I skip the end of the page and come to page eight.
"The total result of the Sauckel action is eight hundred thousand predominately men who went to Germany. Only 186, sixty-eight of when came because of compulsory service and of those at the end of January 1944, there were still one hundred twenty thousand left". correct?
A. May I remark in this connection that Ambassador Hemmen at the embassy in Paris was dealing with these questions there and this is correctly stated. At the end I think you were probably thinking of 428,000, not 248.
Q. Yes, 428,000.
A. That is the decisive point, that because of that short duration of contracts for Frenchman who changed every six months, only one half could be there at one time.
Q. Yes, you have already said that.
A. As an explanation I would like the permission totell the Tribunal that if there was a ratio of one to three, meaning that Germany would give one prisoner of war in return for three workers, there there would have, after one and half years, been both prisoners of war as well as the French civilian workers who had replaced them, that they had both already returned to their own country because they only stayed therefor six months.
It was very hard to gain the Fuehrer's permission for that particular arrangement.
DR. SERVATIUS: I have no further questions, Mr. President.
(A recess was taken).
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal with hear some supplementary applications for witnesses and documents at 2 o'clock on Monday.
M. HERZOG: Mr. President, I would like to come back briefly to document D-655, that is to say, to the photograph showing the defendant Sauckel at the concentration camp of Buchenwald. photographs date to a period during the war. Quite to the contrary, the original, whichhas been shown to you, has the date of those photographs and the year is 1938. visited Buchenwald in the company of Italian officers. I don't see a single Italian officer on those photographs; I simply see the Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler. dated from a year other than 1938.
Dr. SERVATIUS: MR. President, I have one last question in connection with document 82 from the document book Sauckel III, at page 206 and the following pages. On page 207 we find a statement under the num ber "3" which I should like to put to the defendant a gain, because the prosecutor for the Soviet Union has stated that Sauckel had declared here that there was no protection against crime. I would like to read the sentence to the defendant again and asking for an explanation. I had quoted it before, but apparently there is a misunderstanding. It is a vary short sentence: "You can ask for any kind of protection from me, but none for crimes." BY DR. SERVATIUS:
Q Does that mean, witness, that you did not grant protection for crimes?
A On the contrary. From that document it can be seen very clearly that I did not tolerate any crime. I did not protect these people who were not subordinate to no when they committed crimes. They were not to do that; that was what I Prohibited.
DR. SERVATIUS: I believe it can be seen very clearly from the wording that the explanationof the defendant as he has just given it is correct.
BY THE TRIBUNAL (MR. Biddle):
Q. Defendant Sauckel, I want to ask you a number of questions. Will you try to speak a little more quietly and will you listen carefullyto the questions and try to make your answers responsive to the questions?
Q First I am going to ask you a little bit about your personnel. You had one large central office, I take it, did you not -- one large central office?
Q How many employees werein that office? Council, Dr. Stothfang, and a -
Q Just a moment; how many? as assistants.
Q Did your inspectors work out of that office? Labor, which had been installed there. That was a special department which was established in the Reich Ministry of Labor at my request. to you, did they? of Labor. I was informed in important cases. The inspectors had the right and the duty to correct bad conditions whereever they found them.
Q How many inspectors were there?
A. There were, in Department 9-
Q. How many in all?
A. There were various inspectorates.
Q. Just a moment, defendant. Just listen to the question. I asked how many inspectors there were in all the inspection offices.
A. Could not say about the part the Labor Front played in it from my own knowledge; that would have been a matter for Dr. Ley to speak about.
Q. You know about how many inpsectors were working on the inspection of the labor work. You must know about how many there were, don't you?
A. I cannot give you accurate figures, but it could have been approximately 60 or 70, if you take all of them together including these of the German Labor Front, the DAF.
Q. Did they go outside of Germany, or did they work only in Germany?
A. These inspectors worked primarily in Germany.
Q. And the would inspect such matters as food and travel and conditions in the camps, and so on, would they not?
A. That was their task.
Q. Would the important reports come to you?
A. No. According to an agreement, the reports had to be sent to the highest competent Reich offices, in order to correct these conditions. For conditions in industry or in camps, the Secretary's office had the inspection under Reich Minister of Labor Selte. That was the highest office.
Q. Didn't any of them come to you?
A. These were complaints which were brought before me, but I could do nothing but approach these executive offices and demand that they should do everything possible to correct the situation, and I have done that.
Q. Did the inspectors's reports come to you. That is, any of the inspectors' reports?
A. The reports did not come directly to me; they went, through channels, to those offices which were concerned with correcting the situation.
Q. Defendant, I am asking you not whether they came directly, but did they come to you eventually? Did you get them? Did you see them?
A. Very seldom did such reports come to me.
Q. So you don't know what the conditions were, then, since you didn't get the inspectors' reports; is that right?
A. My assistants and these inspectors, every quarter of a year or half year, were sent by me to the Gauleiters in the various German Gaus, and whatever they discussed there and saw there was reported to me. Those were not of a catastrophic nature, but just short-comings in the execution of the directives which I had issued. I was informed about things of that sort.
Q. So you are telling us that you never not any reports or complaints of a catastrophic nature; is that right?
"catastrophic nature"; is that right?
to me in discussions with Rosenberg. And then immediately I took the necessary measures.
But that was not frequently -
Q (Interposing) Defendant, if you would listen to the question and try to answer it, I think we would get along much faster.
You used the expression "catastrophic nature"; those were your words.
Did you get any reports of a "Catastrophic nature"?
Q Those were what you call "catastrophic" cases?
Q What were they?
movies had been surrounded in the procedure of recruiting. I considered that "catastrophic."
The second case was the case of the transport back, where, dren were alleged to have died on the way, and were outside the trains.
I considered that "catastrophic."
Q (Interposing) You have answered that now.
Did you get any complaints about Koch?
and others received complaints about Koch. Koch disputed that very frequently.
Q Then you had complaints from several people about Koch?
Q And the complaints said what Koch was doing, did they?
Q (Interposing) Now, wait -
A (Interposing) But from some people -
Q (Interposing) You have answered the question now. I did not ask you if you have received many complaints. I said, "The complaints said what Koch was doing." Is that right?
Q And what did you do with those complaints? have been discussed here. I called a conference in my office. That was immediately after the complaints from Rosenberg; and on that occasion I took the position which my defense counsel has quoted from the meeting of the 6th of January and pointed out.
Q And the Koch matter ended after the conference, I take it? That was all you did?
A (No response)
Q That was the end of it as far as you were concerned? on several occasions that I considered it quite impossible to treat the people in the East badly; and on the basis of the decrees which I had issued continuously and which I had put down in my documents, I did whatever I could do in order to prevent these things. I asked -
Q (Interposing) I have asked you about your central office. Did you have any branch offices.
A No, I had no branch offices. But two departments of the Ministry of Labor, 5 and 6, were put at my disposal for the carrying out of my task of an administrative nature.
Q All right. That is enough.
Q (Interposing) Wait a minute. Now, were the recruitment officers in the Ministry of Labor?
A No. In the Ministry of Labor -
Q (Interposing) Never mind. That is all you have to say.
Now, where were the recruitment offices?
Q I understand that. But under what office? What administration? What department? in the administration of these territories, as can be seen very clearly from the decree, because that had been done in the same manner before I came into office. They were an integral part of the local administration.
Q Of the local administration. When you mentioned the 1500 district offices, were those the recruitment offices? which represented the administration on the lowest level.
Q You do not answer the question. I asked you whether they were recruiting offices. Were they recruiting offices?
A They were not only recruiting offices; they were the offices -Dienststellen -- of the local labor administration on the lowest level.
Q They did administration and recruiting?
A (No response).
Q They did recruiting, did they not?
A I understand that that was one and the same. The recruitment, according to German principles, was done as part of the administration. Outside the administration, such a thing could not be carried out.
Q They were recruiting offices, then? The answer is yes, is it not? They were recruiting offices?
Q Right. You should have said that in the beginning. That is what I wanted to know. Now, I want to know the relation of your offices to the party offices. The Gaus and the Gauleiters worked in cooperation with you as plenipotentiary, working with you, did they not?
A No. Your Honor, that is a mistake. The Gauleiters had nothing to do with recruiting.
Q Now, wait. I said nothing about recruiting. I asked you the relation of your offices to the Gauleiters. The Gauleiters cooperated with you in the general program, did they not?
A Not in the general program, your Honor; only in the program of the care for German and foreign workers.
Q I see. The Gauleiters, then, had nothing to do with recruiting; is that right?
A No. That is right. recruited; is that right?
Q In the Reich?
work for you, or do you/consider that theywere part of the Reich?
A (No response)
Q Let me ask the question again. I do not think it is very clear. had they not?
Q (Interposing) Again I am not asking you the number that was incorporated; I just said certain of the occupied territories, certain parts of them, were incorporated into the Reich. Is that right? not, the Gauleiters in those territories which had been incorporated into the Reich; is that right?
A Yes. But they have given up nothing of their functions as Gauleiters. Only they were Reich Governors, Statthalter; that is, when they had a state administration under them, those were two entirely separate machineries with different personnel. in his Gau? Gaus of which we have just spoken?
Q I mean only the Gaus of which we have just spoken. They each had a labor office, did they not? Gau labor president.
Q That is enough. Now,do you know the organization of the Gau in the labor administration? Did they also have a Kreisleiter who attended to the labor work? labor program, then?
A But that was --
Q (Interposing) No, that is all right. recruitment. Who appointed the agents who were to do private recruiting? Who appointed them? Did the employers hire agents to get workmen for them?
A (No response)
Q Do you know what I mean by "private recruiting"?
Q That was done by agents, was it not? Belgium, I permitted that, as an exception, on the basis of the agreement withthese French organizations, agents could be active, and could be used.
Q Again, witness, I did not ask you that at all. You do not listen. I said, who appointed these agents that worked as private recruiting agents? who appointed them? I myself did not know them -- together with the French organizations. That was an arrangement -
Q (Interposing) That is enough. And they would be paid on, I think you said, a commission basis; is that right? They would be paid, in other words, so much per workman? Every workman they brought in, they would get a fee for that; is that right?
A Yes. I do not know the details myself any more, but it is so.
Q Now, I take it when you used the word "shanghai", which you referred to and explained, that simply means private recruiting with force. That is all it means, is it not?
A (No response)
Q That is all it means, is it not? Private recruiting with force?
Q Now, wait a minute. Can youshanghai a man without using force? Did youshanghai them by persuasion ? Did you? wanted to get volunteers: In a friendly way, in a coffee house, a glass of beer or wine was taken, so that it would not be done in the offices. I mean the bad ways of shanghai-ing, which are in my memory from my experiences as a seaman.
It may have been a drastic way of telling, but not a concrete explanation.
Q Oh, I know you didn't order it. That wasn't my question. You mean "Shanghai just meant that you had a friendly glass of wine with a workman and then he join ed up? Was that what you meant?
A I understood it so. In the way in which I have expressed it in the central planning, maybe in a drastic form, in order to bring up some counter arguments against the objections which have been made and to prove that I made efforts.
Q Why did you object to this private recruitment? What was the objection to : about the recruiting of labor of manpower, according to the German principles.
Q Was it contrary to German law?
Q I am not interested for the moment in your convictions. I said, was it con trary to German law? It was, wasn't it. against the law?
A It was generally, against the labor laws. As far as possible. there should not be any private recruitment. But may I say as an explanation, Your Honor, that after the laborer had been won over, the obligation of the State, on the basis of the State contract, still existed. It is not to be understood that the worker in question came without contract into the Reich. That contract was granted to him in the same way as yo everybody else.
Q A laborer that was "Shanghaied" by private agents had the same rights, once he was in the employment, as anyone else; is that what you mean?
Q Now I am going to come to another subject for a moment. I simply want to understand your defense and what your point of view is. Now see if this is correct You did no recruiting yourself. The police did no recruiting. Your main job was, in the first place, to see that everything was done lawfully and legally. Isn't that right, that was your important function? to have the recruiting done the law; that is right, isn't it? That was your job? course. They were just orders that were signed by the Fuehrer or by you or by some of the ministers. When you say "laws",you mean of course decrees?
to be decreed by the Fuehrer and issued by the chiefs in the territories. simply had to get certain decrees signed; that was part of your duty, to get them signed?
Q I didn't say you signed them. I understand that. You have explained that in great detail. Now let's see where the police come in. They had nothing to do with the recruiting. Once a decree was signed, it became law, didn't it? When a decree was signed it was law?
Q And when any man resisted being brought in as a workman or didn't register or didn't live up to his contract, he became a criminal; that is right, isn't it
A He perpretrated the law. We did not call it a crime.
Q But he broke the law?
Q He didn't commit a crime. Did he or did he not commit a crime? Supposing a man failed to register when he was told to register for work, was that a crime?
A No, that was not a crime. We jusy called it a perpretration in Germany. police; is that right?
A Not immediately, not at once; but he was, in an administrative way, through the Labor Office there, he was requested to -
Q Well, you explained all that. He got three or four days and then if he didn't finally register, for the perpretration he was turne over to the police; is that right? There were various-ways -law that that was when the police came in. The police were there simply to see that the law was not broken; that is right, isn't it? That was their function?
Q Well, why do you always say "it was not my task"?
I didn't ask you if it was your task. I am just talking about the police; I am talking about you. Now when those labor decrees were violated, then it was, at a certain time, the police began to function; isn't that right? physical resistance, then the police had to be called in, didn't they? If there was physical resistance you had to call in the police, didn't you?
A Yes, but I can say that that was hardly ever reported to me. Mostly, one did not do it. It can be clearly seen from the lists of the workers transports for instance, in the year 1944. of the large program not ten per cent came to Germany and we had no other way -
Q You have given all that evidence before. I just want to get a picture of the whole system. Now the army, I think you said, the role the Army played was where there had been sabotage or resistance in the occupied territories the Army would have to clean that out so that the Labor Administration could work. That would be right, wouldn't it? by resistance movements, not only in the field of manpower but also in other functions where the public safety of German troops could not be guaranteed -
Q I am not interested in other functions. I am interested particularly in the field of manpower at this time. So that, for instance, In Poland or Russia, where it was impossible to recruit people on account of the resistance to the recruiting or the resistance to the Army. then the Army would go in and help with the recruiting. It wouldn't be unfair to say that, would it?
Q That is right. By the way, did any of these workmen who resisted or who broke the law or who did not register after three days, were they ever tried by court or were they simply handled by the police if necessary? They were never tried by court, were they?
A That I could not tell you in detail or in general. There Were various methods used. I could not say that in detail.
Q Well, let's get that in particular. Did any of your decrees provide for trial by a court of such persons?
decrees within the territories because I was not the competant authority for that
Q All right. I am not very clear on this picture of camps. Let's look at that for a moment. Where were what you called I think distribution or transition camps, were there not?
Q How many?
Q Do you think there were more than a hundred?
A No, I don't believe that.
Q But perhaps nearly a hundred?
A No, I can't believe that either. I assume -
Q You could give no figure on that? forty.
Q In the Reich?
Q were those transition camps also in the occupied territories, in France? France and how many, that I could not say. There were in the West, along the border, reception stations, and in the East, along the border, there were transition camps, which had as their purpose another physical examination and-
Q I think that is enough. I think you have answered that enough. Now there were also what you called the labor training camps. Do you remember, you said there were also labor training camps?
A Yes. Yes, there were.
Q How many?
Q Maybe fifty or a hundred?
A No. I can not tell you even approximately howmany because I have never seen the list. They were not subordinate to me.
Q Who were they subordinate to? I knew, to Gruppenfuehrer Mueller. were the other concentration camps and so on?
A I have to assume that also but I can't say it because I have never seen any such camps.
Q That would not be improbable, would it?
A No. These camps were subordinate exclusively to the police.
Q To the police. Now who went to the labor training camps?
AAccording to my knowledge, I heard very little about that. People who were sent there were the people who, in many cases, had committed violations of the labor order and discipline in industries and so on.
Q Thank you very much. That is all I want to know about that point. In other words, people who didn't turn up for registration or who broke their contracts were sent for training. Now what was the training? What does that mean "training"? How were they trained?
A That I could not tell you. I assume that they had to work. There was a period of, I believe, from eight days to fifty-six days, I can't say for sure, but I only heard about it in this court room .
Q. You see, you were after all, were you not, Plenipotentiary, so you must have known something about those matters. There wer labor camps as well as labor training camps, weren't there?
A. Yes, there were, and I want to distinguish between them.
Q. I will distinguish. Let me ask you the question. The Labor camps were camps where workmen were sent and housed who were working in industry; isn't that right? There were simply camps where workmen were housed and lived; is that right?
A. Where they lived.
Q. That is right; and the labor training camps were different from the labor camps, weren't they?
A. There were in the first place different. The labor training camps was an institution of the Reichfuehrer SS; the labor camps in which they lived, were established by the industries or by the use of industries where the workers were employed.
Q. So when a man was sent to a labor training camp, he wasn't sent simply to labor, he was being punished, wasn't he, for having broken the law? That must be right , isn't it?
A. To my knowledge, he came into a labor training camp,in order to be trained for the work and for puctuality and so on, and at the same time, it was a punishment for a violation committed by him.
Q. Were there any decrees with respect to the labor training camps, any regulations?
A. I know of no regulation. They must have been issued by the Reichsfuehrer SS and Chief of Police. On my part there were no decrees, no regulations.
Q. So, although part of your duty was to look after the foreign laborers who were brought over here, that stopped after they were turned over to the police and you had no more jurisdiction; is that right?
A. It is right, but in a way I have to correct that. I did not have the task to care for the workers; I only had the task to get the workers to the industries. The supervision about the camps and the care and comforts was in no way my task.
Q. Defendant, we clearly understand that. You had practically no executive functions but you repeatedly said that you passed decrees -- by the hundreds, you said -- for improving the condition of the men. Now, we know that you didn't have the job to feed them or to house them but you did one of your main jobs; one of your main jobs was to try to keep them in as good condition as possible and that was the reason you were interested in any complaints. We all understand that, don't we; that is correct -- one of your functions to do that, wasn't it?
A. It was one part; part of the functions that were taken over by me were not in the mission with which I had been charged, but the complaints with which I was confronted every day were the cojplaints that there weren't sufficient workers available. My task was the guidance and the acquisition of workers but out of my own interests, I pointed out the necessities and the requisites to deal with the care and comfort of the workers.
Q. It was a voluntary job on your part. It wasn't part of your duty but nevertheless you did it. But, now, let me come a little bit to the workers themselves. I think we are very clear or comparatively so as to the numbers that were brought in. I want to know how many were voluntary and how many were involuntary. Now, before you answer that, I mean those workers who were brought in not under any law but simply who volunteered for work of their own accord. There were not very many of those, I suppose, were there?
A. Yes, there were a great many workers who, without legal compulsion but on the basis of propaganda and recruitment, came and on the basis of the facts that in Germany the wages and such things, they were comparatively high and regulated there with a great many workers --
Q. Let us take a look at that. There came a time when the laws applying to German workers were applied to workers for foreign countries; isn't that true?
A. Yes.
Q. I mean, every German had to work, did n't he, under the law? Right?
A. Yes, that is right. Q. And that law was finally applied to foreign workers as well, as you just said Right?
A. That law was also introduced into the Occupied Territories.
Q. For everyone alike. So that after that law was introduced, there was no such thing as Voluntary work because after that law was introduced, everyone had to work, did n't they?
A. Yes, as far as the Occupied Territories were concerned, as far as they were requested, according to the demands.
Q. So when you were talking about involuntary work, that must have applied to the time before that law was passed? Right?
A. Yes; yes, there was, however --
Q. When was the law passed?
A That law, from late Fall 1942, at various dates was proclaimed. I cannot tell the exact dates on the various territories but I ask to be permitted to say that also under this law, voluntary workers till could and did go voluntarily to Germany.
Q. You are right. If they hadn't, they would have none involuntarily, wouldn't they?
A. No.
Q. Why not?
A. Only certain quotas were requested: not all the workers were requested for Germany.