Q Then follows Exhibit 1526 PS, Exhibit No. 25, a latter from the Ukranian Chief Committee addressed to tho General Government originating from the north of February 1943, again dealing with tho deficiencies in the East, which Sauckel's treasures had caused. Did you receive that report or did it come to your knowledge at tho tine?
A No.
Q Then follows Document No. 1130 PS, Exhibit No. 25. Those are notes and reports about a speech made by Gauleiter Koch at Kiev dated 5 March and 11 April 1943. Did you hoar anything about tho speech made by Koch or did you have detailed knowledge of it at the time?
A No.
Q Then I turn to Document 407 II PS, a letter from Sauckel to Hitler dated 10 March 1943, again dealing with recruitment difficulties of labor in the former soviet Territories. Did you receive it?
A No.
Q Next is document 019 PS Exhibit No. 27, dated March 17 1943, a letter from Sauckel to Rosenberg regarding replacements of Eastern laborers. Did you got knowledge of it? Did you receive it?
A No.
Q Document 3012 PS, Exhibit No. 28, an order from a certain Mr. Christiansen dated 19 March and 11 March, respectively, addressed to all group loaders of SD dealing with deficiencies in Eastern territories. Did you got knowledge of it?
A No.
Q Exhibit No. 2220 PS, Exhibit No. 29, is a report from Lammers to Himmler dated April 12, 1943 dealing with the situation in the Government General and containing suggestions regarding, alterations, including dismissal of Frank. Did you previously gain knowledge of it?
A. No
Q Document 407 V IS, Exhibit No. 30, a report from Sauckel to Hitler, dated 15 April 1943, in which he reports to Hitler about his activities and particularly reports about the fact that statutes should be applied to the Belguims similar to these applicable to the French, and also all the foreign labor ho had brought to the Reich. Did you gain knowledge of the report at the time?
A No.
Q Then follows 2280, Document 2280 PS, Exhibit 32. That is a letter dated 3 Hay 1943 from the Reich Commissioner for Eastern territories dealing with the recruitment of labor in the Baltic states. Did you gain knowledge of it at the time?
A No.
Q Exhibit No. 31, photograph of the work done by Russian prisoners of war on ammunition works. Did you ever see such photographs?
A Neither did I see the photograph nor did I see it in reality.
Q Did you never hear of it that Russian prisoners of war were carrying ammunition and had to load aircraft and had to do similar work?
A It isn't known to me. When I visited an airport with bombers in it I never saw Russians who worked on these aircraft in any way, be it with ammunition or be it with bombs. I did see aircraft being loaded. That was always done by special employees, German soldiers of the airforce.
Q Document 407 IX PS Exhibit No. 33 a letter from Sauckel dated 3 June 1943, addressed to Hitler, again do-ling with the situation of foreign workers, in connection with whom ho reports all the things that he did in the first five months cf 1943 and whom ho brought to Germant. Did you hear of this report at the time?
A No.
Q With reference to this passage I want to put a question to you. The assertion has boon made that Sauckel had currently made reports to you about his activities, about the bringing into Germany of foreign workers, for instance. Is that correct or is it not?
A That is wrong. I only saw Sauckel in the framework of the Central Planning Board on individual meetings. He never once came to my office, and I myself never went to his. Nor could I tell you today where it was. I don't even know where he had his offices.
Q Didn't you receive written reports from him?
A I never saw a written report from him.
Q Do you know wheter your office would have received such a report and whether you had a verbal report about that?
A My own office certainly never received suck a report. Whether the statistical personnel department in the GL did receive suck matters is something I do not know. They certainly weren't put before me.
Q Reports about the receipt o such?
A I did not receive them.
Q Document 3000 PS, Exhibit No. 34, a report from the chief of the loading department 3 attached to the Supreme Commander in Minsk, addressed to a certain Mr. Reichert, dated 28 June 1943, dealing with political and economic problems in the East, particularly in White Russia. Did you over receive that report or did you over get knowledge of it?
A No.
Q Document 265 PS, Exhibit No. 35, a memorandum dealing with an oral report of a Mr. Luose (?) to Rosenberg, dealing with the situation in the district of Shitemir in Russia. Did you over got knowledge of that memorandum?
A No, and I would like to add to that that this applies to the period right up to the beginning of this trial.
Q. Document 3010-PS, Exhibit 38, a secret organizational order dated 17 August 1943, from the Economic Supervisory Department regarding recruitment of labor for the Reich, Did you gain knowledge of it?
A. No.
Q. What is the position - a number of documents I have Put to you have been described as "secret". Could you possibly ever reach them in your department or were they only secret within the actual sphere of activity which they concerned?
A. No, that differs. "Secret" means that they weren't allowed to reach the public anywhere. Such, also, when the heading was "secret", were treated in a special way, militarily speaking; that is, because they went through a special registry department, and that civilian departments would also write "secret" also. What they mean by that - how they treat it - that is something I don't know. We didn't call it "secret". We called it "Secret Command Matter" and whenever it says just "secret", then it is probably from a civilian source.
Q. Document 290-PS, Exhibit No. 37, a letter from Rosenber's ministry dated November 12, 1943, regarding the burning down of houses in the district of Lille. Did you hear about it at any time?
A. No.
Q. Did you hear at any time anything about the fact that Sauckel, as punishment for the failure to report for work, had houses burned down?
A. No.
Q. Document 1702-PS, Exhibit 37, dated November-December 1943, a report about the evacuation of Cassatine. Did that cone to your knowledge - that report?
A. No.
Q. Document 1913-FS, Exhibit Number 38-A. It is an agreement reached between the general plenipotentiary for labor - that is, Sauckel - and the German Labor Front regarding the welfare of foreign labor, which appeared in the Reich Law Gazett in 1943. Was this agreement communicated to you, or did you gain knowledge of it?
A. Yes, I know it as far as its contents are concerned, but the text was not submitted to me.
Q. What do you mean, "as far as its contents are concerned"?
A. I knew that for the improvement of the lot of all foreign workers in Germany, it being high from the point of view of welfare and entertainment, cinema, music, theater, and such like, and better equipment of camps with furniture and so on. Ley, with his Labor Front, had intervened and that this sector, which had until then been dealt with by Sauckel along, and which wasn't functioning too well, was taken over.
A. What was the impression you had of this decree? Was it meant to improve it or make it worse?
A. Since the German Labor Front in Germany was doing a great deal of good work on behalf of the workers, we were most pleased since a demand of ours which we had often made for better welfare for foreign workers was thus taken care of. However, industry, during occasional visits, had drawn our attention to the fact that such questions of entertainment and improvement were lacking a great deal in many places, and industry alone was not in a position to alleviate it in a sufficiently strong way.
Q. Document 204-PS, exhibit Number 59, a memorandum dated 18 February 1944, from the Municipal Commissioner at Kauen, originally called Kowno, regarding the supply of workers from there to the Reich. Did you gain knowledge of that memorandum?
A. No.
Q. Document R-103, Exhibit No. 40, a letter from the Polish Chief Committee to the Governor General Frank, dated 17 May 1944, dealing with the position of Polish workers in the Reich. Did you ever receive that letter - gain knowledge of it?
A. No.
Q. Did you, around about that time, not hear about it - that in Poland conditions were frightful?
A. No.
Q. Document 254-PS, Exhibit 41, dated 7 June 1944, is a letter from Rapp to the Reichminister for the Occupied Territories, who was Rosenberg, dealing with the burning down of houses in the Rasivkow district. Did you gain knowledge of it?
A. No.
Q. I shall now turn to Document 3721-PS, Exhibit Number 41A. That is an interrogation of Sauckel on the 22nd of September 1945. It is on page 180 of the English Document Book. He makes the following statement; namely, that the Fuehrer had given him the task that all questions from the Central Planning Board should be complied with without question so that the Central Planning Board would, therefore, have some sort of authority to give orders to him. And he says it was decided in the Central Planning Board that their workers in various departments would be dealt with by Milch or Speer, Speer for agriculture. I don't want you to go into this in detail; we shall have to speak about this at great length. But when going through these exhibits, I should like to have a brief answer from you regarding the correctness of this statement. I think we shall go into it in detail at another point.
A. These statements are wrong.
Q. There are similar passages where it is again and again asserted that since the Central Labor Board made decisions to the effect that Speer would get a hundred thousand, Milch would get a hundred thousand people, and so on and so forth. Is that correct or incorrect?
A. No, it is incorrect.
Q. Regarding the remaining exhibit in those two volumes, 1-A and B, I don't think I need come to them since they deal with affidavits; for instance, from a certain Deuss, dealing with the approximate numbers, or a report from the Senate of the 79th Congress for cruelties in concentration camps, and all these are natters, of course, which were only compiled in this form after the war. I shall now turn to Document Book 2A, Your Honors, and I turn to Document NOKW 311, Exhibit 61, which is Goering's interrogation on the 6th of September 1946.
Witness, once again I shall only put to you individual statements and I should like you to tell me with reference to those passages, briefly, whether the versions are correct or not. Page 44, 2B, Goering's statement at that point that you had made requests - on orders by Speer, who in turn would make these requests to Sauckel, You make them to Speer, he made them to Sauckel. The version which we have there -
DR. BERGOLD: This, Your Honors, is the 8th document in Document Book 2-A; the interpretation of it on page 20 - on page 34. It is NOKW, on page 44-
MR. DENNEY: Your Honors, that is the first page of Document Book 2B.
BY DR. BERGOLD:
Q. Is that a correct statement, such as he gave?
A. No, it is wrong. It is untrue. Goering didn't have the slightest idea of the organization of his own ministry.
Q. Witness, he states that if you had ever been having difficulties in getting workers, then you had gone to him and he always supported it. Is that correct in that form?
A. That is correct; that on a few occasions, and always when he had been making, raising accusations against me to the effect that our armament was lagging behind its program, and when I was giving him as the reason the lack of workers, I would tell him these workers never got to us. And then he would say that Sauckel had supplied them, that he had no idea about it.
I told him that I could only find out what the industry had reported to me as the actual strength which I think was done month by month, and I could gather from that, I said, that the number of workers had never increased.
He wouldn't have it; he wouldn't believe it, and he was going to talk to Sauckel. But usually I never had another word about it.
Sometimes, of course, he used to say that he was going to see to it that we would receive these workers in our industry. But then again I couldn't 1860-A judge that because I only knew the total figures which were available.
Q. He then went on to say that you had boon his deputy as State Secretary, firstly, during his absence and, secondly, in a number of spheres which he left to you. Is that correct or not correct?
A. It applies correctly until the summer of 1937 -- the general deputizing in the Air Force I am talking about. After that it is no longer correct. Automatically I became his deputy in my own sphere of work if he did not carry out his offices, but since he retained his position when he was on holiday, for instance, then it was only the ordinary deputy's work in my own spheres of work, dealing with all questions where he had given me an independent position. What this amounted to was that he was informed through me about all important questions. He never gave an order--something which he had expressly reserved to himself--to the effect that I was to be his deputy.
Q. Witness, I shall now go ahead a number of documents, and I shall turn to NOKW 247, Exhibit Number 61, which is this power of attorney, this authority which Goering is supposed to have given you in 1944. It is in Document book 2-C. I shall have it put to you.
MR. DENNEY: Document book 2-C
A. May I ask whether we have an original or a photostatic copy of this?
Q. That I do not know. Maybe Mr. Denney can clear up the situation, namely, whether there is an original of this draft.
MR. DENNEY: It would be with the Secretary General, whatever we've got.
Q. As far as I know, an original is not in existence.
A. I wanted to see the numbers it had so that I could see where it originated and who wrote it.
DR. BERGOLD: Perhaps the General Secretary could be asked to have Exhibit Number 61 sent to the courtroom, and I shall in the meantime ask about various other exhibits that I have to deal with.
I am now taking about Exhibit Number 61, and perhaps, witness, you will retain it for the moment.
BY DR. BERGOLD:
Q. I shall now pass on to Gearing's testimony in NOKW 311. There it is stated that Hippke had been under you directly in his capacity as Inspector General and that Hippke had simultaneously been under the command of the General Staff. Is that correct in that form?
A. No, it is not correct in that form. During peace time Hippke was under my command. Sometime at the beginning of the war his subordination was altered. Later by error I had the view that he had immediately been transferred under the command of the General Staff, but that was not correct. This occurred only at the beginning of 1944 and applied only to his successor. During the war and at the time which is interesting in connection with these experiments, he was under the Air Chief, first of all, General Ruedl and later General Foerster.
Q. I should like you to find the last document in the book which you have before you. This is the second book of the Prosecution, and, please, will you look at NOKW 287, Exhibit Number 49. It is a letter dated 8 April 1943 which you are supposed to have written to Goering and Sauckel. It is on page 176, page 101 in the English document book.
A. I have found the letter.
Q. Will you define your attitude, please?
THE PRESIDENT: First, did he write the letter? Did you write the letter?
A. I consider that a possibility. I have no recollection of it, but I consider it a possibility that I signed it. According to the file reference, it comes from the Planning Office of the GL, and I have no reason to doubt that I signed it.
Q. Witness, you are saying, then, that you did not draft tho letter?
A. Well, naturally, this is a smaller department which, insofar as its work was concerned, had also to deal with the protection of industries.
Q. What are we concerned with is the case of this industry protection? Did that mean that that was in charge of the supervision of foreign workers and prisoners of war?
A. We called it "Plant protection", and it had nothing to do with it. These plants were naturally separated by a surrounding wall. You could get in through the entrance only. There had to be a guard at each entrance, and that guard used to examine passes of all those who entered, because certain secret articles were being manufactured in those plants, and you just couldn't walk in as you might into a public place or an ordinary house. That was one part of those people.
Then inside all these plants there wore other special departments needing protection, such places, for instance, as those which were carrying out new developments. They, in turn, wore once more separated from the rest of the plant. Everyone who was allowed to enter such a secret place had different passes, passes with a different color.
Now,for instance, if I visited a plant, then I was let through tho first gate very simply by virtue of the fact that one of the higher officials of the plant used to receive me, but if I wanted to enter the secret departments--and they were, of course, distributed over various parts of the plant--then I had to show special passes. I remember it in detail. It used to be a red pass. Only a limited number of them had been issued.
In certain plants there were even departments where not even I could enter, and that was my own industry. That was a special order which came from Hitler.
All these fences, or whatever they were,were guarded by sentries, just as we have a sergeant standing at the door here to examine the passes of the Americans,too, when they want to enter here.
These same people were also responsible for supplying the fire fighting squad of the plant, and that fire fighting squad, according to the number of air bombing attacks, was becoming more important and was being employed more frequently and had to be increased in numbers. likewise, every plant had air raid shelters, and those air raid shelters had to be taken care of. There was technical equipment in them, special ventilation equipment, heating equipment, and such like, and that question too, was taken care of by this plant protection squad. Those were the only purposes which they served.
Let me add that prisoners of war, if they were working in a plant, used to bring an officer from their camp and some arms, and according to instructions, an armed officer would have to be present when, theoretically speaking, only one prisoner of war was sent there to work. Only the army was concerned with that type of supervision. Foreign workers who were civilians were not guarded at all.
Q. Witness, you will remember that a French witness testified here and said that during transports and in various camps he had been guarded. He did admit later on that he wasn't.
A. The way I understood his testimony was that he was guarded during his transport and in the first camps he was in, which were under Sauckel's jurisdiction. That is before he was sent into plants.
At any rate, I do not know that a single civilian worker was guarded at any time, nor have I ever during a single visit to a plant seen anything like that.
Q. When you were traveling through Berlin, did you observe that foreign workers were freely running about in the streets? Did not Eastern workers at one point wear special badges on their clothes? I mean the Ukrainians, the White Russians, and so on.
A. It is true that there were badges, colored badges, the colors of their national flag, I think it was. I think it said "East" on some of then at the beginning. I knew that they were going about freely. I saw it, and I know from my family that they wore sitting next to then in the pictures. I myself never wont to a cinema during the war, and, therefore, I can not give you an impression of my own.
Q. Witness, such guarding of plants where military arms were being produced, according to reports from your agents --was not that carried out in hostile foreign countries?
A. Yes, and as far as we were concerned, that eas the situation in peace time. I know such an institution from the British aircraft industry, and I do not believe that it was over handled differently in the States either. That is a. perfectly normal procedure -- that every plant has such protection as I have explained to you. It had to be. It would have boon a frightful omission on the part of some authority if such protection had not been applied, but that docs not apply only to military plants. It applies to every other typo. I know for instance, that a plant like the Siemens Works, which was manufacturing only civilian articles -- and there were lots of plants there -- was similarly surrounded by plant protection, as was any military plant.
Q Witness, I shall now review Exhibit No. 61. It is an authorization from Goering. It is a photostat copy.
A It is the same thing as this other one. You can not tell what, but actually I know of the affair as such. In this is this story.
Q Witness, will you let me have the envelope back again, will you please?
A Certainly, I don't want to keep it. Yesterday I told this Tribunal that on the 20 June 1941 I received the order in Goering's office that I should act as Udet's adviser to something about the supplying of the air armament production. During subsequent days by means of discussions with Udet, I gained a picture of the situation, and how the production situation was under Udet, which came from Udet's description. Udet was telling me of his objection, and he said that he was not getting enough material, and we considered the number of items in detail, that copper was placed in priority in the materials, and consequently he was complaining that he was not able to get a hold of the necessary labor for his factories. Everything, he said, has always been promised and nothing had been kept. Apart from that he said his armament had always been treated as in the last place, and that Hitler with the same principle had always been acting in favor of the Army and the Navy; or, that no one was taking care of the armament for the airforce; that Goering had not been informed as to individual problems, and, that, therefore, when he would bring that subject up with Hitler, he was and always had been told to keep quiet. Minister Todt was still alive at the time, and had much greater influence upon Hitler than Goering, and consequently any support was going through the Army and Navy channels, whereas, he to the best of his ability could not achieve what w as being asked from him. He went on to tell me he wanted to have some sort of authority, or some sort of authorization which would open their door. Consequently we met on 23 June 1941, when we were with Goering, and reported that what Udet had told us. In the end I claimed to Goering that either Udet or I, whoever he wanted, would have to have an authorization by means of which we could assert ourselves against the re-armament of the Army. Goering had bluntly stated, "Put such a paper before me and I will sign it for you."
I got ahold of a legal expert of good standing and asked him to produce an authorization, and I told him in that connection - in that authorization we must have so much that we do that I can arrest the Reichsmarshal himself any time I want to. He laughed at me but he got such a thing for me, and a few hours later it came, and then I put it before Goering. Goering did not read it but he signed it, and I went on to tell him the fact that I would have to be decent enough to point out to him that with that authorization I could not only arrest him but Hitler too, any time I felt like it. He looked at me, and now he read it, and that was the end of that authorization. This had been precisely on 23 June, when he allowed it, and I think it was the next day that he signed it when I put it before him. This authorization had never been, nor was ever meant seriously, because I myself would have probably been arrested if applied, if any one of the things had been tried by me by means of this authorization. This authorization went far beyond what Goering had in the way of power.
Q. Witness--
THE PRESIDENT: Just a minute. When the witness testified about the authorization, the date is not given, or are we to speculate it would have been 1944?
DR. BERGOLD: No.
THE WITNESS: 1941, Mr. President.
DR. BERGOLD: Yes.
THE WITNESS: But it was not dated, you see, because it did not come into force. I don't know where this particular edition of this authorization might be coming from because everything was destroyed at the time. It is only possible that the legal man who wrote it took a copy. Never at any time did this authorization become valid, and, therefore, it was never employed, and I believe the legal expert will understand it better when I say that it would have been an impossibility that any man in Germany could have been given such an authorization.
BY DR. BERGOLD:
Q. Witness, what you want to say is that the authorization had been some "gag" similar to the one which the lieutenants used to play on their captains when they had them sign a death sentence against themselves?
A. Yes, and I know of such a case. What is more, I can give you another example here of a Battalion commander was dismissed one tine and his paymaster was put in a prison for six months. The paymaster had made a bet to the effect that his commanding officer would sign everything for him without reading it. It was a very high bet on it, and this paymaster did win it. It said in the letter "Dear Sir: That I have not read this letter, that if I had read it I would have not have understood it. Signed, Major - " of the Battalion commander. It really had happened, Your Honor.
I would like to add that I was going to write Goering in this connection because he had new to give my authorization. He said, "Now you got my authorization, now you can do everything you want," and we would not have had a moment's peace, either, by showing him that authorization, which could not have had a chance of success, as it could not have been issued by him at all since he could not give such an authorization which went far beyond his own powers. That is the reason why it was destroyed at once. But Goering had his different instructions to the effect that an authorization from him would not be questioned at all for purposes of air re-armament, something which he had been stating before. His strength of poorer at that time was not so strong, although he was at the time acting on his glory, ad arbitrium, that he could stand up against the armament program, or the other branches of the armed forces. In 1944 it had been stated by the prosecution, I should like to remind them that on 20 June 1944 I had been excluded from all armament questions, and that it could hardly be assumed that during those last twenty days one might be given any such an authorization as that.
Q We shall cone to the differences which you had with Goering, which lead to your breach with him, we will come to this later. Witness, I shall have to ask you now in relation to Document No. 1297-PS, Exhibit No. 63, a letter from Sauckel to Lammers, dated March 9th, telling about the recruitment of labor. Do you mind if I have your book. It is page 65 of the Document Book 2-B in English. It is merely a report dealing with labor, which ho applied between 3rd of January and March 1944, totaling three hundred thousand. Did that letter come to your knowledge?
A No. What that is connected with is the Hitler conference on 14 January 1944 and the Central Planning Board meeting after the middle of February up to the 3rd of March, but I did not get knowledge of that letter.
Q Then we have a report from Sauckel, dated 7 July 1944, Exhibit No. 65, Document No. 208-PS. That is again dealing with the labor supply description. Did it come to your knowledge?
A No, I had resigned from that work at the time. I was not there.
Q You were not there and do not know anything about it?
A No.
Q You had nothing to do with the labor question?
A No, I did not have anything to do with the labor question. Even before when I was there, that is, I knew what they were speaking of, I still say no.
Q Then the same applies to Document No. 3819-PS, Exhibit No. 86, and Document No. FA-24, Exhibit No. 87, the one dated 11 July 1944, and other dated 26 July 1944; one is a record by Lammers recording the discussion with Hitler, and the other one from Herr Kluge telling of the recruitment of labor there, but was, I think, after the time of your resignation?
A Yes, both are unknown to me.
Q Witness, I will now enter into the question of what did the Central Planning Board have to do with the labor questions at all?
A. The Central Planning Board had considerable toughness connected with the question of getting hold of raw materials, which was in turn to be distributed by them, and obtaining of raw materials. According to the original Ministry of Economy it went to Speer in the Armament Ministry. On such raw materials depended the armaments of the armament program.
The pacemaker among all these raw materials for the rearmament program was steel, but the pacemaker in turn for steel was coal or coke production. That was the biggest bottleneck, since, unfortunately, during the first years cf the war the youngest and strongest aged groups of miners had been called up for military service. Hitler had given us the order to develop a steel production program amounting to 3.2 million tons per month. This was to be done by Speer, and Speer had succeeded to reach the figure of 2.6 million tons, but that was the maximum. Hitler's armament program, however, had been based on the figure of 3.2 millions. Hitler had demanded these armament programs and the experts had calculated the amount of steel they needed for those programs.
We, in the Central Planning Board discussed the possibilities of getting up to 3.2 million tons of steel, and Speer being the man for that part of the production, ordered the men from the steel manufacturers' union to come and see him in a conference in which all steel problems, through his administration of the industry, were being dealt with. Speer was in agreement with me, this is an aside which I must add, to the effect it was a mistake to direct industry through the state, but that industry ought to govern itself through committees of their own, coming from their own ranks, and then, cf course, these main committees and rings which we have talked about must be understood.
These gentlemen from the Reich's Union, Iron stated that the possibilities existed that 3.2 million tons cf steel could be manufactured, subject to certain conditions. In that connection the main prerequisite was a very much larger allocation of coke. Apart from that they wanted certain additional matters for their own production, some labor too.
I remember the question of smelters which was submitted at the time. I am not an expert, but at that time I did gather that we were concerned with specialists with very considerable ability and knowledge, since otherwise a few handsful of men wouldn't have 1871 a been brought into our conversation.