4000bce - 399
400 - 1399
1400 - 1499
1500 - 1599
1600 - 1699
1700 - 1799
1800 - 1899
1900 - 1999
[The Defendant Sauckel resumed the stand]
PROFESSOR DR. FRANZ EXNER (Counsel for Defendant Jodl): Mr. President, I should like to put a request to you. My client comes next in order and he would like to be excused, if possible, this afternoon and all day tomorrow, so that he can prepare his case,
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly.
MARSHAL: May it please the Tribunal, the report is made that the Defendant Von Papen is absent.
M. HERZOG: Defendant Sauckel, I was asking you yesterday whether you considered that Germany's foreign policy was based on the Hitlerian theories concerning living space and the master race.
SAUCKEL: May I ask you to repeat the question? I did not quite understand it in German.
M. HERZOG: I was asking you yesterday if you considered that the foreign policy of Germany was based on the two Hitlerian theories, Lebensraum and the master race.
SAUCKEL: I have understood-whether German foreign policy was based on the principles of Lebensraum and the master race.
M. HERZOG: Yes, I am asking you to answer whether, in your opinion, it was so.
SAUCKEL: Not on the principle of a master race. I should like to be permitted to give an explanation of this.
I personally have never approved of the statements made by some of the National Socialist speakers about a superior race and a master race. I have never advocated that. As a young man I traveled about the world. I traveled in Australia and in America, and I met families who belong to the happiest memories of my life. But I loved my own people and sought, I admit, equality of rights for them; and I have always stood for that. I have never believed in the superiority of one particular race, but I always held that equality of rights was necessary.
30 May 46
M. HERZOG: That being so, you did not approve of the whole of the foreign policy of Hitler; and you did not collaborate with him?
SAUCKEL: In answer to the question by my counsel I stated that I never considered myself to be a politician as regards foreign policy. I entered the Party by quite a different way and for quite different motives.
M. HERZOG: Do you remember the declaration which you made
on 4 September 1945 to two American officers?
[Turning to the Tribunal.] This declaration is Document Number 3057-PS. It was submitted as Exhibit Number USA-223.
[Turning to the defendant.] You said the following:
"I have been a convinced National Socialist since 1921 and agreed 100 percent with the program of Adolf Hitler. I worked actively to that end; and during the period from 1921 until the assumption of power I made about 500 speeches, the sense and contents of which represented the National Socialist standpoint. It was for me a particular satisfaction to have raised the Gau of Thuringia to a predominant position with regard to its National Socialist views and convictions. Until the collapse I never doubted Adolf Hitler, but obeyed his orders blindly."
THE PRESIDENT: You are going a little bit too fast. This has been read, M. Herzog. I do not think you need read all of it.
M. HERZOG: I would ask you then, Defendant Sauckel, if you confirm the statements which were made under oath, voluntarily and without any duress, on 4 September 1945, and which contradict those that you made yesterday and which you have just made to me.
SAUCKEL: I confirm that my signature is appended to this document. I ask the Tribunal's permission to state how that signature came about.
This document was presented to me in its finished form. I asked to be allowed to read and study this document in my cell in Oberursel and decide whether I could sign it. That was denied me. During the conversation an officer was consulted who, I was told, belonged to the Polish or Russian army; and it was made clear to me that if I hesitated too long in signing this document I would be handed over to the Russian authorities. Then this Polish or Russian officer entered and asked, "Where is Sauckel's family? We know Sauckel, of course we will take him with us; but his family will have to be taken into Russian territory as welt" I am the father of 10 children. I did not stop to consider; and thinking of my family, I signed this document.
30 May 46
When I returned to my cell, I sent a written message to the commandant of the camp and asked permission to talk with him alone on this matter. But that was not possible, because shortly afterwards I was brought to Nuremberg.
M. HERZOG: Is not your signature at the end of this document in which you declared that you "made the above declarations voluntarily and without any duress"?
SAUCKEL: That is correct, but in this situation. . .
M. HERZOG: I think your explanation is sufficient.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you ask him whether he has read it now and whether it is true.
M. HERZOG: I asked you a few moments ago, and I ask you now: Are you ready to confirm that your statements are correct?
SAUCKEL: These statements are not correct in individual points, and I asked that I might correct these various points; but I was not given the time to do that.
On the last morning before I left I was told I could discuss this matter in Nuremberg, and when I was interrogated here I told the American officer about the matter.
THE PRESIDENT: M. Herzog, was this document read over in the Tribunal during the prosecution?
M. HERZOG: This document was submitted under Exhibit Number USA-223.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, as far as I recall this document was not submitted. At the time I had a conversation with the American representative of the Prosecution and told him about these objections. He did not bring it up at a later session because of these objections; and the President himself, at the conclusion, asked whether this document would not be produced, and the prosecutor said, "No. Having talked it over with the Defense, I will dispense with this document."
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you tell us that it wasn't read over in court.
DR. SERVATIUS: No, it was not read in court. At any rate I would like to object to the admissibility of this document, for it was given under duress.
THE PRESIDENT: Under these circumstances, M. Herzog, you may cross-examine in what way you like upon the document. The Tribunal was under the impression that it had already been read over. That is why they stopped you reading it.
M. HERZOG: [Turning to the defendant.] In Paragraph 2 you declared:
30 May 46
"After the putting into effect of the Nuremberg Laws, in keeping with my convictions, I saw to it that all these laws were fully carried out in the Gau of Thuringia."
"With regard to foreign policy I have been of the opinion that the German people has a justified claim for living space in Europe and by reason of their superior racial level have to assume a leading position.... I agreed with all the decisions taken by Hitler and the NSDAP concerning the means to be used and the measures to be taken to obtain these ends, and I collaborated actively in the execution of this plan."
SAUCKEL: I could not follow your concluding sentences.
M. HERZOG: I will read it once more:
". . . I agreed with all the decisions taken by Hitler and the NSDAP concerning the means to be used and the measures to be taken to obtain these ends, and I collaborated actively in the execution of this plan."
I ask you to confirm whether you made these statements.
SAUCKEL: I certainly would not have made those statements in the way I did, if I had been able to act freely and according to my own will.
M. HERZOG: The Tribunal will consider it. Is it a fact that you were appointed...
THE PRESIDENT: M. Herzog, the Tribunal thinks that the document is before the witness and he should be asked to point out in what way he says the document is wrong.
M. HERZOG: Defendant Sauckel, you heard what the President has said. You say that this document does not correspond to the truth. Will you kindly tell the Tribunal in what way it does not.
SAUCKEL: May I take this document point by point? I was 100 percent in agreement with the social program, and I told my counsel that when he examined me.
THE PRESIDENT: Defendant, what the Tribunal wishes is that you should take the document and point out, sentence by sentence, what is wrong in it.
SAUCKEL: In Paragraph 1, the year 1921 is incorrect.
I became a member, as my first membership card shows, only in 1923 or 1925. Before the year 1923 was in sympathy with the Party.
As to being 100 percent in agreement with Adolf Hitler's program, I meant 100 percent insofar as the program appeared to me
30 May 46
to be justified legally and constitutionally, and according to ethics and morality.
Just how many meetings I conducted I cannot say. My speeches and lectures were based mainly on my life and on my experiences. Those were the only things that I could talk about, and I wanted to reconcile the German social classes and the German professions to National Socialist ideology.
THE PRESIDENT: Defendant, I have pointed out to you that what the Tribunal desires is for you to take the document and say what sentences in it are wrong, and not to make speeches.
SAUCKEL: In my eyes, all the sentences are wrong. I would not have put them that way if I myself had been able to formulate them. The way they stand, I dispute each and every sentence, for I did not write them and I was not consulted. These sentences were put before me as they are now.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, may I be permitted to give an explanation of this matter? This statement is practically a summary of all the interrogations in which the various points appear as a confession in the sense of the Indictment. The defendant could not say a word in his own defense if this were correct. Since it is a resume and since conclusions can be drawn from it, he must have the opportunity of refuting these conclusions; and that necessitates a statement. These are not definite facts which can be answered with "yes" or "no."
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant has just said that the whole document is wrong, and he has also said that the document was obtained from him under duress.
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: And it is therefore not any use to go through it in detail. But the Tribunal would like to hear from the American Prosecution if they have anything to say about the matter.
MR. DODD: I do not have a copy of the document before me in English, but I...
THE PRESIDENT: You see, Mr. Dodd, M. Herzog has said that it was offered in evidence under the Exhibit Number USA-223.
MR. DODD: My recollection is that-I will check the record, Mr. President-my recollection is that in the presentation of the case on Slave Labor, we included this in our document book but did not offer it in evidence. I think I said to the Tribunal at the time that we had decided not to offer it. It had been printed and put in the document book.
My memory may be faulty, but my recollection is, Mr. President, that the President of the Tribunal asked me if I did not intend to
30 May 46
offer it, and I then stated that we had thought it over and decided not to use it.
THE PRESIDENT: I do not understand how it gets an exhibit number if it isn't offered in evidence.
MR. DODD: I don't either. I think it is an error.
THE PRESIDENT: I see. Mr. Dodd, do you know whether this is a resume or a summary of a number of interrogations which were taken?
MR. DODD: My understanding is to the contrary. I think it was taken before the Defendant Sauckel was in Nuremberg and before any interrogations were conducted on the part of the interrogation division of the American Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Were you aware Dr. Servatius was objecting to the document on the ground that it was obtained under duress?
MR. DODD: My recollection is that at the time of the presentation of the Slave Labor case Dr. Servatius made some objection, and I think that is what brought the matter up at that time; and that is why we did not use it.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Then you had better pass from it.
M. HERZOG: [Turning to the defendant.] You were appointed Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor by an ordinance of 21 March 1942?
SAUCKEL: Yes, that is correct.
M. HERZOG: Is it correct to say that this decree was countersigned by the Codefendant Keitel?
SAUCKEL: The decree, I believe, was countersigned three times. I believe that is right. At the moment I cannot confirm it with certainty.
M. HERZOG: Would you kindly explain to the Tribunal under what circumstances you were appointed to that office?
SAUCKEL: I answered that question when it was put to me by my counsel yesterday. It was a surprise to me.
M. HERZOG: Did Speer, the Reich Minister for Armaments, have anything to do with your appointment?
SAUCKEL: I cannot tell you that from my own knowledge. Bormann's announcement said it was at the suggestion of Speer; but I cannot tell you that from my own knowledge.
M. HERZOG: Do you recollect having made any statement on that subject in your interrogation on 12 September 1945?
SAUCKEL: At this moment I cannot remember the statement.
30 May 46
M. HERZOG: On 12 September 1945 you were interrogated by Major Monigan; and you appear to have stated the following-the Tribunal will find this on the first page of the extracts of the interrogatory which has been handed them:
"In March 1942 I was summoned rather suddenly by Minister Speer, who had been appointed a short while previously. Speer told me that it was urgent that I should assume..."
THE PRESIDENT: Could you move those papers away from the light; you cannot see the light which is constantly going on.
M. HERZOG: "...Speer told me that it was urgent that I should assume new functions in connection with the question of labor. A few days later he asked me to go with him to general headquarters, and I was introduced to the Fuehrer who told me that I must accept this new appointment without fail."
Do you confirm that statement?
SAUCKEL: It is correct; only I cannot say whether that was before a decision-whether my appointment was previously arranged before these meetings through the initiative of some other gentlemen; but except for that, the facts are correct.
M. HERZOG: But you confirm that the Defendant Speer, Minister for Armament and War Production, took you to Hitler's headquarters on the occasion of your appointment.
SAUCKEL: Yes, that is correct.
M. HERZOG: Yesterday your counsel submitted a chart showing the general organization of your service and how it was connected with the other organizations' of the Reich. You declared that chart vitas correct. I would ask you to confirm, by saying "yes" or "no," whether you think that chart is correct.
SAUCKEL: According to my own personal recollection, yes.
M. HERZOG: Have you that chart in front of you?
SAUCKEL: No, I have not.
M. HERZOG: It is the document which was handed up yesterday by your counsel showing the different offices.
THE PRESIDENT: Which chart is it?
M. HERZOG: It is Chart Number 1, indicating how Sauckel's department dovetailed with the other ministerial services.
[Turning to the defendant.] Will you look at Column 6 starting from the left, the column above which there is the name of the Defendant Funk? Have you found it?
30 May 46
M. HERZOG: Would you go down that column, the third square, representing the armament inspectors? Is it correct that the armament inspectors, as shown here, were under the Defendant Funk?
SAUCKEL: Under Funk? Which department do you mean, which division? That is not quite correct here. It should be moved a bit to the side. Later it was under Speer. It says Reichsautobahn and highway inspectors. That did not come under Funk. That is a mistake.
M. HERZOG: Do you see the square beside that one, which connects the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor with the directorate of the Reichsautobahn service. It is the square on the right-hand side, a little above the others. Should it be connected with the Reichsautobahn service? Should it not be with the square above, inspectors of armaments?
SAUCKEL: Yes; I cannot understand how this mistake could happen in this chart. I have not seen this diagram before. This is the first time I have seen it; that is a mistake. I did not know about that.
M. HERZOG: And you stated it was accurate without having examined it beforehand, is that so?
SAUCKEL: I assumed it to be the same chart as the one which was put before me as complete.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, when I presented this chart yesterday, I mentioned that there might be a few discrepancies. These discrepancies came in when it was being mimeographed. But I did not see the final...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, you can ask any questions if you want to in re-examination, but there is no ground for objection to questions which have been put. The questions are perfectly proper.
M. HERZOG: Defendant, you did take part in the conferences of the Central Planning Board of the Four Year Plan?
SAUCKEL: Only in some of them, when labor problems were being discussed.
M. HERZOG: Will you please tell the Tribunal which of your colleagues accompanied you or represented you at such conferences?
SAUCKEL: That varied-Dr. Timm, Dr. Hildebrandt, Dr. Stothfang; but it varied.
M. HERZOG: Who among the other defendants also participated in those conferences? Can you tell us?
30 May 46
SAUCKEL: I can recall with certainty only Herr Speer as being one who participated in these conferences. Whether Herr Funk actually participated' I really cannot remember any particular meeting. Perhaps he did, and perhaps not. I am sorry I cannot say for certain.
M. HERZOG: And the Defendant Goering?
SAUCKEL: At the meetings of the Central Planning Board I personally never saw the Reich Marshal. I do not know whether certain conferences which were held at his place had strictly to do with the Central Planning Board. Some conferences in which he participated took place at Karinhall, but whether they dealt with matters concerning the Central Planning Board I cannot say. It was not always clear.
M. HERZOG: But when the Defendants Goering and Funk did not take part in these meetings were they not represented there?
SAUCKEL: The Reich Marshal was represented by Field Marshal Milch, but whether Reich Minister Funk was represented I cannot remember exactly. He might have been represented by Herr Kehrl or someone else. There were many gentlemen there; I did not know all of them personally.
M. HERZOG: Is it not correct to say that, at these conferences of the Central Planning Board of the Four Year Plan, the general decisions concerning the allocation of labor were made by all the people who were present or were represented?
SAUCKEL: At the Central Planning Board no general decisions were made. The demands were made known there and, as there was nearly always a dispute, the higher authorities had to decide; generally it was the Fuehrer. That happened frequently.
M. HERZOG: The Central Planning Board had established a collaboration between you and the other defendants who were present or represented there, is that not so?
SAUCKEL: That collaboration did not originate there, as those questions had already been discussed before the formation of this Central Planning Board. The questions were also discussed there, and demands were submitted and discussed.
M. HERZOG: Will you please take Document Number R-124. It has already been submitted to the Tribunal under Exhibit Number USA-179. You will see therein a declaration which you made at the meeting of 1 March 1944. I read:
"My duty towards the Fuehrer..."
SAUCKEL: Will you please tell me the page from which you are reading?
30 May 46
M. HERZOG: Page 1780. The place is no doubt marked.
"My duty towards the Fuehrer, the Reich Marshal, Minister Speer, and you, gentlemen, as well as towards agriculture, is clear; and I will fulfill it. As a start we have already 262,000 new workers; and I hope and am firmly convinced that I shall obtain most of what has been asked. The labor will have to be distributed, of course, according to the needs of German armament first, and secondly, German industry as a whole; and I shall always be prepared, gentlemen, to see to it that closest contact is constantly maintained here and that closest collaboration is given by the subordinated labor exchanges, as well as by the Gau labor exchanges."
Therefore, you do not contest the fact that the Central Planning Board did establish collaboration among the various services which recruited manpower, because you yourself asked for this collaboration.
SAUCKEL: I did not deny that there was collaboration. Collaboration is necessary in every regime and in every system. Here we were not concerned with foreign labor only, but chiefly with German labor, even at that period. I did not dispute the fact that work was being carried on; but final decisions were not always made there. That is what I wanted to say.
M. HERZOG: It is correct that you appointed delegates to represent you in the various German administrative departments?
SAUCKEL: I did not have representatives in the various administrative departments. I had liaison men, or else the administrative departments had liaison men in my office.
M. HERZOG: Did you not have such a liaison officer with the Defendant Speer, Minister for Armaments and War Production?
SAUCKEL: The man who was constantly with Speer was not a liaison officer, but the man who talked over with the Minister questions of demand, et cetera, which were pending. As far as I remember it was a Herr Berk.
M. HERZOG: And did you have a liaison officer with the Reich Minister of Labor?
SAUCKEL: I had no liaison officer with the Reich Minister of Labor. There were two departments in the Reich Ministry of Labor which concerned themselves with these problems in an administrative capacity.
M. HERZOG: In your interrogatory of 12 September 1945 you said as follows-the Tribunal will find it on Pages 6 and 7 of the interrogatory:
30 May 46
" 'I had moreover two officials who acted as intermediaries between Minister Speer and the Ministry of Labor.' "Question: 'Did this liaison officer establish a connection between your Ministry, Minister Speer, and the Ministry of Labor?' "Answer: 'Between me, Minister Speer, and the Ministry of Labor . . ."'
SAUCKEL: Will you please tell me the page?
M. HERZOG: Pages 4 and 5. Have you found it?
M. HERZOG: "Between me, Minister Speer, and the Ministry of Labor..."
THE PRESIDENT: That is surely Page 6, is it not? You said Pages 4 and 5. It is Page 6, is it not?
M. HERZOG: Page 4 of the German extract, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, I see.
M. HERZOG: "Between me, Minister Speer, and the Ministry of Labor there were two counsellors, Dr. Stothfang . . . and Landrat Berk. They were jurists and experts in national economy. Dr. Stothfang was commissioned to act principally as liaison officer with the Ministry of Labor..."
Why did you tell me a few minutes ago that you had no liaison officer with the Ministry of Labor?
SAUCKEL: I made it quite clear that there were two departments which belonged to the Ministry of Labor, Departments 3 and 5; and this Ministerialrat Dr. Stothfang was formerly the personal assistant to State Secretary Syrup. In a few isolated cases he had discussions with State Secretary Syrup at my request, that is true; but these were not important. In general the departments themselves were in touch with the Ministry of Labor.
M. HERZOG: You confirm then, that you had a liaison officer at the Ministry of Labor and another in Minister Speer's office?
SAUCKEL: I confirm that for occasional conferences. But these gentlemen were attached to those departments, and they came to me as my personal consultants and did not work in that Ministry. I cannot say either whether in this case the translation is correct. I do not remember exactly, but in principle it is correct.
But these gentlemen worked with me.
M. HERZOG: And will you please tell the Tribunal what the Stabsbesprechung was?
30 May 46
SAUCKEL: Stabsbesprechung was a conference on technical questions in which the various ministries or industrial employers participated who needed labor and the questions which had to be considered were discussed. I could not act independently, of course, as you have heard.
M. HERZOG: Who instituted these conferences, this new arrangement, these staff conferences? Who took the initiative in instituting them?
SAUCKEL: These staff conferences were instituted by me in order to obtain a clear conception of all these important questions, because in no regime or government in the world can anything be done in the dark.
M. HERZOG: You confirm then that these various kinds of liaison imply a common responsibility as to decisions taken by each one of you in the matter of manpower?
SAUCKEL: This question is not clear to me technically or ad
ministratively, for I could not do anything with the workers. I had to give them to other people, and I had to discuss the way this was to be done. But these conferences did not take place with the idea of a conspiracy or of a criminal act; they were the same kind of conferences as formerly took place. I have been present at conferences under a parliamentary system, and matters were dealt with in exactly the same way.
M. HERZOG: That is not what I was asking you. I was asking you whether you confirmed that the existence of these liaison officers to Minister Speer and the Minister of Labor, on the one hand, and the existence of this new organization that you created, on the other hand, implied a common responsibility in the decisions regarding manpower taken by Minister Speer, the Minister of Labor, and by you?
SAUCKEL: I cannot answer this question with a definite "no," as orders were given to me which, as a German official, I had to carry out in this case; and in order to carry them out I had to hold conferences. It was not possible to do otherwise, for it was not I personally, but German economy, that demanded and used these workers. This matter had to be settled in some way, regardless of whether German or ether workers were concerned; and the same situation applied in normal times.
M. HERZOG: Is it a fact that, after you were appointed, you were authorized to be represented by special representatives in the military and civil departments of the occupied areas?
SAUCKEL: After 30 October-I cannot state the exact date-at the instigation of the Fuehrer, I appointed representatives to the
30 May 46
governments in the occupied countries. I mentioned this yesterday through my counsel.
M. HERZOG: The 30th of October? I think you mean the decree of 30 September 1942. It is a mistake on your part for the decree is dated 30 September.
SAUCKEL: I am sorry, I do not know the exact date.
M. HERZOG: Is it right that these representatives, appointed by that decree, were directly subordinate to you?
SAUCKEL: Insofar as they were my delegates, that is, for the passing on of orders, they were subordinate to me.
M. HERZOG: Is it true that they were authorized to give directives to the civilian and military authorities in the occupied territories?
SAUCKEL: That is correct as far as orders were concerned, but it is not true in general. It was a technical matter.
M. HERZOG: Who was your delegate with the occupation authorities in France?
SAUCKEL: The delegate with the occupation authorities in France was, first of all, President Ritter; he was murdered in Paris. And after him, President Glatzel.
M. HERZOG: Did you have a representative in Belgium?
SAUCKEL: In Belgium I had a delegate by the name of Schulze; he was with the military commander.
M. HERZOG: And in Holland?
SAUCKEL: In Holland there were various men. First of all, Herr Schmidt, and there was another man; I believe his name was Ritterbusch, or something like that, but I do not recall the exact name.
M. HERZOG: This system of representatives with the occupation authorities, was that approved of by Defendant Speer?
SAUCKEL: This was at the instigation of the Fuehrer, and I assume that Speer agreed. He recommended it, as far as I know.
M. HERZOG: To your knowledge, did he take any initiative in the decree issued by the Fuehrer concerning this matter?
SAUCKEL: Yes. He was present and he recommended it.
M. HERZOG: In your interrogatory you said, when speaking about these representatives, that Speer instituted these agencies for manpower in 1941 or 1942. The Tribunal will find this statement on Page 9 of the excerpts from the interrogatory. What do you understand by that sentence?
30 May 46
SAUCKEL: I did not quite understand you.
M. HERZOG: I shall read an extract of your interrogation of 8 October 1945.
"Question: 'What was the mission entrusted to your representatives in the labor offices of the military commander and of the civil governor? Did they merely give technical advice to the military authorities, which could be rejected at any time by the latter, or did they have authority to give directives to the military commanders on technical questions?' "
THE PRESIDENT: On what page is that?
M. HERZOG: Page 9, Mr. President.
"Answer: 'In 1941 or 1942 Speer instituted this delegation for manpower.'"
I would merely ask you what you understand by that phrase. What did you mean when you said that Speer instituted this delegation for manpower in 1941 or 1942?
SAUCKEL: I have to say, in this connection, that I never saw the minutes again after I had been interrogated. I cannot confirm that sentence about 1941-42, and I cannot imagine that I expressed myself in that way during the interrogation.
M. HERZOG: The Tribunal will judge your answer. Is it correct that, besides your representatives with the civil and military commanders, you installed administrative offices for labor in the occupied territories?
SAUCKEL: That is not correct. They were already there.
M. HERZOG: You confirm then that besides the delegates who represented you, there were recruiting agencies for manpower in the occupied territories?
SAUCKEL: Yes. In the occupied territories, in all regional governments, either civilian or military, there were departments dealing with manpower which were a part of the administration; and they were subordinate to the administration authorities.
M. HERZOG: Can you give an indication of the size of the personnel of those various services in the occupied areas?
SAUCKEL: Do you mean the total number? I cannot tell you from memory the separate figures for the personnel of these administrative offices. I never have known these figures exactly. '
M. HERZOG: Do you remember the conference which took place, with you as chairman, on 15 and 16 July 1944 at the Wartburg with the heads of the regional labor offices and the labor delegations from the European occupied territories? On 15 July 1944, in the afternoon, State Counsellor Boerger gave an account of the personnel
30 May 46
employed. It is Document Number F-810, which I submit under the Exhibit Number RF-1507. I will read on Page 20:
"State Counsellor Boerger stated that outside the frontiers of
the Reich there are about 4,000 people engaged in the administration of labor; Eastern area, 1,300; France, 1,016; Belgium and Northern France, 429; Netherlands, 194 . . . "
Do you confirm this statement of State Counsellor Boerger?
SAUCKEL: Yes, speaking generally it may be true.
M. HERZOG: Apart from your representatives, apart from those services that we were talking about, did you not create in France commissions composed of specialists who were entrusted with organizing the employment of labor on the German pattern? Please answer.
SAUCKEL: I did not quite understand the question. Please repeat it.
M. HERZOG: I shall repeat it. Apart from your representatives- apart from the services that we have been talking about-did you not create, in France particularly, commissions composed of specialists who were entrusted with organizing the employment of manpower on the German pattern?
SAUCKEL: I told my defense counsel yesterday about my collaboration with French units for...
M. HERZOG: That is not what I mean. I am talking about commissions composed of specialists. Do you not remember that in order to insure the recruiting of manpower in France you thought of the system of attaching two French departements to a German Gau?
SAUCKEL: I remember now what you mean. This was the system of adoption arranged in agreement with the French Government, according to which a German Gau adopted a French departement. The main object was to inform the workers, who were to come to Germany, about conditions in Germany and to have mutual talks with the economic offices of the French departements about statistics.
M. HERZOG: I hand to the Tribunal Document Number 1293-PS' which becomes French Exhibit Number RF-1508.
[Turning to the defendant.] This is a letter bearing your signature, dated Berlin 14 August 1943, from which I shall read extracts. The Tribunal will find it in the document book which I handed to them at the beginning of this session. I shall first read the last paragraph on Page 1.
THE PRESIDENT: I am afraid I have not got it-1293?
M. HERZOG: Mr. President, the documents which figure in my document book were handed to the Tribunal this morning-unless
30 May 46
I am making a mistake, for which I apologize in advance-in the order in which I intend to use them.
THE PRESIDENT: I have one. 1293. Is that right?
M. HERZOG: I have attached a slip only to those documents which I think I shall use several times, so that the Tribunal may find them more easily. May I now begin to read?
THE PRESIDENT: I am sorry but the documents had not been handed up to me, that is all. None of them had been handed up.
M. HERZOG: I am reading at the bottom of Page 1:
"The solving of these two great manpower problems demands the immediate setting up in France of a stronger and better German labor organization possessing the necessary powers and means. This will be done by a system of sponsorship by Gau. France has got about 80 departements. Greater Germany is divided into 42 political Gau, and for the purposes of manpower recruitment it is divided into 42 Gau labor office districts. Each German Gau labor office district Will take over and sponsor, say, two French departements. Each German Gau labor office will furnish for the departements it sponsors a commission of specialists, made up of the ablest and most reliable experts. These commissions will organize the allocations of labor in these sponsored departements according to the German pattern."
I skip one page and continue reading at the bottom of Page 2 of the French text. That is Page 3 of the German translation:
"There is no doubt that this projected system of sponsorship by Gau for the employment of French manpower in Germany, and especially the transformation necessary in the interest of Germany of French civilian workers for the German armament industries, will bring about enormous advantages in France herself compared with the present system." I am passing to the bottom of Page 3 of the French text, and I read under "d":
"The Central German Labor Office in Paris, that is, the representative of the Plenipotentiary General and his of flee . . ."
You told me a short while ago that the German offices for the recruitment of labor in the occupied territories were not under you as Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor, but under the local authorities. How do you explain this sentence?
SAUCKEL: It can be explained very simply. These men were subordinate to the military commanders in the labor department. They were sent from Germany, and they were taken from the labor offices and put into the administration.
30 May 46
M. HERZOG: You say, "The Central German Labor Office in Paris, that is, the representative of the Plenipotentiary General and his office. . ." The Central German Labor Office in Paris was therefore your representative?
SAUCKEL: The Central German Labor Office in Paris was a part of the civilian administration of the military commander in France. This is not expressed in this sentence, for it was taken for granted in this letter that the Gauleiter knew this. The position as I explained it is entirely correct.
M. HERZOG: I shall continue reading:
"The Central German Labor Office in Paris, that is, the representative of the Plenipotentiary General and his office, will therefore have in the whole of France a reliable apparatus which will make it a great deal easier for him to solve his problems in France, in spite of any possible or even real passive resistance on the part of the higher or lower French bureaucracy." I skip two lines.
"I have, therefore, charged the presidents or the provisional chiefs of the newly formed Gau labor of flees to set up a corresponding organization in the departements which they are sponsoring; and I request you, in your capacity as my Plenipotentiary for the Allocation of Labor, in agreement with Reichsleiter Bormann, to promote and give your fullest support to the new task allotted to your Gau labor of lice. The president or the provisional chief of your Gau labor office is instructed to keep you informed of all details concerning the carrying out of these measures."
Are not these measures an attempt to subordinate French territory to German territory as far as the organization of labor is concerned?
SAUCKEL: Yes. But I should like to ask you and the High Tribunal to allow me to say the following in explanation: On the first page, Paragraph 1-I quote from the third line-it says, ". . . with the full consent of the Fuehrer I am to take far-reaching and urgent measures in France in negotiation with the head of the French Government and the competent"-now comes the important part-"German authorities;"-that is, the military commander's department, in which these labor authorities and this delegate were incorporated and to whom they were subordinate.
And on Page 4, I should like to read about the special purpose of this system of sponsorship which should have nothing unfriendly about it. I read from Page 4 in the German text, under the letter "a":
30 May 46
"Prejudice, suspicion, lack of care, failure to redress and look into complaints"-that is, complaints by the workers-"which are prejudicial to the employment of manpower in Germany, all these things can be very largely eliminated by the relations between the Gau and its sponsored departement."
Now I read under letter "b":
"Every French worker in such a departement knows exactly where and under what conditions he will have to work in Germany. German propaganda and explanatory material will tell him about the locality in which he will have to work and about all matters which are of interest to him."
And that was the purpose of that arrangement. It was something I wanted to do for the French workers, besides looking after German interests.
M. HERZOG: Please answer me "yes" or "no." Was this arrangement an attempt to bring about a joint administration between the French departements and the German Gau as far as the employment of labor was concerned? Answer me "yes" or "no."
SAUCKEL: No. I should like to give an explanation to this negative answer. The purpose of this arrangement was to clear up unsolved problems between the French Government, between the French departements, between French industrialists and factories, on the one hand, and the administrative offices in Germany where the French workers were to be employed. That was the real purpose-to settle complaints and clear away mistrust.
THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now.
[A recess was taken.]
M. HERZOG: Defendant, is it true that your Codefendant Goering placed under your control all the organizations of the Four Year Plan which were concerned with the recruiting of labor?
SAUCKEL: The various organizations of the Four Year Plan which had to do with manpower were dissolved. Departments 3 and 5 of the Reich Ministry of Labor continued to deal exclusively with these matters.
M. HERZOG: Is it true that the powers of the Reich Minister of Labor concerning the employment of labor were transferred to you and that as a result of this transfer you had powers to issue regulations and laws?
SAUCKEL: Only insofar as the work of Departments 3 and 5 were connected with my own task. Otherwise the functions of the
30 May 46
Reich Ministry of Labor remained independent under the Reich Minister of Labor.
M. HERZOG: But within these departments you exercised the powers of the Reich Minister of Labor after your appointment as Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor?
SAUCKEL: Within my office as Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor. But I must emphasize that these departments were not under me; they were merely at my disposal. Great importance was attached to this difference at the time. The departments continued to work independently within the whole framework of the Ministry of Labor.
M. HERZOG: But as a result of this situation you exerted administrative autonomy in matters concerning labor?
SAUCKEL: Not an autonomy; it was done by vote. I could not issue decrees, but could only give instructions. In every case I had to get the agreement of the other administrative authorities and Reich ministries, and the agreement of the Fuehrer or of my superior of lice.
M. HERZOG: Did you not have carte blanche from the Fuehrer for the recruiting and the utilization of labor?
SAUCKEL: Not for recruiting and utilization, but for guiding and directing. If I may express it in this way, it was never a case of the workers' agent-that is, of course, what allocation of labor really means-employing these workers himself. The firms employed the workers, not the agent.
M. HERZOG: For the recruiting of labor you had carte blanche from the Fuehrer. Is that not true?
SAUCKEL: Not absolutely, and only after there had been a vote and after the agreement of the regional authorities concerned had been obtained, especially in the case of foreign countries. I never recruited workers in France without the express agreement of the French Government and with their collaboration. The French administration was used here.
M. HERZOG: Defendant Sauckel, you have on several occasions mentioned the agreements and arrangements made in France with those whom you yourself call "the leaders of collaboration.'' You know better than any other that these leaders of collaboration, imposed upon France by the enemy, bound themselves only and that their acts were never ratified by the French people as a whole. Besides, these leaders of collaboration, whose testimony cannot be suspect to you, have themselves revealed that pressure was exerted upon them, and we will discuss that now. Is it true that on 16 April 1942, that is to say, less than a month after your appointment, you
30 May 46
stated in a letter to the Defendant Rosenberg-which states your program and which was presented to you yesterday-that you included the recruiting of foreign workers in your program for the utilization* of labor?
SAUCKEL: I resent the term "exploitation."* By strictest orders from the Fuehrer, it is true that recruitment of foreign workers had to be included in my program.
M. HERZOG: Is it true that you included the recruitment of foreign workers in your program of 16 April 1942? You admitted this yesterday, and I ask you to confirm it.
SAUCKEL: Yes, it is true. I only emphasize that I did it on the strictest orders from the Fuehrer.
M. HERZOG: Is it true that this program of 16 April 1942, that is to say, 3 weeks after your appointment, already contained the principle of forced recruiting?
SAUCKEL: It was done by express order of the Fuehrer, in case voluntary recruitment proved to be inadequate. I said that yesterday to my counsel.
M. HERZOG: Do you remember the decree that you issued on 29 August 1942? This decree dealt first and foremost with the employment of labor in occupied territories-Decree' Number 10 of 22 August by the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor. It was submitted to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number RF-17 (Document Number RF-17). Do you remember it?
SAUCKEL: I do remember Decree Number 10.
M. HERZOG: Was this decree applicable to the occupied territories which were under German administration?
SAUCKEL: As far as I can remember-I have not the exact wording and the separate paragraphs before me-it dealt with the regulation of working contracts drawn up by German firms. The purpose was to prevent a muddle.
M. HERZOG: Is it true that you went on a mission to Paris in August 1942?
SAUCKEL: That is possible; but I, of course, cannot remember the individual dates.
M. HERZOG: Is it true that you went on a mission to Paris in January 1943?
SAUCKEL: That is also possible, even probable.
* The word utilization used by the French prosecutor was wrongly interpreted into German as "Ausbeutuag" meaning "exploitation."
30 May 46
M. HERZOG: Is it true that you went on a mission to Paris in January 1944?
SAUCKEL: Also probable, yes; but I do not know the individual dates.
M. HERZOG: You therefore went on missions to Paris before the French authorities, the French de facto authorities, had published the legislative decrees of 4 September 1942, 16 February 1943, and 1 February 1944. Is that not true?
SAUCKEL: I did not understand your question exactly.
M. HERZOG: I asked you whether it is true, that before the French de facto authorities published the three fundamental laws on forced labor of 4 September 1942, 16 February 1943, and 1 February 1944, you went on missions to France, to Paris?
SAUCKEL: I only went on journeys to Paris for the purpose of negotiating with the French Government, and I want to add that for me and in accordance with my convictions...
M. HERZOG: Do you admit that in the course of these missions you imposed on the French authorities the laws on forced labor?
SAUCKEL: It is not correct to put it in that way, rather. . .
M. HERZOG: You therefore contest the fact that the laws on forced labor were issued under pressure by you?
SAUCKEL: I dispute the word "pressure." I negotiated most correctly with the French Government before such laws were published. I expressly resent the word "pressure," and there were plenty of witnesses during these negotiations.
M. HERZOG: Do you remember the telephone conversation that the Defendant Speer had with you from the Fuehrer's headquarters on 4 January 1943?
SAUCKEL: Yes, I probably had several conversations with Speer. I do not know which particular conversation you are referring to.
M. HERZOG: Do you not remember a note that you sent to your various offices as a result of this telephone conversation of 4 January 1943?
SAUCKEL: Yes. Quite probably I did make several notes. I had to make notes when I received a telephone conversation containing an instruction.
M. HERZOG: I now submit Document Number 556-PS, which has already been submitted to the Tribunal under the Exhibit Numbers USA-194 and RF-67. I will read that document, or at least its first paragraph:
30 May 46
"On 4 January 1943, at 2000 hours, Minister Speertelephoned from the Fuehrer's headquarters to inform me that according to the decision of the Fuehrer it is no longer necessary, when engaging skilled and unskilled labor in France, to show any special consideration for the French. Emphasis or more severe measures may be used in order to recruit labor."
I ask you, Defendant, what you mean when you say that it is not necessary to show any special consideration for the French?
SAUCKEL: This note or rather this decision did not come from me. This was a communication which came from the Fuehrer's headquarters, based on a decision made by the Fuehrer. In spite of that-and I want to emphasize that particularly-my attitude towards the French Government did not change, and it does not say so in this record either. I continued to adopt the same polite attitude in my negotiations with the Government, and I ask the Tribunal to be allowed to make a short statement on how these negotiations with the French Government were conducted.
M. HERZOG: You will give it later in your examination. Do you remember the discussion that you had on 12 January 1943, at the German Embassy in Paris, with the French authorities?
SAUCKEL: As far as I know, I only talked to French ministers in the German Embassy in Paris.
M. HERZOG: That is exactly what I am asking you. Do you remember this conversation that you had with the French authorities on 12 January 1943?
SAUCKEL: Not in detail, no; but that I did negotiate is possible.
M. HERZOG: Do you remember the persons who took part in this conversation?
SAUCKEL: Yes. Usually the French Premier, the French Minister for Labor, Minister Bichelonne, took part in such discussions. On the German side, the Ambassador; on behalf of the military commander, Dr. Fischer; and, as my representative, probably Dr. Hildebrandt or some other gentleman.
M. HERZOG: And you do not remember what Laval said to you at this meeting of 12 January 1943?
SAUCKEL: Very many matters were discussed in great detail during these conferences, and I do not know what you mean.
M. HERZOG: Well, I will submit to you the minutes of this meeting. It is Document Number F-809, which I submit to the Tribunal under Exhibit Number RF-1509.
In the course of this discussion Laval made a long statement to you; more exactly, several statements.
30 May 46
THE PRESIDENT: Where shall we find this?
M. HEREON: It is in my document book, Mr. President. It must be marked with a slip 809.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh yes, I have got it.
M. HERZOG: First, I read Page 7 of the French text and of the German text:
"Gauleiter Sauckel demands a further 250,000 new workers. Gauleiter Sauckel knows very well-and his offices have certainly informed him about this-the difficulties which the French Government had in carrying out the program last year. The Gauleiter must realize that as a result of the number of prisoners of war and workers who are already employed by Germany, the sending of another 250,000 workers will increase even further the difficulties of the French Government. I cannot conceal these difficulties from the Gauleiter, because they are evident; and the Germans who are in Paris know these difficulties. When the Gauleiter replies that they have had to overcome the same difficulties in Germany and when he even states that French industry must be expanded, it seems to me that I must remind him that Germany not only demands workers of France, but is also beginning to take away the machines from factories in order to transport them to Germany. France may have nothing left, but until now she still had her means of production. If these too are taken from her, France loses even her possibilities for working.
"I do everything to facilitate a German victory"-and you see Laval could hardly be suspect to you, Defendant-"but I must admit that German policy makes heavier demands on me nearly every day and these demands do not conform to a definite policy. Gauleiter Sauckel can tell the German workers that they are working for Germany. I cannot say that Frenchmen are working for France.
"I see that in many fields the French Government is not able to act. One would almost believe that on the German side they set no value on the good will of the French and that they are bent on instituting a German administration throughout France. My task is being made more difficult every day. It is true that I do not allow myself to be discouraged; but I consider, however, that it is my duty to remind the Gauleiter of the gravity of Franco-German relations and of the impossibility of continuing along this path. It is no longer a matter of a policy of collaboration; rather, it is on the French side a policy of sacrifice, and on the German side a policy of coercion."
30 May 46
I pass to the next page, Page 11:
"The present state of mind in France, the uncertainty concerning the means which the French Government possesses, the half-freedom in which it finds itself, all these do not give me the necessary authority to furnish Gauleiter Sauckel with an immediate reply. We can do nothing. We are not free to change salaries; we are not free even to combat the black market; we cannot take any political measure without everywhere coming up against some German authority which has substituted itself in our place.
"I cannot guarantee measures which I do not take myself. I am persuaded that the Fuehrer is unaware that the French Government cannot act. There cannot be in one country two governments on questions which do not concern directly the security of the occupation forces."
I skip two more pages, to Page 18; and I read only this sentence: "It is not possible for me to be a mere agent for German
measures of coercion."
That is the document which I submit to you, Defendant, and I ask you two questions concerning it.
· The first question is: What did you answer to Laval when he
made this statement to you?
The second one is: Do you not think that here there is proof of
the pressure which you dispute?
SAUCKEL: To begin with, if the Tribunal would permit it, I should have to read my reply to Premier Laval. The document proves, and this has been confirmed to me by Premier Laval on various occasions, that I conducted my negotiations with him in a proper manner; and in spite of the fact that I had orders not to conduct political conversations but only to deal with my actual task, I always reported to the Fuehrer about these matters. But I think that the tone of my reply was definitely beyond reproach. These negotiations which I conducted...
M. HERZOG: That is not the question that I asked you. I asked you what you answered him when he made that statement to you, when he said to you, for instance, that it was not possible for him to be a mere agent for German measures of coercion.
SAUCKEL: I would have to read my answer. I cannot remember it now.
M. HERZOG: Do you therefore dispute the fact that this represents pressure?
SAUCKEL: Premier Laval did not complain about me in this connection. He complained about general conditions in France,
30 May 46
because this was the time of occupation. The situation was that there was a German occupation. It was war.
M. HERZOG: Well, I am going to submit to you Document...
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, regarding this document, I should like to draw your attention to an error of translation which will lead to considerable misunderstanding. According to this document it says that the recruitment could be approached with emphasis and more severe measures, and the word "emphasis" has been translated by "pressure" in the English. But that is not meant. It is not "Druck," pressure; it is "Nachdruck," emphasis. That means that the next in authority can be approached with energy.
THE PRESIDENT: I am told that the translation we have got is "emphasis."
DR. SERVATIUS: "Pressure."
THE PRESIDENT: I am told the translation is "emphasis." No, no, the translation is "emphasis." It is in this document, and the translation in English is "emphasis."
DR. SERVATIUS: Oh, I had the French translation.
M. HERZOG: I am going to submit to you Document . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Is this document in the PS series?
M. HERZOG: No, Mr. President, it is a new document which I am submitting now, a French document which will bear Exhibit Number RF-1509 (Document Number F-809).
THE PRESIDENT: Where did this document come from?
M. HERZOG: That document comes, Mr. President, from the archives of the Majestic Hotel in Paris, where the German offices in Paris were located. Some months ago these archives were found again in Berlin, and we have extracted the Sauckel documents.
I submit to the Tribunal the certificate of authentication for the Sauckel files, as well as for the documents which I intend to submit to the Tribunal in the course of my cross-examination. Perhaps, as the document is in French, the Tribunal would like me to read it.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, read it, will you? You mean this proces-verbal? What is this proces-verbal? Who is it identified by?
M. HERZOG: This proces-verbal is identified by two persons, by Commandant Henri, French liaison officer at the American Documentation Center in Berlin, and by my colleague, M. Gerthoffer, who, with Commandant Henri, took these archives.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps you had better read this proces-verbal so that it will go into the record.
30 May 46
M. HERZOG: "I, Charles Gerthoffer, Deputy Prosecutor at the Court of the Seine, on duty with the International Military Tribunal for the Major War Criminals, having gone to Berlin to the offices of the Ministerial Collecting Center, Commandant Henri, Chief of the French Mission, gave to me, with the authority of Colonel Helm of the American Army, Chief of the 6889 Berlin Collecting Center, seven files from the archives of the German military command in France concerning forced labor and registered at the M.C.C. under the following numbers: 3 DS, Numbers 1 to 213; 4 DS, Numbers 1 to 230; 5 DS, Numbers 1 to 404; and two appendices; 6 DS, Numbers 1 to 218; 7 DS, Numbers 1 to 118; and one appendix; 1 to 121; 50 DS, Numbers 1 to 55; 71 DS, Numbers 1 to 40.
"I declared to Commandant Henri that I took the said files in order to submit them to the International Military Tribunal for the Major War Criminals so that they might be used in the course of the proceedings and that they will thereafter be delivered to the French Ministry of Justice, whose property they remain.
"There are five copies of this document, one of which is to serve as an affidavit for the International Military Tribunal for the Major War Criminals."
Signed, "Charles Gerthoffer," and Signed, "Henri."
This represents the certificate of authentication of the files themselves.
I have a second certificate...
SAUCKEL: May I make a remark regarding the first document, please?
M. HERZOG: I would ask you not to interrupt me.
THE PRESIDENT: M. Herzog, the documents came from the Hotel Majestic, did they?
M. HERZOG: Yes, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Hotel Majestic was the place where the . . .
M. HERZOG: The place in Paris where the of flees of the German military command in France and the various occupation offices were located. These documents, which had vanished at the time of the liberation, were found again at the Ministerial Collecting Center in Berlin. The document which I have just submitted to you is the certificate of authentication of these files, and I also have the certificate of authentication of the documents which I have extracted from these files and which I am now ready to read to the Tribunal, if the Tribunal so desires.
30 May 46
THE PRESIDENT: The Hotel Majestic was the place where the German military government was established in Paris; isn't that right?
M. HERZOG: Yes, Mr. President, if I am not mistaken. Does the Tribunal desire that I should read the other certificate of authentication, that is to say at least in part-the one concerning the document itself?
THE PRESIDENT: I thought you had already read it.
M. HERZOG: No, Mr. President. I am submitting to the Tribunal two certificates of authentication. The first, the one which I have just read, is the certificate of authentication of seven files which contain a very large number of documents. From these seven files we have extracted only a certain number of documents which we are submitting to the Tribunal; and that is why, after having presented the certificate...
THE PRESIDENT: The second document only says that the documents which you are submitting are documents which came from those files?
M. HERZOG: Yes, Mr. President.
loci PRESIDENT: And the files themselves came from the Hotel Majestic, which was the place where the German military administration was carried on. Will you put the second document on the record?
M. HERZOG: Yes, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you offering in evidence the original German documents?
M. HERZOG: Yes, Mr. President.
[Turning to the defendant.] Since you still deny the pressure that you exerted on the government, I will submit to you Document Number 1342-PS.
SAUCKEL: I think that an error in translation has been made here. I understood that you asked whether I denied that I was putting pressure on the Tribunal. I respect this Tribunal too highly to try to exert pressure upon it. I do not understand the question. I understood you to ask me whether I denied that I exerted pressure on the Tribunal; and, of course, that question I have to answer with "no."
M. HERZOG: I said this to you: Since you deny that you exerted pressure on the French authorities, I will submit to you a new document. It is Document Number 1342-PS which has already been submitted to the Tribunal under Exhibit Number RF-63. This document represents the minutes of a meeting which you held on 11 January
30 May 46
1943 in Paris with various German occupation authorities. Do you remember that on that occasion you made a declaration concerning your relations with the Vichy Government? I will read this declaration to you. It is on Page 4 of the French and German texts.
SAUCKEL: Unfortunately, I am not able to find it.
M. HERZOG: I will read the declaration:
"The French Government..."-It is the last paragraph but one before the end of Page 4.-"The French Government is composed of nothing but adepts at temporization. If the first 250,000 workers had arrived in Germany in time, before the autumn-the negotiations with the French Government having already been begun in the preceding spring-we might perhaps have been able to recruit key men in the Reich earlier and form new divisions; and it might then not have come to the cutting off of Stalingrad. In any case, the Fuehrer is now absolutely decided to rule in France, if need be even without a French Government."
When you made this declaration, did it not reflect the pressure which you were exerting on the French Government?
SAUCKEL: This is not a conference with the French Government. This is a statement of facts.
M. HERZOG: I did not say that it was a conference with the French Government. I asked you what you meant when you stated that the Fuehrer was determined to rule in France, even without the French Government. Was that not pressure?
SAUCKEL: That was a straightforward decision and a statement from the Fuehrer, for which I am not responsible. I merely repeated it, and in any case it was never realized.
M. HERZOG: Why did you transmit it to the occupation authorities in France in the course of a conference that you were holding with them concerning the recruitment of labor?
SAUCKEL: Because it was my duty to give a description of the situation as I saw it at the time.
M. HERZOG: But do you not think that, in expressing to them this declaration of the Fuehrer, you were using it to exert pressure?
SAUCKEL: I could not exert any pressure by that, because this was merely transmitting a statement of the situation. I did not tell the French Government that the Fuehrer would remove them and that therefore they would have to do such and such a thing. I merely negotiated.
M. HERZOG: But you did state, and I ask you to confirm it, you did state in the course of that conference that the Fuehrer had
30 May 46
decided to rule in France, if need be, even without a French Government?
Did you say that? I ask that you answer me "yes" or "no."
SAUCKEL: Yes, I repeated that, but not with the intention of doing that.
M. HERZOG: DO you remember the discussion which you had on 14 January 1944 in Paris with various German personalities?
SAUCKEL: Yes; it is possible that I had a discussion there at that tune, but I cannot remember at the moment what it was about.
M. HERZOG: You do not remember a discussion which you had on 14 January, and you do not remember the German personalities who were present at this meeting?
SAUCKEL: Probably there were several conferences, but I cannot tell you now which one you are talking about. Neither do I remember, of course, what the actual subjects of the discussions were.
M. HERZOG: On 14 January 1944 you had a conference in Paris with Abetz, Von Stulpnagel, Oberg, and Blumentritt. Do you remember that in the course of that discussion you submitted to your listeners the draft of a law which you had drawn up and which you wanted to impose on the French authorities?
SAUCKEL: I was not trying to impose it. I was trying to discuss it. I was negotiating. I was not trying to impose it upon them. The wording of the minutes shows that quite clearly.
M. HERZOG: Do you dispute the fact that you yourself drafted a law which you transmitted to the French Government?
SAUCKEL: No, that I do not deny. That I submitted such a draft law and that I drafted it, I do not deny.
M. HERZOG: You do admit then that you yourself drafted the text?
SAUCKEL: Yes, but I cannot tell you which one you mean.
M. HERZOG: I submit to you Document Number F-813, which I put in under Exhibit Number RF-1512. It is the minutes of this meeting of 14 January 1944, Document Number F-813. These minutes are signed by Abetz, Oberg, Von Stulpnagel, Blumentritt, and you. I read from Paragraph III the heading: "The Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor"-which was you-"has drawn up a draft law for the French Government."
Do you still dispute the fact that you yourself drew up draft laws which you submitted to the French Government?
SAUCKEL: That I do not deny; I had to submit a proposal. However, it was based on mutual negotiations.
30 May 46
M. HERZOG: Do you deny the fact that you imposed this law by pressure?
SAUCKEL: That I imposed this law by pressure, that I do deny. I negotiated about it.
M. HERZOG: Do you not remember that you gave an account to the Fuehrer of the mission which you carried out in Paris in January 1944?
SAUCKEL: It was my duty to report when I made such journeys for I was carrying out the Fuehrer's orders.
M. HERZOG: I submit to you this report, Document Number 556-PS, which was submitted to the Tribunal under Exhibit Number RF-67. Twice in the course of this report you speak of German demands. Do you not think that to give an account to the Fuehrer of German demands having been accepted is to give an account to him of the success of the pressure which you exerted?
SAUCKEL: I cannot conceive in what other way a basis for negotiations could be found. The German Government made demands, and because of those demands there were negotiations with the French Government which had to be considered by me as de jure.
M. HERZOG: Do you admit, therefore, that the German Government and you, who were its agent, were making demands? Please answer "yes" or "no."
SAUCKEL: The German Government was making demands, yes, that is true.
M. HERZOG: Thank you. And those demands, did they not, at times, take the form of a veritable ultimatum?
SAUCKEL: I am not aware of that. I can only say that I was very polite and accommodating when talking to the French Premier and that our negotiations ran very smoothly. He often mentioned that, and it is in the record.
M. HERZOG: When you took action concerning the mobilization of the 1944 class, do you not remember that you demanded this mobilization in a veritable ultimatum? Answer "yes" or "no."
SAUCKEL: I cannot say so from memory.
THE PRESIDENT: M. Herzog, I think you might put to him the last sentence in the letter of the 25th of January 1944, 556-PS.
M. HERZOG: "I have, however, allowed no doubts to remain that further and more severe measures will be taken if the demands for the transfer of workers is not met."
SAUCKEL: Yes, I probably said that, though not in the form in which it is put down in this letter.
30 May 46
M. HERZOG: Do you remember that on 6 June 1944, the day of the dawn of our liberation, you addressed a letter to Ambassador Abetz?
SAUCKEL: I cannot tell you that from memory.
M. HERZOG: Well, I am going to produce this letter. It is the French document, Number F-822, which I submit to the Tribunal under Exhibit Number RF-1513:
"6 June 1944. Paris.
"Your Excellency and dear Party Comrade Abetz:
"The long-expected invasion has finally begun. Thus ends also for the Allocation of Labor a period of waiting which up to now has served as an obvious, sometimes tacit, pretext for saying that the sending of workers into the Reich was impossible owing to the political atmosphere in the country."
I skip a few dines and I quote again.
"Now that the German soldier must once more fight and bleed on the Channel coast, now that the struggle may extend at any hour to many other parts of France, any call or any ' words from Laval can have no weight whatsoever. The only language which can now be understood is that of the German soldier. I beg you, therefore, in these decisive hours to ask Premier Laval at last to do something which is obviously very difficult for him; that is to say, that he should at last sign the order for the calling up of the 1944 class. I do not wish to be kept waiting any longer. Neither do I wish to leave with an opinion which might be unjust but which at the same time is forced upon me, concerning the temporizing tactics of the French Government.
"I beg you, therefore, most urgently, to obtain by 10 o'clock tomorrow morning the signature of the French Premier to the decree for the calling up of the 1944 class, or else to inform me quite clearly if Laval should answer with a categorical 'no.' I will not accept any delaying excuses, as all technical preparations regarding the quotas from the departements, as well as the arrangements for transport, have either been made or are now about to be made, thanks to the joint discussions which have been going on."
Do you not call this a veritable ultimatum?
SAUCKEL: It is only an ultimatum insofar as my departure was in question and nothing else. I could not exert any pressure on Laval or use any threats.
M. HERZOG: What did you mean when you said:
30 May 46
"I beg you, therefore, most urgently to obtain by 10 o'clock tomorrow morning the signature of the French Premier to the decree for the calling up of the 1944 class, or else to inform me quite clearly if Laval should answer with a categorical 'no.' I will not accept any delaying excuses..."
Is that not an ultimatum?
SAUCKEL: It is only an ultimatum insofar as I could not wait any longer. I had to leave, because I had orders to leave. I was trying to get a decision, a "yes" or "no," nothing else.
M. HERZOG: And to demand an answer "yes" or "no"-you do not consider that an ultimatum, Defendant Sauckel?
SAUCKEL: I had to leave, and I wanted a decision as to whether the French Premier would sign it or not.
M. HERZOG: Thank you. The Tribunal will, I am sure, note your answer.
Do you know how many French workers were deported to Germany as the result of your various actions?
SAUCKEL: As far as I can remember-I cannot say exactly offhand-there were 700,000 to 800,000 French workers employed in Germany. However, I cannot tell you exactly without documents.
M. HERZOG: Is it correct that in Belgium and in Northern France the deportation of workers for forced labor was regulated through laws of the army of occupation?
SAUCKEL: I do not know about it being through the laws of the army of occupation but through labor administration.
M. HERZOG: Is it correct that it was the decree of 6 October 1942 which instituted forced labor in Belgium and in Northern France?
SAUCKEL: We called it "compulsory labor service" in German law. That is correct.
M. HERZOG: Is it correct that General Von Falkenhausen, the German Military Commander in Belgium and in Northern France, who signed the order of October 1942, did so under pressure from you?
SAUCKEL: No, he did not sign it under pressure from me, because I talked to him about it and there was not any argument. This was done at the request of the Reich Government and the Fuehrer.
M. HERZOG: I submit to you the interrogatory of General Von Falkenhausen, who testified before a French magistrate on 27 November 1945. I submitted this interrogatory under Exhibit Number
30 May 46
RF-15 (Document Number RF-15) in the course of my presentation in January. I read from Page 1. Question 3:
"Question: 'Will you swear that you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?'
"Answer: 'I swear.'
"Question: 'On 6 October 1942 there appeared an order which instituted compulsory labor service in Belgium and in the departments of Northern France..."'
I skip two lines.
"Answer: 'I was Commander for Northern France and Belgium.'
"Question: 'Does the witness remember having promulgated this order?'
"Answer: 'I do not remember exactly the text of this order, because it was drawn up after a long struggle with Sauckel, the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor.'
"Question: 'Did you have any difficulties with Sauckel?'
"Answer: 'I was fundamentally opposed to the institution of compulsory labor service, and it was only after having received orders that I consented to promulgate the decree."'
Do you still deny that General Von Falkenhausen issued this order under pressure from you?
SAUCKEL: I deny the version as it is put before me now, emphatically.
M. HERZOG: You dispute the testimony of General Von Falkenhausen?
SAUCKEL: In this version, yes, because the institution...
M. HERZOG: This statement was given under oath, and your testimony today is given under oath. The Tribunal will take note of it.
SAUCKEL: I say with full consciousness that to the best of my recollection this version is not completely correct. Laws regarding labor in occupied territories were not made on my order but on the order of the Fuehrer, and I did not have any argument about it with General Von Falkenhausen. We discussed it in a very friendly way, and he introduced the law. I do not remember having had any difficulties in this connection. And in another paragraph he states here that at that time he gave all his instructions on Hitler's orders. I myself had neither arguments nor difficulties with him.
30 May 46
M. HERZOG: Is it correct that in Holland the deportation of Dutch workers for forced labor was under the jurisdiction of the Reichskomrnissariat?
SAUCKEL: Please, would you hear the Defendant Seyss-Inquart about that? The expression jurisdiction is entirely new to me. In France, Belgium, and Holland this matter was dealt with through the administration of the labor departments, that is to say.. .
M. HERZOG: Who signed the orders concerning forced labor in Holland?
SAUCKEL: I assume that Herr Seyss-Inquart did.
M. HERZOG: Is it correct that the orders signed by the Defendant Seyss-Inquart constituted only a local application of the general program which you were charged with carrying out?
SAUCKEL: A local application in Holland? I do not quite understand it the way it is put in German.
M. HERZOG: Is it not correct that by signing the orders concerning forced labor in Holland the Defendant Seyss-Inquart was but implementing your program of forced labor?
SAUCKEL: It was a realization of the Fuehrer's labor program as he, the Fuehrer, had ordered it.
M. HERZOG: Did you go to Belgium or to Holland in order to control the implementation of the laws on forced labor?
SAUCKEL: Not to control. I was in Belgium and Holland only for a very short time. I had conferences there with the leading men, and according to my recollection I visited the labor authorities in Antwerp and saw how they functioned-the German ones.
M. HERZOG: And in the course of these journeys you were preparing detailed measures for the implementation of the labor program, is that not true?
SAUCKEL: I did not draft them during those journeys; I discussed them there. Of course, I did some work while traveling,
M. HERZOG: I submit to you Document Number PS-556, Exhibit Number RF-67. It is a letter which you wrote to the Fuehrer on 13 August 1943. In this you declare, Paragraph 1 of the letter:
"I take the liberty of informing you of my return from France, Belgium, and Holland, where I went on official business. After difficult and lengthy negotiations, I have imposed upon the occupied territories of the West, for the 5 last months of the year 1943, the program which is indicated below; and I have also prepared detailed measures for its implementation-in
30 May 46
France through the military commander, the German Embassy, the French Government; in Belgium through the military commander; and in Holland through the offices of the Reich Commissioner."
Do you still dispute, Defendant, the fact that you went to Belgium and Holland in order to prepare detailed measures there?
SAUCKEL: I have never denied that, I would like to say that I do not resent the expression, but only the way you present it now and then. It says quite clearly that they were discussed there; that is what is meant by preparation.
M. HERZOG: One last question on this matter: What is your estimate of the number of Dutch workers who were deported to Germany?
SAUCKEL: I cannot tell you exactly from memory how many Dutch workers were employed on the basis of contracts with them and on the basis of these laws. Maybe there were 200,000 or 300,000, maybe more. I cannot tell you offhand what these Dutch figures were.
M. HERZOG: Thank you. Is it correct that the forced recruitment of foreign workers was carried out with brutality?
SAUCKEL: Regarding the instructions which I issued, that was discussed adequately and clearly yesterday. My instructions are available practically in their entirety, and discountenance any brutal recruitment which...
THE PRESIDENT: Defendant, you were not asked about your instructions, but you were asked whether brutality was shown. If you know, you can answer.
SAUCKEL: I cannot know. From time to time I heard about excesses, and I stopped them at once, and I protested against them when I heard of them.
M. HERZOG: Did you have knowledge of protests concerning the manner in which the recruitment of workers was carried out in the occupied territories?
SAUCKEL: I received protests, and that was discussed yesterday with my counsel.
M. HERZOG: And when you received those protests, what did you do?
SAUCKEL: I had those cases investigated and left any further measures to the authorities concerned. I did everything on my side to prevent and stop such occurrences, and that can and will be testified to here.
M. HERZOG: Is it correct that you appealed for the help of the Wehrmacht to insure the recruiting of foreign workers?
30 May 46
SAUCKEL: In those areas where the Wehrmacht exercised jurisdiction I passed on to the military commanders or commanders-in-chief, through the Quartermaster General of the Army, the instructions I received from the Fuehrer.
M. HERZOG: Is it correct that you asked the military authorities to put troops at the disposal of your offices and services?
SAUCKEL: I have no recollection of troops, but there were labor detachments there. It is true that in areas where there were uprisings or partisan fighting I asked that order be restored, so that the administration which had been disturbed or interrupted could be resumed. ,
M. HERZOG: You therefore asked that troops should be put at your disposal?
SAUCKEL: Not at my disposal. It was not my task to bring order to those areas. I explained that it was essential for the fulfillment of my own tasks and that I could only carry them out if proper administration were once more made possible by the establishment of order; it was not for recruiting purposes.
M. HERZOG: Did you not ask that those troops should participate in the tasks assigned to the service for the recruitment of labor? I submit to you Document Number F-815, which I put in under Exhibit Number RF-1514. It is a letter of 18 April 1944 from General Field Marshal Von Rundstedt and addressed to you. I read the first paragraph of it:
"On the part of the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor. . . "-that is you, is it not?
SAUCKEL: That is I, but there was another department in France, too...
M. HERZOG: ".... the request was made that the Commander, West should be approached to the effect that in sectors where there are units belonging to the Commander, West, the commanders of these units should receive orders to support the execution of the tasks assigned to the Allocation of Labor by making troops available."
Do you still deny that you requested that troops should be put at your disposal?
SAUCKEL: I personally did not ask for them. This appears to be the administrative office West.
M. HERZOG: Are you not the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor?
SAUCKEL: Yes, but this order is not known to me personally.
30 May 46
M. HERZOG: Do you know whether this request was seconded by the Defendant Speer?
SAUCKEL: I cannot tell you.
M. HERZOG: I submit to you Document Number 824-PS . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps you better put that off until after the adjournment.
The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours.]
30 May 46
M. HERZOG: Mr. President, I believe that Mr. Dodd has a statement to make to the Tribunal.
MARSHAL: May it please the Tribunal, the report is made that the Defendant Jodl is absent.
MR. DODD: Document Number 3057-PS, concerning which M. Herzog questioned the defendant this morning, was in the document book offered by the United States with reference to the slave-labor program, but it was not offered in evidence, and I found the reference in the record at Page 1397 of the transcript for 13 December 1945 (Volume III, Page 494) and the President of the Tribunal particularly asked why we had not read Document 3057-PS. I answered that we had intended to offer it, but that counsel for Sauckel had told me that his client maintained that he had been coerced into the making of the statement, and for that reason we preferred not to offer it, and were not offering it.
THE PRESIDENT: I want to announce that the Tribunal will rise this afternoon at half past 4 to sit in closed session.
SAUCKEL: May I be permitted to give my explanation on that document?
M. HERZOG: What document are you speaking of?
SAUCKEL: I am referring to the letter of the Field Marshal Von Rundstedt. This document represents a letter which is addressed to me...
THE PRESIDENT: I did not hear you ask any question. Did you ask your question?
M. HERZOG: Yes, Mr. President. It is the document which I presented just before the recess, and the document shows that the official in charge of the recruitment and allocation of labor-that is he himself-asked that troop units should be put at his disposal.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you mean Document F-815? Yes, very well.
M. HERZOG: That is correct, Mr. President.
[Turning to the defendant.] I ask you whether you recognize that this document establishes the fact that you requested troop units?
SAUCKEL: As far as this question is concerned I cannot answer precisely, for I personally did not receive this letter. Instead it was sent to Paris, to the office there. This letter is not initialed by me. But in order to clarify my position, I should like to emphasize specifically that I did not demand troops in order to recruit workers. I asked for troops when in certain areas the
30 May 46
administrative procedure could not be carried through because of resistance activities, et cetera. In that connection there is an error in this letter of Field Marshal Von Rundstedt. But I did not receive this reply myself. It is initialed by the office of the military commander in Paris.
M. HERZOG: I submit Document F-824, which I hand to the Tribunal as Exhibit RF-1515. This Document F-824 is a letter from the Commander of the West, from his headquarters, dated 25 July 1944. I quote:
"One can conclude from this that on the order of the Fuehrer, and after the abrogation of all contrary decrees, the desires of the Plenipotentiary General for the allocation of Labor. . ."
This Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor is you yourself; is that not so?
". . . and of Reich Minister Speer must in principle be carried out. Following my telegraphic communication, on the basis of the conference of ministers of 11 July in the Reich Chancellery, concerning which the Commander of the West will be informed by the military commander, the following directives are in force from now on:
"Without taking into account justified misgivings concerning security and order within the country, recruiting must start everywhere where the possibilities referred to in my telegram present themselves. As an only exception the Fuehrer has decided that in the actual fighting zone no methods of coercion will be used against the population as long as the latter are helpful to the Wehrmacht. On the other hand, the recruiting of volunteers among refugees from the combat zones is to be handled energetically. Moreover, all means will be considered justified, in order to recruit as much labor as possible from elsewhere by means at the disposal of the Wehrmacht."
Do you again deny that at your request, and at that of Reich Minister Speer, troop units carried out the recruiting of labor?
SAUCKEL: I should like to remark in this connection that I do not dispute what has just been described. At that time the commander-in-chief was under the stress of battle and the evacuation of the population. But I can testify that after the date of 25 July 1944 these things did not apply any longer, for the withdrawal of German troops was much too rapid; so that this decree, which had been issued by the Fuehrer, was no longer in effect.
M. HERZOG: Do you remember the conference, the ministers' conference of 11 July 1944, to which the document I have just
SAUCKEL: Yes, I recall it.
30 May 46
M. HERZOG: Do you remember the persons who were present at this meeting?
SAUCKEL: Not all of them.
M. HERZOG: I submit to you the minutes of this meeting. It is Document 3819-PS, which has been handed to the Tribunal under number . . .
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like you to read the last passage in Document F-824-that is, not the last, but the last on that page beginning with "Afin...." It is on Page 346 of the French translation.
M. HERZOG: "In order to make the measures undertaken as effective as possible, the troops must be informed of the necessity of the Arbeitseinsatz organization so that they may put down the many acts of subversive and open resistance. The field commanders and military administration offices must give as much aid as possible to the delegates of the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor and refrain from encroaching on their activities which are in conformance with instructions. I therefore ask you to give the necessary directions to this effect..."
Do you still deny that at your request the Army was used for the recruitment of workers?
THE PRESIDENT: There is a passage on the next page, too, in the supplementary note, Paragraph 1.
M. HERZOG: "Supplementary note by the Commander of the West.
"The Commander of the West reported to the Chief of the OKW on 23 July as follows:
"1) In spite of anxieties concerning internal security, I have authorized the application of the Sauckel-Laval agreement of 12 May 1944.
"2) I shall issue further instructions for the application of these measures in the combat zone in agreement with OKW/WFSt/Qu. (Verw. 1) 2 (West) Number 05201/44, Secret, of 8 July 1944.
"The Commander of the West, signed Von Kluge, Field Marshal."
"Further instructions follow. For the Commander of the West. The Chief of the General Staff," et cetera.
I come back now to the conference of It July 1944. I submit to you Document Number 3819-PS, submitted under Exhibit Number GB-306. The Tribunal will find it under Document 3819-PS in the first part of my document book. It represents the minutes of the
30 May 46
ministers' conference which took place on 11 July 1944 in Berlin, a gathering of ministers, chiefs of the Party, and of administration.
You will find on Page 6 of the French translation the list of all the persons who were there. Do you remember who, among the defendants, were among those present? Do you recognize the signature of Defendant Funk? That of Defendant Speer?
SAUCKEL: I have not found it yet.
M. HERZOG: Have you found them?
SAUCKEL: I have not found Speer's signature yet.
M. HERZOG: Was Defendant Speer present at this conference!
SAUCKEL: I cannot tell you from memory. I cannot find his name.
M. HERZOG: Were you yourself present at this conference?
SAUCKEL: Yes, I participated.
M. HERZOG: Do you remember the proposals which, in the course of this conference, General Warlimont made to you in the name of the General Staff? Do you remember the reply that you made to these proposals?
SAUCKEL: I recall a conversation between General Warlimont and myself on that occasion, and I gave an answer; but I cannot give it to you verbatim without having some data at my disposal
M. HERZOG: Well I am going to read you the text. It is on Page 10. The Tribunal will find it at the bottom of the page:
"The representative of the Chief of the OKW, General Warlimont, referred to a recent order of the Fuehrer according to which all German forces would have to be used in the task of recruiting labor. Where troops of the Wehrmacht are stationed, whenever they are not engaged exclusively in military tasks-such as the construction of coastal fortifications-they will be available, but they cannot be detached solely for the purpose of the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor. General Warlimont made the following practical proposals:
"(a) Troops which are in action against partisans wit., in addition, have to be used for recruiting labor in the zones held by partisan bands...."
SAUCKEL: Would you please tell me where that is. I have not this passage on this page. Will you please show me the page?
M. HERZOG: I will have it shown to you. Point it out to the interpreter also.
30 May 46
SAUCKEL: Yes, I find the place about General Warlimont, but in the German translation it sounds entirely different from what you are reading.
M. HERZOG: It is on Page 3. Have you found it?
M. HERZOG: Then I can resume the reading of it.
"(a) Troops which are in action against partisans will, in addition, be used for recruiting labor in the zones held by partisan bands. Any person who cannot give a satisfactory reason for his staying in that region will be compulsorily recruited.
"(b) If large towns are totally or partially evacuated owing to food difficulties, all the population capable of work will be recruited for labor with the aid of the Wehrmacht.
"(c) A special effort for recruiting labor among refugees from areas close to the front must be made with the aid of the Wehrmacht.
"Gauleiter Sauckel accepted these proposals with gratitude and expressed the hope that results would be obtained by these means."
Do you still continue to claim that the Wehrmacht did not cooperate in the recruiting of labor?
SAUCKEL: I did not deny that in the combat area, and for the purpose of maintaining order in the rear areas, these measures were proposed, but they were not carried through
M. HERZOG: Well, I am going to produce a document which refers to 3 or 4 days after this meeting of ministers. It is a telegram from Defendant Keitel, Document Number F-814, which I submit to the Tribunal under Exhibit Number RF-1516. It is a telegram addressed by Defendant Keitel to all military commanders. I call your attention to the fact that it bears the stamp of the labor department of the military commander in France. This is dated 15 July and here is the text of it...
THE PRESIDENT: M. Herzog, some of these documents are not tabbed and it is quite impossible to find them unless you tell us where they are.
M. HERZOG: I have tabbed only those documents which I intend to use several times, so that the Tribunal will be able to find them easily. Otherwise, the documents must be in the order in which I use them. Document F-814 should, therefore, be immediately after Document 3819-PS, unless I am mistaken.
THE PRESIDENT: 3819, you mean?
30 May 46
M. HERZOG: Actually it is after the document marked Document RF-15; it is the fourth document after Document F-814.
THE PRESIDENT: We have got 815 after that; after RF-15, we have Document F-815.
M. HERZOG: After 815 we have Document F-823, then F-824, and F-814, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, yes, now I see it.
M. HERZOG: This document contains the instructions which Keitel gave in connection with this meeting of leaders. I read the second paragraph:
"The present situation demands the use of all conceivable means for the procurement of additional labor, because it is the fighting men who benefit first of all by all armament measures. In view of this fact, all questions concerning internal unrest, the increase of resistance and such matters must be put in the background. We must concentrate on giving every help and support to the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor. I refer to my directives for the co-operation of the Wehrmacht in the procurement of workers from France"
Do you still contend that the Wehrmacht was not used for the recruitment of labor?
SAUCKEL: I must emphasize here again that I did not dispute that these things had been planned and ordered. I did not dispute that fact, and I should like to emphasize that again. But these measures were not carried through, and I would like to emphasize that also. And besides that, I did not send this telegram.
M. HERZOG: Is it correct to say that the German Police proceeded to take steps to recruit foreign workers?
SAUCKEL: How far the Police carried through their measures in detail, I do not know, but I do know that they carried through some measures on their own accord.
M. HERZOG: But is it not true that you recommended your offices to put themselves in touch with the chiefs of the Police, the SD, and the SS?
SAUCKEL: I considered both the SD and the Police to be regular and justified institutions, and I had to ask for their help when it was necessary.
M. HERZOG: You, therefore, admit that you recommended your offices to put themselves in contact with the chiefs of the Police, the SD, and the SS for the accomplishment of their tasks?
SAUCKEL: To support me in my tasks only where an orderly participation or the use of the Police was necessary from an
30 May 46
administrative point of view-not for the recruitment of workers as such, but only to remove difficulties or disturbances in administration.
M. HERZOG: I ask you the question again, and I ask you to answer "yes" or "no." Did you recommend your offices to get in touch with the chiefs of the Police, the SS, and the SD?
SAUCKEL: I can only answer that question with a qualified "yes"-on occasions when it was necessary to call in police aid; not in order to carry through the task itself.
M. HERZOG: Is it true that the chiefs of the German Police assisted in the conferences which you held with the French authorities concerning the recruitment of labor?
SAUCKEL: Sometimes representatives of the Higher SS and Police Leader were present just as in the case of the French, where the Minister of the Interior or the Minister of the Police was present. I neither demanded that nor proposed it.
M. HERZOG: But you admit that the representatives of the German Police were present at these discussions? Can you give the name of one of these representatives? Do you know Standartenfuehrer Knochen?
SAUCKEL: Standartenfuehrer Knochen was in Paris, and on occasions he was present at these conferences.
M. HERZOG: Is it correct that the chiefs of the German Police attended the conferences which the German authorities held concerning labor problems?
SAUCKEL: To my recollection they attended various conferences, but that occurred at the proposal of the military commander, under whose direction these conferences took place.
M. HERZOG: Was there a representative of the Police at the conference of chiefs on 11 July 1944, which we mentioned just now in Document 3819-PS?
SAUCKEL: Do you mean the meeting at Berlin?
M. HERZOG: Yes, the Berlin meeting on 11 July 1944.
SAUCKEL: I believe Kaltenbrunner attended that conference. The meeting had been called by Reich Minister Lammers.
M. HERZOG: Did you never ask Himmler, in the presence of the Fuehrer, for the help of the SS in the recruitment of labor?
SAUCKEL: At a discussion with the Fuehrer in January, Reichs, fuehrer SS Himmler was present. On this occasion, as far as I recollect, I pointed out that the program for the year 1944, which had been drawn up by the Fuehrer, could not be carried through by me if the partisan menace and obstruction in certain areas were
30 May 46
not removed. And that, of course, could only be done by the authorities who had jurisdiction there.
M. HERZOG: You admit, therefore, that you asked Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler to put his police forces at your disposal?
SAUCKEL: NO, it is not correct to put it in that way. I have to contradict you there. Neither I nor my offices could have police forces put at our disposal. I merely asked for help in those areas where I was supposed to carry through administrative measures and where a pacification and restoration of order was first necessary. Otherwise, I could not carry out my task.
M. HERZOG: I am going to show you Document Number 1292-PS. It has already been submitted to the Tribunal under Exhibit Number USA-225. It is the minutes of a meeting held in the presence of the Fuehrer on 4 January 1944. In my document book it is a little way after the marked document and is also marked with a tab.
On Page 3 of the French text, Page 5 of the German text, you declared:
"Success will depend mainly on what German executive forces are made available. My action cannot be carried through with native executive forces."
Do you recognize that declaration?
SAUCKEL: Will you please indicate the place to me? I have not found it yet. Which page in German?
M. HERZOG: It must be on Page 5 of the text which was given to you.
SAUCKEL: Yes, that is correct. That is a statement, a rather abbreviated statement, probably made by Reich Minister Dr. Lammers. But I should like to say emphatically that it can be interpreted only in this way: In those areas, which were very numerous at the time, I could not put into effect an administration to deal with manpower until order had been restored through executive forces. This statement, therefore, is not quite correct as presented here.
M. HERZOG: Defendant Sauckel, you said to us only yesterday that you were formerly a worker. Did you ever consider that a worker could be taken to his work handcuffed?
SAUCKEL: NO, I never thought of such a thing. I hear now for the first time that I am supposed to have sent, or had workers sent to their places of work handcuffed. I do not remember that. In any case, I never decreed anything like that; that much I can say.
30 May 46
M. HERZOG: On 30 August 1943, you made a speech in Paris to the Allocation of Labor staffs which you were setting up in France. I give you Document Number F-816, which I submitted to the Tribunal this morning, and I ask you to look at it again. I ask you to read...
Mr. President, I think I have made a mistake. I do not think I submitted that document, and, therefore, I submit it now, under the Exhibit Number RF-1517.
Turning to the defendant.] Please look at Page 10 of the photostat which has been given to you-Page 38 of the French translation, the last line on the page:
"The most severe measures for recruiting labor-police action or the use of handcuffs-must be applied by us in the most unobtrusive manner."
That is what you declared on 30 August 1943 to the Allocation of Labor staffs when they met in Paris.
SAUCKEL: I have not found the place. Will you please have it shown to me?
M. HERZOG: It is on Page 10, some 14 lines down. Have you found it now?
SAUCKEL: Yes; I have found it.
M. HERZOG: And you considered that handcuffs could be used in the recruitment of labor?
SAUCKEL: It can only be a statement regarding cases of flagrant resistance to the authority of the state or to the execution of some administrative action. Experience shows us that this has been found necessary the whole world over. I merely said that everything should be done in an orderly and correct way. I did not call that a rule to be applied for the recruitment of labor. It cannot be understood in any other way.
M. HERZOG: But you said that to the Allocation of Labor officials in France. The Tribunal will judge that.
SAUCKEL: Yes, but it must be interpreted as being applied only if there were flagrant resistance to an executive authority; otherwise it was never intended.
M. HEREOF: The Tribunal will form its own opinion.
Defendant Sauckel, have you ever created any special police for the recruitment of labor?
SAUCKEL: No, I established no special police; I explained that yesterday. That was a suggestion put forward by the French units themselves for protection. At a conference I exaggerated and called it "police," but it was not a police force.
30 May 46
M. HERZOG: Have you heard of a "Committee for Social Peace"?
SAUCKEL: Yes, that was talked about.
M. HERZOG: Have you heard a committee mentioned which was called the "League for Social Order and Justice?"
M. HERZOG: Have you ever drafted any order or sent any instructions which advised the institution of these committees?
SAUCKEL: It was proposed, yes, and it was discussed. As far as I remember that was in the spring of 1944.
M. HERZOG: And you claim that you never set up these committees, or drafted any instructions concerning the setting up of these committees?
SAUCKEL: I have already said that I did that.
M. HERZOG: You admit that you drafted instructions concerning the formation of these special police forces?
SAUCKEL: That was done on the basis of discussions which I had with these French units.
M. HERZOG: So you did do this?
SAUCKEL: Yes, in agreement with these 'French units.
M. HERZOG: Very well.
I submit to the Tribunal Document Number F-827, under Exhibit Number RF-1518. These are instructions of the Defendant Sauckel for the formation of these special police forces. The document consists of several sets of instructions. On Page 6, there is an order of 25 January 1944 by the Defendant Sauckel.
THE PRESIDENT: Where is it?
M. HERZOG: On Page 6, immediately after Document 1292 in my document book, you will find the instructions of the Defendant Sauckel. I read:
"Berlin, 25 January 1944. Secret.
"Subject: Formation of a protection corps for the execution of the tasks of the Allocation of Labor in France and in Belgium during the year 1944.
"1) To the Military Commander in France, Paris.
To the Military Commander for Belgium and Northern France, Brussels.
"In order to secure the carrying out of the necessary tasks of the Allocation of Labor in Belgium and France, especially the assignments for Germany, and to strengthen the executive, a protective corps, the Committee for Social Peace, is to be created in France and Belgium. This protective corps is to
30 May 46
consist of indigenous forces with a nucleus of German police who will act as leaders. This protective corps will consist of approximately 5,000 men in France, and approximately 1,000 men in Belgium. I give the following provisional instructions for the formation of this protective corps and the accomplishment of its tasks:
"I. Selection of members of the Protective Corps.
"The selection shall be made in close agreement with the competent Police and SD offices, which shall approve the candidates, especially from the point of view of their loyalty. The selection shall be made especially among the members of political movements favorably disposed to collaboration with Germany.
"II. Organization of the Protective Corps.
"The Protective Corps will be directed from central offices to be set up in Paris and Brussels. The heads of these offices shall be designated by me."-That is to say, by you, Defendant Sauckel.-"They shall take orders from my delegates in France. In purely police questions, the Protective Corps shall be directed by the Higher SS and Police Leader. The regional groups of the Protective Corps shall take orders from the commanders of German police forces, and the latter will receive technical directions from the Feldkommandantur and from the recruiting offices as to their participation in tasks concerning the Allocation of Labor. The German Police and the services of the SD will deal with instruction in police matters; technical training, as far as the Allocation of Labor is concerned, will be given insofar as is necessary by the experts of the Felikommandantur and the recruiting offices.
"The members of the Protective Corps will not wear uniform; they will however, carry firearms.
"III. Execution of orders.
"The members of the Protective Corps assigned to the recruiting of flees or to the Feldkommandantur shall be employed in such a way as to insure maximum efficiency in the execution of measures ordered. For example, they must be informed immediately if Frenchmen who have been summoned by German offices do not appear. They must find out the domiciles of these persons and bring them to report in accordance with instructions from the German police leader in collaboration with the French and German police. Furthermore, they must track down immediately all those who have refused to appear when summoned, and those who have broken their contracts. In the interests of an effective executive, it is expedient that
30 May 46
they receive regularly lists of persons summoned and persons liable for service, to enable them to act immediately in cases where German directives have not been complied with.
"It is to be presumed that these quick methods, coupled with fitting punishment and immediate publication of the punishments, will have a more deterrent effect than that achieved by tracking down the men afterwards, as has been done up to now. Furthermore, members of the Protective Corps are to keep the German offices informed of any particular difficulties in recruitment...."
And all that, Defendant, is signed "Sauckel." Do you still claim that you did not form a special police corps in France and Belgium?
SAUCKEL: I already told my attorney yesterday that in agreement with French organizations such a protective corps was set up, so that on the one hand people who wanted to work could be protected, and on the other hand administrative measures could be carried out. Since the Frenchmen themselves declared that they were ready and willing to collaborate, I did not see anything unfavorable in this or anything that was in any way out of order.
It was to alleviate the conditions of the indigenous people themselves.
M. HERZOG: I ask you to answer my question "yes" or "no." Do you admit that you set up this special police service?
SAUCKEL: I admit that I suggested this Protective Corps, and that it was set up, but only on a small scale.
M. HERZOG: Is it true that you issued instructions, or imposed measures of constraint against those who evaded the compulsory labor service?
SAUCKEL: I did not issue them myself, but rather the French Government did. That is correct; for in every occupied territory -and that is true the whole world over-the authority of the occupying power must be respected.
M. HERZOG: Is it true that you demanded that the death penalty should be applied to officials who, for instance, hindered your action?
SAUCKEL: It is true that at a conference with the French Premier Laval, I demanded, by way of negotiations, the death penalty in cases of very serious obstruction.
M. HERZOG: Then you admit that you demanded the application of the death penalty in the case of these officials?
SAUCKEL: Yes, if a serious case of sabotage was in question- according to martial law.
M. HERZOG: Is it true that your task was to procure for the German war industry the labor it required?
30 May 46
SAUCKEL: That was one of my tasks.
M. HERZOG: In this respect were you responsible to the Defendant Speer, Minister for Armaments and Munitions, for the carrying out of your task?
SAUCKEL: I was responsible to the Four Year Plan and to the Fuehrer, and I had instructions from the Fuehrer to meet the requirements of Reich Minister Speer as far as it was possible for me to do so.
M. HERZOG: Did the Defendant Speer approve of all the steps which you took in recruiting foreign labor?
SAUCKEL: At all events he agreed, or he demanded, that workers should be put at his disposal. Sometimes, however, we did not entirely agree as to how it should be done; for instance, we did not agree about the protected factories in France.
M. HERZOG: We will come to that later. I ask you to tell me whether you always succeeded in satisfying the demands for workers which were made to you by the different sections of German industry?
SAUCKEL: No, I was not always successful.
M. HERZOG: And when you failed, did the orders that were sent to you by Defendant Speer have to have priority over all others?
SAUCKEL: Yes, they had to have priority.
M. HERZOG: Were there not incidents in this respect? For instance, did it not happen that some transports of workers were diverted from their original destination on instructions from Defendant Speer?
SAUCKEL: It did happen that, contrary to my instructions, labor transports were stopped, or transferred to other regions or to other factories. But whether the order always emanated from Herr Speer, or from an armament commission, or from another office, I do not know. It was not always from the same quarter.
M. HERZOG: In your interrogatory you declared, however, that the original destination of these transports was sometimes changed in order to satisfy the demands of Speer's offices. Do you confirm this?
SAUCKEL: Yes; but I meant by that something rather different. In that case I was informed about it. There were two kinds of changes, or deviations: those which I did not know about, and those which were agreed upon.
M. HERZOG: Will you tell the Tribunal what was understood by the "red ticket" system?
30 May 46
SAUCKEL: The red ticket system was applied when there was a demand for workers, mostly specialized or skilled workers, which had to take priority over all other demands because the work was necessary.
M. HERZOG: The system of the red ticket was applied to the armament industry, was it not?
SAUCKEL: The red ticket system was applied to the armament industry.
M. HERZOG: And it was established by agreement between the Defendant Speer and yourself?
SAUCKEL: That was a system which, in my opinion, was always intended to meet emergencies; there were variations, such as lists or red tickets. Originally, there were only lists, and the red ticket was added by decree.
M. HERZOG: You therefore admit that by these various systems you share with the Defendant Speer the responsibility of having compelled workers to work in German factories for the needs of the war which Germany was fighting against their own native lands?
SAUCKEL: I should like to emphasize particularly that This red ticket system did not apply only to foreign workers; it applied especially to German workers too-German fulfilled workers.
M. HERZOG: But it was applied also to foreign workers?
SAUCKEL: It applied to foreign workers as welt if they were specialists and declared their willingness.
M. HERZOG: Will you tell the Tribunal what is meant by the "blocking" of factories?
SAUCKEL: A factory was "blocked" if it was manufacturing articles which were not essential for war, or if it was a question of so-called luxury articles.
M. HERZOG: I do not think you understood my question. What were, for instance, the "S" factories in France the factories protected by Speer?
SAUCKEL: "Sperrbetriebe" known as "S" factories-is that what you mean?
M. HERZOG: Yes.
SAUCKEL: Sperrbetriebe were factories which worked for Speer in France, which had been agreed to by the French Minister Bichelonne, and they were blocked as far as labor recruitment was concerned.
30 May 46
M. HERZOG: Did you not exert strong pressure on the Defendant Speer to get him to abandon the practice of blocking industries?
SAUCKEL: I asked him and I urged him, but I could not SUCceed in putting an end to the blocking of these factories.
M. HERZOG: Did you ever bring up the matter with Hitler and insist that Speer should give up his position?
SAUCKEL: Yes, I was very insistent with Hitler about it, but I had no success.
M. HERZOG: In this connection did you not ask the Fuehrer to increase your powers at the expense of the Defendant Speer?
SAUCKEL: I did not ask for a general extension of my powers, but I asked that conditions should be allowed to remain as they had been previously, for-I ask to be permitted to explain this to the Tribunal-my task was to bring workers from France to Germany-may I make this statement:
The departments under Speer demanded skilled workers from me. There skilled workers already in the factories which
Speer had blocked. Similar industries in Germany would, of course, be worse off if instead of having skilled French workers they were supplied with unskilled French workers, or men without experience in that particular trade. I had to procure workers in any case, but I considered it wiser for German economy to procure for it the right kind of workers and not workers who were unskilled.
M. HERZOG: I beg the Tribunal to turn back to Document Number 3819-PS, the second part of 3819-PS. It consists of two letters, each addressed to the Fuehrer, by the Defendant Sauckel and by the Defendant Speer, on this subject of the blocking of industries.
First of all, I will read to the Tribunal some extracts from Sauckel's letter, which happens to be the second.
THE PRESIDENT: Have these not both been read already?
M. HERZOG: I think they have already been read, Mr. President; I cannot affirm it, but believe so. Document Number 3819-PS has already been submitted to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number GB-306. If the Tribunal wishes, I can limit myself to very short extracts.
THE PRESIDENT: You need not read them for the purpose of your question of the defendant.
M. HERZOG: [Turning to the defendant.] In this letter, on Page 27, you asked whether you could obtain in a general manner a free hand for the rational utilization of labor.
Do you admit that you asked the Fuehrer for this free hand?
30 May 46
SAUCKEL: I have not found the place. I could never have asked for a free hand, but I did ask to be permitted to recruit as before. I cannot find the place that you are quoting.
M. HERZOG: You will find it on Page 27.
SAUCKEL: In this German text it says: "In this situation, it is absolutely necessary that I should again have a free hand." That means that I should have a free hand once again, as I had had before the blocked industries were instituted. That is correct, for I was interested in a rational use of labor.
M. HERZOG: That is what I asked you to confirm. Did you ask that your powers should be increased at the expense of those of your Codefendant Speer? Will you answer "yes" or "no," if you can?
SAUCKEL: I do not understand the question. Was it obtain them or ask for them?
M. HERZOG: Ask for them.
SAUCKEL: Yes, I asked for them, for it was to Speer's advantage.
M. HERZOG: You asked for that?
SAUCKEL: Yes, I asked for that in the interests of my tasks.
M. HERZOG: And do you not remember that on other occasions, the Defendant Speer likewise asked that his powers should be increased at the expense of yours?
SAUCKEL: Yes, that might have happened also.
M. HERZOG: You declared in your interrogatory that the very close relations between Speer and Goebbels after the fall of Stalingrad made Speer want particularly to have you under his authority. Can you confirm this?
M. HERZOG: Is it true that your general program for recruiting labor included the employment of prisoners of war?
SAUCKEL: The employment of prisoners of war as far as they should and could be put to work under the care of the Wehrmacht.
M. HERZOG: Do you remember the decree white we mentioned this morning, your Decree Number 10, which stipulated the order of priority of work and gave priority to armament? Was this order applicable to prisoners of war as well?
SAUCKEL: As I explained yesterday, this decree was applicable to prisoners of war only by way of exchange, and to the extent as set forth in the rules of work issued by the OKW and by me in a catalog of work.
30 May 46
M. HERZOG: But Article 8 of this decree stipulates only that it was applicable to prisoners of war.
SAUCKEL: Yes, in accordance, of course, with the other decrees which existed; that was a matter of course.
M. HERZOG: You spoke to us yesterday about inspectorates. Is it true that in September 1943 you came to an agreement with Dr. Ley concerning the setting up of a central inspectorate for foreign workers?
SAUCKEL: Yes, for the purposes of their welfare.
M. HERZOG: In consequence, you admit that you are responsible for the measures concerning the treatment of foreign workers?
SAUCKEL: I am responsible for the directives which I issued; they are all available.
M. HERZOG: Do you consider yourself responsible for the feeding of foreign workers?
SAUCKEL: I consider myself responsible for the directives which I issued regarding the feeding of foreign workers. The actual feeding of these people was not the task and responsibility of the labor authorities. That was the responsibility of the factories, or the camp leaders who had been charged by the factories to look after this.
M. HERZOG: I am going to have submitted to you Document Number 025-PS. This document was submitted to the Tribunal under Exhibit Number USA-698. You already had it yesterday. It consists of the report of a meeting in the office of the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor-that is to say, you yourself-on 3 September 1942. The document is dated 4 September.
This document, Mr. President, is at the end of my document book, after Document F-827, the last page of the French translation. I read:...
THE PRESIDENT: The last page is Document F-857, is it not? The document called 857-the last page I have got. It is just in front of Document 2200-PS. Did you come across that? It is just after Document 1913-PS.
M. HERZOG: After Document 1913-PS, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
M. HERZOG: I read:
"The Fuehrer cannot understand that, in the struggle for the future of Europe, the country which has to bear the brunt of this struggle is the one to suffer most from hunger; whereas in France..."
THE PRESIDENT: It is on Page 1 or Page 4?
, 30 May 46
M. HERZOG: No, Mr. President, on Page 4 of the French text- that is to say, on the last page.
"The Fuehrer cannot understand that, in the struggle for the future of Europe, the country which has to bear the brunt of this struggle is the one to suffer most from hunger; whereas in France, in Holland, in Hungary, in the Ukraine, or anywhere else, there is no talk of hunger. He desires that it should be the reverse in the future. As regards the foreign workers living in the Reich-with the exclusion of the Eastern Workers-little by little their rations must be reduced and made to correspond to their output. It is not admissible that lazy Dutchmen or Italians should receive better rations than good Eastern Workers. In principle the guiding rule of utmost output must apply equally to feeding."
[Turning to the defendant.] I ask you what you meant when you stated that, "In principle the guiding rule of utmost output must apply equally to feeding?"
SAUCKEL: There was a standard ration in the Reich which was increased by additional rations based on output or performance. I fought for the principle that these additional rations, which the workers from the West were already largely receiving, should be granted to the workers from the East as well; and that where western workers that is, Dutch and Belgian workers-did not keep up their output in the same way as the Eastern Workers, these additional rations should be cut down accordingly, but not the standard ration which applied to the German people as well.
M. HERZOG: You therefore consider that if the output of one worker is smaller than that of another, his food rations must be smaller. Is that what I am to understand?
SAUCKEL: No, it is not right to interpret it that way. I should like to explain the system again. In Germany each worker received his ration as fixed by the Reich Minister for Food. In addition to that there were special increases as a reward for increased output. At the beginning these additional rations were not granted to Russian workers, and it is these additional rations we are dealing with here; not with starving people, or cutting down their standard food ration additional rations for increased output.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps we had better adjourn now.
[A recess was taken.]
MARSHAL: If it pleases the Tribunal, the report is made that the Defendant Raeder is absent.
30 May 46
THE PRESIDENT: M. Herzog, do you anticipate being able to conclude your cross-examination before half past 4?
M. HERZOG: Yes, Mr. President, I think that I might even finish before that.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
M: HERZOG: Defendant Sauckel, I offered in evidence this morning Document Number F-810, which is an account of the conference which you held on 15 and 16 July 1944 at Wartburg with the heads of the regional labor offices. Do you remember?
SAUCKEL: Yes, I remember.
M. HERZOG: Do you remember whether during this conference the question was raised as to the discipline to be imposed upon the workers?
SAUCKEL: It is possible that during this conference-or conferences-this question was discussed. I cannot remember exactly; I did not participate in all the sessions.
M. HERZOG: Do you know Ministerialrat Dr. Sturm?
SAUCKEL: Ministerialrat Dr. Sturm is not personally known to me.
M. HERZOG: Do you remember the statements made at the conference of 15 and 16 July 1944 by Dr. Sturm?
SAUCKEL: I cannot remember any particular statements by Dr. Sturm.
M. HERZOG: I shall hand you once more the minutes of that meeting. It is Document Number F-810 which was presented this morning under Exhibit Number RF-1507. Will you please look at Page 25 of the German text. It is also Page 25 of the French version. There you see-I read the first line: "Sturm gave the following report from his sector on work discipline."
I shall pass to the next page, where I read, "We are working with the Gestapo..."
THE PRESIDENT: Where is this?
M. HERZOG: Document F-810, Mr. President; it is a document which is marked...
THE PRESIDENT: I know it is 806, but I thought you told us that they followed on.
M. HERZOG: 810, Sir, 810.
The; PRESIDENT: I have got that.
M. HERZOG: Page 25.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, go on.
30 May 46
M. HERZOG: With your permission, I will begin again.
"Sturm gave the following report from his sector on work discipline . . ."
And on the following page: "We are working with the Gestapo and the concentration camps, and we are certainly on the right track."
Did you make any observations when that statement was made?
SAUCKEL: I did not hear that statement myself. He gave a specialized report on questions of labor legislation, as it says at the beginning. I am seeing the record for the first time in my life. There were several parallel meetings at the same time. I did not hear it myself, but it stands to reason that some sort of ruling regarding penalties had to be made, as is done in all labor legislation.
Perhaps I may read to you from the same document, the beginning:
"Measures regulating the employment of labor and wages are only possible on the basis of a healthy working morale. Regulations of a disciplinary and penal character for securing such morale require unified handling, the details of which will be dealt with at a subsequent meeting of experts on penal law."
That is, of course, not one of my offices.
M. HERZOG: I asked you what you thought of Dr. Sturm's statement.
SAUCKEL: May I read in connection with Dr. Sturm's statement, at the end of the first page...
M. HERZOG: Will you please answer my question first? What do you think of this statement?
SAUCKEL: I have already answered.
M. HERZOG: Please answer my question. What do you think of this statement?
SAUCKEL: I did not know of this statement, as Sturm, I believe, came from some other department. I do not know whether he belonged to the Ministry of Labor itself, or to some other department; that I cannot say. I did not hear these statements...
THE PRESIDENT: Watch the light. Do you not see the light in front of you?
M. HERZOG: Do you not remember that an agreement was reached between you and the Chief of the Police and SS to hand over to the Gestapo those workers who were guilty of leaving their work?
30 May 46
SAUCKEL: Well, there had to be an authority in Germany which dealt with workers who left their places of work without being entitled to do so. It could not have been done by any authority other than the Police; there was no other way. In connection with this document I beg to be allowed to read some more from Page 1:
"Apart from that, the number of penalties imposed by the authorities on German workers, such as reprimands, fines, concentration camps, and legal penalties, was relatively surprisingly small. In cases dealt with by the public prosecutor the penalties inflicted amounted on an average to 0.1 to 0.2 for every 1,000 workers."
M. HERZOG: What has that to do with the question which I asked you about your relations with the Gestapo and the concentration camps?
SAUCKEL: But there was no other authority except the police who could make an arrest if it were necessary and legally justified by court rulings.
M. HERZOG: You admit, then, that it was with your agreement that the Gestapo proceeded to arrest workmen who had broken what you call their contract of work, and send them to concentration camps?
SAUCKEL: Not to concentration camps, no, but into the custody which was prescribed. The penalties were decreed in accordance with certain regulations. I made no other agreement.
M. HERZOG: I submit in evidence Document Number 2200-PS,; which becomes Exhibit Number RF-1519. It is a service memorandum of the Gestapo addressed to the district police officials of the Cologne and Aachen districts. It refers to the struggle against breaches of contract on the part of foreign workers. Mr. President, it Is the fourth document from the end in my document book. I read from it:
"The considerable number of refractory foreign workers... is dangerous to the security of the Reich.... There is always danger of actual sabotage in such cases, . . . the Reichsfuehrer SS and Chief of the German Police has reached an agreement with the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor that all charges of absenteeism against foreign workers shall be dealt with by the Gestapo.
"...the district police authorities are expected to examine anything bearing on this matter. They are authorized by me to give warnings to absentees by order of the Gestapo State Police of lice, Cologne, and to order corrective custody
30 May 46
up to 3 days for all cases of minor importance. The instructions concerning the attitude to be taken toward the individual groups of foreign workers are to be noted....
"In more serious cases of absenteeism the district police authorities will submit the files concerning the cases to the competent Gestapo office (Cologne, Aachen, or Bonn) for decision. The Gestapo will examine the matter and order the necessary measures-detention, sending to corrective labor camps, or concentration camps."
[Turning to the defendant.] Do you still deny that it was with your agreement that refractory workers were first handed over to the Gestapo, and then sent to concentration camps?
SAUCKEL: I did not deny it, but as stated in the first paragraph, this only happened if public order was disturbed by punishable offenses, that is in serious cases, or when there were breaches of working contracts. There was nobody except the police to undertake the search for such people, and I consider the procedure to be perfectly correct.
M. HERZOG: You think that it is a correct manner of procedure to hand over foreign workers to the Gestapo and to concentration camps? I note your answer.
SAUCKEL: Only in the case of serious offenses. It says "in serious cases" in the document. That was the demand imposed on me.
M. HERZOG: At what period did you learn about the atrocities which were committed in concentration camps?
SAUCKEL: I can say with a good conscience that I gained knowledge here of the cruelties which were committed in the concentration camps; after the collapse of the Reich.
M. HERZOG: Do you think that it was the same with all the Hitlerite chiefs?
SAUCKEL: I cannot speak for the others. I myself did, not know of such measures, which I abhor and which I only learned of here.
M. HERZOG: Do you think that the Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler, for example, was aware of the atrocities which were committed in the concentration camps?
SAUCKEL: I cannot say whether the Reichsfuehrer SS knew of them, whether he himself instigated them. During the whole of my career I hardly ever spoke to the Reichsfuehrer SS because our personal relations were rather strained.
M. HERZOG: During the interrogation by your counsel yesterday you declared that you once visited the concentration camp of Buchenwald; did you not?
30 May 46
SAUCKEL: Yes, in 1937 or 1938. I cannot tell you that from memory now.
M. HERZOG: You declared you made this visit in the company of an Italian commission, did you not?
SAUCKEL: Yes, that is correct.
M. HERZOG: Do you know that there is in existence an album of official photographs of the concentration camp in Buchenwald?
SAUCKEL: I do not know that.
M. HERZOG: I offer that album in evidence to the Tribunal under Exhibit Number RF-1520. It bears the Document Number D-565. It is a document of the British Delegation.
[Turning to the defendant.] Do you recognize yourself in these photographs?
SAUCKEL: Yes, I recognize myself in this picture.
M. HERZOG: With whom are you there?
SAUCKEL: That is the Reichsfuehrer SS.
M. HERZOG: Himmler?
SAUCKEL: Himmler, yes.
M. HERZOG: Thank you. And you contend that you, a Gauleiter and Reichsstatthalter of Thuringia, visited the Buchenwald Concentration Camp in the company of the Reichsfuehrer SS, and- I call your attention to this-in the company of the commander of the camp, without knowledge of what was happening inside the camp?
SAUCKEL: I cannot tell you when this picture was taken or whether it was taken in the camp itself. I was once outside the camp together with the Reichsfuehrer SS-there was another large site there-but I was never inside the camp together with the Reichsfuehrer SS. I was there only once with an Italian commission.
This picture does not show that there was an inspection. Here you see some troops lined up...
M. HERZOG: The Tribunal will decide about that.
I offer in evidence under Exhibit Number RF-1521 the certificate establishing the origin of this album.
In October of 1945 you were interrogated on the expulsion of Jews from industry. You said this:
"I never had anything to do with it. I had nothing to do with the question of the eviction of Jews from industry. I had no
influence in this matter. It was an enigma to me."
Can you confirm this declaration?
SAUCKEL: That is perfectly correct. I did not say the eviction of the Jews from industry was a secret to me; I said that, to the best of my recollection, I had nothing to do with it.
M. HERZOG: Your counsel gave you a document yesterday, Document Number L-61, which you thought you had to contest.
M. HERZOG: The point that you raised against this document was that it was dated 1942, and that it dealt with questions prior to your appointment. Did I understand you correctly yesterday?
SAUCKEL: The enclosures to the document deal with questions that had already been started before I was appointed.
M. HERZOG: I offer in evidence Document Number L-156, which becomes Exhibit Number RF-1522. It is a letter written under the authority of the Delegate for the Four Year Plan, the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor, which is you. It is dated 26 March 1943. It is addressed to the chiefs of the regional labor offices, and it deals with the question of the eviction of Jews. It begins thus:
"In agreement with me and the Reich Minister for Armaments. and Munitions, the Reichsfuehrer SS, for reasons of state security, removed from their place of work at the end of February such Jews as were not living in camps and who were working as free workers.
"They have been formed into working units or assembled for deportation. In order not to endanger the efficacy of this measure, I have avoided issuing any notification beforehand, and I have notified only those regional labor offices in whose districts free Jewish manpower was employed in large numbers.
"So as to have a general view of the effect of those measures on the manpower position, I ask you to let me have, as from 31 March 1943, returns showing how many Jews were removed from their work, and how many it has been found necessary to replace by other workers.
"When giving the numbers of the factories and of the Jews employed by them, one should take into account the situation which existed before the evacuation. The enclosed form should be used for making reports, et cetera."
Do you still say that you had no part in the matter of the eviction of Jews and their replacement by foreign workers?
SAUCKEL: Mere again I must state emphatically that this letter was never put before me. It has no signature, and here again it
30 May 46
comes from a subdivision in the Reich Ministry of Labor at 96 Saarlandstrasse. Some official dealt with it there. I myself have absolutely no recollection of having ever had knowledge of this letter, I did not write it, it does not come from my office, it has been written "by order," and the signature is not mine.
M. HERZOG: Will you please look on the left in the corner. It says:
"The Delegate for the Four Year Plan, the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor." Is not that you? You talk of a subordinate. Are you trying to throw the responsibility on one of your subordinates?
SAUCKEL: No, I do not want to do that. I merely want to say that the letterhead belongs to some office, but I have never known anything about the letter. This is the first time in my life that I have seen it, and I myself did not have it written. I can say that under oath.
M. HERZOG: With this letter is an application form for replacement for the expelled Jews. Who else but you could have anything to do with this, you who were the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor?
SAUCKEL: Yes, my department-I told my counsel yesterday that my department, of course, had to furnish replacements if workers were taken away from a concern, either by being called up for service or for some other measure. I did not always know the details.
M. HERZOG: You are not answering my question, the fact that this letter...
SAUCKEL: Yes, I have answered your question properly.
M. HERZOG: The fact that this letter contains an application relating to the replacement of workers, is that not proof that it comes from your department, you being the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor?
SAUCKEL: Such a request could not come from my department. The evacuation of Jews was entirely the responsibility of the Reichsfuehrer SS. I had only troubles because of such measures, as it was very difficult to replace workers. I had no interest in it.
M. HERZOG: In short, you deny that you ever proposed special working conditions for Jews?
SAUCKEL: That is just what I am denying. I had nothing to do with it. It was not my task.
M. HERZOG: Would you please refer once more to Document Number F-810, which I of leered under Exhibit Number RF-1507? We
30 May 46
will hand it to you if you have not got it. Please look at Page 16, under the heading: "Gauleiter Sauckel." I quote...
SAUCKEL: I have not the document at hand-oh yes, I think I have it.
M. HERZOG: It was passed to you about 2 minutes ago. If you have not got it, it will be handed to you again.
SAUCKEL: Will you please give me the number again?
M. HERZOG: Document F-810, but I do not think it is marked on the photostat you have. Have you that document?
M. HERZOG: Under the heading "Gauleiter Sauckel," I read-it is on Page 16 of the document:
"Sauckel objected very emphatically when it was said that the inmates of concentration camps and the Hungarian Jews constituted the best manpower on constructional work. This is not true to fact, because they produce on an average 65 to 70 percent of the work of a normal worker; never 100 percent. Besides, it is unworthy to put the German worker and the German moral conception of work in the same category as this pack of traitors. To an inmate of a concentration camp and to a Jew, work is not a mark of nobility. Things cannot be permitted to reach the point where inmates of concentration camps and Jews become articles in demand. It is absolutely essential that all concentration camp inmates and Jews working on building sites be kept apart from the remainder of the workers, including foreigners.
"Gauleiter Sauckel ended by pointing out that as a matter of fact he did not object to the employment of Jews and concentration camp inmates, but only to such exaggerations as mentioned above."
I would ask you, Sauckel, you who yesterday described your own life as a workman, what you meant when you said: "To an inmate of a concentration camp and to a Jew work is not a mark of nobility."
SAUCKEL: I want to say most emphatically that this paragraph is a very condensed and free rendering, and not a shorthand report. I raised an objection because I assumed that inmates of concentration camps would be traitors. My only object was that these people should not be taken to the same places of work as the other workers, the Jews either. But I did not employ them; that was the business of the Reichsfuehrer SS. I was speaking at a conference of leaders and in the interests of workers with a clean record and the
30 May 46
other foreign workers. I objected to their being put to work together.
M. HERZOG: I ask you this question again. What did you mean when you said: "To an inmate of a concentration camp and to a Jew work is not a mark of nobility?"
SAUCKEL: By that I meant that the work of men who had been found guilty of offenses should not be compared with the work of free workers with a clean record. There is a difference if I employ prisoners in custody or if I employ free workers, and I wanted to see the two categories separated.
M. HERZOG: So that Jews were prisoners in custody, were they not?
SAUCKEL: In this case the Jews were prisoners of the Reichsfuehrer SS. Actually, I regret the expression.
M. HERZOG: You dispute, therefore, that this phrase is an expression of the hostility which you showed to Jews for instance?
SAUCKEL: At that time I was, of course, against these Jews, but I was not concerned with their employment. I was against these workers, whose employment was the concern of the Reichsfuehrer SS, being put with the other workers.
M. HERZOG: Did you ever conduct any propaganda against the Jews?
SAUCKEL: I conducted propaganda against the Jews with regard to their holding positions in the Reich which I considered should have been occupied by Germans.
M. HERZOG: I will submit to you an article which you wrote in June 1944, a time when I think in your Germany there were not very many Jews still occupying important posts. This article appeared in a newspaper, Die Ppicht which you published in the Gau of Thuringia. It is Document Number 857 which I offer to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number RF-1523. I shall read extracts from this article.
[The document was handed to the defendant.]
First extract from Page 1, Column 1, the last paragraph but one:
"The old and finest virtues of the sailors, airmen, and soldiers of Great Britain can no longer stop the Jewish plague of corruption which is making such rapid ravages in the body of their country."
Then, on Page 2, Column 2, the last paragraph but one:
"There is no example in the history of the world to show that anything of lasting value has been created in the course of centuries by the Jews and their foolish followers who were
30 May 46
bound to them and corrupted by their customs and their women."
I ask you, Defendant Sauckel, what did you mean by the "Jewish plague of corruption"?
SAUCKEL: I meant that it was the outward sign of disintegration within the nations.
M. HERZOG: I ask you again my question. What do you mean by the "Jewish plague of corruption"?
SAUCKEL: It was my opinion that disintegration had set in among the nations owing to certain Jewish circles. That was my view.
M. HERZOG: The Tribunal will draw its own conclusions. Mr. President, I have no further questions.
MAJOR GENERAL G. A. ALEXANDROV (Assistant Prosecutor for the U.S.S.R.): I would like to make a general summary of your activities in your function of Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor.
Tell me how many foreign workers were employed in German economy and industry at the end of the war?
SAUCKEL: As far as I can tell you without documents, not counting prisoners of war, there were about 5 million foreign workers in Germany at the end of the war.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: You already quoted that number during your direct interrogation by our counsel. I believe that number applies not to the moment of the capitulation of Germany but to the date of 24 July 1942. I shall quote somewhat different data on that subject and will use your own documents. You were nominated Plenipotentiary General on 21 March 1942. On 27 July 1942,-that is to say, 3 months later-you submitted to Hitler and Goering your first report. In this report you stated that from 1 April to 24 July 1942 the requested mobilization quota of 1,600,000 persons was even surpassed by you. Do you confirm this figure?
SAUCKEL: I quoted that figure, and as far as I can remember that did not include only foreigners but also German workers.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: In the final part of your report you state that the total number of the population of the occupied territories evacuated to Germany, up to 24 July 1942, numbered 5,124,000 persons. Is that number exact? Do you confirm it?
SAUCKEL: Yes, but I believe that figure at the time included prisoners of war who had been employed in industry. Then I must say in this connection that in the case of all neutral allied, and western countries there was a continuous exchange, because
30 May 46
these workers worked either 6 months, 9 months, or 1 year in Germany, and at the end of the period agreed on they returned to their own countries. That is why this figure may have been correct. Toward the end of the year, however, they could not have increased very much because this continuous exchange has to be taken into consideration.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: But the fact remains that, according to your figures, the population evacuated to Germany numbered 5,124,000 persons up to 24 July 1942; is that not so?
SAUCKEL: If it says so in the document, then it may be true. It is possible, or rather it is probable, that this takes into account the prisoners of war employed. I cannot say that without any records.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: I will show you later another document referring to this matter. On 1 December 1942, you compiled a summarized report on the utilization of manpower up to 30 November 1942. In this summary you quote a figure referring to the number of workers assigned to German war industries from 1 April to 30 November 1942, and these workers number 2,749,652. On Page 8 of your report you state that by 30 November 1942, in the territory of the Reich, 7 million workers were employed. Do you confirm these figures?
SAUCKEL: I cannot confirm the figures without records. Again, I assume that French and other prisoners of war were once more included.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: But the figure 7 million employed in German industry-foreign workers employed, even if you include the prisoners of war-is that figure exact? Will you now say how many workers were brought to Germany from occupied territories during the year 1943? Tell me that figure.
SAUCKEL: The number of foreign workers brought to Germany during the year of 1943 may have amounted to 11/2 or 2 million. Various programs had been made in that connection which were being continually changed.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: I am now interested to know approximately how many workers were brought to Germany in 1943. You need not give an exact figure. Approximately.
SAUCKEL: I have already said from 1.5 to 2 million. I cannot be more exact.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: I understand. Do you remember what task was assigned to you for the year 1944?
SAUCKEL: In 1944 a total of 4 million, including Germans, was demanded. But of these 4 million only 3 million were supplied,
30 May 46
and of these approximately 2,100,000 were Germans and 900,000 foreigners.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: Now can you give us at least a general summary of your activities? How many persons were brought to Germany from the occupied territories during the war, and how many were employed in agriculture and industry at the end of the war?
SAUCKEL: As far as I know and remember there were 5 million foreign workers in Germany at the end of the war. Several million workers returned to neutral and allied and western countries during the war, and they had to be replaced again and again, which was the cause of those new programs which were constantly being made. That is the explanation. Those workers who were already there before my time, and those who were brought in, probably might have reached a figure of 7 million, but during the war there were several millions who returned to their home countries.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: And also, a large number perished as a result d hard slave labor! That is not what I have in mind at the moment. In your documents you probably meant actual manpower and not those who perished or those who were absent. Could you tell us how many were brought to Germany from occupied territories during the war?
SAUCKEL: I have already given you the figure.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: Five million?
GEN. ALEXANDROV: You continue to assert that that is so?
SAUCKEL: Yes, I maintain that at the end of the war there were, according to my statistical department and as far as I can remember, 5 million workers in Germany, because millions of workers continuously returned. The experts can give you a better answer than I. The contracts with the others were only 6 and 9 months, you see.
THE PRESIDENT: Your question is, is it not, how many were brought into Germany, how many foreign workers, during the whole of the war? Is that the question you are asking?
GEN. ALEXANDROV: Yes, it is, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: What is your answer to that?
SAUCKEL: I have already stated that, including the workers who were there before my time, before I came into office, and including those who were there at the end, there may have been about 7 million. In accordance with my records, there were 5 million at the end, because the others had gone back.
30 May 46
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but that is not what you are being asked. You are being asked: How many persons were brought to Germany from foreign countries during the whole of the war? You say there were 5 million at the end of the war, and there were constant changes in the preceding years. It follows that there must have been more than 5 million people brought to Germany in the course of a year.
SAUCKEL: I would estimate 7 million, but I cannot give you the exact figures because I am not sure about the figures before my time. At any rate, there must have been millions who returned home.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: Up to 30 November 1942 you quoted the figure of imported labor at 7 million...
SAUCKEL: Workers employed in Germany, and that includes prisoners of war, in 1942.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: All right, including prisoners of war, 7 million. Is that right, 7 million by 30 November?
SAUCKEL: I cannot tell you for certain. It may be correct, but I cannot tell you without documentary evidence.
GEN. ALEXANDROV-: I will show you the document tomorrow. Today, please answer my question. You said that during 1943 approximately 2 million additional workers were imported.
SAUCKEL: In 1943?
GEN. ALEXANDROV: Yes, in 1943.
SAUCKEL: I said 1.5 to 2 million.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: That is to say, 7 million plus 2 million make 9 million in ale Is that correct?
SAUCKEL: No. I said expressly that some were going back all the time, and I did not add the prisoners of war to the new imported labor.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: You do not seem to understand me. I am speaking of those who were brought to Germany from the occupied territories, who passed through your hands. To answer this it is of absolutely no importance how many of them perished in Germany, or how many left. That does not change the total number of workers brought to German territory from abroad.
If, therefore, by 30 November 1942 there were 7 million workers in Germany, and, according to you, in 1943 a further 2 million were brought in, and in 1944, as you just said, 900,000 were again brought in; then, according to you, the total number of workers imported into Germany during the war must have amounted to 10 million. Is that right?
30 May 46
SAUCKEL: I can say that only with the reservation that I do not know how many were actually there before my time. That may be correct as a guess, and including all prisoners of war who were assigned for work. You have, however, to deduct the prisoners of war from the civilian workers who were brought into the country.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn now.
[The Tribunal adjourned until 31 May 1946 at 1000 hours.]