt, who can testify about the French matters, would be of importance if we could still get him.
THE PRESIDENT: Was the name given accurately to the General Secretary?
DR. SERVATIUS: The name was given accurately. The other man's name was also Hildebrandt, only not Hubert but Heinrich. He was also a Ministerial Director...
THE PRESIDENT: I do not mean only the surname but all his Christian names.
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, one name was Heinrich and the other Hubert, and abbreviated it was "H" for both, Dr. H. Hildebrandt, which apparently caused the confusion.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I say the names of all witnesses had better be given in full; really in full, not merely with initials.
DR. SERVATIUS: I had given the name in full. As to the physician, the witness Dr. Jager, I received his private address this morning. He is not under arrest. He was at first a witness for the Prosecution. His private address is in Essen, in the Viehhof Platz, and he is there now.
THE PRESIDENT: I think you had better take up all these details with the General Secretary, and he will give you every assistance.
DR. SERVATIUS: Concerning the case of Sauckel, I should like to make one more remark to the Tribunal.
29 May 46
There are about 150 documents which have been submitted by the Prosecution, and some of them are only remotely connected with Sauckel. No trial brief and no special charges were presented here orally against Sauckel, so that I cannot see in detail to what extent Sauckel is held responsible. The case was dealt with only under the heading of "Slave Labor," and so the ground of the defense is somewhat unsteady.
I do not intend to discuss every one of these 150 documents, but I should like to reserve the right to deal with some of them later if that should appear necessary. I want to point out only the most important ones, and then return to them in the course of the proceedings. At any rate, may I ask you not to construe it as an admission if I do not raise objections against any of these documents now.
THE PRESIDENT: No admission will be inferred from that. Dr. Servatius, I have before me here a document presented by the French Prosecution against the Defendant Sauckel. I suppose what you mean is that that document, that trial brief entitled Responsabilite Individuelle, does not refer to each of these 150 documents.
DR. SERVATIUS: There was, first of all, a document book, 'Slave Labor," submitted by the American Prosecution, which is not headed "Sauckel" but "Slave Labor"; and I cannot say, therefore, which parts concern Sauckel in particular.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it does say, ". . . and the special responsibility of the Defendants Sauckel and Speer therefore. .." That is the American document book. It does name Sauckel.
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes
THE PRESIDENT: And there is this other trial brief presented by Mr. Mounier on behalf of the French Delegation, which is definitely against Sauckel. But no doubt that does not specify all these 150 documents that you are referring to.
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.
[The Defendant Sauckel resumed the stand.]
Witness, yesterday near the end of the session we spoke about a manifesto-that memorandum which was intended to impress upon the various offices their duty to carry out your directives and to remove the resistance that existed. Now, you yourself have made statements which are hardly compatible with your directives, it seems. I submit to you Document Number R-124. That concerns a meeting of the Central Planning Board of 1 March 1944. There, with regard to recruitment, you said that, in order to get the workers, one ought to resort to "shanghai," as was the custom in earlier days. You said:
29 May 46
"I have even resorted to the method of training staffs of French men and women agents... who go out on man hunts and stupefy victims with drink and persuasive arguments in order to get them to Germany."
Have you found that?
FRITZ SAUCKEL (Defendant): I have found it.
THE PRESIDENT: Whereabouts in 124 is it?
DR. SERVATIUS: That is Document R-124.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but it is a very long document.
DR. SERVATIUS: It is in the document itself, Page 1770.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I have got it.
SAUCKEL: That is, as I can see, the report or record of a meeting of the Central Planning Board of the spring of 1944. During that year it had become extremely difficult for me to meet the demands of the various employers of labor represented in the Central Planning Board. At no time did I issue directives or even recommendations to "shanghai." In this conference I merely used that word as reminiscent of my days as a seaman, in order to defend myself against those who demanded workers of me, and in order to make it clear to the gentlemen how difficult my task had become, particularly in 1944. Actually, a very simple situation is at the root of this. According to German labor laws and according to my own convictions, the "Arbeitsvermittlung" (procurement of labor) -the old word for "Arbeitseinsatz" (allocation of labor)-was a right of the State; and we, myself included, scorned private methods of recruitment. In 1944 Premier Laval, the head of the French government, told me that he was also having great difficulties in carrying out the labor laws where his own workers were concerned.
In view of that, and in agreement with one of my collaborators, Dr. Didier, conferences were held in the German Embassy-the witness Hildebrandt, I believe, is better able to give information about that-with the head of the collaborationist associations, that is to say, associations among the French population which advocated collaboration with Germany. During these conferences at the German Embassy these associations stated that in their opinion official recruitment in France had become very difficult. They said that they would like to take charge of that and would like to provide recruiting agents from their own ranks and also provide people from among their members who would go to Germany voluntarily. Recruitment was not to take place through official agencies but in cafes. In these cafes, of course, certain expenses would be necessary which would have to be met; and the recruiting agents would have to be paid a bonus, or be compensated by a
29 May 46
glass of wine or some gin. That way of doing things, naturally, did not appeal to me personally; but I was in such difficulties in view of the demands put to me that I agreed, without- intending, of course, that the idea of "shanghai" with its overseas suggestions and so forth should be seriously considered.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did this suggestion come from the Frenchmen, or was it your suggestion?
SAUCKEL: As I have said already, the suggestion was made by the French leaders of these associations.
DR. SERVATIUS: If you read on a few lines in the document, you will find that mention is made of special executive powers which you wanted to create for the allocation of labor; it says there:
"Beyond that, I have charged a few capable men with the establishment of a special executive force for the Allocation of Labor. Under the leadership of the Higher SS and Police Leader a number of indigenous units have been trained and armed, and I now have to ask the Ministry of Munitions for weapons for these people."
How do you explain that?
SAUCKEL: That, also, can be explained clearly only in connection with the events that I have just described. At that time there had been many attacks on German offices and mixed German-French labor offices. The Director of the Department for the Allocation of Labor in the office of the military commander in France,
President Dr. Ritter, had been murdered. A number of recruiting offices had been raided and destroyed. For that reason these associations who were in favor of collaboration had suggested, for the protection of their own members, that a sort of bodyguard for the recruiting organization should be set up. Of course I could not do that myself because I had neither the authority nor the machinery for it. In accordance with the orders of the military commander, it had to be done by the Higher SS and Police Leader; that is, under his supervision. This was carried out in conjunction with the French Minister of the Interior at that time, Darnand; so as to be able to stand my ground against the censure of the Central Planning Board, I used an example in this drastic form. As far as I know, these hypothetical suggestions were not put into practice.
DR. SERVATIUS: Who actually carried out the recruitment of the foreign workers?
SAUCKEL: The actual recruitment of foreign workers was the task of the German offices established in the various regions, the offices of the military commanders or similar civilian German institutions.
29 May 46
DR. SERVATIUS: You ordered recruitment to be voluntary. What was the success of that voluntary recruitment?
SAUCKEL: Several million foreign workers came to Germany voluntarily, as voluntary recruitment was the underlying principle.
DR. SERVATIUS: Now, at the meeting of the Central Planning Board-the same meeting which we have just discussed-you made a remark which contradicts that. It is on Page 67 of the German photostat, Page 1827 of the English text. I shall read the sentence to you. Kehrl is speaking. He says, "During that entire period, you brought a large number of Frenchmen to the Reich by voluntary recruitment."
Then an interruption by Sauckel: '`Also by forced recruitment."
The speaker continues, "Forced recruitment started when voluntary recruitment no longer yielded sufficient numbers."
Now comes the remark on which I want you to comment. You answered, "Of the 5 million foreign workers who came to Germany, less than 200,000 came voluntarily."
Please explain that contradiction.
SAUCKEL: I see that this is another interruption which I made. All I wanted to say by it was that Herr Kehrl's opinion that all workers had come voluntarily was not quite correct. This proportion, which is put down here by the stenographer or the man writing the records, is quite impossible. How that error occurred, I do not know. I never saw the record; but the witness Timm, or others, can give information on that.
DR. SERVATIUS: I refer now to Exhibit Sauckel-15. That is Directive Number 4, which has been quoted already and which lays down specific regulations with regard to recruiting measures. It has already been submitted as Document Number 3044-PS. Why did you now abandon the principle of voluntary recruitment?
SAUCKEL: In the course of the war our opponents also carried out very considerable and widespread countermeasures. The need for manpower in Germany, on the other hand, had become tremendous. During that period a request was also put to me by French, Belgian, and Dutch circles to bring about a better balance in the economy of these territories and even to introduce what we called a labor draft law, so that the pressure of enemy propaganda would be reduced and the Dutch, Belgians, and French themselves could say that they were not going to Germany voluntarily but that they had to go because of a compulsory labor service and because of laws.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did the proximity of the front have any influence on the fact that people no longer wanted to come voluntarily?
29 May 46
SAUCKEL: Of course I came to feel that; and it is understandable that the chances of victory and defeat caused great agitation among the workers; and the way things looked at the front certainly played an important part.
· DR. SERVATIUS: Did purely military considerations also cause the introduction...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Francis Biddle, Member for the United States): Dr. Servatius, will you ask the witness what he means by a labor draft law. Does he mean a law of Germany or a law of the occupied countries?
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, you heard the question, whether you mean a German law or a law of the administration of the occupied countries?
SAUCKEL: That varied. The Reich Government in some of the territories introduced laws which corresponded to the laws that were valid for the German people themselves. Those laws could not be issued by me, but they were issued by the chiefs of the regional administrations or the government of the country concerned on the order of the German Government.
In France these laws were issued by the Laval Government, in agreement with Marshal Petain; in Belgium, in agreement with the Belgian general secretaries or general directors still in office or with the ministries.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you mean, in the other countries, by the German Government or the German Government's representatives? You have only spoken of...
SAUCKEL: The order to introduce German labor laws in the occupied territories was given by the Fuehrer. They were proclaimed and introduced by the chiefs who had been appointed by the Fuehrer for these territories, for I myself was not in a position to issue any directives, laws, or regulations there.
THE PRESIDENT: Go on.
DR. SERVATIUS: How were these laws carried out?
SAUCKEL: The laws were published in the official publications and legal gazettes, as well as being made known through the press and by posters in those territories.
DR. SERVATIUS: I mean the practical execution. How were the people brought to Germany?
SAUCKEL: They were summoned to the local labor office, which was mostly administered by local authorities. Cases had to be examined individually, according to my directives, which have been submitted here as documents. Cases of hardship to the family, or
29 May 46
other such cases, were given special consideration. Then, in the normal manner-as was done in Germany also-the individual workers or conscripted persons were brought to Germany.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were you present-did you ever witness this procedure?
SAUCKEL: I observed this procedure personally in a number of cities in Russia, France, and Belgium; and I made sure that it was carried out in accordance with orders.
DR. SERVATIUS: If compulsion was necessary, what coercive measures were taken?
SAUCKEL: At first, such compulsory measures were taken as are justified and necessary in every normal civil administration.
DR. SERVATIUS: And if they were not sufficient?
SAUCKEL: Then proceedings were proposed.
DR. SERVATIUS: These were legal measures, were they?
SAUCKEL: According to my conviction, they were legal measures.
DR. SERVATIUS: You have stated repeatedly in documents, which are available here, that a certain amount of pressure was to be used. What did you mean by that?
SAUCKEL: I consider that every administrative measure taken on the basis of laws or duties imposed by the state, on one's own nation, or in any other way, constitutes some form of stress, duty, pressure.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were not measures used which brought about some sort of collective pressure?
SAUCKEL: I rejected every kind of collective pressure. The refusal to employ collective pressure is also evident from decrees issued by other German offices in the Reich.
DR. SERVATIUS: Is it not true that in the East the villages were called upon to provide a certain number of people?
SAUCKEL: In the East, of course, administrative procedure was rendered difficult on account of the great distances. In the lower grades, as far as I know, native mayors were in office in every case. It is possible that a mayor was requested to select a number of workers from his village or town for work in Germany.
DR. SERVATIUS: Is that the same as that form of collective pressure, where, if nobody came, the entire village was to be punished?
SAUCKEL: Measures of that kind I rejected entirely in my field of activity, because I could not and would not bring to the German economy workers who had been taken to Germany in such a manner
29 May 46
that they would hate their life and their work in Germany from the very outset.
DR. SERVATIUS: What police facilities were at your disposal?
SAUCKEL: I had no police facilities at my disposal.
- DR. SERVATIUS: Who exercised the police pressure?
SAUCKEL: Police pressure in the occupied territories could be exerted on order or application of the respective chief of the territory, or of the Higher SS and Police Leader, if authorized.
DR. SERVATIUS: Then it was not within your competence to exert direct pressure?
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you exert indirect pressure by your directives, by cutting off food supplies, or similar measures?
SAUCKEL: After the fall of Stalingrad and the proclamation of the state of total war, Reich Minister Dr. Goebbels in Berlin interfered considerably in all these problems. He ordered that in cases of persistent refusal or signs of resistance compulsion was to be used by means of refusing additional food rations, or even by withdrawal of ration cards. I personally rejected measures of that kind energetically, because I knew very well that in the western territories the so-called food ration card played a subordinate role and that supplies were provided for the resistance movement and its members on such a large scale that such measures would have been quite ineffective. I did not order or suggest them.
DR. SERVATIUS: At the meeting of the Central Planning Board on 1 March 1944 you also stated that, if the French executive agencies were unable to get results, then one might have to put a prefect up against a wall. Do you still consider this to be legally justified pressure?
SAUCKEL: That is a similarly drastic remark of mine in the Central Planning Board which was never actually followed by an official order and not even by any prompting on my part. It was simply that I had been informed that in several departments in France the prefects or responsible chiefs supported the resistance movement wholeheartedly. Railroad tracks had been blown up; bridges had been blown up; and that remark was a verbal reaction on my part. I believe, however, I was then only thinking of a legal measure, because there did, in fact, exist a French law which made sabotage an offense punishable by death.
DR. SERVATIUS: May I refer to the document in this connection?
THE PRESIDENT: Is it in Document Number R-124?
29 May 46
DR. SERVATIUS: It is on Page 1776, where it says that on the basis of the law it would then be necessary to put a mayor up against a wall.
[Turning to the defendant.] Do you know what laws existed in France compelling co-operation from the French authorities, or whether there were such laws?
SAUCKEL: Yes, such laws existed.
DR. SERVATIUS: A number of reports, which were submitted here, concerning the application of measures of compulsion, mentioned abuses and outrageous conditions allegedly caused by recruitment measures. What can you say about that in general?
SAUCKEL: I did not quite understand your question.
DR. SERVATIUS: Concerning the use of compulsion, a number of reports were brought up here, and you have heard them; reports setting forth measures which must surely be generally condemned. You heard of the burning down of villages and the shooting of men. What can you say to that in general?
SAUCKEL: All these measures are clearly in contradiction to the directives and instructions which I issued and which have been submitted here in large numbers, and to these I must refer. These are methods against which, when I heard as much as hints of them, I took very severe measures.
DR. SERVATIUS: And who bears the immediate responsibility for such incidents?
SAUCKEL: The responsibility for such incidents rests with the local authorities which did these things.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were there any other of flees besides the local authorities which dealt with recruitment of labor?
SAUCKEL: That is exactly what I was fighting for from the very beginning-to eliminate and combat the intricate maze of offices which, without restraint or control, recruited workers by compulsion. That was part of my job.
DR. SERVATIUS: What kind of offices were they? Local of fires?
SAUCKEL: They were offices of all kinds. I myself heard about most of them only here.
DR. SERVATIUS: What was the situation with regard to the Todt Organization?
SAUCKEL: The Todt Organization for a long time recruited and used manpower independently in all territories.
DR. SERVATIUS; Did the labor service have anything to do with that?
29 May 46
SAUCKEL: Do you mean the labor service of Reichsarbeitsfuehrer Hierl?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.
SAUCKEL: That I cannot say; that was a German military organization for training for manual work.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were workers taken for the Armed Forces?
SAUCKEL: Workers were employed for local urgent work, of course, by army groups, by construction and fortification battalions, and so on, which I neither knew about nor was in a position to control. Road building...
DR. SERVATIUS: How about the Reichsbahn?
SAUCKEL: The Reichsbahn repaired its tracks itself and recruited or hired the workers for its requirements whenever it needed them.
DR. SERVATIUS: These offices were not under your supervision?
DR. SERVATIUS: Did they carry out your instructions or were they required to carry them out?
SAUCKEL: They were not obliged to carry them out; and for that very reason I sent out, and in a very emphatic form, that manifesto which was mentioned yesterday. As, however, I myself had no supervision over the executive authorities, I had to leave it to the various offices to take these instructions into consideration.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was the number of workers recruited in the various territories in that manner very large?
SAUCKEL: There were certainly very large numbers of them.
DR. SERVATIUS: There were also Reich offices which dealt with the question of manpower. What about the deportations carried out by Himmler? Did you have any connection with those?
SAUCKEL: With reference to the question of these deportations, I can only say that I did not have the least thing to do with them. I never agreed-I never could have agreed, in view of my own outlook, my development, and my life-I could not have agreed to the use of prisoners or convicts for work in that manner. That was absolutely foreign to my nature. I also have the firm conviction that, on account of my forcible statements and measures, I was intentionally kept uninformed about the whole matter, because it was quite contrary to my own views on work and on workers. I said very often-and it can be seen in documents here-that I wanted to win the co-operation of the foreign workers for Germany and for the German way of life, and I did not want to alienate them.
29 May 46
DR. SERVATIUS: These then were the various offices which, apart from you, had to do with recruitment of workers?
SAUCKEL: May I make a short statement in that respect? I heard the word "deportation" a few times in Germany and I always rejected the idea very emphatically because I knew nothing about such operations. According to the use of the word in the German language I understand "deportation" to mean the sending away of prisoners and of people who have committed some punishable act against the State. I never carried out deportations because of my own views on the ethics of work. On the contrary, I gave the workers recruited through my office-and that was the point on which I finally obtained Hitler's consent at the beginning of my job, and it was not an easy matter-I gave all foreign workers legal contracts, whether they came voluntarily or through German labor conscription. They should and must receive the same treatment, the same pay, and the same food as the German workers. That is why I rejected the idea of deportation in my methods and my program. I can testify here with a clear conscience that I had nothing at all to do with those deportations, the terrible extent of which I learned only here.
DR. SERVATIUS: You have pointed out Repeatedly that this labor had to be brought to Germany under all circumstances, that one had to proceed ruthlessly, that it was an absolute necessity to get the workers. Does that not show that you agreed with such measures?
SAUCKEL: I should like to point out the following distinction:
My directives and instructions can be clearly seen in numerous documents. I could issue only these because I had no executive power and no machinery of my own. All these directives, from the very beginning, prescribe legally correct and just treatment. It is true, however, that I used the words "under all circumstances" when communicating with German offices-the Fuehrer himself had impressed these words on me-and I used the word "ruthlessly," not with respect to the treatment of workers but with respect to the many arguments, disputes, arbitrary acts, and individual desires which the German offices, with which I had to contend fiercely, had among themselves and against me. For the most part they did not understand the importance of the allocation of labor as an economic measure in time of war. The military authorities, the army commanders, very often told me, for instance, that it was nonsense to bring these people to Germany. There was the Vlassov Army under the Russian general of that name, and the military authorities wanted these Russian workers to join the Vlassov Army. I opposed that. I did not consider it right, nor did I consider it
29 May 46
sufficiently reliable. These were the things against which I had to proceed ruthlessly in my dealings with the German administration in those territories.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were there other circumstances, too, which led to the transportation of people to Germany?
SAUCKEL: Yes, there were other circumstances which, however, were not connected directly but indirectly with the allocation of labor, and they often took me by surprise; for example, the evacuation of military zones, which frequently had to be carried through at a moment's notice or after only a very short time of preparation. And when such an evacuation had been carried out it was the task of the local labor offices to put the evacuated population to work in areas in the rear or to bring to Germany such workers as could be used there.
This sort of labor allocation entailed, of course, considerable difficulties for me. There were families and children among the evacuated people; and they, naturally, had also to be provided with shelter. It was often the very natural wish of the Russian fathers and mothers to take their children with them. That happened, not because I wanted it, but because it was unavoidable.
DR. SERVATIUS: And did you always use this labor, or only occasionally?
SAUCKEL: To a large extent those people were used by the local authorities in those territories and put into agriculture, industry, railroads, bridge building, and so on.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you have anything to do with resettlement?
SAUCKEL: I never had anything to do with resettlement. By a decree of the Fuehrer that task was expressly delegated to the Reichsfuehrer SS.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did Rosenberg not report to you about bad conditions which existed in his sphere?
SAUCKEL: Yes. I had about four conversations with Rosenberg, at his request; and he told me about the bad conditions. There was no doubt on my part that such conditions were to be utterly condemned.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did he speak about Koch?
SAUCKEL: The Reichskommissariat Ukraine was mainly involved. There were considerable differences between the Reich Minister for the Occupied Eastern Territories, Rosenberg, and Reich Commissioner Koch.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were you in a position to take measures against Koch?
29 May 46
SAUCKEL: Koch was not subordinate to me either directly or indirectly. I could not give him any instructions in such matters. I let him know from the outset that I could not possibly agree with such methods as I had heard about, to some extent through Rosenberg, although I could not prove them.
Koch was of the opinion-and he explained that in his letters to Rosenberg-that in his territory he was the sole authority. He also pointed that out to me.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did Rosenberg not think the cause for these conditions was that your demands were too high?
SAUCKEL: I also spoke to Herr Rosenberg about that. I personally was of the opinion that, if the demands could be divided up and orderly recruitment and conscription could take place, it was quite possible to fill the quotas. After all, I had orders and instructions from the Fuehrer and the Central Planning Board.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you ever talk about the methods which should be used?
SAUCKEL: The methods that should be used were not only frequently discussed between us, but I published them in many very clear directives. I even went so far as to issue and distribute my manifesto over the head of this higher authority to the subordinate offices so that they could be guided by it.
I have to point out emphatically, however, that these were incidents which occurred for the most part before my directives came into effect and before my appointment.
DR. SERVATIUS: I want to refer you to Document Number 018-PS. That is in the "Slave Labor Brief," Page 10.
THE PRESIDENT: That is not Page 10. It is Number 10.
DR. SERVATIUS: It is Exhibit Number USA-186. In the English "Slave Labor" Book it is Document 10. It is a letter of 21 December 1942.
[The document was handed to the defendant.]
If you go through that document, you will see that Rosenberg complains about the methods used by your agents and collaborators. What are these offices for which you are being made responsible here?
SAUCKEL: There is an error in this letter on the part of Herr Rosenberg, because it was not I who had offices there but the Reich Commissioner.
DR. SERVATIUS: In other words you are saying that he addressed himself to the wrong person?
29 May 46
DR. SERVATIUS: Then will you lay that document aside.
SAUCKEL: Rosenberg writes on Page 2, "I empowered the Reich Commissioner for the Ukraine..."
DR. SERVATIUS: You assume, therefore, that the writer of this letter did not himself know exactly who the authorities in his territory were?
SAUCKEL: Yes, that was quite possible, because I myself had only been in office a short time.
DR. SERVATIUS: What did you do as a result of the complaint which Rosenberg made? Did you do anything at all?
SAUCKEL: After receiving Rosenberg's letter I had a discussion with him immediately. As it was shortly before Christmas, 21 December 1942, I called by telegram an official meeting at Weimar for 6 January, to which representatives of the respective offices in the East were invited. I also invited Reich Minister Rosenberg to that meeting. And at that conference these officials were again told clearly and unmistakably that it was their duty to use correct and legal methods.
DR. SERVATIUS: In that connection I would like to refer to Document Number Sauckel-82. It is in the Sauckel Document Book Number 3, Page 207. I submit the handbook itself, which contains a number of documents for judicial notice.
I quote one sentence from the speech on the principles of recruiting which Sauckel made there before 800 people who were employed in the Allocation of Labor program.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you say 800?
DR. SERVATIUS: Page 206.
THE PRESIDENT: It is 8,000 in my copy. Isn't it 8,000?
DR. SERVATIUS: The third book, Page 206, Document Number 82.
THE PRESIDENT: I am looking at Document Number 82. I thought you said 800 men were employed. I am looking at the beginning of Document 82.
DR. SERVATIUS: It begins on Page 204. He spoke before 800 people, not 8,000. It should be 800. That is a mistake in the translation of the document.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. SERVATIUS: The following is stated here:
"Principles of our recruiting:
"1) Where the voluntary method fails (and experience shows that it fails everywhere) compulsory service takes its place...."-I skip a few sentences.
29 May 46
"It is bitter to tear people from their homes, from their children. But we did not want the war. The German child who loses its father at the front, the German wife who mourns her husband killed in battle, suffer far more. Let us disclaim every false sentiment now."
THE PRESIDENT: You have left out some of the document, have you not?
DR. SERVATIUS: I did not quite understand.
THE PRESIDENT: You have left out some of the document.
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, I omitted some sentences and I said so. But I can read all of it.
THE PRESIDENT: I only mean on Page 206. I didn't mean the whole document. On Page 206 you have just skipped two sentences.
DR. SERVATIUS: I have four sentences there. I will read them again:
"Where the voluntary method fails, compulsory service takes
Then I omitted two sentences, which I shall now read:
"This is the iron law for the Allocation of Labor for 1943. In a few weeks from now there must no longer be any occupied territory in which compulsory service for Germany is not the most natural thing in the world."
THE PRESIDENT: Didn't you also leave out the words "experience shows that it fails everywhere"?
DR. SERVATIUS: I read that the first time; I wanted to save time. "We are going to discard the last remnants of our soft talk about humanitarian ideals. Every additional gun which we procure brings us a minute closer to victory. It is bitter to tear people from their homes, from their children. But we did not want the war. The German child who loses its father at the front, the German wife who mourns her husband killed in battle, suffer far more. Let us disclaim every false sentiment now.
"Here we must be guided by the realization that in the long run a high output can be demanded of foreign workers only if they are satisfied with their lot. I will not tolerate men being treated badly.
"3) Under no circumstances are you, as the recruiting commission abroad, permitted to promise things which according to the directives and regulations issued are not possible and cannot be carried out on account of the war. It is much better to introduce labor conscription and say, 'You must take this
29 May 46
upon yourselves and in return you will enjoy the rights of the workers employed in Germany.' Anyone who works in Germany has rights in Germany, even if he is a Bolshevist. We shall watch very carefully to insure that the German name
be not sullied. You can demand of me any protection in your field of work, but none for any crimes. The name of our nation is holy. For the first time in German history you must represent for the Reich the principles of German labor. Be conscious of that at all times."
[Turning to the defendant.] Apart from the information which you received from Rosenberg, did you receive any other reports concerning recruiting methods?
SAUCKEL: Apart from the information from Rosenberg and his letters of that time, I did not receive any other direct complaints. But I had issued emphatic orders that any complaints received by my of flee were to be forwarded immediately to the competent Reich authorities for investigation, punishment, and the remedying of the grievances. I should like to state this: My office received a great many complaints which concerned me; but they were complaints about insufficient numbers of workers provided by me. It was my duty to correct this. For the correction of inadequacies in administration, for eliminating unjust measures in various fields or various agencies, I could not be competent, as the Reich authorities themselves were competent in that respect.
DR. SERVATIUS: But it should have been of great interest to you what happened there. Did you not hear anything of these incidents? Was nothing reported to you?
SAUCKEL: That I was interested from a humane and personal point of view can be seen from the fact that I was concerned about these things, although they did not come within my office.
DR. SERVATIUS: But you spoke here about one case in which it was reported to you that a cinema had been surrounded. Perhaps you remember that case?
SAUCKEL: When on a visit to Field Marshal Kluge, I heard from him that he had been informed that in the area of his army, or army group, a cinema had been surrounded and the people attending the cinema had been brought to Germany to work. I immediately had that case most carefully investigated, and the investigation took 3 months. Witnesses will be able to testify to that when they appear here. The result of the investigation was the following: It was not a case of labor recruitment for Germany. A construction unit near Rovno was celebrating in that cinema the end of one of its tasks; and in the middle of that celebration the order was received that this unit had to be put on a new job, a
29 May 48
different place of work. The contractor thereupon interrupted the celebration in a very drastic way by having the immediate transport of these workers carried out by a force of police. That, of course, had nothing to do with my work and my organization; but it took me 3 months to discover the true facts of this complaint by Field Marshal Kluge. In every case where such complaints came to my attention I investigated and dealt with them and condemned them, because they did not help me.
DR. SERVATIUS: We will leave this matter of recruitment now and turn to the question of the transportation of these people to Germany. Who was responsible for their transportation?
SAUCKEL: For transportation the German Reichsbahn and the authorities designated in my Directive Number Regional offices and regional labor departments-were responsible.' Immediately on assuming my office I had a detailed discussion with Dr. Dorpmuller, Reich Minister of Transport; his state secretary, Dr. Ganzenmuller; and before him Dr. Kleinmuller; and it was agreed that the transportation of workers to Germany should be carried out in an unobjectionable manner; that the transport trains should be supplied with food for the duration of the journey; that, if Russians were included in these transports, the cars should under no circumstances be overcrowded; and that, if at all possible, passenger coaches should be used for these transports. We agreed on this, though the Reich Minister of Transport said that he could not be expected to provide the people with better transport than the German soldiers had; still, he could at least guarantee that the cars would not be overcrowded.
DR. SERVATIUS: You have seen the Molotov report, that is Exhibit Number USSR-51. You know its contents, describing the conditions of these transports, saying that the cars were overcrowded, that the dying were thrown out and left lying oh the tracks, and that newly born children died immediately. Were such conditions reported to you, or did you hear of them in your official position?
SAUCKEL: Such incidents were not reported to me in my official position, and they could not possibly have referred to worker transports of my office. ,
DR. SERVATIUS: What kind of transports could they have been then?
SAUCKEL: As far as I could determine from the proceedings here, they must have been transports of inmates of concentration camps who were being evacuated. I do not know for certain; but I cannot explain it otherwise because I would not tolerate such conditions under any circumstances, nor did I hear about them. Such things were of no advantage to us.
29 May 46
THE PRESIDENT: Where is that document, USSR-51?
DR. SERVATIUS: USSR-51 is the official report which I received in printed form. I have a printed German copy. I assume that it has been submitted to the Tribunal already. If not, I will obtain it and submit it myself.
THE PRESIDENT: If it has got the Number USSR-51, it must have been submitted to the Tribunal. That is the exhibit number. I wonder whether it has got some other number by which we can identify it?
DR. SERVATIUS: The Prosecution handed me Document Number 054-PS: that is Exhibit Number USA-198. That is Number 13 in the English "Slave Labor" Book.
[Turning to the defendant.] There, on Page 4, mention is made of a return transport, and in connection with it very bad conditions are described and censured. Did you find it? The passage begins:
"Very depressing effects on the morale of the skilled workers and the population are caused above all by people returning from Germany in a condition unfit for work, or who were already unfit before they came to Germany."
SAUCKEL: These can only be incidents which occurred before . . .
THE PRESIDENT: We haven't had the question yet, have we? The question didn't come through, I think.
DR. SERVATIUS: I will put the question again.
In this document mention is made of return transports from Germany to the East, and two transports are denounced on account of the abominable conditions which are described. I quote from the document:
"Very depressing effects on the morale of the skilled workers and the population are caused above all by people returning from Germany in a condition unfit for work, or who were already unfit before they came to Germany. Several times already transports of skilled workers on their way to Germany have passed returning transports of such unfit persons, and they have stood on the tracks alongside each other for some time. On account of the insufficient care given these returning transports (sick, injured, or weak people, mostly 50 or 60 to a car, often many days without sufficient care and food, usually escorted by only 3 or 4 men), and through the frequently very unfavorable-even if exaggerated-statements of these repatriates about their treatment in Germany and en route, added to what the people could see with their own eyes, a psychosis of fear developed among the skilled workers and others being transported to Germany. Several transport
29 May 46
leaders, especially those of the 62d and the 63d Transports, reported details in this connection. In one case the leader of the transport of skilled workers observed with his own eyes how a person who had died of hunger was unloaded on the side track from a returning transport. (1st Lt. Hofmann of the 63d Transport, Darniza Station.) On another occasion it was reported that en route three dead..."
THE PRESIDENT: I don't think you need read all of this to the defendant. He probably knows it and he can give his answer upon it.
DR. SERVATIUS: You see that reference is being made to a report; will you please comment on it?
SAUCKEL: Concerning this report, may I say the following: These terrible conditions had to be investigated at once by the local authorities concerned. A report on the result of the investigation did not reach me. This report here was also not made to me. I may point out that the transportation to Germany of sick people unfit for work was strictly prohibited by me, because that would have been a crime and an impossibility from the economic point of view. I could not possibly say who sent these trains back. It was also not established what kind of transports they really were. The report describes conditions which already existed before I came into office. I, personally-and I should like to emphasize this particularly-issued a decree according to which sick people or pregnant women-I personally issued orders that, if a return transport of sick people were necessary, the German Red Cross were to furnish personnel to accompany these people ad the way back to their native place. These orders can be found among the codes. Such terrible cases of negligence and crime are, therefore, in contradiction to the clear regulations issued by the German labor authorities.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you not equip Bad Frankenthal for sick people who could not return?
SAUCKEL: In my own Gau it was not Bad Frankenthal but Bad Frankenhausen, Kyffhauser, which I made available for sick Soviet workers. In addition, I had a large school set aside in Edendorf near Weimar with 100 beds for typhus patients and Russian prisoners of war. So, on my own initiative, I myself did everything possible to help in dealing with cases of sickness and similar matters. It was also prohibited to return people while they were in a sick condition.
THE PRESIDENT: We had better adjourn now.
[A recess was taken.]
29 May 46
DR. SERVATIUS: When the workers arrived in Germany . . .
SAUCKEL: May I say something about Document Number 054-PS to supplement my testimony? It is very important.
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.
SAUCKEL: On Page 5, near the center of the page, I should like to call your attention to the following sentence of the reporter -this is a report within a military authority: "These extreme incidents which took place in transports in the first few months did not, to our knowledge, repeat themselves in the summer." In the first months of the year 1942 I was not even in office, and my program did not commence until May. In the summer of that year, as it is correctly stated here, an end was put to this state of affairs.
Furthermore, I should like to call attention in the same document, 054-PS, I believe on Page 10, to a copy of a letter of complaint which says, `'As I informed you in my letter of 20 April 1942..." It is evident, therefore, that this letter deals with complaints about conditions which must have been disclosed before I assumed office.
DR. SERVATIUS: I was going to ask you about the arrival of workers in Germany. What happened when a transport arrived in Germany?
SAUCKEL: Upon their arrival in Germany the people of the transport had not only to be properly received but they also had to be medically examined again and checked at a transit camp. One examination had to be made at the time and place of recruitment, and another took place at a fixed point before the border. Thus, from the time of recruitment until being put to work three medical examinations and checks had to be made, according to my directives.
DR. SERVATIUS: What were the transit camps?
SAUCKEL: These transit camps were camps in which the people from the various transports came together at the border, and where they were examined and registered in the proper manner.
DR. SERVATIUS: I submit Document Number UK-39 to you. I have no exhibit number for it.
THE PRESIDENT: It is a British exhibit?
DR. SERVATIUS: I could not establish whether it already has an exhibit number; I shad have to check on that. At any rate, it was given to me.
THE PRESIDENT: You gave the Number UK-39?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, UK-39.
THE PRESIDENT: It must be a British exhibit number, must it not?
29 May 46
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE (Deputy Chief Prosecutor for the United Kingdom): The series is not a British exhibit; our exhibits are "GB." It is an earlier series of documents that we have prepared. But we will try to find out.
DR. SERVATIUS: If you will look at this document, it is a letter of the Reich Security Main Office, dated 18 January 1943, concerning "Concentration Camp Hertogenbosch." Then it says, "This camp will be equipped as a transit and reception camp."
Was that a place to which your workers were sent?
SAUCKEL: The Allocation of Labor had nothing at all to do with these camps and concentration camps. This was not a transit camp for workers but was obviously the transit camp of a concentration camp. These were not at all known to me. I never had to and never did concern myself with such transports and transit camps; and I would not have done it.
DR. SERVATIUS: A report of the French Government was submitted here; it is Document Number UK-78 and French Exhibit Number RF-87. The heading is "Third Study." It is a very comprehensive report. I shall quote from my notes. The report contains the following, roughly: "Immediately upon their arrival the workers were taken to these actual slave markets which were called sorting houses. The living conditions there were miserable."
Is that one of your transit camps which is so described?
SAUCKEL: That is absolutely impossible; such a camp never existed.
DR. SERVATIUS: How was the distribution of the workers carried out in practice? I refer once more to the Molotov report, Document Number USSR-51. The Soviet Delegation says here that this document was submitted under that exhibit number. The report says that the workers were taken to the slave market and were sold for 10 to 15 marks. What do you have to say to that?
SAUCKEL: I believe every German employer who received these workers, either in agriculture or in war industry, is a witness to the fact that a procedure of this sort never took place in any form; that it was quite inconceivable that such slave markets were instituted through the authority of the Reich Ministry of Labor; but that these workers who passed through National Socialist labor exchanges received exactly the same contracts and conditions as the German workers themselves, with some variations, and in no case were they put to work like slaves without rights or pay, without a contract, without sickness insurance, or without accident insurance. That may be seen from the numerous directives and decrees which were issued by the Reich Ministry of Labor and by me for every race involved.
29 May 46
DR. SERVATIUS: What were the general living conditions of foreign workers in Germany?
SAUCKEL: The general living conditions of foreign workers in Germany as far as they were recruited through the offices of the Allocation of Labor, were exactly the same as those of German workers who were accommodated in camps. Living conditions were dependent on the circumstances of war and, in contrast with peacetime, were subject to the same limitations as applied to the German population. The adjutant of Herr Von Schirach, a man unknown to me, who appeared here as a witness yesterday, described conditions in Vienna; those conditions existed in other German cities too.
DR. SERVATIUS: What were the security measures in these camps?
SAUCKEL: In the camps themselves?
DR. SERVATIUS: Well, I mean generally.
SAUCKEL: The security measures were the responsibility of the Police, not mine, because the camps came under the various industries and the German Labor Front.
DR. SERVATIUS: Now, I submit Document Number EC-68. It contains directives issued by the Regional Food Office of Baden regarding the treatment of Poles in Germany. This is Exhibit Number USA-205, to be found in the American Document Book "Slave Labor," the fourth document. I shall now read the beginning of this document, which you have already seen. It says there:
"The offices of the Reich Food Administration-(Regional Food Office) of Baden-have received with great satisfaction the result of the negotiations with the Higher SS and Police Leader in Stuttgart on 14 February 1941. Appropriate memoranda have already been sent to the district food offices. Below I promulgate the individual regulations as they were laid down during the conference and are now to be supplied accordingly:
"1. In principle farm workers of Polish nationality no longer have the right to complain; consequently, no complaints may
be accepted by any official agency.
"2. Farm workers of Polish nationality may no longer leave
the localities in which they are employed."
Now, I shall omit some points and just confine myself to the essential parts. I turn to Point 5:
"5. Visits to theaters, cinemas, or other cultural entertainments are strictly prohibited for farm workers of Polish nationality."
29 May 46
Other regulations follow, prohibiting use of the railroad, and under Number 12 there is a vital provision:
"12. Every employer of Polish farm workers has the right to administer chastisement..."
Please comment on this document and tell us to what extent you approve of it.
SAUCKEL: First of all, I should like to point out that this document is dated 6 March 1941-that is, more than a year before I assumed office. Such an absurd and impossible decree never came to my attention during my term of office. But since I am now being confronted with the document and am learning about it, I should like to refer to my own decrees, which I issued entirely independently of what had gone before and which automatically revoked such decrees. In order to prevent these absurd decrees of some agency in the Reich from being effective, I had my decrees collected and published in a handbook in which it says-because of the time factor and out of respect for the Tribunal, I cannot ask the Tribunal to look at all of them; but they are in direct contradiction to such views. I would like to ask that I be permitted to quote just one sentence from the manifesto already referred to, which is directed against such nonsense and against the misuse of manpower. I refer particularly to my directives for fair treatment. The sentence reads as follows:
". . . these orders and directives, as well as their supplements, are to be brought very forcibly to the attention of works managers and leaders of camps for foreign nationals, as well as their personnel, at least four times a year by the regional labor offices. Actual adherence to them is to be constantly supervised."
DR. SERVATIUS: Does the manifesto end with that?
SAUCKEL: That is a paragraph from the manifesto which refers specifically to my orders prescribing just and humane treatment, sufficient food, leisure time, and so forth.
DR. SERVATIUS: You issued a great number of directives. Did you notice any opposition to your basic regulations; and, if so, what did you do?
SAUCKEL: As soon as I noticed opposition I made special reference to my decrees, of course, because they had been approved by the Fuehrer, upon my recommendations, for my field of activity.
DR. SERVATIUS: As far as care and welfare were concerned, did the DAF-the German Labor Front-play a special role? What was the task of the DAF?
SAUCKEL: The task of the DAF was to care for German workers and look after their interests. In this capacity it had to
29 May 46
concern itself, as a matter of course, with the welfare of foreign workers. That was its ordinary task; and at the same time it had a corrective influence on state labor administration, an influence similar to that exerted by the trade unions on state control, as far as it exists, in other countries.
DR. SERVATIUS: What tasks did the works managers have?
SAUCKEL: They had the task of regulating the total production of their works; and, of course, they were fully responsible for their workmen and for the foreign workers who had been assigned to them.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were they primarily responsible, or was the DAF responsible?
SAUCKEL: The employers were primarily responsible, according to the law regulating German labor.
DR. SERVATIUS: Now the workers were mostly billeted in camps. Who supervised the accommodations in these camps?
SAUCKEL: The accommodations in these camps were under the final supervision of the German trade inspection office, which was under the Reich Ministry of Labor. The trade inspection office had the authority and power to enforce observance from employers who failed to comply with the orders of the Reich Minister of Labor.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you yourself issue any orders or decrees concerning the camps?
SAUCKEL: I personally issued orders concerning the camps, but they could be put into effect and supervised only by the Reich Minister of Labor.
DR. SERVATIUS: So much about the accommodations of the camps. Now what were the living conditions within the camps? Who was responsible for them?
SAUCKEL: In the camps themselves the camp leaders were responsible. The camp leader was appointed by agreement between the DAN and the works manager, and to my knowledge-this was not within the range of my duties-his appointment had to be confirmed and accepted by the security authorities.
DR. SERVATIUS: You speak of the security authorities. To what extent did the Police take part in the surveillance of these camps, the maintenance of discipline, and such matters?
SAUCKEL: Surveillance of the camp and maintenance of discipline was the task of the camp leader, and had nothing to do with the Police. The Police had, as I believe is the case in every country, surveillance and control rights as regards espionage and the secrecy of the plant, et cetera. Beyond that, the Police had nothing to do with the camp.
29 May 46
DR. SERVATIUS: Were these camps shut off from the outside world? What was the situation in that respect when you assumed office?
SAUCKEL: When I assumed office, the camps, particularly of the Eastern Workers, were very much shut off from the world and were fenced in with barbed wire. To me this was incompatible with the principle of employing productive and willing workers; and with all the personal energy I could muster, I succeeded in having the fences and barbed wire removed; and I also reduced the limits of the curfew regulations for Eastern Workers, so that the picture which was presented here yesterday could eventually be realized. Anything else would have been incompatible, technically speaking, with the workers' willingness to work, which I wanted.
DR. SERVATIUS: Now the question of food. What was the food of these foreign workers?
SAUCKEL: The feeding of the foreign workers came under the system that was applied to the feeding of the German people, and accordingly additional rations were allotted to people doing heavy, very heavy, or overtime work.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did this situation exist when you assumed office?
SAUCKEL: When I assumed office and received the order from the Fuehrer that in addition to the foreign workers who were already in the Reich I was to bring further quotas into the Reich, the first step I took was to visit the Reich Minister for Food, for it was obvious to me that bringing in foreign workers was in the first place a question of feeding; poorly fed workers, even if they want to, cannot turn out satisfactory work. I had many detailed conversations with him; and by referring to the Fuehrer and the Reich Marshal, I succeeded in obtaining suitable food for the workers, and food quotas were legally fixed. It was not easy to do this because the food situation, even for Germans, was always strained; but without these measures it would not have been possible for me, also from a personal point of view, to carry through my task.
DR. SERVATIUS: Details with regard to the food situation were mentioned here which would justify the assumption that extremely had conditions existed. Was nothing of this sort brought to your attention, or did you yourself not hear anything?
SAUCKEL: As far as bad feeding conditions in the work camps of civilian laborers is concerned I never had any very unfavorable reports. I personally made repeated efforts to have this matter in particular constantly looked into. The works managers themselves took the problem of food very seriously.
29 May 46
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you not, in a decree and letter to the Gau labor offices and Gauleiter, deal with the subject of good treatment of foreigners; and did you not on that occasion criticize existing conditions?
SAUCKEL: Immediately after I assumed office, when the Gauleiter were appointed as plenipotentiaries for the Allocation of Labor in their Gaue, I called their attention to the food situation and ordered them to give their attention to that question and also to the question of accommodation. I heard that in two Gaue my instructions were not being taken seriously enough. In one case I myself went immediately to Essen and remedied the situation there -it concerned the barbed wire-and in another case, in eastern Bavaria, I also intervened personally. Besides that, I made use of these two incidents to write to the Gauleiter and the governments of the German Lander and provinces and again pointed out the importance of observing these instructions.
DR. SERVATIUS: I refer to Document 19, that is in the English Book Number 1, Page 54; Document Sauckel-19.
THE PRESIDENT: 19?
DR. SERVATIUS: This is Document Number 19, in the first document book, Page 54. Only a portion of this is reproduced. In a circular to all the Gau labor offices and Gauleiter is the following:
"If in a Gau district the statement is still being made that 'if anyone in the Gau has to freeze this winter, the first ones should be the Russians' (that is, the Russian civilian laborers employed for work in the Gau), such a statement shows plainly that in that region of the Gau the contact between the administrative labor office and the competent political offices is as yet not close enough. It is one of the most important tasks of the Avocation of Labor and the collaboration between you and the Gauleiter as my deputies for the Allocation of Labor to see to it that the foreign workers recruited for the German armament industry and food economy are looked after in such a manner as to enable them to give the maximum of efficiency. There is, therefore, no question of protecting from want German fellow countrymen only and being satisfied with inadequate provisions for- laborers of foreign origin. On the contrary, it is imperative to bear constantly in mind the fact that, in order to bring about victory, a maximum of efficiency must be demanded not only of German fellow countrymen but also of the foreign workers. It would . be absurd to bring foreign workers into the country, at considerable expense, for work for German economy and then to
29 May 46
allow their efficiency to be impaired or ruined through lack
of proper care."
In conclusion there follows a reminder that Sauckel's decree must be observed.
[Turning to the defendant.] What was the situation with regard to the clothing of foreign workers?
SAUCKEL: The clothing of foreign workers from the western regions gave us relatively little trouble for these workers were well supplied and they were also compensated for their clothing. But the clothing of the Eastern Workers was a problem. On behalf of the Eastern Workers I applied to the Reich Minister of Economy for a quota of clothing and provided 1 million Eastern Workers with all necessary under and outer clothing. To supply this quota of clothing 10,000 workers were required as well as 30,000 tons of raw materials. Thus, every care was given to the question of clothing, and this clothing was actually issued.
DR. SERVATIUS: The French Delegation has submitted Document Number RF-5. It is a propaganda brochure, Work for Europe. I had also submitted this, and the Tribunal took judicial notice of it. I should like to submit it again and refer to three pictures contained therein. The essential thing about these pictures is that some of the workers coming from the East arrived barefoot, and later there are pictures where these workers are seen well dressed in Germany, and it is evident that the situation as regards the clothing of these workers had made considerable progress in Germany.
THE PRESIDENT: Is this Sauckel-5?
DR. SERVATIUS: No, it is a document of the French Delegation, Document RF-5.
[Turning to the defendant.] What was the situation with regard to working hours? Who regulated the working hours?
SAUCKEL: The working hours were regulated on the basis of decrees by the Fuehrer, the Ministerial Council, and later on by Reich Minister Goebbels. The carrying out of these decrees was my task.
DR. SERVATIUS: What was the average working time?
SAUCKEL: One can hardly talk of an average working time in Germany during the war. There was the -legal working time of 8 hours. For anything beyond 8 hours, overtime had to be paid.
In the year 1943 the average working time per week was at first set at 54 hours; later, as far as it was necessary, at 10 hours per day When Reich Minister Dr. Goebbels became Reich Delegate for Total War Effort, against my objections and against the objection of other offices but on the basis of the authority which he had, he demanded and proclaimed a 10-hour working day for all offices and
29 May 46
industries. However this could not be carried through at all, for in many industries and offices work had to be regulated according to the difficulties which were already then appearing-difficulties of raw materials, power supply, and the amount of work. But in exceptional cases, which were not infrequent, 11 and 12 hours of work were put in where production demanded it. German workers as well worked longer hours. All workers were then compensated accordingly.
DR. SERVATIUS: In the French Document Number RF-22, on Page 101 of the German text, is the following:
"From the interrogations by the agencies of the Ministere des Prisonniers of deported workers who had returned home, it can be seen that the average time of work per week was at least 72 hours."
Then the source of this information is mentioned, but that does not interest us here.
"Sixty-four-hour weeks were not infrequent. Cases of 100-hour weeks with 30 to 38 consecutive hours were mentioned."
What can you tell us about this? Did such cases come to your attention?
SAUCKEL: I cannot comment on these reports, because I do not know whether they concern people who were being used in concentration camps or those who were used as civilian workers in the other sector for which I was responsible. It is correct that in very exceptional cases there were periods in which long hours of work were put in. That was decided by the factory and applied also to
· the German workers. But in such cases appropriate rest periods had to be interspersed. These long hours were worked only for the completion of important contracts. Where these people actually worked, I cannot determine from the interrogation and, therefore, I cannot give you a precise answer.
DR. SERVATIUS: What were the provisions for free time?
SAUCKEL: Free time was at the disposal of the workers.
DR. SERVATIUS: Who was responsible for regulating free time?
SAUCKEL: The regulation of free time was the responsibility of the DAN as far as the arrangements of details for free time were concerned.
DR. SERVATIUS: What was the situation regarding the employment of children and young people?
SAUCKEL: By German Reich law children under 12 years of age are not permitted to work. Children under 14 are only permitted to work a few hours on the land.
29 May 46
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you issue decrees about working hours for children?
SAUCKEL: I issued decrees or confirmed the laws which were already in existence insofar as they applied to this work.
DR. SERVATIUS: Now I shall show you Document Number 345-PS, which is a letter written by Reich Minister Rosenberg to Lammers, dated 20 July 1944.
[The document was handed to the defendant.]
THE PRESIDENT: Has this been put in before? Has this been offered in evidence before?
DR. SERVATIUS: This document was submitted in cross-examination. I myself have just received it. It deals with the recruitment of young people of 15 to 20 years of age for employment in the Reich during the war. Then the document refers to the transfer to the Reich of young people aged 10 to 14 years; that is the "Hay Action." And it goes on to say:
"The object of this action is the further care of young people through the Reich Youth Leadership and the training of apprentices for German economy in a manner similar to that which has already been successfully carried out with the White Ruthenia Youth Service in co-operation with the GBA"-which means you.
Please comment on whether you had use made of these young people.
SAUCKEL: No, I had nothing whatever to do with this action; and in the index of addresses my name is not mentioned. I do not know of this matter.
DR. SERVATIUS: So you did not violate your own rules by issuing special directives?
SAUCKEL: No. This was a transaction with which I did not concern myself.
DR. SERVATIUS: Then I should like to submit another letter to you, which was also submitted by the Prosecution in connection with the Schirach case. It is Document Number 1137-PS, a letter dated l9 October 1944. On Page 3 of this document, the following appears:
"In addition to this, other labor was supplied to the German armament industry earlier-namely, first of all, 3,500 boys and 500 girls to the Junkers Works; secondly, 2,000 boys and 700 girls to the OT...
"The agency under the Hitler Youth has procured from the Occupied Eastern Territories for the armament industry"-
29 May 46
I leave out what does not interest us-"5,500 boys and 1,200 girls."
Did you authorize the use of this labor, or did this matter pass through your hands?
DR. SERVATIUS: How yeas this labor brought into the armament industry?
SAUCKEL: Well, I personally am unable to explain that in detail. Apparently this took place on the basis of an agreement between offices of the Ministry for the Eastern Occupied Territories or those of Hauptbanufuehrer Nickel. I have heard only during the proceedings here that the young people involved were of an age at which work is prohibited for them. I understood that it was more in the nature of pre-employment care, but...
DR. SERVATIUS: That is known.
SAUCKEL: It did not go through me or through my office.
DR. SERVATIUS: What about the use of foreign women?
SAUCKEL: Women from foreign countries were used in exactly the same way as German women. No other conditions.
DR. SERVATIUS: Document Number 025-PS has been submitted here. That is Exhibit Number USA-698, which was also submitted only now and is not contained in the books. This is the record of
a conference which took place in your office and in which you spoke at length on the use of female labor. In the third paragraph it says:
"To this end, the Fuehrer has ordered the use of 400,000 to 500,000 female Eastern Workers from the Ukraine, between the ages of 15 to 35, for domestic purposes; and the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor"-that is you- "has been charged with the carrying through of this action, which is to be concluded in approximately 3 months."
It goes on:
"It is the specific wish of the Fuehrer that as many girls as possible shall be germanized if they prove satisfactory."
Will you please comment on this?
SAUCKEL: Yes, this concerns a decree of the Fuehrer to bring 400,000 to 500,000 female Eastern Workers into the Reich for German households, but especially in order to lighten the work of the German farmers' wives. I should like to mention, in connection with this document, that I did not compile it and that my office did not compile it either. Most likely these minutes were written on the basis of notes which somebody had taken. With reference to these proposed 400,000 to 500,000 domestic servants, it must be said that
29 May 46
they were to be brought into the Reich only on a voluntary basis. Actually some 13,000 to 15,000 only, I believe, came into the Reich. The idea of "Germanization," as used here, also refers only to their free will or wish to remain in Germany.
DR. SERVATIUS: What medical attention did the foreign workers receive? Various things have been mentioned here, for instance: "If the worker can no longer work, he is no longer a concern of ours," which is supposed to have been a principle of yours. Then it is further said that work, food, and pay must be brought into relationship with each other. If the worker can no longer work, he is just a dead weight. What can you say with regard to these accusations?
SAUCKEL: Would you show me where I said that? I am not familiar with it.
DR. SERVATIUS: This is in the transcript of a court session; I have the page here, in the German transcript, 2789 (Volume V, Pages 394, 395). It says there that if the worker can no longer work, no concern should be given to his fate. Did you advocate this principle?
SAUCKEL: On the contrary; there exist hundreds of precise decrees and orders which I issued. They were published in the Reithsgesetzblatt, in special issues sent to the factories and to the labor exchanges and in special collections, in which it is set down most clearly that the foreign workers who were brought into the Reich through the Allocation of Labor had to be treated in accordance with German laws, regulations, and directives as far as medical treatment and care, including insurance, were concerned. There were also...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, were you putting to the defendant a document where it was alleged he had said that after they were unfit to work, that it is no more his concern? Was it the document you were putting to him?
DR. SERVATIUS: This document was submitted to him with regard to the female workers of whom he is alleged to have said that they were to be germanized. I am no longer dealing with that document, but have turned to the question of medical care.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean that was in Document 025-PS, Exhibit USA-698?
DR. SERVATIUS: That document, Number 025-PS, refers only to female workers. This question has already been dealt with I have turned to the question of medical care in general and am no longer dealing with the question of female workers.
29 May 46
[Turning to the defendant.] Did you receive reports about abominable conditions regarding the health and the medical care of foreign workers?
SAUCKEL: No. Not only German physicians were employed as official physicians in the factories and camps to deal with the hygiene and health of the workers, but also numerous physicians and medical assistants from the home countries of the foreign workers were engaged and assigned to these camps.
DR. SERVATIUS: How did you supervise the execution of your decrees, and what other controlling agencies existed?
SAUCKEL: There were the following controlling agencies: first of all...
DR. SERVATIUS: Just a moment. I should like to refer to Document Sauckel-2. In it I have made a survey of the control and inspection agencies concerned with supervision. I shall explain this diagram briefly:
In the center, there is the Reich Ministry of Labor, under Seldte; underneath that, the trade inspection boards, including the police department for trade and town planning. That was the only department which had police powers-that is, it could take action against any resistance on the part of those recruited for work. Besides this, several other official agencies were created to handle the difficult problem of welfare. There is, first of all, if you look at the righthand side, the German Labor Front, an agency encompassing the interests of the employers, the industry, and the workers, and in some respects taking the place occupied in the past by the trade unions. From there matters of welfare were turned over to the factories. A special inspection board was created, the Reich Inspection Office of the German Labor Front, with a department for foreign workers which had its own liaison men in the factories to hear complaints. In the factories themselves there were also foreign workers who were able to report on conditions there.
Then, turning further to the right, is the Reich Ministry for Food and Agriculture which, through the regional food offices, also had direct insight into questions pertaining to food and welfare. The reports which went to the Reich Foreign Minister through diplomatic channels were eventually also passed on to Sauckel, as we shall see later.
Then there is a special department for Eastern Workers under the Rosenberg Ministry-that is the central agency for the peoples of the East-and this last letter which we had here, apparently came from one of the gentlemen in this agency. This central agency for the peoples of the East in turn also had its agents in the factories
29 May 46
and works, and they made reports directly. All these reports were turned over to Sauckel.
Now, I turn to the left part of the diagram. Sauckel himself instituted for inspectional purposes a personal staff which was sent around to visit factories. We heard from several witnesses that these inspectors appeared and saw to it that everything was in order. Then he established a special office, the Reich Inspectorate. Complaints which came from the German Labor Front and other sources were sent to this inspectorate. When Sauckel says that he immediately passed on these complaints, they were sent first to the Reich Inspectorate, which in turn advised the necessary offices and, if need be, applied the compulsory measures of the Reich Labor Ministry. Then also the Gauleiter were given the task of supervision, and the witnesses who have appeared here-witnesses who were Gauleiter in their time-have confirmed that they exercised control as plenipotentiaries for the Allocation of Labor. Further to the left is shown the care and control exercised by the Reich Ministry for Propaganda which had taken over a supervisory function concerning the direction of the camps and the workers. Then, finally on the far left, comes the Wehrmacht which had its own supervisory machinery through its inspectors, who were entrusted with the prisoners of war and who saw to it that the conventions were observed.
The reports of all these agencies were sent to Sauckel, and he testified here that abominable conditions were not reported to him, that he could make his influence felt only through directives, and that he gave his instructions.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, will you ask the defendant whether that was a correct statement on the meaning of the chart?
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, this explanation, which I have given, and this diagram, which you have seen, are they correct?
DR. SERVATIUS: They are correct?
DR. SERVATIUS: Would you comment now on the activity of the Gauleiter as plenipotentiaries? How did you supervise the Gauleiter?
SAUCKEL: I could not supervise the Gauleiter themselves, as I had no disciplinary or official control over them. But I had the Gaue visited by members of my staff at intervals of about 3 months. On the occasion of these visits the complaints of the Gauleiter were heard and then factories and camps were inspected
29 May 46
jointly and a check was made to see how far my directives were, or were not, carried out. I should like to remark that these inspectors naturally were not allowed any control in concentration camps and the work in the concentration camps; that was a different field which was under the control of Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl and in which I had no authority and no insight.
THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now.
[The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours.]
29 May 46
DR. EGON KUBUSCHOK (Counsel for Defendant Von Papen): I ask permission for the Defendant Von Papen to be absent from the court sessions tomorrow morning and afternoon. I need a fairly long consultation with him for the preparation of his defense which I would not be able to have otherwise. Dr. Flexner will represent him during the session.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MARSHAL (Colonel Charles W. Mays): If it please the Tribunal, a report is made that the Defendant Goering is absent.
THE PRESIDENT: As I said this morning, the Tribunal will rise at 4 this afternoon.
DR. SERVATIUS: This morning we got as far as the inspections, but I should like to go back to one question.
You said that the head of the factory was responsible for the workers. Did that also apply to the prisoner-of-war and concentration camps?
SAUCKEL: No. The Army, or that part of the Armed Forces under the authority of which these prisoners of war were kept, was responsible for the prisoner-of-war camps. In the same way, as far as I know, the concentration camps alone were responsible for their inmates, even if they worked.
DR. SERVATIUS: You had formed a Department 9 as a Reich inspection department in the Reich Ministry of Labor. What were the special tasks of this inspection department?
SAUCKEL: I had set up that inspection department, which had not existed before in the Ministry of Labor, because I wanted to ascertain the uniformity and execution of contracts throughout the entire area of the Reich, as well as in the occupied territories where German undertakings and German labor contracts were being carried out; also to examine and control the unified administrative regulations; and, moreover, to see whether my orders concerning food, lodging, treatment, and care were being observed and to what extent they were in need of change. All this was also contained
in a directive which I gave to the inspection department.
DR. SERVATIUS: What was the position of the Central Inspection Department in the German Labor Front-the Central Inspection Department for the care of foreign workers?
SAUCKEL: The Central Inspection Department of the DAF had the task of supervising the welfare of foreign workers in the camps in Germany to see whether they were being fed, and so on, in the prescribed way.
29 May 46
DR. SERVATIUS: If there were any abuses, did the Inspection Department report that to you; or who received the report?
SAUCKEL: An agreement between the Fuehrer, the German Labor Front, Dr. Lye, and myself, was added as a supplement to the decree concerning the formation of the Central Inspection Department, and it stated that where it was a question of conditions in camps the Central Inspection Department had to deal directly with the Reich offices concerned, or with the industrial inspection office in the Reich Labor Ministry, in order to remedy the conditions; whereas cases of shortage or surplus of manpower, et cetera, were to be reported to me.
DR. SERVATIUS: By this agreement, therefore, your rights were limited?
DR. SERVATIUS: That is Document 1913-PS, which has been submitted. It is an agreement between Sauckel and Dr. Ley of 20 September 1943. It is Exhibit USA-227. It is Document Number 41 in the English document book. I shall only refer to it, without quoting from it.
[Turning to the defendant.] What other kinds of supervisory offices existed? I am thinking about the French.
SAUCKEL: Well, after I took office, men were appointed to act as liaison agents with the foreign workers. These men, in agreement with the German Labor Front, had the right to visit camps, talk to the workers themselves, and hear their complaints. A special agreement had been reached with the French Government in collaboration with the Reich Foreign Minister.
DR. SERVATIUS: That is Document Sauckel-31. It is on Page 79 of the English text in the Sauckel Document Book Number 1, "French Agency for the Care of the French Employed in the Reich." That is a circular from Sauckel dated 30 April 1942. I submit the document itself, which is in this collection. I quote:
"I communicate the following letter from the Foreign Office of 10 April 1942:
"The Government of the Reich has notified the French Government that it agrees to the following regulations regarding the care of French voluntary workers in Germany:
"Besides the already existing office for prisoners of war, an agency for French civilian workers will be established in Berlin under the direction of Ambassador Scapini. The Reich Government will furnish a building to house this agency. The agency may establish branch offices in four other German cities.
29 May 46
"The agency is charged with the care of the French workers in Germany. It will supervise the fulfillment of the contracts made by the workers engaged. It may accept proposals from the workers and transmit them to the competent offices, and see that unsatisfactory conditions are remedied. It is entitled to issue certificates and references to the workers for submission to the French authorities."
I omit one paragraph:
"Moreover, the head of the French representatives is granted the diplomatic privileges of personal immunity for the execution of his tasks, as well as exemption from German jurisdiction and from coercion by the police."
That is the citation.
[Turning to the defendant.] How did that office actually work with you?
SAUCKEL: That office actually worked with both the DAF and with me. The representative of that office took part in the negotiations in France with the French Government. The office changed later to the extent that the care of the civilian workers was taken over by M. Brunedon in the place of M. Scapini who looked after prisoners of war only.
DR. SERVATIUS. Then, it was only a change of personnel?
SAUCKEL: Yes, it was only a change of personnel. I frequently talked with these gentlemen and acted according to their wishes.
DR. SERVATIUS: What did the Central Inspection Department for the peoples of the Eastern Territories do?
SAUCKEL: The Central Inspection Department for the peoples of the Eastern Territories was an office under the Reich Commissioner for the Eastern Territories.
DR. SERVATIUS: How did that office work?
SAUCKEL:' It worked in the same way as the French office, except that it was a German organization and Germans were in charge. It had the confidence of the Eastern Workers who worked with us as allies.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you receive any complaints from that side?
SAUCKEL: None, apart from the cases which Rosenberg reported to me and which I discussed with him. Everything was attended to there.
DR. SERVATIUS: Now I come to the question of the maintenance of labor discipline. What sort of regulations were there in order to maintain labor discipline-punctuality and good work? What kind of regulations existed?
29 May 46
SAUCKEL: In Germany the regulations concerning labor discipline was a matter for the factories themselves. Each factory had its regulations which in normal times were agreed to between the management' the foreman, and the workers' council. This council could take disciplinary action in the form of fines. During the war labor discipline had become more strict, because owing to the scarcity of workers it was not possible to maintain the right of the employer or the employee to give notice. So the German worker, and German labor and industry were under wartime decrees and laws. In order to enforce these, I later issued Decree Number 13 at the suggestion of the Ministerial Council for the Defense of the Reich. This decree, which has been submitted, provides, first of all, for varying degrees of punishment within the industries for infractions of labor regulations, tardiness and unexcused absence from work.
DR. SERVATIUS: That is Document Sauckel-23 in the Sauckel document book; in the English text,- Number 1, Page 62. The witness has given you the essential contents. I merely refer to it now.
SAUCKEL: These measures within the industries for the maintenance of labor discipline started with a warning, and then went up to a fine, or the loss of a day's or week's pay.
DR. SERVATIUS: What happened in the case of gross offenses?
SAUCKEL: If they could not be dealt with by the courts of honor of the Labor Front, cases of constant and obstinate bad conduct had to be reported to the police.
DR. SERVATIUS: This law applied to foreigners as well as to Germans?
SAUCKEL: Yes, that applied to Germans and foreigners.
DR. SERVATIUS: And what was done in case of criminal offenses?
SAUCKEL: They also had to be reported to the police. The labor authorities had no competence in criminal and similar cases.
DR. SERVATIUS: To whom were the complaints sent if the regulations were not applied correctly; that is, if instead of fines corporal punishment had been inflicted?
SAUCKEL: Complaints of this kind were sent to the Labor Front, or to the liaison men for the foreign workers.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were any such cases reported to you?
SAUCKEL: None were reported to me, because that was not within my competence.
DR. SERVATIUS: What were the labor correction camps?
SAUCKEL: They were institutions of the Reichsfuehrer SS.
DR. SERVATIUS: Who was put into these camps?
29 May 46
SAUCKEL: Those who were punished by the authorities for infractions of labor discipline which could not be dealt with by the factory regulations.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were they the same as concentration camps?
SAUCKEL: No; in my opinion, no. These labor training camps were not under the supervision of the Reich Labor Ministry, nor under mine. They were a police institution.
DR. SERVATIUS: You know from these proceedings that quite a number of workers did, in fact, come into the concentration camps. How can you explain that?
I shall hand you Document 1063-PS, Exhibit USA-219. It is a letter of 17 December 1942; in the English document book it is Number 28 of the Slave Labor Book. It is a letter marked "Secret," sent by the Chief of the Security Police and the SD to all SS offices; at any rate, not to you. I quote:
"For reasons of war necessity which cannot be discussed further here, the Reithsfuehrer SS and Chief of the German Police ordered on 14 December 1942 that by the end of January 1943, at the latest, at least 35,000 prisoners fit for work are to be sent to the concentration camps. In order to obtain this number, the following measures are required: 1. As from now (until 1 February 1943) Eastern Workers, and those foreign workers who are fugitives, or have broken their contracts... are to be brought by the quickest means to the nearest concentration camps...."
THE PRESIDENT: Presumably the witness knows the document.
DR. SERVATIUS: Do you know that document?
SAUCKEL: I saw that document here for the first time.
DR. SERVATIUS: You have not yet looked through it?
SAUCKEL: I saw an excerpt here in Nuremberg for the first time.
DR. SERVATIUS: Then I should like to draw your attention to the decisive passage. Will you please read at the bottom of the first page. It says the following:
"In case of necessity, offices not directly involved must be given to understand that each and every one of these measures is an indispensable Security Police measure, and be told the specific reasons in individual cases, so that complaints can be prevented, or at any rate eliminated."
What did you know about that decree?
SAUCKEL: Nothing was known to me about that decree. It explains many things which puzzled us. It appears to be a letter
29 May 46
from Gruppenfuehrer Muller and, to my surprise, it states quite clearly that other offices-and they can only refer to my offices or Speer's-should be informed that these measures are necessary Security Police measures. That was downright fraud with the intention of misleading us.
DR. SERVATIUS: What do you understand . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Before you pass from this document-I understood the defendant to say that workers were sent to labor camps for infraction of labor rules. That was what you said, wasn't it?
SAUCKEL: If workers, in spite of repeated warnings and fines in the factory, did not show improvement or continued the offenses, they were reported by the factories, not by me, to a police office. As far as I know, this police office had an agreement with the Reich Minister of Justice according to which...
THE PRESIDENT: I asked you where they were sent when you said that they were sent to labor camps for infraction of labor rules, and for no other reason. Did you say that?
SAUCKEL: For no other reason; for infractions or for criminal offenses.
THE PRESIDENT: Then how do you explain the first words of Paragraph 1 of this document:
"As from now, all Eastern Workers must be sent to the nearest concentration camps..."?
SAUCKEL: It says here, in the German text, Your Lordship: "As from now, until 1 February 1943, Eastern Workers, and those foreign workers who are fugitives, or who have broken contracts, or who do not belong to allied, friendly, or neutral states, are to be brought by the quickest means to the nearest concentration camps, in observance of the necessary formalities as given under Figure 3."
That is the arbitrary directive of that office which I did not know about.
DR. SERVATIUS: What do you understand by "extermination by labor"?
SAUCKEL: I heard that expression "extermination by labor" for the first time here in the courtroom. Such a concept was of necessity absolutely contrary to the interests which I stood for in my position.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you have anything to do with the employment of concentration camp inmates?
SAUCKEL: I had nothing to do with the employment of concentration camp inmates, and I also told my colleagues that we
29 May 46
would have nothing to do with the employment of that kind of labor. I had nothing to do with punitive measures of any kind.
DR. SERVATIUS: Who put the concentration camp inmates to work in the armament industries?
SAUCKEL: I cannot tell you that from personal knowledge because I had nothing to do with it, and I never participated in discussions dealing with this subject.
DR. SERVATIUS: It has been alleged here that you used the Nacht and Rebel Order to get workers to Germany.
SAUCKEL: I did not know the Nacht and Nebel Order. I only found out about it here. It had nothing to do with the allocation of labor and my duties.
DR. SERVATIUS: What about the employment of Jewish workers?
SAUCKEL: I had nothing to do with the employment of Jews. That was exclusively the task of the Reichsfuehrer of the SS.
DR. SERVATIUS: I submit the Document R-91. That is Exhibit USA-241, and Exhibit RF-347. It is not included in the document books. It is a letter from the Chief of Security Police and SD Muller to the Reichsfuehrer SS, field headquarters, dated 16 December 1942. It says there, and I quote:
"In connection with the increased assignment of manpower to the KL"-that should probably read KZ-"which is ordered to take place before 30 January 1943, the following procedure may be applied in the Jewish sector: total number, 45,000 Jews."
Then there is a more detailed specification, and among other things, it says at the end, "3,000 Jews from the occupied territories of the Netherlands," and further, "The number 45,000 includes those unfit for work...."
What had you to do with that letter?
SAUCKEL: I have just learned of that letter for the first time. I did not know of it before, and I can only emphasize that these transports and this procedure had nothing to do with my work, and that I had nothing to do with them at any time.
DR. SERVATIUS: Then we have here Document L-61, which has been submitted. That is Exhibit USA-177; in the English document book on slave labor, it is Document Number 6. The document is in the first list of documents which was made available to the Defense, and it was listed as an original letter from Sauckel which admitted the deportation of Jews.
Will you please read this letter to yourself and state your position as to how far you had anything to do with the deportation of
29 May 46
Jews. I shall briefly state what the contents are. It says there in that letter of 26 November 1942:
"By agreement with the Chief of the Security Police and the SD, Jews who are still in employment are from now on also to be evacuated from the territory of the Reich and are to be replaced by Poles who are being deported from the Government General."
This letter ends by saying:
"I transmit the foregoing copy for your information. Insofar as this affects the removal of Jews employed in your area, I request that you take the necessary measures in agreement with the competent offices of the Chief of the Security Police and the SD."
Then it says, "Signed, Fritz Sauckel."
Will you state your position with respect to that letter, please?
SAUCKEL: May I say with respect to this document that it was shown to me already in the preliminary interrogations. I had it only for a short time then, and when it was presented to me again in the course of the proceedings I found that it was not an original document which I had signed. My name is typewritten at the bottom.
Secondly, it appears very peculiar to me that this letter, which I am supposed to have signed, was not dated by my office. My office, as can be seen from numerous documents, was in Berlin, in Mohrenstrasse. This letter was dated by the Saarlandstrasse office.
As far as the contents are concerned, I have to state that I at no time had a personal arrangement or agreement with the SD and Security Police in the sense of that letter; neither had I any knowledge of that letter, and I cannot remember it now either. The only thing in that letter which is correct is that I was obliged to replace the loss of manpower in German industry-whether Jews, soldiers, or others-within 2 weeks. It is possible that this letter came from the Saarlandstrasse office, from a subordinate office. I cannot say anything else about it.
DR. SERVATIUS: How is it, then, that the ending, "Signed, Fritz Sauckel" is on the letter?
SAUCKEL: I cannot understand that. If it were an authentic copy, it would have had to be signed.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you got the original?
DR. SERVATIUS: No, I have not got the original. It has been submitted by the Prosecution and is therefore in the files of the Tribunal as an exhibit.
29 May 46
SAUCKEL: The appendix deals with events which also occurred before my time in office-that is, before I came into office these happenings had practically all taken place.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you have any knowledge as to what would happen to the Jews?
SAUCKEL: Do you mean...?
DR. SERVATIUS: The final solution.
SAUCKEL: No, I had no knowledge of that. It would have made my task much easier and I would have had much less difficulty if all these people, as far as they were capable of working, had been brought into the labor plan in a more reasonable manner. I knew absolutely nothing about this final solution, and it was entirely contrary to my interest.
DR. SERVATIUS: Concerning the question of wages, who was responsible for the regulation of wages?
SAUCKEL: I was responsible for the regulation of wages during my term of office.
DR. SERVATIUS: What kind of wages were paid? Leave out the
Eastern people for the moment.
SAUCKEL: In principle, all foreign workers were paid the wages which had been agreed upon by contract with the liaison offices and the governments, and which were in accordance with the wage scales recognized as legal in the different regions in Germany.
DR. SERVATIUS: What about the so-called Eastern Workers?
SAUCKEL: As far as the Eastern Workers were concerned, when I took office I found that under the existing regulations most of their wages were deducted as taxes in favor of the Reich. This was in accordance with a decree of the Ministerial Council for National Defense.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were you satisfied with that, or did you take steps to improve conditions?
SAUCKEL: It can be seen from the documents-that is to say, from the decrees which I issued during my term of office-that these regulations, which I considered intolerable, were improved step by step, as far as I was able to overcome opposition, until in 1944 the Eastern Worker stood on the same level as the German worker. The first improvement was made in June 1942 when wages were doubled, the second in 1943, and the last in March 1944, by Decree 11.
DR. SERVATIUS: I refer here to the following documents, which I shall not read: Document Sauckel-50, in Sauckel Document Book 2, Page 134; Document Sauckel-17, in Sauckel Document
29 May 46
Book 2, Page 137; Document Sauckel-52, Sauckel Document Book 2, Page 143; Document Sauckel-58, Sauckel Document Book 2, Page 156; and finally, Document Sauckel-58(a), Sauckel Document Book 2, Page 161. I submit the original in a collection, "Regulations Governing Allocation of the Eastern Workers."
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, I understood the defendant to say just now that that Document-61 was drawn up before he took charge of the labor commitment.
DR. SERVATIUS: It refers to things which existed before his term of office and were almost completed at the time when that letter was drafted-that is, that state of things already existed.
THE PRESIDENT: There is nothing in the document to show that, is there?
DR. SERVATIUS: It can be seen from the date.
THE PRESIDENT: The date is 26 November 1942.
DR. SERVATIUS: The appendix refers to a decree of 27 March 1942. The second appendix, if we go back further, is an appendix of 21 January 1942 which also deals with that question. What we have quoted here was only the last letter, the final letter.
THE PRESIDENT: I see. We have not got the full document before us then.
DR. SERVATIUS: I will submit it.
[Turning to the defendant.] Regarding the wages of the Eastern Workers, did the Eastern Workers receive any remuneration besides these wages?
SAUCKEL: The Eastern Workers, as a result of my efforts, received remuneration in the form of premiums for good work, and Christmas bonuses, in the same way as the German workers; and in addition there was an agreement with the Eastern Ministry according to which the families of Eastern Workers were to receive the amount of 130 rubles per month upon request.
DR. SERVATIUS: I refer here to some documents. They are Document Sauckel-22, in the English book, Volume I, Page 9; a decree, Document Sauckel-54, concerning premiums, which is in Volume II, Page 151; and Document Sauckel-57, concerning Christmas bonuses, Volume II, Page 155.
[Turning to the defendant.] What remained for the Eastern Workers in cash wages?
SAUCKEL: When I started in office-that is before the regulations introduced by me-the Eastern Worker, after his expenses for food and lodging had been deducted, had about 4 marks 60 pfennigs per week left over, if one takes as an average example
29 May 46
the rate of 60 pfennigs an hour for an average worker in German industry.
The same worker's net pay, or "Freibetrag" as it was called, was increased in June 1942, after I had had an opportunity of looking into these things, by about 100 percent to 9.10 marks.
May I state that it would have been quite impossible for a German worker at the same wage level to have had more left over for saving when one considers his taxes and social contributions, his expenses for rent, heating, and food. That was the principle laid down for me by the Ministerial Council for Reich Defense for the payment of this labor. It was not my wish. However, as early as March or April 1943 the wage of the Russian worker, again due to my intervention, was increased to about 12 marks, and in the spring of 1944 it was increased to about 18 marks.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't think we need to have all this in detail There is no particular charge against the defendant that he did not pay any of the workers, is there? I mean, he says, he paid them and we do not want the details of the number of marks.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, the accusation of slave labor has been made, and this as a rule is unpaid labor. The French report, Document RF-22, has estimated a loss of 77 milliards which is supposed to have been suffered by France through the use of her workers. It is interesting to hear at least...
THE PRESIDENT: You do not want exact details of it, do you?
DR. SERVATIUS: [Turning to the defendant.] What have you to say about the facilities for transferring these wages?
SAUCKEL: I first had to create facilities for transferring wages,
because the only real attraction for a foreign worker to work in Germany was that he could support his family at home by sending part of his earnings to his native country. That was done on the basis of agreements reached with the President of the German Reichsbank. He himself has testified to that.
DR. SERVATIUS: Concerning the question of wages, I refer to Document 021-PS, which has been submitted as F-44. It is not in either of the document books. It is dated 2 April 1943. It shows how rates of pay were calculated and deals with the improvement of the wages of Eastern Workers. I do not want to quote it in detail; but a study will reveal that serious attempts were made here to bring about an improvement and an equalization.
[Turning to the defendant.] What was the duration of labor contracts?
SAUCKEL: The duration of labor contracts depended on agreements which had been concluded with the governments in question.
29 May 46
For the western and southern countries the contract was for 6 months, 9 months, or 1 year. As for the eastern countries and the Soviet workers, when I came to office, the existing regulations provided for an indefinite period. As I considered a definite period to be necessary in spite of the greater distances, here too I finally succeeded in obtaining a time limit of 2 years.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was it intended to continue to use this manpower after the war, and were these foreign workers to remain in Germany? I ask that question because the French Prosecution quoted the following passage from the book, Work for Europe, Exhibit RF-5, Page 23:
"A large percentage of foreign workers will remain in our country even after the victory, and then, having been trained for construction work, they will continue and complete the projects interrupted by the war."
From that was it concluded that forced labor was to continue even after the war?
SAUCKEL: That was partly or entirely the opinion of the author of that article, but I believe that it was also mentioned that the workers would return home and there use, for the benefit of their own homeland, the knowledge and skill which they had gained from new work in Germany. I had absolutely no intention of keeping foreign workers in Germany after the war, and in any case I could not have done so. On the contrary, I even ordered that a card index of foreign workers, a central register, should be carefully kept on the basis of which, in case of a favorable conclusion of the war, it would be possible for me faithfully to return these workers to their native countries and have a record of them.
DR. SERVATIUS: If I understood you correctly, it was not a question of forcibly retaining the workers, but of keeping them here by recruitment?
SAUCKEL: Yes; it was not reported to me that a large number of foreign workers wanted to stay in Germany of their own accord. That is an assumption.
DR. SERVATIUS: What about the compulsory labor? What was the duration of the contracts?
SAUCKEL: There was no difference in pay or length of contract between voluntary work and compulsory work, or what we called in the language of the decree, "Dienstverpflichtungen." This held true for all countries. If a Frenchman doing compulsory labor had a contract for 6 or 9 months, he had the same right as the voluntary worker to return after 9 months. It was possible to extend the period.
29 May 46
DR. SERVATIUS: In which cases was the contract extended?
SAUCKEL: The contract was extended when the worker wanted of his own free will to continue his services, or when there was an emergency or shortage of manpower in a particular factory which justified an extension. Then that had to be arranged with the liaison officers.
DR. SERVATIUS: Besides civilian workers, were prisoners of war also used in Germany? What did you have to do with that use of manpower?
SAUCKEL: The employment of prisoners of war was quite complicated, because it had to take place in agreement with the general in charge of the Prisoners of War Organization. The so-called technique of transposition caused me difficulties. Allow me to explain this.
There existed the Geneva Convention, or the Hague Convention, according to which prisoners of war could not be used in armament or ammunition industries. When, however, we spoke of prisoners of war being engaged in the armament industry that meant that so-and-so many German women or workers were transferred to industries in which the Geneva Convention prohibited the use of prisoners of war, and that prisoners of war took their place. That was done in agreement with the offices of the general in charge of the Prisoners of War Organization.
DR. SERVATIUS: And who saw to it that the Geneva Convention was observed?
SAUCKEL: The general in charge of the Prisoners of War Organization and we ourselves, or the "Arbeitseinsatz" administration, adhered to the rules of the Geneva Convention and several times compiled a catalog of the types of work for which prisoners of war could be used. Also during my time, in 1943 and 1944, a special edition of this catalog was published, and it can be found in the so-called Blue Book.
DR. SERVATIUS: Have you known cases where prisoners of war were used contrary to the Geneva Convention?
SAUCKEL: Certain agreements were made with the French Government, as far as volunteers were concerned, and this applied to a certain extent to Eastern Workers.
DR. SERVATIUS: Who was responsible for the housing, feeding, and care of prisoners of war?
SAUCKEL: The offices of the general in charge of the Prisoners of War Organization were solely responsible.
DR. SERVATIUS: Is it known to you that millions of prisoners of war had perished by the time you had assumed office?
29 May 46
SAUCKEL: It had become known to me before I assumed office that a great number of prisoners of war perished in the so-called battles of encirclement in the East. These battles lasted a long time, and owing to our enormous transport difficulties we could
not move the prisoners, and they were left on the battlefield in a state of utmost exhaustion. That is all I know about that.
DR. SERVATIUS: At the beginning of your activities you had to deal with prisoners of war, had you not? What did you find out at that time, or what did you do?
SAUCKEL: I found out that some of the Russian prisoners of war were terribly undernourished.
DR. SERVATIUS: What did you do?
SAUCKEL: Together with the general in charge of the Prisoners of War Organization I arranged for all these prisoners of war- as far as I know and remember there were about 70,000 in the Reich at that time-to be billeted with German farmers, in order to build up their strength. The farmers were obliged to feed these prisoners of war for at least 3 months, without putting them to work. As compensation the farmers were given the assurance that these prisoners of war would stay with them and work for them until the end of the war.
DR. SERVATIUS: During the course of the war did prisoners of war obtain the status of free laborers?
SAUCKEL: Yes. As far as French workers were concerned, I was instrumental in seeing that they were employed only by agreement with the French Government. These agreements were concluded under the sponsorship of the German Ambassador in Paris. The quotas were negotiated in accordance with instructions given me by the Fuehrer and by the Reich Marshal. The first quota was 250,000 French laborers and 150,000 skilled workers.
As a compensation for the use of these voluntary workers- and I emphasize voluntary-50,000 French prisoners of war who were farmers were to be, and actually were, returned to the French Government in order to improve the cultivation of French farm land.
That was the first agreement.
DR. SERVATIUS: What was the Releve?
SAUCKEL. The Releve was an agreement between the French Government and my office according to which for every three French workers who came to Germany one French prisoner of war was released and sent home by the Fuehrer.
DR. SERVATIUS: And who brought about this agreement?
SAUCKEL: This agreement was concluded on the basis of a discussion between the French Premier and myself. I was much
29 May 46
in favor of this agreement, because I myself spent 5 years behind barbed wire during the first World War.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did it make it easier for the prisoners? Did they return home?
SAUCKEL: Yes, they returned home.
DR. SERVATIUS: And how did the civilian population react to that? Above all, how did the workers feel who had to go to Germany?
SAUCKEL: This was an act of comradeship, and according to the reports I received the feeling was favorable.
DR. SERVATIUS: Then in reality instead of one prisoner of war there were three imprisoned workers?
SAUCKEL: No. These workers could move about freely in Germany in the same way as the other French workers and the German population.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did they have to come to Germany for an indefinite period of time?
SAUCKEL: No, they stayed according to the length of their contracts, just like the other workers.
DR. SERVATIUS: What was the average duration of a contract?
SAUCKEL: 9 months.
DR. SERVATIUS: Then the result was that after 9 months the prisoners of war, as well as the other workers, could return home?
SAUCKEL: Yes. This continual exchange necessitated new quotas and new agreements with the French Government, for there always had to be replacements.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were these negotiations carried on under a certain pressure?
SAUCKEL: No. I beg you to hear witnesses on this. They were conducted on a free diplomatic basis.
DR. SERVATIUS: To what extent was this Releve carried through? Was it on a very large or only on a small scale?
SAUCKEL: It was carried out on the basis of 250,000 workers who were to go to Germany.
DR. SERVATIUS: The French Prosecution in their government report said that only weak and sick people were sent back who could not work anyway. What have you to say to that?
SAUCKEL: As far as I know, French soldiers who were prisoners of war were sent back. The sending back and the selection of the soldiers was not my task but that of the general in charge of the
29 May 46
Prisoners of War Organization. I consider it possible that sick soldiers were also sent back to their homes in this way if they wished it. But certainly it was not the intention to send back only sick or older soldiers, but soldiers in general. That was the basis of the agreement.
DR. SERVATIUS: There was a second course which was chosen- the improved status which the French called "transformation." What kind of arrangement was that?
SAUCKEL: The improved status was a third agreement which included the provision that French prisoners of war in Germany were given the same contracts and the same status as all other French civilian workers.
DR. SERVATIUS: When a new French worker came to Germany? The ratio therefore was 1 to 1?
SAUCKEL: 1 to 1.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did these French workers have to bind themselves indefinitely, or was there a time limit here too?
SAUCKEL: Exactly the same as applied to the Releve.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was this improvement in status welcomed by the French soldiers, or did they disapprove of it?
SAUCKEL: They did not disapprove of it but welcomed it, according to the attitude of the individual soldier. A large number rejected it; others accepted it gladly, for by this measure the workers received high wages and all the liberties that were accorded outside the barbed wire, and the like. I myself saw how an entire camp accepted this new status. They had been told that the gates and barbed wire would be done away with, the prisoner regulations discontinued, and the surveillance abolished.
DR. SERVATIUS: Could these prisoners who had been turned into workers also go home?
SAUCKEL: My documents show that they were allowed to go home.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did they receive any furlough?
SAUCKEL: Yes, they did. Many of them came back, and an equally large number did not.
DR. SERVATIUS: I should like to refer to Document RF-22, German text, Page 70 of the French Government report. This document shows and admits that the prisoners received leave to go home at the beginning of this transformation, and I quote, "The unfortunate men did not return, however, and therefore this procedure was discontinued."
29 May 46
[Turning to the defendant.] Have you heard of the idea, "indirect forced labor"?
SAUCKEL: No. Please explain it to me.
DR. SERVATIUS: [Turning to the Tribunal.] The French report contains the argument that those worker" who worked in France in armament industries did so for the benefit of Germany. Sauckel was not connected with this in any way. This French report, which deals at length with the economic side of the Arbeitseinsatz, says that it worked according to a well-conceived and flexible system, and at first negotiations were friendly. The measures then became harsher in accordance with the circumstances.
[Turning to the defendant.] Was there a definite plan? Did you have to carry out certain instructions, or what system was adopted?
SAUCKEL: I should like to be allowed to explain this. A plan of the sort you have just outlined never existed. The only thing towards which I worked was the program which I drew up and which is in the possession of the Tribunal; a program which I admit, and for which I take all the consequences and the responsibility, even for my subordinates. This program was carried out through my decrees, which are also available in full. The development of the war did not permit me to give full consideration to the circumstances which now, post faction, appear obvious. We ourselves stood in the midst of the flow of events as the war developed and did not have time to ponder over such matters.
DR. SERVATIUS: What were the "Sperrbetriebe" and the "Ausnahmebetriebe" in France?
SAUCKEL: The Sperrbetriebe were industries which were the result of an agreement between Reich Minister Speer and, I believe, the French Minister of Economics, Bichelonne. They were industries which worked partly for German armaments and partly for German civilian requirements, and did not come under my offices.
DR. SERVATIUS: What was the number of workers who were brought to Germany from foreign countries?
SAUCKEL: The number of workers brought from foreign countries to Germany, according to careful estimates and the records of the statistical department of the Reich Ministry of Labor, might be said to be about 5 million.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you determine how far these laborers were to be used, and how many were to be brought in?
SAUCKEL: No, I could not determine that, for I did not represent the German economy, and I myself could not decide the extent of the German armament and agricultural programs.
29 May 46
DR. SERVATIUS: Apart from the current quotas which you had to supply, there were certain so-called program orders made by the Fuehrer. Is that true?
SAUCKEL: Yes, because the Fuehrer drew up the armament program, as far as I know.
DR. SERVATIUS: You have told me of your programs. I shall read the figures, and perhaps you can confirm them.
The first program in April 1942: the demand was for 1.6 million workers; 1.6 million were supplied, the entire figure being made up of foreigners.
The second program in September 1942: 2 million, and 2 million were supplied, of which 1 million, that is only half, were foreigners.
In 1943: the demand was for 1 million, and 1 million were supplied, the entire figure being made up of foreign workers.
Then the last program on 4 January 1944: the Fuehrer demanded 4 million, and the demand met with 0.9 million.
SAUCKEL: Allow me to correct you. The figure should read, demand met with 3 million.
DR. SERVATIUS: Demand 4 million; demand met with 3 million. And how many were foreigners?
SAUCKEL: 0.9 million.
DR. SERVATIUS: 0.9 million foreigners. How many workers came from the East, how many from the West, and how many from other regions?
SAUCKEL: I naturally cannot give you the exact figure here without data or statistics, but on an average I would say that the figure for each group might be about 30 percent; the percentage of workers from the East was certainly somewhat higher.
DR. SERVATIUS: And how were the requirements ascertained?
SAUCKEL: Through the demands of the employers of labor.
DR. SERVATIUS: And what were the employers of labor?
SAUCKEL: They were the Economic Ministry, the Armament Ministry, the Agricultural Ministry, the various trades, the State Railways, the mines, et cetera, all big undertakings.
DR. SERVATIUS: And to whom did they present their demands?
SAUCKEL: Usually the demand was made simultaneously to the Fuehrer and to me, or to the collecting agencies provided for by the Four Year Plan.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were they the reduced requirements, if their demands had to be checked, or were they the original demands?
29 May 46
SAUCKEL: I have just said that it varied. The demands were sent in to me, and at the same time they were almost always sent to the Fuehrer, because the Fuehrer had to approve these demands.
DR. SERVATIUS: And what was the position of the Central Planning Board?
SAUCKEL: The Central Planning Board was an office where above all, as far as I know, the quotas for raw materials were fixed, but where questions of work and manpower were also discussed.
DR. SERVATIUS: Could you receive orders from the Central Planning Board?
SAUCKEL: Yes, the demands which were put to me I had to consider as orders, for the Fuehrer had laid on me the duty of meeting the demands of the war economy.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you belong to the Central Planning Board yourself?
SAUCKEL: No, I was only called in when there were to be debates on the use of manpower.
DR. SERVATIUS: What was the relationship between your office and Speer's?
SAUCKEL: My office had to meet the demands made by Speer.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did Speer have his own machinery for directing labor?
SAUCKEL: Yes, he had to have that in his ministry, and he did have it. That was essential.
DR. SERVATIUS: Could you meet all the demands made of you?
DR. SERVATIUS: Were your labor reserves exhausted?
SAUCKEL: According to my conviction, yes; for already in 1943 -and it was one of the purposes of my manifesto-I pointed out that the economic problems of the occupied countries were very serious and had to be regulated and settled so as to avoid confusion.
DR. SERVATIUS: What labor reserves were still left in Germany?
SAUCKEL: In Germany after 1943 there were no more really usable reserves of manpower left. Many discussions took place on this problem, but the labor most in demand was skilled labor, miners, and workers for the heavy industries.
DR. SERVATIUS: And what manpower reserves were there to be gotten out of France?
SAUCKEL: I must say that from our point of view, and according to our judgment concerning economic and labor questions, there
29 May 46
was a great deal of manpower and very extensive reserves in the occupied territories.
DR. SERVATIUS: Do you mean that in comparison the economic forces of Germany were far more exhausted than those of the occupied countries?
SAUCKEL: Perhaps I can show it by a comparison with the first World War. In the first World War, 10 to 12 million Germans were mobilized for labor. In this war about 25 million German men and women were used, and more than half were women. I must add that all the women who did Red Cross or other welfare work Germany were not included in my statistics. They were included in other countries.
DR. SERVATIUS: I have a concluding question: If you view your activity as Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor from today's standpoint, what would you say about the use of foreign labor in general?
SAUCKEL: It is very hard for me to answer this question. I myself and the entire German people were of the opinion, and had to be, that this war was neither willed nor brought about by the German people-and, to be truthful, I must include the Party. Our standpoint was that we had to do our duty to our people.
DR. SERVATIUS: It is not intended that you should give an explanation in the wider sense, but that you should limit yourself to the general aspects of the question of labor allocation, and tell us whether today you consider your activity justified or not.
SAUCKEL: From the point of view of the war situation and of German economy, and as I saw and tried to carry out my allocation of labor, I considered it justified, and, above all, inevitable; for Germany and the countries we occupied were an economic whole that could not be split up. Without such an exchange of eastern and western manpower Germany could not have existed for even 1 day. The German people themselves were working to the extreme limit of their capacity.
DR. SERVATIUS: I have concluded my questioning of the defendant.
DR. ALFRED THOMA (Counsel for Defendant Rosenberg): Witness, did the Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories often try to cut down the labor quotas demanded by you?
SAUCKEL: Not only the Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories tried to do that, but I myself tried very hard to do so by intervening with the Fuehrer and all the employers of labor.
DR. THOMA: I should like to put several questions to you with regard to Document Number 054-PS, which describes the abuses in
29 May 46
the recruiting and transporting of Eastern Workers. Did you personally take steps to put an end to the abuses which are specified here?
SAUCKEL: Yes, of course. Please interrogate the witnesses on this.
DR. THOMA: Did you notice that this report deals with the city and the region of Kharkov in the Ukraine, and do you know that this entire district was never under the civilian administration of the Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories?
SAUCKEL: Yes, I know that, and I testified that this report was not sent to me but to an Army office. This Army office had its own labor department which was directly subordinate to it.
DR. THOMA: In this report did you especially notice the following paragraph on the first page:
"a) With few exceptions, the Ukrainians who are being employed in the Reich as individual workers for example, in small trade enterprises, on farms..."
SAUCKEL: Will you please tell me where it says that?
DR. THOMA: On Page 1, the last paragraph: "Judging from the discussions with the gentlemen and the reading of the reports, it can be said in general..."
SAUCKEL: Which documents? There are several documents.
DR. THOMA: I mean 054-PS, of course.
DR. THOMA: I think it is the first, second, third paragraph, "d"-the second paragraph
SAUCKEL: Yes, I have found it.
DR. THOMA: It says there that the Ukrainians who were being employed as individual workers in the Reich, were "very satisfied with the conditions." But: "b. On the other hand the Ukrainians living in community camps complain a great deal..."
Is that correct?
SAUCKEL: Yes. In my testimony I quoted the passage in which the author of the letter said that this was the case during the first few months only, for I immediately had the camps inspected and improved. I even went so far as to get the Reich Labor Minister to issue new camp regulations, all as a result of this complaint.
DR. THOMA: Did you personally visit the Occupied Eastern Territories on several occasions and speak to the administrative authorities there; for example, in Riga, Kovno, Zhitomir?
29 May 46
SAUCKEL: Not only did I speak to the administrative authorities there, but I compiled this manifesto in Russia and had it published there, and everything that is contained in the manifesto was communicated to these offices in the same way.
DR. THOMA: Yes. But is it correct that you emphasized the special urgency of the Fuehrer decree?
SAUCKEL: That was my duty; that was what I was there for.
DR. THOMA: That is not right from the legal point of view; for your actual authority came from Goering, as the Delegate for the Four Year Plan.
SAUCKEL: Yes, that is correct. The official channel was: Fuehrer, Goering, Four Year Plan-that was the order.
DR. THOMA: Then, if you said it was the Fuehrer's order, you did so to give a special emphasis?
SAUCKEL: No, that was not my intention. The Fuehrer commissioned me to replace the loss of German soldiers, Doctor. These were instructions which I had received directly from the Fuehrer or Goering on the basis of the requirements of the employers of labor.
DR. THOMA: Was a written order sent to you?
SAUCKEL: Yes, written orders were also sent.
DR. THOMA: From Hitler personally?
SAUCKEL: Yes, from Hitler and from Goering; from both of them.
DR. THOMA: Do you recall that you made an agreement with Rosenberg to the effect that Eastern Workers in Germany, after their return to their own country, were to receive land so that they would not be at a disadvantage as compared with the people who had remained?
SAUCKEL: Yes, that was agreed between Rosenberg and myself; that is correct.
DR. THOMA: Was this actually carried out?
SAUCKEL: Just how far this was carried out, I am unable to state. That was a task for the Ministry of the Occupied Eastern Territories. I assume that it was carried out as far as possible.
DR. THOMA: Do you recall that Rosenberg constantly advocated the doing away with the so-called Eastern Worker's badge?
SAUCKEL: Rosenberg, as well as I myself, advocated the abolition of the Eastern Worker's badge. There is a letter from the Reichsfuehrer SS refusing this; but I know for certain that at the end of 1943 or the beginning of 1944 we succeeded in abolishing
29 May 46
this Eastern Worker's badge, and it was replaced by a national emblem as worn by the other foreigners.
DR. THOMA: Why was this Eastern Worker's badge to be abolished?
SAUCKEL: This Eastern Worker's badge was to be abolished for various reasons, but above all to eliminate the demoralizing effect produced on the Eastern Workers by the wearing of a discriminating badge.
DR. THOMA: I have one last question. You said that you did not recall having received any complaints except those that you discussed with Rosenberg. Now, numerous complaints were constantly being investigated by the Central Agency for Eastern People together with the DAF. Did the DAF report to you on this?
SAUCKEL: The DAF reported that, in accordance with my directives, it had to put a stop to abuses and bad conditions wherever they were found. That was its duty. In order to remedy these abuses the DAF had not to apply to me but to the trade inspection department of the Reich Ministry of Labor, whose task it was.
DR. THOMA: Did you make sure whether this inspection department stopped these abuses?
SAUCKEL: I installed my own inspection agencies there, as mentioned by Dr. Servatius. However, the trade inspection department was the only authorized agency which had the legal authority to use compulsory measures and it was supervised by the Reich Labor Minister who had full authority.
DR. THOMA: I have no further questions. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the emblem that you have been speaking about?
SAUCKEL: The Eastern Worker's emblem or badge consisted of a bluebordered square, which bore a blue inscription "Ost." The Reichsfuehrer SS first ordered it to be worn on the right side of the breast; later, on the sleeve. Still later I was instrumental in getting this changed to a national emblem-blue, I think, or something similar-like the Russian colors, as the people themselves wished.
DR. OTTO NELTE (Counsel for Defendant Keitel): Herr Sauckel, the Defendant Keitel and the OKW are accused by the Prosecution of the deportation of civilian people for the purposes of the mobilization of labor. You were also interrogated before the start of this Trial as to whether the OKW, and Keitel as Chief of the OKW, participated in the procurement, recruitment, and conscription of people in the occupied territories.
A number of things which were not clear and which are contained in the record have been cleared up by your testimony.
29 May 46
Especially in answering the last question of my colleague, Dr. Thoma, you made it clear that the organizational official channel was as follows: The Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor, the Four Year Plan-Goering, and the Fuehrer. Is that correct?
SAUCKEL: Generally speaking, yes.
DR. NELTE: I am interested in determining whether in this official channel the OKW was included, or the Fuehrer in some other function than Supreme Commander of the Wehrmacht.
SAUCKEL: I myself was not a soldier, and I am not familiar with the detailed organization of the OKW and the OKH. It was often difficult for a layman to make the distinction between these things. It is true that the OKH was competent for the recruitment of workers in occupied countries controlled by army groups. Therefore, labor regulations for the occupied countries which were under the authority of the Army had to be issued through laws or directives by the General Staff.
DR. NELTE: You probably mean the Quartermaster General of the Army?
SAUCKEL: The Quartermaster General was, as far as I know, next to the Commander-in-Chief of the Army.
DR. NELTE: And by this you mean to say that the OKW and the Defendant Keitel had no competence concerning the procuring, recruiting, and conscripting of manpower in the occupied territories?
SAUCKEL: He had no competence in this respect. I came into contact with Field Marshal Keitel, because the Fuehrer repeatedly instructed me to ask Field Marshal Keitel to transmit his orders to the army groups by telephone or through directives.
DR. NELTE: And what about the question of the allocation of workers? Did the OKW, and specifically the Defendant Keitel as Chief of the OKW, have any competence concerning the allocation of workers at home?
SAUCKEL: No, for the workers were used in those economic branches for which they had been demanded, and they had nothing at all to do with the OKW.
DR. NELTE: Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT: Do any members of the Prosecution wish to cross-examine?
M. JACQUES B. HERZOG (Assistant Prosecutor for the French Republic): Defendant Sauckel, you joined the National Socialist Party in 1925, didn't you? Is that correct?
29 May 46
SAUCKEL: I joined the National Socialist Party for the first time, as an ordinary member, as early as 1923. When the Party was reorganized in 1925 I again became a member.
M. HERZOG: But you had supported the policy of National Socialism since 1921, had you not?
SAUCKEL: From 1921 onwards, I supported a German policy. In 1921 I did not as yet belong to the Party. I knew about the Party, and I was in sympathy with its ideas; that is probably the right way to put it.
M. HERZOG: Did you not make speeches in favor of National Socialism from that time on?
SAUCKEL: From about the middle of 1921 I made speeches in favor of Germany, not expressly for the Party and only in a very small way, at small gatherings, and as my conscience guided me.
M. HERZOG: You were Gauleiter, member of the Landrat, Minister of the Interior, and Governor of Thuringia. Is it correct that in this capacity you brought about the Nazification of your Gau?
SAUCKEL: I was Prime Minister of Thuringia from August 1932, and I was Minister of the Interior as well.
M. HERZOG: I am asking you the question again: Is it correct that, in your capacity as Gauleiter and Governor of Thuringia, you brought about the Nazification of your Gau?
SAUCKEL: Nazification is a term with which I was neither familiar nor do I consider it correct. I recruited for the National Socialist Party and I supported it.
M. HERZOG: You were Obergruppenfuehrer of the organization of the SS, were you not?
SAUCKEL: I do not quite understand. Of the SS?
M. HERZOG: You were an Obergruppenfuehrer of the SS?
SAUCKEL: I already stated in my preliminary interrogation that I was an honorary Obergruppenfuehrer of the SS. I myself never served in the SS, nor did I exercise any functions in the SS.
M. HERZOG; When did you become Obergruppenfuehrer of the SS?
SAUCKEL: As far as I remember I became an Obergruppenfuehrer of the SS in 1934.
M. HERZOG: And you were that until when?
SAUCKEL: Until the end.
M. HERZOG: Among the documents which you have presented in your document book, there is Document Sauckel-95. I will read the following passage on Page 252 of the French translation:
29 May 46
"My dear fellow countrymen, our magnificent SA and SS, persecuted and insulted during a whole decade as the scum of the German people, have carried through, supported, and sustained this revolution with an unshakable discipline...." Is it correct...
rim PRESIDENT: From what are you reading?
M. HERZOG: From Document Sauckel-95 of the defendant's document book; Document Sauckel-95, which was submitted yesterday by the learned counsel for the defense, Page 252 of the French translation. It is in the third document book of the defendant.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, go on.
M. HERZOG: I put the question again and read: "My dear fellow countrymen, our magnificent SA and SS, persecuted and insulted during a whole decade as the scum of the German people, have carried through, supported, and sustained this revolution with an unshakable discipline...."
Do you confirm this declaration?
SAUCKEL: Yes, but I request that I be shown the document in cross-examination so that I can define my attitude in detail.
M. HERZOG: This document is taken from your own document book, which you yourself submitted.
SAUCKEL: Yes, I remember it well.
M. HERZOG: Were the Nuremberg Laws concerning Jews in accordance with your convictions?
SAUCKEL: I had no influence on legislation such as culminated in the Nuremberg Laws. My conviction is that every nation and every race has the right to exist and to demand respect and protection through itself. What I demand and have demanded for my own people is exactly the same.
M. HERZOG: Did you see to it that the Nuremberg Laws were strictly applied in the Gau of Thuringia?
SAUCKEL: The Nuremberg Laws could apply to Thuringia only insofar as any authority to appoint or dismiss employees was involved; and, of course, according to German law, it was my duty to carry out the law. The carrying out of this law by me entailed neither ill-usage nor any other inhuman treatment.
M. HERZOG: Did you approve of Hitler's theory of living space?
SAUCKEL: The Fuehrer wrote about living space in his book. How far I agreed or disagreed with him cannot, in my opinion, be dealt with in this Trial, for I had no influence as to how the Fuehrer himself should interpret the word Lebensraum.
29 May 46
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal think that you must answer the question, whether or not you approve of the doctrine of Lebensraum.
SAUCKEL: I am not fully acquainted with the statements made by the Fuehrer about the doctrine of Lebensraum. I should like to emphasize that I never thought of Lebensraum in connection with the carrying out of wars, or wars of aggression; neither did I promote the idea; but the idea of Lebensraum is perhaps best brought home to us by the fact that the population of Europe in the last 100 years has increased threefold, from 150 million to 450 million.
M. HERZOG: Did you, or did you not approve of the theory of Lebensraum? Answer "yes" or "no."
SAUCKEL: I did not agree with the theory of Lebensraum if it had to do with wars of aggression.
M. HERZOG: Did you approve of Hitler's theory of the master race?
SAUCKEL: I could give abundant proof that I personally always refused to emphasize the idea of a master race, and said so in my speeches. I am personally much more interested in proficiency than in ideas about a master race.
M. HERZOG: Then you did not think that the foreign policy of Germany should have been conducted according to these two theories; the theory of Lebensraum on the one hand, and the theory of the master race on the other hand?
SAUCKEL: I have already stated to my counsel that I did not concern myself with foreign policy and was not informed about it, as I am not versed in matters of foreign policy.
M. HERZOG: On the contrary, did you not approve of all the measures of foreign policy, and did you not participate in them?
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps we had better break off now, and you can repeat the question tomorrow.
[The Tribunal adjourned until 30 May 1946 at 1000 hours.]