4000bce - 399
400 - 1399
1400 - 1499
1500 - 1599
1600 - 1699
1700 - 1799
1800 - 1899
1900 - 1999
DR. KUBUSCHOK: May I ask permission for the Defendant Von Papen to be absent on Monday and Tuesday to prepare his case.
He will be represented by my colleague Dr. Nelte.
[The witness Timm resumed the stand.]
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, yesterday we were speaking, at the end, of the staff conferences. I should like to leave this question now, but we will come back to it later when we talk about controls. First, I should like you to explain the relationship of Sauckel's office to the higher authorities. Whom did Sauckel come under?
TIMM: The Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor was under the Delegate for the Four Year Plan.
DR. SERVATIUS: And what did he have to do with Hitler?
TIMM: The Plenipotentiary General kept in the closest touch with Hitler, and as far as possible he presented his plans to Hitler at personal discussions.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was there a constant connection with the Four Year Plan through a liaison man, or how was that done?
TIMM: There were various ways of keeping the contact active. There were liaison men on both sides. The Plenipotentiary General sent men from his select staff to the of lice of the Four Year Plan for a preliminary co-ordination of his plans, and on the other hand, as far as I can recall, there were almost constantly delegates from the office of the Four Year Plan who took part in the staff conferences.
In addition, the Plenipotentiary General frequently had personal talks with the Delegate for the Four Year Plan.
DR. SERVATIUS: How was the co-operation with the other ministries conducted? With Goebbels, to begin with?
TIMM: The Plenipotentiary General felt in principle that it was important to keep as close a contact as possible with the other departments and to have his plans and intentions co-ordinated beforehand. Co-operation with the Ministry of Propaganda was
1 June 46
no longer so good, especially at the time when the Minister, Dr. Goebbels, was Delegate for Total War Effort.
DR. SERVATIUS: After the proclamation of total war was Sauckel subordinate to Goebbels?
TIMM: The relationship was never quite clear. In my opinion it had to be looked at this way: The Delegate for Total War Effort received comprehensive powers for all tasks, and was therefore in fact superior to the GBA (Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor).
DR. SERVATIUS: What was the relation with the other authorities, for instance with the Reich Ministry for Food?
TIMM: The co-operation with the Reich Ministry for Food was very good. The relations with State Secretary Backe especially were always very good as far as I could judge. There were also continual conferences between the experts of both offices on questions of feeding in general
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, what was the date of the proclamation of total war?
DR. SERVATIUS: Does the witness know when total war was declared?
TIMM: I do not remember the date.
DR. SERVATIUS: It was after the fall of Stalingrad. I cannot give you the exact date.
THE PRESIDENT: Go on, please.
DR. SERVATIUS: As to relations with Himmler, what cooperation was there with that office?
TIMM: I know nothing of any close personal relations between the GBA and Himmler. On Sauckel's labor staff there was a liaison man from the Reichsfuehrer SS, especially for any general police questions that might arise concerning the allocation of labor.
DR. SERVATIUS: What kind of questions were there?
TIMM: All kinds of questions; especially the question of badges in connection with the employment of foreigners.
DR. SERVATIUS: And probably also questions concerning barbed wire?
TIMM: Yes; questions concerning barbed wire, and all the questions which arose in police spheres.
DR. SERVATIUS: And also the question of labor training camps?
TRIM: As I was not an expert on those questions I cannot remember very well, and-I do not know whether there were any detailed conferences about them.
1 June 46
DR. SERVATIUS: Now, I should like to pass on to the connection of the authorities with the occupied territories.
With whom were negotiations carried on and to whom did one apply when making demands on the occupied territories?
TIMM: One had to apply to the respective district governments at the time-military commanders, Reich commissioners or something similar.
DR. SERVATIUS: What kind of position did Sauckel's deputies have?
TIMM: The deputies were organized and intended to be men who were to exert a direct and vigorous influence on the execution of Sauckel's plans, instructions and orders.
This goal, however, was not reached as they were not able to succeed. I remember that the Plenipotentiary General therefore intended to ask Hitler for more comprehensive instructions and more comprehensive powers.
I seem to recall that the Plenipotentiary General once announced that he had learned from Hitler himself, or from his entourage, that Hitler was not inclined to extend these powers as he could not release the local governments, especially the military commanders, from their comprehensive responsibility and powers; so the Plenipotentiary General had only one recourse, that of putting forward his wishes through the channel of direct negotiations.
DR. SERVATIUS: Why were the deputies not able to succeed?
TIMM: The deputies could only try to consult with the existing regional governments, but the opposition was so strong that they could not carry any weight.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did these deputies not hold another position at the same time?
TIMM: As they could not attain an independent position, the deputies were generally incorporated into the existing local administration by way of negotiations. With few exceptions they were entrusted with the management of the labor section, or were incorporated into the section for economy and labor.
Generally they were placed within the staffs of the military commanders as administrative officials and that was the position which they held ostensibly.
DR. SERVATIUS: So it was a combination of two or more positions held by one person?
TIMM: It was, to a certain extent, a combination of different positions held by one person, of which, without doubt, the most
1 June 46
important was the position of section chief in the existing regional government.
DR. SERVATIUS: With whom did this arrangement of a dual position originate?
Was it Sauckel who insisted on it, or the responsible regional authorities?
TIMM: As far as I know, it resulted from talks with the regional governments on the question of the position of the deputies. The regional governments wanted on no account to have any men in their districts who were independent of their administration and had special powers.
DR. SERVATIUS: So that curbed the initiative of the deputies?
TIMM: Their initiative as originally planned was no doubt checked.
DR. SERVATIUS: How did Sauckel exercise his authority to issue instructions?
TIMM: The authority to issue instructions to the offices abroad was generally exercised by means of sending instructions, directives, and decrees through normal administrative channels via the central of fines.
DR. SERVATIUS: Could he issue instructions to cover everything that happened there, or were there other offices which dealt with the recruitment of labor?
TIMM: At that time, unfortunately, the situation was such that even after the appointment of the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor other agencies there repeatedly interfered in labor Gaffers or carried on recruiting too-that is, agencies which had neither the power nor the authority to do so.
THE PRESIDENT: What time is he talking about; he says "at that time"?
DR. SERVATIUS: I did not quite understand.
THE PRESIDENT: I say what time. He said "at that time." At what time? What time is he speaking about?
DR. SERVATIUS: [Turning to the witness.] What time are you speaking about?
TIMM: It was at the time when the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor was appointed.
DR. SERVATIUS: When was he appointed?
TIMM: He was appointed in March 1942.
DR. SERVATIUS: How was the recruiting carried out? Was it voluntary? How would you differentiate between the types?
1 June 46
TIMM: In principle, recruiting was carried oust on a voluntary basis because from the technical point of view-that is, from the point of view of the utilization of the labor recruited-only voluntary recruiting could lead to success. That is to say only voluntary recruiting could bring people who were happy and willing to work, and who could achieve the output necessary for production.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was that the point of view which Sauckel emphasized?
TIMM: During the whole time that I worked with Sauckel in the Ministry of Labor I never heard of any events which indicated any other point of view. He repeatedly emphasized that the basis of recruiting must be voluntary.
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes. He issued many directives and held many speeches. But did he not within the select circle. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, and Witness, will you try and pause between the sentences, and between the questions and the answers? The witness' sentences seem to me to be running on, whereas if he would pause it would give the interpreter same chance.
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.
[Turning to the witness.] Sauckel issued a number of directives and made speeches to that effect. Did he not give you more precise instructions for the guidance of the department?
TIMM: The instructions which we received always agreed in principle with the instructions which he issued to larger circles at presidential or similar conferences.
DR. SERVATIUS: What was the result of voluntary recruiting? Did the workers come solely on the basis of that recruiting, that is on the basis of the conditions as described to them?
DR. SERVATIUS: About how many were there?
TIMM: It is, of course, not possible for me to give exact figures. Thinking it over I believe I can say that about 2 to 3 million workers might be considered voluntary "workers.
DR. SERVATIUS: Other workers came by virtue of the compulsory service laws which were introduced in those countries?
DR. SERVATIUS: What do you estimate the number of those people to be?
TIMM: I can hardly give an estimate. As about 2 to 3 million may be considered volunteers, the rest must reach this figure too.
1 June 46
DR. SERVATIUS: People were deported too. Do you understand what is meant by deportation?
TIMM: If I may ask, does that mean the people who were transported for military or similar reasons? I am not quite clear as to what you mean by that.
DR. SERVATIUS: You do not know what deportations are?
TIMM: You mean forcible deportations, do you not? I cannot remember and do not know anything about such measures in connection with the activity of the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor.
DR. SERVATIUS: In connection with the obtaining, recruiting, and conscription of labor, there are quite a number of serious charges concerning abuses which occurred. To what extent did you learn of them?
TIMM: I understand your question to mean abuses in the recruiting itself?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.
TIMM: I have no practical knowledge of the recruiting itself. As far as I had a general view of the situation, serious abuses, such as you mention in your question, were not reported to the GBA. Yesterday in an answer I pointed out that I knew of the case of the surrounded cinema, and that I could recall no events surpassing that case in gravity.
DR. SERVATIUS: Now I come to conditions in Germany. Did you hear anything about conditions of the worst kind there? You probably read the papers and know what these charges mean. You were one of the people most closely involved there, so what did you learn?
TIMM: Complaints about the treatment of foreigners came through various channels to the GBA too. They referred in general to questions of clothing and food, and that of barbed wire which came up repeatedly, and the question of badges, the marking of foreign workers.
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, the Prosecution is speaking here of Crimes against Humanity.
DR. SERVATIUS: Are those only things which happened daily in a normal administration, or are they, so to say, things which were reported?
TIMM: Such things as you call catastrophic, Doctor, did not come to my knowledge, because if they had, I should still remember them now.
1 June 46
DR. SERVATIUS: Who supervised the execution of the orders, and how did that come to your knowledge, or how should that have come to your knowledge?
TIMM: Various authorities were concerned with supervising the work of foreign workers. These were five or six different offices. There was in particular the German Labor Front, which, on the basis of a so-called Fuehrer decision, claimed for itself the question of the treatment and care of foreign workers. And I may mention in this connection that it repeatedly said this assignment went beyond the order given by the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor to the German Labor Front, and that to a certain extent it was bound by a higher authority to carry out this task of welfare and control of treatment, et cetera. On this fundamental question there were repeated conferences between the office of the GBA and the German Labor Front, and these later led to an agreement according to which the GBA also transferred this question to the German Labor Front. To settle these matters, the German Labor Front established a central inspectorate whose mission it was to look after foreign workers throughout the whole Reich. In addition to this central inspectorate, the Office for the Allocation of Labor within the German Labor Front was still functioning.
DR. SERVATIUS: We will come to that in a minute.
DR. SERVATIUS: What connection was there between Sauckel's office and this inspectorate of the Labor Front? How were contacts maintained?
TIMM: In the first place, a man from the German Labor Front worked as liaison man on Sauckel's technical staff. . .
DR. SERVATIUS: Who was that?
TIMM: That was Herr Hoffmann. And secondly, the central inspectorate of the German Labor Front constantly had conferences on their inspection activities to which an official of the GBA was invited.
DR SERVATIUS: This liaison man, Hoffmann, presumably reported on what he heard from the Labor Front?
DR. SERVATIUS: What did he report?
TIMM: The things which he reported covered the same ground as I have already told you about.
DR. SERVATIUS: The German Labor Front already had this task before Sauckel's office was set up?
1 June 46
TIMM: The German Labor Front was of the opinion, as I, for several...
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, you must answer me. The German Labor Front had this task before Sauckel came?
DR.-SERVATIUS: Did it consider that its authority was restricted by the fact that Sauckel was appointed?
TIMM: I was just about to explain that it considered its task a general, comprehensive one; and when the newly appointed Plenipotentiary General for the Avocation of Labor occupied himself so intensively with these matters, it did see in this a certain encroachment on its task.
DR. SERVATIUS: And was this agreed upon between Ley and Sauckel?
DR. SERVATIUS: At whose instigation was this agreement reached?
TIMM: As far as I can recall the suggestion was the outcome of a wish of the German Labor Front.
DR. SERVATIUS: And what was the aim?
TIMM: Of course, I can give only my personal opinion. I believe that the aim was in any case to express the fact that the German Labor Front was generally competent for these questions.
DR. SERVATIUS: Who presented the agreement, Sauckel. . . ?
THE PRESIDENT: Have we not got the agreement between Sauckel and Ley?
DR. SERVATIUS: It was submitted by the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: If we have it, we do not want to have his personal recollection of it, do we?
DR. SERVATIUS: The witness goes back too far. I would like to know who suggested it and drew it up, and when it was signed. There are two dates at the foot of this document as far as I remember today.
M. HERZOG: Mr. President, the document which is being mentioned now was submitted to the Tribunal. It is Document Number 1913-PS.
DR. SERVATIUS: It is in my document book, in the first document book, Page 79. In the English book it is Page 74. Here in the first text may be found...
1 June 46
THE PRESIDENT: What are you after? There is no use in getting the evidence of a witness, who said he does not remember in detail about it, about a document which we have got before us. It does not seem to me to be in the least bit useful to know who suggested that the agreement should be entered into.
DR. SERVATIUS: [Turning to the witness.] There were still other inspectorates. For example, the Gauleiter was an authorized agent for the Allocation of Labor Department. To what extent did the Gauleiter report things which occurred in their Gau during the allocation of labor?
TIMM: The Gauleiter were appointed by the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor by virtue of his Decree Number 1, to be his authorized agents, with the task of applying themselves precisely to this question.
DR. SERVATIUS: What did they report?
TIMM: I do not know of any written reports from the Gauleiter on this question; at least, not to any extent worth mentioning. Hardly any written reports from the Gauleiter came in on this question; at least, not to our office.
DR. SERVATIUS: At this opportunity I should like to clear up the question of the position held by the Gauleiter as authorized agents for the Allocation of Labor in relation to the Au labor offices. Was the Gauleiter president of the Au labor offices, or in what relation did they stand to each other?
TIMM: In administration and matters of personnel, the president of the Au labor offices was undoubtedly subordinate to the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor, or to the Reich Minister for Labor. But the Plenipotentiary General had made it the duty of these presidents to keep in closest contact with the Gauleiter and to make constant reports on the things which occurred in their sphere of work. In particular, if there were any tension or difficulties in the Au, they were to apply to the Gauleiter for aid.
DR. SERVATIUS: If I understand you correctly, the Party as such had nothing to do with the actual utilization of labor itself?
TIMM: I believe that is so. If the question is to be considered in that way, I would say that the institution of a Plenipotentiary General emphasized the political aspect of the Allocation of Labor, and that the Gauleiter, according to their varying personal opinions, concerned themselves to a greater or lesser extent with the Allocation of Labor.
DR. SERVATIUS: As an organ for care and control?
TIMM: Yes; for all questions concerning labor allocation.
1 June 46
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, you will understand that your testimony concerning your knowledge of the events submitted by the Prosecution is received with great skepticism. Did you not unofficially hear and see things which, if they did not come to your attention officially, certainly should have given you cause to investigate them more thoroughly?
TRIM: Of course, one heard here and there of cases where foreign workers were allegedly ill-treated in some way. As far as such things came to my attention I always considered them official matters, and made out a report accordingly or had them attended to. In such cases, the necessary investigations were made immediately and everything necessary was done to clear up the matter.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were these individual cases not symptoms of conditions as a whole?
TRIM: I do not believe so. At any rate, events which one might call catastrophic never came to my attention. As I have already said, they were nearly always only things which were connected with the question of treatment-that is to say, questions of accommodations in camps, clothing, and so forth.
DR. SERVATIUS: What was the output and the morale of the workers?
TIMM: The output achieved by foreign workers varied. The output of the Eastern Workers was especially good. In general, because of this output, the demand for Eastern Workers was great. The output was also very good in particular of the skilled French workers . . .
DR. SERVATIUS: That is enough. Now, I must come back again to your connections with the occupied territories. Did you take part in negotiations with authorities in the occupied territories?
TIMM: Not in the East. A few times I went on journeys in the West with the Plenipotentiary General and took part in negotiations.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were you with him once when he visited General Falkenhausen?
TIMM: Yes, I was present at the negotiations.
DR. SERVATIUS: Of what nature were these negotiations, as far as the atmosphere was concerned? Were they tense, were they friendly, or what were they dike?
TIMM: The conferences with General Falkenhausen at which I was present were generally comparatively short. I had the feeling that the two gentlemen did not care for each other...
THE PRESIDENT: What does it matter whether they were tense or friendly or short?
1 June 46
DR. SERVATIUS: General Falkenhausen made an affidavit, which was submitted here, in which he said that Sauckel gave him orders and negotiated with him in a manner which caused him to offer the strongest opposition.
-THE PRESIDENT: If you want to contradict Falkenhausen's affidavit you can put it to the witness, if that's what you are trying to do.
DR. SERVATIUS: I do not have it here at the moment. I will forego that question.
[Turning to the witness.] You were in France?
DR. SERVATIUS: Were you present at negotiations with the French authorities?
TIMM: I was present at negotiations with Laval, who was Premier at that time.
DR. SERVATIUS: Of what nature were these negotiations?
TIMM: One can certainly say that the negotiations were carried on in a very friendly manner.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did the French not bring any complaints?
TIMM: Individual complaints were made. I remember that the complaints were especially about the question of the transfer of wages.
DR. SERVATIUS: I should like to ask you whether complaints about treatment, the methods of recruitment, coercive measures, and so on-whether complaints were made about those things?
TIMM: No, I do not remember any complaints of that sort. I should certainly remember them if there had been any.
DR. SERVATIUS: I have a few more questions concerning Sauckel's relations with the Central Planning Board and with Speer. You yourself repeatedly represented Sauckel at the Central Planning Board. Is that correct?
TIMM: Yes, a few times.
DR. SERVATIUS: What was the position of the Central Planning Board as far as Sauckel was concerned?
TIMM: The Central Planning Board was a branch of the Four Year Plan. Its task, as far as the GBA was concerned, was to collect the demands for workers made by the big employers, and to adjust these demands at regular sessions. As the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor could not judge himself the importance of the use made of workers by the various industries, this question was decided in the Central Planning Board. An attempt was made,
1 June 46
for certain periods of time, for as long a time as possible, to work out a balance of workers, I might say, and in connection...
THE PRESIDENT: Defendant Sauckel told us all about this already, didn't he?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Then there is no need to go into it with another witness.
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, Mr. President.
[Turning to the witness.] Do you know Speer's position?
DR. SERVATIUS: What was Speer's position in relation to Sauckel and vice versa? Could Speer give orders to Sauckel in particular?
TIMM: Speer was Plenipotentiary General for Armament while Sauckel was Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor, and Speer held the point of view that he, as Armament Minister, should have decisive authority in all matters pertaining to the production of armaments, that is raw materials, coal and consequently also the allocation of labor.
DR. SERVATIUS: Could Speer give Sauckel orders and instructions, or did he actually give them?
TIMM: Yes, as a matter of form. As I have just said, the question was not quite clear, and the two conceptions were opposed. In reality there was always a certain tension between the two men because the Armament Ministry wanted more or less to claim the power to issue instructions. This tension was generally cleared up through talks, or the exchange of letters between the two men. Sometimes it led to what one might call "agreement conferences," headed by Reichsminister Lammers, as he was at that time.
DR. SERVATIUS: What was the result of these conferences, these agreement conferences?
TIMM: These conferences led to agreements which, as far as I remember, were several times taken down in writing, and in my opinion they led to an increasingly strong influence by the Armament Ministry on questions concerning the allocation of labor.
DR. SERVATIUS: I have no more questions to put to this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other counsel want to ask any more questions?
DR. HANS FLACHSNER (Counsel for Defendant Speer): Witness, in connection with your last statement, I should like to ask one question. You have testified to tension between the Defendants
1 June 46
Sauckel and Speer because Speer claimed the right to give instructions. Do I understand you correctly if I assume that the tension arose from the fact that Sauckel energetically disputed this right to issue instructions?
TIMM: As I wanted to express in my fast answer, the difficulties consisted in the fact that Speer, as Plenipotentiary General for Armaments said: "I must have control of all the things which belong to actual manufacture. So it is essential for me as regards the direction of labor allocation..."
DR. FLAECHSNER: I understood that, Witness; my question is only, did this tension arise from the fact that Sauckel emphatically refused to recognize this right to issue instructions which you say was assumed by Speer?
TIMM: As Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor Sauckel felt himself competent and responsible for all questions concerning it.
DR. FLAECHSNER: With regard to the demands of the Armament Ministry which he did not feel he could consider justified, did Sauckel not hold the point of view that he was responsible only to the Fuehrer?
TRIM: I do not remember anything so definite. He was Plenipotentiary General for...
THE PRESIDENT: Surely this is very far removed from anything we have got to deal with. He says that the tension was cleared up by conferences. What more is there to discuss?
DR. FLACHSNER: That was the last question I wanted to ask the witness.
Witness, you spoke of conferences which are supposed to have taken place with Minister Lammers. In the minutes of the session of 11 July 1944 and of 4 January 1944, which have been previously submitted here, there is no mention at all of such differences. I would be grateful to you, if you could tell me what session with Lammers you have in mind?
TIMM: Unfortunately, I cannot give the dates of the sessions exactly. I know only that the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor several times wished to report these circumstances to the Fuehrer, and that the two men, as far as I can remember, agreed that these questions should be discussed with the Fuehrer. Then, however, in order to avoid always taking things to the Fuehrer they agreed to have matters talked over with Reichsminister Lammers.
DR. FLACHSNER: You cannot give any details about that?
1 June 46
TIMM: Only if-I remember, for example, that the question of the blocked industries in France was discussed.
DR. FLACHSNER: Very well.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the Prosecution wish to cross-examine the witness?
M. HERZOG: Witness, were you a member of the National Socialist Party?
M. HERZOG: From what date?
TIMM: In 1933 I applied for admission. My application was at first refused, and as far as I remember it was approved in 1934 or 1935.
M. HERZOG: Were you a member of the SA?
TIMM: I was a member of the SA for a short time. I left the SA when proceedings for my expulsion were instituted against me in the SA, and I resigned.
M. HERZOG: Were you a member of the SS?
M. HERZOG: What were your functions up to the time you entered Sauckel's office?
TIMM: I was employed in that branch of the Reich Ministry of Labor which had the employment agency, the office for vocational guidance, and the training agency.
M. HERZOG: When did you first meet Sauckel?
TIMM: As far as I can remember, I saw Sauckel for the first time when he visited State Secretary Syrup in the Reich Ministry of Labor, and the individual officials were invited to meet him.
M. HERZOG: At what time did this take place?
TIMM: I cannot give the date exactly. I believe it was about a few weeks after the appointment of Sauckel as Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor.
M. HERZOG: What was your position at the time when Sauckel was appointed Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor?
TIMM: I was in the department for employment and unemployment relief-the employment department...
M. HERZOG: And at the end, what was your position?
TIMM: At that time I was a Ministerialrat in the Reich Ministry of Labor.
M. HERZOG: Will you tell me where Sauckel's of flees were in Berlin?
1 June 46
TRIM: did not understand the question.
M. HERZOG: Will you tell me where Sauckel's offices were in Berlin?
TIMM: In Berlin, Sauckel himself worked in Thuringia House, while the special sections made available by the Reich Ministry of Labor were in the building of the Reich Ministry of Labor at Saarlandstrasse 96, and some, after a part of the building had been destroyed, were in alternative quarters near Berlin.
M. HERZOG: Thank you. The of flees at Saarlandstrasse 96 therefore came under Sauckel's administration? Is that right?
TIMM: The Office at Saarlandstrasse 96 was not a new office; it was the Reich Ministry of Labor. The two sections had been made available by a Fuehrer decree to carry out the tasks of the GBA.
M. HERZOG: A document headed "Delegate for the Four Year Plan, Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor, Berlin SW 11, Saarlandstrasse 96" therefore comes from Sauckel's office?
TIMM: I did not quite understand.
M. HERZOG: A document which has the following heading: "Delegate for the Four Year Plan, Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor..."
THE PRESIDENT: Why not show him the document?
M. HERZOG: I show you Document Number L-61, which was submitted to the Tribunal in the course of the last few sessions. This document bears, as you see, the following heading at the top on the left: "The Delegate for the Four Year Plan, the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor." On the top in the righthand corner, `'Berlin SW 11, Saarlandstrasse 96." It is dated 26 November 1942, and comes, therefore, from Sauckel's offices. Is that right?
TIMM: This document comes from the GBA, therefore from Sauckel's office.
M. HERZOG: Thank you. Did you represent Sauckel at the conferences of the Central Planning Board for the Four Year Plan?
TIMM: I either represented him, or I went with the GBA to take part in the sessions. Not always, but frequently.
M. HERZOG: When you represented him there, you received instructions before going there, did you not?
TIMM: When we had to go to larger and more important conferences, we were informed by Thuringia House that there were to be sessions, and we received our instructions as to how we were to represent the GBA at these sessions.
1 June 46
M. HERZOG: And when you came back from these meetings, you gave Sauckel a report on them, did you not?
TIMM: After the sessions we either reported the results of the conference to him personally, or through his personal advisers.
M. HERZOG: Sauckel then had to take the responsibility for the declarations you made at the various meetings? Is that right?
TIMM: As an official, it was always my duty to make sure when I made reports in a session and to ascertain . . .
M. HERZOG: That is not what I asked. Will you answer my question? You received instructions before the conferences began. You reported to Sauckel afterwards what was discussed at these conferences. Consequently Sauckel was responsible for what was discussed there, was he not?
TIMM: If I might be allowed to explain about this. . .
10; PRESIDENT: Is not that really a matter of law, not a matter of evidence?
M. HERZOG: Yes, of course, Mr. President.
[Turning to the witness.] You declared a short while ago that the conversations at which you had been present in Paris were of a friendly nature. Do you remember taking part in the conference of 12 January 1943?
TIMM: At the moment I cannot remember just from the date whether I took part, but I could tell from the subject of the discussion whether I was present or not.
M. HERZOG: I have already submitted Document Number F-809 to the Tribunal. It contains the minutes of this conference. In the course of the conference, Laval, among other things, said to Sauckel:
"It is no longer a matter of a policy of collaboration; it is
rather, on the French side, a policy of sacrifice, and on the
German side a policy of coercion...
"We cannot take any political measure without everywhere coming up against some German authority which has substituted itself in our place.
"I cannot guarantee measures which I do not take myself ... "It is not possible for me to be a mere agent for German measures of coercion."
Do you think that those are friendly remarks?
TIMM: I did not understand one word. "Do you believe that those. . . "?
M. HERZOG: ". . Friendly remarks." You said that these conversations were friendly. I have given you an extract from the
1 June 46
contents of these conversations. Do you still say that they were friendly?
TIMM: I can only confirm the spirit of the negotiations in which I took part. I do not recognize these statements in the form you give them to me.
M. HERZOG: If you had known them, would you still have said that they were friendly conversations?
THE PRESIDENT: He was not there. He just said that he did not know about it. We can judge for ourselves whether the tone of it is friendly.
M. HERZOG: Witness, you stated earlier that you had no knowledge of forced deportations.
TIMM: I said that I knew of no forced deportations under the authority of the GBA; and I do not know of any deportations.
M. HERZOG: Do you remember a conference held on 15 and 16 July 1944 at Wartburg, which you attended, and at which Sauckel, a number of chiefs of Au labor of fires, and people who worked with Sauckel were also gathered?
TIMM: At Wartburg there was a conference of the presidents of the Au labor offices. I was there for that conference.
M. HERZOG: Do you remember having spoken there?
M. HERZOG: Do you remember the statements you made about recruiting methods?
TIMM: I do not recall that so well; no.
M. HERZOG: I will now show you Document Number F-810, which I submitted to the Tribunal under the Exhibit Number RF-1507. The Tribunal will find the extract I want to submit to the witness on Page 10.
You were speaking of the conferences which the Plenipotentiary General for Allocation of Labor was having with the Wehrmacht about its co-operation in compulsory recruiting, and you said: "The Fuehrer has approved the use of measures of coercion to the fullest extent."
Do you deny that you knew that workers were being recruited for forced deportations?
TIMM: I ask for a moment's time. I have not yet found the place. It was not shown me before.
These are notes made by some one present, presumably the Military Commander in Paris. I have not my statements on this
I June 46
question at hand, but I should imagine that the GBA, in view of the difficult . . .
M. HERZOG: Will you please look at Page 8, Paragraph IV?
TIMM: Page 8, yes.
M. HERZOG: Under Paragraph IV, on Page 8:
"As regards the employment of European labor and the problems, methods, and means for the same, Timm made the following remarks: 1) Northern Europe; 2) Southeast; 3) Italy; 4) France."
Then we come to the passage about which I am asking you for an explanation, because you made this statement. Will you answer that? Do you still deny your knowledge of the fact that these deportations were forced?
TIMM: I have no intention of denying anything. I can only say that Sauckel probably had powers from the Fuehrer to use all reasonable means to speed up the procurement of workers.
Measures were introduced and carried out in France which, even if they were approved by Laval, the Premier at the time, might nevertheless be termed compulsory.
M. HERZOG: Thank you. I have one last question to ask you. In this quotation you say, "The Fuehrer has approved...." If the
Fuehrer approved something, it means, that something was suggested to him. Is that not a fact?
TRIM: As far as I can remember, Gauleiter Sauckel always reported the results of his talks in Paris to the Fuehrer. It is possible that he reported to the Fuehrer the question of recruiting methods which he had discussed with Laval; and it was customary for him, as I have already said in my testimony, always to make sure of the Fuehrer's approval, so, that he did not work against the Fuehrer's ideas.
M. HERZOG: Thank you. I have no more questions.
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, the document which was last submitted to you, L-61, from Saarlandstrasse, is not in the original, but it contains the words: "Signed, Sauckel." The Defendant Sauckel has informed me that it is possible he did not sign it himself, but that he may have been informed, in a general way only, that there were letters about one thing and another-routine office correspondence-and he might have given authority for them to be
signed. Is that possible?
TIMID: It was like this; the departments in Saarlandstrasse. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, did Sauckel state that in evidence, or are you telling us simply what he said to you? Do you remember?
1 June 46
DR. SERVATIUS: I cannot say exactly whether he stated that here.
THE PRESIDENT: Go on then.
DR. SERVATIUS: [Turning to the witness.] Answer the question.
TIMM: Yes. As Sauckel continued to exercise his functions as Gauleiter in Weimar, it sometimes happened that things did not reach him. The sections in Saarlandstrasse submitted their drafts to the personal adviser in Thuringia House, and it is quite possible- as I know from my own knowledge of conditions-that the contents of the drafts were transmitted by telephone, and that the personal advisers were authorized to sign the name of the Plenipotentiary General.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was the mail so extensive that he did not take exact cognizance of individual letters?
TIMM: That is hard for me to judge.
DR. SERVATIUS: That is enough. One more question: Fuehrer- Sauckel-Speer. Is it true that the Defendant Sauckel told you that the Fuehrer had ordered him to fulfill all Speer's demands?
TIMM: I do not know whether exactly such a statement was made.
DR. SERVATIUS: We have shown you the document in which Laval complains about the conduct of the German authorities. Did this complaint refer to Sauckel's activities, or was it not that he had told Sauckel of these complaints and was thanking him personally for his attitude?
TIMM: I recall from the talks with Laval, that Laval repeatedly expressed his gratitude to Sauckel for having put into effect measures and means for facilitating matters which he had suggested. Laval attached special importance-to use his own expression-to putting the climate and the atmosphere in order, and to having talks with Hitler himself as soon as possible; and he asked Sauckel to pave the way for him. As far as I know, Sauckel did actually arrange for talks of this kind and Laval thanked him for doing so.
DR. SERVATIUS: I have no more questions for this witness.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): The job of the GBA was to get workmen to replace the men who had been taken into the Army out of industry. That was largely your work, was it not?
TIMM: The task of the GBA was much more comprehensive, as previously all the tasks...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well, I understand, but that was part of your work, was it not?
1 June 46
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): All right. Now, you were therefore told beforehand the number of people that the Army was taking out of industry, weren't you, so you could make up your estimates?
TIMM: The numbers were adjusted in the Central Planning Board. It was precisely the task of the Central Planning Board, that the plans made in the OKW...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Wait a minute. I don't care who examined the figures, but your organization certainly had knowledge of the needs of the Army, of the number of people the Army was taking out of industry. You had to have that information, had you not?
TIMM: The number of men to be drafted was reported to the Central Planning Board.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): All right, reported to the Central Planning Board. Now then, they were taking people out of industry also who were not needed for the Army, weren't they? I mean Jews. They were taking Jewish people out of industry, were they not? Sauckel said yesterday that Jewish people were being taken out of industry. You admit that, don't you?
TRIM: Yes. Jews were eliminated from industry.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): All right; and I suppose the Central Planning Board was given the number of Jewish people that were taken out of industry, were they not?
TIMM: I do not know that. In the conferences at which I was present . . .
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Do you not assume that that must have been the case, if they had to find the number of replacements. It must have been so, mustn't it?
TIMM: I cannot judge as to that because I learned only the total number of men to be drafted, independently of the Jewish question. I will not venture an opinion; I do not know.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Do you not know that Himmler and the SS told the Central Planning Board the number of Jews that were being taken out of industry for whom replacements were needed? You know that as a fact, don't you?
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You do not?
TIMM: No. I know only that we received certain statements from the Reichsfuehrer SS that people were being taken out of industry, and owing to the objections of the Plenipotentiary General, who had to supply the replacements-I remember that this measure
was partly withdrawn.
1 June 46
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And you do know that one of the duties of the Reichsfuehrer SS was to withdraw Jews from industry? You know that?
TIMM: I know from statements in reports that Jews were to be withdrawn from industry.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): That is all.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness may retire and the Tribunal will adjourn.
[A recess was taken.]
[The witness Hildebrandt took the stand.]
THE PRESIDENT: Will you state your full name.
HUBERT HILDEBRANDT (Witness): Hubert Hildebrandt.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath after me: I swear by God-the Almighty and Omniscient-that I will speak the pure truth-and will withhold and add nothing.
[The witness repeated the oath.]
THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down.
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, you were working in the office of Sauckel, is that correct?
DR. SERVATIUS: You were subordinate to Timm. What was your special field?
HILDEBRANDT: In the Reich Ministry of Labor from 1930 I dealt with questions concerning labor for the iron and metal industry, the chemical industry, and the textile industry. After 1940 I also dealt with questions concerning workers in the West.
DR. SERVATIUS: Regional questions in the West?
HILDEBRANDT: Yes; in France, Belgium, and Holland; some of those questions.
DR. SERVATIUS: You must remember to pause before you answer. Did you have any general idea about what happened in Sauckel's office?
HILDEBRANDT: No; I did not.
DR. SERVATIUS: But you participated in the staff! conferences?
HILDEBRANDT: Yes; I was present at most of those.
DR. SERVATIUS: And in that way you found out, to a certain extent, about what happened in other offices?
1 June 46
DR. SERVATIUS: I want to ask you especially about conditions in France. What was the position of the Plenipotentiary- General for the Allocation of Labor in France?
HILDEBRANDT: The Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor in France, just as in other occupied countries, had appointed special deputies who transmitted his wishes, and helped to carry out these wishes and these tasks. The organization of the entire labor strength from the occupied western territories remained in the hands of the German military or civil administrative offices there.
DR. SERVATIUS: So he did not have an organization of his own?
HILDEBRANDT: The first deputy in France tried to establish an organization of his own, but after a short time he met with the opposition of the German administrative offices, and the offices which he had established in the meantime were taken over by the military commander.
DR. SERVATIUS: What was the position of the military commander?
HILDEBRANDT: The military commander was and remained responsible for the entire allocation of the labor in his district, and also for the labor sent from his district to Germany.
DR. SERVATIUS: What was the position of the German Embassy?
HILDEBRANDT: The German Embassy took the leading part in all negotiations which were to be carried out by the Plenipotentiary General or his deputies, with French Government offices.
DR. SERVATIUS: What was the position of the French Government as regards the allocation of labor?
HILDEBRANDT: The French Government made agreements with the Plenipotentiary General concerning the carrying out of his programs, and ordered its own offices to carry out certain tasks, especially when compulsory labor was introduced in France. It published the necessary decrees and gave the necessary directives to the subordinate offices.
DR. SERVATIUS: And who had the executive power to recruit labor? Was that done by the French or the Germans?
HILDEBRANDT: One must distinguish between two periods. When it was still a question of recruiting volunteers, until the fall of 1942 these volunteers could report to German offices as well as to French offices; and also to recruiting offices which had been established by German firms, and some by branches of the Wehrmacht. After the introduction of compulsory labor, the administrative executive for the carrying out of the decrees rested solely with the French authorities.
1 June 46
DR. SERVATIUS: And what happened when somebody did not report?
HILDEBRANDT Then a first summons to appear was received from the French authorities, and then repeated summonses, and if these proved to be unsuccessful the French authorities called in the French police.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were those who did not come brought before the courts?
HILDEBRANDT: I assume that that may have happened sometimes. I do not know for certain.
DR. SERVATIUS: German or French courts?
HILDEBRANDT: French courts, according to French regulations.
DR. SERVATIUS: What would be your estimate of the number of voluntary workers who came from France to Germany?
HILDEBRANDT: The number of voluntary workers from France, . until the middle of 1942-but I can only give approximate figures
DR. SERVATIUS: Please, just the approximate figure.
HILDEBRANDT: Something over 200,000. After the compulsory labor decree had been introduced in the course of 1942, there were still voluntary recruitments as well on a fairly large scale. The number of volunteers was, at times, considerably larger than the number of conscripts, so that altogether more than half of all the labor recruited in France consisted of volunteers. It is noticeable that women were only recruited if they volunteered. There was no compulsory service for them. With regard to the compulsory labor assignments moreover, it must be pointed out that a number of them were only formal. In reality these people had come voluntarily, but for economic reasons, or out of consideration for their relatives and friends in their home towns, they attached importance to being conscripted. We had compulsory labor assignments which were only put on an official basis afterwards. Such requests reached the German labor offices especially during the last months before the end of the war; and the Foreign Office requested the Plenipotentiary General to approve such demands, and that was done.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you hear anything in your department about recruiting measures such as the surrounding of churches, cinemas, and similar places in France?
HILDEBRANDT: No; I do not know of any such recruiting measure. I know that in France, as well as in Belgium, identity papers were controlled among members of the age groups which had been called up to register.
1 June 46
DR. SERVATIUS: You were also probably in Paris, and you spoke to the German authorities there; is that right?
HILDEBRANDT: Yes. Every time I was in Paris I took the opportunity to talk to members of the offices about current events.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did they not tell you about things which must have surprised you?
HILDEBRANDT: With each major task we carried out we had some difficulties, course, and certain excesses. Once it was reported to me, among other things, that there were impossible conditions in the "Pepiniere"-a camp, a kind of transit camp for people who had to leave. These conditions were reported immediately to the Town Major of Paris who remedied matters. Then there were irregularities in the recruiting in Marseille, where recruiting agents used blackmail. This was also stopped immediately.
Beyond that, a fairly large number of individual cases were brought to me. These were minor difficulties about vacations, salaries, and so forth, which I transmitted each time to the competent offices for further action.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was it part of your official duties to follow these things up?
HILDEBRANDT: As far as they came within my sphere, I took the necessary steps immediately. As far as it was the business of other, departments I immediately transferred them to those departments for further attention.
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, I did not ask what you did, but whether it was your official duty to look after these things.
HILDEBRANDT: The general problems of recruiting and statistical checking of programs came within my field of duty. Questions of housing, pay, and transport were dealt with by other departments. Of course, when I found out about bad conditions it was my duty to investigate them at once, if only in the interests of further recruiting.
We considered it of the greatest importance that every abuse should be stopped immediately, because it was only in this way that further recruiting of volunteers could be guaranteed. Labor conscription was therefore looked on as a last resort.
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, I would like to know whether it was your official duty, or your moral duty to look after these things?
HILDEBRANDT: In this case it was my moral duty as well as my official duty.
DR. SERVATIUS: As regards the way transports were erected, I have one question. Mention has been made of irregularities on transports. That is why I would like you to tell us what steps you
1 June 46
took to have the transports that came from France supervised and directed. Can you describe that briefly?
HILDEBRANDT: A special department was created in the of lice of the military commander in France for the carrying out of transports. For each man who went to Germany, it was already settled to what firm he was to be sent. The recruiting was effected on the basis of planned contracts and definite working conditions, so that it was known what route could be chosen for the journey. Transports were assembled to include as many as possible, so that a definite number of workers would go in the same direction and to the same firm.
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, these details are of less interest to me than the question of how you conducted these transports and kept a check on them when something irregular happened on the way.
HILDEBRANDT: In giving a few details, I only wanted to indicate that there was a detailed check made of every person intended for Germany. For each transport there was an exact list of the persons and of the firms to which they were sent. The transports were given guides who brought them to their destination, and there they were turned over to the presidents of the regional labor offices whose duty it was to take further care of them.
DR. SERVATIUS: I should like to put a concrete case to you. A case has been reported here of a transport train which was left in the Saar district, and when it was opened, after a few days, most of the people had been frozen to death. Did you have control of such trains? Should that have been reported to you? Could that train have been sent upon your orders? How do you explain that?
HILDEBRANDT: Such an incident would have become known to us immediately. As the coming of transports was reported beforehand to the presidents of the regional labor offices, we were informed immediately when they did not arrive. That happened frequently, namely, when difficulties arose because of some emergency on the way, and a transport was held up-for instance, in the last days of the war, when traffic obstructions caused by bomb
damage had to be cleared away, and so on. We could then immediately have inquiries made concerning the transports, which was always done. I know nothing of the case which you have just mentioned.
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, you must speak more slowly. The interpreters cannot possibly follow.
Will you state your opinion as to the incident, which I have described, of the train with the people who froze to death in the Saar district.
1 June 46
HILDEBRANDT: The incident could not possibly have occurred on transports of labor recruits. The transports were well prepared.
DR. SERVATIUS: You have said that before.
DR. SERVATIUS: How do you explain then, the case of that transport?
HILDEBRANDT: I learned for the first time through the press during the last few months that the SS also conducted transports to Germany, and that conditions such as you have just described are said to have been present.
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, were you present during the negotiations between Sauckel and Laval?
HILDERANDT: Yes, I was frequently present.
DR. SERVATIUS: In what kind of atmosphere were these negotiations conducted?
HILDEBRANDT: These negotiations were conducted in a friendly manner; but occasionally, especially when promises on the part of the French Government had not been kept, quite violent disputes occurred. Any real difficulties, however, did not as a rule arise during these negotiations. Arrangements were made concerning the number of people who were to be sent to Germany. As a matter of principle, Laval was always willing to put manpower at the disposal of Germany.
DR. SERVATIUS: And what, in particular, were the relations between Laval and Sauckel? Did Laval speak well of Sauckel or not?
HILDEBRANDT: M. Laval expressed. his gratitude from time to time for the way in which things had been made easier for France, too. For instance, as regards the status of French prisoners of war, the permission given to the wives of French workmen to visit their husbands, and the taking over of welfare work for the relatives of the French workmen in Germany. All these things, as I have said, took the form of agreements whereby one party put labor at the disposal of the other party, and that party in return gave back manpower or granted other advantages. Laval certainly expressed repeatedly his urgent wish to do more for Germany if he could only be given political advantages for it. Therefore, he asked the Plenipotentiary General repeatedly to make it possible for him to have discussions with the Fuehrer in order to create a favorable atmosphere in France for further efforts.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did these friendly relations prevail until the end?
1 June 46
HILDEBRANDT: Until the last negotiation, which I think took place at the end of 1944.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, I believe the question of releve and "transformation" has been clarified sufficiently, so that I need not question the witness about it again.
[Turning to the witness.] Witness, in what manner did the negotiations with the German military commander take place? Did Sauckel give orders there? Was he the highest authority, or was it the military commander?
HILDEBRANDT: The negotiations were never carried out in the form of a transmission of orders. The Plenipotentiary General described the situation in Germany and what needs...
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, you can be very brief.
HILDEBRANDT: I only want to say the following: Of course, the military commander, as was the case with the civil administration in Holland, was more interested in receiving orders to be filled than in sending manpower to Germany, and that led to conflict. The authorities, however, had to be convinced in each instance that manpower must be sent to Germany-for agricultural work, for example, which could not be done in Holland, and also for a number of branches of the German armaments industry.
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, a few questions now concerning Belgium and Northern France: Was the position of Sauckel as regards the chief authorities there the same as in France on the whole; and was everything conducted similarly, or were there any differences?
HILDEBRANDT: No, the conditions were the same as in France, only that the deputies of the Plenipotentiary General were, from the very beginning, incorporated into the military administration.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you receive any reports or discover anything yourself about irregularities in that territory?
HILDEBRANDT: Yes. There were isolated cases of irregular
ities. For instance, I was informed one-day that reprisals were to be taken against relatives of members of age groups who had not appeared when they were called up. We stopped that immediately by discussing the matter with the representatives of the military commander.
DR. SERVATIUS: And how did Sauckel negotiate with the military commander there?
HILDEBRANDT: He also told him what he wanted. Von Falken
hausen was, of course, also interested in the first place in having orders for the German armaments industry carried out in Belgium;
1 June 46
but it was also agreed that manpower should be sent to Germany. He certainly made frequent efforts to protect students, spool children, and members of younger age groups.
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, I will show you the minutes of an interrogation of General Von Falkenhausen on 27 November 1945. I want you to look at a few sentences. If you take Page 2, you will find there in the middle of the page, in answer to the question: "Is the witness in a position..."
THE PRESIDENT: What is the number of the document?
DR. SERVATIUS: It is Document Number RF-15.
[Turning to the witness.] It is the following question:
"Is the witness in a position to define to us the limitations of his powers and the competence of the administration for the Allocation of Labor?"
Answer by General Von Falkenhausen:
'Up to a certain time there was a labor office in my territory which was concerned with the recruiting of voluntary workers. I cannot remember the exact date any longer-it may have been in the fall of 1942-when the labor of lice was put under Sauckel; and from then on I had only to carry out the orders I received from him."
Is this position of the military commander in relation to Sauckel correct?
HILDEBRANDT: It is not quite correct in several points. In Belgium there was not just one labor office, but a number of labor offices which dealt with the recruiting of volunteers, and also a number of recruiting of flees which worked with them. But from the very beginning these labor organizations worked under the supervision of the Feldkommandanturen in Belgium. These Feldkommandanturen were offices of the military commander. There was no question of the Plenipotentiary General taking over the work. Before he appointed his deputies he could only send his requests directly to the military administration, to General Von Falkenhausen, but not directly to a labor office.
DR. SERVATIUS: What were the conditions in Holland? Who was the competent district head there?
HILDEBRANDT: It was the Reich Commissioner.
DR. SERVATIUS: And was there a deputy of Sauckel's with him?
HILDEBRANDT: Yes, a deputy was appointed there too, who was a member of the administration of the Reich Commissioner.
DR. SERVATIUS: Who issued the labor service decrees there?
HILDEBRANDT: The Reich Commissioner.
1 June 46
DR. SERVATIUS: And who carried out the recruiting? German or Dutch offices?
HILDEBRANDT: As far as I remember there were Dutch labor offices. The heads of these labor offices were Germans; the rest of the personnel was mainly Dutch. These offices took the necessary steps for the allocation of labor.
DR. SERVATIUS: Now, I have one more question concerning Germany. The metal industries came into your field, did they not?
DR. SERVATIUS: Krupp, for instance.
DR. SERVATIUS: What kind of reports did you receive about conditions in the Krupp works as far as the welfare of the workmen was concerned?
HILDEBRANDT: I had no unfavorable reports about Krupp. The personal adviser of the Plenipotentiary General, Landrat Berk, visited the Krupp works frequently and informed me of the requests made by the firm and of the impressions he had received, but he never said that proper care was not taken of foreign workmen. I myself never visited the Krupp firm during the war.
DR. SERVATIUS: I have no more questions for the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Do any of the German counsel want to ask questions? Prosecution?
M. HERZOG: Mr. President, we have the same problems here. The Tribunal has already heard explanations on these points. The Tribunal is in possession of the documents which I have submitted, and I have, therefore, no questions to put to the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness can retire.
[The witness left the stand.]
DR. SERVATIUS: Then with the permission of the Tribunal, I will call the witness Stothfang.
[The witness Stothfang took the stand.]
THE PRESIDENT: Would you state your full name?
WALTER STOTHFANG (Witness): Walter Stothfang.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat these words 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, what was your position with Sauckel?
1 June 46
STOTHFANG: I was personal adviser to the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor.
DR. SERVATIUS: When did you assume that position?
STOTHFANG: One year after the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor had assumed of lice; that was on 19 April 1943.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was the witness Timm there when you came?
DR. SERVATIUS: And the witness Hildebrandt?
DR. SERVATIUS: What orders did you receive when you came?
STOTHFANG: The Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor did not give any special personal directives because his general principles could be clearly seen in his decrees and in his program, and I only started work 1 year later.
DR. SERVATIUS: Before that, had you already been in the Ministry of Labor?
STOTHFANG: Yes, I had been connected with that type of work since 1926; and for the last 8 years I was the personal assistant of State Secretary Dr. Syrup in the Ministry of Labor.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was it a considerable change when you came to Sauckel?
DR. SERVATIUS: What did your colleagues in the of lice tell you about the whole work, and Sauckel's attitude to the work?
STOTHFANG: The work, as such, was carried out according to principles and decrees which were not essentially different to previous ones. In practice of course, they were much more far reaching than anything hitherto.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you work very closely with Sauckel in your sphere? You were his personal assistant.
STOTHFANG: As far as that was necessary for carrying out the task of the Plenipotentiary General for the war effort; Sauckel was not only Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor, but at the same time he had remained Reichsstatthalter and Gauleiter in Thuringia. Besides that, during the last 11/z years of his activities, he was very much occupied with the construction of an underground factory in Kahle, in Thuringia; so that he...
DR. SERVATIUS: We will come back to that later.
STOTHFANG: . . . could only be in Berlin from time to time; at the most 1 day a week, and often only half a day.
1 June 46
DR. SERVATIUS: And what was your task as his personal adviser?
STOTHFANG: We had to receive incoming mail, sort out what had to be reported, and pass on the rest to the competent departments. We also had to submit newly arrived drafts to the Plenipotentiary General.
DR. SERVATIUS: Who called staff conferences? Do you know that?
STOTHFANG: That was generally done by the office.
DR. SERVATIUS: You always attended these conferences?
STOTHFANG: Yes, from the time I first came into the office.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you participate in conferences to which individual members returned from so-called inspection trips and made their reports?
STOTHFANG: Later that no longer happened or only very seldom. It was only in the beginning.
DR. SERVATIUS: That you were present, or that inspection trips took place?
STOTHFANG: No; that reports were made.
DR. SERVATIUS: There were fewer reports later?
DR. SERVATIUS: What was the reason for that?
STOTHFANG: I do not know the reason.
DR. SERVATIUS: During the period when you were present, did you learn of anything particularly shocking as regards irregularities in Germany? We will include transports to Germany, transit camps, the workshops themselves, the camps, and the factories.
STOTHFANG: I myself found out about some irregularities on the occasion of inspection trips which I made on orders, but these were at once discussed with the competent offices and steps were taken to put a stop to them.
DR. SERVATIUS: Sauckel had to work with a number of offices. Was there any special opposition to overcome here?
STOTHFANG: With the exception of two cases, no.
DR. SERVATIUS: What cases were these?
STOTHFANG: One was the Party Chancellery; and the other was the Reichsfuehrer SS and Chief of the Secret State Police.
DR. SERVATIUS: Do you know of specific instances in the case of the Reichsfuehrer SS?
1 June 46
STOTHFANG: The general treatment of foreign workers- particularly of those coming from the East-as far as it was determined by the Reichsfuehrer SS or the principles laid down by the Reichsfuehrer SS, was contrary to the ideas of the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor. The Reichsfuehrer SS was not inclined to meet the far-reaching, definite demands of the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor. The same thing happened, in other directions, in the case of the head of the Party Chancellery.
DR. SERVATIUS: In what directions?
STOTHFANG: For example, where social insurance was concerned. In this case the Party Chancellery was of the opinion that equality with German workers was not justified on either practical or political grounds; nor was as high a rate of pay.
DR. SERVATIUS: And what did Sauckel say to that?
STOTHFANG: He tried, again and again, to regulate all these matters according to his principles. In some things he was definitely unsuccessful, and in others he was successful only after great efforts. I would remind you of the equal status given to the Eastern Workers which was actually only put into effect in March 1945 through a decree.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you receive any special reports from the Gauleiter who were appointed deputies for the Allocation of Labor, or did you speak to the Gauleiter?
STOTHFANG: There were instructions that on inspection trips the competent Gauleiter of the district visited had to be seen, so that any relevant questions could be discussed with him.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you take part in meetings of the Central Planning Board?
STOTHFANG: I went to one single meeting of the Central Planning Board with the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor.
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, you have just mentioned March 1945 as the date when the Eastern Workers were given equality with the rest of the workers. Are you not mistaken in the year-1944? I will show you the decree.
STOTHFANG: As far as I remember, it was March 1945.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, I will have it shown to the witness in a moment; we are looking for it.
[Turning to the witness.] What was the relationship between Speer and Sauckel?
1 June 46
STOTHFANG: Apparently the appointment of the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor was due to a suggestion which Minister Speer had made to the Fuehrer.
DR. SERVATIUS: I refer to Document 58, in Document Book Number 2, Page 167 of the German text, and Page 156 of the English text. That is the decree concerning the conditions of employment of Eastern Workers, of 25 March 1944, and I read Paragraph 2:
"For Eastern Workers the same conditions apply for wages and salary as for other foreign workers. Eastern Workers are paid wages only for work they actually do."
THE PRESIDENT: How did the wages compare with the wages of the German workers?
STOTHFANG: It was a fundamental rule that they must be based on the German wages for the same type of work, in order to avoid additional profits for the industries which employed Eastern Workers.
DR. SERVATIUS: Do you remember a conference at which Goebbels stated his opinion to Sauckel as regards the latter's policy concerning social questions and questions of wages?
DR. SERVATIUS: Can you describe it to us?
STOTHFANG: I myself did not take part in that conference. I only knew about it from the description given by my colleague Dr. Hildebrandt, who was present at the meeting with Gauleiter Sauckel.
It was the first discussion between the two gentlemen after Reich Minister Goebbels had become Reich Plenipotentiary for Total War Effort. At this conference Minister Speer was also present, and in the course of the conference Reich Minister Dr. Goebbels reproached the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor with the fact his previous measures. . .
THE PRESIDENT: He is now telling us, is he not, what Hildebrandt told him?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Hildebrandt has been in the witness box and he has not been asked about it.
DR. SERVATIUS: There has been confusion of the two witnesses. They arrived only a short time ago. I ask permission for this witness to say what Hildebrandt told him. It can be explained by the fact that the witness was here for only a very short time.
1 June 46
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, the Tribunal does not think that you ought to be allowed to ask him that question.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were there any difficulties with Speer?
STOTHFANG: Not at the beginning. In the course of years difficulties arose because of the fundamentally different ideas of the two men.
THE PRESIDENT: We have had the relationships between Sauckel and Speer gone into elaborately.
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes. I will withdraw that question.
[Turning to the witness.] What did the offices have to do with the employment of concentration camp prisoners? Did they deal with that?
Dr. Servatius: Did you not receive reports that manpower was disappearing from other industries, and in this way became concentration camp workers?
STOTHFANG: No reports were received about that.
DR. SERVATIUS: Are you aware that concentration camp workers were employed in large numbers for work?
STOTHFANG: It was the general practice of the Police to put prisoners to work.
DR. SERVATIUS: You did not receive any reports about that, did you?
STOTHFANG: No. An effort was made to gain influence to the extent of having reports sent to the offices of the labor administration concerning the employment of concentration camp prisoners, so that they could be considered in the general planning of labor allocation. But these reports were not received by the labor offices.
DR. SERVATIUS: Now I have only a few more questions concerning the control offices, and other control agencies, which had been established in order to investigate conditions among the workers in Germany. Do you know how far foreign workers themselves were included in that control system? I am thinking first of all of the office of Ambassador Scapini. How did this office work? Did you hear anything about it?
STOTHFANG: I do not know many details about the office of Scapini. I know of its existence, but to the best of my knowledge Scapini's office was chiefly occupied with the welfare of French prisoners of war rather than with the welfare of French civilian workers, because for the latter a special office existed under M. Bruneton. But generally the foreign workers were represented by the German Labor Front. So-called Reich liaison of flees were set up
1 June 46
everywhere, from the central office via the Au to the small districts, and each employed several people who visited the camps, listened to complaints and negotiated with the of flees of the German Labor Front, or with other offices of the labor administration.
DR. SERVATIUS:. Those were German employees that you mentioned?
STOTHFANG: No; they were foreign employees from countries abroad, in fact from almost every country.
DR. SERVATIUS: In the factories themselves, did the workmen have any representatives who had contact, as liaison men, with the supervisory offices of the German Labor Front?
STOTHFANG: Not to my knowledge.
DR. SERVATIUS: For the Eastern Workers there was also a control office. Do you know that office?
STOTHFANG: In Rosenberg's department there was a special one for that purpose.
DR. SERVATIUS: How did that office work? Did you hear anything about it?
STOTHFANG: Yes. It had regular contact with the technically competent offices of the labor administration.
DR. SERVATIUS: And whom had this office to contact if it received complaints? The Labor Front, Sauckel's office, or the Minister of Labor? To whom did they have to go?
STOTHFANG: That depended on the nature of the irregularities, or the complaints which were made.
DR. SERVATIUS: I will give you an example-complaints about labor conditions.
STOTHFANG: In that case one had to go first to the competent local labor office in order to have detailed inquiries made into the case, and to see about the general conditions, or the actual conditions.
DR. SERVATIUS: And if it was a matter of housing and nutrition, to whom did one go?
STOTHFANG: First to the offices of the German Labor Front, which, by a decree of the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor-I believe it was Decree Number 4-was given the general task of looking after the foreign workers.
DR. SERVATIUS: And did the Labor Front report to you further?
STOTHFANG: Within the scope of their capacity they tried to put matters right.
1 June 46
DR. SERVATIUS: Then the Labor Front itself, in fact, was the highest authority for questions of complaints about the welfare of workers?
STOTHFANG: If you put it dike that, yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: Who supervised the treatment of prisoners of war? Did the complaints come to Sauckel?
DR. SERVATIUS: Who had charge of that?
STOTHFANG: The High Command of the Armed Forces.
DR. SERVATIUS: The Reich Inspection Board was also a control of lice. What did Sauckel have to do with the Reich Inspection Board?
STOTHFANG: That must be an incorrect designation. I do not know what you mean by the Reich Inspection Board.
DR. SERVATIUS: I mean the Trade Inspection Board, the Reich Trade Inspection Board.
STOTHFANG: In Germany the trade inspection boards in principle were competent for labor protection in factories. As far as
labor protection in factories was concerned, they had to see that the decrees which had been issued, and were in force, were carried out and obeyed. Therefore in case of complaints they were the competent authorities.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was Sauckel accused by other offices of looking after the workmen too well? And was there not, in some cases, even envy of the situation of certain foreign workers?
STOTHFANG: Yes. Such accusations came from three places. First, from the two offices I mentioned before, which offered general objections and resistance to the far-reaching demands of the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor. Then Bormann's office, and Himmler's office. It went so far that the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor was even suspected of being pro-Bolshevik.
DR. SERVATIUS: I have no further questions to put to the witness. , ,, !,.
THE PRESIDENT: Do any other defense counsel wish to ask any questions?
[There was no response.]
Does the Prosecution wish to?
There was no response.]
The witness can retire.
The witness left the stand.]
1 June 46
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, I do not know whether the witness Jager has arrived yet.
THE PRESIDENT: I am told not.
DR. SERVATIUS: I assume that he will be here by Monday, and I would suggest that I be permitted to submit some documents now, or perhaps an interrogation of the witness Goetz, which is in the document book. Perhaps I may refer to several passages. It is a very long affidavit, and it throws some light on the matter in this connection and will make it easier to understand.
THE PRESIDENT: You probably have some remarks to make about your documents, have you not, which will take you up until 1 o'clock?
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, the document books contain primarily the decrees which Sauckel issued, and they cover what has been said here by the witnesses and by the defendant himself as a witness. As far as possible, the book is divided up into sections dealing with special subjects, but as the decrees which were issued frequently applied to several subjects at the same time, the separate divisions overlap in this book.
I refer principally to Volume I, to all the decrees included there, which I do not want to read individually. I should like only to call special attention to the decrees about police matters. That is Document 6, which is on Page 16; Document 10, on Page 20; and Document 15, on Page 25. These documents. . .
THE PRESIDENT: You understand that you must offer in evidence each document or number of documents that you want to put in evidence? It is not sufficient to put it in your document book. So please state the document which you wish to put in evidence.
DR. SERVATIUS: These documents are included in a collection of laws which has already been submitted.
THE PRESIDENT: The whole thing you mean? The whole thing has been submitted?
DR. SERVATIUS: It has, as far as I know. That is Document Number 3044-PS: "Enactments, Decrees, Announcements."
THE PRESIDENT: Well, probably only a small part of 3044-PS has been read and, therefore, unless it is translated into the four languages, it does not form part of the record. Dr. Servatius, if you will go into the matter and offer what you want to offer in evidence on Monday morning, that will be quite satisfactory.
DR. SERVATIUS: But may I refer to them now, and then submit the documents on Monday?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
1 June 46
DR. SERVATIUS: These three decrees and enactments of the Reichsfuehrer SS I have submitted in order to show how efforts were made at improvement even in this difficult field. Decree Number 6 was issued shortly before Sauckel came into office, and one must assume that this was done in order to produce a fait accompli.
The next decree, Document Number 10, already shows an improvement. It deals with the barbed wire and the workers' outings, and this is even more relaxed in the next document. Document Number 15, that is Decree Number 4, which has already been submitted, is probably the most important first decree, which describes the fundamental authority and directives, as well as recruiting methods, transportation, and treatment in Germany.
Decree Number 16 deals with the employment of Eastern Workers and gives the first basic regulations, because until then there was no definite legal regulation of a uniform type.
Then I come to Document Number 19, which is on Page 54 in the English text. This is a decree and a letter from Sauckel to the Au labor offices and the Gauleiter, of 14 October 1942, concerning good treatment for foreign workers. This letter is an intervention on the part of Sauckel to remove poor conditions and to correct certain abuses of which he had been informed. I quote here in the German text on Page 59 the following...
THE PRESIDENT: Well, that document has been quoted already I think, hasn't it?
DR. SERVATIUS: A part of the document has already been mentioned.
THE PRESIDENT: Which part has not been quoted?
DR. SERVATIUS: It is Page 59 in my book; in the English text, Page 54.
THE PRESIDENT: Page 54 is only the heading.
DR. SERVATIUS: Heading: "Decree and letter of Sauckel dated 14 October 1942," and on the next page the text begins. The first page contains only the tine of the decree.
THE PRESIDENT: But Page 55 in the English text, the beginning of the document has already been read.
DR. SERVATIUS: The beginning has already been read.
THE PRESIDENT: Then what did you want to read?
DR. SERVATIUS: I should like to read the whole thing in order to show how far Sauckel. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you see, beginning with the words, "If in a Au district the statement was recently still made," that has been read already, down to the bottom of that paragraph.
1 June 46
DR. SERVATIUS: I have here only a short note. If it has already been read, then I need not read it again. I will dispense with the reading.
Document Number 20 on Page 56 in the English document book deals with compulsory labor service for foreign female domestic help and shows the regulations in force at that time...
THE PRESIDENT: Which document?
DR. SERVATIUS: Document Number 20.
THE PRESIDENT: Continue.
DR. SERVATIUS: . . . whereby it is pointed out particularly that a forced transfer of foreign women for domestic help would not be carried out; and the statement made by Sauckel emphasizes that only voluntary workers should be taken for domestic employment.
Decree Number 21 introduces the labor book. That is in the English text on Page 57. The purpose of the labor book was, as Sauckel has stated here, to facilitate a registration of manpower, so that one could review it and not lose control. Above all, in connection with this, there was to be an allocation of land to the Eastern Workers, as the Defendant Sauckel has explained. A central file was to be compiled, and with the help of this the regular transportation of the workers home again was to be arranged at a later date. That was the preparatory measure of the labor book.
Then we come to Document Number 22, of 23 July 1943, which deals with The limitation of the duration of employment of Eastern Workers. It is said in this connection that the duration of employment should be for 2 years, with certain modifications, and that there should be facilities for leave, and premiums should be given for the work done. There was to be leave in Germany, and, under certain conditions, home leave. For vacations in Germany, as can be seen here, special leave camps were set up for Eastern Workers. The reason was that, on account of transport conditions and other circumstances, these workers could not go home, especially if they came from territories which in the meantime were no longer occupied by Germans.
Then there follows Decree Number 13. That is Document Number 23, Page 62 in the English document book. This decree deals with the keeping of order in factories and works. It is the decree on the basis of which measures could be taken for the maintenance of discipline. I have submitted it in order to show that it was valid both for German and for foreign workers, and is not a decree which discriminates against Eastern Workers.
Now I will refer to Document Number 26. That is Page 66 in the English document book. This is a decree of 25 July 1944 according to which the position of female domestic workers from the East was
1 June 46
in principle to be equal to that of the German domestic help. Working hours are regulated and also time off. It reads: "Every week the female Eastern Worker is to have an adequate amount of free time."
The question of vacations is regulated in Paragraph 7, to the effect that they will be granted leave after 12 months' work in Reich territory.
THE PRESIDENT: Are those figures right in Document 26, Page 67 in the English document book? Working hours to fall between 6 o'clock in the morning and 9 o'clock at night?
DR. SERVATIUS: It says there: "The regular working hours, including rest periods and preparation for work, are to fall between 0600 and 2100 hours, unless special conditions call for other arrangements." That does not mean that the work is to be done from 6 o'clock in the morning until 9 o'clock at night. It means that between these two time limits these people have to work. They cannot work before 6 o'clock in the morning, and these girls cannot work after 9 o'clock at night. It cannot...
THE PRESIDENT: I am only asking if the figures are correct.
DR. SERVATIUS: The figures are correct.
Document 27 deals with the position of foreign workers in factories. It is a decree of the German Labor Front and there are one or two basic statements made in it. Here for example:
"The pleasure they take in their work and the willingness of German workers must in no circumstances be endangered by preferential treatment for foreign workers.
"As regards the treatment of foreign workers, it must be taken into consideration that they came to Germany voluntarily and are giving us their services for the carrying out of tasks of military importance. In order to maintain their pleasure in their work, the conditions of their contracts must be respected, and absolutely fair treatment and comprehensive care and attention must be given them."
Document 28 is the agreement between Ley and Sauckel instituting the supervision by the Central Inspectorate. It has already been submitted by the Prosecution.
Document 30 deals with the tasks in detail and it states:
"The Reich Inspectorate, with regard to allocation of labor, affairs of the Reich Trustee, and administration, is entrusted with the following tasks:
"The supervision. of the execution of my regulations and decrees. On the basis of the practical knowledge gained, the
1 June 46
Reich Inspectorate is to make suggestions, propose improvements and foster mutual exchange of experiences."
The last document in this book deals with the establishment of French offices. It is in the English document book on Page 79, and is entitled, "French agencies for the care of the French workers employed in the Reich."
I believe I have already read the document here. With that, I have finished Document Book 1.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well; we will adjourn.
[The Tribunal adjourned until 3 June 1946 at 1000 hours.]