Afternoon Session
DR. NELTE: I should like to draw the Tribunal’s attention to the following fact: General Alexandrov this morning referred to Document Number 744-PS. First of all a document was given me which was described as a German translation. That translation contains things which are obviously impossible.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Nelte, you said 744?
DR. NELTE: 744-PS.
THE PRESIDENT: I haven’t got any note that he referred to that document. I don’t know whether he—did you refer to 744-PS this morning, General Alexandrov?
GEN. ALEXANDROV: I referred this morning to the document in question. It was a directive of the Defendant Keitel, dated 8 July 1943, referring to the employment of prisoners of war in the mining industry.
DR. NELTE: Then the Russian Prosecution presented me with the original, that is the photostatic copy of a letter dated 8 July 1943, signed by Keitel. I now have two German versions before me. Not only do they differ greatly as far as the contents are concerned, but also the translation contains something additional which is not in the original, namely that to the heading of the letter, “Chief of the High Command of the Wehrmacht,” is added “Army General Staff.”
I do not want to delay you by reading the other incorrect translations, but I must assume that you have before you the texts in the foreign languages, which, as I see from the translation back into German, are incorrect. As this document, the original, is the evidence and is not being objected to, I should like to ask you to order that the translations in the foreign languages, which you have before you, be checked in order to find out to what extent they differ from the original document.
THE PRESIDENT: Had the document been put in evidence before? Had it been offered in evidence? Was it an exhibit?
GEN. ALEXANDROV: 744-PS.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, that does not mean that it has been put in evidence. That only means that it is identified in that way. Had it been offered in evidence before?
GEN. ALEXANDROV: I do not know the U.S.A. number of this document, but according to the data at my disposal I am able to state that it was submitted in evidence to the Tribunal. In the German copy, presented in the German language, it is written that the German translation was made on 26 November 1945 by Second Lieutenant of the U. S. Infantry, Fred Niebergall. As Dr. Nelte has discovered certain inaccuracies in the translation, I consider that the Translation Division should be asked to check these divergencies.
DR. NELTE: I am convinced, Mr. President...
THE PRESIDENT: I think that is the best thing to do, to have it checked by the Translation Division. We will order that that shall be done at once.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: [Turning to the defendant.] The transcript of Defendant Rosenberg’s speech will be handed over to you immediately. I shall limit myself to a very short excerpt from this transcript. Please read after me:
“Part of them imagine that the road to Germany is somewhat similar to the road to Siberia.”
And further:
“I know that if 1½ million people are brought here, they cannot be given the best accommodations. The fact that thousands of people are badly housed or badly treated is obvious. It is not worth while worrying about that. However, this is a very reasonable question, and I believe that Gauleiter Sauckel has already discussed it, or will do so. These people from the East are being brought to Germany in order to work and to endeavor to reach as high a level of production as possible. This is quite a reasonable transaction. In order to reach this production capacity one should naturally not bring them over three-quarters frozen or let them stand for 10 hours. One must rather give them enough to eat that they will have reserve strength.”
Does Defendant Rosenberg correctly describe the conditions in which the workers you brought from the occupied territories found themselves, or do you consider that Defendant Rosenberg has not described them correctly?
SAUCKEL: I cannot say and do not know when Rosenberg made this speech. I myself did not hear it or receive a copy of it. I can, however, definitely state that as soon as I came into office I made most extensive arrangements, so that the conditions which Rosenberg discusses here—and which can have nothing to do with my term of office—might be avoided under all circumstances. It was for that purpose that I issued those most comprehensive orders. To prevent such conditions I planned hundreds of valid and binding instructions of a legal nature, affecting every nationality working in Germany, which would make such conditions impossible. That is what I have to say to that. It cannot refer to conditions during my term of office.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: Mr. President, I shall limit myself to this one single excerpt from the speech of the Defendant Rosenberg, and I shall not avail myself of the numerous documents already presented to the Tribunal, documents which confirm beyond all manner of doubt the criminal methods applied—with the full cognizance of the Defendant Sauckel—for the mobilization of manpower in the occupied territories and for the exploitation of the workers as slaves in Germany.
I shall only submit to the Tribunal one single new document, listed as Document Number USSR-468. This document is a worker’s identity card issued by the German authorities in Breslau to a Polish citizen, Maria Atler. This card is characterized by the fact that it is stamped on the reverse side with the image of a pig. Maria Atler has stated on oath that such worker’s identity cards were issued to all foreign workers in 1944 by the German authorities in Breslau. Together with this original document I am submitting a certificate of the Polish State Commission which quotes the testimony of the witness Maria Atler.
[Turning to the defendant.] Defendant Sauckel, have you looked at that worker’s identity card? Have you found the image of a pig on that card?
SAUCKEL: Yes.
GEN. ALEX ANDROV: Did you know of the existence of such workers’ cards, stamped with the image of a pig as an insult to human dignity?
SAUCKEL: I did not have cards like that, and I knew nothing about it. I cannot quite make out what this image is meant to be. I have nothing at all to do with this. I am not familiar with such an identification mark on a card and do not know what I am to say about it. I do not know whether it was possible for some labor administration office to use such identification marks or not. I should like permission to see the original.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: Did you know of the existence of such cards and of their utilization?
SAUCKEL: No, I had no idea of the existence of such cards with images like that. It was not to my advantage, and I had no reason at all to offend such people who were working in Germany. I had no idea of that, and I do not know what this was meant to be.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: I shall now quote a brief excerpt from Document Number USSR-170. This is a transcript of the minutes of a conference held with Reich Marshal Göring on 6 August 1942. I shall quote that part of the statement in which the Defendant Göring expresses his appreciation of your activities. I quote:
“To that I must say that I do not wish to praise Gauleiter Sauckel; he does not need it. But what he has done in this brief time to collect workers from all over Europe and bring them to our factories with such rapidity is a unique feat. I will say this to you all: If everybody in his own sphere would apply a tenth of the energy which Gauleiter Sauckel has applied, then indeed the tasks which have been assigned to you would be easily fulfilled. That is my inner conviction and not mere words.”
Did you hear such an appreciation of your activities from the lips of Reich Marshal Göring?
SAUCKEL: It is possible that the Reich Marshal said that. I cannot remember the details of a meeting that took place so long ago. What is correct is that I, as a human being and as a member of my nation, was obliged to do my duty. My documents prove that I tried to do my duty decently and humanely. I did my utmost to do that.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: I now submit to the Tribunal a document listed as Document Number USSR-462. It is an article by Dr. Friedrich Didier, published in the Reichsarbeitsblatt of 1944. This is an official publication of the Reich Ministry of Labor and of the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor. The article is entitled “Fritz Sauckel on his Fiftieth Birthday.”
I do not intend to quote this article as it is written entirely in praise of Sauckel’s activities, and there is no reason to dwell on it. I only wish to ask you, Defendant Sauckel, are you acquainted with this article?
SAUCKEL: I do not know this article. I cannot say what is in it. I was not always able to read through the Reichsarbeitsblatt—it wasn’t published by me. It is an old institution of the Labor Ministry which contains all the decrees published by that Ministry and also my decrees. The decrees in the Reichsarbeitsblatt all testify to my concern for foreign and for German workers.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: Then you will have to acquaint yourself very rapidly with the contents of this article. It will be handed to you immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: What document is this he is reading?
GEN. ALEXANDROV: It is an article in the Reichsarbeitsblatt entitled “Fritz Sauckel on his Fiftieth Birthday.” We are submitting this document for the first time as Document Number USSR-462.
[Turning to the defendant.] Are you now conversant with it? Tell us, does this article correctly characterize your political and governmental activity?
SAUCKEL: The author of this article is not an expert. I cannot make any further comments on the contents of a birthday article. It contains a very cursory description of my career and my sphere of work.
GEN. ALEXANDROV: And now, one last question. In your speech at the first meeting of the staffs for the Allocation of Labor, held in Weimar on 6 January 1943, you stated—and I quote from the third document book of your defense counsel, Document Number Sauckel-82:
“Now, where the foundations of our work are concerned...”—I skip the first paragraph and pass directly to the second—“We are true to our Führer and to our people. This loyalty justifies us in the execution of the harshest measures.”—And then, at the end—“In this respect I will assume ever-increasing responsibility.”
Tell us now, are you assuming responsibility for the enforced mass deportation into slavery of the population of the occupied territories, for the suffering and misery of the millions you drove into slavery, for the grim period of slaveholding which you revived in the twentieth century?
SAUCKEL: I am most grateful to you that you quoted this document at this very moment. Would you show me this document so that I can give the correct explanation of my views as contained therein?
GEN. ALEXANDROV: If necessary, your defense counsel will acquaint you with this document.
Mr. President, I have finished my cross-examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, do you want to re-examine?
DR. THOMA: Witness, what was Rosenberg’s role, as Minister for the Occupied Eastern Territories, in the execution of the Allocation of Labor?
SAUCKEL: The Minister for the Occupied Eastern Territories, in carrying out the Allocation of Labor, had to pass on my wishes and demands to the offices under him in that Ministry insofar as they related to my tasks. I cannot, of course, comment on the other departments in the Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories, which I do not know.
DR. THOMA: Did not Rosenberg tell you repeatedly that he would give Reich Commissioner Koch directions to make use of his authority?
SAUCKEL: That is correct. It was one of Rosenberg’s tasks to give orders to Reich Commissioner Koch, who was under him, in every field of administration there.
DR. THOMA: So that the way you understood it was that he was to give him instructions. In what way?
SAUCKEL: Rosenberg did and should—as we had expressly agreed—give instructions to Koch to put a stop to any wild and objectionable methods which were contrary to my instructions; and that Rosenberg did, as far as I know.
DR. THOMA: Rosenberg, by referring to the authority of the Reich Commissioner, meant that he was to prohibit your recruiting methods and no longer permit your recruiting units to bring away Eastern Workers?
SAUCKEL: Rosenberg never said that to me, rather he denied it; for these commissions, while they were in the Ukraine, were subordinate to and part of the labor allocation department of Reich Commissioner Koch. Koch was the supervising authority and the administrative authority for such matters. Those are the undeniable facts.
DR. THOMA: May I point out to the Tribunal that a Document, Rosenberg-10, shows that Sauckel did not understand this statement of Rosenberg’s.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you refer to some document there, Dr. Thoma?
DR. THOMA: Rosenberg-10.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, the re-examination of the witness by the defense counsel for the Defendant Rosenberg must limit itself to new matters which have been brought up and are the subject of argument. There was every opportunity, when his client was in the witness stand, to clarify these questions. At the time I wanted to clear up this question on my own initiative, but I was informed that I ought to ask Sauckel. He made a clear statement here, and in my opinion there is no cause once more to come back in this connection to documents which belong to a previous period of the defense. I object to such questioning.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Thoma, I think you had better go on and ask your next question. I have not got the document before me yet that you are putting to the witness, or referring to. What is your next question?
DR. THOMA: Witness, did you not in your program assume full responsibility for the Allocation of Labor?
SAUCKEL: I assumed responsibility, and I acknowledge it, for what came within the limits of my power—I cannot do more than that—and for what I ordered and for what I caused to be done. This collection of decrees, Dr. Thoma, has been submitted and was shown to Herr Rosenberg...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, the defendant has been over this all before. He has been all through this before—about his responsibility.
DR. THOMA: Mr. President, may I point out that regarding the question of responsibility, there is a certain paragraph—the decisive paragraph—which has not yet been read. It is Document 016-PS concerning the labor allocation program, and it says on Page 21, Figure 1...
THE PRESIDENT: Just say what the document is again, will you Dr. Thoma?
DR. THOMA: 016-PS, Page 20 of the German document. It says:
“All technical and administrative procedure of labor allocation is subject exclusively to the jurisdiction and responsibility of the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor, the regional labor offices and the labor offices...”
SAUCKEL: Inside Germany, Doctor. Outside Germany I was, of course, subject to the competent chiefs of the areas in question. That is quite obvious.
DR. THOMA: In reply to that answer I draw the attention of the Tribunal to Page 15 of this labor program. This Figure 1, which I have just read, comes under the paragraph, “Prisoners of War and Foreign Workers.”
SAUCKEL: To the extent that they were employed in Germany.
DR. THOMA: May I point out that it states clearly under Figure 1:
“All technical and administrative procedure of labor allocation...”
SAUCKEL: And may I point out that it was not possible for me to interfere with Reich Commissioner Koch’s authority. He had said expressly that he would not permit that.
DR. THOMA: Witness, the Delegate for the Four Year Plan gave you special powers concerning conscription in dealings with all authorities and, in my opinion, it is not right that you should now deny these methods of recruitment and pass responsibility for them on to the Minister for the Occupied Eastern Territories.
I have no further questions.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, the defense counsel for Defendant Rosenberg may engage in cross-questioning, but it does not appear to me to be the right moment for him to make a speech of accusation against my client.
MR. DODD: Mr. President, I am well aware of the facts that there have been two cross-examinations, and I have no desire to go on with another one. However, we do have one document that we think is of some importance and which was turned over to General Alexandrov, but I think there must have been some language difficulty. The translation of it was not presented. I would like the permission of the Tribunal to ask one or two questions of this defendant about it and to present it. I think it is rather important that it be presented.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Dodd, the Tribunal does not think that this ought to create a precedent, but in view of your statement that the document was supplied to General Alexandrov and that, for some reason, he did not deal with it, we will allow you to cross-examine upon it.
MR. DODD: Very well, Sir.
Witness, do you remember an occasion in 1942, just after your appointment, when you met with some officials of the Ministry of Labor and you discussed with them the program which you were about to institute and for which you were about to take responsibility? Do you recall it?
SAUCKEL: I cannot, of course, remember details of that discussion. Various points of the program were discussed, and I might also say in connection with the comments made by the defense counsel for the Defendant Rosenberg since what he has been quoting is...
MR. DODD: Just a minute, just a minute. I simply asked you if you remembered this meeting, and you said you did not, and now there is the document.
SAUCKEL: Details of that conference I do not remember.
MR. DODD: And now take a look at the minutes of the meeting.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the document?
MR. DODD: This is EC-318.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the exhibit number? Has it been offered or not?
MR. DODD: I am now offering it. I was waiting to get the number from the secretary.
I will have to get the number a little later, Mr. President. I had not made preparations to submit this document, so I did not have the number in advance.
[Turning to the defendant.] Now, I want to call your attention particularly to a few passages. You start out by telling the officials who were gathered there that you want to co-operate closely with them; and then, moving along, you give some idea of the number of workers whom you intend to recruit. You say there is an estimated requirement of 1 million; and you also made perfectly clear that day that you were to get most of your people, most of these workers, from the East and particularly from Soviet Russia.
You told these officials that you had talked for several hours with the Führer and for 8 hours with the Reich Marshal, and that you all agreed that the most important problem was the exploitation of the manpower in the East.
You further stated—do you see that in there?
SAUCKEL: Where does it say exploitation? I cannot find that word.
MR. DODD: Well, do you find where you say you had discussed your task with the Führer in a conversation that had lasted for several hours? Do you find that?
SAUCKEL: I cannot find it.
MR. DODD: You have the German there before you, have you not?
SAUCKEL: Yes, but will you please be kind enough to tell me the page?
MR. DODD: In the middle of Page 2. Have you found it?
SAUCKEL: Mr. Prosecutor, I want particularly to point out to you the difference in German between the words “Ausnutzung” and “Ausbeutung.” “Ausbeutung” (exploitation) is a word which, in the language of the workers, has a rather bad implication, but “Ausnutzung” (use of) is quite an ordinary concept; to use something means making it useful. That is a great difference in meaning in the German language.
MR. DODD: Well, we will stand by ours and you may stand by yours, and the Tribunal will ascertain between the two of us who has the correct translation.
In any event, whether you said “use of” or “exploit,” you did say that the most important solution was either the use of or the exploitation...
SAUCKEL: But that is not the same thing, Mr. Prosecutor. In German there is a fundamental difference in meaning. I must point out that the word exploitation is a word which I did not use and did not want to use.
THE PRESIDENT: Defendant, would you speak a little bit lower. You quite drown the interpreter’s voice.
SAUCKEL: I beg your pardon, My Lord.
MR. DODD: I am not concerned with whether or not you agree with the word “exploit.” That is a very unimportant part of this document, as I think you probably already recognize.
SAUCKEL: I beg to contradict you. That word is most important from the humane point of view.
MR. DODD: I don’t care to have any argument with you at all. We...
THE PRESIDENT: Defendant, the Tribunal is perfectly well able to understand the difference between the use of the words, and you have told us the translation you say is right.
MR. DODD: Now, if you move down a little bit, do you recall having said that 1 million Russians would have to be brought into Germany as rapidly as possible, to become available even prior to the offensive?
It is the next sentence or two there in your text. You won’t see it by looking at me. Do you read the next sentence?
SAUCKEL: Yes, I should like permission to read the next sentence:
“The necessary condition for taking on the task would be the assurance that Russians would be given approximately the same rations as have been in force for the German civilian population.”
MR. DODD: You have skipped the sentence that I want you to read. I know that one comes along, but I want you to read the one where you say you would have to bring 1 million Russians into the Reich as rapidly as possible, and that is the very next or almost the next sentence after the one you have been discussing, about the word “exploit” or “use of.”
SAUCKEL: “...must be brought to the Reich as quickly as possible.”
MR. DODD: That is all I want to know. Do you remember saying that?
SAUCKEL: Yes, I said that. I must say in connection with this that this is a record which I have never seen before or checked. Someone made it, but the record itself I was not familiar with, and it was never submitted to me.
MR. DODD: Well, I suppose it could be truthful even though you didn’t make it.
Let us move on here to the next to the last paragraph, and you will find a sentence which says or suggests:
“They”—referring to the Russians—“will have to be handled so roughly by the German administration in the East that they will prefer to go to Germany rather than stay in Russia.”
Do you find that?
SAUCKEL: Will you tell me where that sentence is?
MR. DODD: Well, it is right after the sentence where you talk about your negotiations with Himmler. Maybe that will help you.
Do you find where you say you had negotiations with the Reichsführer SS? You succeeded in getting him to remove the barbed wire. Surely you have read that.
Now you find the sentence, do you?
“They would have to be handled so roughly by the German administration in the East that they would prefer to go to Germany rather than stay in Russia.”
Do you remember saying that?
SAUCKEL: I cannot say that I used these specific words in speaking to him, for, as I have already stated, it is a record of statements of a problematical nature which I myself did not check, and I cannot be sure how a third person came to write this record from memory. These are not shorthand minutes; it is merely a record which is not signed by anyone and in which...
MR. DODD: I don’t think you need to give us any long dissertation on the fact that it is somebody else’s minutes. It is not offered to you as being your own.
SAUCKEL: Yes, but I have the right and am obliged to say that.
MR. DODD: I wish you would wait a minute and let me put a question to you once in a while. I have not suggested that these are your minutes. I have merely put it to you for the purpose of determining whether or not on seeing it you remember it. And do you, or do you not remember it?
SAUCKEL: I certainly do not remember that passage. I can merely read here something written by a third person, and I do not know who it was. This person may quite well have misunderstood me; that is possible...
MR. DODD: Well, you also find you did have some conversations with the Reichsführer SS. Do you remember having said that, in the course of this conversation or speech or whatever it was that you were making?
SAUCKEL: The Reichsführer SS put me off on several occasions, and I had to insist to get the Reichsführer SS to remove the barbed wire fences. I did that. From the very beginning of my term of office I moderated the orders of the Reichsführer SS; and that, of course, caused vigorous arguments between us.
MR. DODD: Then that part of the minutes of this meeting is correct, isn’t it? The reporter, or whoever it was that took this down, correctly reported what you said about your negotiations with the Reichsführer SS, did he? You find no fault with that?
SAUCKEL: What he wrote down in detail about what I am supposed to have said I have not yet read.
MR. DODD: Now, listen. You read back and look at that paper at which you have just been looking. You find fault with the sentence that reports that you said they were to be handled roughly in the East, but you do not find any fault with the sentence ahead of it which says you had the barbed wire taken down, isn’t that so?
You seem to be complaining about the fact that this was somebody else’s report and not yours. Have you read it?
SAUCKEL: No.
MR. DODD: Well, it is the sentence just before the one we have just been talking about.
Do you really mean you cannot find it? Do you want help?
SAUCKEL: Two pages appear in duplicate here.
MR. DODD: All I have asked you, Witness, is whether or not the sentence about your meeting with Himmler is a fairly accurate report of what you said. Is it?
SAUCKEL: That I cannot tell you from memory. I very seldom spoke to Himmler and then only cursorily. It may have been negotiations carried out by my office on my order. That I cannot tell you.
MR. DODD: Well, your answer to all of this is, then, that you don’t remember what you said there; this doesn’t help you any to remember.
SAUCKEL: You cannot possibly expect me to remember exactly events which lasted very briefly and took place so long ago.
MR. DODD: I am perfectly willing to let it rest there. There is the written record against your failure of memory, and I will leave that with the Tribunal...
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Dodd, I think you should put to him...
SAUCKEL: With which, however, I was not familiar before this.
THE PRESIDENT: I think you should put to him the next paragraph, “Thirdly...” which follows after the sentence about handling them so roughly.
MR. DODD: Yes, Sir.
[Turning to the defendant.] Now, if you will keep your finger on that place that you have there, you won’t lose it, and you will find the next sentence is—begins:
“Thirdly, he termed intolerable the wage rates previously decreed by the Reich Marshal, and has persuaded the Reich Marshal that Russians should have the possibility of earning up to one half of the wages of German workers.”
With reference to that statement, what had the Reich Marshal suggested, by the way?
SAUCKEL: Before I took up my office—and I have talked about that at length with my defense counsel—there existed decrees of the Ministerial Council regarding wage regulations, and I continually improved those wages—four times, in fact, as far as I could manage it, during my term in office.
THE PRESIDENT: That is not an answer to the question. The question you were asked was: What had the Reich Marshal suggested as wages for these workers? You can answer that.
SAUCKEL: The Reich Marshal did not make any suggestions to me. When I entered office I found regulations in existence which I considered insufficient.
MR. DODD: Well, tell us a little more about it. What do you mean insufficient? You used here the word intolerable. What was the situation when you came into the office with respect to wages?
SAUCKEL: I already explained that yesterday, during the examination by my defense counsel, and I gave as an example the fact that an Eastern Worker, when I came into office, drew wages of about 60 pfennigs per hour, which, after deductions for food and lodging, would leave him about 4½ marks in cash. I altered that after I came into office and doubled the cash payments. The purpose of the instructions which existed before my service was probably to prevent too great a circulation of money for reasons concerning currency. I do not know the details.
MR. DODD: This exhibit, Mr. President, becomes USA-881.
I have no further questions.
DR. WALTER BALLAS (Counsel for Defendant Raeder): I am replacing Dr. Horn for Defendant Von Ribbentrop.
I have a few questions to put to the witness.
Yesterday in cross-examination you spoke about a French diplomatic organization, formed under the French Ambassador Scapini, for Frenchmen in Germany. Is it true that it was at Defendant Ribbentrop’s wish that this organization was formed?
SAUCKEL: At our mutual wish and agreement. We both had the same interests. That is correct.
DR. BALLAS: Can you tell me the reasons which caused Von Ribbentrop to create this organization?
SAUCKEL: The reason for this was, in my opinion, to bring about an understanding between the French and German populations by giving assurance that particular care would be taken of Frenchmen working in Germany.
DR. BALLAS: This diplomatic organization was also responsible for the treatment of French prisoners of war? Can you tell me for what reasons the German Foreign Office decided on so unusual an arrangement at a time when a state of war still existed between France and Germany?
SAUCKEL: There were conferences between the French Government of Marshal Pétain and the German Government, and both nations tried conscientiously to bring about an understanding.
DR. BALLAS: And because of that came these unusual measures concerning prisoners of war?
SAUCKEL: Not only because of that; I considered it a particular necessity, and I might mention in this connection that this organization was later divided or supplemented. In addition to M. Scapini, who took care of French prisoners of war in particular, a M. Broehne took special charge of French civilian workers.
DR. BALLAS: Is it true that Defendant Von Ribbentrop in the Foreign Office created an organization to bring into Germany from occupied countries artists, lecturers, newspapers, books, et cetera, for foreign workers so that these workers would return home well inclined toward an understanding with Germany?
SAUCKEL: It was the purpose of an agreement established by the Reich Foreign Minister in collaboration with the Reich Ministry of Propaganda, the German Labor Front, and my office, to improve the leisure time of the foreign workers by means of foreign artists and lecturers. Many Russian artists were in Germany for this purpose. It also had the purpose of bringing libraries and periodicals to these people from their home countries.
DR. BALLAS: Thank you. I have no further questions.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, in order to rectify an error in a chart in Document Sauckel-1, I just want to have the witness’ confirmation.
[The document was handed to the defendant.]
Witness, among the employers of labor you mentioned the departments of Minister Funk, did you not?
SAUCKEL: Yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: And going down you find written in the third square “armament inspectorate,” and under that, “Reichsautobahn.” These two squares have been incorrectly put in. They do not belong there. Is it true that these two squares should be crossed out?
SAUCKEL: Yes, that is correct.
DR. SERVATIUS: I therefore ask that the chart be rectified by having these two squares crossed out. They belong to Speer’s Ministry, but I have not given any close attention to that side, and I do not wish to discuss it here.
Then, from the Buchenwald photograph album there were a number of pictures submitted which show the defendant together with Himmler.
Witness, can you tell from the picture the approximate time of that meeting? There are certain indications which you discussed with me yesterday. Will you briefly describe these?
SAUCKEL: Yes. The left-hand top picture shows that construction is still going on; I can see unfinished roadbeds and the like. This may therefore be during the construction period.
DR. SERVATIUS: And what can you say about the time from the dress of the various people?
SAUCKEL: The dress shows quite clearly that this is at a time before the war, for Himmler is wearing a black uniform which he never wore during the war. Apart from that he is wearing a sword, which was forbidden during the war. It is quite clear that this meeting took place before the war.
DR. SERVATIUS: Are these people wearing decorations?
SAUCKEL: I cannot see whether they are wearing decorations; no.
DR. SERVATIUS: And so I can conclude that this picture was taken sometime before the war?
SAUCKEL: Quite definitely sometime before the war, because I myself did not wear an SS uniform during the war.
DR. SERVATIUS: Document Number F-810 was submitted yesterday. That is a report about the meeting at the Wartburg. Beginning on Page 25 of the German text there is a report by Dr. Sturm, which was shown you and in which it is said among other things that there was collaboration between the Gestapo and the concentration camps and that that was the right road to take. You were asked whether that was your view too, and whether such collaboration was correct.
What did you understand by that? Do you mean that you agreed to the methods used in concentration camps, as practiced by Himmler?
SAUCKEL: Under no circumstances, I wanted to indicate that it was correct, as the document shows, that workers’ discipline should be enforced step by step, as provided for in cases of disobedience: First a reprimand, then small fines imposed by the factory, as laid down, in fact, in my Decree Number 13, which I want to submit as documentary evidence. Only then, after reprimands and small disciplinary penalties at the factory had proved inadequate, should there be further treatment of these cases, as is mentioned in the document, by having them brought to court by the public prosecutor. I called a proper penal procedure correct. By no means did I want thereby to characterize methods in concentration camps as correct. I was not at all familiar with these methods at that time.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, I have a document, Number 1764-PS, before me. I have not been able to ascertain when and if it has already been submitted. I have just received it in the form of a photostatic copy. It is the so-called Hemmen report, a report which Envoy Hemmen made about a sector of the labor allocation in France. I want to read a short passage to the defendant which deals with the number of Frenchmen employed in Germany, and I want him to confirm it.
[Turning to the defendant.] Witness, I shall read you a passage and ask you to...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, it is not usual to allow documents to be put in re-examination. Why was this not used in examination-in-chief?
DR. SERVATIUS: The figures were questioned during the cross-examination, not before. I attach no great importance to finding out in detail how many hundred thousands came or went. I can omit this question and come back to it in the final pleadings.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal was not saying you could not use it now. As it arose out of the cross-examination, I think you may be able to use it.
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, I should like briefly to read to you the relevant passage; and I want you to tell me whether the views presented there are correct.
Envoy Hemmen reports here, in a letter received at the Foreign Office on 6 February 1944, under Paragraph III as follows:
“Allocation of Labor in Germany:
“It started with the voluntary recruitment of workers which, up to the end of 1942, produced 400,000 men. During the first half of 1943 two further voluntary recruitments of 250,000 men each were effected. The first, by granting the privileges of the relève—which allowed leave for prisoners of war at a ratio of 1 prisoner to 3 recruits—or the granting of worker status, produced some 200,000; whereas the second could be carried out only by using the new compulsory service law, that is to say, coercion, and produced only 122,000 men.”
I skip the end of the page and read from Page 8:
“As the total result of the Sauckel Action 818,000 persons all told, mostly men, went to Germany; 168,000 of them owing to the compulsory service law. Of all these there were only 420,000 still there at the end of January 1944.”
As far as you can recollect, are these statements generally correct?
SAUCKEL: May I remark in this connection that the Envoy Hemmen at the Embassy in Paris dealt with these questions there, and they are given correctly. Finally, you meant to say 420,000 and not 420, did you not?
DR. SERVATIUS: Thousand.
SAUCKEL: The decisive point is that because of the short term of the contracts, the French workers were changed every 6 months, thus only one half could be here at a time.
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, you have already said that.
SAUCKEL: As an explanation I should like permission to tell the Tribunal that while there was a ratio of 1 to 3—meaning that Germany gave back 1 prisoner-of-war in return for 3 workers—both the prisoner-of-war and the French civilian workers who had replaced him for the most part had returned to their own country after 1½ years, as each stayed for only 6 months.
It was very hard to win the Führer over to this regulation.
DR. SERVATIUS: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now.
[A recess was taken.]
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will hear some supplementary applications for witnesses and documents at 2 o’clock on Monday.
M. HERZOG: Mr. President, I should like to come back briefly to Document D-565, that is to say, to the photographs showing, the Defendant Sauckel at the Concentration Camp of Buchenwald.
The Prosecution has never claimed, and does not claim now, that these photographs date from a period during the war. Quite the contrary, the original, which has been shown to you, has the date of these photographs and the year is 1938.
The defendant, when he was examined by his counsel, told us that he visited Buchenwald in the company of Italian officers. I do not see a single Italian officer in these photographs; I simply see the Reichsführer SS Himmler.
However, I do not dispute, and I never claimed that these photographs dated from a year other than 1938.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, I have one last question in connection with Exhibit Sauckel-82 from Document Book Sauckel 3, Page 206 and following. On Page 207 we find a statement under Number 3 which I should like to put to the defendant again, because the prosecutor for the Soviet Union has stated that Sauckel declared here that he gave no protection against crime. I should like to read the sentence to the defendant again and ask him for an explanation. I myself have already quoted it once before; apparently there is a misunderstanding. It is a very short sentence; it reads: “You can demand of me every protection in your labor area, but no protection for crimes.”
Does that mean, Witness, that you did not grant protection against crimes?
SAUCKEL: On the contrary, it can be seen very clearly from that document that I did not tolerate any crime. I would not protect these people, who were not subordinate to me, if they committed crimes there. They were not to do that; that was what I prohibited...
DR. SERVATIUS: I believe that the German shows very clearly that this explanation, as the defendant has just given it, is correct.
I have no further questions to put to the witness.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Defendant Sauckel, I want to ask you a number of questions. And will you try to speak a little more quietly, and will you listen carefully to the questions and try to make your answers responsive to the questions?
SAUCKEL: Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Now, first, I am going to ask you a little bit about your personnel. You had one large central office, I take it, did you not—one large central office?
SAUCKEL: I had a small central office, Your Honor.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): A small central office. And how many people...
SAUCKEL: An office of my own.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): How many employees were in that office?
SAUCKEL: In this personnel office, Your Honor, there were two personnel experts; a Ministerialrat, Dr. Stothfang; a Landrat Dr....
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Just a moment; how many, just how many?
SAUCKEL: Two higher officials and about eight middle and lower officials as assistants and registrars.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Did your inspectors work out of that office?
SAUCKEL: The inspectors belonged to Department 9 of the Reich Ministry of Labor which had been installed there. That was a special department which was established in the Reich Ministry of Labor at my request, with higher officials who...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Now the inspectors worked, I suppose, under your instructions and reported to you, did they?
SAUCKEL: The inspectors reported first to Department 5 in the Reich Ministry of Labor. I was informed in important cases. The inspectors had the right and the duty to correct bad conditions on the spot when they were confirmed in the labor administration.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): How many inspectors were there?
SAUCKEL: There were in Department 9, I believe...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): No, no—in all, how many in all?
SAUCKEL: There were various inspection offices, Your Honor. This inspection...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): One moment, Defendant. Just listen to the question. I said how many inspectors in all the inspection offices were there?
SAUCKEL: From my own knowledge I cannot say how many there were in the Labor Front. The extent of inspection offices in the Labor Front would have been a matter for Dr. Ley to explain. That I do not know in detail.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well, do you know about how many inspectors were working to inspect the labor work. You must know about how many were there, don’t you?
SAUCKEL: I cannot give you accurate figures, but it may have been approximately 60 or 70, if you take all of them together including those of the German Labor Front.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Now, did they go outside of Germany, or did they work only in Germany?
SAUCKEL: These inspectors worked for the most part only in Germany.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And they would inspect such matters as food and travel and conditions of the camps, and so on, would they not?
SAUCKEL: That was their task.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Yes. And the important reports would come to you?
SAUCKEL: No. According to an agreement the reports had to be sent to the highest competent Reich authorities for bad conditions to be corrected. For bad conditions in industry and in camps the competent authority was the Industrial Inspectorate under Reich Minister of Labor Seldte. That was the highest...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well, did not any of them come to you?
SAUCKEL: Complaints were also brought to me, but I could do nothing but send them back to the competent offices and ask that everything be done to remedy the conditions; and that is what I did.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Did the inspectors’ reports come to you, any of the inspectors’ reports?
SAUCKEL: The reports did not come to me directly; they went through channels to those offices which were concerned with correcting such abuses.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Defendant, I am asking you not whether they came directly; but did they come to you eventually? Did you get them? Did you see them?
SAUCKEL: Such reports came very seldom to me.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): So you do not know what the conditions were then, since you did not get the inspectors’ reports, is that right?
SAUCKEL: Four times or twice a year I also sent my assistants and these inspectors in person to the Gauleiter in the German Gaue, and I received reports on what they discussed during these private conferences with the regional offices and on what they inspected and observed. There was nothing of a catastrophic nature, merely shortcomings in the execution of the directives which I had issued. I was informed about things of that sort...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): So you are telling us that you never got any reports or complaints of a catastrophic nature; is that right?
SAUCKEL: I did not quite understand that question.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You never got any reports or complaints of what you call a catastrophic nature; is that right?
SAUCKEL: Within Germany—I received reports and complaints such as I described to my counsel from Field Marshal Kluge, or else they were made known to me in discussions with Rosenberg. Immediately I took the necessary measures. But that was not frequently the case...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Defendant, if you would listen to the question and try to answer it, I think we would get along much faster. You used the expression “catastrophic nature”; those were your words. Did you get any reports of a catastrophic nature?
SAUCKEL: I learned through Field Marshal Kluge, and through reports, which have been mentioned here, from Rosenberg, about a few cases which I considered catastrophic and tried to correct.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): These were what you call catastrophic cases?
SAUCKEL: Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): What were they?
SAUCKEL: There was the case in the East which Field Marshal Kluge reported to me, where motion picture houses were surrounded by recruiting agents. I considered that catastrophic. The second case was the case of the returning transport, where according to the report—it is called the later report, but I do not remember the number of the document—children are said to have died on the way and been placed outside the train. I considered that catastrophic. But there could...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You have answered.
SAUCKEL: But...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You have answered that now.
Did you get any complaints about Koch?
SAUCKEL: I received complaints about Koch at times from the Minister for the Occupied Eastern Territories, Rosenberg, and also from another source. Koch, of course, always defended himself very vehemently.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Then you had complaints from several people about Koch?
SAUCKEL: Yes. I could...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And the complaints said what Koch was doing, did they?
SAUCKEL: I did not receive complaints from many sides about Koch, but rather from one side...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Now, wait...
SAUCKEL: But from several people...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Wait. Won’t you answer the question? I did not ask you if you have received many complaints. I said, “The complaints said what Koch was doing.” Is that right?
SAUCKEL: Yes, in some cases.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And what did you do with those complaints?
SAUCKEL: As far as my field of work was concerned, when I received complaints such as have been discussed here, I called a conference in my office. That was the case immediately after the complaints from Rosenberg, and on that occasion I adopted the attitude which my defense counsel cited and pointed out with respect to the conference of 6 January 1943.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And the Koch matter ended after the conference, I take it? That was all you did?
[There was no response.]
That was the end of it as far as you were concerned?
SAUCKEL: As far as I was concerned, I personally pointed out to the Führer on several occasions that I considered it quite out of the question to treat the Eastern Workers and the people in the East badly; and by means of the decrees which I issued continually, and which are contained in my documents, I did whatever I could to protect them. I ask...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I have asked you about your central office. Did you have any branch offices?
SAUCKEL: No, I had no branch offices. Two departments of the Ministry of Labor, 5 and 6, were put at my disposal for the carrying out of my tasks of an administrative and technical nature.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): All right. That is enough.
SAUCKEL: There business matters of an administrative nature were carried on. I ask...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Wait a minute. Now, were the recruitment offices in the Ministry of Labor?
SAUCKEL: No. In the Ministry of Labor there were...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Never mind. That is all you have to say.
Where were they, where were the recruitment offices?
SAUCKEL: The recruitment offices were in the occupied territories.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I understand that. But under what office? What administration? What department?
SAUCKEL: The departments for labor were themselves incorporated in the administration of these territories. That can be seen very clearly from my Decree 4, for that had been done in the same manner before I came into office. They were integral parts of the local administration.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Of the local administration? When you mentioned the 1,500 district offices, were those the recruitment offices?
SAUCKEL: Those were the offices in all the various territories which represented these various administrations on the lowest level, as I have just mentioned.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You do not answer the question. I asked you whether they were recruiting offices. Were they recruiting offices?
SAUCKEL: They were not only recruiting offices, they were the offices of the territorial labor administration on the lowest level.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): So they did administration and recruiting?
[There was no response.]
They did recruiting, did they not?
SAUCKEL: I understand that that was one and the same thing. The recruitment was carried on according to German principles as part of the administration. Outside the administration recruitment could not be carried on.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): They were recruiting offices, then? The answer is “yes,” is it not? They were recruiting offices?
SAUCKEL: Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Right. You should have said that in the beginning. That is what I wanted to know. Now, I want to know the relation of your offices to the Party offices. The Gaue and the Gauleiter worked in co-operation with you as plenipotentiaries, working with you, did they not?
SAUCKEL: No, Your Honor, that is a mistake. The Gauleiter had nothing to do with recruiting, that was...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Now, wait. I said nothing about recruiting. I asked you the relation of your offices to the Gauleiter. The Gauleiter co-operated with you in the general program, did they not?
SAUCKEL: Not in the general program, Your Honor; only in the program of caring for German and foreign workers.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I see. The Gauleiter, then, had nothing to do with recruiting; is that right?
SAUCKEL: No; that is right.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): That is right? They looked after the care and comfort of the men who were recruited, is that right?
SAUCKEL: If they were working in the Reich, yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): In the Reich?
SAUCKEL: In the Reich.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Did the Gaue outside the Reich in the occupied territories also work for you, or do you consider that they were part of the Reich?
[There was no response.]
Let me ask the question again. I do not think it is very clear. Certain of the occupied territories had been incorporated into the Reich, had they not?
SAUCKEL: In the East only the territories Wartheland and West Prussia were incorporated into the Reich...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Now again I am not asking you the number that was incorporated; I just said certain of the occupied territories, certain parts of them, were incorporated into the Reich. Is that right?
SAUCKEL: Yes, that is correct.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Yes, and when you say the Gauleiter in the Reich, that includes, does it not, the Gauleiter in those territories which had been incorporated into the Reich; is that right?
SAUCKEL: Yes, but in this case they could not function in their capacity as Gauleiter, but only if they were Reichsstatthalter, that is, only if they had a state administration under them. These were two entirely separate institutions with different personnel.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Did each Gauleiter have a labor office connected with his Gau, in his Gau?
SAUCKEL: May I ask if you mean all German Gaue, or only those Gaue of which we have just spoken, Your Honor?
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I mean only the Gaue of which we have spoken. They each had a labor office, had they not?
SAUCKEL: They had a labor administration at the head of which there was a Gau labor president.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): That’s right. That is enough. Now, do you know the organization of the Gau in the labor administration? Did they also have a Kreisleiter who attended to the labor work?
SAUCKEL: No, they did not have that.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And I take it there were no Ortsgruppenleiter that worked on the labor program, then?
SAUCKEL: No, that was not the case; rather that was a strictly separate administrative concept...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): That is all right.
SAUCKEL: But that was...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): No, that is all right.
Now I would like to know a little bit about what you call this private recruitment. Who appointed the agents who were to do private recruiting? Who appointed them? Did the employers hire agents to get workmen for them?
[There was no response.]
Do you know what I mean by private recruiting?
SAUCKEL: Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): That was done by agents, was it not?
SAUCKEL: Only in one case: In the year 1944 in France and in part in Belgium, by way of exception, I permitted agents to act on the basis of agreements with these French organizations.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Again, Witness, I did not ask you that at all. You do not listen. I said: Who appointed these agents that worked as private recruiting agents? Who appointed them?
SAUCKEL: In those countries, the commissioner for labor allocation appointed them—I myself could not appoint them—together with the French organizations. That was an understanding, not a set appointment...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I see. And they would be paid on, I think you said, a commission basis; is that right? They would be paid, in other words, so much per workman? Every workman they brought in, they would get a fee for that; is that right?
SAUCKEL: Yes. I do not know the details myself any more, but for the most part that is correct.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Now, I take it when you used the word shanghai, which you referred to and explained, that simply means private recruiting with force. That is all it means, is it not?
[There was no response.]
That is all it means, is it not? Private recruiting with force?
SAUCKEL: No...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Now, wait a minute. Can you shanghai a man without using force? You do not mean that you shanghaied them by persuasion? Did you?
SAUCKEL: Yes, for I wanted to recruit these French associations in just this voluntary, friendly way, over a glass of beer or wine in a café, and not in the official offices. I don’t mean shanghai in the bad sense as I recall its being used from my sailor days. This was a rather drastic expression, but not a concrete representation of the actual procedure. Never, Your Honor, in France or anywhere else, did I order men to be shanghaied, but rather...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Oh, I know you did not order it. That was not my question. You mean that “shanghai” just meant that you had a friendly glass of wine with a workman and then he joined up? Was that what you meant?
SAUCKEL: I understood it in that way. I described it to the Central Planning Board in a somewhat drastic form in order to answer the demands made of me with some plausible counterarguments as to the efforts I was making.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Why did you object to this private recruitment? What was the objection to it?
SAUCKEL: In this case I did not object, but it was contrary to German ideas concerning the procurement of labor. According to German principles and...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Was it contrary to German law?
SAUCKEL: It was against my convictions and contrary to German laws.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I did not ask you that. I am not interested for the moment in your convictions. I said: Was it contrary to German law? It was, wasn’t it, against law?
SAUCKEL: It was in general contrary to the German labor laws. As far as possible no private recruitment was to take place. But may I say as an explanation, Your Honor, that after the workman had been won over, he nevertheless entered into an obligation on the basis of a state contract. Thus it must not be understood to mean that the worker in question came into the Reich without a contract approved by the state; a contract was granted to him just as it was to all others.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You mean, a laborer that was shanghaied by private agents had the same rights, once he was in the employment, as anyone else; is that what you mean?
SAUCKEL: The same rights and assurances that everyone else had.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): That is right. Now I am going to come to another subject for a moment. I simply want to understand your defense and what your point of view is. Now see if this is correct. You did no recruiting yourself. The Police did no recruiting. Your main job was, in the first place, to see that everything was done lawfully and legally. Was not that right, that was your important function?
SAUCKEL: That was my endeavor.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): In order to do that you had to arrange to have the proper laws passed so as to have the recruiting done under the law; that is right, isn’t it? That was your job?
SAUCKEL: Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Yes. And very often those laws—by the way, those laws were simply decrees, of course. They were just orders that were signed by the Führer, or by you, or by some of the ministers. When you say laws, you mean, of course, decrees?
SAUCKEL: The laws in the occupied territories for the recruitment of manpower had to be decreed by the Führer and issued by the chiefs in the territories.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): What I mean is, in order to make this use of foreign labor lawful, you simply had to get certain decrees signed; that was part of your duty, to get them signed? Now...
SAUCKEL: I did not sign these decrees...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I understand that. I did not say you signed them. I understand that. You have explained that in great detail. Now let us see where the Police came in. They had nothing to do with the recruiting. Once a decree was signed, it became law, did it not? When a decree was signed, it was law?
SAUCKEL: Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And if any man resisted being brought in as a workman, or did not register, or did not live up to his contract, he became a criminal. That is right, isn’t it?
SAUCKEL: In this case he violated the law. We did not call it a crime, but rather an offense.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): But he broke the law?
SAUCKEL: Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You mean he did not commit a crime? Did he or did he not commit a crime? Supposing a man failed to register when he was told to register for work, was that a crime?
SAUCKEL: No, that was not a crime. We called that an offense in Germany.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And then when he committed this, he was then turned over to the Police. Is that right?
SAUCKEL: Not immediately; in the preliminary proceedings he was told by the local labor office to appear and to report and...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well, you explained all that. He got 3 or 4 days, and then if he did not finally register, for the offense he was turned over to the Police? Is that right?
SAUCKEL: How that was actually handled in the various territories I cannot say. It differed greatly, and was in part very lax.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You told us already in your cross-examination that if a man broke the law that was when the Police came in. The Police were there simply to see that the law was not broken. That is right, isn’t it? That was their function?
SAUCKEL: No, that was not my task; that was the task of the service authorities.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well, why do you always say, “it was not my task”? I did not ask you if it was your task. I am just talking about the Police; I am not talking about you. Now when those labor decrees were violated, then it was, at a certain time, that the Police began to function. Isn’t that right?
SAUCKEL: That would have been the normal way, the correct way.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Good. Or after the men—let us say in Paris—were rounded up, if they offered physical resistance, then the Police had to be called in, had they not? If there was physical resistance you had to call in the Police, had you not?
SAUCKEL: Yes, but I can say that that was hardly ever reported to me. In most cases the men were then released. It can be clearly seen from the lists of the workers’ transports—for instance, in the year 1944—that of a large program not even 10 percent came to Germany. Then there was nothing else for us to do but to shanghai.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Please don’t go on. You have given all that evidence before. I just want to get a picture of the whole system. Now the Army. I think you said the role the Army played was where there had been sabotage or resistance in the occupied territories the Army would have to clean that out, so that the labor administration could work. That would be right, wouldn’t it?
SAUCKEL: In so-called resistance areas in which the administration was handicapped by resistance movements, not only in the field of labor allocation but also in other directions, and the public safety of German troops could no longer be guaranteed.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I am not interested in other functions. I am interested particularly in the field of manpower at this time. So that, for instance, in Poland or Russia, where it was impossible to recruit people on account of the resistance to the recruiting or the resistance to the Army, the Army would go in and help with the recruiting. It would not be unfair to say that, would it?
SAUCKEL: One can say that.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): That is right. Now, by the way, did any of these workmen who resisted or who broke the law or who did not register after 3 days, were they ever tried by a court, or were they simply handled by the Police if necessary? They were never tried by court, were they?
SAUCKEL: That I cannot tell you in detail or in general. Probably there were various ways of handling that. I do not know the details.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well, let us get that in particular. Did any of your decrees provide for trial by a court of such persons?
SAUCKEL: No, my decrees did not do that. I was not authorized to issue such decrees within the territories with regard to court proceedings, because I was not the competent regional authority.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): All right. I am not very clear on this picture of camps. Let us look at that for a moment. There were what you called, I think, distribution or transition camps, were there not?
SAUCKEL: Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): How many?
SAUCKEL: That I cannot tell you from memory.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): No, of course not; but do you think there were more than a hundred?
SAUCKEL: No, I do not think so.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Hardly. But perhaps nearly a hundred?
SAUCKEL: No, I do not think that is quite correct either.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You could give no figure on that?
SAUCKEL: I assume that perhaps in the Reich there were 30 or 40 transition camps.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): In the Reich?
SAUCKEL: In the Reich.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And were those transition camps also in the occupied territories, or in France?
SAUCKEL: In the occupied territories? Whether there were any transition camps in France and, if so, how many, that I cannot say. In the West, along the border, there were reception stations; and in the East, along the border, there were transition camps which had as their purpose an additional physical examination, delousing of clothing, and...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I think that is enough. I think you have answered that enough. Now there were also what you called the labor training camps. Do you remember, you said there were also labor training camps?
SAUCKEL: These training camps...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Can’t you say “yes” or “no”?
SAUCKEL: No.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): How many?
SAUCKEL: Of that I have no idea...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): So you have no idea of that? Maybe 50 or 100?
SAUCKEL: No. I cannot tell you even approximately how many because I have never received a list. They were not under me.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): To whom were they subordinate?
SAUCKEL: They were subordinate exclusively to the Police, that is, as far as I know, to Gruppenführer Müller.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And I presume that they were staffed and officered by the SS, as were the other concentration camps?
SAUCKEL: I have to assume that also, but I cannot say definitely because I have never seen any such camps.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): But that would not be improbable, would it?
SAUCKEL: No. These camps were subordinate exclusively to the Police.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): To the Police. Now who went to the labor training camps? Who was sent to them?
SAUCKEL: As far as I know—I heard very little about that—people were sent there who in a number of cases had committed violations of the labor regulations, or of discipline in the factories, and so on.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): That is right. That is fine. Thank you very much. That is all I want to know about that point. In other words, people who did not turn up for registration, or who broke their contracts, were sent for training. Now what was the training? What does that mean, “training”? How are you trained?
SAUCKEL: That I cannot tell you. I assume that they had to work. A period of time was provided of from about 8 days to 56 days, I believe; I cannot say exactly. I also heard about that in this courtroom for the first time.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well, let us get a little more light on that subject. You see, you were after all, were you not, Plenipotentiary, so you must have known something about these matters. There were labor camps as well as labor training camps, were there not?
SAUCKEL: Yes, and I want to distinguish between them...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I will distinguish. Let me ask you the question. The labor camps were camps where workmen were sent and housed who were working in industry; isn’t that right? They were simply camps where workmen were housed and lived. Is that right?
SAUCKEL: They were camps where workers were billeted; where they lived.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): That is right; and labor training camps were different from the labor camps, weren’t they?
SAUCKEL: They were basically different. The labor training camps were an institution of the Reichsführer SS; the labor camps, in which they lived, were set up by the factory or group of factories where the workers were employed.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): So when a man was sent to a labor training camp, he was not sent simply to labor; he was being punished, wasn’t he, for having broken the law? That must be right, is it not?
SAUCKEL: To my knowledge, he came to a labor training camp in order to be trained to be punctual at work, and at the same time it was a punishment for his offenses at the factory.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Were there any decrees with respect to the labor training camps, any regulations?
SAUCKEL: I know of no regulations. They had to be issued by the Reichsführer SS, by the Chief of Police. I issued no regulations.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): So, although part of your duty was to look after the foreign laborers who were brought over here, that stopped after they were turned over to the Police, and you had no more jurisdiction; is that right?
SAUCKEL: That is right; but in one respect I have to correct that. I did not have the task of looking after the workers; I merely had the task of getting workers for the industries. The supervision of the camps and the care of the workers was in no way my task. I have...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Stop, Defendant, we clearly understand that. You had practically no executive functions, but you repeatedly said that you passed decrees—by the hundreds, you said—for improving the condition of the men. Now, we know that you didn’t have the job to feed them or to house them; but you did have one of your main jobs—one of your main jobs was to try to keep them in as good condition as possible, and that was the reason you were interested in any complaints. We all understand that, don’t we? That is correct? One of your functions was to do that, wasn’t it?
SAUCKEL: I had taken over this task; it was not one of the duties with which I had been entrusted. The complaints with which I was confronted every day were to the effect that there were not enough workers available. My task was the direction and the acquisition of workers, but in my own interest I pointed out the necessity of caring for the workers and keeping them in good condition.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I see, that was a voluntary job on your part. It was not part of your duty, but nevertheless you did it. But, now, let me come a little bit to the workers themselves. I think we are very clear, or comparatively so, as to the numbers that were brought in. I want to know how many were voluntary and how many were involuntary. Now, before you answer that, I mean those workers who were brought in, not under law, but simply who volunteered for work of their own accord. There were not very many of those, I suppose, were there?
SAUCKEL: Yes, there were a great many workers who volunteered without legal compulsion, as the result of propaganda and recruitment and because of the fact that in Germany wages and such things were comparatively high and regulated. There were a great many workers...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Now, let us take a look at that. There came a time when the laws applying to German workers were applied to workers for foreign countries; is that not true?
SAUCKEL: Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I mean, every German had to work, had he not, under the law? Right?
SAUCKEL: Yes, that is right.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And that law was finally applied to foreign workers as well, as you just said. Right?
SAUCKEL: That law was also introduced into the occupied territories.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Right. For everyone alike. So that after that law was introduced, there was no such thing as voluntary work because after that law was introduced everyone had to work, had they not?
SAUCKEL: Yes, as far as demands were made for them in the occupied territories and elsewhere, according to need.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): So when you were talking about involuntary work, that must have applied to the time before that law was passed? Right?
SAUCKEL: Yes, however...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): When was the law passed?
SAUCKEL: That law was introduced at various dates in the late autumn of 1942. I cannot tell the exact dates in the various territories, but I should like to say that under this law, as well, voluntary workers still came voluntarily, to Germany. They...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You are right. If they had not, they would have gone involuntarily, wouldn’t they?
SAUCKEL: No.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Why not?
SAUCKEL: Only certain quotas were raised but not all the workers were demanded for Germany.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well, then those certain quotas that were requested would have to have gone involuntarily; right?
SAUCKEL: No. There was also voluntary recruitment carried out, and that means that among the workers...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Wait, wait, Defendant. Don’t let us fool over this. It is quite simple. If there was a law which made it necessary for men to work when their quotas had been called up, they had to work, had they not? Right?
SAUCKEL: Yes, they had to work, in their own countries first of all, but they also could volunteer to work in Germany instead of working in their own country. And we attached great importance to this.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): In other words, a man had a choice of forced labor in an industry in France or in Germany, so in that sense it was voluntary; is that right?
SAUCKEL: Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Now, just two or three more questions. You have answered clearly, I think. I just want to ask you about three documents. I think that is all. I am not going into detail. Do you remember the document known as R-124, which was the conference on March 1st of 1944? You remember that conference?
Would someone show him the German notes of that, please, if you have them?
[Turning to the defendant.] Do you remember the conference? Have you looked at the notes?
SAUCKEL: That was the conference about the Central Planning Board.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Yes, that is right. Did you look over those notes?
SAUCKEL: Now?
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Yes.
SAUCKEL: Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Do they tell about what took place in substance? In substance, there was an account of the conference, wasn’t there?
SAUCKEL: Yes, at this moment—I beg to be excused—I cannot remember the concrete topic of discussion at that conference.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well, did you find anything in the notes, as you read them, over, which you thought in substance was a great mistake?
SAUCKEL: I cannot tell now what subject is meant.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Have you read the notes? Have you read them?
SAUCKEL: I did not read all the notes about the Central Planning Board. At that time the notes about the Central Planning Board were not available to me. Therefore I did not know that notes were taken about the Central Planning Board.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Don’t go on with all this talk. I simply asked whether you read them and you said you had not read them all. That is all we need.
SAUCKEL: No, I have not read them all.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Of the portion that you read, did you find any mistakes?
SAUCKEL: I found inexact passages, yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Inexact passages?
SAUCKEL: Inaccuracies. For instance, the report of my interpolation “200,000 to 5,000,000”; that is an utterly impossible proportion.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Quite. Now, you used one expression in those notes which I did not understand; and I am going to ask you what you meant by it. You spoke of your special labor supply executives. Was that the committee for social peace that you spoke about yesterday—about a thousand people in it? Do you remember?
SAUCKEL: Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): That is the same thing? That was the committee that you said had to be specially trained by the SS, I think, and by the police in France, or wherever they were used?
SAUCKEL: Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): By the way, you spoke of them being armed. Why were they armed? Why did they carry arms?
SAUCKEL: For their own protection and for the protection of those whom they recruited; they had to have some means of defense against attacks.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You did not usually have anything to do with the Police, did you? Why did you organize this police corps? Why did you help organize this police corps, an armed police corps? Why did you do it?
SAUCKEL: That was not an armed police corps in the usual sense, rather it was...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Never mind describing it. We know what it was. Why did you organize it? I thought you kept away from police measures.
SAUCKEL: In order to have protection for these people and for these places which frequently were raided, demolished, or harassed by the resistance movement.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I see what you mean. This was an organization to protect the recruiting that was going on; is that right?
SAUCKEL: Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I see. Now, I just want to ask one question about another manuscript, 016-PS, dated 20 April 1944, which was the labor mobilization program. That is the program which you issued and signed, is it not? You look at it. That is the program you signed?
SAUCKEL: No.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): It is not? I do not know what you mean.
SAUCKEL: I have not understood you correctly, I believe. I understood 1944. It was...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): No, no, on 20 April 1942. You issued the labor mobilization program. Is that the program signed by you, shown in the Document 016-PS? That is the program, is it not?
SAUCKEL: The program—may I say the following in this connection: It was a program which did not become effective immediately...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Defendant, please answer the question. All I want to know is, first, you did issue a mobilization program, did you not?
SAUCKEL: That I did, but...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Right. And that is the one shown in that exhibit, is it not? I am simply identifying it.
SAUCKEL: Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Right. I wanted to ask you a little bit about bringing the youths of the occupied territories into the Reich. Certain of the youths were brought in, were they not?
SAUCKEL: Youths were brought in, but against my...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Against your desire, you said. How many were brought in?
SAUCKEL: That I cannot possibly say from my own knowledge. I do not know. There were youths...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well, what were the ages? How young were they?
SAUCKEL: That I cannot say either—what age the youths were—because they were with their families who came into the Reich as a result of refugee measures or the evacuation of other localities. Then another time, in connection with the so-called “Hay Action” in 1944, youths came to the Reich, but without my having anything to do with it.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You know there were young adolescents, of course, young adolescent children, do you not? You know that, do you not?
SAUCKEL: Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): What was the purpose of bringing them in? Were they recruited for labor, or were they to be trained in the Reich and educated?
SAUCKEL: There are various explanations for the fact that youths were brought into the Reich. Some of these youths were not recruited or brought in by agents; rather they came with their families, at the latter’s wish, when refugee and evacuation measures were carried out. Others came...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Wait a minute. We will leave out the ones that came with the families. Some were recruited for labor, were they not? Some for work, were they not?
SAUCKEL: Youths under the legal age of 14 years could not be brought in for work. By agreements, such as can be found in the documents, other offices brought youths in to train and care for them.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You just do not answer the questions. I asked you whether some were brought in for work. Children over 14, who were still under 20, were brought in for work, were they not—recruited for work?
SAUCKEL: But only volunteers were brought in.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Only volunteers were brought in?
SAUCKEL: Youths were supposed to be brought in only as volunteers.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You did not recruit any youth involuntarily; you mean that?
SAUCKEL: I did not.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I do not mean you personally; I mean the administration.
SAUCKEL: No, the labor administration was not supposed to bring in any youths, especially girls, by compulsion; only voluntarily. Domestic servants were only volunteers.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Some were brought in to be educated in Germany and to become German citizens, were they not?
SAUCKEL: That I found out from the documents; but I was not responsible for that.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You did not know about that before? Did anyone advise you that it was in accordance with international law to force people in occupied countries to come to Germany to work?
SAUCKEL: I was expressly urged by the Führer to take that measure, and it was described to me as admissible. No office raised any objections to or had any misgivings about this measure; rather it met with the requirements of all offices.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I did not ask you that. I asked you whether anybody advised you that it was in accordance with international law.
SAUCKEL: No.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You knew, did you not, that the Foreign Office had to consider such matters?
SAUCKEL: I spoke with the Foreign Office on various occasions and this was found to be in order, because we were convinced that in these territories, on the basis of the terms of surrender, the introduction of German regulations was permissible and possible under the conditions prevailing and in view of existing agreements. That was my belief.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Do you say that you were advised by the Foreign Office that you were entitled under international law to force people to come from Russia to work in Germany?
SAUCKEL: The Foreign Office never told me anything to the contrary; but the Foreign Office, I believe, was not competent for questions concerning the East: I do not know.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Whom did you ask for advice on the subject?
SAUCKEL: I found these regulations in existence before I took office. These regulations had already been issued. The Führer expressly charged me to carry them out.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Then, the answer is that you asked nobody? Is that right?
SAUCKEL: I did not ask anybody. I could not ask anybody, because all offices wanted these measures and accepted them. There was never any discussion to the contrary.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And did you say that it was not the task of the Police to enforce recruiting for labor?
SAUCKEL: It was not the task of the Police to carry out recruitment.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well, why did you say at the conference on 4 January 1944, which is reported in the Document 1292-PS, that you would do everything in your power to furnish the requested manpower in 1944; but whether it would succeed depended primarily on what German enforcement agents would be made available, and that your project could not be carried out with domestic enforcement agents? Does that not mean that the Police would have to enforce your recruitment programs?
SAUCKEL: No, it means—the reproduction of these minutes is not very exact—I explained to the Führer that I probably would not be able to carry out his program because there were very large partisan areas; and as long as these partisan areas were not cleared up, so that a regular administration could be established there, no recruitment could take place there either. First of all, therefore, normal administrative conditions would have to be established again. That could be done only by those organs whose task it was.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): What did you mean by German enforcement agents?
SAUCKEL: By German enforcement agencies I meant the normal administration as such, but in some territories that was too weak.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well, then, why was it that the Reichsführer SS explained that the enforcement agents put at his disposal were extremely few, if those enforcement agents were not police agents?
SAUCKEL: I did not understand the question correctly in the first place. The Reichsführer, I believe, said—according to my recollection—that for the pacification of these areas he did not have troops enough because they were all at the front. That did not refer to the recruitment and management of compulsory labor, but to the re-establishment of normal conditions in these areas.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well then, are you saying that it was not the task of the Police to help you in recruitment, but that it was the task of the military?
SAUCKEL: That differed greatly depending on the various regulations in the territories. There were areas in which the military commanders had the sole executive power, and there were areas in which civilian authorities had the executive power on the German side. There was a third kind of area, military operational zones with rear areas, in which the commanders of the armies had the executive power.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well, then, either it was the Police, or it was the military, or it was some other force which was going to carry out your forcible recruiting; is that right?
SAUCKEL: Yes, but in these areas as well, the machinery of the civilian administration was available, which was not identical with the military or with the Police, but represented within these Wehrmacht organizations separate branches of the administration under a special administrative chief.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well, I don’t understand then what you meant by saying that your project could not be carried out with domestic enforcement agents.
That is all I have to ask. Then the defendant can return to the dock.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, I am asking the Tribunal to look at Document Sauckel-3, which is a list of Sauckel’s offices, to see the position of the witness whom I am about to call.
Under Sauckel in the Reich Ministry of Labor there were various departments, one of which, the department of the witness Timm, was the so-called Europe Office, which had three subdepartments—one for the West, one for the East, and the third for the South and Southwest.
With the permission of the Court, I call the witness Timm.
[The witness Timm took the stand.]
THE PRESIDENT: Will you state your full name.
MAX TIMM (Witness): Max Timm.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath after me: I swear by God—the Almighty and Omniscient—that I will speak the pure truth—and will withhold and add nothing.
[The witness repeated the oath.]
THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down.
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, you worked in the Reich Labor Ministry in the Allocation of Labor department?
TIMM: Yes, that is correct.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were you already there when Sauckel took office?
TIMM: Yes, and I had been in the labor administration for some years before that.
DR. SERVATIUS: What was the impression you had of your new superior when Sauckel took over the office?
TIMM: When Sauckel assumed office, I had the impression of a very energetic, hard-working man, who was inclined to get excited at times, even angry no doubt, and who demanded much of his co-workers, but also made great demands on himself.
DR. SERVATIUS: How was he in carrying out his measures?
TIMM: When he assumed office there was a good deal of confusion in the field of labor allocation. Everybody had something to do with labor allocation.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was that the reason why that office was created?
TIMM: The previous chiefs had not had enough force to push their program through against the opposition of various offices; and Sauckel was the strong man, and particularly the strong political figure, who was to put things in order.
DR. SERVATIUS: How did Sauckel approach this new task? Did he adhere to the administrative regulations, or did he do it in his own way, in—as one says—an unrestrained new manner?
TIMM: He considered his task very much a political task, but he always did his best to handle administrative matters in an orderly way. He was known generally as a Gauleiter who was friendly to the civil servants. Also, in order to instruct all the offices under his administration, he held so-called staff meetings at regular intervals in which the most important things were discussed.
DR. SERVATIUS: What was your position in that office?
TIMM: In the Allocation of Labor department I had first a subdepartment and later a department.
DR. SERVATIUS: What did that department deal with?
TIMM: That department had to deal with all questions concerning the assignment of labor, particularly the classification of skilled workers, training of workers, vocational advice, and employment agencies for apprentices.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was your office called the Europe Office?
TIMM: Yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you have an over-all view of what went on in the office?
TIMM: Not completely, owing to the fact that Gauleiter Sauckel at the same time remained Gauleiter in Thuringia and he worked in Berlin in Thuringia House, whereas the special departments put at his disposal remained in the Ministry of Labor.
DR. SERVATIUS: No, you did not understand my question. The question was whether you, from your office, had an over-all view of what went on in the field of labor allocation without regard to Sauckel’s activity.
TIMM: Yes, but not entirely, because we were not informed about all events, due to the separation of the offices.
DR. SERVATIUS: What were the staff meetings? Who took part in them and of what kind of people were they composed?
TIMM: For the most part the liaison men of the various branches were called to staff conferences.
DR. SERVATIUS: What kind of people were they?
TIMM: There were various kinds of people, civil servants but also economists, and the like.
DR. SERVATIUS: But you should tell us from what offices these people came, or were they people who were in Sauckel’s office?
TIMM: They were mostly people from other branches, as, for instance, a representative of the Delegate for the Four Year Plan, the representatives of the Ministry for Armament and War Production, of the Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories, and of other departments.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was that the so-called specialist labor staff?
TIMM: That was the specialist labor staff.
DR. SERVATIUS: About how many people were in it?
TIMM: In my estimation there were probably about 15 to 20 people.
DR. SERVATIUS: Besides that, Sauckel had a personal labor staff. What kind of people were in that?
TIMM: The personal labor staff consisted mostly of men whom Sauckel had brought with him from Weimar, men of his own immediate circle.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did he also have consultants? Who were these?
TIMM: He had two personal consultants, Landrat Berch and Ministerialrat Dr. Stothfang.
DR. SERVATIUS: And what position did Dr. Didier hold?
TIMM: Dr. Didier, as far as I remember, was the press expert.
DR. SERVATIUS: How were these staff meetings carried on? What was discussed?
TIMM: At those staff meetings all matters of labor allocation, that is the entire German labor allocation program, were discussed; and the sessions were generally opened with a complete report by Herr Sauckel, in which he explained his plans for the future.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were questions of recruitment in occupied territories also discussed; and what is of importance here, the difficulties which existed then, and the methods of which we have heard? What was said about that?
TIMM: Questions of recruitment were generally not discussed there so much but rather questions concerning the Reich.
DR. SERVATIUS: I asked you first about the occupied territories. Was, for instance, that case discussed which has been brought up here, the surrounding of a motion picture house and the seizing of people there, and similar cases?
TIMM: Yes, the case of the motion picture house is known to me.
DR. SERVATIUS: That was discussed?
TIMM: Yes, that was discussed.
DR. SERVATIUS: And what was done about it?
TIMM: Sauckel at once instructed several gentlemen—I don’t remember whom—to make all possible investigations in order to clarify the case.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were other cases reported?
TIMM: There were no other cases which could be compared in seriousness with that case which has just been described.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was there also discussion about the question of labor conditions in Germany for foreign workers?
TIMM: There were discussions at the staff conferences about labor conditions.
DR. SERVATIUS: And was it not reported there that conditions existed in individual camps or industries which were objectionable?
TIMM: Cases of that kind were discussed. In general they concerned clothing, nutrition, and similar things.
DR. SERVATIUS: How did these reports come to the staff conferences? Who reported them? From what source did one find out about them?
TIMM: Herr Sauckel always attached importance to having these things examined on the spot, and he maintained an extensive system of inspection in order to get an accurate picture of these questions; and these inspection reports were then discussed in detail at the staff conferences.
THE PRESIDENT: I have an announcement to make.
Upon consideration of the motion of the Prosecution, dated the 21st of May, and the memorandum of the Defense Counsel in reply thereto, dated the 29th of May, the Tribunal makes the following order:
The motion of the Prosecution that arguments as to the guilt or innocence of the individual defendants be heard at the conclusion of the evidence relating to the individual defendants and before the introduction of evidence relating to the accused organizations is granted. The Tribunal, however, will not decide the question of the guilt or innocence of any defendant until after all the evidence has been heard; and, if any of the evidence relating to the accused organizations is thought by counsel for any defendant to support his defense, he may ask to be heard further with regard thereto. The Tribunal, at the conclusion of the evidence relating to the individual defendants, will accordingly hear first the argument in their behalf, and then the summing up of the Prosecution. The statements of each of the defendants in his own behalf will be heard at the conclusion of the Trial before judgment.
The Tribunal is of opinion that the argument relating to the guilt or innocence of the individual defendants will be more helpful if heard immediately at the conclusion of the evidence bearing thereon, and before the Tribunal has departed from this and goes into the branch of the case relating to the organizations. This arrangement, furthermore, will give the commissioners, who are taking the evidence as to the organizations, further time in which to complete their work. The defendants will not be prejudiced in any way by this arrangement; for, apart from the fact that their cases are essentially different from the cases of the organizations, they will be allowed to call to the attention of the Tribunal any circumstance developed on the hearing of the organizations which is thought to be helpful to their defense. The Tribunal finds nothing in the Charter which forbids this procedure, and Article 9 leaves to the discretion of the Tribunal the manner of hearing evidence on behalf of the accused organizations.
Counsel for the individual defendants will not be permitted to cross-examine the witnesses called by counsel on behalf of the organizations, or to take part in such proceedings save when specially authorized to do so by the Tribunal.
That is all.
The Tribunal will sit tomorrow at 10 o’clock in open session until 1 o’clock.