4000bce - 399
400 - 1399
1400 - 1499
1500 - 1599
1600 - 1699
1700 - 1799
1800 - 1899
1900 - 1999
[The Defendant Sauckel resumed the stand.]
GEN. ALEXANDROV: Defendant Sauckel, I did not get a satisfactory answer yesterday to my question as to how many foreign workers were imported into Germany from the occupied territories. You will now be handed Document Number 1296-PS. It is your report of 27 July 1942. In addition, Document Number 1739-PS will also be handed to you. It is your survey of conditions as of 30 November 1942. I wish to explain to you that in this case we are dealing with the number of foreign workers imported into Germany, including prisoners of war. The loss of this manpower in this case is of no importance, since it will not change the number of persons imported into Germany. They were brought to Germany, but later perished either as a result of work beyond their strength, or else were returned as incapable of work. Did you receive these documents?
SAUCKEL: Yes. Please let us have a look at the documents, as we are dealing with figures.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: Pray do so. In Document Number . . .
SAUCKEL: I have not yet finished. I cannot...
GEN. ALEXANDROV: It is not essential for you to acquaint yourself with the contents of all the documents. In Document Number 1296-PS, on the last page of the report, at the end, you will find Section V. It is entitled, "General Summary . . ." Have you found it?
SAUCKEL: No, I have not yet found the passage. Which document, please?
GEN. ALEXANDROV: Document Number 1296-PS. Have you found it?
SAUCKEL: Yes, I have found this passage.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: It gives the total figure as 5,124,000. Is that correct?
THE PRESIDENT: 12 million, did you say? 12 million?
GEN. ALEXANDROV: 5,124,000 persons.
31 May 46
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. The translation said 12 million.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: That was an error.
SAUCKEL: In connection with this document I must state emphatically that the figure here is indicated as 5,124,000. It includes 1,576,000 prisoners of war, but the latter do not rank with the civilian workers. The prisoners were the responsibility of the Armed Forces and during their employment, or during their employment by the generals in charge of the prisoner-of-war camps, they were housed and cared for in the individual military areas.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: They were employed in the German industries. Please read after me Subparagraph V: "General Summary of Foreign Workers . . . at present employed in Germany."
SAUCKEL: Yes. That is correct.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: That is all I want. Now take . . .
SAUCKEL: Please, have I your permission to explain that these prisoners of war were not housed and cared for in the factories or by the DAN (German Workers' Front) but were billeted in the camps which were under the jurisdiction of the generals in charge of prisoners of war in the military areas, and they were consequently not included with the civilian workers in my statistics.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: As far as the number of prisoners of war working in your organization is concerned, a supplementary question win be asked later on. Actually, I am interested to know how many civilians and how many prisoners of war were employed in the German industries. Do you. confirm this figure of 5,124,000? Is this figure correct or not?
SAUCKEL: That is a correct figure for this particular time. But in order that the Tribunal may get an exact picture of the procedure I should like to be allowed to refer to a very accurate document. That would be Document Number 1764-PS. It deals with the exact enumeration of individual workers from individual countries, and of prisoners of war about 6 months later. I submitted it to the main Reich offices, and to the Party offices in Posen. It was also submitted to the E Fuehr and to the Reich offices. . .
GEN. ALEXANDROV: I have to interrupt you . . .
SAUCKEL: I beg you to allow me to complete my explanation. I must completely clarify these matters here and now. My conscience demands that I do so before the entire world.
For February 1943, that is half a year later, there appears on Page 7 of Document Number 1764-PS another exact enumeration with a figure of 4,014,000 civilian workers and 1,658,000 prisoners of war. The sum total-this figure was very accurate-was 5,672,000. That in spite of the inclusion of more foreign civilian workers this
31 May 46
figure was not materially increased has been proved by the fact- as I already stated yesterday-that civilian workers from western, southern, and southeastern territories for the most part had labor contracts binding them for 6 months only. Whenever possible, when under my charge, these contracts were observed; for otherwise, had l failed to keep to the contracts, that is, if I had not insisted on doing so, I would never have obtained any more workers.
If I employed several hundred thousand workers in half a year and then sent them back again, this figure would always disappear again because they went home. Therefore, far more civilian workers entered Germany than officially stated at any one time-than appeared in the total amount-for the number of those returning would always have to be deducted, and there were very many of them.
A French document has been presented which is a report from the Envoy Hemmen in Paris. My counsel will be good enough to tell me the PS number later. It shows that French workers, about 800,000 of them came to Germany; but these figures are not in accordance with those issued by my department, but in accordance with a statement from the French Embassy. In 1944 there were only 400,000 left in Germany as, owing to the time limits of their contracts, these contracts were expiring every day and thousands were returning home daily. Roughly 50 percent of the contracts would expire while another 50 percent would still be working. That is an exact explanation of this statement, made in all conscience.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: As to what these labor contracts actually were, those so-called labor contracts, I shall mention at a later date. My French colleague, during his examination, sufficiently proved the criminal methods used in the mobilization of workers in the West. How this was done in the East I will tell you a little later on. I should now like you to confirm the figures of your report- 5,124,000 persons. Is this an exact figure, or is it not? I am not asking for any superfluous explanations. You are asked to state only whether this figure is correct or not.
SAUCKEL: It is correct for the time this statement was made, but it changed constantly for the reason I have mentioned.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: This figure is dated 24 July 1942; that is quite clear to everybody. Now, take the second document, 1739-PS. The last page of 1739-PS, where you will find the following sentence:
"Only then can we be sure that the immense number of
foreign workers, both men and women, in the territory of the
Reich-which has now reached 7 million, including all
working prisoners of war-will furnish the greatest possible
assistance to the German war industry."
31 May 46
Does this sentence occur there? Is the number of 7 million given there?
SAUCKEL: The figure of 7 million is quoted here and includes all prisoners of war employed as labor at that particular time...
GEN. ALEXANDROV: I know what is written there. I am asking you: Is this figure of 7 million contained in the document or not?
SAUCKEL: Yes, it is written in this document.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: It is the correct figure?
SAUCKEL: It is the correct figure, and I am asking the Tribunal that I be allowed to read the two following sentences as well because you are accusing me of resorting to criminal methods. I, on my part, did all I could, and used all the influence I had, to prevent the use of criminal methods. This is proved by the two following sentences which I shall now read, and which state. ..
GEN. ALEXANDROV: I am obliged to interrupt you once more.
SAUCKEL: Please, may I add to the explanation I have already given, in accordance with the possibilities granted to me by the Tribunal, two more sentences in support of my declaration: ". . . undernourished half . . . "
GEN. ALEXANDROV: Defendant Sauckel . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Let him read the two sentences he wants
GEN. ALEXANDROV: They have absolutely nothing to do with the question of the number of workers imported into Germany...
THE PRESIDENT: I have not got the translation of the document, so I cannot tell. I want to hear him read the sentences.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: Then read them, please.
SAUCKEL: ". . . half-desperate Eastern Workers would be more of a hindrance than a help to the war economy.
"It is essential that all the government offices, right down to the factories concerned"-for these, I must add, I was not responsible-"should be quite clear on the subject, and that is my constant endeavor."
I merely wanted to show my conscientiousness by those two sentences, and how sincerely I endeavored to carry out my task which was an extremely difficult one for me.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, Defendant, will you kindly answer the questions and only give explanations when it is necessary to explain the answer. All you were asked was whether the figure of 5,124,000 in the first document was correct and whether the figure of 7 million in the second document is correct, and you said both of them were.
31 May 46
Now go on, General.
SAUCKEL: I have already answered that it is correct, that the figure of 7 million is given in this document. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we do not want any more explanations.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: I can understand perfectly well that you
are not interested in increasing these appalling figures even by a single point, let alone by several millions.
Yesterday you stated that in 1943, 2 million more foreign workers came to Germany, and in 1944 a further 900,000 persons.
SAUCKEL: I must definitely correct that. I did not say that, but it is true that from July 1942 until the end of 1943 about 2 million foreign workers came to Germany, not in 1943 only. From February 1943, for instance, until the end of 1943 only 1 million came to Germany because we' were experiencing considerable difficulties at the time. But from July 1942 until the end of 1942 about 1.5 million arrived, so that in 11/. years 2 more million were added to the first number which I mentioned yesterday.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: It is already known how many you received in 1942. Yesterday you stated quite definitely that in 1943 about 2 million workers came to Germany. Is that correct? I am talking of 1943.
SAUCKEL: If I am supposed to have said that yesterday I do not remember it, for it is not true; but the truth is that from about July 1942 until the end of 1943 about 2 million foreign workers were sent to Germany.
THE PRESIDENT: General, the Tribunal is not really interested in the exact number of foreign workers who came to Germany. It does not seem to us to make very much difference whether 5 million or 6 million or 7 million came there. It is extremely difficult to follow the figures.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: I do not intend to determine the numbers of workers brought to Germany with mathematical precision. I do, however, consider it quite indispensable to realize the scale on which these crimes were committed. I would like the Defendant Sauckel to state definitely how many workers were brought to Germany during the war.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I just told you we do not consider it important. You say that you do not want to ascertain with mathematical accuracy, but we have spent a considerable time in attempting to do so.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: This can be explained by the fact that the Defendant Sauckel does not give a precise reply to the questions put to him.
31 May 46
[Turning to the defendant.] Tell me, do you consider such methods of warfare, the mass driving into slavery of millions of people from the occupied territories, to be in accordance with the laws and customs of war and human morality in general?
SAUCKEL: I do not consider slavery and deportation admissible. Please allow me to add the following explanation to this clear reply. Personally, I was firmly convinced that it is no crime. . .
GEN. ALEXANDROV: Please do not evade the question.
SAUCKEL: I am not evading the question, but I may and I have the right to give an explanation of my reply; I have already given the answer.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: Give a direct answer.
SAUCKEL: It is necessary for my defense...
GEN. ALEXANDROV: I do not think it is necessary. Answer directly: Do you consider these methods criminal or do you not?
THE PRESIDENT: One moment, General, you asked the defendant whether he considered it honorable. Let him answer it in his own way. It is not a question whether a thing is honorable. He is entitled to answer it freely.
SAUCKEL: Now that I have given a clear reply to the effect that I could not be convinced in all conscience that I was committing a crime, I ask permission to read out the relevant sentences from Document Sauckel-86 in Document Book 3. They contain the instructions which I gave to my department and to the industrial concerns:
"We are not concerned"-I quote-"with material things but, and I would emphasize this again very definitely, with human beings, with many millions of human beings, every single one of whom-whether we want it or not-makes his criticism from his own point of view, be he a German or a foreign worker.
"On the other hand, the output of the individual, be he a Volksgenosse"-that means a German-"or not a Volksgenosse"-that means an alien-"be he a friend or an enemy of Germany, will always depend on whether he admits to himself that he is being treated justly, or whether he comes to the conclusion that he has been exposed to injustice.
"Be just"-I may add that this was my order to my departments-"Be just! There are many questions which you cannot always answer by merely studying my instructions, or the Gesetzblatt, or the Reichsarbeitsblatt...."
31 May 46
THE PRESIDENT: We do not want to go into a very long speech, you know, about a question like that. I mean, you do not want to read all your instructions to your subordinates again.
SAUCKEL: No, I only want to read two more sentences, Your Lordship:
"The worker's life is so rich that it cannot be comprised even in many thick volumes. But every human breast harbors a feeling which says to him, 'Have you been treated with kindness and justice . . .' "
THE PRESIDENT: Defendant, that is enough. We have heard enough of that.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: Defendant Sauckel, in July 1944 a conference was held at Hitler's headquarters to deal with the question of the treatment of foreign workers in case of a further successful advance of the Allied armies. Do you know anything of this conference or not?
SAUCKEL: May I ask once more-what was the date?
GEN. ALEXANDROV: I am asking you about the conference which was held at Hitler's headquarters in July 1944. Do you know anything about this conference or do you not?
SAUCKEL: I cannot remember for certain. I must ask you to place some document before me. I cannot remember any meeting in July because from 20 June 1944, or thereabout, I was no longer admitted to the Fuehrer for any discussions.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: That is enough for me. That means that you do not know anything at all about this conference?
Tell me, for what purpose, for what kind of work were the foreign laborers employed who had been imported into Germany? Is it correct to state that they were primarily employed in the armament and munitions industries?
SAUCKEL: Workers were brought to Germany for employment in the armament industry. The armament industry is a very wide term, and is not identical with the manufacture of arms and munitions. The armament industry includes all products-from matches to cannons-that have anything to do with supply for the army. It is, therefore, necessary, within this broad, far-reaching term, to limit or isolate the manufacture of arms and munitions.
Moreover, workers were brought to Germany for all other branches of civil economy essential to the war effort, such as agriculture, mining, skilled trades, and so forth. We made three distinctions: War economy, which meant the entire German economy in wartime; armament economy meant. . .
31 May 46
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Defendant, we do not want a lecture upon that, you know. All you were asked was whether they were brought there for work in the armament industry.
SAUCKEL: A part of them.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: I should like you to answer whether the workers brought to Germany were primarily employed in Germany's war industries and for military purposes? Is that right or not? I mean in the broad sense of the word.
SAUCKEL: In the broad sense of the word, yes, including the entire economy in wartime.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: Then the utilization of imported manpower was subordinated entirely and fully to the conduct of the war of aggression by Germany? Do you admit that?
SAUCKEL: That is stretching the idea too far. My own views, according to which I acted and could only act at the time, excluded the word "aggressive."
GEN. ALEXANDROV: Please answer briefly if it appears to go too far. Tell me do you admit it or do you not?
SAUCKEL: I have already answered.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: Your part as organizer of the mass drive into slavery of the peaceful population of the occupied territories is sufficiently clear. I should now like to Dass over to the elucidation of the part played by the individual ministries in this matter. Please enumerate the ministries and other government organizations which directly participated in carrying out the requisite measures for the mobilization and utilization of foreign manpower. Mention has already been made of the Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories, of the War Ministry and of the OKW, so that it is not necessary to speak about them again. Kindly enumerate the others.
SAUCKEL: On the plan, which has also been submitted to your delegation, Mr. Prosecutor, there are some small inaccuracies, inaccuracies made by the draftsman. I have not seen the completed drawing, but I took it for granted that the original drawing, as submitted to me, was correctly made by the draftsman. These small inaccuracies and deviations can be rectified, and the plan will then be unmistakably clear and offer the soundest explanation.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: Your defense counsel has stated here that this plan is not sufficiently accurate. It is precisely for that reason that I ask you this question and request you to explain which ministries and other government offices played an immediate part in the mobilization and utilization of foreign manpower, over and above those which I have already indicated.
31 May 46
THE PRESIDENT: General, he says that it is substantially correct, and that there was only one minor alteration suggested in it. Surely that is sufficient for us.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: Mr. President, Sauckel's defense counsel has himself stated that there are a number of inaccuracies in the plan. I will, however, endeavor to facilitate this task.
[Turning to the defendant.] Please tell me how the Foreign Office was connected with this matter.
SAUCKEL: The Foreign Office was connected with this matter in the following way:
It had to establish connections with countries where embassies, legations, or German delegations were acting. Negotiations would then take place under the chairmanship of the head of an embassy or delegation. The Foreign Office always made every effort to conduct these negotiations in a suitable way and in a proper manner.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: On 4 January 1944 a meeting was held with Hitler. This is Document 1292-PS. It is written in Subparagraph 4 of the minutes of this meeting, "The Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor must, before taking measures, contact the Minister for Foreign Affairs." What did that mean in this particular case?
SAUCKEL: In this case it meant that if I had to negotiate with the French or the Italian Government, I would first have to get in touch with the Minister for Foreign Affairs.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: After this meeting, which was held with Hitler on 4 January 1944-on 5 January 1944 you sent a letter to Lammers in which you related the question regarding the necessity for issuing a special directive as a result of this meeting, in order that all aid should be given you by the following authorities-I will enumerate them: The Reichsfuehrer SS, the Minister of the Interior, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Field Marshal Keitel, the Minister for the Occupied Eastern Territories, Rosenberg, the Reich Commissioners, the Governor General, and others. Do you remember this letter?
SAUCKEL: I remember that letter; will you be kind enough to put it before me. I cannot, of course, remember the contents in detail.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the number of that document, General?
GEN. ALEXANDROV: That is Number 1292-PS, Page 6 of the Russian text.
[Turning to the defendant.] Have you found the passage?
31 May 46
SAUCKEL: Yes. It is on the last page? May I ask if this is correct?
GEN. ALEXANDROV: This means you considered that all these organizations were to participate fully, one way or the other, in the execution of measures for the recruitment and utilization of manpower. Is that correct?
SAUCKEL: That is correct and I ask permission in this connection to give the following explanation: It is obvious that I myself, in my office, could not do certain things without informing the highranking authorities of the Reich. It merely proves that I was attempting to work correctly, and not to interfere wildly within the Reich, or in other administrative departments.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: I would like you to explain the following: When the Hitlerite government resorted to these criminal measures for driving off into slavery the population of the occupied territories, did practically all the government organizations of Hitlerite Germany-besides yourself-and the Party machinery of the NSDAP participate in these activities? Would it be correct to say so?
SAUCKEL: I protest against the words "driving off." Please hear my defense counsel on the subject in rebuttal.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: It is not a question of the words used. Answer me-is it correct or not?
SAUCKEL: The words are extremely important.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: Did the entire machinery of the German State participate in this matter or not?
SAUCKEL: In this form I must answer your question in the negative. There was...
GEN. ALEXANDROV: No other reply is demanded of you.
SAUCKEL: In the-I might explain this. For the recruiting of manpower, that is in the registration according to German orders, it was the chief, duly authorized and appointed for this purpose at the time, of a territorial government, a Reich commissariat, or the like, who participated-for I emphasize that I was unable to issue any laws in that field and was not allowed to do so. I could not interfere in any government department; that is impossible in any government system in the world.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: Yes. But you were obliged to co-ordinate the activities of all these representative organizations in Germany. That was the task assigned to you?
SAUCKEL: Not to co-ordinate, but to instruct them: and to ask for their co-operation where the case arose, if it came within their jurisdiction.
31 May 40
GEN. ALEXANDROV: That is not quite so. I did not wish to touch on this question, but I must revert to it now as you have somewhat minimized your part in this matter.
SAUCKEL: I request permission to reply to the word "minimize." The distribution and direction of manpower in the Reich was my principal task. It included, with the German workers, 30 million persons. I do not wish to minimize this task, for I did my best to introduce order into this mass of workers, as dictated by my sense of duty. I do not wish to minimize anything. It was my task and my duty towards my people.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: We need not argue on this subject. It would be much simpler to consult the document. An order by Goering will be handed to you in a moment.
SAUCKEL: I wish-I must apologize to you if you have misunderstood me. I-I have no intention of arguing. I am only asking for permission to clarify my conception of duty with regard to this task, for it was the most personal task I had.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: That is quite apparent in this order by Goering of 27 March 1942. It is Document Exhibit Number USSR-365. It will be handed to you in a minute. I will read a brief excerpt from it, showing the powers you were endowed with.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the number of it?
GEN. ALEXANDROV: It is Exhibit Number USSR-365.
THE PRESIDENT: Has it got a PS number?
GEN. ALEXANDROV: No. This is a Soviet exhibit.
[Turning to the defendant.] Please read Subparagraph 4 which clearly states:
"The Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor for the execution of his tasks is given authority through power assigned to me by the E Fuehr to issue instructions to the highest authorities of the Reich and to their subordinate offices, as well as to the offices of the Party and to its organizations and affiliated organizations, to the Reich Protector, the Governor General, the military commanders, and the heads of civil administration."
That is what we read in Subparagraph 4 of this order. I believe, therefore, that on the strength of this order you were appointed Plenipotentiary General, with extraordinary powers, for the Allocation of Labor. Is that correct or not?
SAUCKEL: That is correct. I should like to add that this authority was limited to my own special sphere, and I take the liberty of reading the following sentence: "Orders and directives of fundamental importance are to be submitted to me in advance."
31 Mater 46
Also I might point out that a restriction was imposed on my deputies later in the autumn. There is a witness who can make a statement to that effect.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: I am not talking about your deputies. Your powers are only too clearly defined in Subparagraph 4 of Goering's order.
Now, will you enumerate which of the defendants, at the same time as yourself, directly and in his own sphere of action participated in the execution of measures for the mass deportation into slavery of the population of the occupied territories and their employment in Germany. Name them in succession. Did Defendant Goering participate in all these crimes, as your immediate chief and leader?
SAUCKEL: I want to point out most emphatically that I could not possibly have been aware that entire populations had been carried off by means of lawful recruitment and service engagements based on legal decrees. I deny this. I had nothing to do
with measures concerning prisoners, et cetera, but...
THE PRESIDENT: The question was, did the Defendant Goering participate with you in the bringing of foreign workers into Germany? You do not seem to me really to be answering it at all.
SAUCKEL: I was directly subordinate to the Reich Marshal of the Greater German Reich in the question of the introduction of foreign manpower.
THE PRESIDENT: Then why do you not say so?
GEN. ALEXANDROV: So the Defendant Goering participated in the execution of these criminal measures?
THE PRESIDENT: General Alexandrov, when you want to ask a question of that sort I think it would be much better that you should not allege the fact that it is a crime. If you want to know whether the Defendant Goering took part with this defendant in the work that he was doing you can refer to that without calling it a crime; and then he perhaps will answer you more easily.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: Yes, My Lord.
[Turning to the defendant.] Did the Defendant Von Ribbentrop participate in carrying out these measures on diplomatic lines, and did he sanction the violation of international treaties and conventions where the utilization of foreign workers and prisoners of war in the German industries was concerned?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, there again, these defendants are saying that there was no violation of international law; so the question you should put to him is: Did Von Ribbentrop participate with him in these measures as far as diplomacy was concerned?
31 May 46
GEN. ALEXANDROV: I am now asking what was the connection between the Defendant Von Ribbentrop and the allocation of labor, and I would like to receive an answer to this question from the Defendant Sauckel.
SAUCKEL: The part played by Defendant Ribbentrop consisted in holding conferences with foreign statesmen or foreign government offices in the occupied territories as well as in neutral and friendly foreign countries; and he considered it highly important that these conferences should be conducted in a correct manner and that the aim should be to obtain the best possible conditions for foreign workers.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: I will question you about that a little later, when the question arises concerning the employment of prisoners of war in the German industries.
Please tell me now, what was the attitude of the Defendant Kaltenbrunner regarding these measures?
SAUCKEL: In this connection I met the Defendant Kaltenbrunner on one single occasion during a conference-the date of which I cannot at present remember-at the Reich Chancellery with Minister Lammers. I believe it was in 1944. Apart from that, I had no interview of any kind with Kaltenbrunner, nor did I reach any agreements with him on questions concerning the employment of labor.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: Yet the Defendant Kaltenbrunner placed police forces at your disposal for carrying out the recruitment of labor, did he not?
SAUCKEL: I have repeatedly emphasized the fact that the recruitment of workers was no concern of the Police. I must ask my defense counsel to submit the relevant regulations, of which there are numerous specimens available. They prove quite clearly and unequivocally and irrefutably the division of tasks between the Police and my department.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: Did the Police participate in the execution of these measures or did it not? I am not reproaching you now.
SAUCKEL: In my opinion the Police participated only in cases where the execution of administrative duties was rendered impossible in partisan areas. In White Ruthenia alone 1,500 local mayors were murdered by the partisans. This is seen from the document.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: But was recruitment, even in normal circumstances, not carried out by police methods? Did you know nothing at all about that?
SAUCKEL: I will tell you exactly what I know about it. There were in the occupied territories of Europe about 1,500 districts-
31 May 46
here I mean areas or departments, the Feldkommandanturen, which we in German administration would describe as being the size of a Kreis (district)-and these 1,500 districts contained 1,500 administrative centers staffed partly by local and partly by German personnel. In addition to this personnel, in the territories of the Soviet Union alone, 1,000 Russian workers who were previously employed in Germany were acting as recruiting officers. Now if each of these administrative centers, which would correspond to a German Landkreis and have a population of 40,000 to 70,000 inhabitants, selected in a proper way, examined, and tested five persons daily, that alone would amount to 2 million people a year; a perfectly clear method of administration, such as I ordered, organized, and carried out to the best of my administrative possibilities.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: You are giving needlessly detailed explanations in reply to these questions, and under such conditions the interrogation is being greatly prolonged. I consider it necessary that you answer briefly. You are perfectly able to do this, for I am putting the questions to you clearly.
SAUCKEL: I am trying to answer as briefly as possible. I regret that a specialized field is always difficult to understand and calls for explanations; I found it very difficult myself.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: Please answer: What part did the Defendant Kaltenbrunner play in the execution of measures on the allocation of labor? Did he participate in this or did he not?:
SAUCKEL: I have already given you that answer.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: I did not understand you. Did he participate or did he not?
THE PRESIDENT: I beg your pardon. He said that he only met Kaltenbrunner on one occasion and that the task of the recruitment of labor was not one for Police. That is what he said.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: It is not necessary to multiply the number of meetings in order for Kaltenbrunner to have participated in the execution of these measures. He did not have to meet Defendant Sauckel frequently.
THE PRESIDENT: General Alexandrov, I do not want you to argue with me. I have told you what his answer was. It seemed to be an answer to your question.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: I am not arguing. I am merely explaining the reason for this question.
[Turning to the defendant.] As far as the participation of Defendant Rosenberg is concerned, I shall not ask you any questions, as
31 May 46
Defendant Rosenberg gave sufficiently clear answers when questioned by my American colleague, Prosecutor Dodd. Now tell me, what part did Defendant Frick play in the execution of these measures?
SAUCKEL: Defendant Frick, as Reich Minister of the Interior- I do not know how long he remained in office-scarcely participated at all. As far as I can remember I had discussions with his Reich Ministry of the Interior concerning the most necessary laws to be promulgated within Germany for German workers and the validity of those laws. Apart from that, he had no further part in this task; his work was quite different.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: We are discussing the question of foreign manpower. It was not merely by accident that you mentioned, in a letter to Lammers written after a meeting at Hitler's headquarters on the 4 January 1944, that the Ministry of the Interior was among the government offices detailed to operate with you. That is why I ask you, what part did Defendant Frick play in the execution of these measures for the recruitment of labor? You yourself asked for the co-operation of the Ministry of the Interior. Then how was this co-operation to be expressed?
SAUCKEL: To my very great personal sorrow Frick was at that time no longer Reich Minister of the Interior, but Himmler-if I remember correctly.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: What co-operation did you expect from the Ministry of the Interior?
SAUCKEL: It is, I believe only natural that in every form of government the internal and the general administration should be kept informed of events occurring and should participate as well, and so important a sphere as the employment of human beings calls for many ordinances. I could not possibly issue legal decrees, nor had I authority to do so. I had to submit them to the Ministerial Council for the Defense of the Reich. I could only issue technical directions, and that is quite a different thing altogether.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: Were Defendant Funk, as Minister of Economics, and Defendant Speer, as Minister for Armaments, the principal intermediaries between the industrialists and yourself as suppliers of manpower? Is that correct?
SAUCKEL: The end of your sentence contains a very erroneous conclusion. They were not middlemen between myself and the industries, but the industries were responsible to the Ministry for Armaments. Of course there were personal instructions issued about this in the course of years. I did not negotiate with the industries. The industries asked for workers and they got them, as did the agricultural industries.
31 May 46
GEN. ALEXANDROV: Please tell me, what part did the Defendants Funk and Speer play in the execution of these measures? I do not want any long drawn-out explanations. Answer me briefly.
SAUCKEL: Those No ministers were heads of the various business enterprises inside German economy which came within the jurisdiction of their ministries. They received their workers, and that was the end of my task.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: Did the Defendants Frank, Seyss-Inquart, and Neurath participate in the execution of these measures for the allocation of labor in such territories as were under their jurisdiction? I mean the territories of Poland, Bohemia and Moravia, and Holland. Is that correct?
SAUCKEL:-These gentlemen, within the framework of their duties inside their own territories, supported me in issuing decrees and laws, and they themselves attached great importance to the proper and humane drafting of these laws and decrees.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: What was the part played by Defendant Fritzsche?
SAUCKEL: That I cannot tell you. I only met Dr. Fritzsche in Germany on one occasion-and that a very brief one-in, I believe, 1945, the beginning of 1945. I never spoke to him at all about my work, nor do I know whether he had anything to do with it. I can only state that I made repeated applications to the Reich Ministry for Propaganda to have my instructions and directives-as contained in the document books submitted by my defense counsel-widely circulated, particularly to the industries and other circles which received these workers.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: But one defendant is left-Bormann- and he is missing. What part did he play? He placed at your disposal the entire Party machinery of the NSDAP, did he not?
SAUCKEL: No, he did not. He placed the Gauleiter at my disposal. The instructions which I issued to the Gauleiter and the letters which I addressed to them-three of which are available here, and there never were many more of them-were to the effect that I was entitled to call on the Party for assistance in insuring the welfare, feeding, and clothing of the workers, and to see that they received everything that was humanly necessary and all we could possibly supply in view of existing wartime conditions. That was the role played by the Party, to the extent that it was asked to do so for me. Thus it was a form of control for the benefit of the foreign and German workers employed in Germany. Otherwise the Party had nothing to do with it. Incidentally, I did not much like interference on the part of outside offices.
31 May 46
GEN. ALEXANDROV: That is incorrect. I would remind you of your program for the allocation of labor which was issued in 1942. This is Document Number USSR-365 which states that the Gauleiter are appointed as your plenipotentiaries where the question of manpower is concerned, and that they will utilize this manpower.
SAUCKEL: Where does it say that? I could not appoint my plenipotentiaries myself.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: You will be shown the document in one moment. I do not quote the paragraph, I merely mention the contents, the gist of the paragraph, where it states that the Gauleiter will use the Party organizations in the districts subordinate to them: I therefore assume that the Party machinery as a whole participated in the execution of these measures.
SAUCKEL: It does not say so at all, Mr. Prosecutor.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: Have you found it: "The plenipotentiaries... make use of their..."?
SAUCKEL: Yes, and I did this only for the purpose I have described. Will you be good enough to read on?
GEN. ALEXANDROV: Read it yourself.
SAUCKEL: Thank you.
"The leaders of the highest departments of the state and of economy which are competent in shear respective Gaue shall advise and instruct the Gauleiter on all important questions dealing with the allocation of labor."
That means within the scope of their spheres of duty; and then the latter are specified:
"The president of the Regional Labor Office"-that is not a Party but a government department-"the Trustee for Labor" -not a Party but a government department-"the Regional Peasant Leader"-not a Party but a government department -"the Gau Economic Adviser"-now, that is a Party department . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Please observe the light, to be sure the interpreters are getting it.
SAUCKEL: I apologize, Your Lordship.
". . .the Gau representative of the Labor Front"-a department of the Labor Front-"the Regional Leaders of the Women's League..."
GEN. ALEXANDROV: Everything is perfectly clear, you need not enumerate. I should like to draw your attention to Subparagraph VI. It clearly states that the Gauleiter, functioning as plenipotentiaries for the allocation of labor, will, in their own Gaue' make use of the Party organizations under them. Is it written there?
31 May 46
GEN. ALEXANDROV: It next enumerates the methods by which this task was executed, also through what institutions and what authorities. I conclude from this subparagraph, which states that they will utilize the Party institutions under their control, that the entire organization of the NSDAP participated in the execution of these measures, and I wish you to answer "yes" or "no."
GEN. ALEXANDROV: There is no more to say.
SAUCKEL: No. May I supplement this reply of "no." You, in your first reply, told me that my description was not quite correct. My description is absolutely correct, that the Party was employed to deal with the welfare of German and foreign workers and to see to it that they were properly cared for and supplied. The Party organizations here mentioned were only entrusted with this kind of task, and could have had no other; and I, a former workman myself, was eager that these workers, both German and foreign, should be cared for as well as wartime conditions allowed. Hence this employment of Party organizations and no others. Therefore, my reply was absolutely correct.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: Did the district leaders of the Hitler Youth also participate in the execution of these measures?
SAUCKEL: The district leaders of the Hitler Youth participated in order to protect and care for the young people as expressly required by Reichsleiter Schirach and later by Reich Youth Leader Axmann. Protection had to be provided for the young people against any danger. The Hitler Youth did this, including young people employed from foreign countries. I must expressly emphasize this.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: Did you personally approve of the policy of the Hitlerite Government with regard to the deportation into slavery of the population of the occupied territories in order to insure the waging of a war of aggression? Did you approve of that policy?
SAUCKEL: I am forced to consider your question in the light of an accusation.
I personally have said over and over again that I had nothing to do with either foreign or domestic politics; nor was I a soldier, I meant to say. I received a task and I received orders. As a German, I tried to carry out that task correctly for the sake of my people and its government and to carry it out to the best of my ability, for it was made perfectly clear to me that the fate of my people depended on the accomplishment of this task. I worked with this
31 May 46
in mind, and I admit that I did my utmost to accomplish that task in the manner which I have pointed out here. I conceived this to be my duty and must acknowledge this fact here.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: In order to define your personal attitude to these crimes, I would like to remind you of a few of your own statements. These are taken from Document Number USSR-365. This document is a program for the utilization of labor in 1942, Page 9. You will now be shown the passage which I am about to quote: "I beg you to believe me, as an old and fanatical National Socialist Gauleiter..." Is it written there?
SAUCKEL: That is written there.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: Now we will go on to Document Number 566-PS. It is your telegram to Hitler dated 20 April 1943 which you sent during your flight to Riga. This telegram will now be handed to you and you will be shown the excerpt which I am about to read:
"I shall devote my entire strength with fanatical determination to the accomplishment of my task, and to justify your confidence."
Is that correct?
SAUCKEL: It is correct. I saw in Hitler, whom at that time I revered, a man who was the leader of the German people, who had been chosen by the German people; and I, as a German citizen and a member of a German government department, considered it my duty to justify by my work in my own sphere the confidence placed in me by the head of the State. I might say regarding this telegram . . .
GEN. ALEXANDROV: No explanations are needed about this telegram. I am not interested in your attitude towards Hitler. I am only interested in your personal attitude to those measures for compulsory labor which were carried out by you. It is essential to keep all questions within these limits. Now follows Document Number 1292-PS. This is a record of the meeting at Hitler's headquarters on 4 January 1944...
SAUCKEL: I request the permission of the Tribunal to add a few words to your last statement, Mr. Prosecutor. I was unable to see a criminal in Hitler at that time, and I never felt he was one; but I did feel obliged to do my duty, nothing else. As a human being and as the result of my upbringing I would never have supported crime.
THE PRESIDENT: What was your question, General? Simply whether this was a telegram sent to Hitler?
GEN. ALEXANDROV: I asked about the telegram, from which I have read one sentence into the record, in order to obtain a con-
31 May 46
firmation from the Defendant Sauckel that this telegram had been sent. I was not interested in anything else.
[Turning to the defendant.] The next document is 1292-PS. Have you got this document?
GEN. ALEXANDROV: You have already been shown the passage I am about to read. Your statement reads as follows: "GBA Sauckel declared that with fanatical determination he would attempt to secure this manpower."
You were, at that time, speaking of the mobilization of 4 million workers. It says further: "He would do everything in his power to obtain the manpower desired for 1944."
Did you say that? Is the statement correctly rendered in the minutes of the report?
SAUCKEL: I did say that, and I ask to be allowed to add the following to my affirmative reply. I knew that the German people, and they were my people, were in dire-may I add an explanation to my clear reply, stating why I answered as I did? I am entitled to do so.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: Defendant Sauckel, you accompany every answer you give with lengthy supplementary explanations. You are merely delaying the interrogation. I am quite satisfied with your reply; what you have told me is perfectly sufficient.
THE PRESIDENT: General, he has given a perfectly clear answer that he did say it, and I think he is entitled to give some word of explanation. It is perfectly true that his explanations are intolerably long, but he is entitled to give some explanation,
GEN. ALEXANDROV: Mr. President, if every answer is to be accompanied by such extensive explanations...
THE PRESIDENT: General Alexandrov, I have said that he is entitled to give some explanation.
[Turning to the defendant.] Now then; please make it short.
SAUCKEL: I knew that the German people were engaged in their most bitter struggle. It was my duty to carry on with my task with all my strength-that is what I meant by "fanatical." I further explained, in another sentence, that I could not accomplish my task that year. As far as I was able to accomplish it in 1944 two-thirds were German workers, not mainly aliens but more than two-thirds Germans; and I was trying my utmost to put all German women to work, as far as they were capable of working, and in 1944 there were over 2 million of them.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: In April 1943 in order to accelerate the deportation of manpower to Germany from the occupied territories
31 May 46
you visited Rovno, Kiev, Dniepropetrovsk, Zaporoahe, Simferopol, Minsk, and Riga. In June of the same year you visited Prague, Kiev, Krakow, Zaporoahe, and Melitopol. Is that correct?
SAUCKEL: That is true, and during those journeys I personally satisfied myself that my departments were working properly. That was the object of my journey.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: Thus you personally organized the deportation into slavery of the peaceful population of the occupied territories. Is that correct too?
SAUCKEL: I must protest against that statement in the most vehement and passionate way. I did not do that.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: Then why did you go to all these towns and inhabited places? Did you not do so in order to enforce the deportation of the people in the occupied territories?
SAUCKEL: I visited these areas to satisfy myself personally as to how my offices in these cities-I should not say "my," but the labor offices of the local administrations-were working; whether they were conscientiously carrying out their obligations towards the workers; whether they were attending to medical examinations, card indexing, et cetera, according to my instructions. That is why I went to those towns. I negotiated with the chiefs in the matter of quotas, that is quite true, since it was my task to recruit workers and to check the quotas, but during my visits to these cities I inspected the offices personally to satisfy myself that they were functioning properly.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: And also to insure the speedy deportation of compulsory labor to Germany? Is that correct?
SAUCKEL: To employ the best possible methods for the purpose in view. That is indisputably stated in my orders, and the manifesto which has been submitted to the Tribunal was written on this very journey which you have just mentioned.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: You specially visited these cities in order to improve the methods of compulsory recruitment? Have I understood you correctly?
SAUCKEL: I went to these towns to see for myself whether the methods were correct or not, and to discuss them with the departments. That is true, for it was not necessary for me to visit Kharkov, Kiev, or any other town to discuss my task in terms of figures. For that I would only have to talk to the reporter for the East, whose office was in Berlin, or with the Reich Commissioner-whom I did not contact as he was sometimes in Rovno.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: In your statements to your defense counsel you declared that no cases of criminal or illegal methods of
131 May 46
compulsory recruitment had ever come to your knowledge. Then what was the reason for such extensive trips to the occupied territories? Does it mean that some indication had already reached you that large-scale, illegal practices were taking place in the process of labor recruitment? Was that the reason for your journeys? You visited over 10 cities.
SAUCKEL: May I inform you, Mr. Prosecutor, while we are on this subject, that my defense counsel has already asked me that question and that I answered it with "yes," and that, generally speaking, whenever complaints reached me I discussed them with Rosenberg, and that wherever a wrong could be righted it was righted. Please hear my defense counsel and my witnesses in this connection . . .
GEN. ALEXANDROV: The witnesses will be called on the decision of the Tribunal. I should now like to ascertain that you took those trips in order to improve methods of recruitment. I have come to the logical conclusion that in all these towns, prior to your arrival, a certain lawlessness had prevailed and crimes had been committed during the recruiting of manpower. That is what I am speaking about. And now will you give me a definite answer as to why you visited these places?
SAUCKEL: I have already answered that question in every respect. However, I would add that I assume that you, Mr. Prosecutor, have yourself had sufficient administrative experience to realize that in every department, anywhere in every country of the world, it is a matter of course that administrative orders should be checked. One does not need to know that mistakes are made in human life and in every human organization; a control must be exercised all the same.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: If you deny that you went there in order to improve conditions and to suppress the crimes perpetrated in the course of labor recruitment, then you must have gone there to accelerate the deportation of manpower into Germany. It is one thing or the other. Choose for yourself.
SAUCKEL: No, I must emphatically deny that. I undertook these journeys in order to satisfy myself, within the scope of my duties, how this task was being carried out, and to stop defects which were reported to me, as for instance-as I once told my defense counsel during my interrogation-I had also been asked to do so by Field Marshal Kluge. But I also wanted to look into matters carefully and myself give appropriate admonitions and instructions to the departments. My best evidence of this is the manifesto produced during this journey.
31 May 48
THE PRESIDENT: General Alexandrov, can you tell the Tribunal how much longer you will be?
GEN. ALEXANDROV: I am afraid to make an exact statement, but I should imagine about 2 more hours.
THE PRESIDENT: You are not losing sight of the fact, are you, that we have already had a thorough cross-examination by the French Prosecutor?
GEN. ALEXANDROV: Mr. President . . .
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal hopes that you will try to make your cross-examination as short as possible, and the Tribunal will adjourn now.
[A recess was taken.]
GEN. ALEXANDROV: Defendant Sauckel, tell us what attitude you, as Plenipotentiary General adopted toward the employment of Soviet prisoners of war in the German industries?
SAUCKEL: I must reply to your question by saying that I had no collaborators in the employment of prisoners of war, for I did not employ prisoners of war.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: And you never saw to their mobilization; you never registered them?
SAUCKEL: As the authorized mediating agency I had to have the administrative measures carried out through the labor offices, or the Gau labor offices, which served as intermediaries between the factories and the Stalags or the generals in charge of prisoner-of-war affairs, who in their turn supplied prisoners of war for the industries.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: And what were these organizations? What kind of organizations were they?
SAUCKEL: They were either the generals in charge of prisoner-of-war establishments in the military administrative districts, or the organizations of the industries, or the factories themselves. These worked through the respective ministries, such as the Reich Ministry of Food and Agriculture, in which case the majority of the prisoners were billeted with farmers for work on the land or in war industries.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: In other words, you had nothing to do with it? I would remind you...
SAUCKEL: I had to include the labor offices and the Gau labor offices to the extent that they had undertaken to act officially as intermediaries, but only if they did not act directly between the factories and the Stalags.
31 May 46
GEN. ALEXANDROV: I shall now quote an excerpt from your report to Hitler on 27 July 1942. It is Document Number 1296-PS. In this report, Part III, there is a particular section. It is entitled. ..
SAUCKEL: II or III, please?
GEN. ALEXANDROV: III. It is entitled: "Employment of Soviet Russian Prisoners of War." You write there:
"In addition to the employment of civilian manpower, I have increased the employment of Soviet prisoners of war, according to plan, in co-operation with the Prisoners of War Organization of the OKW."
And further on.
"I particularly stress the importance of a further increased and expedited deportation of the maximum number of prisoners of war possible from the front to work within the Reich."
Is this correct?
SAUCKEL: That is correct, and it corresponds exactly to what I have stated before.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: It does not altogether correspond.
SAUCKEL: But it does.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: You mentioned that you did not have anything to do with the employment of prisoners" of war in the German industries and now, in your report, you give perfectly different data. So I am asking you, in connection with what I have read into the record: Did you not plan in advance the employment of Soviet prisoners of war as workers in the industries? That was provided for in your plans and your report covers that. Was that so, or was it not?
SAUCKEL: I must point out one fundamental error on your part. Labor procurement, the whole world over, whether operated by the state or by private individuals, is not an organization or institution which exploits workers, but rather which procures workers. I must establish this fundamental error. It was my duty to provide the necessary connection, so that prisoners of war in Stalags in the occupied territories-let us say in the Government General-could be registered by local generals in charge of prisoner-of-war establishments, for work contemplated in Germany in certain agricultural or other sectors, and then allotted accordingly. Employment of labor in factories was not under my supervision and had nothing to do with me.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: In other words, you participated in supplying Soviet prisoners of war for utilization in German industry. Is that correct?
31 May 46
SAUCKEL: That is not correct, according to my use of the German language, as I understand you. Rather, to act as agent is quite a different thing from utilization; concerning this, other gentlemen would have to comment. I can only speak as far as agency is concerned. In Germany this was managed by the State. In other countries it is managed privately. That is the difference, but I have never exploited anybody. As Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor I did not employ a single worker.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: Did you know that the Soviet prisoners of war were being employed in the armament industries in Germany?
SAUCKEL: It was known to me that Soviet prisoners of war were being employed in the German war industry for this industry was vast and widespread, and covered the most varied branches.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: Were you acquainted, in particular, with the directive of Defendant Keitel regarding the employment of Soviet prisoners of war in the mining industry? This directive is dated 8 January 1943. Do you know anything at all about this directive?
SAUCKEL: I cannot recollect it in detail. I have not got it. Will you be good enough to put it before me?
The document was handed to the defendant.]
GEN. ALEXANDROV: Have you read it?
SAUCKEL: I have read it.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: It clearly mentions the employment of Soviet prisoners of war in the mining industry for military purposes. Is that correct?
SAUCKEL: It refers to the employment of prisoners of war in the mining industry in Germany.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: For what purpose? It is clearly stated in this document.
SAUCKEL: For employment in the mining industry.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: But for what purpose? What purpose was it to serve? It is clearly stated here.
SAUCKEL: For work, I presume.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: In the interest of the war?
SAUCKEL: Well, as a matter of fact, the German mining industry did not only work in the interest of the war; Germany also supplied quite a lot of coal to neutral countries. It varied according to circumstances.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: Follow this document; read it with me:
31 May 46
"For the execution of the expanded iron and steel program the E Fuehr ordered on 7 July the absolute guarantee..."
SAUCKEL: I have not been given the part you are reading.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: "For the execution of the expanded iron and steel program the E Fuehr ordered on 7 July the absolute guarantee of the coal and means of production needed. For this purpose he has also ordered that the necessary manpower be supplied by prisoners of war."
Now, have you found the place?
SAUCKEL: Yes, I have read it.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: Thus the Soviet prisoners of war were to be employed in the mining industry for the purposes of the war. Is that right? The fact is definitely established by this document.
SAUCKEL: Yes; it says so-I might remark that this document is not addressed to me.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: I asked you whether you knew of this document. You said "yes," did you not?
SAUCKEL: I am not acquainted with it-no; I do not know it now. I did not know it previously as it was not addressed to me.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: You said that, broadly speaking, you did know about this directive and you asked me to allow you to acquaint yourself with it in detail. This is how it was translated to me.
SAUCKEL: No; I told you-and I should like to emphasize this- that I did not remember; I only asked that this document might perhaps be placed before me. The document is not addressed to me. The office to which it is addressed is clearly indicated and according to that it never came into my hands nor reached my office.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: In order that you may fully understand this question, I shall give you Exhibit USA-206. That is your directive of the 22 August 1942 with regard to supplying manpower by means of importation from the occupied territories. Do you know about this directive?
THE PRESIDENT: What is the PS number?
GEN. ALEXANDROV: One minute, please. Unfortunately I have no information about the PS number. All I have is the USA Exhibit Number, which is 206. Defendant Sauckel...
THE PRESIDENT: Have the United States prosecutors got the corresponding number to USA-206?
MR. DODD: I could have it in a few minutes, Mr. President. I do not have it right at my fingertips, but I will obtain it.
THE PRESIDENT: Right; thank you.
31 May 46
GEN. ALEXANDROV: Defendant Sauckel, Subparagraph 8 of this order states: "This order applies also to prisoners of war." Does it contain a reference of this description?
GEN. ALEXANDROV: Therefore, you yourself did not differentiate between prisoners of war and the civilian population as far as their utilization in the German war industries was concerned. Do you admit that?
SAUCKEL: Yes, and I have already replied to my defense counsel, I think it was yesterday, that a catalog was given to me and the Ministry of Labor in general showing how prisoners of war might be employed. But this Paragraph 8 has nothing to do with this document, for that was an agreement or an order which did not come to me and was also not addressed to me.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: Mr. President, Exhibit USA-206 bears the following number: 3044-PS.
[Turning to the defendant.] In addition to those statements to your defense counsel which you have just mentioned, you also declared that, although employing prisoners of war in the German war industries, the requirements of the Geneva and Hague Conventions were nevertheless observed. Do you remember saying that?
SAUCKEL: Yes, and it is also proved by documentary evidence that in the Reich Ministry of Labor, and in my offices, the directive Divas issued and circulated that the Geneva Convention was also to be observed with regard to Soviet prisoners of war.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: You did not differentiate at all between Soviet prisoners of war and civilian workers? Does that result from the foregoing?
SAUCKEL: No, that is not so at all.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: In other words, a violation of these conventions occurred in the utilization of manpower, inasmuch as they, the prisoners of war, were treated by you in the same way as the civilians, and were utilized in industries for the purpose of waging war.
SAUCKEL: In that case, I must have misunderstood you, or you may have misunderstood me. I particularly declared that I did attach importance to it, and that it was printed and that during the time I was in office a special copy was published for the factories and the interested parties in which it was stipulated that the Geneva Convention was to be observed. I could do no more than that.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: Your defense counsel questioned you in connection with the operation known under the code name of "Hay."
31 May 46
You answered his question as follows and I quote from the transcript: "Sauckel: No, I had nothing to do with these particular measures."
I shall now hand you a letter from Alfred Meyer dated 11 July 1944. This is Document Number 199-PS. It is a letter addressed to you. Will you please study Subparagraph 1; it reads:
"Army recruiting staff 'Mitte,' hitherto stationed in Minsk, must continue its activities with regard to the recruitment of young White Ruthenian and Russian workers for military employment within the Reich. The staff has the additional task of bringing into the Reich young folk from 10 to 14 years of age."
Have you found this passage?
SAUCKEL: I have read the passage and my reply is that the letter, to be sure, is addressed to me, but only for my information, and I had nothing to do with those proceedings either in my office or personally. I have-that was-it has been mentioned already in the case of the Defendant Schirach-that was carried out within those offices, and the Allocation of Labor, as an office was not involved in it. I personally do not remember it.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: What were your relations with the army recruiting staff Mitte? Was that your staff?
SAUCKEL: I do not understand your question. What staff do you mean?
GEN. ALEXANDROV: The staff referred to in Alfred Meyer's letter, staff Mitte, dealing with the employment of labor.
SAUCKEL: I cannot find the word "staff."
GEN. ALEXANDROV: Right in the beginning of the sentence: "It is imperative that the army recruiting staff. . . "
SAUCKEL: The army recruiting staff Mitte is a term completely unknown to me. I do not know what it was, or whether it was a military or a civil office. It had nothing to do with me. I do not know it.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: You have testified here that the Reich Security Office had introduced special identification badges for people brought in from the occupied territories. For the Soviet citizens the badge was-can you not hear me?
SAUCKEL: I cannot understand the translation.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: You have testified before the Tribunal that for people brought in from the occupied territories special identification badges were introduced. For the Soviet citizens the marking was "Ost," for Polish citizens it was the letter "P." You
31 May 46
testified that you were not in agreement with the marking. What did you do to stop this insult?
SAUCKEL: I persistently tried to avoid the identification markings altogether. But the Reichsfuehrer SS categorically demanded- to the best of my knowledge there is a letter from him to that effect-that these foreign workers who, at my request, were free to move about Germany, should bear a distinguishing mark when they went out of their camps. It was no insult. I should like to emphasize expressly that I did not look on this as an insult.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: That is your point of view. Did you discuss the matter at all with your immediate superior, the Defendant Goering?
SAUCKEL: I can no longer remember today whether I spoke directly to Goering or not. I can only declare that I made repeated efforts to stop the practice, and that in the spring of 1944, in March I believe, my efforts were actually crowned with success and the small badge "Ost" was changed to a national badge on the sleeve, as had been suggested by liaison officers for the various peoples in the East.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: I asked you whether you discussed the matter with Goering?
SAUCKEL: I cannot remember. Perhaps I did; perhaps not. It was frequently discussed.
THE PRESIDENT: General Alexandrov, I think you might pass on from this.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: In reply to questions by your defense counsel and by my French colleague in regard to Speer's attitude to your appointment as Plenipotentiary General, you mentioned that you did not know anything at all about it. You will now be handed an article from the newspaper, Voelkischer Beobachter. This is Exhibit Number USSR-467 and I am submitting it to the Tribunal. This article was published on 28 March 1942 in connection with your appointment as Plenipotentiary General. It has even got your photograph, as you can see for yourself. Have you found the passage with the following statement:
"The appointment, at the wish of Reich Minister Speer, of Gauleiter Sauckel was also due to the extraordinary importance of labor allocation in the armament industry."
We assume that you must have read the article. Did you read the article?
SAUCKEL: I really cannot say so positively at this moment. It is however possible or probable. I did not have much time to read the papers then. But I should like to tell you very definitely,
31 May 46
Mr. Prosecutor, that during my term of office I transferred over 5 million German workers from the most widely different branches of German industry to the armament industry. Therefore, it was a task which dealt principally with German workers and their transfer.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: I was interested in something else: Why was Defendant Speer interested in your personal appointment as Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor? That is what I wanted to ascertain. Can you tell me anything in this respect?
SAUCKEL: I Cannot tell you why Reich Minister Speer was interested in my appointment. I have already told my defense counsel that I myself was surprised at the time.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: Your defense counsel acquainted you with Document EC-68 during the session of May 29. This document deals with the treatment of foreign workers of Polish nationality. I shall not dwell upon the subject, since your defense counsel has already quoted the document in detail, and I will limit myself to your reply intended for your defense counsel, as it appears in the transcript of that session.
I read from the transcript:
"Sauckel: First of all, I should like to point out that this document is dated 6 March 1941-that is more than one year before I assumed office.... Since this document, Number 4, has been submitted to the Tribunal' I must add supplementary documents to my case which confirm that I automatically destroyed all such unnecessary directives.... In such a case I could not have issued orders of this description to any government office in the Reich."
Do you remember these depositions given at the session of the 29th of May the current year?
THE PRESIDENT: General, I am told that this is an incorrect translation. It was "revoked" and not "destroyed." You said "destroyed," did you not?
GEN. ALEXANDROV: I am reading from the Russian transcript and perhaps there are certain inaccuracies in it, but I do not object to replacing "destroy" by "revoke." The meaning remains the same.
SAUCKEL: May I ask for the context to be repeated? It is not quite clear.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: No, I do not want to revert to Document EC-68. All I want is to establish what you said in reply to your
31 May 46
defense counsel in connection with this document. You do not contradict your testimony which I have just read into the record? Does it correspond to the statement you made here on the 29th of May?
SAUCKEL: No. But I do not understand what the term "destroyed" has to do with it.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: We should not read "destroy," but should use the word "revoke."
SAUCKEL: That is possible.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: So you confirm the testimony which I have just read into the record from the transcript.
Now, tell us, do you remember the living conditions you imposed on the Ukrainian women and girls from the occupied territories, on those who had been mobilized for work in German agriculture?
I shall now hand you Document Number USSR-383. [The document was handed to the defendants]
THE PRESIDENT: Do you have the PS number?
GEN. ALEXANDROV: No, Sir; that is a USSR document.
[Turning to the defendant.] There is an addendum, Number 2, to your directive dated 8 September 1942. This addendum is entitled, "Memorandum for housewives concerning the employment of domestic workers from the East in urban and rural households." Do you know this document? This memorandum?
GEN. ALEXANDROV: I shall now quote a few excerpts in order to describe the conditions which you imposed on those Ukrainian women and girls who had been sent to work on agricultural tasks in Germany. Please find Section B. "Registration with the Police, Identification, Supervision." Have you found that section?
SAUCKEL: No. not quite.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: Section B. Have you found it?
SAUCKEL: Page 4?
GEN. ALEXANDROV: Section B. "Registration with the Police, Identification, Supervision," contains the following instructions:
"The Eastern female worker is obliged to wear the identification badge 'Ost' on the right breast of each of her outer garments."
SAUCKEL: I cannot find it. I have not found it.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: You will find it later. That order is included there.
SAUCKEL: Yes; but, please, I must be able to follow you.
31 May 46
GEN. ALEXANDROV: Have you found it?
GEN. ALEXANDROV: Now Paragraph 4. It is entitled "Labor Conditions." It is written there:
"Women domestic workers from the East employed in the
Reich are under special working conditions.
We shall see later on what these special conditions were. Please find Paragraph 9, Sentence 1, "Free Time." The opening sentence states:
"No claim to free time exists."
SAUCKEL: Yes, but I must ask you to read on. It says exactly the same as in the case of the German household staff, who also. . .
GEN. ALEXANDROV: I shall now read the whole of Paragraph 9 into the record.
THE PRESIDENT: General, I do not think you should interrupt him when he is making a legitimate explanation. You should wait until he has made his explanation, and then draw attention to anything in the rest of the document that you wish to. Now, what did you wish to say, Defendant?
SAUCKEL: I asked for a further part to be read. There is a sentence in which it is stated a weekly outing can nevertheless be granted. May I read the sentence once more:
"Women domestic workers from the East may, as a matter
of principle, only go outside the confines of the household when attending to household matters. However, on a probationary basis, as a reward, the opportunity may be given them once a week to remain outside the household for 3 hours without having work to do."
The same also held good for German domestic workers at that time. Free time amounts to the same thing.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: It is written differently here. No free time was allowed them. It says:
".... as a reward, the opportunity may be given them to remain outside the household once a week 3 hours without having work to do. This outing must end before darkness falls, but by 2000 hours at the latest."
So there is no mention here of a day off, but of 3 hours off. Now find Paragraph 10.
SAUCKEL: But I did not say that. Because of the blackout, this curfew applied also to German employees during the war.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: Now find Paragraph 10: "Leave and return home." That is the heading of this particular passage. Have you found it? It is written:
31 May 46
"For the time being no leave shall be granted. Women domestic workers from the East are recruited for an indefinite time."
SAUCKEL: I should like to add, in this connection...
THE PRESIDENT: General, I think you can pass on from this. You know-this is not a matter of very great importance.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: Mr. President, I should like Defendant Sauckel to explain the discrepancies which have arisen in his testimony with regard to Document EC-68, and with regard to what was written in his directive concerning the employment of Ukrainian women for domestic service in Germany. I wish to receive this reply in order to eliminate the discrepancies which have arisen.
SAUCKEL: I am in a position to answer that question very precisely.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: Yes?
SAUCKEL: This directive was not composed by me alone. Quite a large number of paragraphs were introduced at that time by the Reichsfuehrer SS. Already as far back as the spring of 1943 I succeeded in having these paragraphs altered and the indefinite time of employment for the Eastern Workers was limited to 2 years. Furthermore, in a document which I believe my defense counsel will also submit to the Tribunal, it is proved that the removal of the restrictions applied to the Eastern Workers was the result of my endeavors. I tried to remove these restrictions in the very beginning, as I correctly stated in my first answer, so that the Eastern Workers stood on equal footing to other foreign workers and to the German workers.
That was my aim and my conception of my duty as I performed it. I was particularly glad to do this for the Eastern Workers as they were the best workers we had in Germany.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: I now go on to the next question. On 18 August 1942 you had a meeting with Defendant Frank in Krakow. I shall read out what has been written about this meeting in Frank's diary. That is Document Number USSR-223. In the diary for 1942, Volume III, Page 918, is written:
- "I am happy to be able to inform you officially that we have so far transported more than 800,000 workers into the Reich.
"A short time ago you applied for 140,000 more workers.
"Over and above this figure of 140,000, however, you can next year count on a further number of workers from the Government General, for we shall employ the Police for recruiting purposes."
31 May 46
Does that tally with the actual facts? Did such a conversation between you and Frank take place? Has it been correctly entered in his diary?
SAUCKEL: I cannot possibly confirm an entry which I have never seen before, and details of which I cannot possibly recollect. I therefore cannot say that all of it is correct. Those were future possibilities visualized by Herr Frank. I can, however, on the strength of the documents before me, say that the employment of Polish civilian workers...
THE PRESIDENT: If you do not remember, why can you not say so and stop?
GEN. ALEXANDROV: But did he speak to you about resorting to police methods in the recruitment of manpower, or did he not mention it? Do you remember this, or do you not?
SAUCKEL: I cannot possibly remember this communication which took place in 1942. Conditions at that time were so utterly different.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: In his activities, where the recruiting of manpower was concerned, did Defendant Funk resort to police measures or not? Do you know about it?
SAUCKEL: I cannot, from my own knowledge, tell you whether the Governor General solved this problem by the employment of police forces or not. Please ask him himself.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: I am submitting a document to the Tribunal, Document Number USSR-469, which describes the methods of labor recruitment as applied in the territory of Poland. This document is an official directive, printed by the Kreishauptmann of the Minsk and Warsaw district. It is dated 2 February 1943. This directive was handed to Kazimir Navak, who was born on the 6 May 1926, and resided in Dyzin in the Kolbey community. It reads:
"Pursuant to the compulsory service decree dated 13 May 1942 Verordnungsblatt, GO, Page 255, I direct you to labor service in the Reich."
The following stands at the bottom of this page:
"In case of insubordination..."
THE PRESIDENT: Is this a document you are putting in evidence now for the first time?
GEN. ALEXANDROV: This document is being presented for the first time.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we have not got the document. Have you any copies of it?
31 May 46
GEN. ALEXANDROV: Yes, it should have been handed to you. The document, Mr. President, is not included in the document book.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you offering it now for the first time, or is it already in evidence?
Did you not hear that?
GEN. ALEXANDROV: Yes, I hear you, Mr. President. This document is being presented for the first time.
THE PRESIDENT: We do not seem to have it anyhow. I mean, I have not a copy of it.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: The original document has just been handed to the defendant, and he has got it. The copies in German were handed to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: I have it now in German.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: It is stated at the bottom of this decree:
"Should you disobey this compulsory service decree, the members of your family (parents, wife, brothers, sisters, and children) will be placed in a punitive camp and will be liberated only after you have presented yourself. Moreover, I reserve for myself the right to confiscate your personal and real property as well as the personal and real property of the members of your family. Moreover you, in accordance with Paragraph 5 of the above-mentioned decree, will be punished with confinement in prison, or with penal servitude, or with internment in a concentration camp.
"Kreishauptmann Dr. Bittrich."
Did you know anything about the application of such methods for the recruitment of manpower in the territory of Poland and of the existence of Defendant Frank's decrees?
SAUCKEL: I can openly and clearly answer that the threat of such penalties in this form was completely unknown to me and that I would never have mentioned it. If I had learned of it, I would have stopped it immediately. I must, however, beg permission to tell the Tribunal that this appendix at the end of the document, regarded as coming from my office, is incorrect, and was not sanctioned by me. The first paragraph of this document reads correctly and I request permission to quote it. It is in keeping with German labor legislation and runs:
"Pursuant to the compulsory service decree, Verordnungsblatt, GO, Page 255, dated 13 May 1942, I direct you to labor service in the Reich.
"Your employment in the Reich will be under properly regulated working conditions and your wages will be paid according to a regular scale. Wage savings can be transmitted
31 May 46
regularly by you to your home. Close relatives, to whose support you have hitherto been substantially contributing, may apply to the labor office for special allowances."
GEN. ALEXANDROV: Was that written at the bottom of the decree?
THE PRESIDENT: I do not think we need the details.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: I want to remind you now of certain directives which were issued with regard to the so-called recruitment of labor, directives which were issued by your government organizations in Germany, and personally by yourself in your own famous program. The document is Document Number USSR-365, and you wrote the following...
SAUCKEL: I have not got it here.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: You will be helped to find it.
Have you been shown the passage which I am now going to read into the record?
GEN. ALEXANDROV: It is written there: "It is therefore unavoidably necessary to exhaust completely the manpower reserves now available in the conquered Soviet territories. If it is not possible to obtain required workers on a voluntary basis then steps must be taken immediately to conscript them or bring in compulsion." Did you issue these instructions?
SAUCKEL: I have not found these passages so far. They have not been pointed out to me properly.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: You will at once be shown the passage again.
Did you ever issue these instructions?
SAUCKEL: I myself was not able to issue orders for compulsory service in the occupied territories, that had to be done by the district authorities. But by compulsion I did not understand that penalties would be threatened to the extent as stated in that one document signed by Bittrich, but that they would be in keeping with German regulations. That is a very substantial difference.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: Was that which I have just read out to you included in your program or not?
SAUCKEL: It is in my program-but I have expressly stated that I was directed to do that by the E Fuehr.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: Let us proceed. In the letter of 3 October 1942 addressed to Gauleiter Meyer you wrote-this document,
31 May 46
Number 017-PS will be handed to you in a moment. Please follow me when I read:
"I do not underestimate the difficulties connected with the execution of the new task, but I am convinced that with the ruthless employment of all means"-I should like to underline that 'all means'-"and with the absolute devotion of all concerned, the new quota can be filled by the date fixed."
Did you write that?
SAUCKEL: I wrote that, yes. But I want you to let me give you an explicit explanation: In all my directives I invariably demanded the most considerate treatment for the workers; that has already been proved in the Trial. When I refer here to the ruthless use of all means, I only mean the ruthless use of all technical means and propaganda, because I had been told from different sources that such means were not available there to a sufficient degree. This is an explanation of what led up to this letter.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: On 31 March 1942 you addressed a letter to the Reich commissioners. This letter will be presented to you in a few minutes. It is Document Number USSR-137. Here you wrote as follows:
"I request that the recruitment, for which you together with the commissioners are responsible to me, be speeded up on your part by adequate measures, if necessary by the application of compulsory labor in the severest form, so that the recruitment figures may be trebled in the shortest possible time."
Did you issue this directive?
SAUCKEL: That is my directive and I issued it. By the severest use of compulsory labor I meant no wicked or criminal measures, but rather, if it was necessary that it should be used, it was with reference to the number, the number to be made up.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: I shall now quote a few excerpts from the documents of other people. I shall begin by reading an excerpt from a speech by Defendant Rosenberg, Document Number USSR-170, which was delivered at the conference of the German Labor Front in November 1942. I shall quote a brief excerpt from this speech:
". . . millions of Russians, trembling with fright, react in the same way..."
SAUCKEL: I have not found it.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: You will be helped in one moment. THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps we had better adjourn now.
[The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours.]
31 May 40
DR. NELTE: I should like to draw the Tribunal's attention to the following fact: General Alexandrov this morning referred to Document Number 744-PS. First of all a document was given me which was described as a German translation. That translation contains things which are obviously impossible.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Nelte, you said 744?
DR. NELTE: 744-PS.
THE PRESIDENT: I haven't got any note that he referred to that document. I don't know whether he-did you refer to 744-PS this morning, General Alexandrov?
GEN. ALEXANDROV: I referred this morning to the document in question. It was a directive of the Defendant Keitel, dated 8 July 1943, referring to the employment of prisoners of war in the mining industry.
DR. NELTE: Then the Russian Prosecution presented me with the original, that is the photostatic copy of a letter dated 8 July 1943, signed by Keitel. I now have two German versions before me. Not only do they differ greatly as far as the contents are concerned, but also the translation contains something additional which is not in the original, namely that to the heading of the letter, "Chief of the High Command of the Wehrmacht," is added "Army General Staff."
I do not want to delay you by reading the other incorrect translations, but I must assume that you have before you the texts in the foreign languages, which, as I see from the translation back into German, are incorrect. As this document, the original, is the evidence and is not being objected to, I should like to ask you to order that the translations in the foreign languages, which you have before you, be checked in order to find out to what extent they differ from the original document.
THE PRESIDENT: Had the document been put in evidence before? Had it been offered in evidence? Was it an exhibit?
GEN. ALEXANDROV: 744-PS.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, that does not mean that it has been put in evidence. That only means that it is identified in that way. Had it been offered in evidence before?
GEN. ALEXANDROV: I do not know the U.S.A. number of this document, but according to the data at my disposal I am able to state that it was submitted in evidence to the Tribunal. In the German copy, presented in the German language, it is written that the
31 May 43
German translation was made on 26 November 1945 by Second Lieutenant of the U. S. Infantry, Fred Niebergall. As Dr. Nelte has discovered certain inaccuracies in the translation, I consider that the Translation Division should be asked to check these divergencies.
DR. NELTE: I am convinced, Mr. President . . .
THE PRESIDENT: I think that is the best thing to do, to have it checked by the Translation Division. We will order that that shall
be done at once.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: [Turning to the defendant.] The transcript of Defendant Rosenberg's speech will be handed over to you immediately. I shall limit myself to a very short excerpt from this transcript. Please read after me:
"Part of them imagine that the road to Germany is somewhat similar to the road to Siberia."
"I know that if 1.5, million people are brought here, they cannot be given the best accommodations. The fact that thousands of people are badly housed or badly treated is obvious. It is not worth while worrying about that. However, this is a very reasonable question, and I believe that Gauleiter Sauckel has already discussed it, or will do so. These people from the East are being brought to Germany in order to work and to endeavor to reach as high a level of production as possible. This is quite a reasonable transaction. In order to reach this production capacity one should naturally not bring them over three-quarters frozen or let them stand for 10 hours. One must rather give them enough to eat that they will have reserve strength."
Does Defendant Rosenberg correctly describe the conditions in which the workers you brought from the occupied territories found themselves, or do you consider that Defendant Rosenberg has not described them correctly?
SAUCKEL: I cannot say and do not know when Rosenberg made this speech. I myself did not hear it or receive a copy of it. I can, however, definitely state that as soon as I came into office I made most extensive arrangements, so that the conditions which Rosenberg discusses here-and which can have nothing to do with my term of office-might be avoided under all circumstances. It was for that purpose that I issued those most comprehensive orders. To prevent such conditions I planned hundreds of valid and binding instructions of a legal nature, affecting every nationality working in Germany, which would make such conditions impossible. That is what I have to say to that. It cannot refer to conditions during my term of office.
31 May 46
GEN. ALEXANDROV Mr. President, I shall limit myself to this one single excerpt from the speech of the Defendant Rosenberg, and I shall not avail myself of the numerous documents already presented to the Tribunal, documents which confirm beyond all manner of doubt the criminal methods applied-with the full cognizance of the Defendant Sauckel-for the mobilization of manpower in the occupied territories and for the exploitation of the workers as slaves in Germany.
I shall only submit to the Tribunal one single new document, listed as Document Number USSR-468. This document is a worker's identity card issued by the German authorities in Breslau to a Polish citizen, Maria Atler. This card is characterized by the fact that it is stamped on the reverse side with the image of a pig. Maria Atler has stated on oath that such worker's identity cards were issued to all foreign workers in 1944 by the German authorities in Breslau. Together with this original document I am submitting a certificate of the Polish State Commission which quotes the testimony of the witness Maria Atler.
[Turning to the defendant.] Defendant Sauckel, have you looked at that worker's identity card? Have you found the image of a pig on that card?
GEN. ALEXANDROV: Did you know of the existence of such workers' cards, stamped with the image of a pig as an insult to human dignity?
SAUCKEL: I did not have cards like that, and I knew nothing about it. I cannot quite make out what this image is meant to be. I have nothing at all to do with this. I am not familiar with such an identification mark on a card and do not know what I am to say about it. I do not know whether it was possible for some labor administration office to use such identification marks or not. I should like permission to see the original.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: Did you know of the existence of such cards and of their utilization?
SAUCKEL: No, I had no idea of the existence of such cards with images like that. It was not to my advantage, and I had no reason at all to offend such people who were working in Germany. I had no idea of that, and I do not know what this was meant to be.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: I shall now quote a brief excerpt from Document Number USSR-170. This is a transcript of the minutes of a conference held with Reich Marshal Goering on 6 August 1942. I shall quote that part of the statement in which the Defendant Goering expresses his appreciation of your activities. I quote:
31 May 46
"To that I must say that I do not wish to praise Gauleiter Sauckel; he does not need it. But what he has done in this brief time to collect workers from all over Europe and bring them to our factories with such rapidity is a unique feat. I will say this to you all: If everybody in his own sphere would apply a tenth of the energy which Gauleiter Sauckel has applied, then indeed the tasks which have been assigned to you would be easily fulfilled. That is my inner conviction and not mere words."
Did you hear such an appreciation of your activities from the lips of Reich Marshal Goering?
SAUCKEL: It is possible that the Reich Marshal said that. I cannot remember the details of a meeting that took place so long ago. What is correct is that I, as a human being and as a member of my nation, was obliged to do my duty. My documents prove that I tried to do my duty decently and humanely. I did my utmost to do that.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: I now submit to the Tribunal a document listed as Document Number USSR-462. It is an article by Dr. Friedrich Didier, published in the Reichsarbeitsblatt of 1944. This is an official publication of the Reich Ministry of Labor and of the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor. The article is entitled "Fritz Sauckel on his Fiftieth Birthday."
I do not intend to quote this article as it is written entirely in praise of Sauckel's activities, and there is no reason to dwell on it. I only wish to ask you, Defendant Sauckel, are you acquainted with this article?
SAUCKEL: I do not know this article. I cannot say what is in it. I was not always able to read through the Reichsarbeitsblatt-it wasn't published by me. It is an old institution of the Labor Ministry which contains all the decrees published by that Ministry and also my decrees. The decrees in the Reichsarbeitsblatt all testify to my concern for foreign and for German workers.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: Then you will have to acquaint yourself very rapidly with the contents of this article. It will be handed to you immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: What document is this he is reading?
GEN. ALEXANDROV: It is an article in the Reichsarbeitsblatt entitled "Fritz Sauckel on his Fiftieth Birthday." We are submitting this document for the first time as Document Number USSR-462. [Turning to the defendant.] Are you now conversant with it? Tell us, does this article correctly characterize your political and governmental activity?
31 May 46
SAUCKEL: The author of this article is not an expert. I cannot make any further comments on the contents of a birthday article. It contains a very cursory description of my career and my sphere of work.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: And now, one last question. In your speech at the first meeting of the staffs for the Allocation of Labor, held in Weimar on 6 January 1943, you stated-and I quote from the third document book of your defense counsel, Document Number Sauckel-82:
"Now, where the foundations of our work are concerned . . ."- I skip the first paragraph and pass directly to the second- "We are true to our E Fuehr and to our people. This loyalty justifies us in the execution of the harshest measures."-And then, at the end-"In this respect I will assume ever-increasing responsibility."
Tell us now, are you assuming responsibility for the enforced mass deportation into slavery of the population of the occupied territories, for the suffering and misery of the millions you drove into slavery, for the grim period of slaveholding which you revived in the twentieth century?
SAUCKEL: I am most grateful to you that you quoted this document at this very moment. Would you show me this document so that I can give the correct explanation of my views as contained therein?
GEN. ALEXANDROV: If necessary, your defense counsel will acquaint you with this document.
Mr. President, I have finished my cross-examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, do you want to re-examine?
DR. THOMA: Witness, what was Rosenberg's role, as Minister for the Occupied Eastern Territories, in the execution of the Allocation of Labor?
SAUCKEL: The Minister for the Occupied Eastern Territories, in carrying out the Allocation of Labor, had to pass on my wishes and demands to the offices under him in that Ministry insofar as they related to my tasks. I cannot, of course, comment on the other departments in the Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories, which I do not know.
DR. THOMA: Did not Rosenberg tell you repeatedly that he would give Reich Commissioner Koch directions to make use of his authority?
SAUCKEL: That is correct. It was one of Rosenberg's tasks to give orders to Reich Commissioner Koch, who was under him, in every field of administration there.
31 May 46 ,
DR. THOMA: So that the way you understood it was that he was to give him instructions. In what way?
SAUCKEL: Rosenberg did and should-as we had expressly agreed-give instructions to Koch to put a stop to any wild and objectionable methods which were contrary to my instructions; and that Rosenberg did, as far as I know.
DR. THOMA: Rosenberg, by referring to the authority of the Reich Commissioner, meant that he was to prohibit your recruiting methods and no longer permit your recruiting units to bring away Eastern Workers?
SAUCKEL: Rosenberg never said that to me, rather he denied it; for these commissions, while they were in the Ukraine, were subordinate to and part of the labor allocation department of Reich Commissioner Koch. Koch was the supervising authority and the administrative authority for such matters. Those are the undeniable facts.
DR. THOMA: May I point out to the Tribunal that a Document, Rosenberg-10, shows that Sauckel did not understand this statement of Rosenberg's.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you refer to some document there, Dr. Thoma?
DR. THOMA: Rosenberg-10.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, the re-examination of the witness by the defense counsel for the Defendant Rosenberg must limit itself to new matters which have been brought up and are the subject of argument. There was every opportunity, when his client was in the witness stand, to clarify these questions. At the time I wanted to clear up this question on my own initiative, but I was informed that I ought to ask Sauckel. He made a clear statement here, and in my opinion there is no cause once more to come back in this connection to documents which belong to a previous period of the defense. I object to such questioning.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Thoma, I think you had better go on and ask your next question. I have not got the document before me yet that you are putting to the witness, or referring to. What is your next question?
DR. THOMA: Witness, did you not in your program assume full responsibility for the Allocation of Labor?
SAUCKEL: I assumed responsibility, and I acknowledge it, for what came within the limits of my power-I cannot do more than that-and for what I ordered and for what I caused to be done. This collection of decrees, Dr. Thoma, has been submitted and was shown to Herr Rosenberg...
31 May 46
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, the defendant has been over this all before. He has been all through this before-about his responsibility.
DR. THOMA: Mr. President, may I point out that regarding the question of responsibility, there is a certain paragraph-the decisive paragraph-which has not yet been read. It is Document 016-PS concerning the labor allocation program, and it says on Page 21, Figure 1...
THE PRESIDENT: Just say what the document is again, will you Dr. Thoma?
DR. THOMA: 016-PS, Page 20 of the German document. It says:
"All technical and administrative procedure of labor allocation is subject exclusively to the jurisdiction and responsibility of the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor, the regional labor offices and the labor offices..."
SAUCKEL: Inside Germany, Doctor. Outside Germany I was, of course, subject to the competent chiefs of the areas in question. That is quite obvious.
DR. THOMA: In reply to that answer I draw the attention of the Tribunal to Page 15 of this labor program. This Figure 1, which I have just read, comes under the paragraph, "Prisoners of War and Foreign Workers."
SAUCKEL: To the extent that they were employed in Germany.
DR. THOMA: May I point out that it states clearly under Figure 1: "All technical and administrative procedure of labor allocation..."
SAUCKEL: And may I point out that it was not possible for me to interfere with Reich Commissioner Koch's authority. He had said expressly that he would not permit that.
DR. THOMA: Witness, the Delegate for the Four Year Plan gave you special powers concerning conscription in dealings with all authorities and, in my opinion, it is not right that you should now deny these methods of recruitment and pass responsibility for them on to the Minister for the Occupied Eastern Territories.
I have no further questions.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, the defense counsel for Defendant Rosenberg may engage in cross-questioning, but it does not appear to me to be the right moment for him to make a speech of accusation against my client.
MR. DODD: Mr. President, I am well aware of the facts that there have been two cross-examinations, and I have no desire to go on with another one. However, we do have one document that we think is of some importance and which was turned over to
31 May 46
General Alexandrov, but I think there must have been some language difficulty. The translation of it was not presented. I would like the permission of the Tribunal to ask one or two questions of this defendant about it and to present it. I think it is rather important that it be presented.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Dodd, the Tribunal does not think that this ought to create a precedent, but in view of your statement that the document was supplied to General Alexandrov and that, for some reason, he did not deal with it, we will allow you to crossexamine upon it.
MR. DODD: Very well, Sir.
Witness, do you remember an occasion in 1942, just after your appointment, when you met with some officials of the Ministry of Labor and you discussed with them the program which you were about to institute and for which you were about to take respond Ability? Do you recall it?
SAUCKEL: I cannot, of course, remember details of that discussion. Various points of the program were discussed, and I might also say in connection with the comments made by the defense counsel for the Defendant Rosenberg since what he has been quoting is...
MR. DODD: Just a minute, just a minute. I simply asked you if you remembered this meeting, and you said you did not, and now there is the document.
SAUCKEL: Details of that conference I do not remember.
MR. DODD: And now take a look at the minutes of the meeting.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the document?
MR. DODD: This is EC-318.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the exhibit number? Has it been offered or not?
MR. DODD: I am now offering it. I was waiting to get the number from the secretary.
I will have to get the number a little later, Mr. President. I had not made preparations to submit this document, so I did not have the number in advance.
[Turning to the defendant.] Now, I want to call your attention particularly to a few passages. You start out by telling the officials who were gathered there that you want to co-operate closely with them; and then, moving along, you give some idea of the number of workers whom you intend to recruit. You say there is an estimated requirement of 1 million; and you also made perfectly clear that day that you were to get most of your people, most of these workers, from the East and particularly from Soviet Russia.
31 May 46
You told these officials that you had talked for several hours with the E Fuehr and for 8 hours with the Reich Marshal, and that you all agreed that the most important problem was the exploitation of the manpower in the East.
You further stated-do you see that in there?
SAUCKEL: Where does it say exploitation? I cannot find that word.
MR. DODD: Well, do you find where you say you had discussed your task with the E Fuehr in a conversation that had lasted for several hours? Do you find that?
SAUCKEL: I cannot find it.
MR. DODD: You have the German there before you, have you not?
SAUCKEL: Yes, but will you please be kind enough to tell me the page?
MR. DODD: In the middle of Page 2. Have you found it?
SAUCKEL: Mr. Prosecutor, I want particularly to point out to you the difference in German between the words "Ausnutzung" and "Ausbeutung." "Ausbeutung" (exploitation) is a word which, in the language of the workers, has a rather bad implication, but "Ausnutzung" (use of) is quite an ordinary concept; to use something means making it useful. That is a great difference in meaning in the German language.
MR. DODD: Well, we wills stand by ours and you may stand by yours, and the Tribunal will ascertain between the two of us nacho has the correct translation.
In any event, whether you said "use of" or "exploit," you did say that the most important solution was either the use of or the exploitation . . .
SAUCKEL: But that is not the same thing, Mr. Prosecutor. In German there is a fundamental difference in meaning. I must point out that the word exploitation is a word which I did not use and did not want to use.
THE PRESIDENT: Defendant, would you speak a little bit lower. You quite drown the interpreter's voice.
SAUCKEL: I beg your pardon, My Lord.
MR. DODD: I am not concerned with whether or not you agree with the word "exploit." That is a very unimportant part of this document, as I think you probably already recognize.
SAUCKEL: I beg to contradict you. That word is most important from the humane point of view.
31 May 46
MR. DODD: I don't care to have any argument with you at all. We . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Defendant, the Tribunal is perfectly well able to understand the difference between the use of the words, and you have told us the translation you say is right.
MR. DODD: Now, if you move down a little bit, do you recall
having said that 1 million Russians would have to be brought into Germany as rapidly as possible, to become available even prior to the offensive?
It is the next sentence or two there in your text. You won't see it by looking at me. Do you read the next sentence?
SAUCKEL: Yes, I should like permission to read the next sentence:
'`The necessary condition for taking on the task would be the assurance that Russians would be given approximately the same rations as have been in force for the German civilian population."
MR. DODD: You have skipped the sentence that I want you to read. I know that one comes along, but I want you to read the one where you say you would have to bring 1 million Russians into the Reich as rapidly as possible, and that is the very next or almost the next sentence after the one you have been discussing, about the word "exploit" or "use of."
SAUCKEL: ". . . must be brought to the Reich as quickly as possible."
MR. DODD: That is all I want to know. Do you remember saying that?
SAUCKEL: Yes, I said that. I must say in connection with this that this is a record which I have never seen before or checked. Someone made it, but the record itself I was not familiar with, and it was never submitted to me.
MR. DODD: Well, I suppose it could be truthful even though you didn't make it.
Let us move on here to the next to the last paragraph, and you will find a sentence which says or suggests:
"They"-referring to the Russians-"will have to be handled so roughly by the German administration in the East that they will prefer to go to Germany rather than stay in Russia."
Do you find that?
SAUCKEL: Will you tell me where that sentence is?
MR. DODD: Well, it is right after the sentence where you talk about your negotiations with Himmler. Maybe that will help you.
31 May 46
Do you find where you say you had negotiations with the Reichsfuehrer SS? You succeeded in getting him to remove the barbed wire. Surely you have read that.
Now you find the sentence, do you?
"They would have to be handled so roughly by the German administration in the East that they would prefer to go to Germany rather than stay in Russia."
Do you remember saying that?
SAUCKEL: I cannot say that I used these specific words in speaking to him, for, as I have already stated, it is a record of statements of a problematical nature which I myself did not check, and I cannot be sure how a third person came to write this record from memory. These are not shorthand minutes; it is merely a record which is not signed by anyone and in which...
MR. DODD: I don't think you need to give us any long dissertation on the fact that it is somebody else's minutes. It is not offered to you as being your own.
SAUCKEL: Yes, but I have the right and am obliged to say that.
MR. DODD: I wish you would wait a minute and let me put a question to you once in a while. I have not suggested that these are your minutes. I have merely put it to you for the purpose of determining whether or not on seeing it you remember it. And do you, or do you not remember it?
SAUCKEL: I certainly do not remember that passage. I can merely read here something written by a third person, and I do not know who it was. This person may quite well have misunderstood me; that is possible...
MR. DODD: Well, you also find you did have some conversations with the Reichsfuehrer SS. Do you remember having said that, in the course of this conversation or speech or whatever it was that you were making?
SAUCKEL: The Reichsfuehrer SS put me off on several occasions, and I had to insist to get the Reichsfuehrer SS to remove the barbed wire fences. I did that. From the very beginning of my term of office I moderated the orders of the Reichsfuehrer SS; and that, of course, caused vigorous arguments between us.
MR. DODD: Then that part of the minutes of this meeting is correct, isn't it? The reporter, or whoever it was that took this down, correctly reported what you said about your negotiations with the Reichsfuehrer SS, did he? You find no fault with that?
SAUCKEL: What he wrote down in detail about what I am supposed to have said I have not yet read.
31 May 46
MR. DODD: Now, listen. You read back and look at that paper at which you have just been looking. You find fault with the sentence that reports that you said they were to be handled roughly in the East, but you do not find any fault with the sentence ahead of it which says you had the barbed wire taken down, isn't that so?
You seem to be complaining about the fact that this was somebody else s report and not yours. Have you read it?
MR. DODD: Well, it is the sentence just before the one we have
just been talking about.
Do you really mean you cannot find it? Do you want help?
SAUCKEL: Two pages appear in duplicate here.
MR. DODD: All I have asked you, Witness, is whether or not the sentence about your meeting with Himmler is a fairly accurate report of what you said. Is it?
SAUCKEL: That I cannot tell you from memory. I very seldom spoke to Himmler and then only cursorily. It may have been negotiations carried out by my office on my order. That I cannot tell you.
MR. DODD: Well, your answer to all of this is, then, that you don't remember what you said there; this doesn't help you any to remember.
SAUCKEL: You cannot possibly expect me to remember exactly events which lasted very briefly and took place so long ago.
MR. DODD: I am perfectly willing to let it rest there. There is the written record against your failure of memory, and I will leave that with the Tribunal...
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Dodd, I think you should put to him...
SAUCKEL: With which, however, I was not familiar before this.
THE PRESIDENT: I think you should put to him the next paragraph, "Thirdly . . ." which follows after the sentence about handling them so roughly.
MR. DODD: Yes, Sir.
[Turning to tile defendant.] Now, if you will keep your finger on that place that you have there, you won't lose it, and you will find the next sentence is-begins:
"Thirdly, he termed intolerable the wage rates previously
decreed by the Reich Marshal, and has persuaded the Reich Marshal that Russians should have the possibility of earning up to one half of the wages of German workers."
With reference to that statement, what had the Reich Marshal suggested, by the way?
31 May 46
SAUCKEL: Before I took up my office-and I have talked about that at length with my defense counsel-there existed decrees of the Ministerial Council regarding wage regulations, and I continually improved those wages-four times, in fact, as far as I could manage it, during my term in office.
THE PRESIDENT: That is not an answer to the question. The question you were asked was: What had the Reich Marshal suggested as wages for these workers? You can answer that.
SAUCKEL: The Reich Marshal did not make any suggestions to me. When I entered office I found regulations in existence which I considered insufficient.
MR. DODD: Well, tell us a little more about it. What do you mean insufficient? You used here the word intolerable. What was the situation when you came into the office with respect to wages?
SAUCKEL: I already explained that yesterday, during the examination by my defense counsel, and I gave as an example the fact that an Eastern Worker, when I came into office, drew wages of about 60 pfennigs per hour, which, after deductions for food and lodging, would leave him about 4t/o marks in cash I altered that after I came into office and doubled the cash payments. The purpose of the instructions which existed before my service was probably to prevent too great a circulation of money for reasons concerning currency. I do not know the details.
MR. DODD: This exhibit, Mr. President, becomes USA-881. I have no further questions.
DR. WALTER BALLAS (Counsel for Defendant Raeder): I am replacing Dr. Horn for Defendant Von Ribbentrop.
I have a few questions to put to the witness.
Yesterday in cross-examination you spoke about a French diplomatic organization, formed under the French Ambassador Scapini, for Frenchmen in Germany. Is it true that it was at Defendant Ribbentrop's wish that this organization was formed?
SAUCKEL: At our mutual wish and agreement. We both had the same interests. That is correct.
DR. BALLAS: Can you tell me the reasons which caused Von Ribbentrop to create this organization?
SAUCKEL: The reason for this was, in my opinion, to bring about an understanding between the French and German populations by giving assurance that particular care would be taken of Frenchmen working in Germany.
DR. BALLAS: This diplomatic organization was also responsible for the treatment of French prisoners of war? Can you tell me for
31 May 46
what reasons the German Foreign Office decided on so unusual an arrangement at a time when a state of war still existed between France and Germany?
SAUCKEL: There were conferences between the French Government of Marshal Petain and the German Government, and both nations tried conscientiously to bring about an understanding.
DR. BALLAS: And because of that came these unusual measures concerning prisoners of war?
SAUCKEL: Not only because of that; I considered it a particular necessity, and I might mention in this connection that this organization was later divided or supplemented. In addition to M. Scapini, who took care of French prisoners of war in particular, a M. Broehne took special charge of French civilian workers.
DR. BALLAS: Is it true that Defendant Von Ribbentrop in the Foreign Office created an organization to bring into Germany from occupied countries artists, lecturers, newspapers, books, et cetera, for foreign workers so that these workers would return home well inclined toward an understanding with Germany?
SAUCKEL: It was the purpose of an agreement established by the Reich Foreign Minister in collaboration with the Reich Ministry of Propaganda, the German Labor Front, and my office, to improve the leisure time of the foreign workers by means of foreign artists and lecturers. Many Russian artists were in Germany for this purpose. It also had the purpose of bringing libraries and periodicals to these people from their home countries.
DR. BALLAS: Thank you. I have no further questions.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, in order to rectify an error in a chart in Document Sauckel-l, I just want to have the witness' confirmation.
[The document was handed to the defendant.]
Witness, among the employers of labor you mentioned the departments of Minister Funk, did you not?
DR. SERVATIUS: And going down you find written in the third square "armament inspectorate," and under that, "Reichsautobahn." These two squares have been incorrectly put in. They do not belong there. Is it true that these two squares should be crossed out?
SAUCKEL: Yes, that is correct.
DR. SERVATIUS: I therefore ask that the chart be rectified by having these two squares crossed out. They belong to Speer's Ministry, but I have not given any close attention to that side, and I do not wish to discuss it here.
31 May 46
Then, from the Buchenwald photograph album there were a number of pictures submitted which show the defendant together with Himmler.
Witness, can you tell from the picture the approximate time of that meeting? There are certain indications which you discussed with me yesterday. Will you briefly describe these?
SAUCKEL: Yes. The left-hand top picture shows that construction is still going on; I can see unfinished roadbeds and the like. This may therefore be during the construction period.
DR. SERVATIUS: And what can you say about the time from the dress of the various people?
SAUCKEL: The dress shows quite clearly that this is at a time before the war, for Himmler is wearing a black uniform which he never wore during the war. Apart from that he is wearing a sword, which was forbidden during the war. It is quite clear that this meeting took place before the war.
DR. SERVATIUS: Are these people wearing decorations?
SAUCKEL: I cannot see whether they are wearing decorations; no.
DR. SERVATIUS: And so I can conclude that this picture was taken sometime before the war?
SAUCKEL: Quite definitely sometime before the war, because I myself did not wear an SS uniform during the war.
DR. SERVATIUS: Document Number F-810 was submitted yesterday. That is a report about the meeting at the Wartburg. Beginning on Page 25 of the German text there is a report by Dr. Sturm, which was shown you and in which it is said among other things that there was collaboration between the Gestapo and the concentration camps and that that was the right road to take. You were asked whether that was your view too, and whether such collaboration was correct.
What did you understand by that? Do you mean that you agreed to the methods used in concentration camps, as practiced by Himmler?
SAUCKEL: Under no circumstances, I wanted to indicate that it was correct, as the document shows, that workers' discipline should be enforced step by step, as provided for in cases of disobedience: First a reprimand, then small fines imposed by the factory, as laid down, in fact, in my Decree Number 13, which I want to submit as documentary evidence. Only then, after reprimands and small disciplinary penalties at the factory had proved inadequate, should there be further treatment of these cases, as is mentioned in the document, by having them brought to court by the public prosecutor. I called a proper penal procedure correct. By no means did
31 May 46
I want thereby to characterize methods in concentration camps as correct. I was not at all familiar with these methods at that time.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, I have a document, Number 1764-PS, before me. I have not been able to ascertain when and if it has already been submitted. I have just received it in the form of a photostaticcopy. It is the so-called Hemmen report, a report which Envoy Hemmen made about a sector of the labor allocation in France. I want to read a short passage to the defendant which deals with the number of Frenchmen employed in Germany, and I want him to confirm it.
[Turning to the defendant.] Witness, I shall read you a passage and ask you to...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, it is not usual to allow documents to be put in re-examination. Why was this not used in examination-in- chief ?
DR. SERVATIUS: The figures were questioned during the crossexamination, not before. I attach no great importance to finding out in detail how many hundred thousands came or went. I can omit this question and come back to it in the final pleadings.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal was not saying you could not use it now. As it arose out of the cross-examination, I think you may be able to use it.
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, I should like briefly to read to you the relevant passage; and I want you to tell me whether the views presented there are correct.
Envoy Hemmen reports here, in a letter received at the Foreign Office on 6 February 1944, under Paragraph III as follows:
"Allocation of Labor in Germany:
"It started with the voluntary recruitment of workers which, up to the end of 1942, produced 400,000 men. During the first half of 1943 two further voluntary recruitments of 250,000 men each were effected. The first, by granting the privileges of the releve-which allowed leave for prisoners of war at a ratio of 1 prisoner to 3 recruits-or the granting of worker status, produced some 200,000; whereas the second could be carried out only by using the new compulsory service law, that is to say, coercion, and produced only 122,000 men."
I skip the end of the page and read from Page 8:
"As the total result of the Sauckel Action 818,000 persons all told, mostly men, went to Germany; 168,000 of them owing to the compulsory service law. Of all these there were only 420,000 still there at the end of January 1944."
31 May 46
As far as you can recollect, are these statements generally correct?
SAUCKEL: May I remark in this connection that the Envoy Hemmen at the Embassy in Paris dealt with these questions there and they are given correctly. Finally, you meant to say 420,000 and not 420, did you not?
DR. SERVATIUS: Thousand.
SAUCKEL: The decisive point is that because of the short term of the contracts, the French workers were changed every 6 months, thus only one half could be here at a time.
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, you have already said that.
SAUCKEL: As an explanation I should like permission to tell the Tribunal that while there was a ratio of 1 to 3-meaning that Germany gave back 1 prisoner of war in return for 3 workers-both the prisoner of war and the French civilian workers who had replaced him for the most part had returned to their own country after 11/ years, as each stayed for only 6 months.
It was very hard to win the E Fuehr over to this regulation.
DR. SERVATIUS: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now.
[A recess was taken.]
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will hear some supplementary applications for witnesses and documents at 2 o'clock on Monday.
M. HERZOG: Mr. President,' I should like to come back briefly to Document D-565, that is to say, to the photographs showing the Defendant Sauckel at the Concentration Camp of Buchenwald.
The Prosecution has never claimed, and does not claim now, that these photographs date from a period during the war. Quite the contrary, the original, which has been shown to you, has the date of these photographs and the year is 1938.
The defendant, when he was examined by his counsel, told us that he visited Buchenwald in the company of Italian officers. I do not see a single Italian officer in these photographs; I simply see the Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler.
However, I do not dispute, and I never claimed that these photographs dated from a year other than 1938.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, I have one last question in connection with Exhibit Sauckel-82 from Document Book Sauckel 3, Page 206 and following. On Page 207 we find a statement under Number Ss which I should like to put to the defendant again, because
31 May 46
the prosecutor for the Soviet Union has stated that Sauckel declared here that he gave no protection against crime. I should like to read the sentence to the defendant again and ask him for an explanation. I myself have already quoted it once before; apparently there is a misunderstanding. It is a very short sentence; it reads: "You can demand of me every protection in your labor area, but no protection for crimes."
Does that mean, Witness, that you did not grant protection against crimes?
SAUCKEL: On the contrary, it can be seen very clearly from that document that I did not tolerate any crime. I would not protect these people, who were not subordinate to me, if they committed crimes there. They were not to do that; that was what I prohibited . . .
DR. SERVATIUS: I believe that the German shows very clearly that this explanation, as the defendant has just given it, is correct.
I have no further questions to put to the witness.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Defendant Sauckel, I want to ask you a number of questions. And will you try to speak a little more quietly, and will you listen carefully to the questions and try to make your answers responsive to the questions?
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Now, first, I am going to ask you a little bit about your personnel. You had one large central office, I take it, did you not-one large central office?
SAUCKEL: I had a small central of lice, Your Honor.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): A small central office. And how many people...
SAUCKEL: An office of my own.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): How many employees were in that office?
SAUCKEL: In this personnel office, Your Honor, there were two personnel experts; a Ministerialrat, Dr. Stothfang; a Landrat Dr....
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Just a moment; how many, just how many?
SAUCKEL: Two higher officials and about eight middle and lower officials as assistants and registrars.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Did your inspectors work out of that office?
SAUCKEL: The inspectors belonged to Department 9 of the Reich Ministry of Labor which had been installed there. That was a
31 May 46
special department which was established in the Reich Ministry of Labor at my request, with higher officials who...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Now the inspectors worked, I suppose, under your instructions and reported to you, did they?
SAUCKEL: The inspectors reported first to Department 5 in the Reich Ministry of Labor. I was informed in important cases. The inspectors had the right and the duty to correct bad conditions on the spot when they were confirmed in the labor administration.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): How many inspectors were there?
SAUCKEL: There were in Department 9, I believe...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): No, no-in all, how many in all?
SAUCKEL: There were various inspection offices, Your Honor. This inspection...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): One moment, Defendant. Just listen to the question. I said how many inspectors in all the inspection offices were there?
SAUCKEL: From my own knowledge I cannot say how many here were in the Labor Front. The extent of inspection offices in the Labor Front would have been a matter for Dr. Ley to explain. That I do not know in detail.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well, do you know about how many inspectors were working to inspect the labor work. You must know about how many were there, don't you?
SAUCKEL: I cannot give you accurate figures, but it may have been approximately 60 or 70, if you take all of them together including those of the German Labor Front.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Now, did they go outside of Germany, or did they work only in Germany?
SAUCKEL: These inspectors worked for the most part only in Germany.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And they would inspect such matters as food and travel and conditions of the camps, and so on, would they not?
SAUCKEL: That was their task.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Yes. And the important reports would come to you?
SAUCKEL: No. According to an agreement the reports had to be sent to the highest competent Reich authorities for bad conditions to be corrected. For bad conditions in industry and in camps the competent authority was the Industrial Inspectorate under Retch Minister of Labor Seldte. That was the highest...
31 May 46
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well, did not any of them come to you?
SAUCKEL: Complaints were also brought to me, but I could do nothing but send them back to the competent offices and ask that everything be done to remedy the conditions; and that is what I did.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Did the inspectors' reports come to you, any of the inspectors' reports?
SAUCKEL: The reports did not come to me directly; they went through channels to those offices which were concerned with correcting such abuses.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Defendant, I am asking you not whether they came directly, but did they come to you eventually? Did you get them? Did you see them?
SAUCKEL: Such reports came very seldom to me.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): So you do not know what the conditions were then, since you did not get the inspectors' reports, is that right?
SAUCKEL: Four times or twice a year I also sent my assistants and these inspectors in person to the Gauleiter in the German Gaue, and I received reports on what they discussed during these private conferences with the regional offices and on what they inspected and observed. There was nothing of a catastrophic nature, merely shortcomings in the execution of the directives which I had issued. I was informed about things of that sort...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): So you are telling us that you never got any reports or complaints of a catastrophic nature; is that right?
SAUCKEL: I did not quite understand that question.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You never got any reports or complaints of what you call a catastrophic nature; is that right?
SAUCKEL: Within Germany-I received reports and complaints such as I described to my counsel from Field Marshal Kluge, or else they were made known to me in discussions with Rosenberg. Immediately I took the necessary measures. But that was not frequently the case...
infix; TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Defendant, if you would listen to the question and try to answer it, I think we would get along much faster. You used the expression "catastrophic nature;" those were your words. Did you get any reports of a catastrophic nature?
SAUCKEL: I learned through Field Marshal Kluge, and through reports, which have been mentioned here, from Rosenberg, about a few cases which I considered catastrophic and tried to correct.
31 May 46
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): These were what you call catastrophic cases?
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): What were they?
SAUCKEL: There was the case in the East which Field Marshal Kluge reported to me, where motion picture houses were surrounded by recruiting agents. I considered that catastrophic. The second case was the case of the returning transport, where according to the report-it is called the later report, but I do not remember the number of the document-children are said to have died on the way and been placed outside the train. I considered that catastrophic. But there could...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You have answered.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You have answered that now.
Did you get any complaints about Koch?
SAUCKEL: I received complaints about Koch at times from the Minister for the Occupied Eastern Territories, Rosenberg, and also from another source. Koch, of course, always defended himself very vehemently.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Then you had complaints from several people about Koch?
SAUCKEL: Yes. I could...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And the complaints said what Koch was doing, did they?
SAUCKEL: I did not receive complaints from many sides about Koch, but rather from one side...
red; TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Now, wait...
SAUCKEL: But from several people...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Wait. Won't you answer the question? I did not ask you if you have received many complaints. I said, "The complaints said what Koch was doing." Is that right?
SAUCKEL: Yes, in some cases.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And what did you do with those complaints?
SAUCKEL: As far as my field of work was concerned, when I received complaints such as have been discussed here, I called a conference in my office. That was the case immediately after the complaints from Rosenberg, and on that occasion I adopted the attitude which my defense counsel cited and pointed out with respect to the conference of 6 January 1943.
31 May 46
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And the Koch matter ended after the conference, I take it? That was all you did?
there was no response.]
That was the end of it as far as you were concerned?
SAUCKEL: As far as I was concerned, I personally pointed out to the E Fuehr on several occasions that I considered it quite out of the question to treat the Eastern Workers and the people in the East badly; and by means of the decrees which I issued continually, and which are contained in my documents, I did whatever I could to protect them. I ask...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I have asked you about your central office. Did you have any branch offices?
SAUCKEL: No, I had no branch offices. Two departments of the Ministry of Labor, 5 and 6, were put at my disposal for the carrying out of my tasks of an administrative and technical nature.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Alright. That is enough.
SAUCKEL: There business matters of an administrative nature were carried on. I ask...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Wait a minute. Now, were the recruitment offices in the Ministry of Labor?
SAUCKEL: No. In the Ministry of Labor there were...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Never mind. That is all you have to say.
Where were they, where were the recruitment offices?
SAUCKEL: The recruitment offices were in the occupied territories.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I understand that. But under what office? What administration? What department?
SAUCKEL: The departments for labor were themselves incorporated in the administration of these territories. That can be seen very clearly from my Decree 4, for that had been done in the same manner before I came into office. They were integral parts of the local administration.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Of the local administration? When
you mentioned the 1,500 district offices, were those the recruitment of fires?
SAUCKEL: Those were the offices in all the various territories which represented these various administrations on the lowest level, as I have just mentioned.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You do not answer the question. I asked you whether they were recruiting offices. Were they recruiting offices?
31 May 46
SAUCKEL: They were not only recruiting offices, they were the offices of the territorial labor administration on the lowest level.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): So they did administration and recruiting?
[There was no response.]
They did recruiting, did they not?
SAUCKEL: I understand that that was one and the same thing. The recruitment was carried on according to German principles as part of the administration. Outside the administration recruitment could not be carried on.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): They were recruiting offices, then? The answer is "yes," is it not? They were recruiting offices?
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Right. You should have said that in the beginning. That is what I wanted to know. Now, I want to know the relation of your offices to the Party offices. The Gaue and the Gauleiter worked in co-operation with you as plenipotentiaries, working with you, did they not?
SAUCE: No, Your Honor, that is a mistake. The Gauleiter had nothing to do with recruiting, that was...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Now, wait. I said nothing about recruiting. I asked you the relation of your offices to the Gauleiter. The Gauleiter co-operated with you in the general program, did they not?
SAUCKEL: Not in the general program, Your Honor; only in the program of caring for German and foreign workers.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I see. The Gauleiter, then, had nothing to do with recruiting; is that right?
SAUCKEL: No; that is right.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): That is right? They looked after the care and comfort of the men who were recruited, is that right?
SAUCKEL: If they were working in the Reich, yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): In the Reich?
SAUCKEL: In the Reich.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Did the Gaue outside the Reich in the occupied territories also work for you, or do you consider that they were part of the Reich?
[There was no response.]
Let me ask the question again. I do not think it is very clear. Certain of the occupied territories had been incorporated into the Reich, had they not?
31 May 46
SAUCKEL: In the East only the territories Wartheland and West Prussia were incorporated into the Reich...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Now again I am not asking you the number that was incorporated; I just said certain of the occupied territories, certain parts of them, were incorporated into the Reich. Is that right?
SAUCKEL: Yes, that is correct.
Imp; TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Yes, and when you say the Gauleiter in the Reich, that includes, does it not, the Gauleiter in those territories which had been incorporated into the Reich; is that right?
SAUCKEL: Yes, but in this case they could not function in their capacity as Gauleiter, but only if they were Reichsstatthalter, that is, only if they had a state administration under them. These were two entirely separate institutions with different personnel.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Did each Gauleiter have a labor office connected with his Gau, in his Gau?
SAUCKEL: May I ask if you mean all German Gaue, or only those Gaue of which we have just spoken, Your Honor?
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I mean only the Gaue of which we have spoken. They each had a labor office, had they not?
SAUCKEL: They had a labor administration at the head of which there was a Gau labor president.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): That's right. That is enough. Now, do you know the organization of the Gau in the labor administration? Did they also have a Kreisleiter who attended to the labor work?
SAUCKEL: No, they did not have that.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And I take it there were no Orts gruppenleiter that worked on the labor program, then?
SAUCKEL: No, that was not the case; rather that was a strictly separate administrative concept...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): That is all right.
SAUCKEL: But that was...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): No, that is all right.
Now I would like to know a little bit about what you call this private recruitment. Who appointed the agents who were to do private recruiting? Who appointed them? Did the employers hire agents to get workmen for them?
[There was no response.]
Do you know what I mean by private recruiting?
31 May 46
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): That was done by agents, was it not?
SAUCKEL: Only in one case: In the year 1944 in France and in part in Belgium, by way of exception, I permitted agents to act on the basis of agreements with these French organizations.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Again, Witness, I did not ask you that at all. You do not listen. I said: Who appointed these agents that worked as private recruiting agents? Who appointed them?
SAUCKEL: In those countries, the commissioner for labor allocation appointed them-I myself could not appoint them-together with the French organizations. That was an understanding, not a set appointment...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I see. And they would be paid on, I think you said, a commission basis; is that right? They would be paid, in other words, so much per workman? Every workman they brought in, they would get a fee for that; is that right?
SAUCKEL: Yes. I do not know the details myself any more, but for the most part that is correct.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Now, I take it when you used the word shanghai, which you referred to and explained, that simply means private recruiting with force. That is all it means, is it not? ere was no response.]
That is all it means, is it not? Private recruiting with force?
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Now, wait a minute. Can you shanghai a man without using force? You do not mean that you
shanghaied them by persuasion? Did you?
SAUCKEL: Yes, for I wanted to recruit these French associations in just this voluntary, friendly way, over a glass of beer or wine in a cafe, and not in the official offices. I don't mean shanghai in the bad sense as I recall its being used from my sailor days. This was a rather drastic expression, but not a concrete representation of the actual procedure. Never, Your Honor, in France or anywhere else, did I order men to be shanghaied, but rather. ..
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Oh, I know you did not order it. That was not my question. You mean that "shanghai" just meant that you had a friendly glass of wine with a workman and then he joined up? Was that what you meant?
SAUCKEL: I understood it in that way. I described it to the Central Planning Board in a somewhat drastic form in order to answer the demands made of me with some plausible counterarguments as to the efforts I was making.
31 May 46
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Why did you object to this private recruitment? What was the objection to it?
SAUCKEL: In this case I did not object, but it was contrary to German ideas concerning the procurement of labor. According to German principles and...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Was it contrary to German law?
SAUCKEL: It was against my convictions and contrary to German laws.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I did not ask you that. I am not interested for the moment in your convictions. I said: Was it contrary to German law? It was, wasn't it, against law?
SAUCKEL: It was in general contrary to the German labor laws. As far as possible no private recruitment was to take place. But may I say as an explanation, Your Honor, that after the workman had been won over, he nevertheless entered into an obligation on the basis of a state contract. Thus it must not be understood to mean that the worker in question came into the Reich without a contract approved by the state; a contract was granted to him just as it was to all others.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You mean, a laborer that was shanghaied by private agents had the same rights, once he was in the employment, as anyone else; is that what you mean?
SAUCKEL: The same rights and assurances that everyone else had.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): That is right. Now I am going to come to another subject for a moment. I simply want to understand your defense and what your point of view is. Now see if this is correct. You did no recruiting yourself. The Police did no recruiting. Your main job was, in the first place, to see that everything was done lawfully and legally. Was not that right, that was your important function?
SAUCKEL: That was my endeavor.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): In order to do that you had to arrange to have the proper laws passed so as to have the recruiting done under the law; that is right, isn't it? That was your job?
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Yes. And very often those laws- by the way, those laws were simply decrees, of course. They were just orders that were signed by the E Fuehr, or by you, or by some of the ministers. When you say laws, you mean, of course, decrees?
SAUCKEL: The laws in the occupied territories for the recruitment of manpower had to be decreed by the E Fuehr and issued by the chiefs in the territories.
31 May 46
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): What I mean is, in order to make this use of foreign labor lawful, you simply had to get certain decrees signed; that was part of your duty, to get them signed? Now . . .
SAUCKEL: I did not sign these decrees...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I understand that. I did not say you signed them. I understand that. You have explained that in great detail. Now let us see where the Police came in. They had nothing to do with the recruiting. Once a decree was signed, it became law, did it not? When a decree was signed, it was law?
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And if any man resisted being brought in as a workman, or did not register, or did not live up to his contract, he became a criminal. That is right, isn't it?
SAUCKEL: In this case he violated the law. We did not call it a crime, but rather an offense.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): But he broke the law?
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You mean he did not commit a crime? Did he or did he not commit a crime? Supposing a man failed to register when he was told to register for work, was that a crime?
SAUCKEL: No, that was not a crime. We called that an offense in Germany.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And then when he committed this, he was then turned over to the Police. Is that right?
SAUCKEL: Not immediately; in the preliminary proceedings he was told by the local labor office to appear and to report and..
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well, you explained all that. He got 3 or 4 days, and then if he did not finally register, for the offense he was turned over to the Police? Is that right?
SAUCKEL: How that was actually handled in the various territories I cannot say. It differed greatly, and was in part very lax.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You told us already in your cross-examination that if a man broke the law that was when the Police came in. The Police were there simply to see that the law was not broken. That is right, isn't it? That was their function?
SAUCKEL: No, that was not my task; that was the task of the service authorities.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Wed, why do you always say, "it was not my task"? I did not ask you if it was your task. I am just
31 May 46
talking about the Police; I am not talking about you. Now when those labor decrees were violated, then it was, at a certain time, that the Police began to function. Isn't that right?
SAUCKEL: That would have been the normal way, the correct way.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Good. Or after the men-let us say in Paris-were rounded up, if they offered physical resistance, then the Police had to be called in, had they not? If there was physical resistance you had to call in the Police, had you not?
SAUCKEL: Yes, but I can say that that was hardly ever reported to me. In most cases the men were then released. It can be clearly seen from the lists of the workers' transports-for instance, in the year 1944-that of a large program not even 10 percent came to Germany. Then there was nothing else for us to do but to shanghai.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Please don't go on. You have given all that evidence before. I just want to get a picture of the whole system. Now the Army. I think you said the role the Army played was where there had been sabotage or resistance in the occupied territories the Army would have to clean that out, so that the labor administration could work. That would be right, wouldn't it?
SAUCKEL: In so-called resistance areas in which the administration was handicapped by resistance movements, not only in the field of labor allocation but also in other directions, and the public safety of German troops could no longer be guaranteed.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I am not interested in other functions. I am interested particularly in the field of manpower at this time. So that, for instance, in Poland or Russia, where it was impossible to recruit people on account of the resistance to the recruiting or the resistance to the Army, the Army would go in and help with the recruiting. It would not be unfair to say that, would it.
SAUCKEL: One can say that.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): That is right. Now, by the way, did any of these workmen who resisted or who broke the law or
who did not register after 3 days, were they ever tried by a court, or were they simply handled by the Police if necessary? They were never tried by court, were they?
SAUCKEL: That I cannot tell you in detail or in general. Probably there were various ways of handling that. I do not know the details.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well, let us get that in particular. Did any of your decrees provide for trial by a court of such persons?
SAUCKEL: No, my decrees did not do that. I was not authorized to issue such decrees within the territories with regard to court proceedings, because I was not the competent regional authority.
31 May 46
Try; TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): All right. I am not very clear on this picture of camps. Let us look at that for a moment. There were what you called, I think, distribution or transition camps, were there not?
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): How many?
SAUCKEL: That I cannot tell you from memory.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): No, of course not; but do you think there were more than a hundred?
SAUCKEL: No, I do not think so.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Hardly. But perhaps nearly a hundred?
SAUCKEL: No, I do not think that is quite correct either.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You could give no figure on that?
SAUCKEL: I assume that perhaps in the Reich there were 30 or 40 transition camps.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): In the Reich?
SAUCKEL: In the Reich.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And were those transition camps also in the occupied territories, or in France?
SAUCKEL: In the occupied territories? Whether there were any transition camps in France and, if so, how many, that I cannot say. In the West, along the border, there were reception stations; and in the East, along the border, there were transition camps which had as their purpose an additional physical examination, delousing of clothing, and...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I think that is enough. I think you have answered that enough. Now there were also what you called the labor training camps. Do you remember, you said there were also labor training camps?
SAUCKEL: These training camps...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Can't you say "yes" or "no"?
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): How many?
SAUCKEL: Of that I have no idea...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): So you have no idea of that? Maybe 50 or 100?
SAUCKEL: No. I cannot tell you even approximately how many because I have never received a list. They were not under me.
31 May 46
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): To whom were they subordinate?
SAUCKEL: They were subordinate exclusively to the Police, that is, as far as I know, to Gruppenfuehrer Muller.
Arm; TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And I presume that they were staffed and officered by the SS, as were the other concentration camps?
SAUCKEL: I have to assume that also, but I cannot say definitely because I have never seen any such camps.
THE TRIBUNAL (or. Biddle): But that would not be improbable,
SAUCKEL: No. These camps were subordinate exclusively to the Police.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): To the Police. Now who went to the labor training camps? Who was sent to them?
SAUCKEL: As far as I know-I heard very little about that- people were sent there who in a number of cases had committed violations of the labor regulations, or of discipline in the factories, and so on.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): That is right. That is fine. Thank you very much. That is all I want to know about that point. In other words, people who did not turn up for registration, or who broke their contracts, were sent for training. Now what was the training? What does that mean, "training"? How are you trained?
SAUCKEL: That I cannot tell you. I assume that they had to work. A period of time was provided of from about 8 days to 56 days, I believe; I cannot say exactly. I also heard about that in this courtroom for the first time.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well, let us get a little more light on that subject. You see, you were after all, were you not, Plenipotentiary, so you must have known something about these matters. There were labor camps as well as labor training camps, were there not?
SAUCKEL: Yes, and I want to distinguish between them. . .
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I will distinguish. Let me ask you the question. The labor camps were camps where workmen were sent and housed who were working in industry; isn't that right? They were simply camps where workmen were housed and lived. Is that right?
SAUCKEL: They were camps where workers were billeted; where they lived.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): That is right; and labor training camps were different from the labor camps, weren't they?
31 May 46
SAUCKEL: They were basically different. The labor training camps were an institution of the Reichsfuehrer SS; the labor camps, in which they lived, were set up by the factory or group of factories where the workers were employed.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): So when a man was sent to a labor training camp, he was not sent simply to labor; he was being punished, wasn't he, for having broken the law? That must be right, is it not?
SAUCKEL: To my knowledge, he came to a labor training camp in order to be trained to be punctual at work, and at the same time it was a punishment for his offenses at the factory.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Were there any decrees with respect to the labor training camps, any regulations?
SAUCKEL: I know of no regulations. They had to be issued by the Reichsfuehrer SS, by the Chief of Police. I issued no regulations.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): So, although part of your duty was to look after the foreign laborers who were brought over here, that stopped after they were turned over to the Police, and you had no more jurisdiction; is that right?
SAUCKEL: That is right; but in one respect I have to correct that. I did not have the task of looking after the workers; I merely had the task of getting workers for the industries. The supervision of the camps and the care of the workers was in no way my task. I have...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Stop, Defendant, we clearly understand that. You had practically no executive functions, but you repeatedly said that you passed decrees-by the hundreds, you said-for improving the condition of the men. Now, we know that you didn't have the job to feed them or to house them; but you did have one of your main jobs-one of your main jobs was to try to keep them in as good condition as possible, and that was the reason you were interested in any complaints. We all understand that, don't we? That is correct? One of your functions was to do that, wasn't it?
SAUCKEL: I had taken over this task; it was! not one of the duties with which I had been entrusted. The complaints with which I was confronted every day were to the effect that there were not enough workers available. My task was the direction and the acquisition of workers, but in my own interest I pointed out the necessity of caring for the workers and keeping them in good condition.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I see, that was a voluntary job on your part. It was not part of your duty, but nevertheless you did it. But, now, let me come a little bit to the workers themselves.
31 May 46
I think we are very clear, or comparatively so, as to the numbers that were brought in. I want to know how many were voluntary and how many were involuntary. Now, before you answer that, I mean those workers who were brought in, not under law, but simply who volunteered for work of their own accord. There were not very many of those, I suppose, were there?
SAUCKEL: Yes, there were a great many workers who volunteered without legal compulsion, as the result of propaganda and recruitment and because of the fact that in Germany wages and such things were comparatively high and regulated. There were a great many workers...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Now, let us take a look at that. There came a time when the laws applying to German workers were applied to workers for foreign countries; is that not true?
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I mean, every German had to work, had he not, under the law? Right?
SAUCKEL: Yes, that is right.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And that law was finally applied to foreign workers as well, as you just said. Right?
SAUCKEL: That law was also introduced into the occupied territories.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Right. For everyone alike. So that after that law was introduced, there was no such thing as voluntary work because after that law was introduced everyone had to work, had they not?
SAUCKEL: Yes, as far as demands were made for them in the occupied territories and elsewhere, according to need.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): So when you were talking about involuntary work, that must have applied to the time before that law was passed? Right?
SAUCKEL: Yes, however...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): When was the law passed?
SAUCKEL: That law was introduced at various dates in the late autumn of 1942. I cannot tell the exact dates in the various territories, but I should like to say that under this law, as well, voluntary workers still came voluntarily, to Germany. They...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You are right. If they had not, they would have gone involuntarily, wouldn't they?
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Why not?
31 May 46
SAUCKEL: Only certain quotas were raised but not all the workers were demanded for Germany.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well, then those certain quotas that were requested would have to have gone involuntarily; right?
SAUCKEL: No. There was also voluntary recruitment carried out, and that means that among the workers...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Wait, wait, Defendant. Don't let us fool over this. It is quite simple. If there was a law which made it necessary for men to work when their quotas had been called up, they had to work, had they not? Right?
SAUCKEL: Yes, they had to work, in their own countries first of all, but they also could volunteer to work in Germany instead of working in their own country. And we attached great importance to this.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): In other words, a men had a choice of forced labor in an industry in France or in Germany, so in that sense it was voluntary; is that right?
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Now, just two or three more questions. You have answered clearly, I think. I just want to ask you about three documents. I think that is all. I am not going into detail. Do you remember the document known as R-124, which was the conference on March 1st of 1944? You remember that conference?
Would someone show him the German notes of that, please, if you have them?
[Turning to the defendant.] Do you remember the conference? Have you looked at the notes?
SAUCKEL: That was the conference about the Central Planning Board.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Yes, that is right. Did you look over those notes?
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Do they about tell what took place in substance? In substance, there was an account of the conference, wasn't there?
SAUCKEL: Yes, at this moment-I beg to be excused-I cannot remember the concrete topic of discussion at that conference.
31 May 46
TEE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well, did you find anything in the notes, as you read them over, which you thought in substance was a great mistake?
SAUCKEL: I cannot tell now what subject is meant.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Have you read the notes? Have you read them?
SAUCKEL: I did not read all the notes about the Central Planning Board. At that time the notes about the Central Planning Board were not available to me. Therefore I did not know that notes were taken about the Central Planning Board.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Don't go on with all this talk. I simply asked whether you read them and you said you had not read them all. That is all we need.
SAUCKEL: No, I have not read them all.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Of the portion that you read, did you find any mistakes?
SAUCKEL: I found inexact passages, yes.
TEE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Inexact passages?
SAUCKEL: Inaccuracies. For instance, the report of my interpolation "200,000 to 5,000,000"; that is an utterly impossible proportion.
TEE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Quite. Now, you used one expression in those notes which I did not understand; and I am going to ask you what you meant by it. You spoke of your special labor supply executives. Was that the committee for social peace that you spoke about yesterday-about a thousand people in it? Do you remember?
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): That is the same thing? That was the committee that you said had to be specially trained by the SS, I think, and by the police in France, or wherever they were used?
TEE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): By the way, you spoke of them being armed. Why were they armed? Why did they carry arms?
SAUCKEL: For their own protection and for the protection of those whom they requited; they had to have some means of defense against attacks.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You did not usually have anything to do with the Police, did you? Why did you organize this police corps? Why did you help organize this police corps, an armed police corps? Why did you do it?
31 May 46
SAUCKEL: That was not an armed police corps in the usual sense, rather it was...
THE TRIBUNAL (bar. Biddle): Never mind describing it. We know what It was. Why did you organize its I thought you kept away from police measures.
SAUCKEL: In order to have protection for these people and for these places which frequently were raided, demolished, or harassed by the resistance movement.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I see what you mean. This was an organization to protect the recruiting that was going on; is that right'
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I see. Now, I just want to ask one question about another manuscript, 016-PS, dated 20 April 1944, which was the labor mobilization program. That is the program which you issued and signed, is it not, You look at it. That is the program you signed.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): It is not? I do not know what you mean.
SAUCKEL: I have not understood you correctly, I believe. I understood 1944. It was...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): No, no, on 20 April 1942. You issued the labor mobilization program. Is that the program signed by you, shown in the Document D16-PS? That is the program, is it not?
SAUCKEL: The program-may I say the following in this connection: It was a program which did not become effective immediately . . .
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Defendant, please answer the question. All I want to know is, first, you did issue a mobilization program, did you not?
SAUCKEL: That I did, but...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Right. And that is the one shown in that exhibit, is it not? I am simply identifying it.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Right. I wanted to ask you a little bit about bringing the youths of the occupied territories into the Reich. Certain of the youths were brought in, were they not?
SAUCKEL: Youths were brought in, but against my. . .
31 May 46
TB TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Against your desire, you said. How many were brought in?
SAUCKEL: That I cannot possibly say from my own knowledge. do not know. There were youths...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well, what were the ages? How young were they?
SAUCKEL: That I cannot say either-what age the youths, were-because they were with their families who came into the Reich as a result of refugee measures or the evacuation of other localities. Then another time, in connection with the so-called "Hay Action" in 1944, youths came to the Reich, but without my having anything to do with it.
TB TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You know there were young adolescents, of course, young adolescent children, do you not? You know that, do you not?
TB TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): What was the purpose of bringing them in? Were they recruited for labor, or were they to be trained in the Reich and educated?
SAUCKEL: There are various explanations for the fact that youths were brought into the Reich. Some of these youths were not recruited or brought in by agents; rather they came with their families, at the latter's wish, when refugee and evacuation measures were carried out. Others came...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Wait a minute. We will leave out the ones that came with the families. Some were recruited for labor, were they not? Some for work, were they not?
SAUCKEL: Youths under the legal age of 14 years could not be brought in for work. By agreements, such as can be found in the documents, other offices brought youths in to train and care for them.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You just do not answer the questions. I asked you whether some were brought in for work. Children over 14, who were still under 2O, were brought in for work, were they not-recruited for work?
SAUCKEL: But only volunteers were brought in.
TB TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Only volunteers were brought in?
SAUCKEL: Youths were supposed to be brought in only as volunteers.
'1; TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You did not recruit any youth involuntarily; you mean that?
31 May 46
SAUCKEL: I did not.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I do not mean you personally; I mean the administration.
SAUCKEL: NO, the labor administration was not supposed to bring in any youths, especially girls, by compulsion; only voluntarily. Domestic servants were only volunteers.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Some were brought in to be educated in Germany and to become German citizens, were they not?
SAUCKEL: That I found out from the documents; but I was not responsible for that.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You did not know about that before? Did anyone advise you that it was in accordance with international law to force people in occupied countries to come to Germany to work?
SAUCKEL: I was expressly urged by the E Fuehr to take that measure, and it was described to me as admissible. No office raised any objections to or had any misgivings about this measure; rather it met with the requirements of all offices.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I did not ask you that. I asked you whether anybody advised you that it was in accordance with international law.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You knew, did you not, that the Foreign Office had to consider such matters?
SAUCKEL: I spoke with the Foreign Office on various occasions and this was found to be in order, because we were convinced that in these territories, on the basis of the terms of surrender, the introduction of German regulations was permissible and possible under the conditions prevailing and in view of existing agreements. That was my belief.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Do you say that you were advised by the Foreign Office that you were entitled under international law to force people to come from Russia to work in Germany?
SAUCKEL: The Foreign Office never told me anything to the contrary; but the Foreign Office, I believe, was not competent for questions concerning the East. I do not know.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Whom did you ask for advice on the subject?
SAUCKEL: I found these regulations in existence before I took office. These regulations had already been issued. The E Fuehr expressly charged me to carry them out.
31 May 46
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Then, the answer is that you asked nobody? Is that right?
SAUCKEL: I did not ask anybody. I could not ask anybody, because all offices wanted these measures and accepted them. There was never any discussion to the contrary.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And did you say that it was not the task of the Police to enforce recruiting for labor?
SAUCE: It was not the task of the Police to carry out recruitment.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well, why did you say at the conference on 4 January 1944, which is reported in the Document 1292-PS, that you would do everything in your power to furnish the requested manpower in 1944; but whether it would succeed depended primarily on what German enforcement agents would be made available, and that your project · could not be carried out with domestic enforcement agents? Does that not mean that the Police would have to enforce your recruitment programs?
SAUCKEL: No, it means-the reproduction of these minutes is not very exact-I explained to the E Fuehr that I probably would not be able to carry out his program because there were very large partisan areas; and as long as these partisan areas were not cleared up, so that a regular administration could be established there, no recruitment could take place there either. First of all, therefore, normal administrative conditions would have to be established again. That could be done only by those organs whose task it was.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): What did you mean by German enforcement agents?
SAUCKEL: By German enforcement agencies I meant the normal administration as such, but in some territories that was too weak.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well, then, why was it that the Reichsfuehrer SS explained that the enforcement agents put at his disposal were extremely few, if those enforcement agents were not police agents?
SAUCKEL: I did not understand the question correctly in the first place. The Reichsfuehrer, I believe, said-according to my recollection-that for the pacification of these areas he did not have troops enough because they were all at the front. That did not refer to the recruitment and management of compulsory labor, but to the re-establishment of normal conditions in these areas.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well then, are you saying that it was not the task of the Police to help you in recruitment, but that it was the task of the military?
31 May 46
SAUCKEL: That differed greatly depending on the various regulations in the territories. There were areas in which the military commanders had the sole executive power, and there were areas in which civilian authorities had the executive power on the German side. There was a third kind of area, military operational zones with rear areas, in which the commanders of the armies had the executive power.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well, then, either it was the Police, or it was the military, or it was some other force which was going to carry out your forcible recruiting; is that right?
SAUCKEL: Yes, but in these areas as well, the machinery of the civilian administration was available, which was not identical with the military or with the Police, but represented within these Wehrmacht organizations separate branches of the administration under a special administrative chief.
The; TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well, I don't understand then what you meant by saying that your project could not be carried out with domestic enforcement agents.
That is all I have to ask. Then the defendant can return to the dock.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, I am asking the Tribunal to look at Document Sauckel-3, which is a list of Sauckel's offices, to see the position of the witness whom I am about to call.
Under Sauckel in the Reich Ministry of Labor there were various departments, one of which, the department of the witness Timm, was the so-called Europe Office, which had three subdepartments- one for the West, one for the East, and the third for the South and Southwest.
With the permission of the Court, I call the witness Timm.
[The witness Timm took the stand.]
THE PRESIDENT: Will you state your full name.
MAX TIMM (Witness): Max Timm.
It; PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath after me: I swear by God-the Almighty and Omniscient-that I will speak the pure truth-and will withhold and add nothing.
[The, witness repeated the oath.]
THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down.
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, you worked in the Reich Labor Ministry in the Allocation of Labor department?
TIMM: Yes, that is correct.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were you already there when Sauckel took of lice?
31 May 46
. . .
TIMM: Yes, and I had been in the labor administration for some years before that.
DR. SERVATIUS: What was the impression you had of your new superior when Sauckel took over the office?
TIMM: When Sauckel assumed office, I had the impression of a very energetic, hard-working man, who was inclined to get excited at times, even angry no doubt, and who demanded much of his co-workers, but also made great demands on himself.
DR. SERVATIUS: How was he in carrying out his measures?
TIMM: When he assumed office there was a good deal of confusion in the field of labor allocation. Everybody had something to do with labor allocation.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was that the reason why that of lice was created?
TIMM: The previous chiefs had not had enough force to push their program through against the opposition of various offices; and Sauckel was the strong man, and particularly the strong political figure, who was to put things in order.
DR. SERVATIUS: How did Sauckel approach this new task? Did he adhere to the administrative regulations, or did he do it in his own way, in-as one says-an unrestrained new manner?
TIMM: He considered his task very much a political task, but he always did his best to handle administrative matters in an orderly way. He was known generally as a Gauleiter who was friendly to the civil servants. Also, in order to instruct all the offices under his administration, he held so-called staff meetings at regular intervals in which the most important things were discussed.
DR. SERVATIUS: What was your position in that of lice?
TIMM: In the Allocation of Labor department I had first a subdepartment and later a department.
DR. SERVATIUS: What did that department deal with?
TIMID: That department had to deal with all questions concerning the assignment of labor, particularly the classification of skilled workers, training of workers, vocational advice, and employment agencies for apprentices.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was your office called the Europe Office?
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you have an over-all view of what went on in the office?
TIMM: Not completely, owing to the fact that Clauleiter Sauckel at the same time remained Gauleiter in Thuringia and he worked
31 May 46
in Berlin in Thuringia House, whereas the special departments put at his disposal remained in the Ministry of Labor.
DR. SERVATIUS: NO, YOU did not understand my question. The question was whether you, from your office, had an over-all view of what went on in the field of labor allocation without regard to Sauckel's activity.
TIMM: Yes, but not entirely, because we were not informed about all events, due to the separation of the offices.
DR. SERVATIUS: What were the staff meetings? Who took part in them and of what kind of people were they composed?
TIMM: For the most part the liaison men of the various branches were called to staff conferences.
DR. SERVATIUS: What kind of people were they?
TIMM: There were various kinds of people, civil servants but also economists, and the like.
DR. SERVATIUS: But you should tell us from what offices these people came, or were they people who were in Sauckel's office?
TIMM: They were mostly people from other branches, as, for instance, a representative of the Delegate for the Four Year Plan, the representatives of the Ministry for Armament and War Production, of the Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories, and of other departments.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was that the so-called specialist labor staff?
TIMM: That was the specialist labor staff.
DR. SERVATIUS: About how many people were in it?
TIMM: In my estimation there were probably about 15 to 20 people.
DR. SERVATIUS: Besides that, Sauckel had a personal labor staff. What kind-of people were in that?
TIMM: The personal labor staff consisted mostly of men whom Sauckel had brought with him from Weimar, men of his own immediate circle.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did he also have consultants? Who were these?
TIMM: He had two personal consultants, Landrat Berch and Ministerialrat Dr. Stothfang.
DR. SERVATIUS: And what position did Dr. Didier hold?
TIMM: Dr. Didier, as far as I remember, was the press expert.
DR. SERVATIUS: How were these staff meetings carried on? What was discussed?
31 May 46
TIMM: At those staff meetings all matters of labor allocation, that is the entire German labor allocation program, were discussed; and the sessions were generally opened with a complete report by Herr Sauckel, in which he explained his plans for the future.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were questions of recruitment in occupied territories also discussed; and what is of importance here, the difficulties which existed then, and the methods of which we have heard? What was said about that?
TIMM: Questions of recruitment were generally not discussed there so much but rather questions concerning the Reich.
DR. SERVATIUS: I asked you first about the occupied territories. Was, for instance, that case discussed which has been brought up here, the surrounding of a motion picture house and the seizing of people there, and similar cases?
TIMM: Yes, the case of the motion picture house is known to me.
DR. SERVATIUS: That was discussed?
TIMM: Yes, that was discussed.
DR. SERVATIUS: And what was done about it?
TIMM: Sauckel at once instructed several gentlemen-I don't remember whom-to make all possible investigations in order to clarify the case.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were other cases reported?
TIMM: There were no other cases which could be compared in seriousness with that case which has just been described.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was there also discussion about the question of labor conditions in Germany for foreign workers?
TIMM: There were discussions at the staff conferences about labor conditions.
DR. SERVATIUS: And was it not reported there that conditions existed in individual camps or industries which were objectionable?
TIMM: Cases of that kind were discussed. In general they concerned clothing, nutrition, and similar things.
DR. SERVATIUS: How did these reports come to the staff conferences? Who reported them? From what source did one find out about them?
TIMM: Herr Sauckel always attached importance to having these things examined on the spot, and he maintained an extensive system of inspection in order to get an accurate picture of these questions; and these inspection reports were then discussed in detail at the staff conferences.
THE PRESIDENT: I have an announcement to make.
31 May 48
Upon consideration of the motion of the Prosecution, dated the 21st of May, and the memorandum of the Defense Counsel in reply thereto, dated the 29th of May, the Tribunal makes the following order:
The motion of the Prosecution that arguments as to the guilt or innocence of the individual defendants be heard at the conclusion of the evidence relating to the individual defendants and before the introduction of evidence relating to the accused organizations is granted. The Tribunal, however, will not decide the question of the guilt or innocence of any defendant until after all the evidence has been heard; and, if any of the evidence relating to the accused organizations is thought by counsel for any defendant to support his defense, he may ask to be heard further with regard thereto. The Tribunal, at the conclusion of the evidence relating to the individual defendants, will accordingly hear first the argument in their behalf, and then the summing up of the Prosecution. The statements of each of the defendants in his own behalf will be heard at the conclusion of the Trial before judgment.
The Tribunal is of opinion that the argument relating to the guilt or innocence of the individual defendants will be more helpful if heard immediately at the conclusion of the evidence bearing "hereon, and before the Tribunal has departed from this and goes into the branch of the case relating to the organizations. This arrangement, furthermore, will give the commissioners, who are taking the evidence as to the organizations, further time in which to complete their work. The defendants will not be prejudiced in any way by this arrangement; for, apart from the fact that their cases are essentially different from the cases of the organizations, they will be allowed to call to the attention of the Tribunal any circumstance developed on the hearing of the organizations which is thought to be helpful to their defense. The Tribunal finds nothing in the Charter which forbids this procedure, and Article 9 leaves to the discretion of the Tribunal the manner of hearing evidence on behalf of the accused organizations.
Counsel for the individual defendants will not be permitted to cross-examine the witnesses called by counsel on behalf of the organizations, or to take part in such proceedings save when specially authorized to do so by the Tribunal.
That is all.
The Tribunal will sit tomorrow at 10 o'clock in open session until 1 o'clock.
[The Tribunal adjourned until 1 June 1946 at 1000 hours.]