Q I want to ask you especially about the conditions in France.
that was the position of the General Plenipotentiary for Manpower in France? other occupied countries, had appointed special plenipotentiaries who carried out his tasks and demands. Some of the organizations of manpower commitment were in the hands of the military and civil administrations there in the occupied territories.
Q So he did not have an organization of his own?
AAn organization of his own? The first plenipotentiary in France tried to establish an organization of his own, but after a short time Laval met the opposition of German civil administrative offices, and the various offices which he had established were taken over by the military commander.
Q What was the position of the military commander? commitment in has district, and also for the commitment of labor from his district to Germany/
Q What was the position of the German Embassy in that respect? carried out by the General Plenipotentiary or his special plenipotentiaries with French Government offices.
Q What was the part of the French Government in labor commitment? tiary for the carrying out of his programs and ordered their own offices to carry out these tasks. When the labor draft was established in France, it published the necessary decrees and have the necessary directives to the subordinate offices.
Q And who had the executive power to recruit manpower? Was that done by the French or the Germans?
A One has to distinguish between two periods. When it was still a question of recruiting volunteers, until fall 1942, these volunteers could come to German offices as well as to French offices, and also to recruiting offices which had been established by German firms and by parts of the armed forces. After the introduction of the labor draft, the administrative executive power rested only in the French offices.
Q And what happened when somebody did not come as they had been ordered to?
if that proved to be unsuccessful, then the French offices called the French police into action.
Q Were those who did not come brought before the courts?
A I assume that that may have happened. I don't know for certain.
Q German or French courts? to Germany? 1942 -- and that I can say only approximately from memory -
A --- was about 200,000. After the labor draft had been established during 1942, at the same time there were voluntary recruitments to a large extent. The number of volunteers was, at times, much larger than the number of draftees, so that all together, more than half of all labor recruited in France were volunteers. teered. There was no labor draft for them. that the drafting of a large number was only a formality. In reality, those people also had come voluntarily, but for economic reasons or for reasons of consideration for relatives and friends, they wanted it to appear as if they had been drafted. We had draftees who asked for that. Especially during the last months before the end of the war we received such requests at the German labor offices, and the Foreign Office put the request to the General Plenipotentiary to approve such demands, and that happened. such as the surrounding of churches and movie houses in France?
A No, such measures of recruitment are not known to me. I only know that in France as well as in Belgium there were checks made among people of the age groups which had been called in the draft.
Q You probably were in Paris, also, and you spoke with the German officials there, is that right?
A Yes. Every time I was in Paris I saw to it that I spoke with members of our offices about current events.
Q Didn't they tell you about things which should have surprised you? We haddifficulties in special cases. Once it was reported to me that in a camp for people who were about to be transported to Germany, there were impossible conditions. That was reported immediately to the commandant of Paris. Thenit happened again on the occasion of recruitment in another locality, and that was stepped also. there were difficulties about vacations, salaries, and so forth, always which I transmitted to the particular offices.
Q Was that part of your task, to follow through those things?
AAs far as they fell into my field, I took the necessary steps. As far as other departments had to do with it, it was immediately transferred to these departments. duty to be concerned about these things. and statistical control. Questions of housing, pay, and transport were dealt with by other departments. Of course, when I found out about bad conditions it was my duty to investigate them, and in the interest of further recruitment we considered it very important that each one of these perpetrations was stopped, because only then could we be assured of further recruitment. the draft was always considered the last possibility. or your moral duty to worry about these things? Mention has been made of peer conditions on transports. That is why I would like you to tell us how the transports that came from France were conducted and cared for.
A Yes. for the carrying out of transports, the military commander established a special department.
For each individual who went to Germany, it was certain from theoutset to what industry he was to be sent, because the recruiting was done on the basis of contracts, and labor conditions had been worked cut. It was definitely known ever what route he was to be transported. Transports were arranged in such a way that as many people as possible were on the same transports who went in the same direction and to the same firm. of how you conducted these transports and controlled it so that nothing happened on these trips. the last detail records were kept of every person who was supposed to go to Germany. Detailed lists of the persons and firms to which they were sent were made and given to the people who accompanied thetransports to the point of destination, and there they were given to the representatives of the provincial labor offices who had to care for them further on.
Q I should like to put to you a very drastic case. A case has been reported here where a transport was stopped in the Saar district in the winter. The doors were opened after a few days, and most of the people had been frozen to death.
Did you have any control over such transports? Was that supposed to have been reported to you? Is it possible that that was a train which was sent upon your orders? How can you explain that?
A Such an incident would have become known to us immediately. Since the transports had been announced before, we were informed about them immediately. That is, we were informed immediately when transports did not arrive. That happened frequently. If, on account of emergencies en route,transports were stopped, -- for instance, in the last years of the war for the removal of bomb damage or obstructions of traffic -- then we made investigations about the transports, and that was always done.
Q Witness, you must speak more slowly. The interpreters cannot possibly follow.
Will you state your position on the incident which I have des-
cribed, that train with people who froze to death in the Saar District. labor recruits. These transports were well prepared.
Q How do you explain then, the case of that one transport?
A This is the first time I have heard about that. I have heard through the press during the last few months, that the SS also conducted transports to Germany in which such conditions as you have just described prevailed.
Q Witness, were you present during negotiations with Laval?
Q In what kind of an atmosphere were these negotiations conducted? occasionally, especially when promises on the part of the French Government had not been kept, it came to violent disputes. But real difficulties did not obtain in the course of these negotiations. Arrangements were made concerning the number of people who were to be sent to Germany, and Laval and the French people always were willing to put manpower at the disposal of Germany.
Q And what, particularly, was the relation of Laval and Sauckel? Did Laval make favorable statements concerning Sauckel? for France; for instance, the provision for prisonersof war by the Reich as French workers. All these things occurred as have said, in the form of arrangements where one party put labor at the disposal of the other and the other party had granted advantages. Laval stated repeatedly that he would like to do more for Germany and he could do more if he would be granted political advantages. Therefore, he asked the German plenipotentiary repeatedly if he would make contacts with the Fuehrer in order to create a better atmosphere for the further cooperation between France and Germany.
Q Did that friendly atmosphere prevail until the end? of 1944.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, I believe the question of relief and transformation has been clarified considerably, so that it is not necessary to ask this witness any questions about them. BY DR. SERVATIUS:
A I only want to say the following: Of course the military commanders, such as in Holland, would rather accept demands for possession rather than send manpower to Germany, and that led to difficulties, because they had to be persuaded that manpower had to be sent to Germany because of agriculture, which could not be carried out in Holland.
Q Concerning Belgium and Northern France, a few questions: was the position of Sauckel there, the realtion between Sauckel and the local administrations, the same as in France generally; and was everything conducted similarly, or were there any differences?
German plenipotentiary was incorporated into the military administration; that is, he was a part of that military administration. conditions?
A Yes. There were such conditions. So, for instance, I was informed one day that reprisals had to be taken against relatives of people of age groups which had not followed the draft call. We stopped that, partly, in conversations with the representatives of the military commander.
Q And how did Sauckel negotiate with the military commander?
A He presented his demands to the Falkenhausen. Of course, it was also understood that demands be carried out in Belgium, that he understood also that manpower had to be sent, to Germany. However, mostly he tried to protect students and mambers of younger age groups. von Falkenhausen on 27 November 1945. I want you to look at a few sentences. If you take page 2, you find there in the middle of the page -
THE PRESIDENT: What is that number?
DR. SERVATIUS: It is the number R. S. 15. BY DR. SERVATIUS:
Q It is the following questions: "Is the witness in a position to inform us about the limitations of his powers and the competence of Manpower Commitment Administration?" Answer by General von Falkenhausen: "Up to a certain time there was a labor office in my district which was concerned with the recruitment of voluntary workers. I cannot remember the exact date any more. It may have been in the fall of 1942 when that labor office was subordinated to Sauckel; and from then on I had only to carry out the orders received from him." Falkenhausen correct?
A. It is incorrect in several points. In Belgium there was not one labor office but a number of labor offices and also recruitment offices; but these labor organizations from the very beginning were under the supervision of the field commanders in Belgium.
These field commanders' offices were offices of the military commander. A transfer of the task rendered the task for the German plenipotentiary -- not only was it subordinate to him, he only could son his demands, his requests, to the administration of General von Falkenhausen, but not directly to a labor office.
Q What were conditions in Holland? Who was competent for Holland?
Q And there was a plenipotentiary of Sauckel with him? representative of Reich commissioner.
Q Who issued the labor decrees there?
Q And who carried out the recruitment, German or Dutch officials? Germans; the rest of the personnel essentially Dutchment. These offices took the necessary steps for the recruitment.
Q Now, I have one more question concerning Germany. The metal industries were a part of your field, weren't they? the care and comfort of the worker?
A I have not had any unfavorable reports about Krupp. The citizen representative of Germany visited the Krupp Works frequently and reported about the reports and impressions that he had received, and never mentioned anything about the care and comfort of foreign workers; nothing unfavorable. I myself have never come to the firm Krupp during the war.
DR. SERVATIUS: I have no more questions, Witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Do any of the German Counsel want to ask questions?
Prosecution?
M. HERZOG: Mr. President, we still have the same problems here. The Tribunal has already heard explanation on these problems. The Tribunal is in possession of a document which I have submitted and I have, therefore, no questions to put to the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness can retire.
DR. SERVATIUS: Then with the permission of the Tribunal, I call the witness Stothfang.
WALTER STOTHFANG, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows: BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q Would you state your full name?
Q Will you repeat these words after me: truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down.
BY DR. SERVATIUS:
Q Witness, what was your position with Sauckel? assistant.
Q When did you assume that position? had assumed office; that was on the 19th of April, 1943.
Q Was the witness Timm there when you came?
Q The witness Hildebrandt?
Q What orders did you receive when you came? personal orders because his principles could be clearly seen in his decrees and his program, and I only started that work one year later.
Q Before that, had you been in the Labor Ministry?
A Yes, I had been connected with that type of work since 1926; for eight years I was the personal assistant of the State Secretary, Dr.Syrup, in the Reich Labor Ministry.
Q Was that an essential change when you came to Sauckel? entire work and the attitude of Sauckel to the work? principles and decrees, which were not essentially different from previous principles. Practically, of course, as far as the dimensions were concerned, they weren't far beyond anything previously done.
Q Did you work very closely with Sauckel in your field? You were his personal assistant. potentiary for Manpower was concerned, he was not only General Plenipotentiary for Labor Commitment, but at the same time he had remained as personal Referent, or advisor to the Reich Government, and he was Reichsstatthalter for Thuringia. Besides that, during the last year and a half of his activity he was very much concerned with the establishment of an industry in Kala, in Thuringia.
one day a week, and sometimes only a half day.
Q And what was your task as personal assistant?
A We had to handle the incoming mail: we had to go through it and pick out that which had to be reported, as well as the mail which had to be passed on to other departments, and to present new plans to the Plenipotentiary.
Q Who called staff conferences? Do you know that?
Q You participated in all these conferences? returned from inspection trips and reported?
A Later, yes. That happened quite frequently, but more often in the beginning.
Q That you were present, or that inspection trips took place?
Q There were fewer reports made later?
Q What was the reason for that? surprising reports about had conditions in Germany come to your knowledge; that is, as to camps and places of work in industries? inspection trips which I made under orders, that was at once discussed with the competent offices and corrected.
Q Sauckel had to work with a number of offices. Was there a specific amount of opposition against his work?
Q What cases were those?
A For one, the Party Chancellery; and the other was the Reichsfuehrer SS and Chief of the Secret State Police.
Q Do you know of specific cases, speaking of the Reichsfuehrer SS? coming from the East, so far as the principles of the Reichsfuehrer SS were carried out, was contrary to the attitude and the principles of the General Plenipotentiary for labor Commitment. The Reichsfuehrer SS was not inclined to accept the for-reaching, positive demands of the General Plenipotentiary for Labor Commitment. The same was true, in other fields, of the head of the Party Chancellery.
Q What fields were those?
A For example, social security, or social insurance. In that case the Party Chancellery was of the opinion that an equality with German workers in fact, and for political reasons, was not justified.
Q And what did Sauckel say? basis of his principles. In part he was quite unsuccessful, but in part he was successful, after great efforts. practically, was only carried out in March of 1945 by decrees. Labor Commitment send special reports to you, or did you speak to the Gauleiters? the competent Gauleiter of the district cited had to be present, and the current questions had to be discussed with him.
Q Did you take part in meetings of the Central Planning group? the General Plenipotentiary for Labor Commitment. equality was achieved for the Eastern workers with the rest of the workers. Aren't you mistaken? Wasn't it the year 1944? I will put the decree to you
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, I will have it presented to the witness in a moment:
we are looking for it. BY DR. SERVATIUS:
Q What was the relationship between. Speer and Sauckel? Labor Commitment was made upon a suggestion which Minister Speer had made to the Fuehrer.
DR. SERVATIUS: I refer to document 58, in document book number 2, page 167 of the German text, and page 156 of the English text. That is the decree concerning conditions of employment of Eastern workers, of March 25, 1944, and I read paragraph 2:
"Remuneration for work.
"The same wage and salary conditions apply for the Eastern workers as for the ether foreign workers. Eastern workers are paid wages only for work actually done."
THE PRESIDENT: How did the wages compare with, the wages of the German workers?
THE WITNESS: It was a regulation that the German wages for the same type of work should be the basis, in order to avoid additional profits for the industries which read Eastern workers. BY DR. SERVATIUS: Sauckel his position concerning the policies of Sauckel?
Q Can you describe that to us?
A I did not take part in that conference: I only know about it from the description given by my colleague, Dr. Hildebrandt, who participated in that meeting with Gauleiter Sauckel. It was the first meeting between the two gentlemen after Reich Minister Goebbels had become Reich Plenipotentiary for Total War. During that conference Minister Speer was also present, and, in the course of that conference, Minister Dr. Goebbels reproached the General Plenipotentiary for Manpower.-
THE PRESIDENT: He is now telling us, is he not, what Hildebrandt told him?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Hildebrandt has been in the witness box and ha hasn't been asked about it.
DR. SERVATIUS: These two witnesses came only for a very short time, and I ask to be permitted to have this witness say what Hildebrandt told him. a very short time.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, the Tribunal does not think that you ought to be allowed to ask him that question. BY DR. SERVATIUS:
Q. Were there any difficulties with Speer?
A. Not at the beginning. In the course of years, difficulties arose -
THE PRESIDENT: (Interposing) We have had the relationships between Schacht and Speer gone into elaborately.
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes. I will withdraw that question. BY DR. SERVATIUS:
Q. Did you office have anything to do with the commitment of concentrate camp inmates?
A. No.
Q. Did you not receive reports about the fact that manpower disappeared from industry, and then was converted into concentration camp inmate groups?
A. No, I did not receive any reports about that.
Q. Is it known to you that concentration camp inmates were committed in large numbers for work?
A. That was the general practice, to put inmates to work.
Q. You did not receive any reports about that, did you?
A. An effort was made to pain influence to such an extent that reports should be sent to the offices of the labor administration, so that they could be considered in relation to the general manpower commitment. But these report were not received by the labor offices.
Q. Then I have only a few more questions concerning the control offices which had been established in order to investigate conditions among the worker trol system? I am thinking of the office of Ambassador Scapini. How did these offices work? Did you hear anything about it?
A. Nothing was known to me in detail about the offices of Ambassador Scapini. I think this existed, but to my knowledge that office of Scapini was concerned with the care for French prisoners of war, rather than with the care of French civilian workers, because for the latter a special civilian office under the leadership of Mr. Bruneton was established.
But generally there existed a representation of foreign workers within the German Labor Front. However, there were so-called Reich liaison offices which were in existence from the central office through the Laws, all the way down to the lower level, and there were several people employed in each of these liaison offices who investigated and negotiated with the offices of the German Labor Front or other offices of the labor administration.
Q. These were German employees that you mentioned?
A. No: they were foreign employees, in fact, from almost almost all countries.
Q. Within the industries, were there representatives of the workers who had contact as liaison men with the supervisory offices of the German Labor Front?
A. Not to my knowledge.
Q. For the Eastern workers, there also existed a control office. Do you know of that office?
A. That was with the office of Roseberg; and there was a special office for that pupose.
Q. How did that office work? Did you act any information about that?
A. Yes. It had continuous contact with the competent offices of the labor administration.
Q. And whom had this office to contact if it had complaints? The Labor Front, the office of Sauckel, or the office of the Minister of Labor? To whom did they have to go?
A. That depended on the kind of complaints which were to be made.
Q. I will give you an example: complaints about labor conditions.
A. In that case, on had to go first to the local labor office to have the conditions examined and investigated, and to get clarification about the actual conditions.
Q. And if it dealt with questions of housing and nutrition, to whom did one go?
A. First to the offices of the German Labor Front, which, in a decree of the General Plenipotentiary for Manpower -- I believe it was Decree No. 4 -was charged with the care and comfort of workers.
Q. And did the Labor Front report to you?
A. No. They investigated, these things first on their own, and tried with a great deal of confidence to have them straightened out.
Q. Then the Labor Front itself, in fact, acted as the highest authority for questions and complaints about the care and comfort of the workers?
A. If you want to say it like that, yes.
Q. The supervised the treatment of prisoners of war? Was there any complaint department there?
A. No.
Q. Who had charge of that?
A. The high command, of the armed, forces.
Q. The Reich inspectorate was also a control office. What did Sauckel have to do with the Reich inspectorate?
A. That must be an incorrect expression. I do not know what kind of Reich inspectorate you mean.
Q. I mean the inspectorate for the trade.
A. As a matter of principle in Germany, for the conditions of labor in industry, those inspectors for the trade were competent. As far as protection of labor within the industries was concerned, they had to see that decrees issued were carried out. Therefore, in case of complaints, they were competent in that field.
Q. Was Sauckel accused by other offices that he was doing too well for the workers? And was there not a certain amount of envy of foreign workers?
A. Yes. Such accusations or reproaches came from three places -- of course, from the two places that I have mentioned before, in the two instances of the objections and the resistance against demand's which were considered to be going too far, and from the office of Bormann and the office of Himmler. That went so far that the General Plenipotentiary for Labor Commitment was accused of being slightly inclined to bolshevism.
DR. SERVATIUS: Then I have no more questions of this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Do any other defense counsel wish to ask any questions?
(No response)
THE PRESIDENT: Does the prosecution wish to?
(No response)
THE PRESIDENT: The witness can retire.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, I do not know whether the witness Jaeger has arrived yet.
THE PRESIDENT: I am told not.
DR. SERVATIUS: I assume that he will be here by Monday, and I would suggest that I be permitted to submit some more documents, or maybe that I be permitted to use an interrogation of the witness Goetz which is also in the document book, and may be permitted to refer to several Passages. It is a very long affidavit, and it throws some light on the matter.
THE PRESIDENT: You probably have some remarks to make about your documents, have you not, which will take you up until one o'clock?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.
Mr. President: the document book contains primarily the decrees which Sauckel issued, and they are evidence of what has been told here by witnesses and by the defendant himself as a witness. As far as possible, the book is subdivided in various fields: but since the decrees were issued frequently about many fields at one time, that also holds true for the book. I do not want to read in deatil. I should only like to emphasize the decrees about police matters. That is document 6, which is on page 16, Document 10, on Page 22, and Document 14, on Page 25.
THE PRESIDENT: You understand that you must offer in evidence each document or number of documents that you want to put in evidence? It is not sufficient to put it in your document book. So if you state the document which you wish to put in evidence.
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, Mr. President. These documents are contained in a collection of laws and decrees which has already been submitted.
THE PRESIDENT: The whole thing you mean? The whole thing has been submitted?
DR. SERVATIUS: It has as far as I know. That is Document 3044 PS, Enactments, Regulations, announcements.
THE PRESIDENT : Well, probably only a small part of 3044 PS has been read and therefore, unless it is translated into the four languages, it doesn't form part of the record. Dr. Servatius, if you will go into the matter and offer what you want to offer in evidence on Monday morning, that will be quite satisfactory.
DR. SERVATIUS: Very well. Now may I refer to them and then I will present the documents on Monday?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: These enactments of the Reichsfuehrer SS and decrees I have submitted in order to show how, in this difficult field also, an improvement had been achieved. Decree No. 6 was issued shortly before Sauckel came into office and one has to consider that in order to show a fait accomplit. The next decree, that is document No. 10, shows already an improvement. It deals with the barbed wire and the leave that the workers are to be given, and that, of course, is loosened in the next document. Document No. 15, that is Decree No. 4 which has already been submitted, that is probably the most important first decree, which gives the principal outlines of methods of recruitment as well as of transportation and treatment in Germany. Decree No. 16 deals with the commitment of Eastern workers and gives the first principal regulations, because until then a definate legal regulation which would have been uniform did not exist.
Then I come to document No. 19, which is on Page 54 in the English text. That is a decree and a circular letter from Sauckel to the Gau Labor offices and the Gauleiters of 14 October, 1942, concerning good treatment of foreign workers. This letter is an intervention on the part of Sauckel to remove poor conditions and to correct points of view of which he had been informed. I quote here in the German text on Page 19 the following: -
THE PRESIDENT: Well, that document has been quoted already I think, hasn't it
DR. SERVATIUS: In part, the document has already been mentioned.
THE PRESIDENT: Which part has not been quoted?
DR. SERVATIUS: That is Page 53 in my book; in the English text, Page 54.
THE PRESIDENT: Page 54 is only the heading.
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, the heading, the decree and letter of 14 October, 1942, and on the next page the text begins. The first page contains only the heading.
THE PRESIDENT: But Page 55 in the English text, the beginning of the document has already been read.
DR. SERVATIUS: The beginning has been read.
THE PRESIDENT: Then what did you want to read?
DR. SERVATIUS: I should like to read the whole thing in order to show how far Sauckel -
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you see, beginning with the words "if in a Gau didtrict the statement wee recently still made", that has been already, down to the bottom of that paragraph.
DR. SERVATIUS: I have here only a short notation. If it has been read entirely then I do not have to read it again.
Document No. 20. on page 56 in the English document book, deals with the service laibility of foreign female domestic helpers labor draft, where it is pointed out particularly that a forced transfer of foreign workers domestic employment would, not be carried out; which shows again and underlaines the demand made by Sauckel that only voluntary workers should be taken for domestic employment.
Decree No. 21 establishes the work Book. That is in the English text on Page 57. The purpose of the Work Book was such as Sauckel has stated here, to make possible a registration of manpower so that one should not lose control and supervision, and first of all, in connection with that, the Eastern workers should benefit by an allocation of lines such as Sauckel has explained; a central office should be established and, on the basis of that, that should facilitate the transport of the workers back home at a later date.