Afternoon Session
MR. DODD: Mr. President, during the presentation of the case involving the Defendant Funk, there was a number of documents that we did not submit in evidence at the time; and I asked the Tribunal’s permission to do so at a later time. I am prepared to do so now if the Tribunal would care to have me.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I think it would be quite convenient now.
MR. DODD: Very well, Sir.
The first one is a matter of clarifying the record with respect to it. It is Document 2828-PS. It has already been offered in evidence as Exhibit USA-654. But the excerpt, or the extract, which was read will be found on Page 105 of the document. We cited another page, which was in error. Reference to this Document USA-654 will be found on Page 9071 (Volume XIII, Page 141) of the record.
We also offered our Document EC-440, which consisted of a statement made by the Defendant Funk, and we quoted a sentence from Page 4 of that document. I wish to offer that as Exhibit USA-874.
Then Document 3952-PS was an interrogation of the Defendant Funk dated 19 October 1945. We wish to offer that as USA-875.
I might remind the Tribunal that the excerpt quoted from that interrogation had to do with the statement made by Funk that the Defendant Hess had notified him of the impending attack on the Soviet Union. That excerpt has been translated into the four languages, and therefore will be readily available to the Tribunal.
Then there is also another interrogation dated 22 October 1945. We read from Pages 15 and 16 of that interrogation, as it appears in the record at Page 9169 for 7 May (Volume XIII, Page 214). The document is Number 3953-PS; we offer it as Exhibit USA-876.
We next referred to Document Number 3894-PS, the interrogation of one Hans Posse. We offered it as Exhibit USA-843 at the time, as appears on Page 9093 of the record for 6 May (Volume XIII, Page 158). At that time I stated to the Tribunal that we would submit the whole interrogation in French, Russian, German, and English. We are now prepared to do that, and do so.
Then we have Document 3954-PS. This is an affidavit by one Franz B. Wolf, one of the editors of the Frankfurter Zeitung. Reference to it will be found at Page 9082 of the transcript, where we stated that we would have more to say about the reason for the retention of the editorial staff of the Frankfurter Zeitung (Volume XIII, Page 150). That Document, 3954-PS, is also now available to the Tribunal in French, Russian, German, and English; and we offer it as Exhibit USA-877.
Then, Mr. President, a motion picture film was shown during this cross-examination of the Defendant Funk; and the Tribunal inquired as to whether or not we would be prepared to submit affidavits giving its source, and so on. We are now prepared to do so; and we offer first an affidavit by Captain Sam Harris who arranged to have the pictures taken, which becomes Exhibit USA-878. The second affidavit is by the photographer who actually took the picture. We offer that as Exhibit USA-879.
Finally, I should also like to clear up one other matter. On March 25, during the cross-examination of the witness Bohle, witness for the Defendant Hess, Colonel Amen quoted from the interrogation of Von Strempel, as appears in the record beginning at Page 6482 (Volume X, Page 40). We have had the pertinent portions translated into the operating languages of the Tribunal, and we ask that this interrogation, which bears our Document Number 3800-PS, be admitted in evidence as Exhibit USA-880.
I believe, Mr. President, that clears up all of the documents that we have not offered formally, up to this date.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, counsel for the Defendant Sauckel.
DR. SERVATIUS: With the permission of the Tribunal, I will now call Defendant Sauckel to the witness stand.
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly.
[The Defendant Sauckel took the stand.]
THE PRESIDENT: Will you state your full name?
FRITZ SAUCKEL (Defendant): Ernst Friedrich Christoph Sauckel.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath after me: I swear by God—the Almighty and Omniscient—that I will speak the pure truth—and will withhold and add nothing.
[The defendant repeated the oath.]
THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down.
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, please describe your career to the Tribunal.
SAUCKEL: I was the only child of the postman Friedrich Sauckel, and was born at Hassfurt on the Main near Bamberg. I attended the elementary school at Schweinfurt and the secondary school.
DR. SERVATIUS: How long were you at the secondary school?
SAUCKEL: For 5 years. As my father held only a very humble position, it was my mother, a seamstress, who made it possible for me to go to that school. When she became very ill with heart trouble, I saw that it would be impossible for my parents to provide for my studies, and I obtained their permission to go to sea to make a career for myself there.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you join the merchant marine, or where did you go?
SAUCKEL: First of all I joined the Norwegian and Swedish merchant marine so that I could be thoroughly trained in seamanship on the big sailing vessels and clippers.
DR. SERVATIUS: How old were you at the time?
SAUCKEL: At that time I was 15½.
DR. SERVATIUS: What were you earning?
SAUCKEL: As a cabin boy on a Norwegian sailing ship I earned 5 kronen in addition to my keep.
DR. SERVATIUS: And then, in the course of your career at sea, where did you go next?
SAUCKEL: In the course of my career as a sailor, and during my training which I continued afterwards on German sailing vessels, I sailed on every sea and went to every part of the world.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you come into contact with foreign families?
SAUCKEL: Through the Young Men’s Christian Association, principally in Australia and North America, as well as in South America, I came into contact with families of these countries.
DR. SERVATIUS: Where were you when the first World War started?
SAUCKEL: It so happened that I was on a German sailing vessel on the way to Australia when the ship was captured, and on the high seas I was made prisoner by the French.
DR. SERVATIUS: How long did you remain prisoner?
SAUCKEL: Five years, until November 1919.
DR. SERVATIUS: And did you return home then?
SAUCKEL: Yes, I returned home then.
DR. SERVATIUS: And then what did you do?
SAUCKEL: Although I had finished my training and studies in seamanship required of me, I could not go to sea again and take my examination, since my savings made during those years at sea had become worthless because of the German inflation. There were also few German ships and very many unemployed German seamen, so I decided to take up work in a factory in my home town of Schweinfurt.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you remain in your home town?
SAUCKEL: At first I remained in my home town. I learned to be a turner and engineer in the Fischer ball-bearing factory in order to save money so that I later could attend a technical school, an engineering college.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were you already interested in politics at that time?
SAUCKEL: Although as a sailor I despised politics—for I loved my sailor’s life and still love it today—conditions forced me to take up a definite attitude towards political problems. No one in Germany at that time could do otherwise. Many years before I had left a beautiful country and a rich nation and I returned to that country 6 years later to find it fundamentally changed and in a state of upheaval, and in great spiritual and material need.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you join any party?
SAUCKEL: No. I worked in a factory which people in my home town described as “ultra-Red.” I worked in the tool shop, and right and left of me Social Democrats, Communists, Socialists, and Anarchists were working—among others my present father-in-law—and during all the rest periods discussions went on, so that whether one wanted to or not one became involved in the social problems of the time.
DR. SERVATIUS: You mention your father-in-law. Did you marry then?
SAUCKEL: In 1923 I married the daughter of a German workman I had met at that time. I am still happily married to her today and we have 10 children.
DR. SERVATIUS: When did you join the Party?
SAUCKEL: I joined the Party definitely in 1923 after having already been in sympathy with it before.
DR. SERVATIUS: What made you do it?
SAUCKEL: One of those days I heard a speech of Hitler’s. In this speech he said that the German factory worker and the German laborer must make common cause with the German brain worker. The controversies between the proletariat and the middle class must be smoothed out and bridged over by each getting to know and understand the other. Through this a new community of people would grow up, and only such a community, not bound to middle class or proletariat, could overcome the dire needs of those days and the splitting up of the German nation into parties and creeds. This statement took such hold of me and struck me so forcibly, that I dedicated my life to the idea of adjusting what seemed to be almost irreconcilable contrasts. I did that all the more, if I may say so, because I was aware of the fact that there is an inclination to go to extremes in German people, and in the German character generally. I had to examine myself very thoroughly to find the right path for me personally. As I have already said, I had hardly taken any interest in political questions. My good parents, who are no longer alive, brought me up in a strictly Christian but also in a very patriotic way. However, when I went to sea, I lived a sailor’s life. I loaded saltpeter in Chile. I did heavy lumber work in Canada, in Quebec. I trimmed coal on the equator, and I sailed around Cape Horn several times. All of this was hard work; I ask...
DR. SERVATIUS: Please, come back to the question of the Party.
SAUCKEL: This has to do with the question of the Party, for we must all give some reasons as to how we got there. I myself...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, I stated at the beginning of the defendant’s case that we had heard this account from the Defendant Göring and that we did not propose to hear it again from 20 defendants. It seems to me that we are having it inflicted upon us by nearly every one of the defendants.
DR. SERVATIUS: I believe, Mr. President, that we are interested in getting some sort of an impression of the defendant himself. Seen from various points of view, the facts look different. I will now briefly...
THE PRESIDENT: It is quite true, Dr. Servatius, but we have had half an hour, almost, of it now.
DR. SERVATIUS: I shall limit it now.
The Party was dissolved in 1923, and refounded in 1925. Did you join it again?
SAUCKEL: Yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you take an active part in the Party or were you just a member?
SAUCKEL: From 1925 on I took an active part in it.
DR. SERVATIUS: And what position did you hold?
SAUCKEL: I was then Gauleiter in Thuringia.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you do that to get work, to earn your living, or for what reason?
SAUCKEL: As Gauleiter in Thuringia I earned 150 marks. In any other profession I would have had accommodations and earned more money.
DR. SERVATIUS: When did you make Hitler’s acquaintance?
SAUCKEL: I met him briefly in 1925.
DR. SERVATIUS: When did you become Gauleiter?
SAUCKEL: I became Gauleiter in 1927.
DR. SERVATIUS: And how were you appointed?
SAUCKEL: I was appointed by letter.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you receive any special instructions which pointed to secret intentions of the Party?
SAUCKEL: At that time we were very definitely told that under no circumstances should there be any secret chapters or any other secrecy in the life of the Party, but that everything should be done publicly.
DR. SERVATIUS: Who was your predecessor?
SAUCKEL: Dr. Dinter.
DR. SERVATIUS: Why was he relieved of his post?
SAUCKEL: Dr. Dinter was dismissed because he wanted to found a new religious movement within the Party.
DR. SERVATIUS: In 1929 you became a member of the Thuringian Diet?
SAUCKEL: Yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were you elected to that?
SAUCKEL: I was elected to the Diet in the same way as at every parliamentary election.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was dictatorship in power there already at the time?
SAUCKEL: That was not possible; the province was governed in accordance with the Thuringian constitution.
DR. SERVATIUS: How long were you a member of the Diet?
SAUCKEL: I was a member of the Diet as long as it existed, until May 1933.
DR. SERVATIUS: How was it dissolved?
SAUCKEL: The Diet was dissolved by a Reich Government decree.
DR. SERVATIUS: Then in 1932, you were a member of the Provincial Government of Thuringia. How did you get into that position?
SAUCKEL: In 1932, in the month of June, new elections took place for the Thuringian Diet, and the NSDAP obtained 26 out of 60 seats.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was any mention made of a dictatorship which was to be aimed at?
SAUCKEL: No, a government was elected according to parliamentary principles.
DR. SERVATIUS: Well, you had a majority in the Thuringian Government, had you not, and you could use your influence?
SAUCKEL: Together with the bourgeois parties, by an absolute majority, a National Socialist government was elected.
DR. SERVATIUS: What happened to the old officials? Were they dismissed?
SAUCKEL: I myself became the President and Minister of the Interior in that government; the old officials, without exception, remained in their offices.
DR. SERVATIUS: And with what did that first National Socialist government concern itself in the field of domestic politics?
SAUCKEL: In the field of domestic politics there was only one question at that time, and that was the alleviation of an indescribable distress which is only exceeded by that of today.
DR. SERVATIUS: In this connection, Mr. President, may I submit two government reports from which I only wish to draw your attention briefly to two passages. One is the report contained in Document Number 96, which shows the activity of the government and its fight against social distress. What is particularly important when you run through it, is what is not mentioned, that is, there is no mention of the question of war or other such matters, but again and again the alleviation of distress is mentioned. And important, too, is the work that was carried out. That is in Document Number 97. In this book, on Page 45, there is a statement of the work undertaken by the government—bridge-building, road-making, and so on—and in no way had this work anything to do with war.
Then I am submitting Document Number 95 from the same period. It is a book called Sauckel’s Fighting Speeches. Here, too, the book is remarkable for what does not appear in it, namely preparations for war. Instead it emphasizes the distress which must be alleviated. It becomes clear from the individual articles that these are speeches made during a number of years, which show in a similar way what the preoccupations were of the Defendant Sauckel. It begins in 1932 with a speech dealing with the misery of the time, and ends with the final questions where reference is made once again to the alleviation of social need and the preservation of peace. The Tribunal will be able to read these articles in the document book.
In 1933 you also became Reich Regent of Thuringia. How did you manage to get to that position?
SAUCKEL: I was appointed Reich Regent of Thuringia by Field Marshal Von Hindenburg, who was Reich President at that time.
DR. SERVATIUS: What were the instructions you received when you took up your offices?
SAUCKEL: When I took over my office as Reich Regent I received instructions to form a new Thuringian Government, as the Reich Regent was to keep out of the administrative affairs of a German state...
DR. SERVATIUS: You need not tell us these technical details. I mean what political task were you given?
SAUCKEL: I was given the political task of administering Thuringia as Reich Regent within the existing Reich law and prevailing Constitution, and of guaranteeing the unity of the Reich.
DR. SERVATIUS: And did the words “guarantee the unity of the Reich” mean the overpowering of others, in particular the authorities in Thuringia?
SAUCKEL: No, the authorities remained.
DR. SERVATIUS: Now, you held both the position of Gauleiter and that of Reich Regent. What was the aim of that?
SAUCKEL: Both positions were entirely separate in their organizations. Under the Regent were officials in office, and under the Gauleiter were employees of the Party. Both positions were administered absolutely separately, as is the case in any other state where members of a party are at the same time party officials or leaders and exercise both these functions simultaneously.
DR. SERVATIUS: So you received no order that one position should absorb the other?
SAUCKEL: No, I had no such orders. The tasks were entirely different.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were you a member of the SA?
SAUCKEL: I myself was never an SA man. I was an honorary Obergruppenführer in the SA.
DR. SERVATIUS: How did you receive that appointment?
SAUCKEL: I cannot tell you. It was honorary.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were you appointed SS Obergruppenführer by Himmler?
SAUCKEL: No, the Führer made me honorary SS Obergruppenführer for no special reason and without functions.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were you a member of the Reichstag?
SAUCKEL: Yes, from 1933 on.
DR. SERVATIUS: As a member of the Reichstag, did you know anything in advance about the beginning of the war? Were you informed?
SAUCKEL: I was never informed in advance about the start of the war or about foreign political developments. I merely remember that quite suddenly—it may have been during the days between 24 August and the end of August—we were called to a session of the Reichstag in Berlin. This session was canceled at the time, and we were later ordered to go to the Führer, that is, the Gauleiter and Reichsleiter. But a number had already left so that the circle was not complete. The conference, or Hitler’s speech, only lasted a short time. He said, roughly, that the meeting of the Reichstag could not take place as things were still in the course of development. He was convinced that there would not be a war. He said he hoped there would be some settlement in a small way and meant by that, as I had to conclude, a solution without the parts of Upper Silesia lost in 1921. He said—and that I remember exactly—that Danzig would become German, and apart from that Germany would be given a railway line with several tracks, like a Reichsautobahn, with a strip of ground to the right and left of it. He told us to go home and prepare for the Reich Party Rally, where we would meet again.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you have any close connections with the Führer?
SAUCKEL: I personally, as far as I know the Führer, had a great deal of admiration for him. But I had no close connection with him that one could describe as personal. I had a number of discussions with him about the administration of my Gau and in particular about the care he wished to be given to cultural buildings in Thuringia—in Weimar, Eisenach, and Meiningen; and later on there were more frequent meetings because of my position as Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor.
DR. SERVATIUS: We shall come to that later. What connections did you have with the Reichsleiter?
SAUCKEL: My connections with the Reichsleiter were no different from my connections with the Führer. They were of an official and Party nature. As regards personal relationships I cannot say that I had any particularly personal intercourse with anyone.
DR. SERVATIUS: What about your connection with the Reich Ministers?
SAUCKEL: My connection with the Reich Ministers was of a purely official nature and was very infrequent.
DR. SERVATIUS: What about the Wehrmacht?
SAUCKEL: I could not have the honor of being a German soldier because of my imprisonment in the first World War. And in this World War the Führer refused to allow me to serve as a soldier.
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, you have held a number of high positions and offices. You knew the Reich Ministers and Reichsleiter. Will you please explain why you went aboard the submarine at that time?
SAUCKEL: I had repeatedly made written requests to the Führer that I might be allowed to join the Wehrmacht as an ordinary soldier. He refused to give me this permission. So I arranged in secret for someone to take my place and went aboard Captain Salmann’s submarine with his agreement. As a former sailor and now a politician in a high position I wanted to give these brave submarine men a proof of my comradeship and understanding and of my sense of duty. Apart from that I had 10 children for whom, as their father, I had to do something too.
DR. SERVATIUS: I should like now, in a number of questions, to refer to your activities. Were you a member of a trade union?
SAUCKEL: No.
DR. SERVATIUS: Do you know what the aims of German trade unions were?
SAUCKEL: Yes, I do.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were they economic or political?
SAUCKEL: As I, as a worker, came to know them, the aims of German trade unions were political, and there were a number of different trade unions with varied political views. I considered that a great misfortune. As workman in the workshop I had had experience of the arguments among the trade unionists—between the Christian Socialist trade unions and the Red trade unions, between the syndicalist, the anarchist and the communist trade unions.
DR. SERVATIUS: The trade unions in your Gau were then dissolved. Were the leaders arrested at the time?
SAUCKEL: No.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you approve of the dissolution of the trade unions?
SAUCKEL: The dissolution of the trade unions was in the air then. The question was discussed in the Party for a long time and there was no agreement at all as to the position trade unions should hold, nor as to their necessity, their usefulness and their nature. But a solution had to be found because the trade unions which we, or the Führer, or Dr. Ley, dissolved all held different political views. From that time on, however, there was only one party in Germany and it was necessary, I fully realize, to come to a definite decision as to the actual duties of the trade unions, the necessary duties indispensable to every calling and to workers everywhere.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was not the purpose of removing the trade unions to remove any opposition which might stand in the way of an aggressive war?
SAUCKEL: I can say in all good conscience that during those years not one of us ever thought about a war at all. We had to overcome such terrible need that we should have been only too glad if German economic life could have been started again in peace and if the German worker, who had suffered the most during that frightful depression, could have had work and food once more.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did members of trade unions suffer economically through the dissolution?
SAUCKEL: In no way. My own father-in-law, who was a member of a trade union and still is today, and whom I repeatedly asked for information, whom I never persuaded to join the Party—he was a Social Democrat and never joined the Party—confirmed the fact that even when he was getting old and could no longer work, the German Labor Front never denied him the rights due to him as an old trade unionist and by virtue of his long trade-union membership, but allowed him full benefits. On the other hand, the German State—since in Germany old age and disability insurance and the accident insurance, et cetera, were paid and organized by the State—the National Socialist State guaranteed him all these rights and made full payment.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were all Communist leaders arrested in your Gau after the Party came to power?
SAUCKEL: No. In my Gau, as far as I know, only Communists who had actually worked against the State were arrested.
DR. SERVATIUS: And what happened to them?
SAUCKEL: The State Police arrested and interrogated them and detained them according to the findings.
DR.. SERVATIUS: Did you have Kreisleiter in your Gau who had been members of a former opposition party?
SAUCKEL: The Party’s activity was recruiting. Our most intensive work was the winning over of political opponents. I am very proud of the fact that many workers in my Gau, numerous former Communists and Social Democrats, were won over by us and became local group leaders and Party functionaries.
DR. SERVATIUS: But were there not two Kreisleiter from the extreme left appointed by you?
SAUCKEL: One Kreisleiter from the extreme left was appointed. Also, besides a number of other leaders, the Gau sectional manager of the German Labor Front had belonged to the extreme left for a long time.
DR. SERVATIUS: How did you personally deal with your political opponents?
SAUCKEL: Political opponents who did not work against the State were neither bothered nor harmed in my Gau.
DR. SERVATIUS: Do you know the Socialist Deputy Fröhlich?
SAUCKEL: The Socialist Deputy August Fröhlich was my strongest and most important opponent. He was the leader of the Thuringian Social Democrats and was for many years the Social Democrat Prime Minister of Thuringia. I had great respect for him as an opponent. He was an honorable and upright man. On 20 July 1944, through my own personal initiative, I had him released from detention. He had been on the list of the conspirators of 20 July, but I had so much respect for him personally that, in spite of that, I asked for his release and obtained it.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you treat other opponents similarly?
SAUCKEL: I also had a politician of the Center Party I knew in my home town of Schweinfurt released from detention.
DR. SERVATIUS: The Concentration Camp of Buchenwald was in your Gau. Did you establish it?
SAUCKEL: The Buchenwald Camp originated in the following manner: The Führer, who came to Weimar quite often because of the theater there, suggested that a battalion of his SS Leibstandarte should be stationed at Weimar. As the Leibstandarte was considered a picked regiment I not only agreed to this but was very pleased, because in a city like Weimar people are glad to have a garrison. So the State of Thuringia, the Thuringian Government, at the request of the Führer, prepared a site in the Ettersburg Forest, north of the incline outside the town.
After some time Himmler informed me, however, that he could not bring a battalion of the SS Leibstandarte to Weimar, as he could not divide up the regiment, but that it would be a newly established Death’s-Head unit, and Himmler said it would amount to the same thing. It was only some time later, when the site had already been placed at the disposal of the Reich, that Himmler declared that he now had to accommodate a kind of concentration camp with the Death’s-Head units on this very suitable site. I opposed this to begin with, because I did not consider a concentration camp at all the right kind of thing for the town of Weimar and its traditions. However, he—I mean Himmler—making use of his position, refused to have any discussion about it. And so the camp was set up neither to my satisfaction nor to that of the population of Weimar.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you have anything to do with the administration of the camp later on?
SAUCKEL: I never had anything to do with the administration of the camp. The Thuringian Government made an attempt at the time to influence the planning of the building by saying that the building police in Thuringia wished to give the orders for the sanitary arrangements in the camp. Himmler rejected this on the grounds of his position, saying that he had a construction office of his own and the site now belonged to the Reich.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you visit the camp at any time?
SAUCKEL: As far as I can remember, on one single occasion at the end of 1937 or at the beginning of 1938, I visited and inspected the camp with an Italian commission.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you find anything wrong there?
SAUCKEL: I did not find anything wrong. I inspected the accommodations—I myself had been a prisoner for 5 years, and so it interested me. I must admit that at that time there was no cause for any complaint as such. The accommodations had been divided into day and night rooms. The beds were covered with blue and white sheets; the kitchens, washrooms, and latrines were beyond reproach, so that the Italian officer or officers who were inspecting the camp with me said that in Italy they would not accommodate their own soldiers any better.
DR. SERVATIUS: Later on did you hear about the events in that camp which have been alleged here?
SAUCKEL: I heard nothing about such events as have been alleged here.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you have anything to do with the evacuation of the camp at the end of the war, before the American Army approached?
SAUCKEL: When the mayor of Weimar informed me that they intended to evacuate the camp at Buchenwald and to use the camp guards to fight the American troops, I raised the strongest objections. As I had no authority over the camp, and since for various reasons connected with my other office I had had considerable differences with Himmler and did not care to speak to him, I telephoned the Führer’s headquarters in Berlin and said that in any case an evacuation or a transfer of prisoners into the territory east of the Saale was impossible and madness, and could not be carried through from the point of view of supplies. I demanded that the camp should be handed over to the American occupation troops in an orderly manner. I received the answer that the Führer would give instructions to Himmler to comply with my request. I briefly reported this to some of my colleagues and the mayor, and then I left Weimar.
DR. SERVATIUS: The witness Dr. Blaha has stated that you had also been to the concentration camp at Dachau on the occasion of an inspection.
SAUCKEL: No, I did not go to the Dachau Concentration Camp and, as far as I recollect, I did not take part in the visit of the Gauleiter to Dachau in 1935 either. In no circumstances did I take part in an inspection in Dachau such as Dr. Blaha has described here; and consequently, above all, I did not inspect workshops or anything of the sort.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you not, as Gauleiter, receive official reports regarding the events in the concentration camp, that is to say, orders which passed through the Gau administrative offices both from and to the camp?
SAUCKEL: No. I neither received instructions for the Buchenwald Camp, nor reports. It was not only my personal opinion but it was the opinion of old experienced Gauleiter that it was the greatest misfortune, from the administrative point of view, when Himmler as early as 1934-35 proceeded to separate the executive from the general internal administration. There were continual complaints from many Gauleiter and German provincial administrations. They were unsuccessful, however, because in the end Himmler incorporated even the communal fire brigades into the Reich organization of his Police.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you have any personal relations with the Police and the SS at Weimar?
SAUCKEL: I had no personal relations with the SS and the Police at all. I had official relations inasmuch as the trade police and the local police of small boroughs still remained under the internal administration of the State of Thuringia.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did not the Police have their headquarters near you, at Weimar?
SAUCKEL: No, it was the ridiculous part of the development at that time that, as I once explained to the Führer, we had been changed from a Party state, and a state made up of provinces, into a departmental state. The Reich ministries had greatly developed, their departments being fairly well defined, and the individual district departments of the various administrations did not agree among one another. Until 1934 Thuringia had its own independent police administration in its Ministry for Home Affairs. But from that time the headquarters of the Higher SS and the Police Leader were transferred to Kassel, so that Himmler, in contrast to the rest of the State and Party organizations, obtained new spheres for his Police. He demonstrated this in Central Germany where for example the Higher SS and Police Leader for Weimar and the State of Thuringia was stationed in Kassel, whereas for the Prussian part of the Gau of Thuringia—that is to say the town of Erfurt which is 20 kilometers away from Weimar—the Higher SS and Police Leader and the provincial administration had their seat in Magdeburg. It is obvious that we, as Gau authorities, did not in any way agree with such a development and that there was great indignation among the experienced administrators.
DR. SERVATIUS: The question is: Did you co-operate with these offices and did you have a friendly association with the officials in the regime and therefore know what was going on in Buchenwald?
SAUCKEL: On the contrary, it was a continual battle. Each separate organization shut itself off from the others. At such a period of world development this was most unfortunate. For the people it was disadvantageous and it made things impossible for any administration.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was there persecution of the Jews in your Gau?
SAUCKEL: No.
DR. SERVATIUS: What about the laws concerning the Jews and the execution of those laws?
SAUCKEL: These Jewish laws were proclaimed in Nuremberg. There were actually very few Jews in Thuringia.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were there no violations in connection with the well-known events, following the murder of the Envoy Vom Rath in Paris, which have repeatedly become the subject of discussion in this Trial?
SAUCKEL: I cannot recollect in detail the events in Thuringia. As I told you, there were only a few Jews in Thuringia. The Gauleiter were in Munich at the time, and had no influence at all on that development, for it happened during the night, when all the Gauleiter were in Munich.
DR. SERVATIUS: My question is this: What happened in your Gau of Thuringia, and what instructions did you give as a result?
SAUCKEL: There may have been a few towns in Thuringia where a window was smashed or something of that sort. I cannot tell you in detail. I cannot even tell you where or whether there were synagogues in Thuringia.
DR. SERVATIUS: Now one question regarding your financial position.
On the occasion of your fiftieth birthday the Führer made you a donation. How much was it?
SAUCKEL: On my fiftieth birthday in October 1944 I was surprised to get a letter from the Führer through one of his adjutants. In that letter there was a check for 250,000 marks. I told the adjutant that I could not possibly accept it—I was very surprised. The Führer’s adjutant—it was little Bormann, the old Bormann, not Reichsleiter Bormann—told me that the Führer knew quite well that I had neither money nor any landed property and that this would be a security for my children. He told me not to hurt the Führer’s feelings. The adjutant left quickly and I sent for Demme who was both a colleague and a friend of mine and the president of the State Bank of Thuringia. He was unfortunately refused as a witness as being irrelevant ...
THE PRESIDENT: I think it is enough if we know whether he ultimately accepted it or not.
DR. SERVATIUS: Let us drop that question. What happened to the money?
SAUCKEL: Through the president of the State Bank in question the money was placed into an account in the State Bank of Thuringia.
DR. SERVATIUS: What other income did you receive from your official positions?
SAUCKEL: The only income I had from my official positions was the salary of a Reich Regent.
DR. SERVATIUS: How much was that?
SAUCKEL: The salary of a Reich Minister; I cannot tell you exactly what it was. I never bothered about it. It was something like 30,000 marks.
DR. SERVATIUS: And what means have you today apart from the donation in that bank account?
SAUCKEL: I have not saved any money and I never had any property.
DR. SERVATIUS: That, Mr. President, brings me to the end of those general questions and I am now coming to the questions relating to the Allocation of Labor.
THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn.
[A recess was taken.]
DR. SERVATIUS: To aid the Court I have prepared a plan showing how the direction of labor was managed, which should help to explain how the individual authorities co-operated and how the operation was put into motion.
I will concern myself mainly with the problem of meeting the demand, that is with the question of how the labor was obtained. I shall not concern myself much with the question of the use made of the labor and the needs of industry. That is more a matter for Speer’s defense, which does not quite fit in with my presentation of things. But those are details which occurred in error because I did not go into such matters thoroughly when the plan was being prepared. Fundamentally there are no differences.
If I may explain the plan briefly: At the top there is the Führer, in red; under him is the Four Year Plan; and under that, as part of the Four Year Plan, there is the office of Sauckel, who was Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor and came directly under the Four Year Plan. He received his instructions and orders from the Führer through the Four Year Plan, or, as was the Führer’s way, from him direct.
Sauckel’s headquarters were at the Reich Ministry of Labor. It is the big space outlined in yellow to the left, below Sauckel’s office which is in brown. Sauckel only became included in the Reich Labor Ministry by having a few offices put at his disposal. The Reich Minister of Labor and the whole of the Labor Ministry remained.
In the course of time Sauckel’s position became somewhat stronger, individual departments being necessarily incorporated into his, over which, to a certain extent, he obtained personal power; but the Reich Ministry of Labor remained until the end.
I should now like to explain how the “Arbeitseinsatz” was put into operation. Owing to operations in Russia and the great losses in the winter, there arose a need for 2 million soldiers. The Wehrmacht, OKW, marked in green at the top next to the Führer, demands soldiers from the industries. It is marked here in the green spaces which run downwards below the OKW. The line then turns left downwards to the industries which are marked as having 30 million workers. The Wehrmacht withdraws 2 million workers but can only do so when new labor is there. It was at that moment that Sauckel was put into office in order to obtain this labor.
The number of men needed was determined by the higher authorities through the so-called “Requirements Board,” marked at the top in yellow, which represented the highest offices: the Armaments and Production Ministries, the Ministry of Air, Agriculture, Shipping, Traffic, and so on. They reported their requests to the Führer and he decided what was needed.
Sauckel’s task was carried out as follows: Let us go back to the brown square. On the strength of the right of the Four Year Plan to issue orders, he applied to the space on the right where the squares are outlined in blue. They are the highest district offices in the occupied territories, the Reich Ministry for the Eastern Territories, that is, Rosenberg; then come the military authorities; and as things were handled a little differently in each country, here are the various countries, Belgium, Northern France, Holland, et cetera, marked in yellow. These agencies received the order to make labor available. Each through its own machinery referred the order to the next agency below and so on down to the very last, the local labor offices which are under the district authorities, and here the workers were assigned to the factories. That is the reserve of foreigners. Beside that there are two other sources of labor available, the main reserve of German workers, which is marked in blue to the left at the bottom, and the reserve of prisoners of war.
Sauckel had to deal with all these three agencies. I will now put relevant questions to the witness. This is only to refresh our memories and to check the explanation.
I will submit other charts later. There is a list of the witnesses drawn up according to their offices so that we know where they belong; and later there will be another chart showing the inspection and controls which were set up.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, you will no doubt be asking the witness whether he is familiar with the chart and whether it is correct.
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, you have seen this chart. Is it correct? Do you acknowledge it?
SAUCKEL: To the best of my memory and belief it is correct, and I acknowledge it.
DR. SERVATIUS: On 21 March 1942 you were made Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor. Why were you chosen for this office?
SAUCKEL: The reason why I was chosen for this office was never known to me and I do not know it now. Because of my engineering studies and my occupation I took an interest in questions concerning labor systems, but I do not know whether that was the reason.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was your appointment not made at Speer’s suggestion?
SAUCKEL: Reichsleiter Bormann stated that in the preamble to his official decree. I do not know the actual circumstances.
DR. SERVATIUS: I beg to refer to Sauckel Document Number 7. It is in Document Book 1, Page 5.
SAUCKEL: I should like to add that this appointment came as a complete surprise to me, I did not apply for it in any way. I never applied for any of my offices.
THE PRESIDENT: What number are you giving to this document?
DR. SERVATIUS: Document Number 7.
THE PRESIDENT: I mean the chart. What number are you giving to the chart?
DR. SERVATIUS: Document 1.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I see, and Document Number 7, Page 5.
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes. This document is a preamble added by Reichsleiter Bormann to the decree and which shows that it was Speer who suggested Sauckel for this position.
Was it an entirely new office which you then entered?
SAUCKEL: No. The Arbeitseinsatz had been directed by the Four Year Plan before my appointment. A ministerial director, Dr. Mansfeld, held the office then. I only learned here, during these proceedings, that the office was already known before my time as the office of the Plenipotentiary General.
DR. SERVATIUS: On taking up your office did you talk to Dr. Mansfeld, your so-called predecessor?
SAUCKEL: I neither saw Dr. Mansfeld nor spoke to him, nor did I take over any records from him.
DR. SERVATIUS: To what extent was your office different from that of the previous Plenipotentiary General?
SAUCKEL: My office was different to this extent: The department in the Four Year Plan was given up and was no longer used by me. I drew departments of the Reich Labor Ministry more and more closely into this work as they had some of the outstanding experts.
DR. SERVATIUS: What was the reason for this reconstruction of the office?
SAUCKEL: The reason was to be found in the many conflicting interests which had been very prominent up to the third year of the war in the political and state offices, internal administration offices, Party agencies and economic agencies, and which now for territorial considerations opposed the interdistrict equalization of the labor potential, which had become urgent.
DR. SERVATIUS: What sort of task did you have then? What was your sphere of work?
SAUCKEL: My chief sphere of work was in directing and regulating German labor.
DR. SERVATIUS: What task were you given then?
SAUCKEL: I had to replace with suitably skilled workers those men who had to be freed from industry for drafting into the German Wehrmacht, that is, into the different branches of the Wehrmacht. Moreover, I also had to obtain new labor for the new war industries which had been set up for food production as well as for the production of armaments, of course.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was your task definitely defined?
SAUCKEL: It was at first in no way definitely defined. There were at that time about 23 or 24 million workers to be directed, who were available in the Reich but who had not yet been fully employed for war economy.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you look on your appointment as a permanent one?
SAUCKEL: No. I could not consider it as permanent.
DR. SERVATIUS: Why not?
SAUCKEL: Because in addition to me the Reich Labor Minister and his state secretaries were in office and at the head of things; and then there was the whole of the Labor Ministry.
DR. SERVATIUS: What sources were at your disposal to obtain this labor?
SAUCKEL: First, there were the workers who were already present in the Reich from all sorts of callings who, as I have said, had not yet been directed to war economy, not yet completely incorporated in the way that was necessary for the conduct of the war. Then further there were the prisoners of war as far as their labor was made available by the army authorities.
DR. SERVATIUS: At first then, if I have understood you correctly, proper distribution, and a thrifty management of German labor?
SAUCKEL: When my appointment ...
THE PRESIDENT: Defendant, I do not understand the German language, but it appears to me that if you would not make pauses between each word it would make your sentences shorter; and pause at the end of the sentence. It would be much more convenient for the interpreter. I do not know whether I am right in that. That is what it looks like. You are pausing between each word, and therefore it is difficult, I imagine, to get the sense of the sentence.
SAUCKEL: I beg your pardon, Your Lordship.
THE PRESIDENT: Go on, Dr. Servatius.
DR. SERVATIUS: What did you do to carry out your task?
SAUCKEL: I will repeat. First, as I had received no specific instructions I understood my task to mean that I was to fill up the gaps and deficiencies by employing labor in the most rational and economic way.
DR. SERVATIUS: What was the order you received? How many people were you to obtain?
SAUCKEL: That question is very difficult to answer, for I received the necessary orders only in the course of the development of the war. Labor and economy are fluid, intangible things. However I then received the order that if the war were to continue for some time I was to find replacements in the German labor sector for the Wehrmacht, whose soldiers were the potential of peacetime economy.
DR. SERVATIUS: You drew up a program. What was provided for in your program?
SAUCKEL: I drew up two programs, Doctor. At first, when I took up my office, I drew up one program which included a levée en masse, so to speak, of German women and young people, and, another, as I already said, for the proper utilization of labor from the economic and technical point of view.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was the program accepted?
SAUCKEL: The program was rejected by the Führer when I submitted it to him and, as was my duty, to the Reich economic authorities and ministries which were interested in the employment of labor.
DR. SERVATIUS: Why?
SAUCKEL: The Führer sent for me and in a lengthy statement explained the position of the German war production and also the economic situation. He said that he had nothing against my program as such if he had the time; but that in view of the situation, he could not wait for such German women to become trained and experienced. At that time 10 million German women were already employed who had never done industrial or mechanical work. Further, he said that the results of such a rationalization of working methods as I had suggested, something like a mixture of Ford and Taylor methods ...
DR. SERVATIUS: One moment. The interpreters cannot translate your long sentences properly. You must make short sentences and divide your phrases, otherwise no one can understand you and your defense will suffer a great deal. Will you please be careful about that.
SAUCKEL: In answer to my proposal the Führer said that he could not wait for a rationalization of the working methods on the lines of the Taylor and Ford systems.
DR. SERVATIUS: And what did he suggest?
SAUCKEL: May I explain the motives which prompted the Führer’s decision. He described the situation at that time, at the end of the winter of 1941-42. Many hundreds of German locomotives, almost all the mechanized armed units, tanks, planes, and mechanical weapons had become useless as a result of the catastrophe of that abnormally hard winter.
Hundreds of thousands of German soldiers had suffered terribly from the cold; many divisions had lost their arms and supplies. The Führer explained to me that if the race with the enemy for new arms, new munitions, and new dispositions of forces was not won now, the Soviets would be as far as the Channel by the next winter. Appealing to my sense of duty and asking me to put into it all I could, he gave me the task of obtaining new foreign labor for employment in the German war economy.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you have no scruples that this was against international law?
SAUCKEL: The Führer spoke to me in such detail about this question and he explained the necessity so much as a matter of course that, after he had withdrawn a suggestion which he had made himself, there could be no misgivings on my part that the employment of foreign workers was against international law.
DR. SERVATIUS: You also negotiated with other agencies and there were already workers within the Reich. What were you told about that?
SAUCKEL: None of the higher authorities, either military or civilian, expressed any misgivings. Perhaps I may add some things which the Führer mentioned as binding upon me. On the whole, the Führer always treated me very kindly. On this question, he became very severe and categorical and said that in the West he had left half the French Army free and at home, and he had released the greater part of the Belgian Army and the whole of the Dutch Army from captivity. He told me that under certain circumstances he would have to recall these prisoners of war for military reasons, but that in the interests of the whole of Europe and the Occident, so he expressed himself, only a united Europe, where labor was properly allocated, could hold out in the fight against Bolshevism.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you know the terms of the Hague land warfare regulations?
SAUCKEL: During the first World War I myself was taken prisoner as a sailor. I knew what was required and what was laid down with regard to the treatment and protection of prisoners of war and prisoners generally.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did foreign authorities—I am thinking of the French—ever raise the objection that what you planned with your Arbeitseinsatz was an infringement of the Hague land warfare regulations?
SAUCKEL: No. In France, on questions of the Arbeitseinsatz, I only negotiated with the French Government through the military commander and under the presidency of the German Ambassador in Paris. I was convinced that as far as the employment of labor in France was concerned, agreements should be made with a proper French Government. I negotiated in a similar manner with the General Secretary in Belgium.
DR. SERVATIUS: Now a large part—about a third—of the foreign workers were so-called Eastern Workers. What were you told about them?
SAUCKEL: With regard to the employment of workers from the East I was told that Russia had not joined the Geneva Convention, and so Germany for her part was not bound by it. And I was further told that in the Baltic countries and in other regions, Soviet Russia had also claimed workers or people, and that in addition about 3 million Chinese were working in Soviet Russia.
DR. SERVATIUS: And what about Poland?
SAUCKEL: As regards Poland I had been told, just as in the case of other countries, that it was a case of total capitulation, and that on the grounds of this capitulation Germany was justified in introducing German regulations.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you consider the employment of foreign labor justifiable from the general point of view?
SAUCKEL: On account of the necessities which I have mentioned, I considered the employment of foreign workers justifiable according to the principles which I enforced and advocated and to which I also adhered in my field of work. I was, after all, a German and I could feel only as a German.
DR. SERVATIUS: Herr Sauckel, you must formulate your sentences differently, the interpreters cannot translate them. You must not insert one sentence into another.
So you considered it justifiable, in view of the principles you wished to apply and, which as you said, you enforced in your field of work?
SAUCKEL: Yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you also think of the hardships imposed on the workers and their families through this employment?
SAUCKEL: I knew from my own life even if one goes to foreign countries voluntarily, a separation is very sad and heartbreaking and it is very hard for members of a family to be separated from each other. But I also thought of the German families, of the German soldiers, and of the hundreds of thousands of German workers who also had to go away from home.
DR. SERVATIUS: The suggestion has been made that the work could have been carried out in the occupied territories themselves, and it would not then have been necessary to fetch the workers away. Why was that not done?
SAUCKEL: That is, at first sight, an attractive suggestion. If it had been possible, I would willingly have carried out the suggestion which was made by Funk and other authorities, and later even by Speer. It would have made my life and work much simpler. On the other hand, there were large departments in this system which had to provide for and maintain the different branches of German economy and supply them with orders. As the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor I could not have German fields, German farming, German mass-production with the most modern machinery transferred to foreign territories—I had no authority for that—and those offices insisted that I should find replacements for the agricultural and industrial workers and the artisans whose places had become vacant in German agriculture or industry because the men had been called to the colors.
DR. SERVATIUS: You said before that the manner in which you had planned the employment of workers was such that it could have been approved. What then were your leading principles in carrying out your scheme for the employment of labor?
SAUCKEL: When the Führer described the situation so drastically, and ordered me to bring foreign workers to Germany, I clearly recognized the difficulties of the task and I asked him to agree to the only way by which I considered it possible to do this, for I had been a worker too.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was not your principal consideration the economic exploitation of these foreign workers?
SAUCKEL: The Arbeitseinsatz has nothing to do with exploitation. It is an economic process for supplying labor.
DR. SERVATIUS: You said repeatedly in your speeches and on other occasions that the important thing was to make the best possible economic use of these workers. You speak of a machine which must be properly handled. Did you want to express thereby the thought of economic exploitation?
SAUCKEL: At all times a regime of no matter what nature, can only be successful in the production of goods if it uses labor economically—not too much and not too little. That alone I consider economically justifiable.
DR. SERVATIUS: It was stated here in a document which was submitted, the French Document RF-22, a government report, that the intention existed to bring about a demographic deterioration, and in other government reports mention is made that one of the aims was the biological destruction of other peoples. What do you say about that?
SAUCKEL: I can say most definitely that biological destruction was never mentioned to me. I was only too happy when I had workers. I suspected that the war would last longer than was expected, and the demands upon my office were so urgent and so great that I was glad for people to be alive, not for them to be destroyed.
DR. SERVATIUS: What was the general attitude toward the question of foreign workers before you took office? What did you find when you came?
SAUCKEL: There was a controversy when I took up my office. There were about two million foreign workers in Germany from neutral and allied states and occupied territories of the East and the West. They had been brought to the Reich without order or system. Many industrial concerns avoided contacting the labor authorities or found them troublesome and bureaucratic. The conflict of interests, as I said before, was very great. The Police point of view was most predominating, I think.
DR. SERVATIUS: And propaganda? What was the propaganda with regard to Eastern Workers, for example?
SAUCKEL: Propaganda was adapted to the war in the East. I may point out now—you interrupted me before when I was speaking of the order given me by the Führer—that I expressly asked the Führer not to let workers working in Germany be treated as enemies any longer, and I tried to influence propaganda to that effect.
DR. SERVATIUS: What else did you do with regard to the situation which confronted you?
SAUCKEL: I finally received approval from the Führer for my second program. That program has been submitted here as a document. I must and will bear responsibility for that program.
DR. SERVATIUS: It has already been submitted as Document 016-PS. It is the Program for the Allocation of Labor of 20 April 1942, Exhibit USA-168.
In this program you made fundamental statements. I will hand it to you and I ask you to comment on the general questions only, not on the individual points.
There is a paragraph added to the last part, “Prisoners of War and Foreign Workers.” Have you found the paragraph?
SAUCKEL: Yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: If you will look at the third paragraph you will find what you want to explain.
SAUCKEL: I should like to say that I drew up and worked out this program independently in 1942 after I had been given that difficult task by the Führer. It was absolutely clear to me what the conditions would have to be if foreign workers were to be employed in Germany at all. I wrote those sentences at that time and the program went to all the German authorities which had to deal with the matter. I quote:
“All these people must be fed, housed, and treated in such a way that with the least possible effort”—here I refer to economics as conceived by Taylor and Ford, whom I have studied closely—“the greatest possible results will be achieved. It has always been a matter of course for us Germans to treat a conquered enemy correctly and humanely, even if he were our most cruel and irreconcilable foe, and to abstain from all cruelty and petty chicanery when expecting useful service from him.”
DR. SERVATIUS: Will you put the document aside now, please. What authority did you have to carry out your task?
SAUCKEL: I had authority from the Four Year Plan to issue instructions. I had at my disposal—not under me, but at my disposal—Sections 3 and 5 of the Reich Labor Ministry.
DR. SERVATIUS: What departments did they represent?
SAUCKEL: The departments, “Employment of Labor” and “Wages.”
DR. SERVATIUS: Could you issue directives and orders?
SAUCKEL: I could issue directives and orders of a departmental nature to those offices.
DR. SERVATIUS: Could you carry on negotiations with foreign countries independently?
SAUCKEL: I could carry on negotiations with foreign countries only through the Foreign Office or, when I had received permission, with the ambassadors or ministers in question.
DR. SERVATIUS: Could you give your orders independently or was agreement and consultation necessary?
SAUCKEL: My field of work, as in every large branch of an administration, made it absolutely necessary for me to discuss the questions and have consultations about them with neighboring departments. I was obliged to do so according to instructions.
DR. SERVATIUS: With whom did you have to consult, apart from the Four Year Plan under which you were placed?
SAUCKEL: I had first of all to consult the departments themselves from which I received the orders, and in addition the Party Chancellery, the office of Reich Minister Lammers—the Reich Chancellery, the Reich Railways, the Reich Food Ministry, the Reich Defense Ministry.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did things go smoothly, or were there difficulties?
SAUCKEL: There were always great difficulties.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you have any dealings with Himmler?
SAUCKEL: I had dealings with Himmler only insofar as he gave instructions. He was Reich Minister and was responsible for security, as he said.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was not that a question which was very important for you in regard to the treatment of workers?
SAUCKEL: During the first months or in the first weeks, I believe, of my appointment I was called to see Heydrich. In a very precise way, Heydrich told me that he considered my program fantastic, such as it had been approved by the Führer, and that I must realize that I was making his work very difficult in demanding that barbed wire and similar fences should not and must not be put around the labor camps, but rather taken down. He then said curtly that I must realize that if it was I who was responsible for the allocation of labor, it was he who was responsible for security. That is what he told me.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you accept the fact that these strict police measures now existed?
SAUCKEL: Through constant efforts I had these police measures gradually reduced as far as they concerned the workers who were employed in Germany through my agency and my office.
DR. SERVATIUS: What did your authority to issue instructions consist of? Could you issue orders or had you to negotiate, and how was this carried out in practice?
SAUCKEL: The authority I had to issue instructions was doubtful from the beginning because, owing to the necessities of war, the lack of manpower, and so on, I was forbidden to establish any office of my own or any other new office or organization. I could only pass on instructions after negotiation with the supreme authorities of the Reich and after detailed consultation. These instructions were, of course, of a purely departmental nature. I could not interfere in matters of administration.
DR. SERVATIUS: How was this right to issue instructions exercised with regard to the high authorities in the occupied territories?
SAUCKEL: It was exactly the same, merely of a departmental nature. In practice it was the passing on of the Führer’s orders which were to be carried out there through the individual machinery of each separate administration.
DR. SERVATIUS: Could you give binding instructions to military authorities, to the Economic Inspectorate East, for example?
SAUCKEL: No, there was a strict order from the Führer that in the Army areas, the operational areas of the Commanders-in-Chief, the latter only were competent, and when they had examined military conditions and the situation, everything had to be regulated according to the needs of these high military commands.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did that apply to the military commander in France, or could you act directly there?
SAUCKEL: In France I could, of course, proceed only in the same way, by informing the military commander of the instructions which I myself had received. He then prepared for discussions with the German Embassy and the French Government, so that with the Ambassador presiding, and the military commander taking an authoritative part, the discussion with the French Government took place.
DR. SERVATIUS: And what happened as far as the Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories was concerned?
SAUCKEL: In the case of that Ministry I had to transmit my orders to the Reich Minister for the Occupied Eastern Territories and had to consult with him. With Reich Minister Rosenberg we always succeeded in arranging matters between ourselves in a way that we considered right. But in the Ukraine there was the Reich Commissioner who was on very intimate terms himself with headquarters, and, as is generally known, he was very independent and acted accordingly by asserting this independence.
DR. SERVATIUS: How did these authorities in the occupied territories take your activities at first?
SAUCKEL: In the occupied territories there was naturally much opposition at the start of my work, because I brought new orders and new requirements and it was not always easy to reconcile conflicting interests.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was there any apprehension that you would intervene in the administration of the territories?
SAUCKEL: From my own conviction I refrained entirely from any such intervention and I always emphasized that in order to dispel any such apprehensions, since I myself was not the administrator there; but there were many selfish interests at work.
DR. SERVATIUS: We will discuss this on another occasion. Now I should like to ask you: You had deputies for the Arbeitseinsatz—when did you obtain them?
SAUCKEL: I was given these deputies for the occupied territories through a personal decree of the Führer on 30 September 1942, as far as I remember.
DR. SERVATIUS: What was the reason?
SAUCKEL: The reason for appointing these deputies was to do away more easily with the difficulties and the lack of direction which prevailed to some extent in these areas.
DR. SERVATIUS: I refer in this connection to Document 12, “The Führer’s Decree Concerning the Execution of the Decree of the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor.” No, it is Document 13. “Decree Concerning the Appointment of Deputies”—on Page 13 of the English document book, and I also refer to Document 12 which has already been submitted as 1903-PS, Exhibit USA-206.
Did you not have two different kinds of deputies, I mean, were there already some deputies previously?
SAUCKEL: There were previously deputies of the Reich Labor Ministry who in allied or neutral countries were assigned to the German diplomatic missions. They must be distinguished from those deputies who were assigned to the chiefs of the German military or civilian administration in the occupied territories.
DR. SERVATIUS: What position did the deputies hold in the occupied territories?
SAUCKEL: In the occupied territories the deputies had a dual position. They were the leaders of the labor sections in the local government there—a considerable burden for me—and at the same time my deputies who were responsible for the uniform direction and execution of the principles of the allocation of labor as laid down by me.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you have your own organization with the deputy at the head, or was that an organization of the local government?
SAUCKEL: I did not have any organization of my own. The local governments were independent separate administrations with an administrative chief as head to whom the various departments were subordinated.
DR. SERVATIUS: How many such deputies were there in one area?
SAUCKEL: In the various countries I had one deputy in each of the highest offices.
DR. SERVATIUS: What was the task of the deputy?
SAUCKEL: The task of the deputy, as I have already said, was to guarantee that German orders were carried out in a legal way and, as member of the local administration, to regulate labor questions which arose there.
DR. SERVATIUS: What tasks did they have as regards the interest of the Reich and the distribution of labor for local employment and in the Reich?
SAUCKEL: It was expressly pointed out that they were to produce labor in reasonable proportions with consideration for local conditions; they also had to see to it that my principles were observed with respect to the treatment, feeding, and so forth of workers from the occupied zones. That is laid down in the form of a directive.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you not have your own recruiting commissions?
SAUCKEL: There were no recruiting commissions in the sense in which the expression is often used here and in our own documents. It was a question of reinforcements of experts which were requested by the local government, in order to carry out the tasks in the countries concerned.
DR. SERVATIUS: What instructions did these recruiting commissions have?
SAUCKEL: They received the instructions which are frequently and clearly expressed in my orders and which, as they have been laid down, I need not mention.
DR. SERVATIUS: I refer here to Document 15 which has already been submitted as 3044-PS; Exhibit Number USA-206, and also USSR-384.
That is the Order Number 4 of 7 May 1942, which settles in principle all the problems relating to this question, and gives the necessary directives to the deputies regarding recruitment.
Were those directives which you issued always adhered to?
SAUCKEL: The directives I issued were not always adhered to as strictly as I had demanded. I made every effort to impose them through constant orders, instructions, and punishment which, however, I myself could not inflict.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were these orders meant seriously? The French Prosecution has submitted in the government report one of your speeches, which you made at that time in Posen. It was termed a speech of apology. I ask you whether these principles were meant seriously or whether they were only for the sake of appearances, since you yourself believed, as the document stated, that they could not be carried out?
SAUCKEL: I can only emphasize that in my life I had worked so much myself under such difficult conditions that these instructions expressed my full conviction as to their necessity. I ask to have witnesses heard as to what I thought about it and what I did in order to have these instructions carried out.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was there any noticeable opposition to your principles?
SAUCKEL: I have already said that to a certain extent my principles were considered troublesome by some authorities and injudicious as far as German security was concerned.
When I was attacked on that account, I took occasion, in addition to a number of instructions to the German Gauleiter, to issue a manifesto to all the highest German government offices concerned.
DR. SERVATIUS: May I remark that this is Document S-84, in Document Book 3, Page 215.
I submit the document once more in German because of the form in which it is printed. It is in the form of an urgent warning and was sent to all the authorities.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it Document Number 84?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.
Witness, did you, in a meeting of the Central Planning Board ...
SAUCKEL: May I be allowed to say a word with regard to this manifesto?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.
SAUCKEL: When I issued the manifesto, I was met with the objection, mainly from Dr. Goebbels, that a manifesto should really be issued only by the Führer and not by a subordinate authority such as myself. Then I found that I was having difficulties in getting the manifesto printed. After I had had 150,000 copies printed for all the German economic offices, for all the works managers and all the other offices which were interested, I had it printed again myself in this emphatic form and personally sent it once more, with a covering letter, to all those offices.
In this manifesto, in spite of the difficulties which I encountered, I especially advocated that in the occupied territories themselves the workers should be treated in accordance with my principles and according to my directives and orders.
I respectfully ask the Court to be allowed to read a few sentences from it:
“I therefore order that for all the occupied territories, for the treatment, feeding, billeting, and payment of foreign workers, appropriate regulations and directives be issued similar to those valid for foreigners in the Reich. They are to be adjusted to the respective local conditions and applied in accordance with prevailing conditions.
“In a number of the Eastern Territories indigenous male and female civilian labor working for the German war industry or the German Wehrmacht is undernourished. In the urgent interests of the German war industry in this territory this condition should be remedied. It is checking production and is dangerous. And endeavor must therefore be made by all means available to provide additional food for these workers and their families. This additional food must be given only in accordance with the output of work.
“It is only through the good care and treatment of the whole of the available European labor on the one hand, and through its most rigid concentration”—here I mean organizational—“leadership and direction on the other hand, that the fluctuation of labor in the Reich and in the occupied territories can be limited to a minimum, and a generally stable, lasting and reliable output be achieved.”
May I read one more sentence:
“The foreign workers in the Reich and the population in the occupied territories who are being employed for the German war effort must be given the feeling that it is to their own interests to work loyally for Germany and that therein alone will they see and actually find their one real guarantee of life.”
May I read still one sentence in the next paragraph:
“They must be given absolute trust in the justness of the German authorities and of their German employers.”
THE PRESIDENT: I think we had better not go further in this document. Can you indicate to us at all how long you are likely to be with this defendant?
DR. SERVATIUS: I shall probably need the whole day tomorrow.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Dodd, would it be convenient for you some time to deal with the documents of the remaining defendants?
MR. DODD: Yes, Mr. President, any time that you might set aside.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you know how far the negotiations and agreements with reference to documents have gone.
MR. DODD: I do with some, but not with all. I can ascertain the facts tonight, or before the morning session, and advise you at that time.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, and you will let us know tomorrow what time will be convenient?
MR. DODD: Yes, Sir.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn.
[The Tribunal adjourned until 29 May 1946 at 1000 hours.]
TRANSCRIBER NOTES
Punctuation and spelling have been maintained except where obvious printer errors have occurred such as missing periods or commas for periods. English and American spellings occur throughout the document; however, American spellings are the rule, hence, “Defense” versus “Defence”. Unlike Blue Series volumes I and II, this volume includes French, German, Polish and Russian names and terms with diacriticals: hence Führer, Göring, etc. throughout.
Although some sentences may appear to have incorrect spellings or verb tenses, the original text has been maintained as it represents what the tribunal read into the record and reflects the actual translations between the German, English, French, and Russian documents presented in the trial.
An attempt has been made to produce this eBook in a format as close as possible to the original document presentation and layout.
[The end of Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal Vol. 14, by Various.]