Afternoon Session
DR. EGON KUBUSCHOK (Counsel for Defendant Von Papen): I ask permission for the Defendant Von Papen to be absent from the court sessions tomorrow morning and afternoon. I need a fairly long consultation with him for the preparation of his defense which I would not be able to have otherwise. Dr. Flexner will represent him during the session.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MARSHAL (Colonel Charles W. Mays): If it please the Tribunal, a report is made that the Defendant Göring is absent.
THE PRESIDENT: As I said this morning, the Tribunal will rise at 4 this afternoon.
DR. SERVATIUS: This morning we got as far as the inspections, but I should like to go back to one question.
You said that the head of the factory was responsible for the workers. Did that also apply to the prisoner-of-war and concentration camps?
SAUCKEL: No. The Army, or that part of the Armed Forces under the authority of which these prisoners of war were kept, was responsible for the prisoner-of-war camps. In the same way, as far as I know, the concentration camps alone were responsible for their inmates, even if they worked.
DR. SERVATIUS: You had formed a Department 9 as a Reich inspection department in the Reich Ministry of Labor. What were the special tasks of this inspection department?
SAUCKEL: I had set up that inspection department, which had not existed before in the Ministry of Labor, because I wanted to ascertain the uniformity and execution of contracts throughout the entire area of the Reich, as well as in the occupied territories where German undertakings and German labor contracts were being carried out; also to examine and control the unified administrative regulations; and, moreover, to see whether my orders concerning food, lodging, treatment, and care were being observed and to what extent they were in need of change. All this was also contained in a directive which I gave to the inspection department.
DR. SERVATIUS: What was the position of the Central Inspection Department in the German Labor Front—the Central Inspection Department for the care of foreign workers?
SAUCKEL: The Central Inspection Department of the DAF had the task of supervising the welfare of foreign workers in the camps in Germany to see whether they were being fed, and so on, in the prescribed way.
DR. SERVATIUS: If there were any abuses, did the Inspection Department report that to you; or who received the report?
SAUCKEL: An agreement between the Führer, the German Labor Front, Dr. Ley, and myself, was added as a supplement to the decree concerning the formation of the Central Inspection Department, and it stated that where it was a question of conditions in camps the Central Inspection Department had to deal directly with the Reich offices concerned, or with the industrial inspection office in the Reich Labor Ministry, in order to remedy the conditions; whereas cases of shortage or surplus of manpower, et cetera, were to be reported to me.
DR. SERVATIUS: By this agreement, therefore, your rights were limited?
SAUCKEL: Yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: That is Document 1913-PS, which has been submitted. It is an agreement between Sauckel and Dr. Ley of 20 September 1943. It is Exhibit USA-227. It is Document Number 41 in the English document book. I shall only refer to it, without quoting from it.
[Turning to the defendant.] What other kinds of supervisory offices existed? I am thinking about the French.
SAUCKEL: Well, after I took office, men were appointed to act as liaison agents with the foreign workers. These men, in agreement with the German Labor Front, had the right to visit camps, talk to the workers themselves, and hear their complaints. A special agreement had been reached with the French Government in collaboration with the Reich Foreign Minister.
DR. SERVATIUS: That is Document Sauckel-31. It is on Page 79 of the English text in the Sauckel Document Book Number 1, “French Agency for the Care of the French Employed in the Reich.” That is a circular from Sauckel dated 30 April 1942. I submit the document itself, which is in this collection. I quote:
“I communicate the following letter from the Foreign Office of 10 April 1942:
“The Government of the Reich has notified the French Government that it agrees to the following regulations regarding the care of French voluntary workers in Germany:
“Besides the already existing office for prisoners of war, an agency for French civilian workers will be established in Berlin under the direction of Ambassador Scapini. The Reich Government will furnish a building to house this agency. The agency may establish branch offices in four other German cities.
“The agency is charged with the care of the French workers in Germany. It will supervise the fulfillment of the contracts made by the workers engaged. It may accept proposals from the workers and transmit them to the competent offices, and see that unsatisfactory conditions are remedied. It is entitled to issue certificates and references to the workers for submission to the French authorities.”
I omit one paragraph:
“Moreover, the head of the French representatives is granted the diplomatic privileges of personal immunity for the execution of his tasks, as well as exemption from German jurisdiction and from coercion by the police.”
That is the citation.
[Turning to the defendant.] How did that office actually work with you?
SAUCKEL: That office actually worked with both the DAF and with me. The representative of that office took part in the negotiations in France with the French Government. The office changed later to the extent that the care of the civilian workers was taken over by M. Brunedon in the place of M. Scapini who looked after prisoners of war only.
DR. SERVATIUS: Then, it was only a change of personnel?
SAUCKEL: Yes, it was only a change of personnel. I frequently talked with these gentlemen and acted according to their wishes.
DR. SERVATIUS: What did the Central Inspection Department for the peoples of the Eastern Territories do?
SAUCKEL: The Central Inspection Department for the peoples of the Eastern Territories was an office under the Reich Commissioner for the Eastern Territories.
DR. SERVATIUS: How did that office work?
SAUCKEL: It worked in the same way as the French office, except that it was a German organization and Germans were in charge. It had the confidence of the Eastern Workers who worked with us as allies.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you receive any complaints from that side?
SAUCKEL: None, apart from the cases which Rosenberg reported to me and which I discussed with him. Everything was attended to there.
DR. SERVATIUS: Now I come to the question of the maintenance of labor discipline. What sort of regulations were there in order to maintain labor discipline—punctuality and good work? What kind of regulations existed?
SAUCKEL: In Germany the regulations concerning labor discipline was a matter for the factories themselves. Each factory had its regulations which in normal times were agreed to between the management, the foreman, and the workers’ council. This council could take disciplinary action in the form of fines. During the war labor discipline had become more strict, because owing to the scarcity of workers it was not possible to maintain the right of the employer or the employee to give notice. So the German worker, and German labor and industry were under wartime decrees and laws. In order to enforce these, I later issued Decree Number 13 at the suggestion of the Ministerial Council for the Defense of the Reich. This decree, which has been submitted, provides, first of all, for varying degrees of punishment within the industries for infractions of labor regulations, tardiness and unexcused absence from work.
DR. SERVATIUS: That is Document Sauckel-23 in the Sauckel document book; in the English text, Number 1, Page 62. The witness has given you the essential contents. I merely refer to it now.
SAUCKEL: These measures within the industries for the maintenance of labor discipline started with a warning, and then went up to a fine, or the loss of a day’s or week’s pay.
DR. SERVATIUS: What happened in the case of gross offenses?
SAUCKEL: If they could not be dealt with by the courts of honor of the Labor Front, cases of constant and obstinate bad conduct had to be reported to the police.
DR. SERVATIUS: This law applied to foreigners as well as to Germans?
SAUCKEL: Yes, that applied to Germans and foreigners.
DR. SERVATIUS: And what was done in case of criminal offenses?
SAUCKEL: They also had to be reported to the police. The labor authorities had no competence in criminal and similar cases.
DR. SERVATIUS: To whom were the complaints sent if the regulations were not applied correctly; that is, if instead of fines corporal punishment had been inflicted?
SAUCKEL: Complaints of this kind were sent to the Labor Front, or to the liaison men for the foreign workers.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were any such cases reported to you?
SAUCKEL: None were reported to me, because that was not within my competence.
DR. SERVATIUS: What were the labor correction camps?
SAUCKEL: They were institutions of the Reichsführer SS.
DR. SERVATIUS: Who was put into these camps?
SAUCKEL: Those who were punished by the authorities for infractions of labor discipline which could not be dealt with by the factory regulations.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were they the same as concentration camps?
SAUCKEL: No; in my opinion, no. These labor training camps were not under the supervision of the Reich Labor Ministry, nor under mine. They were a police institution.
DR. SERVATIUS: You know from these proceedings that quite a number of workers did, in fact, come into the concentration camps. How can you explain that?
I shall hand you Document 1063-PS, Exhibit USA-219. It is a letter of 17 December 1942; in the English document book it is Number 28 of the Slave Labor Book. It is a letter marked “Secret,” sent by the Chief of the Security Police and the SD to all SS offices; at any rate, not to you. I quote:
“For reasons of war necessity which cannot be discussed further here, the Reichsführer SS and Chief of the German Police ordered on 14 December 1942 that by the end of January 1943, at the latest, at least 35,000 prisoners fit for work are to be sent to the concentration camps. In order to obtain this number, the following measures are required: 1. As from now (until 1 February 1943) Eastern Workers, and those foreign workers who are fugitives, or have broken their contracts ... are to be brought by the quickest means to the nearest concentration camps....”
THE PRESIDENT: Presumably the witness knows the document.
DR. SERVATIUS: Do you know that document?
SAUCKEL: I saw that document here for the first time.
DR. SERVATIUS: You have not yet looked through it?
SAUCKEL: I saw an excerpt here in Nuremberg for the first time.
DR. SERVATIUS: Then I should like to draw your attention to the decisive passage. Will you please read at the bottom of the first page. It says the following:
“In case of necessity, offices not directly involved must be given to understand that each and every one of these measures is an indispensable Security Police measure, and be told the specific reasons in individual cases, so that complaints can be prevented, or at any rate eliminated.”
What did you know about that decree?
SAUCKEL: Nothing was known to me about that decree. It explains many things which puzzled us. It appears to be a letter from Gruppenführer Müller and, to my surprise, it states quite clearly that other offices—and they can only refer to my offices or Speer’s—should be informed that these measures are necessary Security Police measures. That was downright fraud with the intention of misleading us.
DR. SERVATIUS: What do you understand...
THE PRESIDENT: Before you pass from this document—I understood the defendant to say that workers were sent to labor camps for infraction of labor rules. That was what you said, wasn’t it?
SAUCKEL: If workers, in spite of repeated warnings and fines in the factory, did not show improvement or continued the offenses, they were reported by the factories, not by me, to a police office. As far as I know, this police office had an agreement with the Reich Minister of Justice according to which...
THE PRESIDENT: I asked you where they were sent when you said that they were sent to labor camps for infraction of labor rules, and for no other reason. Did you say that?
SAUCKEL: For no other reason; for infractions or for criminal offenses.
THE PRESIDENT: Then how do you explain the first words of Paragraph 1 of this document:
“As from now, all Eastern Workers must be sent to the nearest concentration camps...”?
SAUCKEL: It says here, in the German text, Your Lordship:
“As from now, until 1 February 1943, Eastern Workers, and those foreign workers who are fugitives, or who have broken contracts, or who do not belong to allied, friendly, or neutral states, are to be brought by the quickest means to the nearest concentration camps, in observance of the necessary formalities as given under Figure 3.”
That is the arbitrary directive of that office which I did not know about.
DR. SERVATIUS: What do you understand by “extermination by labor”?
SAUCKEL: I heard that expression “extermination by labor” for the first time here in the courtroom. Such a concept was of necessity absolutely contrary to the interests which I stood for in my position.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you have anything to do with the employment of concentration camp inmates?
SAUCKEL: I had nothing to do with the employment of concentration camp inmates, and I also told my colleagues that we would have nothing to do with the employment of that kind of labor. I had nothing to do with punitive measures of any kind.
DR. SERVATIUS: Who put the concentration camp inmates to work in the armament industries?
SAUCKEL: I cannot tell you that from personal knowledge because I had nothing to do with it, and I never participated in discussions dealing with this subject.
DR. SERVATIUS: It has been alleged here that you used the Nacht and Nebel Order to get workers to Germany.
SAUCKEL: I did not know the Nacht and Nebel Order. I only found out about it here. It had nothing to do with the allocation of labor and my duties.
DR. SERVATIUS: What about the employment of Jewish workers?
SAUCKEL: I had nothing to do with the employment of Jews. That was exclusively the task of the Reichsführer of the SS.
DR. SERVATIUS: I submit the Document R-91. That is Exhibit USA-241, and Exhibit RF-347. It is not included in the document books. It is a letter from the Chief of Security Police and SD Müller to the Reichsführer SS, field headquarters, dated 16 December 1942. It says there, and I quote:
“In connection with the increased assignment of manpower to the KL”—that should probably read KZ—“which is ordered to take place before 30 January 1943, the following procedure may be applied in the Jewish sector: total number, 45,000 Jews.”
Then there is a more detailed specification, and among other things, it says at the end, “3,000 Jews from the occupied territories of the Netherlands,” and further, “The number 45,000 includes those unfit for work....”
What had you to do with that letter?
SAUCKEL: I have just learned of that letter for the first time. I did not know of it before, and I can only emphasize that these transports and this procedure had nothing to do with my work, and that I had nothing to do with them at any time.
DR. SERVATIUS: Then we have here Document L-61, which has been submitted. That is Exhibit USA-177; in the English document book on slave labor, it is Document Number 6. The document is in the first list of documents which was made available to the Defense, and it was listed as an original letter from Sauckel which admitted the deportation of Jews.
Will you please read this letter to yourself and state your position as to how far you had anything to do with the deportation of Jews. I shall briefly state what the contents are. It says there in that letter of 26 November 1942:
“By agreement with the Chief of the Security Police and the SD, Jews who are still in employment are from now on also to be evacuated from the territory of the Reich and are to be replaced by Poles who are being deported from the Government General.”
This letter ends by saying:
“I transmit the foregoing copy for your information. Insofar as this affects the removal of Jews employed in your area, I request that you take the necessary measures in agreement with the competent offices of the Chief of the Security Police and the SD.”
Then it says, “Signed, Fritz Sauckel.”
Will you state your position with respect to that letter, please?
SAUCKEL: May I say with respect to this document that it was shown to me already in the preliminary interrogations. I had it only for a short time then, and when it was presented to me again in the course of the proceedings I found that it was not an original document which I had signed. My name is typewritten at the bottom.
Secondly, it appears very peculiar to me that this letter, which I am supposed to have signed, was not dated by my office. My office, as can be seen from numerous documents, was in Berlin, in Mohrenstrasse. This letter was dated by the Saarlandstrasse office.
As far as the contents are concerned, I have to state that I at no time had a personal arrangement or agreement with the SD and Security Police in the sense of that letter; neither had I any knowledge of that letter, and I cannot remember it now either. The only thing in that letter which is correct is that I was obliged to replace the loss of manpower in German industry—whether Jews, soldiers, or others—within 2 weeks. It is possible that this letter came from the Saarlandstrasse office, from a subordinate office. I cannot say anything else about it.
DR. SERVATIUS: How is it, then, that the ending, “Signed, Fritz Sauckel” is on the letter?
SAUCKEL: I cannot understand that. If it were an authentic copy, it would have had to be signed.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you got the original?
DR. SERVATIUS: No, I have not got the original. It has been submitted by the Prosecution and is therefore in the files of the Tribunal as an exhibit.
SAUCKEL: The appendix deals with events which also occurred before my time in office—that is, before I came into office these happenings had practically all taken place.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you have any knowledge as to what would happen to the Jews?
SAUCKEL: Do you mean...?
DR. SERVATIUS: The final solution.
SAUCKEL: No, I had no knowledge of that. It would have made my task much easier and I would have had much less difficulty if all these people, as far as they were capable of working, had been brought into the labor plan in a more reasonable manner. I knew absolutely nothing about this final solution, and it was entirely contrary to my interest.
DR. SERVATIUS: Concerning the question of wages, who was responsible for the regulation of wages?
SAUCKEL: I was responsible for the regulation of wages during my term of office.
DR. SERVATIUS: What kind of wages were paid? Leave out the Eastern people for the moment.
SAUCKEL: In principle, all foreign workers were paid the wages which had been agreed upon by contract with the liaison offices and the governments, and which were in accordance with the wage scales recognized as legal in the different regions in Germany.
DR. SERVATIUS: What about the so-called Eastern Workers?
SAUCKEL: As far as the Eastern Workers were concerned, when I took office I found that under the existing regulations most of their wages were deducted as taxes in favor of the Reich. This was in accordance with a decree of the Ministerial Council for National Defense.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were you satisfied with that, or did you take steps to improve conditions?
SAUCKEL: It can be seen from the documents—that is to say, from the decrees which I issued during my term of office—that these regulations, which I considered intolerable, were improved step by step, as far as I was able to overcome opposition, until in 1944 the Eastern Worker stood on the same level as the German worker. The first improvement was made in June 1942 when wages were doubled, the second in 1943, and the last in March 1944, by Decree 11.
DR. SERVATIUS: I refer here to the following documents, which I shall not read: Document Sauckel-50, in Sauckel Document Book 2, Page 134; Document Sauckel-17, in Sauckel Document Book 2, Page 137; Document Sauckel-52, Sauckel Document Book 2, Page 143; Document Sauckel-58, Sauckel Document Book 2, Page 156; and finally, Document Sauckel-58(a), Sauckel Document Book 2, Page 161. I submit the original in a collection, “Regulations Governing Allocation of the Eastern Workers.”
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, I understood the defendant to say just now that that Document L-61 was drawn up before he took charge of the labor commitment.
DR. SERVATIUS: It refers to things which existed before his term of office and were almost completed at the time when that letter was drafted—that is, that state of things already existed.
THE PRESIDENT: There is nothing in the document to show that, is there?
DR. SERVATIUS: It can be seen from the date.
THE PRESIDENT: The date is 26 November 1942.
DR. SERVATIUS: The appendix refers to a decree of 27 March 1942. The second appendix, if we go back further, is an appendix of 21 January 1942 which also deals with that question. What we have quoted here was only the last letter, the final letter.
THE PRESIDENT: I see. We have not got the full document before us then.
DR. SERVATIUS: I will submit it.
[Turning to the defendant.] Regarding the wages of the Eastern Workers, did the Eastern Workers receive any remuneration besides these wages?
SAUCKEL: The Eastern Workers, as a result of my efforts, received remuneration in the form of premiums for good work, and Christmas bonuses, in the same way as the German workers; and in addition there was an agreement with the Eastern Ministry according to which the families of Eastern Workers were to receive the amount of 130 rubles per month upon request.
DR. SERVATIUS: I refer here to some documents. They are Document Sauckel-22, in the English book, Volume I, Page 9; a decree, Document Sauckel-54, concerning premiums, which is in Volume II, Page 151; and Document Sauckel-57, concerning Christmas bonuses, Volume II, Page 155.
[Turning to the defendant.] What remained for the Eastern Workers in cash wages?
SAUCKEL: When I started in office—that is before the regulations introduced by me—the Eastern Worker, after his expenses for food and lodging had been deducted, had about 4 marks 60 pfennigs per week left over, if one takes as an average example the rate of 60 pfennigs an hour for an average worker in German industry.
The same worker’s net pay, or “Freibetrag” as it was called, was increased in June 1942, after I had had an opportunity of looking into these things, by about 100 percent to 9.10 marks.
May I state that it would have been quite impossible for a German worker at the same wage level to have had more left over for saving when one considers his taxes and social contributions, his expenses for rent, heating, and food. That was the principle laid down for me by the Ministerial Council for Reich Defense for the payment of this labor. It was not my wish. However, as early as March or April 1943 the wage of the Russian worker, again due to my intervention, was increased to about 12 marks, and in the spring of 1944 it was increased to about 18 marks.
THE PRESIDENT: I don’t think we need to have all this in detail. There is no particular charge against the defendant that he did not pay any of the workers, is there? I mean, he says, he paid them and we do not want the details of the number of marks.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, the accusation of slave labor has been made, and this as a rule is unpaid labor. The French report, Document RF-22, has estimated a loss of 77 milliards which is supposed to have been suffered by France through the use of her workers. It is interesting to hear at least...
THE PRESIDENT: You do not want exact details of it, do you?
DR. SERVATIUS: [Turning to the defendant.] What have you to say about the facilities for transferring these wages?
SAUCKEL: I first had to create facilities for transferring wages, because the only real attraction for a foreign worker to work in Germany was that he could support his family at home by sending part of his earnings to his native country. That was done on the basis of agreements reached with the President of the German Reichsbank. He himself has testified to that.
DR. SERVATIUS: Concerning the question of wages, I refer to Document 021-PS, which has been submitted as F-44. It is not in either of the document books. It is dated 2 April 1943. It shows how rates of pay were calculated and deals with the improvement of the wages of Eastern Workers. I do not want to quote it in detail; but a study will reveal that serious attempts were made here to bring about an improvement and an equalization.
[Turning to the defendant.] What was the duration of labor contracts?
SAUCKEL: The duration of labor contracts depended on agreements which had been concluded with the governments in question. For the western and southern countries the contract was for 6 months, 9 months, or 1 year. As for the eastern countries and the Soviet workers, when I came to office, the existing regulations provided for an indefinite period. As I considered a definite period to be necessary in spite of the greater distances, here too I finally succeeded in obtaining a time limit of 2 years.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was it intended to continue to use this manpower after the war, and were these foreign workers to remain in Germany? I ask that question because the French Prosecution quoted the following passage from the book, Work for Europe, Exhibit RF-5, Page 23:
“A large percentage of foreign workers will remain in our country even after the victory, and then, having been trained for construction work, they will continue and complete the projects interrupted by the war.”
From that was it concluded that forced labor was to continue even after the war?
SAUCKEL: That was partly or entirely the opinion of the author of that article, but I believe that it was also mentioned that the workers would return home and there use, for the benefit of their own homeland, the knowledge and skill which they had gained from new work in Germany. I had absolutely no intention of keeping foreign workers in Germany after the war, and in any case I could not have done so. On the contrary, I even ordered that a card index of foreign workers, a central register, should be carefully kept on the basis of which, in case of a favorable conclusion of the war, it would be possible for me faithfully to return these workers to their native countries and have a record of them.
DR. SERVATIUS: If I understood you correctly, it was not a question of forcibly retaining the workers, but of keeping them here by recruitment?
SAUCKEL: Yes; it was not reported to me that a large number of foreign workers wanted to stay in Germany of their own accord. That is an assumption.
DR. SERVATIUS: What about the compulsory labor? What was the duration of the contracts?
SAUCKEL: There was no difference in pay or length of contract between voluntary work and compulsory work, or what we called in the language of the decree, “Dienstverpflichtungen.” This held true for all countries. If a Frenchman doing compulsory labor had a contract for 6 or 9 months, he had the same right as the voluntary worker to return after 9 months. It was possible to extend the period.
DR. SERVATIUS: In which cases was the contract extended?
SAUCKEL: The contract was extended when the worker wanted of his own free will to continue his services, or when there was an emergency or shortage of manpower in a particular factory which justified an extension. Then that had to be arranged with the liaison officers.
DR. SERVATIUS: Besides civilian workers, were prisoners of war also used in Germany? What did you have to do with that use of manpower?
SAUCKEL: The employment of prisoners of war was quite complicated, because it had to take place in agreement with the general in charge of the Prisoners of War Organization. The so-called technique of transposition caused me difficulties. Allow me to explain this.
There existed the Geneva Convention, or the Hague Convention, according to which prisoners of war could not be used in armament or ammunition industries. When, however, we spoke of prisoners of war being engaged in the armament industry that meant that so-and-so many German women or workers were transferred to industries in which the Geneva Convention prohibited the use of prisoners of war, and that prisoners of war took their place. That was done in agreement with the offices of the general in charge of the Prisoners of War Organization.
DR. SERVATIUS: And who saw to it that the Geneva Convention was observed?
SAUCKEL: The general in charge of the Prisoners of War Organization and we ourselves, or the “Arbeitseinsatz” administration, adhered to the rules of the Geneva Convention and several times compiled a catalog of the types of work for which prisoners of war could be used. Also during my time, in 1943 and 1944, a special edition of this catalog was published, and it can be found in the so-called Blue Book.
DR. SERVATIUS: Have you known cases where prisoners of war were used contrary to the Geneva Convention?
SAUCKEL: Certain agreements were made with the French Government, as far as volunteers were concerned, and this applied to a certain extent to Eastern Workers.
DR. SERVATIUS: Who was responsible for the housing, feeding, and care of prisoners of war?
SAUCKEL: The offices of the general in charge of the Prisoners of War Organization were solely responsible.
DR. SERVATIUS: Is it known to you that millions of prisoners of war had perished by the time you had assumed office?
SAUCKEL: It had become known to me before I assumed office that a great number of prisoners of war perished in the so-called battles of encirclement in the East. These battles lasted a long time, and owing to our enormous transport difficulties we could not move the prisoners, and they were left on the battlefield in a state of utmost exhaustion. That is all I know about that.
DR. SERVATIUS: At the beginning of your activities you had to deal with prisoners of war, had you not? What did you find out at that time, or what did you do?
SAUCKEL: I found out that some of the Russian prisoners of war were terribly undernourished.
DR. SERVATIUS: What did you do?
SAUCKEL: Together with the general in charge of the Prisoners of War Organization I arranged for all these prisoners of war—as far as I know and remember there were about 70,000 in the Reich at that time—to be billeted with German farmers, in order to build up their strength. The farmers were obliged to feed these prisoners of war for at least 3 months, without putting them to work. As compensation the farmers were given the assurance that these prisoners of war would stay with them and work for them until the end of the war.
DR. SERVATIUS: During the course of the war did prisoners of war obtain the status of free laborers?
SAUCKEL: Yes. As far as French workers were concerned, I was instrumental in seeing that they were employed only by agreement with the French Government. These agreements were concluded under the sponsorship of the German Ambassador in Paris. The quotas were negotiated in accordance with instructions given me by the Führer and by the Reich Marshal. The first quota was 250,000 French laborers and 150,000 skilled workers.
As a compensation for the use of these voluntary workers—and I emphasize voluntary—50,000 French prisoners of war who were farmers were to be, and actually were, returned to the French Government in order to improve the cultivation of French farm land.
That was the first agreement.
DR. SERVATIUS: What was the Relève?
SAUCKEL: The Relève was an agreement between the French Government and my office according to which for every three French workers who came to Germany one French prisoner-of-war was released and sent home by the Führer.
DR. SERVATIUS: And who brought about this agreement?
SAUCKEL: This agreement was concluded on the basis of a discussion between the French Premier and myself. I was much in favor of this agreement, because I myself spent 5 years behind barbed wire during the first World War.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did it make it easier for the prisoners? Did they return home?
SAUCKEL: Yes, they returned home.
DR. SERVATIUS: And how did the civilian population react to that? Above all, how did the workers feel who had to go to Germany?
SAUCKEL: This was an act of comradeship, and according to the reports I received the feeling was favorable.
DR. SERVATIUS: Then in reality instead of one prisoner-of-war there were three imprisoned workers?
SAUCKEL: No. These workers could move about freely in Germany in the same way as the other French workers and the German population.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did they have to come to Germany for an indefinite period of time?
SAUCKEL: No, they stayed according to the length of their contracts, just like the other workers.
DR. SERVATIUS: What was the average duration of a contract?
SAUCKEL: 9 months.
DR. SERVATIUS: Then the result was that after 9 months the prisoners of war, as well as the other workers, could return home?
SAUCKEL: Yes. This continual exchange necessitated new quotas and new agreements with the French Government, for there always had to be replacements.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were these negotiations carried on under a certain pressure?
SAUCKEL: No. I beg you to hear witnesses on this. They were conducted on a free diplomatic basis.
DR. SERVATIUS: To what extent was this Relève carried through? Was it on a very large or only on a small scale?
SAUCKEL: It was carried out on the basis of 250,000 workers who were to go to Germany.
DR. SERVATIUS: The French Prosecution in their government report said that only weak and sick people were sent back who could not work anyway. What have you to say to that?
SAUCKEL: As far as I know, French soldiers who were prisoners of war were sent back. The sending back and the selection of the soldiers was not my task but that of the general in charge of the Prisoners of War Organization. I consider it possible that sick soldiers were also sent back to their homes in this way if they wished it. But certainly it was not the intention to send back only sick or older soldiers, but soldiers in general. That was the basis of the agreement.
DR. SERVATIUS: There was a second course which was chosen—the improved status which the French called “transformation.” What kind of arrangement was that?
SAUCKEL: The improved status was a third agreement which included the provision that French prisoners of war in Germany were given the same contracts and the same status as all other French civilian workers.
DR. SERVATIUS: When a new French worker came to Germany? The ratio therefore was 1 to 1?
SAUCKEL: 1 to 1.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did these French workers have to bind themselves indefinitely, or was there a time limit here too?
SAUCKEL: Exactly the same as applied to the Relève.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was this improvement in status welcomed by the French soldiers, or did they disapprove of it?
SAUCKEL: They did not disapprove of it but welcomed it, according to the attitude of the individual soldier. A large number rejected it; others accepted it gladly, for by this measure the workers received high wages and all the liberties that were accorded outside the barbed wire, and the like. I myself saw how an entire camp accepted this new status. They had been told that the gates and barbed wire would be done away with, the prisoner regulations discontinued, and the surveillance abolished.
DR. SERVATIUS: Could these prisoners who had been turned into workers also go home?
SAUCKEL: My documents show that they were allowed to go home.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did they receive any furlough?
SAUCKEL: Yes, they did. Many of them came back, and an equally large number did not.
DR. SERVATIUS: I should like to refer to Document RF-22, German text, Page 70 of the French Government report. This document shows and admits that the prisoners received leave to go home at the beginning of this transformation, and I quote, “The unfortunate men did not return, however, and therefore this procedure was discontinued.”
[Turning to the defendant.] Have you heard of the idea, “indirect forced labor”?
SAUCKEL: No. Please explain it to me.
DR. SERVATIUS: [Turning to the Tribunal.] The French report contains the argument that those workers who worked in France in armament industries did so for the benefit of Germany. Sauckel was not connected with this in any way. This French report, which deals at length with the economic side of the Arbeitseinsatz, says that it worked according to a well-conceived and flexible system, and at first negotiations were friendly. The measures then became harsher in accordance with the circumstances.
[Turning to the defendant.] Was there a definite plan? Did you have to carry out certain instructions, or what system was adopted?
SAUCKEL: I should like to be allowed to explain this. A plan of the sort you have just outlined never existed. The only thing towards which I worked was the program which I drew up and which is in the possession of the Tribunal; a program which I admit, and for which I take all the consequences and the responsibility, even for my subordinates. This program was carried out through my decrees, which are also available in full. The development of the war did not permit me to give full consideration to the circumstances which now, post factum, appear obvious. We ourselves stood in the midst of the flow of events as the war developed and did not have time to ponder over such matters.
DR. SERVATIUS: What were the “Sperrbetriebe” and the “Ausnahmebetriebe” in France?
SAUCKEL: The Sperrbetriebe were industries which were the result of an agreement between Reich Minister Speer and, I believe, the French Minister of Economics, Bichelonne. They were industries which worked partly for German armaments and partly for German civilian requirements, and did not come under my offices.
DR. SERVATIUS: What was the number of workers who were brought to Germany from foreign countries?
SAUCKEL: The number of workers brought from foreign countries to Germany, according to careful estimates and the records of the statistical department of the Reich Ministry of Labor, might be said to be about 5 million.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you determine how far these laborers were to be used, and how many were to be brought in?
SAUCKEL: No, I could not determine that, for I did not represent the German economy, and I myself could not decide the extent of the German armament and agricultural programs.
DR. SERVATIUS: Apart from the current quotas which you had to supply, there were certain so-called program orders made by the Führer. Is that true?
SAUCKEL: Yes, because the Führer drew up the armament program, as far as I know.
DR. SERVATIUS: You have told me of your programs. I shall read the figures, and perhaps you can confirm them.
The first program in April 1942: the demand was for 1.6 million workers; 1.6 million were supplied, the entire figure being made up of foreigners.
The second program in September 1942: 2 million, and 2 million were supplied, of which 1 million, that is only half, were foreigners.
In 1943: the demand was for 1 million, and 1 million were supplied, the entire figure being made up of foreign workers.
Then the last program on 4 January 1944: the Führer demanded 4 million, and the demand met with 0.9 million.
SAUCKEL: Allow me to correct you. The figure should read, demand met with 3 million.
DR. SERVATIUS: Demand 4 million; demand met with 3 million. And how many were foreigners?
SAUCKEL: 0.9 million.
DR. SERVATIUS: 0.9 million foreigners. How many workers came from the East, how many from the West, and how many from other regions?
SAUCKEL: I naturally cannot give you the exact figure here without data or statistics, but on an average I would say that the figure for each group might be about 30 percent; the percentage of workers from the East was certainly somewhat higher.
DR. SERVATIUS: And how were the requirements ascertained?
SAUCKEL: Through the demands of the employers of labor.
DR. SERVATIUS: And what were the employers of labor?
SAUCKEL: They were the Economic Ministry, the Armament Ministry, the Agricultural Ministry, the various trades, the State Railways, the mines, et cetera, all big undertakings.
DR. SERVATIUS: And to whom did they present their demands?
SAUCKEL: Usually the demand was made simultaneously to the Führer and to me, or to the collecting agencies provided for by the Four Year Plan.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were they the reduced requirements, if their demands had to be checked, or were they the original demands?
SAUCKEL: I have just said that it varied. The demands were sent in to me, and at the same time they were almost always sent to the Führer, because the Führer had to approve these demands.
DR. SERVATIUS: And what was the position of the Central Planning Board?
SAUCKEL: The Central Planning Board was an office where above all, as far as I know, the quotas for raw materials were fixed, but where questions of work and manpower were also discussed.
DR. SERVATIUS: Could you receive orders from the Central Planning Board?
SAUCKEL: Yes, the demands which were put to me I had to consider as orders, for the Führer had laid on me the duty of meeting the demands of the war economy.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you belong to the Central Planning Board yourself?
SAUCKEL: No, I was only called in when there were to be debates on the use of manpower.
DR. SERVATIUS: What was the relationship between your office and Speer’s?
SAUCKEL: My office had to meet the demands made by Speer.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did Speer have his own machinery for directing labor?
SAUCKEL: Yes, he had to have that in his ministry, and he did have it. That was essential.
DR. SERVATIUS: Could you meet all the demands made of you?
SAUCKEL: No.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were your labor reserves exhausted?
SAUCKEL: According to my conviction, yes; for already in 1943—and it was one of the purposes of my manifesto—I pointed out that the economic problems of the occupied countries were very serious and had to be regulated and settled so as to avoid confusion.
DR. SERVATIUS: What labor reserves were still left in Germany?
SAUCKEL: In Germany after 1943 there were no more really usable reserves of manpower left. Many discussions took place on this problem, but the labor most in demand was skilled labor, miners, and workers for the heavy industries.
DR. SERVATIUS: And what manpower reserves were there to be gotten out of France?
SAUCKEL: I must say that from our point of view, and according to our judgment concerning economic and labor questions, there was a great deal of manpower and very extensive reserves in the occupied territories.
DR. SERVATIUS: Do you mean that in comparison the economic forces of Germany were far more exhausted than those of the occupied countries?
SAUCKEL: Perhaps I can show it by a comparison with the first World War. In the first World War, 10 to 12 million Germans were mobilized for labor. In this war about 25 million German men and women were used, and more than half were women. I must add that all the women who did Red Cross or other welfare work in Germany were not included in my statistics. They were included in other countries.
DR. SERVATIUS: I have a concluding question: If you view your activity as Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor from today’s standpoint, what would you say about the use of foreign labor in general?
SAUCKEL: It is very hard for me to answer this question. I myself and the entire German people were of the opinion, and had to be, that this war was neither willed nor brought about by the German people—and, to be truthful, I must include the Party. Our standpoint was that we had to do our duty to our people.
DR. SERVATIUS: It is not intended that you should give an explanation in the wider sense, but that you should limit yourself to the general aspects of the question of labor allocation, and tell us whether today you consider your activity justified or not.
SAUCKEL: From the point of view of the war situation and of German economy, and as I saw and tried to carry out my allocation of labor, I considered it justified, and, above all, inevitable; for Germany and the countries we occupied were an economic whole that could not be split up. Without such an exchange of eastern and western manpower Germany could not have existed for even 1 day. The German people themselves were working to the extreme limit of their capacity.
DR. SERVATIUS: I have concluded my questioning of the defendant.
DR. ALFRED THOMA (Counsel for Defendant Rosenberg): Witness, did the Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories often try to cut down the labor quotas demanded by you?
SAUCKEL: Not only the Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories tried to do that, but I myself tried very hard to do so by intervening with the Führer and all the employers of labor.
DR. THOMA: I should like to put several questions to you with regard to Document Number 054-PS, which describes the abuses in the recruiting and transporting of Eastern Workers. Did you personally take steps to put an end to the abuses which are specified here?
SAUCKEL: Yes, of course. Please interrogate the witnesses on this.
DR. THOMA: Did you notice that this report deals with the city and the region of Kharkov in the Ukraine, and do you know that this entire district was never under the civilian administration of the Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories?
SAUCKEL: Yes, I know that, and I testified that this report was not sent to me but to an Army office. This Army office had its own labor department which was directly subordinate to it.
DR. THOMA: In this report did you especially notice the following paragraph on the first page:
“a) With few exceptions, the Ukrainians who are being employed in the Reich as individual workers for example, in small trade enterprises, on farms...”
SAUCKEL: Will you please tell me where it says that?
DR. THOMA: On Page 1, the last paragraph: “Judging from the discussions with the gentlemen and the reading of the reports, it can be said in general...”
SAUCKEL: Which documents? There are several documents.
DR. THOMA: I mean 054-PS, of course.
SAUCKEL: Which?
DR. THOMA: I think it is the first, second, third paragraph, “d”—the second paragraph.
SAUCKEL: Yes, I have found it.
DR. THOMA: It says there that the Ukrainians who were being employed as individual workers in the Reich, were “very satisfied with the conditions.” But: “b. On the other hand the Ukrainians living in community camps complain a great deal...”
Is that correct?
SAUCKEL: Yes. In my testimony I quoted the passage in which the author of the letter said that this was the case during the first few months only, for I immediately had the camps inspected and improved. I even went so far as to get the Reich Labor Minister to issue new camp regulations, all as a result of this complaint.
DR. THOMA: Did you personally visit the Occupied Eastern Territories on several occasions and speak to the administrative authorities there; for example, in Riga, Kovno, Zhitomir?
SAUCKEL: Not only did I speak to the administrative authorities there, but I compiled this manifesto in Russia and had it published there, and everything that is contained in the manifesto was communicated to these offices in the same way.
DR. THOMA: Yes. But is it correct that you emphasized the special urgency of the Führer decree?
SAUCKEL: That was my duty; that was what I was there for.
DR. THOMA: That is not right from the legal point of view; for your actual authority came from Göring, as the Delegate for the Four Year Plan.
SAUCKEL: Yes, that is correct. The official channel was: Führer, Göring, Four Year Plan—that was the order.
DR. THOMA: Then, if you said it was the Führer’s order, you did so to give a special emphasis?
SAUCKEL: No, that was not my intention. The Führer commissioned me to replace the loss of German soldiers, Doctor. These were instructions which I had received directly from the Führer or Göring on the basis of the requirements of the employers of labor.
DR. THOMA: Was a written order sent to you?
SAUCKEL: Yes, written orders were also sent.
DR. THOMA: From Hitler personally?
SAUCKEL: Yes, from Hitler and from Göring; from both of them.
DR. THOMA: Do you recall that you made an agreement with Rosenberg to the effect that Eastern Workers in Germany, after their return to their own country, were to receive land so that they would not be at a disadvantage as compared with the people who had remained?
SAUCKEL: Yes, that was agreed between Rosenberg and myself; that is correct.
DR. THOMA: Was this actually carried out?
SAUCKEL: Just how far this was carried out, I am unable to state. That was a task for the Ministry of the Occupied Eastern Territories. I assume that it was carried out as far as possible.
DR. THOMA: Do you recall that Rosenberg constantly advocated the doing away with the so-called Eastern Worker’s badge?
SAUCKEL: Rosenberg, as well as I myself, advocated the abolition of the Eastern Worker’s badge. There is a letter from the Reichsführer SS refusing this; but I know for certain that at the end of 1943 or the beginning of 1944 we succeeded in abolishing this Eastern Worker’s badge, and it was replaced by a national emblem as worn by the other foreigners.
DR. THOMA: Why was this Eastern Worker’s badge to be abolished?
SAUCKEL: This Eastern Worker’s badge was to be abolished for various reasons, but above all to eliminate the demoralizing effect produced on the Eastern Workers by the wearing of a discriminating badge.
DR. THOMA: I have one last question. You said that you did not recall having received any complaints except those that you discussed with Rosenberg. Now, numerous complaints were constantly being investigated by the Central Agency for Eastern People together with the DAF. Did the DAF report to you on this?
SAUCKEL: The DAF reported that, in accordance with my directives, it had to put a stop to abuses and bad conditions wherever they were found. That was its duty. In order to remedy these abuses the DAF had not to apply to me but to the trade inspection department of the Reich Ministry of Labor, whose task it was.
DR. THOMA: Did you make sure whether this inspection department stopped these abuses?
SAUCKEL: I installed my own inspection agencies there, as mentioned by Dr. Servatius. However, the trade inspection department was the only authorized agency which had the legal authority to use compulsory measures and it was supervised by the Reich Labor Minister who had full authority.
DR. THOMA: I have no further questions. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the emblem that you have been speaking about?
SAUCKEL: The Eastern Worker’s emblem or badge consisted of a bluebordered square, which bore a blue inscription “Ost.” The Reichsführer SS first ordered it to be worn on the right side of the breast; later, on the sleeve. Still later I was instrumental in getting this changed to a national emblem—blue, I think, or something similar—like the Russian colors, as the people themselves wished.
DR. OTTO NELTE (Counsel for Defendant Keitel): Herr Sauckel, the Defendant Keitel and the OKW are accused by the Prosecution of the deportation of civilian people for the purposes of the mobilization of labor. You were also interrogated before the start of this Trial as to whether the OKW, and Keitel as Chief of the OKW, participated in the procurement, recruitment, and conscription of people in the occupied territories.
A number of things which were not clear and which are contained in the record have been cleared up by your testimony. Especially in answering the last question of my colleague, Dr. Thoma, you made it clear that the organizational official channel was as follows: The Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor, the Four Year Plan—Göring, and the Führer. Is that correct?
SAUCKEL: Generally speaking, yes.
DR. NELTE: I am interested in determining whether in this official channel the OKW was included, or the Führer in some other function than Supreme Commander of the Wehrmacht.
SAUCKEL: I myself was not a soldier, and I am not familiar with the detailed organization of the OKW and the OKH. It was often difficult for a layman to make the distinction between these things. It is true that the OKH was competent for the recruitment of workers in occupied countries controlled by army groups. Therefore, labor regulations for the occupied countries which were under the authority of the Army had to be issued through laws or directives by the General Staff.
DR. NELTE: You probably mean the Quartermaster General of the Army?
SAUCKEL: The Quartermaster General was, as far as I know, next to the Commander-in-Chief of the Army.
DR. NELTE: And by this you mean to say that the OKW and the Defendant Keitel had no competence concerning the procuring, recruiting, and conscripting of manpower in the occupied territories?
SAUCKEL: He had no competence in this respect. I came into contact with Field Marshal Keitel, because the Führer repeatedly instructed me to ask Field Marshal Keitel to transmit his orders to the army groups by telephone or through directives.
DR. NELTE: And what about the question of the allocation of workers? Did the OKW, and specifically the Defendant Keitel as Chief of the OKW, have any competence concerning the allocation of workers at home?
SAUCKEL: No, for the workers were used in those economic branches for which they had been demanded, and they had nothing at all to do with the OKW.
DR. NELTE: Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT: Do any members of the Prosecution wish to cross-examine?
M. JACQUES B. HERZOG (Assistant Prosecutor for the French Republic): Defendant Sauckel, you joined the National Socialist Party in 1925, didn’t you? Is that correct?
SAUCKEL: I joined the National Socialist Party for the first time, as an ordinary member, as early as 1923. When the Party was reorganized in 1925 I again became a member.
M. HERZOG: But you had supported the policy of National Socialism since 1921, had you not?
SAUCKEL: From 1921 onwards, I supported a German policy. In 1921 I did not as yet belong to the Party. I knew about the Party, and I was in sympathy with its ideas; that is probably the right way to put it.
M. HERZOG: Did you not make speeches in favor of National Socialism from that time on?
SAUCKEL: From about the middle of 1921 I made speeches in favor of Germany, not expressly for the Party and only in a very small way, at small gatherings, and as my conscience guided me.
M. HERZOG: You were Gauleiter, member of the Landrat, Minister of the Interior, and Governor of Thuringia. Is it correct that in this capacity you brought about the Nazification of your Gau?
SAUCKEL: I was Prime Minister of Thuringia from August 1932, and I was Minister of the Interior as well.
M. HERZOG: I am asking you the question again: Is it correct that, in your capacity as Gauleiter and Governor of Thuringia, you brought about the Nazification of your Gau?
SAUCKEL: Nazification is a term with which I was neither familiar nor do I consider it correct. I recruited for the National Socialist Party and I supported it.
M. HERZOG: You were Obergruppenführer of the organization of the SS, were you not?
SAUCKEL: I do not quite understand. Of the SS?
M. HERZOG: You were an Obergruppenführer of the SS?
SAUCKEL: I already stated in my preliminary interrogation that I was an honorary Obergruppenführer of the SS. I myself never served in the SS, nor did I exercise any functions in the SS.
M. HERZOG: When did you become Obergruppenführer of the SS?
SAUCKEL: As far as I remember I became an Obergruppenführer of the SS in 1934.
M. HERZOG: And you were that until when?
SAUCKEL: Until the end.
M. HERZOG: Among the documents which you have presented in your document book, there is Document Sauckel-95. I will read the following passage on Page 252 of the French translation:
“My dear fellow countrymen, our magnificent SA and SS, persecuted and insulted during a whole decade as the scum of the German people, have carried through, supported, and sustained this revolution with an unshakable discipline....”
Is it correct...
THE PRESIDENT: From what are you reading?
M. HERZOG: From Document Sauckel-95 of the defendant’s document book; Document Sauckel-95, which was submitted yesterday by the learned counsel for the defense, Page 252 of the French translation. It is in the third document book of the defendant.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, go on.
M. HERZOG: I put the question again and read:
“My dear fellow countrymen, our magnificent SA and SS, persecuted and insulted during a whole decade as the scum of the German people, have carried through, supported, and sustained this revolution with an unshakable discipline....”
Do you confirm this declaration?
SAUCKEL: Yes, but I request that I be shown the document in cross-examination so that I can define my attitude in detail.
M. HERZOG: This document is taken from your own document book, which you yourself submitted.
SAUCKEL: Yes, I remember it well.
M. HERZOG: Were the Nuremberg Laws concerning Jews in accordance with your convictions?
SAUCKEL: I had no influence on legislation such as culminated in the Nuremberg Laws. My conviction is that every nation and every race has the right to exist and to demand respect and protection through itself. What I demand and have demanded for my own people is exactly the same.
M. HERZOG: Did you see to it that the Nuremberg Laws were strictly applied in the Gau of Thuringia?
SAUCKEL: The Nuremberg Laws could apply to Thuringia only insofar as my authority to appoint or dismiss employees was involved; and, of course, according to German law, it was my duty to carry out the law. The carrying out of this law by me entailed neither ill-usage nor any other inhuman treatment.
M. HERZOG: Did you approve of Hitler’s theory of living space?
SAUCKEL: The Führer wrote about living space in his book. How far I agreed or disagreed with him cannot, in my opinion, be dealt with in this Trial, for I had no influence as to how the Führer himself should interpret the word Lebensraum.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal think that you must answer the question, whether or not you approve of the doctrine of Lebensraum.
SAUCKEL: I am not fully acquainted with the statements made by the Führer about the doctrine of Lebensraum. I should like to emphasize that I never thought of Lebensraum in connection with the carrying out of wars, or wars of aggression; neither did I promote the idea; but the idea of Lebensraum is perhaps best brought home to us by the fact that the population of Europe in the last 100 years has increased threefold, from 150 million to 450 million.
M. HERZOG: Did you, or did you not approve of the theory of Lebensraum? Answer “yes” or “no.”
SAUCKEL: I did not agree with the theory of Lebensraum if it had to do with wars of aggression.
M. HERZOG: Did you approve of Hitler’s theory of the master race?
SAUCKEL: I could give abundant proof that I personally always refused to emphasize the idea of a master race, and said so in my speeches. I am personally much more interested in proficiency than in ideas about a master race.
M. HERZOG: Then you did not think that the foreign policy of Germany should have been conducted according to these two theories; the theory of Lebensraum on the one hand, and the theory of the master race on the other hand?
SAUCKEL: I have already stated to my counsel that I did not concern myself with foreign policy and was not informed about it, as I am not versed in matters of foreign policy.
M. HERZOG: On the contrary, did you not approve of all the measures of foreign policy, and did you not participate in them?
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps we had better break off now, and you can repeat the question tomorrow.