Afternoon Session
M. HERZOG: Mr. President, I believe that Mr. Dodd has a statement to make to the Tribunal.
MARSHAL: May it please the Tribunal, the report is made that the Defendant Jodl is absent.
MR. DODD: Document Number 3057-PS, concerning which M. Herzog questioned the defendant this morning, was in the document book offered by the United States with reference to the slave-labor program, but it was not offered in evidence, and I found the reference in the record at Page 1397 of the transcript for 13 December 1945 (Volume III, Page 494) and the President of the Tribunal particularly asked why we had not read Document 3057-PS. I answered that we had intended to offer it, but that counsel for Sauckel had told me that his client maintained that he had been coerced into the making of the statement, and for that reason we preferred not to offer it, and were not offering it.
THE PRESIDENT: I want to announce that the Tribunal will rise this afternoon at half past 4 to sit in closed session.
SAUCKEL: May I be permitted to give my explanation on that document?
M. HERZOG: What document are you speaking of?
SAUCKEL: I am referring to the letter of the Field Marshal Von Rundstedt. This document represents a letter which is addressed to me...
THE PRESIDENT: I did not hear you ask any question. Did you ask your question?
M. HERZOG: Yes, Mr. President. It is the document which I presented just before the recess, and the document shows that the official in charge of the recruitment and allocation of labor—that is he himself—asked that troop units should be put at his disposal.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you mean Document F-815? Yes, very well.
M. HERZOG: That is correct, Mr. President.
[Turning to the defendant.] I ask you whether you recognize that this document establishes the fact that you requested troop units?
SAUCKEL: As far as this question is concerned I cannot answer precisely, for I personally did not receive this letter. Instead it was sent to Paris, to the office there. This letter is not initialed by me. But in order to clarify my position, I should like to emphasize specifically that I did not demand troops in order to recruit workers. I asked for troops when in certain areas the administrative procedure could not be carried through because of resistance activities, et cetera. In that connection there is an error in this letter of Field Marshal Von Rundstedt. But I did not receive this reply myself. It is initialed by the office of the military commander in Paris.
M. HERZOG: I submit Document F-824, which I hand to the Tribunal as Exhibit RF-1515. This Document F-824 is a letter from the Commander of the West, from his headquarters, dated 25 July 1944. I quote:
“One can conclude from this that on the order of the Führer, and after the abrogation of all contrary decrees, the desires of the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor...”
This Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor is you yourself; is that not so?
“...and of Reich Minister Speer must in principle be carried out. Following my telegraphic communication, on the basis of the conference of ministers of 11 July in the Reich Chancellery, concerning which the Commander of the West will be informed by the military commander, the following directives are in force from now on:
“Without taking into account justified misgivings concerning security and order within the country, recruiting must start everywhere where the possibilities referred to in my telegram present themselves. As an only exception the Führer has decided that in the actual fighting zone no methods of coercion will be used against the population as long as the latter are helpful to the Wehrmacht. On the other hand, the recruiting of volunteers among refugees from the combat zones is to be handled energetically. Moreover, all means will be considered justified, in order to recruit as much labor as possible from elsewhere by means at the disposal of the Wehrmacht.”
Do you again deny that at your request, and at that of Reich Minister Speer, troop units carried out the recruiting of labor?
SAUCKEL: I should like to remark in this connection that I do not dispute what has just been described. At that time the commander-in-chief was under the stress of battle and the evacuation of the population. But I can testify that after the date of 25 July 1944 these things did not apply any longer, for the withdrawal of German troops was much too rapid; so that this decree, which had been issued by the Führer, was no longer in effect.
M. HERZOG: Do you remember the conference, the ministers’ conference of 11 July 1944, to which the document I have just read refers?
SAUCKEL: Yes, I recall it.
M. HERZOG: Do you remember the persons who were present at this meeting?
SAUCKEL: Not all of them.
M. HERZOG: I submit to you the minutes of this meeting. It is Document 3819-PS, which has been handed to the Tribunal under number...
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like you to read the last passage in Document F-824—that is, not the last, but the last on that page beginning with “Afin....” It is on Page 346 of the French translation.
M. HERZOG: “In order to make the measures undertaken as effective as possible, the troops must be informed of the necessity of the Arbeitseinsatz organization so that they may put down the many acts of subversive and open resistance. The field commanders and military administration offices must give as much aid as possible to the delegates of the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor and refrain from encroaching on their activities which are in conformance with instructions. I therefore ask you to give the necessary directions to this effect...”
Do you still deny that at your request the Army was used for the recruitment of workers?
THE PRESIDENT: There is a passage on the next page, too, in the supplementary note, Paragraph 1.
M. HERZOG: “Supplementary note by the Commander of the West.
“The Commander of the West reported to the Chief of the OKW on 23 July as follows:
“1) In spite of anxieties concerning internal security, I have authorized the application of the Sauckel-Laval agreement of 12 May 1944.
“2) I shall issue further instructions for the application of these measures in the combat zone in agreement with OKW/WFSt/Qu. (Verw. 1) 2 (West) Number 05201/44, Secret, of 8 July 1944.
“The Commander of the West, signed Von Kluge, Field Marshal.
“Further instructions follow. For the Commander of the West. The Chief of the General Staff,” et cetera.
I come back now to the conference of 11 July 1944. I submit to you Document Number 3819-PS, submitted under Exhibit Number GB-306. The Tribunal will find it under Document 3819-PS in the first part of my document book. It represents the minutes of the ministers’ conference which took place on 11 July 1944 in Berlin, a gathering of ministers, chiefs of the Party, and of administration.
You will find on Page 6 of the French translation the list of all the persons who were there. Do you remember who, among the defendants, were among those present? Do you recognize the signature of Defendant Funk? That of Defendant Speer?
SAUCKEL: I have not found it yet.
M. HERZOG: Have you found them?
SAUCKEL: I have not found Speer’s signature yet.
M. HERZOG: Was Defendant Speer present at this conference?
SAUCKEL: I cannot tell you from memory. I cannot find his name.
M. HERZOG: Were you yourself present at this conference?
SAUCKEL: Yes, I participated.
M. HERZOG: Do you remember the proposals which, in the course of this conference, General Warlimont made to you in the name of the General Staff? Do you remember the reply that you made to these proposals?
SAUCKEL: I recall a conversation between General Warlimont and myself on that occasion, and I gave an answer; but I cannot give it to you verbatim without having some data at my disposal.
M. HERZOG: Well, I am going to read you the text. It is on Page 10. The Tribunal will find it at the bottom of the page:
“The representative of the Chief of the OKW, General Warlimont, referred to a recent order of the Führer according to which all German forces would have to be used in the task of recruiting labor. Where troops of the Wehrmacht are stationed, whenever they are not engaged exclusively in military tasks—such as the construction of coastal fortifications—they will be available, but they cannot be detached solely for the purpose of the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor. General Warlimont made the following practical proposals:
“(a) Troops which are in action against partisans will, in addition, have to be used for recruiting labor in the zones held by partisan bands....”
SAUCKEL: Would you please tell me where that is. I have not this passage on this page. Will you please show me the page?
M. HERZOG: I will have it shown to you. Point it out to the interpreter also.
SAUCKEL: Yes, I find the place about General Warlimont, but in the German translation it sounds entirely different from what you are reading.
M. HERZOG: It is on Page 3. Have you found it?
SAUCKEL: Yes.
M. HERZOG: Then I can resume the reading of it.
“(a) Troops which are in action against partisans will, in addition, be used for recruiting labor in the zones held by partisan bands. Any person who cannot give a satisfactory reason for his staying in that region will be compulsorily recruited.
“(b) If large towns are totally or partially evacuated owing to food difficulties, all the population capable of work will be recruited for labor with the aid of the Wehrmacht.
“(c) A special effort for recruiting labor among refugees from areas close to the front must be made with the aid of the Wehrmacht.
“Gauleiter Sauckel accepted these proposals with gratitude and expressed the hope that results would be obtained by these means.”
Do you still continue to claim that the Wehrmacht did not co-operate in the recruiting of labor?
SAUCKEL: I did not deny that in the combat area, and for the purpose of maintaining order in the rear areas, these measures were proposed, but they were not carried through.
M. HERZOG: Well, I am going to produce a document which refers to 3 or 4 days after this meeting of ministers. It is a telegram from Defendant Keitel, Document Number F-814, which I submit to the Tribunal under Exhibit Number RF-1516. It is a telegram addressed by Defendant Keitel to all military commanders. I call your attention to the fact that it bears the stamp of the labor department of the military commander in France. This is dated 15 July and here is the text of it...
THE PRESIDENT: M. Herzog, some of these documents are not tabbed and it is quite impossible to find them unless you tell us where they are.
M. HERZOG: I have tabbed only those documents which I intend to use several times, so that the Tribunal will be able to find them easily. Otherwise, the documents must be in the order in which I use them. Document F-814 should, therefore, be immediately after Document 3819-PS, unless I am mistaken.
THE PRESIDENT: 3819, you mean?
M. HERZOG: Actually it is after the document marked Document RF-15; it is the fourth document after Document F-814.
THE PRESIDENT: We have got 815 after that; after RF-15, we have Document F-815.
M. HERZOG: After 815 we have Document F-823, then F-824, and F-814, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, yes, now I see it.
M. HERZOG: This document contains the instructions which Keitel gave in connection with this meeting of leaders. I read the second paragraph:
“The present situation demands the use of all conceivable means for the procurement of additional labor, because it is the fighting men who benefit first of all by all armament measures. In view of this fact, all questions concerning internal unrest, the increase of resistance and such matters must be put in the background. We must concentrate on giving every help and support to the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor. I refer to my directives for the co-operation of the Wehrmacht in the procurement of workers from France.”
Do you still contend that the Wehrmacht was not used for the recruitment of labor?
SAUCKEL: I must emphasize here again that I did not dispute that these things had been planned and ordered. I did not dispute that fact, and I should like to emphasize that again. But these measures were not carried through, and I would like to emphasize that also. And besides that, I did not send this telegram.
M. HERZOG: Is it correct to say that the German Police proceeded to take steps to recruit foreign workers?
SAUCKEL: How far the Police carried through their measures in detail, I do not know, but I do know that they carried through some measures on their own accord.
M. HERZOG: But is it not true that you recommended your offices to put themselves in touch with the chiefs of the Police, the SD, and the SS?
SAUCKEL: I considered both the SD and the Police to be regular and justified institutions, and I had to ask for their help when it was necessary.
M. HERZOG: You, therefore, admit that you recommended your offices to put themselves in contact with the chiefs of the Police, the SD, and the SS for the accomplishment of their tasks?
SAUCKEL: To support me in my tasks only where an orderly participation or the use of the Police was necessary from an administrative point of view—not for the recruitment of workers as such, but only to remove difficulties or disturbances in administration.
M. HERZOG: I ask you the question again, and I ask you to answer “yes” or “no.” Did you recommend your offices to get in touch with the chiefs of the Police, the SS, and the SD?
SAUCKEL: I can only answer that question with a qualified “yes”—on occasions when it was necessary to call in police aid; not in order to carry through the task itself.
M. HERZOG: Is it true that the chiefs of the German Police assisted in the conferences which you held with the French authorities concerning the recruitment of labor?
SAUCKEL: Sometimes representatives of the Higher SS and Police Leader were present just as in the case of the French, where the Minister of the Interior or the Minister of the Police was present. I neither demanded that nor proposed it.
M. HERZOG: But you admit that the representatives of the German Police were present at these discussions? Can you give the name of one of these representatives? Do you know Standartenführer Knochen?
SAUCKEL: Standartenführer Knochen was in Paris, and on occasions he was present at these conferences.
M. HERZOG: Is it correct that the chiefs of the German Police attended the conferences which the German authorities held concerning labor problems?
SAUCKEL: To my recollection they attended various conferences, but that occurred at the proposal of the military commander, under whose direction these conferences took place.
M. HERZOG: Was there a representative of the Police at the conference of chiefs on 11 July 1944, which we mentioned just now in Document 3819-PS?
SAUCKEL: Do you mean the meeting at Berlin?
M. HERZOG: Yes, the Berlin meeting on 11 July 1944.
SAUCKEL: I believe Kaltenbrunner attended that conference. The meeting had been called by Reich Minister Lammers.
M. HERZOG: Did you never ask Himmler, in the presence of the Führer, for the help of the SS in the recruitment of labor?
SAUCKEL: At a discussion with the Führer in January, Reichsführer SS Himmler was present. On this occasion, as far as I recollect, I pointed out that the program for the year 1944, which had been drawn up by the Führer, could not be carried through by me if the partisan menace and obstruction in certain areas were not removed. And that, of course, could only be done by the authorities who had jurisdiction there.
M. HERZOG: You admit, therefore, that you asked Reichsführer SS Himmler to put his police forces at your disposal?
SAUCKEL: No, it is not correct to put it in that way. I have to contradict you there. Neither I nor my offices could have police forces put at our disposal. I merely asked for help in those areas where I was supposed to carry through administrative measures and where a pacification and restoration of order was first necessary. Otherwise, I could not carry out my task.
M. HERZOG: I am going to show you Document Number 1292-PS. It has already been submitted to the Tribunal under Exhibit Number USA-225. It is the minutes of a meeting held in the presence of the Führer on 4 January 1944. In my document book it is a little way after the marked document and is also marked with a tab.
On Page 3 of the French text, Page 5 of the German text, you declared:
“Success will depend mainly on what German executive forces are made available. My action cannot be carried through with native executive forces.”
Do you recognize that declaration?
SAUCKEL: Will you please indicate the place to me? I have not found it yet. Which page in German?
M. HERZOG: It must be on Page 5 of the text which was given to you.
SAUCKEL: Yes, that is correct. That is a statement, a rather abbreviated statement, probably made by Reich Minister Dr. Lammers. But I should like to say emphatically that it can be interpreted only in this way: In those areas, which were very numerous at the time, I could not put into effect an administration to deal with manpower until order had been restored through executive forces. This statement, therefore, is not quite correct as presented here.
M. HERZOG: Defendant Sauckel, you said to us only yesterday that you were formerly a worker. Did you ever consider that a worker could be taken to his work handcuffed?
SAUCKEL: No, I never thought of such a thing. I hear now for the first time that I am supposed to have sent, or had workers sent to their places of work handcuffed. I do not remember that. In any case, I never decreed anything like that; that much I can say.
M. HERZOG: On 30 August 1943, you made a speech in Paris to the Allocation of Labor staffs which you were setting up in France. I give you Document Number F-816, which I submitted to the Tribunal this morning, and I ask you to look at it again. I ask you to read...
Mr. President, I think I have made a mistake. I do not think I submitted that document, and, therefore, I submit it now, under the Exhibit Number RF-1517.
[Turning to the defendant.] Please look at Page 10 of the photostat which has been given to you—Page 38 of the French translation, the last line on the page:
“The most severe measures for recruiting labor—police action or the use of handcuffs—must be applied by us in the most unobtrusive manner.”
That is what you declared on 30 August 1943 to the Allocation of Labor staffs when they met in Paris.
SAUCKEL: I have not found the place. Will you please have it shown to me?
M. HERZOG: It is on Page 10, some 14 lines down. Have you found it now?
SAUCKEL: Yes; I have found it.
M. HERZOG: And you considered that handcuffs could be used in the recruitment of labor?
SAUCKEL: It can only be a statement regarding cases of flagrant resistance to the authority of the state or to the execution of some administrative action. Experience shows us that this has been found necessary the whole world over. I merely said that everything should be done in an orderly and correct way. I did not call that a rule to be applied for the recruitment of labor. It cannot be understood in any other way.
M. HERZOG: But you said that to the Allocation of Labor officials in France. The Tribunal will judge that.
SAUCKEL: Yes, but it must be interpreted as being applied only if there were flagrant resistance to an executive authority; otherwise it was never intended.
M. HERZOG: The Tribunal will form its own opinion.
Defendant Sauckel, have you ever created any special police for the recruitment of labor?
SAUCKEL: No, I established no special police; I explained that yesterday. That was a suggestion put forward by the French units themselves for protection. At a conference I exaggerated and called it “police,” but it was not a police force.
M. HERZOG: Have you heard of a “Committee for Social Peace”?
SAUCKEL: Yes, that was talked about.
M. HERZOG: Have you heard a committee mentioned which was called the “League for Social Order and Justice?”
SAUCKEL: Yes.
M. HERZOG: Have you ever drafted any order or sent any instructions which advised the institution of these committees?
SAUCKEL: It was proposed, yes, and it was discussed. As far as I remember that was in the spring of 1944.
M. HERZOG: And you claim that you never set up these committees, or drafted any instructions concerning the setting up of these committees?
SAUCKEL: I have already said that I did that.
M. HERZOG: You admit that you drafted instructions concerning the formation of these special police forces?
SAUCKEL: That was done on the basis of discussions which I had with these French units.
M. HERZOG: So you did do this?
SAUCKEL: Yes, in agreement with these French units.
M. HERZOG: Very well.
I submit to the Tribunal Document Number F-827, under Exhibit Number RF-1518. These are instructions of the Defendant Sauckel for the formation of these special police forces. The document consists of several sets of instructions. On Page 6, there is an order of 25 January 1944 by the Defendant Sauckel.
THE PRESIDENT: Where is it?
M. HERZOG: On Page 6, immediately after Document 1292 in my document book, you will find the instructions of the Defendant Sauckel. I read:
“Berlin, 25 January 1944. Secret.
“Subject: Formation of a protection corps for the execution of the tasks of the Allocation Of Labor in France and in Belgium during the year 1944.
“1)
To the Military Commander in France, Paris.
To the Military Commander for Belgium and Northern France, Brussels.
“In order to secure the carrying out of the necessary tasks of the Allocation of Labor in Belgium and France, especially the assignments for Germany, and to strengthen the executive, a protective corps, the Committee for Social Peace, is to be created in France and Belgium. This protective corps is to consist of indigenous forces with a nucleus of German police who will act as leaders. This protective corps will consist of approximately 5,000 men in France, and approximately 1,000 men in Belgium. I give the following provisional instructions for the formation of this protective corps and the accomplishment of its tasks:
“I. Selection of members of the Protective Corps.
“The selection shall be made in close agreement with the competent Police and SD offices, which shall approve the candidates, especially from the point of view of their loyalty. The selection shall be made especially among the members of political movements favorably disposed to collaboration with Germany.
“II. Organization of the Protective Corps.
“The Protective Corps will be directed from central offices to be set up in Paris and Brussels. The heads of these offices shall be designated by me.”—That is to say, by you, Defendant Sauckel.—“They shall take orders from my delegates in France. In purely police questions, the Protective Corps shall be directed by the Higher SS and Police Leader. The regional groups of the Protective Corps shall take orders from the commanders of German police forces, and the latter will receive technical directions from the Feldkommandantur and from the recruiting offices as to their participation in tasks concerning the Allocation of Labor. The German Police and the services of the SD will deal with instruction in police matters; technical training, as far as the Allocation of Labor is concerned, will be given insofar as is necessary by the experts of the Feldkommandantur and the recruiting offices.
“The members of the Protective Corps will not wear uniform; they will however, carry firearms.
“III. Execution of orders.
“The members of the Protective Corps assigned to the recruiting offices or to the Feldkommandantur shall be employed in such a way as to insure maximum efficiency in the execution of measures ordered. For example, they must be informed immediately if Frenchmen who have been summoned by German offices do not appear. They must find out the domiciles of these persons and bring them to report in accordance with instructions from the German police leader in collaboration with the French and German police. Furthermore, they must track down immediately all those who have refused to appear when summoned, and those who have broken their contracts. In the interests of an effective executive, it is expedient that they receive regularly lists of persons summoned and persons liable for service, to enable them to act immediately in cases where German directives have not been complied with.
“It is to be presumed that these quick methods, coupled with fitting punishment and immediate publication of the punishments, will have a more deterrent effect than that achieved by tracking down the men afterwards, as has been done up to now. Furthermore, members of the Protective Corps are to keep the German offices informed of any particular difficulties in recruitment....”
And all that, Defendant, is signed “Sauckel.” Do you still claim that you did not form a special police corps in France and Belgium?
SAUCKEL: I already told my attorney yesterday that in agreement with French organizations such a protective corps was set up, so that on the one hand people who wanted to work could be protected, and on the other hand administrative measures could be carried out. Since the Frenchmen themselves declared that they were ready and willing to collaborate, I did not see anything unfavorable in this or anything that was in any way out of order.
It was to alleviate the conditions of the indigenous people themselves.
M. HERZOG: I ask you to answer my question “yes” or “no.” Do you admit that you set up this special police service?
SAUCKEL: I admit that I suggested this Protective Corps, and that it was set up, but only on a small scale.
M. HERZOG: Is it true that you issued instructions, or imposed measures of constraint against those who evaded the compulsory labor service?
SAUCKEL: I did not issue them myself, but rather the French Government did. That is correct; for in every occupied territory—and that is true the whole world over—the authority of the occupying power must be respected.
M. HERZOG: Is it true that you demanded that the death penalty should be applied to officials who, for instance, hindered your action?
SAUCKEL: It is true that at a conference with the French Premier Laval, I demanded, by way of negotiations, the death penalty in cases of very serious obstruction.
M. HERZOG: Then you admit that you demanded the application of the death penalty in the case of these officials?
SAUCKEL: Yes, if a serious case of sabotage was in question—according to martial law.
M. HERZOG: Is it true that your task was to procure for the German war industry the labor it required?
SAUCKEL: That was one of my tasks.
M. HERZOG: In this respect were you responsible to the Defendant Speer, Minister for Armaments and Munitions, for the carrying out of your task?
SAUCKEL: I was responsible to the Four Year Plan and to the Führer, and I had instructions from the Führer to meet the requirements of Reich Minister Speer as far as it was possible for me to do so.
M. HERZOG: Did the Defendant Speer approve of all the steps which you took in recruiting foreign labor?
SAUCKEL: At all events he agreed, or he demanded, that workers should be put at his disposal. Sometimes, however, we did not entirely agree as to how it should be done; for instance, we did not agree about the protected factories in France.
M. HERZOG: We will come to that later. I ask you to tell me whether you always succeeded in satisfying the demands for workers which were made to you by the different sections of German industry?
SAUCKEL: No, I was not always successful.
M. HERZOG: And when you failed, did the orders that were sent to you by Defendant Speer have to have priority over all others?
SAUCKEL: Yes, they had to have priority.
M. HERZOG: Were there not incidents in this respect? For instance, did it not happen that some transports of workers were diverted from their original destination on instructions from Defendant Speer?
SAUCKEL: It did happen that, contrary to my instructions, labor transports were stopped, or transferred to other regions or to other factories. But whether the order always emanated from Herr Speer, or from an armament commission, or from another office, I do not know. It was not always from the same quarter.
M. HERZOG: In your interrogatory you declared, however, that the original destination of these transports was sometimes changed in order to satisfy the demands of Speer’s offices. Do you confirm this?
SAUCKEL: Yes; but I meant by that something rather different. In that case I was informed about it. There were two kinds of changes, or deviations: those which I did not know about, and those which were agreed upon.
M. HERZOG: Will you tell the Tribunal what was understood by the “red ticket” system?
SAUCKEL: The red ticket system was applied when there was a demand for workers, mostly specialized or skilled workers, which had to take priority over all other demands because the work was necessary.
M. HERZOG: The system of the red ticket was applied to the armament industry, was it not?
SAUCKEL: The red ticket system was applied to the armament industry...
M. HERZOG: And it was established by agreement between the Defendant Speer and yourself?
SAUCKEL: That was a system which, in my opinion, was always intended to meet emergencies; there were variations, such as lists or red tickets. Originally, there were only lists, and the red ticket was added by decree.
M. HERZOG: You therefore admit that by these various systems you share with the Defendant Speer the responsibility of having compelled workers to work in German factories for the needs of the war which Germany was fighting against their own native lands?
SAUCKEL: I should like to emphasize particularly that this red ticket system did not apply only to foreign workers; it applied especially to German workers too—German skilled workers.
M. HERZOG: But it was applied also to foreign workers?
SAUCKEL: It applied to foreign workers as well, if they were specialists and declared their willingness.
M. HERZOG: Will you tell the Tribunal what is meant by the “blocking” of factories?
SAUCKEL: A factory was “blocked” if it was manufacturing articles which were not essential for war, or if it was a question of so-called luxury articles.
M. HERZOG: I do not think you understood my question. What were, for instance, the “S” factories in France—the factories protected by Speer?
SAUCKEL: “Sperrbetriebe” known as “S” factories—is that what you mean?
M. HERZOG: Yes.
SAUCKEL: Sperrbetriebe were factories which worked for Speer in France, which had been agreed to by the French Minister Bichelonne, and they were blocked as far as labor recruitment was concerned.
M. HERZOG: Did you not exert strong pressure on the Defendant Speer to get him to abandon the practice of blocking industries?
SAUCKEL: I asked him and I urged him, but I could not succeed in putting an end to the blocking of these factories.
M. HERZOG: Did you ever bring up the matter with Hitler and insist that Speer should give up his position?
SAUCKEL: Yes, I was very insistent with Hitler about it, but I had no success.
M. HERZOG: In this connection did you not ask the Führer to increase your powers at the expense of the Defendant Speer?
SAUCKEL: I did not ask for a general extension of my powers, but I asked that conditions should be allowed to remain as they had been previously, for—I ask to be permitted to explain this to the Tribunal—my task was to bring workers from France to Germany—may I make this statement:
The departments under Speer demanded skilled workers from me. There were skilled workers already in the factories which Speer had blocked. Similar industries in Germany would, of course, be worse off if instead of having skilled French workers they were supplied with unskilled French workers, or men without experience in that particular trade. I had to procure workers in any case, but I considered it wiser for German economy to procure for it the right kind of workers and not workers who were unskilled.
M. HERZOG: I beg the Tribunal to turn back to Document Number 3819-PS, the second part of 3819-PS. It consists of two letters, each addressed to the Führer, by the Defendant Sauckel and by the Defendant Speer, on this subject of the blocking of industries.
First of all, I will read to the Tribunal some extracts from Sauckel’s letter, which happens to be the second.
THE PRESIDENT: Have these not both been read already?
M. HERZOG: I think they have already been read, Mr. President; I cannot affirm it, but believe so. Document Number 3819-PS has already been submitted to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number GB-306. If the Tribunal wishes, I can limit myself to very short extracts.
THE PRESIDENT: You need not read them for the purpose of your question of the defendant.
M. HERZOG: [Turning to the defendant.] In this letter, on Page 27, you asked whether you could obtain in a general manner a free hand for the rational utilization of labor.
Do you admit that you asked the Führer for this free hand?
SAUCKEL: I have not found the place. I could never have asked for a free hand, but I did ask to be permitted to recruit as before. I cannot find the place that you are quoting.
M. HERZOG: You will find it on Page 27.
SAUCKEL: In this German text it says: “In this situation, it is absolutely necessary that I should again have a free hand.” That means that I should have a free hand once again, as I had had before the blocked industries were instituted. That is correct, for I was interested in a rational use of labor.
M. HERZOG: That is what I asked you to confirm. Did you ask that your powers should be increased at the expense of those of your Codefendant Speer? Will you answer “yes” or “no,” if you can?
SAUCKEL: I do not understand the question. Was it obtain them or ask for them?
M. HERZOG: Ask for them.
SAUCKEL: Yes, I asked for them, for it was to Speer’s advantage.
M. HERZOG: You asked for that?
SAUCKEL: Yes, I asked for that in the interests of my tasks.
M. HERZOG: And do you not remember that on other occasions, the Defendant Speer likewise asked that his powers should be increased at the expense of yours?
SAUCKEL: Yes, that might have happened also.
M. HERZOG: You declared in your interrogatory that the very close relations between Speer and Goebbels after the fall of Stalingrad made Speer want particularly to have you under his authority. Can you confirm this?
SAUCKEL: Yes.
M. HERZOG: Is it true that your general program for recruiting labor included the employment of prisoners of war?
SAUCKEL: The employment of prisoners of war as far as they should and could be put to work under the care of the Wehrmacht.
M. HERZOG: Do you remember the decree which we mentioned this morning, your Decree Number 10, which stipulated the order of priority of work and gave priority to armament? Was this order applicable to prisoners of war as well?
SAUCKEL: As I explained yesterday, this decree was applicable to prisoners of war only by way of exchange, and to the extent as set forth in the rules of work issued by the OKW and by me in a catalog of work.
M. HERZOG: But Article 8 of this decree stipulates only that it was applicable to prisoners of war.
SAUCKEL: Yes, in accordance, of course, with the other decrees which existed; that was a matter of course.
M. HERZOG: You spoke to us yesterday about inspectorates. Is it true that in September 1943 you came to an agreement with Dr. Ley concerning the setting up of a central inspectorate for foreign workers?
SAUCKEL: Yes, for the purposes of their welfare.
M. HERZOG: In consequence, you admit that you are responsible for the measures concerning the treatment of foreign workers?
SAUCKEL: I am responsible for the directives which I issued; they are all available.
M. HERZOG: Do you consider yourself responsible for the feeding of foreign workers?
SAUCKEL: I consider myself responsible for the directives which I issued regarding the feeding of foreign workers. The actual feeding of these people was not the task and responsibility of the labor authorities. That was the responsibility of the factories, or the camp leaders who had been charged by the factories to look after this.
M. HERZOG: I am going to have submitted to you Document Number 025-PS. This document was submitted to the Tribunal under Exhibit Number USA-698. You already had it yesterday. It consists of the report of a meeting in the office of the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor—that is to say, you yourself—on 3 September 1942. The document is dated 4 September.
This document, Mr. President, is at the end of my document book, after Document F-827, the last page of the French translation. I read:...
THE PRESIDENT: The last page is Document F-857, is it not? The document called 857—the last page I have got. It is just in front of Document 2200-PS. Did you come across that? It is just after Document 1913-PS.
M. HERZOG: After Document 1913-PS, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
M. HERZOG: I read:
“The Führer cannot understand that, in the struggle for the future of Europe, the country which has to bear the brunt of this struggle is the one to suffer most from hunger; whereas in France...”
THE PRESIDENT: It is on Page 1 or Page 4?
M. HERZOG: No, Mr. President, on Page 4 of the French text—that is to say, on the last page.
“The Führer cannot understand that, in the struggle for the future of Europe, the country which has to bear the brunt of this struggle is the one to suffer most from hunger; whereas in France, in Holland, in Hungary, in the Ukraine, or anywhere else, there is no talk of hunger. He desires that it should be the reverse in the future. As regards the foreign workers living in the Reich—with the exclusion of the Eastern Workers—little by little their rations must be reduced and made to correspond to their output. It is not admissible that lazy Dutchmen or Italians should receive better rations than good Eastern Workers. In principle the guiding rule of utmost output must apply equally to feeding.”
[Turning to the defendant.] I ask you what you meant when you stated that, “In principle the guiding rule of utmost output must apply equally to feeding?”
SAUCKEL: There was a standard ration in the Reich which was increased by additional rations based on output or performance. I fought for the principle that these additional rations, which the workers from the West were already largely receiving, should be granted to the workers from the East as well; and that where western workers—that is, Dutch and Belgian workers—did not keep up their output in the same way as the Eastern Workers, these additional rations should be cut down accordingly, but not the standard ration which applied to the German people as well.
M. HERZOG: You therefore consider that if the output of one worker is smaller than that of another, his food rations must be smaller. Is that what I am to understand?
SAUCKEL: No, it is not right to interpret it that way. I should like to explain the system again. In Germany each worker received his ration as fixed by the Reich Minister for Food. In addition to that there were special increases as a reward for increased output. At the beginning these additional rations were not granted to Russian workers, and it is these additional rations we are dealing with here; not with starving people, or cutting down their standard food rations—additional rations for increased output.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps we had better adjourn now.
[A recess was taken.]
MARSHAL: If it pleases the Tribunal, the report is made that the Defendant Raeder is absent.
THE PRESIDENT: M. Herzog, do you anticipate being able to conclude your cross-examination before half past 4?
M. HERZOG: Yes, Mr. President, I think that I might even finish before that.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
M. HERZOG: Defendant Sauckel, I offered in evidence this morning Document Number F-810, which is an account of the conference which you held on 15 and 16 July 1944 at Wartburg with the heads of the regional labor offices. Do you remember?
SAUCKEL: Yes, I remember.
M. HERZOG: Do you remember whether during this conference the question was raised as to the discipline to be imposed upon the workers?
SAUCKEL: It is possible that during this conference—or conferences—this question was discussed. I cannot remember exactly; I did not participate in all the sessions.
M. HERZOG: Do you know Ministerialrat Dr. Sturm?
SAUCKEL: Ministerialrat Dr. Sturm is not personally known to me.
M. HERZOG: Do you remember the statements made at the conference of 15 and 16 July 1944 by Dr. Sturm?
SAUCKEL: I cannot remember any particular statements by Dr. Sturm.
M. HERZOG: I shall hand you once more the minutes of that meeting. It is Document Number F-810 which was presented this morning under Exhibit Number RF-1507. Will you please look at Page 25 of the German text. It is also Page 25 of the French version. There you see—I read the first line: “Sturm gave the following report from his sector on work discipline.”
I shall pass to the next page, where I read, “We are working with the Gestapo...”
THE PRESIDENT: Where is this?
M. HERZOG: Document F-810, Mr. President; it is a document which is marked...
THE PRESIDENT: I know it is 806, but I thought you told us that they followed on.
M. HERZOG: 810, Sir, 810.
THE PRESIDENT: I have got that.
M. HERZOG: Page 25.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, go on.
M. HERZOG: With your permission, I will begin again.
“Sturm gave the following report from his sector on work discipline...”
And on the following page: “We are working with the Gestapo and the concentration camps, and we are certainly on the right track.”
Did you make any observations when that statement was made?
SAUCKEL: I did not hear that statement myself. He gave a specialized report on questions of labor legislation, as it says at the beginning. I am seeing the record for the first time in my life. There were several parallel meetings at the same time. I did not hear it myself, but it stands to reason that some sort of ruling regarding penalties had to be made, as is done in all labor legislation.
Perhaps I may read to you from the same document, the beginning:
“Measures regulating the employment of labor and wages are only possible on the basis of a healthy working morale. Regulations of a disciplinary and penal character for securing such morale require unified handling, the details of which will be dealt with at a subsequent meeting of experts on penal law.”
That is, of course, not one of my offices.
M. HERZOG: I asked you what you thought of Dr. Sturm’s statement.
SAUCKEL: May I read in connection with Dr. Sturm’s statement, at the end of the first page...
M. HERZOG: Will you please answer my question first? What do you think of this statement?
SAUCKEL: I have already answered.
M. HERZOG: Please answer my question. What do you think of this statement?
SAUCKEL: I did not know of this statement, as Sturm, I believe, came from some other department. I do not know whether he belonged to the Ministry of Labor itself, or to some other department; that I cannot say. I did not hear these statements...
THE PRESIDENT: Watch the light. Do you not see the light in front of you?
M. HERZOG: Do you not remember that an agreement was reached between you and the Chief of the Police and SS to hand over to the Gestapo those workers who were guilty of leaving their work?
SAUCKEL: Well, there had to be an authority in Germany which dealt with workers who left their places of work without being entitled to do so. It could not have been done by any authority other than the Police; there was no other way. In connection with this document I beg to be allowed to read some more from Page 1:
“Apart from that, the number of penalties imposed by the authorities on German workers, such as reprimands, fines, concentration camps, and legal penalties, was relatively surprisingly small. In cases dealt with by the public prosecutor the penalties inflicted amounted on an average to 0.1 to 0.2 for every 1,000 workers.”
M. HERZOG: What has that to do with the question which I asked you about your relations with the Gestapo and the concentration camps?
SAUCKEL: But there was no other authority except the police who could make an arrest if it were necessary and legally justified by court rulings.
M. HERZOG: You admit, then, that it was with your agreement that the Gestapo proceeded to arrest workmen who had broken what you call their contract of work, and send them to concentration camps?
SAUCKEL: Not to concentration camps, no, but into the custody which was prescribed. The penalties were decreed in accordance with certain regulations. I made no other agreement.
M. HERZOG: I submit in evidence Document Number 2200-PS; which becomes Exhibit Number RF-1519. It is a service memorandum of the Gestapo addressed to the district police officials of the Cologne and Aachen districts. It refers to the struggle against breaches of contract on the part of foreign workers. Mr. President, it is the fourth document from the end in my document book. I read from it:
“The considerable number of refractory foreign workers ... is dangerous to the security of the Reich.... There is always danger of actual sabotage in such cases, ... the Reichsführer SS and Chief of the German Police has reached an agreement with the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor that all charges of absenteeism against foreign workers shall be dealt with by the Gestapo.
“...the district police authorities are expected to examine anything bearing on this matter. They are authorized by me to give warnings to absentees by order of the Gestapo State Police office, Cologne, and to order corrective custody up to 3 days for all cases of minor importance. The instructions concerning the attitude to be taken toward the individual groups of foreign workers are to be noted....
“In more serious cases of absenteeism the district police authorities will submit the files concerning the cases to the competent Gestapo office (Cologne, Aachen, or Bonn) for decision. The Gestapo will examine the matter and order the necessary measures—detention, sending to corrective labor camps, or concentration camps.”
[Turning to the defendant.] Do you still deny that it was with your agreement that refractory workers were first handed over to the Gestapo, and then sent to concentration camps?
SAUCKEL: I did not deny it, but as stated in the first paragraph, this only happened if public order was disturbed by punishable offenses, that is in serious cases, or when there were breaches of working contracts. There was nobody except the police to undertake the search for such people, and I consider the procedure to be perfectly correct.
M. HERZOG: You think that it is a correct manner of procedure to hand over foreign workers to the Gestapo and to concentration camps? I note your answer.
SAUCKEL: Only in the case of serious offenses. It says “in serious cases” in the document. That was the demand imposed on me.
M. HERZOG: At what period did you learn about the atrocities which were committed in concentration camps?
SAUCKEL: I can say with a good conscience that I gained knowledge here of the cruelties which were committed in the concentration camps; after the collapse of the Reich.
M. HERZOG: Do you think that it was the same with all the Hitlerite chiefs?
SAUCKEL: I cannot speak for the others. I myself did not know of such measures, which I abhor and which I only learned of here.
M. HERZOG: Do you think that the Reichsführer SS Himmler, for example, was aware of the atrocities which were committed in the concentration camps?
SAUCKEL: I cannot say whether the Reichsführer SS knew of them, whether he himself instigated them. During the whole of my career I hardly ever spoke to the Reichsführer SS because our personal relations were rather strained.
M. HERZOG: During the interrogation by your counsel yesterday you declared that you once visited the concentration camp of Buchenwald; did you not?
SAUCKEL: Yes, in 1937 or 1938. I cannot tell you that from memory now.
M. HERZOG: You declared you made this visit in the company of an Italian commission, did you not?
SAUCKEL: Yes, that is correct.
M. HERZOG: Do you know that there is in existence an album of official photographs of the concentration camp in Buchenwald?
SAUCKEL: I do not know that.
M. HERZOG: I offer that album in evidence to the Tribunal under Exhibit Number RF-1520. It bears the Document Number D-565. It is a document of the British Delegation.
[Turning to the defendant.] Do you recognize yourself in these photographs?
SAUCKEL: Yes, I recognize myself in this picture.
M. HERZOG: With whom are you there?
SAUCKEL: That is the Reichsführer SS.
M. HERZOG: Himmler?
SAUCKEL: Himmler, yes.
M. HERZOG: Thank you. And you contend that you, a Gauleiter and Reichsstatthalter of Thuringia, visited the Buchenwald Concentration Camp in the company of the Reichsführer SS, and—I call your attention to this—in the company of the commander of the camp, without knowledge of what was happening inside the camp?
SAUCKEL: I cannot tell you when this picture was taken or whether it was taken in the camp itself. I was once outside the camp together with the Reichsführer SS—there was another large site there—but I was never inside the camp together with the Reichsführer SS. I was there only once with an Italian commission.
This picture does not show that there was an inspection. Here you see some troops lined up...
M. HERZOG: The Tribunal will decide about that.
I offer in evidence under Exhibit Number RF-1521 the certificate establishing the origin of this album.
In October of 1945 you were interrogated on the expulsion of Jews from industry. You said this:
“I never had anything to do with it. I had nothing to do with the question of the eviction of Jews from industry. I had no influence in this matter. It was an enigma to me.”
Can you confirm this declaration?
SAUCKEL: That is perfectly correct. I did not say the eviction of the Jews from industry was a secret to me; I said that, to the best of my recollection, I had nothing to do with it.
M. HERZOG: Your counsel gave you a document yesterday, Document Number L-61, which you thought you had to contest.
SAUCKEL: Yes.
M. HERZOG: The point that you raised against this document was that it was dated 1942, and that it dealt with questions prior to your appointment. Did I understand you correctly yesterday?
SAUCKEL: The enclosures to the document deal with questions that had already been started before I was appointed.
M. HERZOG: I offer in evidence Document Number L-156, which becomes Exhibit Number RF-1522. It is a letter written under the authority of the Delegate for the Four Year Plan, the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor, which is you. It is dated 26 March 1943. It is addressed to the chiefs of the regional labor offices, and it deals with the question of the eviction of Jews. It begins thus:
“In agreement with me and the Reich Minister for Armaments and Munitions, the Reichsführer SS, for reasons of state security, removed from their place of work at the end of February such Jews as were not living in camps and who were working as free workers.
“They have been formed into working units or assembled for deportation. In order not to endanger the efficacy of this measure, I have avoided issuing any notification beforehand, and I have notified only those regional labor offices in whose districts free Jewish manpower was employed in large numbers.
“So as to have a general view of the effect of those measures on the manpower position, I ask you to let me have, as from 31 March 1943, returns showing how many Jews were removed from their work, and how many it has been found necessary to replace by other workers.
“When giving the numbers of the factories and of the Jews employed by them, one should take into account the situation which existed before the evacuation. The enclosed form should be used for making reports, et cetera.”
Do you still say that you had no part in the matter of the eviction of Jews and their replacement by foreign workers?
SAUCKEL: Here again I must state emphatically that this letter was never put before me. It has no signature, and here again it comes from a subdivision in the Reich Ministry of Labor at 96 Saarlandstrasse. Some official dealt with it there. I myself have absolutely no recollection of having ever had knowledge of this letter. I did not write it, it does not come from my office, it has been written “by order,” and the signature is not mine.
M. HERZOG: Will you please look on the left in the corner. It says:
“The Delegate for the Four Year Plan, the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor.” Is not that you? You talk of a subordinate. Are you trying to throw the responsibility on one of your subordinates?
SAUCKEL: No, I do not want to do that. I merely want to say that the letterhead belongs to some office, but I have never known anything about the letter. This is the first time in my life that I have seen it, and I myself did not have it written. I can say that under oath.
M. HERZOG: With this letter is an application form for replacement for the expelled Jews. Who else but you could have anything to do with this, you who were the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor?
SAUCKEL: Yes, my department—I told my counsel yesterday that my department, of course, had to furnish replacements if workers were taken away from a concern, either by being called up for service or for some other measure. I did not always know the details.
M. HERZOG: You are not answering my question, the fact that this letter...
SAUCKEL: Yes, I have answered your question properly.
M. HERZOG: The fact that this letter contains an application relating to the replacement of workers, is that not proof that it comes from your department, you being the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor?
SAUCKEL: Such a request could not come from my department. The evacuation of Jews was entirely the responsibility of the Reichsführer SS. I had only troubles because of such measures, as it was very difficult to replace workers. I had no interest in it.
M. HERZOG: In short, you deny that you ever proposed special working conditions for Jews?
SAUCKEL: That is just what I am denying. I had nothing to do with it. It was not my task.
M. HERZOG: Would you please refer once more to Document Number F-810, which I offered under Exhibit Number RF-1507? We will hand it to you if you have not got it. Please look at Page 16, under the heading: “Gauleiter Sauckel.” I quote...
SAUCKEL: I have not the document at hand—oh yes, I think I have it.
M. HERZOG: It was passed to you about 2 minutes ago. If you have not got it, it will be handed to you again.
SAUCKEL: Will you please give me the number again?
M. HERZOG: Document F-810, but I do not think it is marked on the photostat you have. Have you that document?
SAUCKEL: Yes.
M. HERZOG: Under the heading “Gauleiter Sauckel,” I read—it is on Page 16 of the document:
“Sauckel objected very emphatically when it was said that the inmates of concentration camps and the Hungarian Jews constituted the best manpower on constructional work. This is not true to fact, because they produce on an average 65 to 70 percent of the work of a normal worker; never 100 percent. Besides, it is unworthy to put the German worker and the German moral conception of work in the same category as this pack of traitors. To an inmate of a concentration camp and to a Jew, work is not a mark of nobility. Things cannot be permitted to reach the point where inmates of concentration camps and Jews become articles in demand. It is absolutely essential that all concentration camp inmates and Jews working on building sites be kept apart from the remainder of the workers, including foreigners.
“Gauleiter Sauckel ended by pointing out that as a matter of fact he did not object to the employment of Jews and concentration camp inmates, but only to such exaggerations as mentioned above.”
I would ask you, Sauckel, you who yesterday described your own life as a workman, what you meant when you said: “To an inmate of a concentration camp and to a Jew work is not a mark of nobility.”
SAUCKEL: I want to say most emphatically that this paragraph is a very condensed and free rendering, and not a shorthand report. I raised an objection because I assumed that inmates of concentration camps would be traitors. My only object was that these people should not be taken to the same places of work as the other workers, the Jews either. But I did not employ them; that was the business of the Reichsführer SS. I was speaking at a conference of leaders and in the interests of workers with a clean record and the other foreign workers. I objected to their being put to work together.
M. HERZOG: I ask you this question again. What did you mean when you said: “To an inmate of a concentration camp and to a Jew work is not a mark of nobility?”
SAUCKEL: By that I meant that the work of men who had been found guilty of offenses should not be compared with the work of free workers with a clean record. There is a difference if I employ prisoners in custody or if I employ free workers, and I wanted to see the two categories separated.
M. HERZOG: So that Jews were prisoners in custody, were they not?
SAUCKEL: In this case the Jews were prisoners of the Reichsführer SS. Actually, I regret the expression.
M. HERZOG: You dispute, therefore, that this phrase is an expression of the hostility which you showed to Jews for instance?
SAUCKEL: At that time I was, of course, against these Jews, but I was not concerned with their employment. I was against these workers, whose employment was the concern of the Reichsführer SS, being put with the other workers.
M. HERZOG: Did you ever conduct any propaganda against the Jews?
SAUCKEL: I conducted propaganda against the Jews with regard to their holding positions in the Reich which I considered should have been occupied by Germans.
M. HERZOG: I will submit to you an article which you wrote in June 1944, a time when I think in your Germany there were not very many Jews still occupying important posts. This article appeared in a newspaper, Die Pflicht, which you published in the Gau of Thuringia. It is Document Number 857 which I offer to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number RF-1523. I shall read extracts from this article.
[The document was handed to the defendant.]
First extract from Page 1, Column 1, the last paragraph but one:
“The old and finest virtues of the sailors, airmen, and soldiers of Great Britain can no longer stop the Jewish plague of corruption which is making such rapid ravages in the body of their country.”
Then, on Page 2, Column 2, the last paragraph but one:
“There is no example in the history of the world to show that anything of lasting value has been created in the course of centuries by the Jews and their foolish followers who were bound to them and corrupted by their customs and their women.”
I ask you, Defendant Sauckel, what did you mean by the “Jewish plague of corruption”?
SAUCKEL: I meant that it was the outward sign of disintegration within the nations.
M. HERZOG: I ask you again my question. What do you mean by the “Jewish plague of corruption”?
SAUCKEL: It was my opinion that disintegration had set in among the nations owing to certain Jewish circles. That was my view.
M. HERZOG: The Tribunal will draw its own conclusions. Mr. President, I have no further questions.
MAJOR GENERAL G. A. ALEXANDROV (Assistant Prosecutor for the U.S.S.R.): I would like to make a general summary of your activities in your function of Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor.
Tell me how many foreign workers were employed in German economy and industry at the end of the war?
SAUCKEL: As far as I can tell you without documents, not counting prisoners of war, there were about 5 million foreign workers in Germany at the end of the war.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: You already quoted that number during your direct interrogation by our counsel. I believe that number applies not to the moment of the capitulation of Germany but to the date of 24 July 1942. I shall quote somewhat different data on that subject and will use your own documents. You were nominated Plenipotentiary General on 21 March 1942. On 27 July 1942,—that is to say, 3 months later—you submitted to Hitler and Göring your first report. In this report you stated that from 1 April to 24 July 1942 the requested mobilization quota of 1,600,000 persons was even surpassed by you. Do you confirm this figure?
SAUCKEL: I quoted that figure, and as far as I can remember that did not include only foreigners but also German workers.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: In the final part of your report you state that the total number of the population of the occupied territories evacuated to Germany, up to 24 July 1942, numbered 5,124,000 persons. Is that number exact? Do you confirm it?
SAUCKEL: Yes, but I believe that figure at the time included prisoners of war who had been employed in industry. Then I must say in this connection that in the case of all neutral, allied, and western countries there was a continuous exchange, because these workers worked either 6 months, 9 months, or 1 year in Germany, and at the end of the period agreed on they returned to their own countries. That is why this figure may have been correct. Toward the end of the year, however, they could not have increased very much because this continuous exchange has to be taken into consideration.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: But the fact remains that, according to your figures, the population evacuated to Germany numbered 5,124,000 persons up to 24 July 1942; is that not so?
SAUCKEL: If it says so in the document, then it may be true. It is possible, or rather it is probable, that this takes into account the prisoners of war employed. I cannot say that without any records.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: I will show you later another document referring to this matter. On 1 December 1942, you compiled a summarized report on the utilization of manpower up to 30 November 1942. In this summary you quote a figure referring to the number of workers assigned to German war industries from 1 April to 30 November 1942, and these workers number 2,749,652. On Page 8 of your report you state that by 30 November 1942, in the territory of the Reich, 7 million workers were employed. Do you confirm these figures?
SAUCKEL: I cannot confirm the figures without records. Again, I assume that French and other prisoners of war were once more included.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: But the figure 7 million employed in German industry—foreign workers employed, even if you include the prisoners of war—is that figure exact? Will you now say how many workers were brought to Germany from occupied territories during the year 1943? Tell me that figure.
SAUCKEL: The number of foreign workers brought to Germany during the year of 1943 may have amounted to 1½ or 2 million. Various programs had been made in that connection which were being continually changed.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: I am now interested to know approximately how many workers were brought to Germany in 1943. You need not give an exact figure. Approximately.
SAUCKEL: I have already said from 1½ to 2 million. I cannot be more exact.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: I understand. Do you remember what task was assigned to you for the year 1944?
SAUCKEL: In 1944 a total of 4 million, including Germans, was demanded. But of these 4 million only 3 million were supplied, and of these approximately 2,100,000 were Germans and 900,000 foreigners.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: Now can you give us at least a general summary of your activities? How many persons were brought to Germany from the occupied territories during the war, and how many were employed in agriculture and industry at the end of the war?
SAUCKEL: As far as I know and remember there were 5 million foreign workers in Germany at the end of the war. Several million workers returned to neutral and allied and western countries during the war, and they had to be replaced again and again, which was the cause of those new programs which were constantly being made. That is the explanation. Those workers who were already there before my time, and those who were brought in, probably might have reached a figure of 7 million, but during the war there were several millions who returned to their home countries.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: And also, a large number perished as a result of hard slave labor! That is not what I have in mind at the moment. In your documents you probably meant actual manpower and not those who perished or those who were absent. Could you tell us how many were brought to Germany from occupied territories during the war?
SAUCKEL: I have already given you the figure.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: Five million?
SAUCKEL: Yes.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: You continue to assert that that is so?
SAUCKEL: Yes, I maintain that at the end of the war there were, according to my statistical department and as far as I can remember, 5 million workers in Germany, because millions of workers continuously returned. The experts can give you a better answer than I. The contracts with the others were only 6 and 9 months, you see.
THE PRESIDENT: Your question is, is it not, how many were brought into Germany, how many foreign workers, during the whole of the war? Is that the question you are asking?
GEN. ALEXANDROV: Yes, it is, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: What is your answer to that?
SAUCKEL: I have already stated that, including the workers who were there before my time, before I came into office, and including those who were there at the end, there may have been about 7 million. In accordance with my records, there were 5 million at the end, because the others had gone back.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but that is not what you are being asked. You are being asked: How many persons were brought to Germany from foreign countries during the whole of the war? You say there were 5 million at the end of the war, and there were constant changes in the preceding years. It follows that there must have been more than 5 million people brought to Germany in the course of a year.
SAUCKEL: I would estimate 7 million, but I cannot give you the exact figures because I am not sure about the figures before my time. At any rate, there must have been millions who returned home.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: Up to 30 November 1942 you quoted the figure of imported labor at 7 million...
SAUCKEL: Workers employed in Germany, and that includes prisoners of war, in 1942.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: All right, including prisoners of war, 7 million. Is that right, 7 million by 30 November?
SAUCKEL: I cannot tell you for certain. It may be correct, but I cannot tell you without documentary evidence.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: I will show you the document tomorrow. Today, please answer my question. You said that during 1943 approximately 2 million additional workers were imported.
SAUCKEL: In 1943?
GEN. ALEXANDROV: Yes, in 1943.
SAUCKEL: I said 1½ to 2 million.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: That is to say, 7 million plus 2 million make 9 million in all. Is that correct?
SAUCKEL: No. I said expressly that some were going back all the time, and I did not add the prisoners of war to the new imported labor.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: You do not seem to understand me. I am speaking of those who were brought to Germany from the occupied territories, who passed through your hands. To answer this it is of absolutely no importance how many of them perished in Germany, or how many left. That does not change the total number of workers brought to German territory from abroad.
If, therefore, by 30 November 1942 there were 7 million workers in Germany, and, according to you, in 1943 a further 2 million were brought in, and in 1944, as you just said, 900,000 were again brought in; then, according to you, the total number of workers imported into Germany during the war must have amounted to 10 million. Is that right?
SAUCKEL: I can say that only with the reservation that I do not know how many were actually there before my time. That may be correct as a guess, and including all prisoners of war who were assigned for work. You have, however, to deduct the prisoners of war from the civilian workers who were brought into the country.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn now.