Morning Session
[The Defendant Sauckel resumed the stand.]
PROFESSOR DR. FRANZ EXNER (Counsel for Defendant Jodl): Mr. President, I should like to put a request to you. My client comes next in order and he would like to be excused, if possible, this afternoon and all day tomorrow, so that he can prepare his case.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly.
MARSHAL: May it please the Tribunal, the report is made that the Defendant Von Papen is absent.
M. HERZOG: Defendant Sauckel, I was asking you yesterday whether you considered that Germany’s foreign policy was based on the Hitlerian theories concerning living space and the master race.
SAUCKEL: May I ask you to repeat the question? I did not quite understand it in German.
M. HERZOG: I was asking you yesterday if you considered that the foreign policy of Germany was based on the two Hitlerian theories, Lebensraum and the master race.
SAUCKEL: I have understood—whether German foreign policy was based on the principles of Lebensraum and the master race.
M. HERZOG: Yes, I am asking you to answer whether, in your opinion, it was so.
SAUCKEL: Not on the principle of a master race. I should like to be permitted to give an explanation of this.
I personally have never approved of the statements made by some of the National Socialist speakers about a superior race and a master race. I have never advocated that. As a young man I traveled about the world. I traveled in Australia and in America, and I met families who belong to the happiest memories of my life. But I loved my own people and sought, I admit, equality of rights for them; and I have always stood for that. I have never believed in the superiority of one particular race, but I always held that equality of rights was necessary.
M. HERZOG: That being so, you did not approve of the whole of the foreign policy of Hitler; and you did not collaborate with him?
SAUCKEL: In answer to the question by my counsel I stated that I never considered myself to be a politician as regards foreign policy. I entered the Party by quite a different way and for quite different motives.
M. HERZOG: Do you remember the declaration which you made on 4 September 1945 to two American officers?
[Turning to the Tribunal.] This declaration is Document Number 3057-PS. It was submitted as Exhibit Number USA-223.
[Turning to the defendant.] You said the following:
“I have been a convinced National Socialist since 1921 and agreed 100 percent with the program of Adolf Hitler. I worked actively to that end; and during the period from 1921 until the assumption of power I made about 500 speeches, the sense and contents of which represented the National Socialist standpoint. It was for me a particular satisfaction to have raised the Gau of Thuringia to a predominant position with regard to its National Socialist views and convictions. Until the collapse I never doubted Adolf Hitler, but obeyed his orders blindly.”
THE PRESIDENT: You are going a little bit too fast. This has been read, M. Herzog. I do not think you need read all of it.
M. HERZOG: I would ask you then, Defendant Sauckel, if you confirm the statements which were made under oath, voluntarily and without any duress, on 4 September 1945, and which contradict those that you made yesterday and which you have just made to me.
SAUCKEL: I confirm that my signature is appended to this document. I ask the Tribunal’s permission to state how that signature came about.
This document was presented to me in its finished form. I asked to be allowed to read and study this document in my cell in Oberursel and decide whether I could sign it. That was denied me. During the conversation an officer was consulted who, I was told, belonged to the Polish or Russian army; and it was made clear to me that if I hesitated too long in signing this document I would be handed over to the Russian authorities. Then this Polish or Russian officer entered and asked, “Where is Sauckel’s family? We know Sauckel, of course we will take him with us; but his family will have to be taken into Russian territory as well.” I am the father of 10 children. I did not stop to consider; and thinking of my family, I signed this document.
When I returned to my cell, I sent a written message to the commandant of the camp and asked permission to talk with him alone on this matter. But that was not possible, because shortly afterwards I was brought to Nuremberg.
M. HERZOG: Is not your signature at the end of this document in which you declared that you “made the above declarations voluntarily and without any duress”?
SAUCKEL: That is correct, but in this situation...
M. HERZOG: I think your explanation is sufficient.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you ask him whether he has read it now and whether it is true.
M. HERZOG: I asked you a few moments ago, and I ask you now: Are you ready to confirm that your statements are correct?
SAUCKEL: These statements are not correct in individual points, and I asked that I might correct these various points; but I was not given the time to do that.
On the last morning before I left I was told I could discuss this matter in Nuremberg, and when I was interrogated here I told the American officer about the matter.
THE PRESIDENT: M. Herzog, was this document read over in the Tribunal during the prosecution?
M. HERZOG: This document was submitted under Exhibit Number USA-223.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, as far as I recall this document was not submitted. At the time I had a conversation with the American representative of the Prosecution and told him about these objections. He did not bring it up at a later session because of these objections; and the President himself, at the conclusion, asked whether this document would not be produced, and the prosecutor said, “No. Having talked it over with the Defense, I will dispense with this document.”
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you tell us that it wasn’t read over in court.
DR. SERVATIUS: No, it was not read in court. At any rate I would like to object to the admissibility of this document, for it was given under duress.
THE PRESIDENT: Under these circumstances, M. Herzog, you may cross-examine in what way you like upon the document. The Tribunal was under the impression that it had already been read over. That is why they stopped you reading it.
M. HERZOG: [Turning to the defendant.] In Paragraph 2 you declared:
“After the putting into effect of the Nuremberg Laws, in keeping with my convictions, I saw to it that all these laws were fully carried out in the Gau of Thuringia.”
Paragraph 4:
“With regard to foreign policy I have been of the opinion that the German people has a justified claim for living space in Europe and by reason of their superior racial level have to assume a leading position.... I agreed with all the decisions taken by Hitler and the NSDAP concerning the means to be used and the measures to be taken to obtain these ends, and I collaborated actively in the execution of this plan.”
SAUCKEL: I could not follow your concluding sentences.
M. HERZOG: I will read it once more:
“...I agreed with all the decisions taken by Hitler and the NSDAP concerning the means to be used and the measures to be taken to obtain these ends, and I collaborated actively in the execution of this plan.”
I ask you to confirm whether you made these statements.
SAUCKEL: I certainly would not have made those statements in the way I did, if I had been able to act freely and according to my own will.
M. HERZOG: The Tribunal will consider it. Is it a fact that you were appointed...
THE PRESIDENT: M. Herzog, the Tribunal thinks that the document is before the witness and he should be asked to point out in what way he says the document is wrong.
M. HERZOG: Defendant Sauckel, you heard what the President has said. You say that this document does not correspond to the truth. Will you kindly tell the Tribunal in what way it does not.
SAUCKEL: May I take this document point by point? I was 100 percent in agreement with the social program, and I told my counsel that when he examined me.
THE PRESIDENT: Defendant, what the Tribunal wishes is that you should take the document and point out, sentence by sentence, what is wrong in it.
SAUCKEL: In Paragraph 1, the year 1921 is incorrect.
I became a member, as my first membership card shows, only in 1923 or 1925. Before the year 1923 I was in sympathy with the Party.
As to being 100 percent in agreement with Adolf Hitler’s program, I meant 100 percent insofar as the program appeared to me to be justified legally and constitutionally, and according to ethics and morality.
Just how many meetings I conducted I cannot say. My speeches and lectures were based mainly on my life and on my experiences. Those were the only things that I could talk about, and I wanted to reconcile the German social classes and the German professions to National Socialist ideology.
THE PRESIDENT: Defendant, I have pointed out to you that what the Tribunal desires is for you to take the document and say what sentences in it are wrong, and not to make speeches.
SAUCKEL: In my eyes, all the sentences are wrong. I would not have put them that way if I myself had been able to formulate them. The way they stand, I dispute each and every sentence, for I did not write them and I was not consulted. These sentences were put before me as they are now.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, may I be permitted to give an explanation of this matter? This statement is practically a summary of all the interrogations in which the various points appear as a confession in the sense of the Indictment. The defendant could not say a word in his own defense if this were correct. Since it is a résumé and since conclusions can be drawn from it, he must have the opportunity of refuting these conclusions; and that necessitates a statement. These are not definite facts which can be answered with “yes” or “no.”
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant has just said that the whole document is wrong, and he has also said that the document was obtained from him under duress.
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: And it is therefore not any use to go through it in detail. But the Tribunal would like to hear from the American Prosecution if they have anything to say about the matter.
MR. DODD: I do not have a copy of the document before me in English, but I...
THE PRESIDENT: You see, Mr. Dodd, M. Herzog has said that it was offered in evidence under the Exhibit Number USA-223.
MR. DODD: My recollection is that—I will check the record, Mr. President—my recollection is that in the presentation of the case on Slave Labor, we included this in our document book but did not offer it in evidence. I think I said to the Tribunal at the time that we had decided not to offer it. It had been printed and put in the document book.
My memory may be faulty, but my recollection is, Mr. President, that the President of the Tribunal asked me if I did not intend to offer it, and I then stated that we had thought it over and decided not to use it.
THE PRESIDENT: I do not understand how it gets an exhibit number if it isn’t offered in evidence.
MR. DODD: I don’t either. I think it is an error.
THE PRESIDENT: I see. Mr. Dodd, do you know whether this is a résumé or a summary of a number of interrogations which were taken?
MR. DODD: My understanding is to the contrary. I think it was taken before the Defendant Sauckel was in Nuremberg and before any interrogations were conducted on the part of the interrogation division of the American Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Were you aware Dr. Servatius was objecting to the document on the ground that it was obtained under duress?
MR. DODD: My recollection is that at the time of the presentation of the Slave Labor case Dr. Servatius made some objection, and I think that is what brought the matter up at that time; and that is why we did not use it.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Then you had better pass from it.
M. HERZOG: [Turning to the defendant.] You were appointed Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor by an ordinance of 21 March 1942?
SAUCKEL: Yes, that is correct.
M. HERZOG: Is it correct to say that this decree was countersigned by the Codefendant Keitel?
SAUCKEL: The decree, I believe, was countersigned three times. I believe that is right. At the moment I cannot confirm it with certainty.
M. HERZOG: Would you kindly explain to the Tribunal under what circumstances you were appointed to that office?
SAUCKEL: I answered that question when it was put to me by my counsel yesterday. It was a surprise to me.
M. HERZOG: Did Speer, the Reich Minister for Armaments, have anything to do with your appointment?
SAUCKEL: I cannot tell you that from my own knowledge. Bormann’s announcement said it was at the suggestion of Speer; but I cannot tell you that from my own knowledge.
M. HERZOG: Do you recollect having made any statement on that subject in your interrogation on 12 September 1945?
SAUCKEL: At this moment I cannot remember the statement.
M. HERZOG: On 12 September 1945 you were interrogated by Major Monigan; and you appear to have stated the following—the Tribunal will find this on the first page of the extracts of the interrogatory which has been handed them:
“In March 1942 I was summoned rather suddenly by Minister Speer, who had been appointed a short while previously. Speer told me that it was urgent that I should assume...”
THE PRESIDENT: Could you move those papers away from the light; you cannot see the light which is constantly going on.
M. HERZOG: “...Speer told me that it was urgent that I should assume new functions in connection with the question of labor. A few days later he asked me to go with him to general headquarters, and I was introduced to the Führer who told me that I must accept this new appointment without fail.”
Do you confirm that statement?
SAUCKEL: It is correct; only I cannot say whether that was before a decision—whether my appointment was previously arranged before these meetings through the initiative of some other gentlemen; but except for that, the facts are correct.
M. HERZOG: But you confirm that the Defendant Speer, Minister for Armament and War Production, took you to Hitler’s headquarters on the occasion of your appointment.
SAUCKEL: Yes, that is correct.
M. HERZOG: Yesterday your counsel submitted a chart showing the general organization of your service and how it was connected with the other organizations of the Reich. You declared that chart was correct. I would ask you to confirm, by saying “yes” or “no,” whether you think that chart is correct.
SAUCKEL: According to my own personal recollection, yes.
M. HERZOG: Have you that chart in front of you?
SAUCKEL: No, I have not.
M. HERZOG: It is the document which was handed up yesterday by your counsel showing the different offices.
THE PRESIDENT: Which chart is it?
M. HERZOG: It is Chart Number 1, indicating how Sauckel’s department dovetailed with the other ministerial services.
[Turning to the defendant.] Will you look at Column 6 starting from the left, the column above which there is the name of the Defendant Funk? Have you found it?
SAUCKEL: Yes.
M. HERZOG: Would you go down that column, the third square, representing the armament inspectors? Is it correct that the armament inspectors, as shown here, were under the Defendant Funk?
SAUCKEL: Under Funk? Which department do you mean, which division? That is not quite correct here. It should be moved a bit to the side. Later it was under Speer. It says Reichsautobahn and highway inspectors. That did not come under Funk. That is a mistake.
M. HERZOG: Do you see the square beside that one, which connects the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor with the directorate of the Reichsautobahn service. It is the square on the right-hand side, a little above the others. Should it be connected with the Reichsautobahn service? Should it not be with the square above, inspectors of armaments?
SAUCKEL: Yes; I cannot understand how this mistake could happen in this chart. I have not seen this diagram before. This is the first time I have seen it; that is a mistake. I did not know about that.
M. HERZOG: And you stated it was accurate without having examined it beforehand, is that so?
SAUCKEL: I assumed it to be the same chart as the one which was put before me as complete.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, when I presented this chart yesterday, I mentioned that there might be a few discrepancies. These discrepancies came in when it was being mimeographed. But I did not see the final...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, you can ask any questions if you want to in re-examination, but there is no ground for objection to questions which have been put. The questions are perfectly proper.
M. HERZOG: Defendant, you did take part in the conferences of the Central Planning Board of the Four Year Plan?
SAUCKEL: Only in some of them, when labor problems were being discussed.
M. HERZOG: Will you please tell the Tribunal which of your colleagues accompanied you or represented you at such conferences?
SAUCKEL: That varied—Dr. Timm, Dr. Hildebrandt, Dr. Stothfang; but it varied.
M. HERZOG: Who among the other defendants also participated in those conferences? Can you tell us?
SAUCKEL: I can recall with certainty only Herr Speer as being one who participated in these conferences. Whether Herr Funk actually participated, I really cannot remember any particular meeting. Perhaps he did, and perhaps not. I am sorry I cannot say for certain.
M. HERZOG: And the Defendant Göring?
SAUCKEL: At the meetings of the Central Planning Board I personally never saw the Reich Marshal. I do not know whether certain conferences which were held at his place had strictly to do with the Central Planning Board. Some conferences in which he participated took place at Karinhall, but whether they dealt with matters concerning the Central Planning Board I cannot say. It was not always clear.
M. HERZOG: But when the Defendants Göring and Funk did not take part in these meetings were they not represented there?
SAUCKEL: The Reich Marshal was represented by Field Marshal Milch, but whether Reich Minister Funk was represented I cannot remember exactly. He might have been represented by Herr Kehrl or someone else. There were many gentlemen there; I did not know all of them personally.
M. HERZOG: Is it not correct to say that, at these conferences of the Central Planning Board of the Four Year Plan, the general decisions concerning the allocation of labor were made by all the people who were present or were represented?
SAUCKEL: At the Central Planning Board no general decisions were made. The demands were made known there and, as there was nearly always a dispute, the higher authorities had to decide; generally it was the Führer. That happened frequently.
M. HERZOG: The Central Planning Board had established a collaboration between you and the other defendants who were present or represented there, is that not so?
SAUCKEL: That collaboration did not originate there, as those questions had already been discussed before the formation of this Central Planning Board. The questions were also discussed there, and demands were submitted and discussed.
M. HERZOG: Will you please take Document Number R-124. It has already been submitted to the Tribunal under Exhibit Number USA-179. You will see therein a declaration which you made at the meeting of 1 March 1944. I read:
“My duty towards the Führer...”
SAUCKEL: Will you please tell me the page from which you are reading?
M. HERZOG: Page 1780. The place is no doubt marked.
“My duty towards the Führer, the Reich Marshal, Minister Speer, and you, gentlemen, as well as towards agriculture, is clear; and I will fulfill it. As a start we have already 262,000 new workers; and I hope and am firmly convinced that I shall obtain most of what has been asked. The labor will have to be distributed, of course, according to the needs of German armament first, and secondly, German industry as a whole; and I shall always be prepared, gentlemen, to see to it that closest contact is constantly maintained here and that closest collaboration is given by the subordinated labor exchanges, as well as by the Gau labor exchanges.”
Therefore, you do not contest the fact that the Central Planning Board did establish collaboration among the various services which recruited manpower, because you yourself asked for this collaboration.
SAUCKEL: I did not deny that there was collaboration. Collaboration is necessary in every regime and in every system. Here we were not concerned with foreign labor only, but chiefly with German labor, even at that period. I did not dispute the fact that work was being carried on; but final decisions were not always made there. That is what I wanted to say.
M. HERZOG: It is correct that you appointed delegates to represent you in the various German administrative departments?
SAUCKEL: I did not have representatives in the various administrative departments. I had liaison men, or else the administrative departments had liaison men in my office.
M. HERZOG: Did you not have such a liaison officer with the Defendant Speer, Minister for Armaments and War Production?
SAUCKEL: The man who was constantly with Speer was not a liaison officer, but the man who talked over with the Minister questions of demand, et cetera, which were pending. As far as I remember it was a Herr Berk.
M. HERZOG: And did you have a liaison officer with the Reich Minister of Labor?
SAUCKEL: I had no liaison officer with the Reich Minister of Labor. There were two departments in the Reich Ministry of Labor which concerned themselves with these problems in an administrative capacity.
M. HERZOG: In your interrogatory of 12 September 1945 you said as follows—the Tribunal will find it on Pages 6 and 7 of the interrogatory:
“ ‘I had moreover two officials who acted as intermediaries between Minister Speer and the Ministry of Labor.’
“Question: ‘Did this liaison officer establish a connection between your Ministry, Minister Speer, and the Ministry of Labor?’
“Answer: ‘Between me, Minister Speer, and the Ministry of Labor...’ ”
SAUCKEL: Will you please tell me the page?
M. HERZOG: Pages 4 and 5. Have you found it?
SAUCKEL: Yes.
M. HERZOG: “Between me, Minister Speer, and the Ministry of Labor...”
THE PRESIDENT: That is surely Page 6, is it not? You said Pages 4 and 5. It is Page 6, is it not?
M. HERZOG: Page 4 of the German extract, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, I see.
M. HERZOG: “Between me, Minister Speer, and the Ministry of Labor there were two counsellors, Dr. Stothfang ... and Landrat Berk. They were jurists and experts in national economy. Dr. Stothfang was commissioned to act principally as liaison officer with the Ministry of Labor...”
Why did you tell me a few minutes ago that you had no liaison officer with the Ministry of Labor?
SAUCKEL: I made it quite clear that there were two departments which belonged to the Ministry of Labor, Departments 3 and 5; and this Ministerialrat Dr. Stothfang was formerly the personal assistant to State Secretary Syrup. In a few isolated cases he had discussions with State Secretary Syrup at my request, that is true; but these were not important. In general the departments themselves were in touch with the Ministry of Labor.
M. HERZOG: You confirm then, that you had a liaison officer at the Ministry of Labor and another in Minister Speer’s office?
SAUCKEL: I confirm that for occasional conferences. But these gentlemen were attached to those departments, and they came to me as my personal consultants and did not work in that Ministry. I cannot say either whether in this case the translation is correct. I do not remember exactly, but in principle it is correct.
But these gentlemen worked with me.
M. HERZOG: And will you please tell the Tribunal what the Stabsbesprechung was?
SAUCKEL: Stabsbesprechung was a conference on technical questions in which the various ministries or industrial employers participated who needed labor and the questions which had to be considered were discussed. I could not act independently, of course, as you have heard.
M. HERZOG: Who instituted these conferences, this new arrangement, these staff conferences? Who took the initiative in instituting them?
SAUCKEL: These staff conferences were instituted by me in order to obtain a clear conception of all these important questions, because in no regime or government in the world can anything be done in the dark.
M. HERZOG: You confirm then that these various kinds of liaison imply a common responsibility as to decisions taken by each one of you in the matter of manpower?
SAUCKEL: This question is not clear to me technically or administratively, for I could not do anything with the workers. I had to give them to other people, and I had to discuss the way this was to be done. But these conferences did not take place with the idea of a conspiracy or of a criminal act; they were the same kind of conferences as formerly took place. I have been present at conferences under a parliamentary system, and matters were dealt with in exactly the same way.
M. HERZOG: That is not what I was asking you. I was asking you whether you confirmed that the existence of these liaison officers to Minister Speer and the Minister of Labor, on the one hand, and the existence of this new organization that you created, on the other hand, implied a common responsibility in the decisions regarding manpower taken by Minister Speer, the Minister of Labor, and by you?
SAUCKEL: I cannot answer this question with a definite “no,” as orders were given to me which, as a German official, I had to carry out in this case; and in order to carry them out I had to hold conferences. It was not possible to do otherwise, for it was not I personally, but German economy, that demanded and used these workers. This matter had to be settled in some way, regardless of whether German or other workers were concerned; and the same situation applied in normal times.
M. HERZOG: Is it a fact that, after you were appointed, you were authorized to be represented by special representatives in the military and civil departments of the occupied areas?
SAUCKEL: After 30 October—I cannot state the exact date—at the instigation of the Führer, I appointed representatives to the governments in the occupied countries. I mentioned this yesterday through my counsel.
M. HERZOG: The 30th of October? I think you mean the decree of 30 September 1942. It is a mistake on your part for the decree is dated 30 September.
SAUCKEL: I am sorry, I do not know the exact date.
M. HERZOG: Is it right that these representatives, appointed by that decree, were directly subordinate to you?
SAUCKEL: Insofar as they were my delegates, that is, for the passing on of orders, they were subordinate to me.
M. HERZOG: Is it true that they were authorized to give directives to the civilian and military authorities in the occupied territories?
SAUCKEL: That is correct as far as orders were concerned, but it is not true in general. It was a technical matter.
M. HERZOG: Who was your delegate with the occupation authorities in France?
SAUCKEL: The delegate with the occupation authorities in France was, first of all, President Ritter; he was murdered in Paris. And after him, President Glatzel.
M. HERZOG: Did you have a representative in Belgium?
SAUCKEL: In Belgium I had a delegate by the name of Schulze; he was with the military commander.
M. HERZOG: And in Holland?
SAUCKEL: In Holland there were various men. First of all, Herr Schmidt, and there was another man; I believe his name was Ritterbusch, or something like that, but I do not recall the exact name.
M. HERZOG: This system of representatives with the occupation authorities, was that approved of by Defendant Speer?
SAUCKEL: This was at the instigation of the Führer, and I assume that Speer agreed. He recommended it, as far as I know.
M. HERZOG: To your knowledge, did he take any initiative in the decree issued by the Führer concerning this matter?
SAUCKEL: Yes. He was present and he recommended it.
M. HERZOG: In your interrogatory you said, when speaking about these representatives, that Speer instituted these agencies for manpower in 1941 or 1942. The Tribunal will find this statement on Page 9 of the excerpts from the interrogatory. What do you understand by that sentence?
SAUCKEL: I did not quite understand you.
M. HERZOG: I shall read an extract of your interrogation of 8 October 1945.
“Question: ‘What was the mission entrusted to your representatives in the labor offices of the military commander and of the civil governor? Did they merely give technical advice to the military authorities, which could be rejected at any time by the latter, or did they have authority to give directives to the military commanders on technical questions?’ ”
THE PRESIDENT: On what page is that?
M. HERZOG: Page 9, Mr. President.
“Answer: ‘In 1941 or 1942 Speer instituted this delegation for manpower.’ ”
I would merely ask you what you understand by that phrase. What did you mean when you said that Speer instituted this delegation for manpower in 1941 or 1942?
SAUCKEL: I have to say, in this connection, that I never saw the minutes again after I had been interrogated. I cannot confirm that sentence about 1941-42, and I cannot imagine that I expressed myself in that way during the interrogation.
M. HERZOG: The Tribunal will judge your answer. Is it correct that, besides your representatives with the civil and military commanders, you installed administrative offices for labor in the occupied territories?
SAUCKEL: That is not correct. They were already there.
M. HERZOG: You confirm then that besides the delegates who represented you, there were recruiting agencies for manpower in the occupied territories?
SAUCKEL: Yes. In the occupied territories, in all regional governments, either civilian or military, there were departments dealing with manpower which were a part of the administration; and they were subordinate to the administration authorities.
M. HERZOG: Can you give an indication of the size of the personnel of those various services in the occupied areas?
SAUCKEL: Do you mean the total number? I cannot tell you from memory the separate figures for the personnel of these administrative offices. I never have known these figures exactly.
M. HERZOG: Do you remember the conference which took place, with you as chairman, on 15 and 16 July 1944 at the Wartburg with the heads of the regional labor offices and the labor delegations from the European occupied territories? On 15 July 1944, in the afternoon, State Counsellor Börger gave an account of the personnel employed. It is Document Number F-810, which I submit under the Exhibit Number RF-1507. I will read on Page 20:
“State Counsellor Börger stated that outside the frontiers of the Reich there are about 4,000 people engaged in the administration of labor; Eastern area, 1,300; France, 1,016; Belgium and Northern France, 429; Netherlands, 194...”
Do you confirm this statement of State Counsellor Börger?
SAUCKEL: Yes, speaking generally it may be true.
M. HERZOG: Apart from your representatives, apart from those services that we were talking about, did you not create in France commissions composed of specialists who were entrusted with organizing the employment of labor on the German pattern? Please answer.
SAUCKEL: I did not quite understand the question. Please repeat it.
M. HERZOG: I shall repeat it. Apart from your representatives—apart from the services that we have been talking about—did you not create, in France particularly, commissions composed of specialists who were entrusted with organizing the employment of manpower on the German pattern?
SAUCKEL: I told my defense counsel yesterday about my collaboration with French units for...
M. HERZOG: That is not what I mean. I am talking about commissions composed of specialists. Do you not remember that in order to insure the recruiting of manpower in France you thought of the system of attaching two French départements to a German Gau?
SAUCKEL: I remember now what you mean. This was the system of adoption arranged in agreement with the French Government, according to which a German Gau adopted a French département. The main object was to inform the workers, who were to come to Germany, about conditions in Germany and to have mutual talks with the economic offices of the French départements about statistics.
M. HERZOG: I hand to the Tribunal Document Number 1293-PS, which becomes French Exhibit Number RF-1508.
[Turning to the defendant.] This is a letter bearing your signature, dated Berlin 14 August 1943, from which I shall read extracts. The Tribunal will find it in the document book which I handed to them at the beginning of this session. I shall first read the last paragraph on Page 1.
THE PRESIDENT: I am afraid I have not got it—1293?
M. HERZOG: Mr. President, the documents which figure in my document book were handed to the Tribunal this morning—unless I am making a mistake, for which I apologize in advance—in the order in which I intend to use them.
THE PRESIDENT: I have one. 1293. Is that right?
M. HERZOG: I have attached a slip only to those documents which I think I shall use several times, so that the Tribunal may find them more easily. May I now begin to read?
THE PRESIDENT: I am sorry but the documents had not been handed up to me, that is all. None of them had been handed up.
M. HERZOG: I am reading at the bottom of Page 1:
“The solving of these two great manpower problems demands the immediate setting up in France of a stronger and better German labor organization possessing the necessary powers and means. This will be done by a system of sponsorship by Gaue. France has got about 80 départements. Greater Germany is divided into 42 political Gaue, and for the purposes of manpower recruitment it is divided into 42 Gau labor office districts. Each German Gau labor office district will take over and sponsor, say, two French départements. Each German Gau labor office will furnish for the départements it sponsors a commission of specialists, made up of the ablest and most reliable experts. These commissions will organize the allocations of labor in these sponsored départements according to the German pattern.”
I skip one page and continue reading at the bottom of Page 2 of the French text. That is Page 3 of the German translation:
“There is no doubt that this projected system of sponsorship by Gaue for the employment of French manpower in Germany, and especially the transformation necessary in the interest of Germany of French civilian workers for the German armament industries, will bring about enormous advantages in France herself compared with the present system.”
I am passing to the bottom of Page 3 of the French text, and I read under “d”:
“The Central German Labor Office in Paris, that is, the representative of the Plenipotentiary General and his office...”
You told me a short while ago that the German offices for the recruitment of labor in the occupied territories were not under you as Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor, but under the local authorities. How do you explain this sentence?
SAUCKEL: It can be explained very simply. These men were subordinate to the military commanders in the labor department. They were sent from Germany, and they were taken from the labor offices and put into the administration.
M. HERZOG: You say, “The Central German Labor Office in Paris, that is, the representative of the Plenipotentiary General and his office...” The Central German Labor Office in Paris was therefore your representative?
SAUCKEL: The Central German Labor Office in Paris was a part of the civilian administration of the military commander in France. This is not expressed in this sentence, for it was taken for granted in this letter that the Gauleiter knew this. The position as I explained it is entirely correct.
M. HERZOG: I shall continue reading:
“The Central German Labor Office in Paris, that is, the representative of the Plenipotentiary General and his office, will therefore have in the whole of France a reliable apparatus which will make it a great deal easier for him to solve his problems in France, in spite of any possible or even real passive resistance on the part of the higher or lower French bureaucracy.”
I skip two lines.
“I have, therefore, charged the presidents or the provisional chiefs of the newly formed Gau labor offices to set up a corresponding organization in the départements which they are sponsoring; and I request you, in your capacity as my Plenipotentiary for the Allocation of Labor, in agreement with Reichsleiter Bormann, to promote and give your fullest support to the new task allotted to your Gau labor office. The president or the provisional chief of your Gau labor office is instructed to keep you informed of all details concerning the carrying out of these measures.”
Are not these measures an attempt to subordinate French territory to German territory as far as the organization of labor is concerned?
SAUCKEL: Yes. But I should like to ask you and the High Tribunal to allow me to say the following in explanation: On the first page, Paragraph 1—I quote from the third line—it says, “...with the full consent of the Führer I am to take far-reaching and urgent measures in France in negotiation with the head of the French Government and the competent”—now comes the important part—“German authorities;”—that is, the military commander’s department, in which these labor authorities and this delegate were incorporated and to whom they were subordinate.
And on Page 4, I should like to read about the special purpose of this system of sponsorship which should have nothing unfriendly about it. I read from Page 4 in the German text, under the letter “a”:
“Prejudice, suspicion, lack of care, failure to redress and look into complaints”—that is, complaints by the workers—“which are prejudicial to the employment of manpower in Germany, all these things can be very largely eliminated by the relations between the Gau and its sponsored département.”
Now I read under letter “b”:
“Every French worker in such a département knows exactly where and under what conditions he will have to work in Germany. German propaganda and explanatory material will tell him about the locality in which he will have to work and about all matters which are of interest to him.”
And that was the purpose of that arrangement. It was something I wanted to do for the French workers, besides looking after German interests.
M. HERZOG: Please answer me “yes” or “no.” Was this arrangement an attempt to bring about a joint administration between the French départements and the German Gaue as far as the employment of labor was concerned? Answer me “yes” or “no.”
SAUCKEL: No. I should like to give an explanation to this negative answer. The purpose of this arrangement was to clear up unsolved problems between the French Government, between the French départements, between French industrialists and factories, on the one hand, and the administrative offices in Germany where the French workers were to be employed. That was the real purpose—to settle complaints and clear away mistrust.
THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now.
[A recess was taken.]
M. HERZOG: Defendant, is it true that your Codefendant Göring placed under your control all the organizations of the Four Year Plan which were concerned with the recruiting of labor?
SAUCKEL: The various organizations of the Four Year Plan which had to do with manpower were dissolved. Departments 3 and 5 of the Reich Ministry of Labor continued to deal exclusively with these matters.
M. HERZOG: Is it true that the powers of the Reich Minister of Labor concerning the employment of labor were transferred to you and that as a result of this transfer you had powers to issue regulations and laws?
SAUCKEL: Only insofar as the work of Departments 3 and 5 were connected with my own task. Otherwise the functions of the Reich Ministry of Labor remained independent under the Reich Minister of Labor.
M. HERZOG: But within these departments you exercised the powers of the Reich Minister of Labor after your appointment as Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor?
SAUCKEL: Within my office as Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor. But I must emphasize that these departments were not under me; they were merely at my disposal. Great importance was attached to this difference at the time. The departments continued to work independently within the whole framework of the Ministry of Labor.
M. HERZOG: But as a result of this situation you exerted administrative autonomy in matters concerning labor?
SAUCKEL: Not an autonomy; it was done by vote. I could not issue decrees, but could only give instructions. In every case I had to get the agreement of the other administrative authorities and Reich ministries, and the agreement of the Führer or of my superior office.
M. HERZOG: Did you not have carte blanche from the Führer for the recruiting and the utilization of labor?
SAUCKEL: Not for recruiting and utilization, but for guiding and directing. If I may express it in this way, it was never a case of the workers’ agent—that is, of course, what allocation of labor really means—employing these workers himself. The firms employed the workers, not the agent.
M. HERZOG: For the recruiting of labor you had carte blanche from the Führer. Is that not true?
SAUCKEL: Not absolutely, and only after there had been a vote and after the agreement of the regional authorities concerned had been obtained, especially in the case of foreign countries. I never recruited workers in France without the express agreement of the French Government and with their collaboration. The French administration was used here.
M. HERZOG: Defendant Sauckel, you have on several occasions mentioned the agreements and arrangements made in France with those whom you yourself call “the leaders of collaboration.” You know better than any other that these leaders of collaboration, imposed upon France by the enemy, bound themselves only and that their acts were never ratified by the French people as a whole. Besides, these leaders of collaboration, whose testimony cannot be suspect to you, have themselves revealed that pressure was exerted upon them, and we will discuss that now. Is it true that on 16 April 1942, that is to say, less than a month after your appointment, you stated in a letter to the Defendant Rosenberg—which states your program and which was presented to you yesterday—that you included the recruiting of foreign workers in your program for the utilization[*] of labor?
SAUCKEL: I resent the term “exploitation.”[*] By strictest orders from the Führer, it is true that recruitment of foreign workers had to be included in my program.
* The word utilization used by the French prosecutor was wrongly interpreted into German as “Ausbeutung” meaning “exploitation.”
M. HERZOG: Is it true that you included the recruitment of foreign workers in your program of 16 April 1942? You admitted this yesterday, and I ask you to confirm it.
SAUCKEL: Yes, it is true. I only emphasize that I did it on the strictest orders from the Führer.
M. HERZOG: Is it true that this program of 16 April 1942, that is to say, 3 weeks after your appointment, already contained the principle of forced recruiting?
SAUCKEL: It was done by express order of the Führer, in case voluntary recruitment proved to be inadequate. I said that yesterday to my counsel.
M. HERZOG: Do you remember the decree that you issued on 29 August 1942? This decree dealt first and foremost with the employment of labor in occupied territories—Decree Number 10 of 22 August by the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor. It was submitted to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number RF-17 (Document Number RF-17). Do you remember it?
SAUCKEL: I do remember Decree Number 10.
M. HERZOG: Was this decree applicable to the occupied territories which were under German administration?
SAUCKEL: As far as I can remember—I have not the exact wording and the separate paragraphs before me—it dealt with the regulation of working contracts drawn up by German firms. The purpose was to prevent a muddle.
M. HERZOG: Is it true that you went on a mission to Paris in August 1942?
SAUCKEL: That is possible; but I, of course, cannot remember the individual dates.
M. HERZOG: Is it true that you went on a mission to Paris in January 1943?
SAUCKEL: That is also possible, even probable.
M. HERZOG: Is it true that you went on a mission to Paris in January 1944?
SAUCKEL: Also probable, yes; but I do not know the individual dates.
M. HERZOG: You therefore went on missions to Paris before the French authorities, the French de facto authorities, had published the legislative decrees of 4 September 1942, 16 February 1943, and 1 February 1944. Is that not true?
SAUCKEL: I did not understand your question exactly.
M. HERZOG: I asked you whether it is true, that before the French de facto authorities published the three fundamental laws on forced labor of 4 September 1942, 16 February 1943, and 1 February 1944, you went on missions to France, to Paris?
SAUCKEL: I only went on journeys to Paris for the purpose of negotiating with the French Government, and I want to add that for me and in accordance with my convictions...
M. HERZOG: Do you admit that in the course of these missions you imposed on the French authorities the laws on forced labor?
SAUCKEL: It is not correct to put it in that way, rather...
M. HERZOG: You therefore contest the fact that the laws on forced labor were issued under pressure by you?
SAUCKEL: I dispute the word “pressure.” I negotiated most correctly with the French Government before such laws were published. I expressly resent the word “pressure,” and there were plenty of witnesses during these negotiations.
M. HERZOG: Do you remember the telephone conversation that the Defendant Speer had with you from the Führer’s headquarters on 4 January 1943?
SAUCKEL: Yes, I probably had several conversations with Speer. I do not know which particular conversation you are referring to.
M. HERZOG: Do you not remember a note that you sent to your various offices as a result of this telephone conversation of 4 January 1943?
SAUCKEL: Yes. Quite probably I did make several notes. I had to make notes when I received a telephone conversation containing an instruction.
M. HERZOG: I now submit Document Number 556-PS, which has already been submitted to the Tribunal under the Exhibit Numbers USA-194 and RF-67. I will read that document, or at least its first paragraph:
“On 4 January 1943, at 2000 hours, Minister Speer telephoned from the Führer’s headquarters to inform me that according to the decision of the Führer it is no longer necessary, when engaging skilled and unskilled labor in France, to show any special consideration for the French. Emphasis or more severe measures may be used in order to recruit labor.”
I ask you, Defendant, what you mean when you say that it is not necessary to show any special consideration for the French?
SAUCKEL: This note or rather this decision did not come from me. This was a communication which came from the Führer’s headquarters, based on a decision made by the Führer. In spite of that—and I want to emphasize that particularly—my attitude towards the French Government did not change, and it does not say so in this record either. I continued to adopt the same polite attitude in my negotiations with the Government, and I ask the Tribunal to be allowed to make a short statement on how these negotiations with the French Government were conducted.
M. HERZOG: You will give it later in your examination. Do you remember the discussion that you had on 12 January 1943, at the German Embassy in Paris, with the French authorities?
SAUCKEL: As far as I know, I only talked to French ministers in the German Embassy in Paris.
M. HERZOG: That is exactly what I am asking you. Do you remember this conversation that you had with the French authorities on 12 January 1943?
SAUCKEL: Not in detail, no; but that I did negotiate is possible.
M. HERZOG: Do you remember the persons who took part in this conversation?
SAUCKEL: Yes. Usually the French Premier, the French Minister for Labor, Minister Bichelonne, took part in such discussions. On the German side, the Ambassador; on behalf of the military commander, Dr. Fischer; and, as my representative, probably Dr. Hildebrandt or some other gentleman.
M. HERZOG: And you do not remember what Laval said to you at this meeting of 12 January 1943?
SAUCKEL: Very many matters were discussed in great detail during these conferences, and I do not know what you mean.
M. HERZOG: Well, I will submit to you the minutes of this meeting. It is Document Number F-809, which I submit to the Tribunal under Exhibit Number RF-1509.
In the course of this discussion Laval made a long statement to you; more exactly, several statements.
THE PRESIDENT: Where shall we find this?
M. HERZOG: It is in my document book, Mr. President. It must be marked with a slip 809.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh yes, I have got it.
M. HERZOG: First, I read Page 7 of the French text and of the German text:
“Gauleiter Sauckel demands a further 250,000 new workers. Gauleiter Sauckel knows very well—and his offices have certainly informed him about this—the difficulties which the French Government had in carrying out the program last year. The Gauleiter must realize that as a result of the number of prisoners of war and workers who are already employed by Germany, the sending of another 250,000 workers will increase even further the difficulties of the French Government. I cannot conceal these difficulties from the Gauleiter, because they are evident; and the Germans who are in Paris know these difficulties. When the Gauleiter replies that they have had to overcome the same difficulties in Germany and when he even states that French industry must be expanded, it seems to me that I must remind him that Germany not only demands workers of France, but is also beginning to take away the machines from factories in order to transport them to Germany. France may have nothing left, but until now she still had her means of production. If these too are taken from her, France loses even her possibilities for working.
“I do everything to facilitate a German victory”—and you see Laval could hardly be suspect to you, Defendant—“but I must admit that German policy makes heavier demands on me nearly every day and these demands do not conform to a definite policy. Gauleiter Sauckel can tell the German workers that they are working for Germany. I cannot say that Frenchmen are working for France.
“I see that in many fields the French Government is not able to act. One would almost believe that on the German side they set no value on the good will of the French and that they are bent on instituting a German administration throughout France. My task is being made more difficult every day. It is true that I do not allow myself to be discouraged; but I consider, however, that it is my duty to remind the Gauleiter of the gravity of Franco-German relations and of the impossibility of continuing along this path. It is no longer a matter of a policy of collaboration; rather, it is on the French side a policy of sacrifice, and on the German side a policy of coercion.”
I pass to the next page, Page 11:
“The present state of mind in France, the uncertainty concerning the means which the French Government possesses, the half-freedom in which it finds itself, all these do not give me the necessary authority to furnish Gauleiter Sauckel with an immediate reply. We can do nothing. We are not free to change salaries; we are not free even to combat the black market; we cannot take any political measure without everywhere coming up against some German authority which has substituted itself in our place.
“I cannot guarantee measures which I do not take myself. I am persuaded that the Führer is unaware that the French Government cannot act. There cannot be in one country two governments on questions which do not concern directly the security of the occupation forces.”
I skip two more pages, to Page 18; and I read only this sentence:
“It is not possible for me to be a mere agent for German measures of coercion.”
That is the document which I submit to you, Defendant, and I ask you two questions concerning it.
The first question is: What did you answer to Laval when he made this statement to you?
The second one is: Do you not think that here there is proof of the pressure which you dispute?
SAUCKEL: To begin with, if the Tribunal would permit it, I should have to read my reply to Premier Laval. The document proves, and this has been confirmed to me by Premier Laval on various occasions, that I conducted my negotiations with him in a proper manner; and in spite of the fact that I had orders not to conduct political conversations but only to deal with my actual task, I always reported to the Führer about these matters. But I think that the tone of my reply was definitely beyond reproach. These negotiations which I conducted...
M. HERZOG: That is not the question that I asked you. I asked you what you answered him when he made that statement to you, when he said to you, for instance, that it was not possible for him to be a mere agent for German measures of coercion.
SAUCKEL: I would have to read my answer. I cannot remember it now.
M. HERZOG: Do you therefore dispute the fact that this represents pressure?
SAUCKEL: Premier Laval did not complain about me in this connection. He complained about general conditions in France, because this was the time of occupation. The situation was that there was a German occupation. It was war.
M. HERZOG: Well, I am going to submit to you Document...
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, regarding this document, I should like to draw your attention to an error of translation which will lead to considerable misunderstanding. According to this document it says that the recruitment could be approached with emphasis and more severe measures, and the word “emphasis” has been translated by “pressure” in the English. But that is not meant. It is not “Druck,” pressure; it is “Nachdruck,” emphasis. That means that the next in authority can be approached with energy.
THE PRESIDENT: I am told that the translation we have got is “emphasis.”
DR. SERVATIUS: “Pressure.”
THE PRESIDENT: I am told the translation is “emphasis.” No, no, the translation is “emphasis.” It is in this document, and the translation in English is “emphasis.”
DR. SERVATIUS: Oh, I had the French translation.
M. HERZOG: I am going to submit to you Document...
THE PRESIDENT: Is this document in the PS series?
M. HERZOG: No, Mr. President, it is a new document which I am submitting now, a French document which will bear Exhibit Number RF-1509 (Document Number F-809).
THE PRESIDENT: Where did this document come from?
M. HERZOG: That document comes, Mr. President, from the archives of the Majestic Hotel in Paris, where the German offices in Paris were located. Some months ago these archives were found again in Berlin, and we have extracted the Sauckel documents.
I submit to the Tribunal the certificate of authentication for the Sauckel files, as well as for the documents which I intend to submit to the Tribunal in the course of my cross-examination. Perhaps, as the document is in French, the Tribunal would like me to read it.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, read it, will you? You mean this procès-verbal? What is this procès-verbal? Who is it identified by?
M. HERZOG: This procès-verbal is identified by two persons, by Commandant Henri, French liaison officer at the American Documentation Center in Berlin, and by my colleague, M. Gerthoffer, who, with Commandant Henri, took these archives.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps you had better read this procès-verbal so that it will go into the record.
M. HERZOG: “I, Charles Gerthoffer, Deputy Prosecutor at the Court of the Seine, on duty with the International Military Tribunal for the Major War Criminals, having gone to Berlin to the offices of the Ministerial Collecting Center, Commandant Henri, Chief of the French Mission, gave to me, with the authority of Colonel Helm of the American Army, Chief of the 6889 Berlin Collecting Center, seven files from the archives of the German military command in France concerning forced labor and registered at the M.C.C. under the following numbers: 3 DS, lumbers 1 to 213; 4 DS, Numbers 1 to 230; 5 DS, Numbers 1 to 404; and two appendices; 6 DS, Numbers 1 to 218; 7 DS, Numbers 1 to 118; and one appendix; 1 to 121; 50 DS, Numbers 1 to 55; 71 DS, Numbers 1 to 40.
“I declared to Commandant Henri that I took the said files in order to submit them to the International Military Tribunal for the Major War Criminals so that they might be used in the course of the proceedings and that they will thereafter be delivered to the French Ministry of Justice, whose property they remain.
“There are five copies of this document, one of which is to serve as an affidavit for the International Military Tribunal for the Major War Criminals.”
Signed, “Charles Gerthoffer,” and Signed, “Henri.”
This represents the certificate of authentication of the files themselves.
I have a second certificate...
SAUCKEL: May I make a remark regarding the first document, please?
M. HERZOG: I would ask you not to interrupt me.
THE PRESIDENT: M. Herzog, the documents came from the Hotel Majestic, did they?
M. HERZOG: Yes, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Hotel Majestic was the place where the...
M. HERZOG: The place in Paris where the offices of the German military command in France and the various occupation offices were located. These documents, which had vanished at the time of the liberation, were found again at the Ministerial Collecting Center in Berlin. The document which I have just submitted to you is the certificate of authentication of these files, and I also have the certificate of authentication of the documents which I have extracted from these files and which I am now ready to read to the Tribunal, if the Tribunal so desires.
THE PRESIDENT: The Hotel Majestic was the place where the German military government was established in Paris; isn’t that right?
M. HERZOG: Yes, Mr. President, if I am not mistaken. Does the Tribunal desire that I should read the other certificate of authentication, that is to say at least in part—the one concerning the document itself?
THE PRESIDENT: I thought you had already read it.
M. HERZOG: No, Mr. President. I am submitting to the Tribunal two certificates of authentication. The first, the one which I have just read, is the certificate of authentication of seven files which contain a very large number of documents. From these seven files we have extracted only a certain number of documents which we are submitting to the Tribunal; and that is why, after having presented the certificate...
THE PRESIDENT: The second document only says that the documents which you are submitting are documents which came from those files?
M. HERZOG: Yes, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: And the files themselves came from the Hotel Majestic, which was the place where the German military administration was carried on. Will you put the second document on the record?
M. HERZOG: Yes, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you offering in evidence the original German documents?
M. HERZOG: Yes, Mr. President.
[Turning to the defendant.] Since you still deny the pressure that you exerted on the government, I will submit to you Document Number 1342-PS.
SAUCKEL: I think that an error in translation has been made here. I understood that you asked whether I denied that I was putting pressure on the Tribunal. I respect this Tribunal too highly to try to exert pressure upon it. I do not understand the question. I understood you to ask me whether I denied that I exerted pressure on the Tribunal; and, of course, that question I have to answer with “no.”
M. HERZOG: I said this to you: Since you deny that you exerted pressure on the French authorities, I will submit to you a new document. It is Document Number 1342-PS which has already been submitted to the Tribunal under Exhibit Number RF-63. This document represents the minutes of a meeting which you held on 11 January 1943 in Paris with various German occupation authorities. Do you remember that on that occasion you made a declaration concerning your relations with the Vichy Government? I will read this declaration to you. It is on Page 4 of the French and German texts.
SAUCKEL: Unfortunately, I am not able to find it.
M. HERZOG: I will read the declaration:
“The French Government...”—It is the last paragraph but one before the end of Page 4.—“The French Government is composed of nothing but adepts at temporization. If the first 250,000 workers had arrived in Germany in time, before the autumn—the negotiations with the French Government having already been begun in the preceding spring—we might perhaps have been able to recruit key men in the Reich earlier and form new divisions; and it might then not have come to the cutting off of Stalingrad. In any case, the Führer is now absolutely decided to rule in France, if need be even without a French Government.”
When you made this declaration, did it not reflect the pressure which you were exerting on the French Government?
SAUCKEL: This is not a conference with the French Government. This is a statement of facts.
M. HERZOG: I did not say that it was a conference with the French Government. I asked you what you meant when you stated that the Führer was determined to rule in France, even without the French Government. Was that not pressure?
SAUCKEL: That was a straightforward decision and a statement from the Führer, for which I am not responsible. I merely repeated it, and in any case it was never realized.
M. HERZOG: Why did you transmit it to the occupation authorities in France in the course of a conference that you were holding with them concerning the recruitment of labor?
SAUCKEL: Because it was my duty to give a description of the situation as I saw it at the time.
M. HERZOG: But do you not think that, in expressing to them this declaration of the Führer, you were using it to exert pressure?
SAUCKEL: I could not exert any pressure by that, because this was merely transmitting a statement of the situation. I did not tell the French Government that the Führer would remove them and that therefore they would have to do such and such a thing. I merely negotiated.
M. HERZOG: But you did state, and I ask you to confirm it, you did state in the course of that conference that the Führer had decided to rule in France, if need be, even without a French Government?
Did you say that? I ask that you answer me “yes” or “no.”
SAUCKEL: Yes, I repeated that, but not with the intention of doing that.
M. HERZOG: Do you remember the discussion which you had on 14 January 1944 in Paris with various German personalities?
SAUCKEL: Yes; it is possible that I had a discussion there at that time, but I cannot remember at the moment what it was about.
M. HERZOG: You do not remember a discussion which you had on 14 January, and you do not remember the German personalities who were present, at this meeting?
SAUCKEL: Probably there were several conferences, but I cannot tell you now which one you are talking about. Neither do I remember, of course, what the actual subjects of the discussions were.
M. HERZOG: On 14 January 1944 you had a conference in Paris with Abetz, Von Stülpnagel, Oberg, and Blumentritt. Do you remember that in the course of that discussion you submitted to your listeners the draft of a law which you had drawn up and which you wanted to impose on the French authorities?
SAUCKEL: I was not trying to impose it. I was trying to discuss it. I was negotiating. I was not trying to impose it upon them. The wording of the minutes shows that quite clearly.
M. HERZOG: Do you dispute the fact that you yourself drafted a law which you transmitted to the French Government?
SAUCKEL: No, that I do not deny. That I submitted such a draft law and that I drafted it, I do not deny.
M. HERZOG: You do admit then that you yourself drafted the text?
SAUCKEL: Yes, but I cannot tell you which one you mean.
M. HERZOG: I submit to you Document Number F-813, which I put in under Exhibit Number RF-1512. It is the minutes of this meeting of 14 January 1944, Document Number F-813. These minutes are signed by Abetz, Oberg, Von Stülpnagel, Blumentritt, and you. I read from Paragraph III the heading: “The Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor”—which was you—“has drawn up a draft law for the French Government.”
Do you still dispute the fact that you yourself drew up draft laws which you submitted to the French Government?
SAUCKEL: That I do not deny; I had to submit a proposal. However, it was based on mutual negotiations.
M. HERZOG: Do you deny the fact that you imposed this law by pressure?
SAUCKEL: That I imposed this law by pressure, that I do deny. I negotiated about it.
M. HERZOG: Do you not remember that you gave an account to the Führer of the mission which you carried out in Paris in January 1944?
SAUCKEL: It was my duty to report when I made such journeys for I was carrying out the Führer’s orders.
M. HERZOG: I submit to you this report, Document Number 556-PS, which was submitted to the Tribunal under Exhibit Number RF-67. Twice in the course of this report you speak of German demands. Do you not think that to give an account to the Führer of German demands having been accepted is to give an account to him of the success of the pressure which you exerted?
SAUCKEL: I cannot conceive in what other way a basis for negotiations could be found. The German Government made demands, and because of those demands there were negotiations with the French Government which had to be considered by me as de jure.
M. HERZOG: Do you admit, therefore, that the German Government and you, who were its agent, were making demands? Please answer “yes” or “no.”
SAUCKEL: The German Government was making demands; yes, that is true.
M. HERZOG: Thank you. And those demands, did they not, at times, take the form of a veritable ultimatum?
SAUCKEL: I am, not aware of that. I can only say that I was very polite and accommodating when talking to the French Premier and that our negotiations ran very smoothly. He often mentioned that, and it is in the record.
M. HERZOG: When you took action concerning the mobilization of the 1944 class, do you not remember that you demanded this mobilization in a veritable ultimatum? Answer “yes” or “no.”
SAUCKEL: I cannot say so from memory.
THE PRESIDENT: M. Herzog, I think you might put to him the last sentence in the letter of the 25th of January 1944, 556-PS.
M. HERZOG: “I have, however, allowed no doubts to remain that further and more severe measures will be taken if the demands for the transfer of workers is not met.”
SAUCKEL: Yes, I probably said that, though not in the form in which it is put down in this letter.
M. HERZOG: Do you remember that on 6 June 1944, the day of the dawn of our liberation, you addressed a letter to Ambassador Abetz?
SAUCKEL: I cannot tell you that from memory.
M. HERZOG: Well, I am going to produce this letter. It is the French document, Number F-822, which I submit to the Tribunal under Exhibit Number RF-1513:
“6 June 1944. Paris.
“Your Excellency and dear Party Comrade Abetz:
“The long-expected invasion has finally begun. Thus ends also for the Allocation of Labor a period of waiting which up to now has served as an obvious, sometimes tacit, pretext for saying that the sending of workers into the Reich was impossible owing to the political atmosphere in the country.”
I skip a few lines and I quote again.
“Now that the German soldier must once more fight and bleed on the Channel coast, now that the struggle may extend at any hour to many other parts of France, any call or any words from Laval can have no weight whatsoever. The only language which can now be understood is that of the German soldier. I beg you, therefore, in these decisive hours to ask Premier Laval at last to do something which is obviously very difficult for him; that is to say, that he should at last sign the order for the calling up of the 1944 class. I do not wish to be kept waiting any longer. Neither do I wish to leave with an opinion which might be unjust but which at the same time is forced upon me, concerning the temporizing tactics of the French Government.
“I beg you, therefore, most urgently, to obtain by 10 o’clock tomorrow morning the signature of the French Premier to the decree for the calling up of the 1944 class, or else to inform me quite clearly if Laval should answer with a categorical ‘no.’ I will not accept any delaying excuses, as all technical preparations regarding the quotas from the départements, as well as the arrangements for transport, have either been made or are now about to be made, thanks to the joint discussions which have been going on.”
Do you not call this a veritable ultimatum?
SAUCKEL: It is only an ultimatum insofar as my departure was in question and nothing else. I could not exert any pressure on Laval or use any threats.
M. HERZOG: What did you mean when you said:
“I beg you, therefore, most urgently to obtain by 10 o’clock tomorrow morning the signature of the French Premier to the decree for the calling up of the 1944 class, or else to inform me quite clearly if Laval should answer with a categorical ‘no.’ I will not accept any delaying excuses...”
Is that not an ultimatum?
SAUCKEL: It is only an ultimatum insofar as I could not wait any longer. I had to leave, because I had orders to leave. I was trying to get a decision, a “yes” or “no,” nothing else.
M. HERZOG: And to demand an answer “yes” or “no”—you do not consider that an ultimatum, Defendant Sauckel?
SAUCKEL: I had to leave, and I wanted a decision as to whether the French Premier would sign it or not.
M. HERZOG: Thank you. The Tribunal will, I am sure, note your answer.
Do you know how many French workers were deported to Germany as the result of your various actions?
SAUCKEL: As far as I can remember—I cannot say exactly offhand—there were 700,000 to 800,000 French workers employed in Germany. However, I cannot tell you exactly without documents.
M. HERZOG: Is it correct that in Belgium and in Northern France the deportation of workers for forced labor was regulated through laws of the army of occupation?
SAUCKEL: I do not know about it being through the laws of the army of occupation but through labor administration.
M. HERZOG: Is it correct that it was the decree of 6 October 1942 which instituted forced labor in Belgium and in Northern France?
SAUCKEL: We called it “compulsory labor service” in German law. That is correct.
M. HERZOG: Is it correct that General Von Falkenhausen, the German Military Commander in Belgium and in Northern France, who signed the order of October 1942, did so under pressure from you?
SAUCKEL: No, he did not sign it under pressure from me, because I talked to him about it and there was not any argument. This was done at the request of the Reich Government and the Führer.
M. HERZOG: I submit to you the interrogatory of General Von Falkenhausen, who testified before a French magistrate on 27 November 1945. I submitted this interrogatory under Exhibit Number RF-15 (Document Number RF-15) in the course of my presentation in January. I read from Page 1. Question 3:
“Question: ‘Will you swear that you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?’
“Answer: ‘I swear.’
“Question: ‘On 6 October 1942 there appeared an order which instituted compulsory labor service in Belgium and in the departments of Northern France...’ ”
I skip two lines.
“Answer: ‘I was Commander for Northern France and Belgium.’
“Question: ‘Does the witness remember having promulgated this order?’
“Answer: ‘I do not remember exactly the text of this order, because it was drawn up after a long struggle with Sauckel, the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor.’
“Question: ‘Did you have any difficulties with Sauckel?’
“Answer: ‘I was fundamentally opposed to the institution of compulsory labor service, and it was only after having received orders that I consented to promulgate the decree.’ ”
Do you still deny that General Von Falkenhausen issued this order under pressure from you?
SAUCKEL: I deny the version as it is put before me now, emphatically.
M. HERZOG: You dispute the testimony of General Von Falkenhausen?
SAUCKEL: In this version, yes, because the institution...
M. HERZOG: This statement was given under oath, and your testimony today is given under oath. The Tribunal will take note of it.
SAUCKEL: I say with full consciousness that to the best of my recollection this version is not completely correct. Laws regarding labor in occupied territories were not made on my order but on the order of the Führer, and I did not have any argument about it with General Von Falkenhausen. We discussed it in a very friendly way, and he introduced the law. I do not remember having had any difficulties in this connection. And in another paragraph he states here that at that time he gave all his instructions on Hitler’s orders. I myself had neither arguments nor difficulties with him.
M. HERZOG: Is it correct that in Holland the deportation of Dutch workers for forced labor was under the jurisdiction of the Reichskommissariat?
SAUCKEL: Please, would you hear the Defendant Seyss-Inquart about that? The expression jurisdiction is entirely new to me. In France, Belgium, and Holland this matter was dealt with through the administration of the labor departments, that is to say...
M. HERZOG: Who signed the orders concerning forced labor in Holland?
SAUCKEL: I assume that Herr Seyss-Inquart did.
M. HERZOG: Is it correct that the orders signed by the Defendant Seyss-Inquart constituted only a local application of the general program which you were charged with carrying out?
SAUCKEL: A local application in Holland? I do not quite understand it the way it is put in German.
M. HERZOG: Is it not correct that by signing the orders concerning forced labor in Holland the Defendant Seyss-Inquart was but implementing your program of forced labor?
SAUCKEL: It was a realization of the Führer’s labor program as he, the Führer, had ordered it.
M. HERZOG: Did you go to Belgium or to Holland in order to control the implementation of the laws on forced labor?
SAUCKEL: Not to control. I was in Belgium and Holland only for a very short time. I had conferences there with the leading men, and according to my recollection I visited the labor authorities in Antwerp and saw how they functioned—the German ones.
M. HERZOG: And in the course of these journeys you were preparing detailed measures for the implementation of the labor program, is that not true?
SAUCKEL: I did not draft them during those journeys; I discussed them there. Of course, I did some work while traveling.
M. HERZOG: I submit to you Document Number PS-556, Exhibit Number RF-67. It is a letter which you wrote to the Führer on 13 August 1943. In this you declare, Paragraph 1 of the letter:
“My Führer,
“I take the liberty of informing you of my return from France, Belgium, and Holland, where I went on official business. After difficult and lengthy negotiations I have imposed upon the occupied territories of the West, for the 5 last months of the year 1943, the program which is indicated below; and I have also prepared detailed measures for its implementation—in France through the military commander, the German Embassy, the French Government; in Belgium through the military commander; and in Holland through the offices of the Reich Commissioner.”
Do you still dispute, Defendant, the fact that you went to Belgium and Holland in order to prepare detailed measures there?
SAUCKEL: I have never denied that, I would like to say that I do not resent the expression, but only the way you present it now and then. It says quite clearly that they were discussed there; that is what is meant by preparation.
M. HERZOG: One last question on this matter: What is your estimate of the number of Dutch workers who were deported to Germany?
SAUCKEL: I cannot tell you exactly from memory how many Dutch workers were employed on the basis of contracts with them and on the basis of these laws. Maybe there were 200,000 or 300,000, maybe more. I cannot tell you offhand what these Dutch figures were.
M. HERZOG: Thank you. Is it correct that the forced recruitment of foreign workers was carried out with brutality?
SAUCKEL: Regarding the instructions which I issued, that was discussed adequately and clearly yesterday. My instructions are available practically in their entirety, and discountenance any brutal recruitment which...
THE PRESIDENT: Defendant, you were not asked about your instructions, but you were asked whether brutality was shown. If you know, you can answer.
SAUCKEL: I cannot know. From time to time I heard about excesses, and I stopped them at once, and I protested against them when I heard of them.
M. HERZOG: Did you have knowledge of protests concerning the manner in which the recruitment of workers was carried out in the occupied territories?
SAUCKEL: I received protests, and that was discussed yesterday with my counsel.
M. HERZOG: And when you received those protests, what did you do?
SAUCKEL: I had those cases investigated and left any further measures to the authorities concerned. I did everything on my side to prevent and stop such occurrences, and that can and will be testified to here.
M. HERZOG: Is it correct that you appealed for the help of the Wehrmacht to insure the recruiting of foreign workers?
SAUCKEL: In those areas where the Wehrmacht exercised jurisdiction I passed on to the military commanders or commanders-in-chief, through the Quartermaster General of the Army, the instructions I received from the Führer.
M. HERZOG: Is it correct that you asked the military authorities to put troops at the disposal of your offices and services?
SAUCKEL: I have no recollection of troops, but there were labor detachments there. It is true that in areas where there were uprisings or partisan fighting I asked that order be restored, so that the administration which had been disturbed or interrupted could be resumed.
M. HERZOG: You therefore asked that troops should be put at your disposal?
SAUCKEL: Not at my disposal. It was not my task to bring order to those areas. I explained that it was essential for the fulfillment of my own tasks and that I could only carry them out if proper administration were once more made possible by the establishment of order; it was not for recruiting purposes.
M. HERZOG: Did you not ask that those troops should participate in the tasks assigned to the service for the recruitment of labor? I submit to you Document Number F-815, which I put in under Exhibit Number RF-1514. It is a letter of 18 April 1944 from General Field Marshal Von Rundstedt and addressed to you. I read the first paragraph of it:
“On the part of the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor...”—that is you, is it not?
SAUCKEL: That is I, but there was another department in France, too...
M. HERZOG: “....the request was made that the Commander, West should be approached to the effect that in sectors where there are units belonging to the Commander, West, the commanders of these units should receive orders to support the execution of the tasks assigned to the Allocation of Labor by making troops available.”
Do you still deny that you requested that troops should be put at your disposal?
SAUCKEL: I personally did not ask for them. This appears to be the administrative office West.
M. HERZOG: Are you not the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor?
SAUCKEL: Yes, but this order is not known to me personally.
M. HERZOG: Do you know whether this request was seconded by the Defendant Speer?
SAUCKEL: I cannot tell you.
M. HERZOG: I submit to you Document Number 824-PS...
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps you better put that off until after the adjournment.