have been found in a salt mine. Did you have any supervision over the
documents of the Reich Governor’s office?
HOEPKEN: No, I had no supervision over these documents. I just explained
that. For that reason, I could not give any order to remove them. I know
that valuable objects, pictures, and so on, were removed, but much
earlier.
DR. SAUTER: And the other employees of the Central Bureau, were they
Viennese? Did they stay in the office, or what do you know about that?
HOEPKEN: Most of them were Viennese, of course, and probably remained
behind. I shook hands and said goodbye to them, and then we separated. I
also asked whether I could do anything for them, and then I left Vienna.
DR. SAUTER: I have no more questions, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness can retire.
Perhaps we had better adjourn now.
[_A recess was taken._]
THE PRESIDENT: With reference to the application on behalf of the
Defendant Bormann the Tribunal allows witness Number 1, Miss Else
Krüger.
The Tribunal allows witnesses Numbers 3 and 4, Dr. Klopfer and Helmuth
Friedrich.
The Tribunal also allows the witness whose name I have got inserted
instead of Number 2, Christians, I think it was.
With reference to the documents applied for, Numbers 1 to 7, the
application is refused. But the Tribunal will consider any application
for documents which the defendants’ counsel, who may be appointed to
argue the general questions of law on behalf of all the defendants, may
wish to have translated.
Document Number 11 may be translated.
Counsel for the Defendant Bormann may see the documents which are
mentioned under Roman Number III in the application and counsel for the
Defendant Bormann may also use the documents contained under heading
“B.”
The final decision upon the admissibility of all these documents is, of
course, a matter which will be decided at the time the documents are
presented.
There is one other thing that I want to announce, and it is in answer to
the application of Dr. Servatius on behalf of the Defendant Sauckel.
I am told that the witness Timm is in Nuremberg prison. The witness
Biedemann is also in Nuremberg prison. The witness Hildebrandt will
probably arrive in Nuremberg today. His whereabouts had been lost and he
has only just been rediscovered. The witness Jäger is in the British
zone, and the British secretary is trying through the military
authorities to obtain his attendance; The witness Stothfang has not been
located. There appears to be a mistake in the identity of the person who
was reported to the General Secretary previously. The witness Mitschke
has never been located, although every effort is now being made to
locate him.
That is all.
DR. SAUTER: I ask permission to call a further witness, Fritz Wieshofer.
I shall examine this witness only very briefly, because most points have
already been clarified through the other witnesses.
[_The witness Wieshofer took the stand._]
THE PRESIDENT: Will you state your full name?
FRITZ WIESHOFER (Witness): Fritz Wieshofer.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath after me: I swear by God—the
Almighty and Omniscient—that I will speak the pure truth—and will
withhold and add nothing.
[_The witness repeated the oath._]
THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down.
DR. SAUTER: Herr Wieshofer, how old are you?
WIESHOFER: 31 years old.
DR. SAUTER: Married?
WIESHOFER: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: Children?
WIESHOFER: One son.
DR. SAUTER: Were you a member of the Party?
WIESHOFER: I applied for membership in 1938.
DR. SAUTER: You only applied for membership?
WIESHOFER: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: Were you a member of the SS or the SA?
WIESHOFER: I was in the Waffen-SS.
DR. SAUTER: Since when?
WIESHOFER: Since June 1940.
DR. SAUTER: Are you Austrian by birth?
WIESHOFER: I am Austrian.
DR. SAUTER: When did you join the Reich Youth Leader’s Office?
WIESHOFER: I joined Herr Von Schirach on 3 October 1940.
DR. SAUTER: And what did you do before that?
WIESHOFER: Before that I had a temporary post in the Foreign Office.
DR. SAUTER: For how long?
WIESHOFER: Only from May until October 1940.
DR. SAUTER: And before that?
WIESHOFER: Before that I was employed in the Gauleiter’s office in
Carinthia.
DR. SAUTER: Did you have anything to do with the Hitler Youth?
WIESHOFER: No.
DR. SAUTER: In October of 1940, then, you came to Vienna to join Von
Schirach?
WIESHOFER: Yes, to Vienna.
DR. SAUTER: In what capacity did you go there?
WIESHOFER: I went there as Von Schirach’s adjutant.
DR. SAUTER: And what did your duties mostly consist of?
WIESHOFER: As adjutant I was responsible for the handling of the mail,
engagements for conferences, seeing to it that files were presented on
time at conferences, travel arrangements, and so on.
DR. SAUTER: Did you only work for Schirach in his capacity as Reich
Governor, as Gauleiter, or did you act for him only as mayor?
WIESHOFER: I was adjutant for Herr Von Schirach in all his capacities.
DR. SAUTER: Did you also have access to the secret files?
WIESHOFER: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, I shall only have a very few brief questions to put
to you. First of all, I am interested in this: Who was responsible for
the forced evacuation of Jews from Vienna?
WIESHOFER: The forced evacuation of Jews from Vienna, as far as I know,
was handled by the RSHA. The representative in Vienna was a certain Dr.
Brunner, an Obersturmführer in the SS.
DR. SAUTER: Did you often visit Dr. Brunner officially in connection
with the forced evacuation of Jews, and for what reason?
WIESHOFER: In some cases, Jews who were affected by this forced
evacuation made written applications to Von Schirach to be left out of
the transport. In such cases, Von Schirach, through the Chief of his
Central Bureau, took the matter up with Dr. Brunner’s office and asked
that the request of the applicant be granted. I would say that generally
this was done by the Chief of the Central Bureau. I remember two cases
where I myself received instructions to intervene with Dr. Brunner, not
by writing or telephoning, but by going to see him personally.
DR. SAUTER: And what did this SS Sturmführer Dr. Brunner tell you about
what was actually going to happen to the Jews when they were taken away
from Vienna?
WIESHOFER: Dr. Brunner only told me, on the occasion of one of these
interventions, that the action of resettling the Jews would be a
resettlement from the district of Vienna into the zone of the former
Government General. He also told me in what way this was being carried
out. For instance he said that women and small children would travel in
second-class carriages; that sufficient rations for the journey and milk
for small children would be provided. He also told me that these
resettled persons, upon arrival at their destination, insofar as they
were capable of working, would immediately be put to work. First of all,
they would be put into assembly camps, but that as soon as accommodation
was available, they would be given homes, _et cetera_. He also told me
that because of the numerous interventions by Herr Von Schirach his work
had been made very difficult.
DR. SAUTER: Did you, or have you—I will put my next question this way:
Did you ever see an order in which Gauleiter were forbidden to intervene
in any way on behalf of Jews, and did you discuss that order with Von
Schirach?
WIESHOFER: I recollect a written order which we received either at the
end of 1940 or at the beginning of 1941. It stated that “There are
reasons which make it necessary once more to point out,” _et cetera_. It
obviously was a repetition of an order which had already been given. The
purport of the order was that because of certain reasons, Gauleiter were
prohibited from intervening on behalf of Jews in the future.
DR. SAUTER: Did you talk about that with Schirach?
WIESHOFER: I talked to Herr Von Schirach about it.
DR. SAUTER: What did he say?
WIESHOFER: As far as I can recollect, Von Schirach wrote on the order
“To be filed.” He did not say anything more about it.
DR. SAUTER: I have another question, Witness. The Defendant Von Schirach
was once in the concentration camp at Mauthausen. Can you tell us when
that was?
WIESHOFER: I cannot tell you that exactly. All I can say on that subject
is that when I came back from the front—and this was either in the
autumn of 1942 or in June 1943—the adjutant who was on duty at the time
told me that he had accompanied Herr Von Schirach to a concentration
camp, Mauthausen Camp. Some time afterwards—it must have been when I
came back from the front the second time, at the end of 1943—Herr Von
Schirach also told me that he had been to Mauthausen. I only recollect
that he said that he had heard a symphony concert there.
DR. SAUTER: Well, we are not interested in that; we have heard that. I
am only interested in one thing: Did he visit Mauthausen or another
concentration camp again later on? Can you give us reliable information
on that or not?
WIESHOFER: I can give you reliable information on that. That is quite
out of the question, because from November 1943 until the collapse I was
continuously on duty and I knew where Von Schirach was, day and night.
DR. SAUTER: Did he go to Mauthausen again in 1944?
WIESHOFER: No, certainly not, that is out of the question.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, you remember that toward the end of the war there
were orders coming from some source or other stating that enemy airmen
who had been forced to land were no longer to be protected. Do you know
of that?
WIESHOFER: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: That somewhere such orders were issued?
WIESHOFER: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: What was the attitude of Defendant Von Schirach regarding
such orders, and how do you know about it?
WIESHOFER: I talked about these orders with Herr Von Schirach. Von
Schirach was always against the idea contained in the order, and he
always said that these airmen, too, should be treated as prisoners of
war. Once he said: “If we do not do that, then there is the danger that
our enemies, too, will treat their prisoners, that is Germans, in the
same manner.”
DR. SAUTER: Do you yourself know of cases where Defendant Von Schirach
actually intervened on behalf of enemy airmen in that way?
WIESHOFER: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: Will you please tell us about it?
WIESHOFER: During one of the last air attacks on Vienna, in March 1945,
an American plane was shot down and crashed near the headquarters of the
Gau command post. That command post was on a wooded hill in Vienna to
which part of the population used to go during air attacks. Von Schirach
was watching from a 32-meter high iron structure on which he would
always stand during air attacks, and he observed that a member of the
American crew bailed out of the aircraft. He immediately ordered the
commander in charge of this command post to drive to the place of the
landing so as to protect the American soldier against the crowd and
bring him to safety. The American soldier was brought to the command
post and after the air attack he was handed over to the Air Force
Command XVII as a prisoner of war.
DR. SAUTER: When did you leave Vienna?
WIESHOFER: I left Vienna with Herr Von Schirach on 13 April 1945.
DR. SAUTER: On 13 April together with the Defendant Von Schirach?
WIESHOFER: Together with Herr Von Schirach.
DR. SAUTER: Now, this is the last question I have to put to you:
Witness, have you ever heard from Schirach’s lips anything to the effect
that Vienna was to be held “to the last man” at all costs, or that
destruction should be carried out in Vienna?
WIESHOFER: I have never heard him say either the one or the other.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, I have no further questions to put this
witness.
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, do you know the Prater in Vienna?
WIESHOFER: Yes, of course, I am Viennese.
DR. SERVATIUS: What sort of an institution is that?
WIESHOFER: The Prater is, or at least was, a pleasure park.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was it closed during the war?
WIESHOFER: The Prater was not closed during the war.
DR. SERVATIUS: What sort of people used to go there?
WIESHOFER: During the war you mean?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.
WIESHOFER: Workers, employees, civil servants, that is the Viennese, the
whole of Vienna.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you also see foreign workers there?
WIESHOFER: Yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: A great many or just a few?
WIESHOFER: The situation in Vienna was such that we used to say that if
you wanted to go to the Prater then you would have to be able to speak
French and Russian, because with Viennese alone you could not get along.
The Prater was overcrowded with foreign workers.
DR. SERVATIUS: How were these foreigners dressed, badly or well?
WIESHOFER: These foreigners were well dressed, so that you could not
distinguish them from the population. Only when they talked could you
recognize that they were foreigners.
DR. SERVATIUS: How did they look otherwise? As regards food, did they
look starved?
WIESHOFER: As far as I myself could see, the workers looked perfectly
well fed.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did the people have money?
WIESHOFER: They had lots of money. It was known that the “black market”
in Vienna was almost entirely dominated by foreign workers.
DR. SERVATIUS: Could foreigners be seen only in the Prater or were they
to be seen everywhere in the town?
WIESHOFER: Not only in the Prater, but also in the rest of the town, in
cafés, of which there are so many in Vienna, in restaurants, and in
hotels.
DR. SERVATIUS: I have no further questions.
MR. DODD: Whom, besides the Defendant Von Schirach, do you know of these
defendants? And by “know” I mean know personally, or have some
acquaintanceship with the person, or had something to do with the
person?
WIESHOFER: Personally, I only know Herr Funk.
MR. DODD: Do you know Sauckel?
WIESHOFER: Yes.
MR. DODD: Well, who else?
WIESHOFER: I know Herr Seyss-Inquart, but I did not have any personal
dealings with him. I was the adjutant of Von Schirach.
MR. DODD: How do you know Funk?
WIESHOFER: I was invited by Herr Funk a few times. Officially, as
adjutant of Herr Von Schirach, I had some dealings with him, and apart
from that, he invited me several times privately.
MR. DODD: Were you in the SS at that time, when you were invited by
Funk?
WIESHOFER: At that time I was in the Waffen-SS as an officer.
MR. DODD: By the way, when did you first join the SS?
WIESHOFER: I joined the Waffen-SS on 26 June 1940.
MR. DODD: Were you in any other branch of the SS besides the Waffen-SS?
WIESHOFER: I was also in the General SS.
MR. DODD: When did you join the General SS?
WIESHOFER: In June or July 1939.
MR. DODD: So you were actually in the SS from as far back as 1939?
WIESHOFER: In the General SS; yes.
MR. DODD: Now, you also became an SS Obersturmführer at one time, did
you not?
WIESHOFER: Yes.
MR. DODD: When was that?
WIESHOFER: I became Obersturmführer about 21 June 1944.
MR. DODD: When did you join the SA?
WIESHOFER: I joined the SA on 9 May 1932.
MR. DODD: Did you know the Strasshof Camp, S-t-r-a-s-s-h-o-f?
WIESHOFER: This is the first time I have heard that name.
MR. DODD: Well, it may have been mispronounced. It was a camp located
outside Vienna.
WIESHOFER: I do not know which camp you mean. I understood Strasshof. I
do not know of any such camp.
MR. DODD: Yes, something like that. You never heard of that camp?
WIESHOFER: Never.
MR. DODD: And you were in Vienna from what year?—19...?
WIESHOFER: I was born in Vienna.
MR. DODD: Well, I know you were, but I am talking about your service
with the Defendant Schirach. You were there with him for how long?
WIESHOFER: From the beginning of October 1940.
MR. DODD: And you never heard of Strasshof?
WIESHOFER: No.
MR. DODD: Did you have much to do with the files of this Defendant Von
Schirach?
WIESHOFER: Yes.
MR. DODD: What would you say you had to do with them? What was your
responsibility?
WIESHOFER: I merely had to see to it that files were presented in good
time for the conference, and that after they had been used they were
returned to the Central Bureau.
MR. DODD: Where would you go to get a file for Von Schirach that had to
do with the Reich Defense Commission for that district or that defense
district? Where would you go to get a file that had to do with matters
concerning the Reich Defense Commission? Now, let us assume a
situation—let me make it clear to you. Say that Von Schirach tells you
he wants a file about a certain matter that has to do with the Reich
Defense Commission. You had to have it on his desk by a certain hour and
see that it was there, as you say. Tell the Tribunal just what you would
do, where you would go, who you would talk to, and how you would get
that for him.
WIESHOFER: That would be simple for me. I would apply to the Chief of
the Central Bureau, knowing that he would probably have to go to the
Regierungspräsident to obtain that file. That is what I assume. I myself
would only have gone to the Central Bureau.
MR. DODD: You had a central filing place, did you not, for all of your
files, whether they were under the Reich Defense Commission or the
Gauleiter or the civil government of Vienna; is that not so? They were
all kept in one place?
WIESHOFER: They were not all together in one place; only a part of the
files were in the Central Bureau. I cannot tell you which part because I
have never had anything to do with that.
MR. DODD: You left Vienna on 13 April, you say, with Von Schirach?
WIESHOFER: Yes.
MR. DODD: I suppose, as his adjutant, you had to make considerable
preparations for leaving for some days previously, did you not?
WIESHOFER: Yes.
MR. DODD: What did you pack up? What did you take with you?
WIESHOFER: We did not take anything with us from Vienna. Von Schirach
went by car, and the gentlemen on his staff went in two or three other
cars. Nothing else was taken along from Vienna.
MR. DODD: Well, what did you do in the office; how did you leave it?
WIESHOFER: We had not used the office since, I think, the spring or
early summer of 1944, because the “Ballhausplatz,” that is, the office
of the Reich Governor, had a direct hit and Von Schirach could no longer
work there. He was working in his apartment.
MR. DODD: In his apartment? And did he have all his files in his
apartment or somewhere near at hand?
WIESHOFER: He had no files whatever in his apartment. They remained in
the office, in that part of the Reich Governor’s building which was
still being used and in which one could still work.
MR. DODD: Were any files taken out of the filing department of the Reich
Governor’s Office when you left Vienna, or before you left Vienna?
WIESHOFER: I do not know anything about that. I know that an order
existed, both for the State Administration as well as for the Party,
that files must be destroyed when the enemy approached. Whether that was
done or what actually happened to the files, I do not know.
MR. DODD: Who got that order?
WIESHOFER: The order, as far as the Party channels were concerned, went
to the deputy Gauleiter, and as far as the State Administration was
concerned, to the Regierungspräsident.
MR. DODD: Did you also receive an order to start moving your files to
places of safety some time in the spring of 1945 or even the late winter
of 1944?
WIESHOFER: I have no recollection of such an order.
MR. DODD: Do you know that some 250 folders of your files were moved to
a salt mine outside Vienna? Do you know anything about that?
WIESHOFER: No, I hear that for the first time.
MR. DODD: Do you know that there is such a mine near Vienna? You have
lived there quite a while, I gather.
WIESHOFER: No. It is not near Vienna—if I may be permitted to put this
matter right—but near Salzburg; we never lived there. I only know that
this mine exists.
MR. DODD: How far is it from Vienna?
WIESHOFER: Approximately 350 kilometers.
MR. DODD: You do not know anything about any files being taken there.
You are sure about that, are you?
WIESHOFER: I am absolutely certain; I do not know anything about that.
MR. DODD: I have just one other question to ask. I suppose you knew the
defendant pretty well. He is a little older than you, but you had worked
for him for some time. Is that not so?
WIESHOFER: Yes.
MR. DODD: Why did you not join the Army instead of the SS when you
wanted to do something for your country?
WIESHOFER: When I was called up, the Waffen-SS was considered the elite
unit and I preferred to serve in such a guards unit, if I may say so,
than in the general Armed Forces.
MR. DODD: Was it partly due to the fact that you had been in the General
SS since 1939?
WIESHOFER: No. That had nothing to do with it. Many members of the
General SS went to the Forces.
MR. DODD: Did you talk this matter over with your superior, the Youth
Leader Von Schirach, before you joined the SS in 1939, and the Waffen-SS
later on?
WIESHOFER: No. Might I remind you that I did not join Von Schirach until
October 1940, whereas I joined the Waffen-SS on 26 June 1940.
MR. DODD: Yes, but you were, I suppose, a young man and you were in
touch with the Reich Youth organization in 1939 when you joined the
General SS. Is that not a fact? Were you not a part of the Youth
organization in 1939?
WIESHOFER: No. I was not taken into the Youth Officers Corps until April
1944 when I became Bannführer. Before that I had nothing to do with it.
MR. DODD: Well, I do not think you understand me. It is not too
important, but how old were you in 1939? You were 24, approximately,
were you not?
WIESHOFER: Yes.
MR. DODD: And were you not then in some way affiliated with the Hitler
Youth or the Youth organization in Germany, either as a member, or
having something to do with it?
WIESHOFER: No. Neither as a member nor in any other way. Of course I
knew Youth Leaders in Carinthia, yes.
MR. DODD: You were quite a speech maker for the Party, were you not,
during your lifetime?
WIESHOFER: I spoke at several meetings in Carinthia between April 1938
and May 1940.
MR. DODD: At about how many meetings would you say you spoke in that
period of 2 years?
WIESHOFER: During that time I spoke at about 80 meetings.
MR. DODD: Before an average of about, say, 3,000 persons per meeting?
WIESHOFER: I also spoke in very small villages. I would say that the
average attendance would be about 200.
MR. DODD: That is all I have.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you want to re-examine?
DR. THOMA: What were the subjects you talked about at these meetings?
WIESHOFER: Our subject was given to us by the Reich Propaganda Ministry.
The meetings were conducted in such a way that every speaker was able to
talk on general matters. For instance the subject might have been “With
the Führer to Final Victory,” or “Why Welfare for the Nation?” or “Why
Winter Relief?” Such subjects were always given.
DR. THOMA: Did you spread Rosenberg’s _Myth of the 20th Century_?
WIESHOFER: No.
DR. THOMA: Did you speak about such subjects?
WIESHOFER: Never; in view of my education I would not have been in a
position to do so.
DR. THOMA: Have you ever read this _Myth_?
WIESHOFER: I have not read the _Myth_.
DR. THOMA: Did you speak to youth at these meetings?
WIESHOFER: I did not speak to youth—that is, not particularly to youth.
DR. THOMA: Thank you.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, I do not wish to put any questions to the
witness; thank you very much.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Witness, did Schirach have any authority to
intervene in case of Jews who were being deported from Vienna?
WIESHOFER: He had no authority to do so, but he did it.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): How many times did he intervene?
WIESHOFER: I cannot recollect a single case where Von Schirach did not
intervene when he received a petition.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I did not ask that; I asked how many times he
intervened.
WIESHOFER: I cannot give you any figure without being inaccurate. It is
difficult to say.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Did he intervene many times, or a few?
WIESHOFER: No. He intervened often.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Did you see the order to the Police not to
protect aviators? You said it was in writing, did you not?
WIESHOFER: Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Who signed it?
WIESHOFER: The order was signed by Bormann.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And was it distributed to the Police in
Vienna?
WIESHOFER: By the Police? If I have understood you rightly, you were
talking about the order that Gauleiter must not intervene on behalf of
Jews.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): No. This was the order about not protecting
aviators who had crashed. You said you saw that order, did you not?
WIESHOFER: I did see the order, yes. I can no longer remember whom it
came from and to whom it was addressed. It was merely sent to our office
for our information. We were not called upon to take any action.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Do you not know whether or not the Police had
a copy of it?
WIESHOFER: Please, will you be good enough to repeat the question?
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Do you know whether or not the Police in
Vienna had copies of the order?
WIESHOFER: That I do not know.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Did you ever know Himmler?
WIESHOFER: I have seen him.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Did he give you any instructions?
WIESHOFER: No.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Did you get any instructions from the SS?
WIESHOFER: In which way do you mean?
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Any instructions from the SS directly when
you were in Von Schirach’s office?
WIESHOFER: No.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): None at all?
WIESHOFER: None at all. I cannot recollect any.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I think you said once that Schirach sent a
command to save American aviators from the crowd, did you not? Do you
not understand?
WIESHOFER: Yes, I understand, and I did say that.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And what other efforts did Von Schirach make
to protect aviators from the crowd? Did he make any other efforts?
WIESHOFER: Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Did he issue any orders to the Police or take
it up with the Police?
WIESHOFER: Von Schirach’s opinion was known. In the circles...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I did not ask you the opinion. Did he issue
any orders to the Police or talk to the Police?
WIESHOFER: I have no recollection of that.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well, you would know if he had, would you
not?
WIESHOFER: If I had been present when he gave the orders then I would
know it, but it is possible that he talked when I was not there.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Did you say you had access to the secret
files?
WIESHOFER: Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): What was kept in the secret files?
WIESHOFER: I did not understand the question.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I asked you what was kept, what was put in
the secret files, what sort of papers?
WIESHOFER: There were secret files which came from the Supreme Party
Headquarters, secret files which came from the Minister of the Interior;
there were things which made one wonder why they were called “secret.”
But as far as details of these files are concerned, I cannot, of course,
today remember them.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And I suppose any documents, any reports,
that were marked “secret” would be put in those secret files, would they
not?
WIESHOFER: Reports from us to higher departments, or do you mean from
the top downwards?
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Reports coming in to you.
WIESHOFER: They would then have been filed in the secret archives.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And SS secret reports would go in the secret
files, would they not?
WIESHOFER: SS reports did not come to us, because we were not a service
department of the SS.
THE PRESIDENT: If you have no questions yourself, Dr. Sauter, then the
witness may retire.
DR. SAUTER: No.
[_The witness Wieshofer left the stand._]
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, in Schirach’s document book there are still a
few documents which, up to now, have not been expressly presented; but I
believe it is not necessary to read these documents to you. To save
time, I should like, if I may, to refer to the documents and ask you to
take judicial notice of them; for instance, of the affidavit of Frau
Hoepken, which is incorporated in the document book under Number 3 and
which has already been submitted somewhere else.
There is only one document, Mr. President, about which I want to give a
very brief explanation. In the Schirach document book, under Number
118(a), there is the farewell letter of the explorer Dr. Colin Ross.
With reference to this Dr. Colin Ross, when the documents were dealt
with, the Prosecutor said that the body of Dr. Ross had not been
discovered. My first reaction was of course surprise, and I made
inquiries as to what actually had been done with these bodies and I
discovered that in fact on 30 April 1945, the day before the arrival of
American troops, the bodies of Dr. Colin Ross and his wife were found in
the house of Defendant Von Schirach at Urfeld, on Lake Walchen. They had
both first taken poison and then, to be quite sure, Dr. Ross shot his
wife and then himself. German soldiers who were still at Urfeld on Lake
Walchen as patients at the time then buried the bodies quite close to
the house of the Defendant Von Schirach.
In the autumn the American Governor ordered that the bodies were to be
transferred to the cemetery, but eventually he rescinded that order and
permitted the bodies to remain where they had originally been buried.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, can you indicate in what way you will submit
this document has any relevance at all? We have read the document. It
does not appear to have any striking relevance.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, we have submitted this document because it is
to prove, or at least indicate, that the Defendant Von Schirach,
together with this Dr. Colin Ross, continuously worked to maintain
peace, and later on to limit the war. Therefore it is submitted only to
show that the Defendant Von Schirach worked for peace.
THE PRESIDENT: The document does not mention Von Schirach or in any way
indicate that he had worked for peace.
DR. SAUTER: But it says in the document, “We have done everything in our
power to prevent this war, or...”
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, the word “We” must mean the people who “leave
this world by our own will,” namely Dr. Colin Ross and his wife. It does
not refer to Von Schirach.
DR. SAUTER: We do not know that. Why should it not also refer to Von
Schirach?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, because there is such a thing as grammar. The
document begins “We leave this world by our own will.”
DR. SAUTER: As to that, Mr. President, may I remind you that this name,
Dr. Colin Ross, has been mentioned very often during this trial in
connection with the peace efforts of the Defendant Von Schirach, and
that Dr. Colin Ross, together with his wife, was living in Schirach’s
apartment when they committed suicide.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, very well, Dr. Sauter, if you wish to draw our
attention to it, you may do so.
DR. SAUTER: Thank you. Mr. President, this letter was not really meant
for the public; the original of the letter was left behind by Dr. Ross,
and a number of carbon copies were sent to personal friends. In this way
we found this letter of Dr. Colin Ross. I do not think there is anything
else I have to say.
THE PRESIDENT: I have not said anything critical of the letter. If you
want to read some sentences of it, read them; if you do not we will take
judicial notice of it. As I tell you, we have already read this letter.
DR. SAUTER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: I am not stopping your reading a sentence of it, if you
want to read a sentence of it.
DR. SAUTER: It is of course not necessary, Mr. President, if you have
taken cognizance of it. I have nothing else to say, and at this point I
can end my case for the Defendant Von Schirach.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, have you offered in evidence all the
documents which are in these books?
DR. SAUTER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Then they will be numbered with the numbers which are in
the books.
DR. SAUTER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, then we will take judicial notice of them all.
MR. DODD: Well, Mr. President, there is one here which the Tribunal
expressly ruled on—the affidavit of Uiberreither. The Defendant Von
Schirach was told he would have to present Uiberreither if he were to
use this affidavit. He has not been presented here and now the affidavit
is being offered. We expressly asked that he be called here if this
affidavit was to be submitted to the Tribunal.
DR. SAUTER: I am not making any reference to Uiberreither’s affidavit,
and I will forego calling the witness Uiberreither.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, Dr. Sauter.
MR. DODD: Then the affidavit is not offered?
THE PRESIDENT: No, it is not being offered.
MR. DODD: That is Page 135.
THE PRESIDENT: Then it will not be admitted, and we will adjourn now.
[_The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours._]
_Afternoon Session_
MR. DODD: Mr. President, during the presentation of the case involving
the Defendant Funk, there was a number of documents that we did not
submit in evidence at the time; and I asked the Tribunal’s permission to
do so at a later time. I am prepared to do so now if the Tribunal would
care to have me.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I think it would be quite convenient now.
MR. DODD: Very well, Sir.
The first one is a matter of clarifying the record with respect to it.
It is Document 2828-PS. It has already been offered in evidence as
Exhibit USA-654. But the excerpt, or the extract, which was read will be
found on Page 105 of the document. We cited another page, which was in
error. Reference to this Document USA-654 will be found on Page 9071
(Volume XIII, Page 141) of the record.
We also offered our Document EC-440, which consisted of a statement made
by the Defendant Funk, and we quoted a sentence from Page 4 of that
document. I wish to offer that as Exhibit USA-874.
Then Document 3952-PS was an interrogation of the Defendant Funk dated
19 October 1945. We wish to offer that as USA-875.
I might remind the Tribunal that the excerpt quoted from that
interrogation had to do with the statement made by Funk that the
Defendant Hess had notified him of the impending attack on the Soviet
Union. That excerpt has been translated into the four languages, and
therefore will be readily available to the Tribunal.
Then there is also another interrogation dated 22 October 1945. We read
from Pages 15 and 16 of that interrogation, as it appears in the record
at Page 9169 for 7 May (Volume XIII, Page 214). The document is Number
3953-PS; we offer it as Exhibit USA-876.
We next referred to Document Number 3894-PS, the interrogation of one
Hans Posse. We offered it as Exhibit USA-843 at the time, as appears on
Page 9093 of the record for 6 May (Volume XIII, Page 158). At that time
I stated to the Tribunal that we would submit the whole interrogation in
French, Russian, German, and English. We are now prepared to do that,
and do so.
Then we have Document 3954-PS. This is an affidavit by one Franz B.
Wolf, one of the editors of the _Frankfurter Zeitung_. Reference to it
will be found at Page 9082 of the transcript, where we stated that we
would have more to say about the reason for the retention of the
editorial staff of the _Frankfurter Zeitung_ (Volume XIII, Page 150).
That Document, 3954-PS, is also now available to the Tribunal in French,
Russian, German, and English; and we offer it as Exhibit USA-877.
Then, Mr. President, a motion picture film was shown during this
cross-examination of the Defendant Funk; and the Tribunal inquired as to
whether or not we would be prepared to submit affidavits giving its
source, and so on. We are now prepared to do so; and we offer first an
affidavit by Captain Sam Harris who arranged to have the pictures taken,
which becomes Exhibit USA-878. The second affidavit is by the
photographer who actually took the picture. We offer that as Exhibit
USA-879.
Finally, I should also like to clear up one other matter. On March 25,
during the cross-examination of the witness Bohle, witness for the
Defendant Hess, Colonel Amen quoted from the interrogation of Von
Strempel, as appears in the record beginning at Page 6482 (Volume X,
Page 40). We have had the pertinent portions translated into the
operating languages of the Tribunal, and we ask that this interrogation,
which bears our Document Number 3800-PS, be admitted in evidence as
Exhibit USA-880.
I believe, Mr. President, that clears up all of the documents that we
have not offered formally, up to this date.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, counsel for the Defendant Sauckel.
DR. SERVATIUS: With the permission of the Tribunal, I will now call
Defendant Sauckel to the witness stand.
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly.
[_The Defendant Sauckel took the stand._]
THE PRESIDENT: Will you state your full name?
FRITZ SAUCKEL (Defendant): Ernst Friedrich Christoph Sauckel.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath after me: I swear by God—the
Almighty and Omniscient—that I will speak the pure truth—and will
withhold and add nothing.
[_The defendant repeated the oath._]
THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down.
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, please describe your career to the Tribunal.
SAUCKEL: I was the only child of the postman Friedrich Sauckel, and was
born at Hassfurt on the Main near Bamberg. I attended the elementary
school at Schweinfurt and the secondary school.
DR. SERVATIUS: How long were you at the secondary school?
SAUCKEL: For 5 years. As my father held only a very humble position, it
was my mother, a seamstress, who made it possible for me to go to that
school. When she became very ill with heart trouble, I saw that it would
be impossible for my parents to provide for my studies, and I obtained
their permission to go to sea to make a career for myself there.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you join the merchant marine, or where did you go?
SAUCKEL: First of all I joined the Norwegian and Swedish merchant marine
so that I could be thoroughly trained in seamanship on the big sailing
vessels and clippers.
DR. SERVATIUS: How old were you at the time?
SAUCKEL: At that time I was 15½.
DR. SERVATIUS: What were you earning?
SAUCKEL: As a cabin boy on a Norwegian sailing ship I earned 5 kronen in
addition to my keep.
DR. SERVATIUS: And then, in the course of your career at sea, where did
you go next?
SAUCKEL: In the course of my career as a sailor, and during my training
which I continued afterwards on German sailing vessels, I sailed on
every sea and went to every part of the world.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you come into contact with foreign families?
SAUCKEL: Through the Young Men’s Christian Association, principally in
Australia and North America, as well as in South America, I came into
contact with families of these countries.
DR. SERVATIUS: Where were you when the first World War started?
SAUCKEL: It so happened that I was on a German sailing vessel on the way
to Australia when the ship was captured, and on the high seas I was made
prisoner by the French.
DR. SERVATIUS: How long did you remain prisoner?
SAUCKEL: Five years, until November 1919.
DR. SERVATIUS: And did you return home then?
SAUCKEL: Yes, I returned home then.
DR. SERVATIUS: And then what did you do?
SAUCKEL: Although I had finished my training and studies in seamanship
required of me, I could not go to sea again and take my examination,
since my savings made during those years at sea had become worthless
because of the German inflation. There were also few German ships and
very many unemployed German seamen, so I decided to take up work in a
factory in my home town of Schweinfurt.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you remain in your home town?
SAUCKEL: At first I remained in my home town. I learned to be a turner
and engineer in the Fischer ball-bearing factory in order to save money
so that I later could attend a technical school, an engineering college.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were you already interested in politics at that time?
SAUCKEL: Although as a sailor I despised politics—for I loved my
sailor’s life and still love it today—conditions forced me to take up a
definite attitude towards political problems. No one in Germany at that
time could do otherwise. Many years before I had left a beautiful
country and a rich nation and I returned to that country 6 years later
to find it fundamentally changed and in a state of upheaval, and in
great spiritual and material need.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you join any party?
SAUCKEL: No. I worked in a factory which people in my home town
described as “ultra-Red.” I worked in the tool shop, and right and left
of me Social Democrats, Communists, Socialists, and Anarchists were
working—among others my present father-in-law—and during all the rest
periods discussions went on, so that whether one wanted to or not one
became involved in the social problems of the time.
DR. SERVATIUS: You mention your father-in-law. Did you marry then?
SAUCKEL: In 1923 I married the daughter of a German workman I had met at
that time. I am still happily married to her today and we have 10
children.
DR. SERVATIUS: When did you join the Party?
SAUCKEL: I joined the Party definitely in 1923 after having already been
in sympathy with it before.
DR. SERVATIUS: What made you do it?
SAUCKEL: One of those days I heard a speech of Hitler’s. In this speech
he said that the German factory worker and the German laborer must make
common cause with the German brain worker. The controversies between the
proletariat and the middle class must be smoothed out and bridged over
by each getting to know and understand the other. Through this a new
community of people would grow up, and only such a community, not bound
to middle class or proletariat, could overcome the dire needs of those
days and the splitting up of the German nation into parties and creeds.
This statement took such hold of me and struck me so forcibly, that I
dedicated my life to the idea of adjusting what seemed to be almost
irreconcilable contrasts. I did that all the more, if I may say so,
because I was aware of the fact that there is an inclination to go to
extremes in German people, and in the German character generally. I had
to examine myself very thoroughly to find the right path for me
personally. As I have already said, I had hardly taken any interest in
political questions. My good parents, who are no longer alive, brought
me up in a strictly Christian but also in a very patriotic way. However,
when I went to sea, I lived a sailor’s life. I loaded saltpeter in
Chile. I did heavy lumber work in Canada, in Quebec. I trimmed coal on
the equator, and I sailed around Cape Horn several times. All of this
was hard work; I ask...
DR. SERVATIUS: Please, come back to the question of the Party.
SAUCKEL: This has to do with the question of the Party, for we must all
give some reasons as to how we got there. I myself...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, I stated at the beginning of the
defendant’s case that we had heard this account from the Defendant
Göring and that we did not propose to hear it again from 20 defendants.
It seems to me that we are having it inflicted upon us by nearly every
one of the defendants.
DR. SERVATIUS: I believe, Mr. President, that we are interested in
getting some sort of an impression of the defendant himself. Seen from
various points of view, the facts look different. I will now briefly...
THE PRESIDENT: It is quite true, Dr. Servatius, but we have had half an
hour, almost, of it now.
DR. SERVATIUS: I shall limit it now.
The Party was dissolved in 1923, and refounded in 1925. Did you join it
again?
SAUCKEL: Yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you take an active part in the Party or were you just
a member?
SAUCKEL: From 1925 on I took an active part in it.
DR. SERVATIUS: And what position did you hold?
SAUCKEL: I was then Gauleiter in Thuringia.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you do that to get work, to earn your living, or for
what reason?
SAUCKEL: As Gauleiter in Thuringia I earned 150 marks. In any other
profession I would have had accommodations and earned more money.
DR. SERVATIUS: When did you make Hitler’s acquaintance?
SAUCKEL: I met him briefly in 1925.
DR. SERVATIUS: When did you become Gauleiter?
SAUCKEL: I became Gauleiter in 1927.
DR. SERVATIUS: And how were you appointed?
SAUCKEL: I was appointed by letter.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you receive any special instructions which pointed to
secret intentions of the Party?
SAUCKEL: At that time we were very definitely told that under no
circumstances should there be any secret chapters or any other secrecy
in the life of the Party, but that everything should be done publicly.
DR. SERVATIUS: Who was your predecessor?
SAUCKEL: Dr. Dinter.
DR. SERVATIUS: Why was he relieved of his post?
SAUCKEL: Dr. Dinter was dismissed because he wanted to found a new
religious movement within the Party.
DR. SERVATIUS: In 1929 you became a member of the Thuringian Diet?
SAUCKEL: Yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were you elected to that?
SAUCKEL: I was elected to the Diet in the same way as at every
parliamentary election.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was dictatorship in power there already at the time?
SAUCKEL: That was not possible; the province was governed in accordance
with the Thuringian constitution.
DR. SERVATIUS: How long were you a member of the Diet?
SAUCKEL: I was a member of the Diet as long as it existed, until May
1933.
DR. SERVATIUS: How was it dissolved?
SAUCKEL: The Diet was dissolved by a Reich Government decree.
DR. SERVATIUS: Then in 1932, you were a member of the Provincial
Government of Thuringia. How did you get into that position?
SAUCKEL: In 1932, in the month of June, new elections took place for the
Thuringian Diet, and the NSDAP obtained 26 out of 60 seats.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was any mention made of a dictatorship which was to be
aimed at?
SAUCKEL: No, a government was elected according to parliamentary
principles.
DR. SERVATIUS: Well, you had a majority in the Thuringian Government,
had you not, and you could use your influence?
SAUCKEL: Together with the bourgeois parties, by an absolute majority, a
National Socialist government was elected.
DR. SERVATIUS: What happened to the old officials? Were they dismissed?
SAUCKEL: I myself became the President and Minister of the Interior in
that government; the old officials, without exception, remained in their
offices.
DR. SERVATIUS: And with what did that first National Socialist
government concern itself in the field of domestic politics?
SAUCKEL: In the field of domestic politics there was only one question
at that time, and that was the alleviation of an indescribable distress
which is only exceeded by that of today.
DR. SERVATIUS: In this connection, Mr. President, may I submit two
government reports from which I only wish to draw your attention briefly
to two passages. One is the report contained in Document Number 96,
which shows the activity of the government and its fight against social
distress. What is particularly important when you run through it, is
what is not mentioned, that is, there is no mention of the question of
war or other such matters, but again and again the alleviation of
distress is mentioned. And important, too, is the work that was carried
out. That is in Document Number 97. In this book, on Page 45, there is a
statement of the work undertaken by the government—bridge-building,
road-making, and so on—and in no way had this work anything to do with
war.
Then I am submitting Document Number 95 from the same period. It is a
book called _Sauckel’s Fighting Speeches_. Here, too, the book is
remarkable for what does not appear in it, namely preparations for war.
Instead it emphasizes the distress which must be alleviated. It becomes
clear from the individual articles that these are speeches made during a
number of years, which show in a similar way what the preoccupations
were of the Defendant Sauckel. It begins in 1932 with a speech dealing
with the misery of the time, and ends with the final questions where
reference is made once again to the alleviation of social need and the
preservation of peace. The Tribunal will be able to read these articles
in the document book.
In 1933 you also became Reich Regent of Thuringia. How did you manage to
get to that position?
SAUCKEL: I was appointed Reich Regent of Thuringia by Field Marshal Von
Hindenburg, who was Reich President at that time.
DR. SERVATIUS: What were the instructions you received when you took up
your offices?
SAUCKEL: When I took over my office as Reich Regent I received
instructions to form a new Thuringian Government, as the Reich Regent
was to keep out of the administrative affairs of a German state...
DR. SERVATIUS: You need not tell us these technical details. I mean what
political task were you given?
SAUCKEL: I was given the political task of administering Thuringia as
Reich Regent within the existing Reich law and prevailing Constitution,
and of guaranteeing the unity of the Reich.
DR. SERVATIUS: And did the words “guarantee the unity of the Reich” mean
the overpowering of others, in particular the authorities in Thuringia?
SAUCKEL: No, the authorities remained.
DR. SERVATIUS: Now, you held both the position of Gauleiter and that of
Reich Regent. What was the aim of that?
SAUCKEL: Both positions were entirely separate in their organizations.
Under the Regent were officials in office, and under the Gauleiter were
employees of the Party. Both positions were administered absolutely
separately, as is the case in any other state where members of a party
are at the same time party officials or leaders and exercise both these
functions simultaneously.
DR. SERVATIUS: So you received no order that one position should absorb
the other?
SAUCKEL: No, I had no such orders. The tasks were entirely different.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were you a member of the SA?
SAUCKEL: I myself was never an SA man. I was an honorary
Obergruppenführer in the SA.
DR. SERVATIUS: How did you receive that appointment?
SAUCKEL: I cannot tell you. It was honorary.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were you appointed SS Obergruppenführer by Himmler?
SAUCKEL: No, the Führer made me honorary SS Obergruppenführer for no
special reason and without functions.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were you a member of the Reichstag?
SAUCKEL: Yes, from 1933 on.
DR. SERVATIUS: As a member of the Reichstag, did you know anything in
advance about the beginning of the war? Were you informed?
SAUCKEL: I was never informed in advance about the start of the war or
about foreign political developments. I merely remember that quite
suddenly—it may have been during the days between 24 August and the end
of August—we were called to a session of the Reichstag in Berlin. This
session was canceled at the time, and we were later ordered to go to the
Führer, that is, the Gauleiter and Reichsleiter. But a number had
already left so that the circle was not complete. The conference, or
Hitler’s speech, only lasted a short time. He said, roughly, that the
meeting of the Reichstag could not take place as things were still in
the course of development. He was convinced that there would not be a
war. He said he hoped there would be some settlement in a small way and
meant by that, as I had to conclude, a solution without the parts of
Upper Silesia lost in 1921. He said—and that I remember exactly—that
Danzig would become German, and apart from that Germany would be given a
railway line with several tracks, like a Reichsautobahn, with a strip of
ground to the right and left of it. He told us to go home and prepare
for the Reich Party Rally, where we would meet again.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you have any close connections with the Führer?
SAUCKEL: I personally, as far as I know the Führer, had a great deal of
admiration for him. But I had no close connection with him that one
could describe as personal. I had a number of discussions with him about
the administration of my Gau and in particular about the care he wished
to be given to cultural buildings in Thuringia—in Weimar, Eisenach, and
Meiningen; and later on there were more frequent meetings because of my
position as Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor.
DR. SERVATIUS: We shall come to that later. What connections did you
have with the Reichsleiter?
SAUCKEL: My connections with the Reichsleiter were no different from my
connections with the Führer. They were of an official and Party nature.
As regards personal relationships I cannot say that I had any
particularly personal intercourse with anyone.
DR. SERVATIUS: What about your connection with the Reich Ministers?
SAUCKEL: My connection with the Reich Ministers was of a purely official
nature and was very infrequent.
DR. SERVATIUS: What about the Wehrmacht?
SAUCKEL: I could not have the honor of being a German soldier because of
my imprisonment in the first World War. And in this World War the Führer
refused to allow me to serve as a soldier.
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, you have held a number of high positions and
offices. You knew the Reich Ministers and Reichsleiter. Will you please
explain why you went aboard the submarine at that time?
SAUCKEL: I had repeatedly made written requests to the Führer that I
might be allowed to join the Wehrmacht as an ordinary soldier. He
refused to give me this permission. So I arranged in secret for someone
to take my place and went aboard Captain Salmann’s submarine with his
agreement. As a former sailor and now a politician in a high position I
wanted to give these brave submarine men a proof of my comradeship and
understanding and of my sense of duty. Apart from that I had 10 children
for whom, as their father, I had to do something too.
DR. SERVATIUS: I should like now, in a number of questions, to refer to
your activities. Were you a member of a trade union?
SAUCKEL: No.
DR. SERVATIUS: Do you know what the aims of German trade unions were?
SAUCKEL: Yes, I do.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were they economic or political?
SAUCKEL: As I, as a worker, came to know them, the aims of German trade
unions were political, and there were a number of different trade unions
with varied political views. I considered that a great misfortune. As
workman in the workshop I had had experience of the arguments among the
trade unionists—between the Christian Socialist trade unions and the
Red trade unions, between the syndicalist, the anarchist and the
communist trade unions.
DR. SERVATIUS: The trade unions in your Gau were then dissolved. Were
the leaders arrested at the time?
SAUCKEL: No.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you approve of the dissolution of the trade unions?
SAUCKEL: The dissolution of the trade unions was in the air then. The
question was discussed in the Party for a long time and there was no
agreement at all as to the position trade unions should hold, nor as to
their necessity, their usefulness and their nature. But a solution had
to be found because the trade unions which we, or the Führer, or Dr.
Ley, dissolved all held different political views. From that time on,
however, there was only one party in Germany and it was necessary, I
fully realize, to come to a definite decision as to the actual duties of
the trade unions, the necessary duties indispensable to every calling
and to workers everywhere.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was not the purpose of removing the trade unions to
remove any opposition which might stand in the way of an aggressive war?
SAUCKEL: I can say in all good conscience that during those years not
one of us ever thought about a war at all. We had to overcome such
terrible need that we should have been only too glad if German economic
life could have been started again in peace and if the German worker,
who had suffered the most during that frightful depression, could have
had work and food once more.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did members of trade unions suffer economically through
the dissolution?
SAUCKEL: In no way. My own father-in-law, who was a member of a trade
union and still is today, and whom I repeatedly asked for information,
whom I never persuaded to join the Party—he was a Social Democrat and
never joined the Party—confirmed the fact that even when he was getting
old and could no longer work, the German Labor Front never denied him
the rights due to him as an old trade unionist and by virtue of his long
trade-union membership, but allowed him full benefits. On the other
hand, the German State—since in Germany old age and disability
insurance and the accident insurance, _et cetera_, were paid and
organized by the State—the National Socialist State guaranteed him all
these rights and made full payment.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were all Communist leaders arrested in your Gau after the
Party came to power?
SAUCKEL: No. In my Gau, as far as I know, only Communists who had
actually worked against the State were arrested.
DR. SERVATIUS: And what happened to them?
SAUCKEL: The State Police arrested and interrogated them and detained
them according to the findings.
DR.. SERVATIUS: Did you have Kreisleiter in your Gau who had been
members of a former opposition party?
SAUCKEL: The Party’s activity was recruiting. Our most intensive work
was the winning over of political opponents. I am very proud of the fact
that many workers in my Gau, numerous former Communists and Social
Democrats, were won over by us and became local group leaders and Party
functionaries.
DR. SERVATIUS: But were there not two Kreisleiter from the extreme left
appointed by you?
SAUCKEL: One Kreisleiter from the extreme left was appointed. Also,
besides a number of other leaders, the Gau sectional manager of the
German Labor Front had belonged to the extreme left for a long time.
DR. SERVATIUS: How did you personally deal with your political
opponents?
SAUCKEL: Political opponents who did not work against the State were
neither bothered nor harmed in my Gau.
DR. SERVATIUS: Do you know the Socialist Deputy Fröhlich?
SAUCKEL: The Socialist Deputy August Fröhlich was my strongest and most
important opponent. He was the leader of the Thuringian Social Democrats
and was for many years the Social Democrat Prime Minister of Thuringia.
I had great respect for him as an opponent. He was an honorable and
upright man. On 20 July 1944, through my own personal initiative, I had
him released from detention. He had been on the list of the conspirators
of 20 July, but I had so much respect for him personally that, in spite
of that, I asked for his release and obtained it.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you treat other opponents similarly?
SAUCKEL: I also had a politician of the Center Party I knew in my home
town of Schweinfurt released from detention.
DR. SERVATIUS: The Concentration Camp of Buchenwald was in your Gau. Did
you establish it?
SAUCKEL: The Buchenwald Camp originated in the following manner: The
Führer, who came to Weimar quite often because of the theater there,
suggested that a battalion of his SS Leibstandarte should be stationed
at Weimar. As the Leibstandarte was considered a picked regiment I not
only agreed to this but was very pleased, because in a city like Weimar
people are glad to have a garrison. So the State of Thuringia, the
Thuringian Government, at the request of the Führer, prepared a site in
the Ettersburg Forest, north of the incline outside the town.
After some time Himmler informed me, however, that he could not bring a
battalion of the SS Leibstandarte to Weimar, as he could not divide up
the regiment, but that it would be a newly established Death’s-Head
unit, and Himmler said it would amount to the same thing. It was only
some time later, when the site had already been placed at the disposal
of the Reich, that Himmler declared that he now had to accommodate a
kind of concentration camp with the Death’s-Head units on this very
suitable site. I opposed this to begin with, because I did not consider
a concentration camp at all the right kind of thing for the town of
Weimar and its traditions. However, he—I mean Himmler—making use of
his position, refused to have any discussion about it. And so the camp
was set up neither to my satisfaction nor to that of the population of
Weimar.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you have anything to do with the administration of
the camp later on?
SAUCKEL: I never had anything to do with the administration of the camp.
The Thuringian Government made an attempt at the time to influence the
planning of the building by saying that the building police in Thuringia
wished to give the orders for the sanitary arrangements in the camp.
Himmler rejected this on the grounds of his position, saying that he had
a construction office of his own and the site now belonged to the Reich.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you visit the camp at any time?
SAUCKEL: As far as I can remember, on one single occasion at the end of
1937 or at the beginning of 1938, I visited and inspected the camp with
an Italian commission.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you find anything wrong there?
SAUCKEL: I did not find anything wrong. I inspected the
accommodations—I myself had been a prisoner for 5 years, and so it
interested me. I must admit that at that time there was no cause for any
complaint as such. The accommodations had been divided into day and
night rooms. The beds were covered with blue and white sheets; the
kitchens, washrooms, and latrines were beyond reproach, so that the
Italian officer or officers who were inspecting the camp with me said
that in Italy they would not accommodate their own soldiers any better.
DR. SERVATIUS: Later on did you hear about the events in that camp which
have been alleged here?
SAUCKEL: I heard nothing about such events as have been alleged here.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you have anything to do with the evacuation of the
camp at the end of the war, before the American Army approached?
SAUCKEL: When the mayor of Weimar informed me that they intended to
evacuate the camp at Buchenwald and to use the camp guards to fight the
American troops, I raised the strongest objections. As I had no
authority over the camp, and since for various reasons connected with my
other office I had had considerable differences with Himmler and did not
care to speak to him, I telephoned the Führer’s headquarters in Berlin
and said that in any case an evacuation or a transfer of prisoners into
the territory east of the Saale was impossible and madness, and could
not be carried through from the point of view of supplies. I demanded
that the camp should be handed over to the American occupation troops in
an orderly manner. I received the answer that the Führer would give
instructions to Himmler to comply with my request. I briefly reported
this to some of my colleagues and the mayor, and then I left Weimar.
DR. SERVATIUS: The witness Dr. Blaha has stated that you had also been
to the concentration camp at Dachau on the occasion of an inspection.
SAUCKEL: No, I did not go to the Dachau Concentration Camp and, as far
as I recollect, I did not take part in the visit of the Gauleiter to
Dachau in 1935 either. In no circumstances did I take part in an
inspection in Dachau such as Dr. Blaha has described here; and
consequently, above all, I did not inspect workshops or anything of the
sort.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you not, as Gauleiter, receive official reports
regarding the events in the concentration camp, that is to say, orders
which passed through the Gau administrative offices both from and to the
camp?
SAUCKEL: No. I neither received instructions for the Buchenwald Camp,
nor reports. It was not only my personal opinion but it was the opinion
of old experienced Gauleiter that it was the greatest misfortune, from
the administrative point of view, when Himmler as early as 1934-35
proceeded to separate the executive from the general internal
administration. There were continual complaints from many Gauleiter and
German provincial administrations. They were unsuccessful, however,
because in the end Himmler incorporated even the communal fire brigades
into the Reich organization of his Police.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you have any personal relations with the Police and
the SS at Weimar?
SAUCKEL: I had no personal relations with the SS and the Police at all.
I had official relations inasmuch as the trade police and the local
police of small boroughs still remained under the internal
administration of the State of Thuringia.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did not the Police have their headquarters near you, at
Weimar?
SAUCKEL: No, it was the ridiculous part of the development at that time
that, as I once explained to the Führer, we had been changed from a
Party state, and a state made up of provinces, into a departmental
state. The Reich ministries had greatly developed, their departments
being fairly well defined, and the individual district departments of
the various administrations did not agree among one another. Until 1934
Thuringia had its own independent police administration in its Ministry
for Home Affairs. But from that time the headquarters of the Higher SS
and the Police Leader were transferred to Kassel, so that Himmler, in
contrast to the rest of the State and Party organizations, obtained new
spheres for his Police. He demonstrated this in Central Germany where
for example the Higher SS and Police Leader for Weimar and the State of
Thuringia was stationed in Kassel, whereas for the Prussian part of the
Gau of Thuringia—that is to say the town of Erfurt which is 20
kilometers away from Weimar—the Higher SS and Police Leader and the
provincial administration had their seat in Magdeburg. It is obvious
that we, as Gau authorities, did not in any way agree with such a
development and that there was great indignation among the experienced
administrators.
DR. SERVATIUS: The question is: Did you co-operate with these offices
and did you have a friendly association with the officials in the regime
and therefore know what was going on in Buchenwald?
SAUCKEL: On the contrary, it was a continual battle. Each separate
organization shut itself off from the others. At such a period of world
development this was most unfortunate. For the people it was
disadvantageous and it made things impossible for any administration.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was there persecution of the Jews in your Gau?
SAUCKEL: No.
DR. SERVATIUS: What about the laws concerning the Jews and the execution
of those laws?
SAUCKEL: These Jewish laws were proclaimed in Nuremberg. There were
actually very few Jews in Thuringia.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were there no violations in connection with the
well-known events, following the murder of the Envoy Vom Rath in Paris,
which have repeatedly become the subject of discussion in this Trial?
SAUCKEL: I cannot recollect in detail the events in Thuringia. As I told
you, there were only a few Jews in Thuringia. The Gauleiter were in
Munich at the time, and had no influence at all on that development, for
it happened during the night, when all the Gauleiter were in Munich.
DR. SERVATIUS: My question is this: What happened in your Gau of
Thuringia, and what instructions did you give as a result?
SAUCKEL: There may have been a few towns in Thuringia where a window was
smashed or something of that sort. I cannot tell you in detail. I cannot
even tell you where or whether there were synagogues in Thuringia.
DR. SERVATIUS: Now one question regarding your financial position.
On the occasion of your fiftieth birthday the Führer made you a
donation. How much was it?
SAUCKEL: On my fiftieth birthday in October 1944 I was surprised to get
a letter from the Führer through one of his adjutants. In that letter
there was a check for 250,000 marks. I told the adjutant that I could
not possibly accept it—I was very surprised. The Führer’s adjutant—it
was little Bormann, the old Bormann, not Reichsleiter Bormann—told me
that the Führer knew quite well that I had neither money nor any landed
property and that this would be a security for my children. He told me
not to hurt the Führer’s feelings. The adjutant left quickly and I sent
for Demme who was both a colleague and a friend of mine and the
president of the State Bank of Thuringia. He was unfortunately refused
as a witness as being irrelevant ...
THE PRESIDENT: I think it is enough if we know whether he ultimately
accepted it or not.
DR. SERVATIUS: Let us drop that question. What happened to the money?
SAUCKEL: Through the president of the State Bank in question the money
was placed into an account in the State Bank of Thuringia.
DR. SERVATIUS: What other income did you receive from your official
positions?
SAUCKEL: The only income I had from my official positions was the salary
of a Reich Regent.
DR. SERVATIUS: How much was that?
SAUCKEL: The salary of a Reich Minister; I cannot tell you exactly what
it was. I never bothered about it. It was something like 30,000 marks.
DR. SERVATIUS: And what means have you today apart from the donation in
that bank account?
SAUCKEL: I have not saved any money and I never had any property.
DR. SERVATIUS: That, Mr. President, brings me to the end of those
general questions and I am now coming to the questions relating to the
Allocation of Labor.
THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn.
[_A recess was taken._]
DR. SERVATIUS: To aid the Court I have prepared a plan showing how the
direction of labor was managed, which should help to explain how the
individual authorities co-operated and how the operation was put into
motion.
I will concern myself mainly with the problem of meeting the demand,
that is with the question of how the labor was obtained. I shall not
concern myself much with the question of the use made of the labor and
the needs of industry. That is more a matter for Speer’s defense, which
does not quite fit in with my presentation of things. But those are
details which occurred in error because I did not go into such matters
thoroughly when the plan was being prepared. Fundamentally there are no
differences.
If I may explain the plan briefly: At the top there is the Führer, in
red; under him is the Four Year Plan; and under that, as part of the
Four Year Plan, there is the office of Sauckel, who was Plenipotentiary
General for the Allocation of Labor and came directly under the Four
Year Plan. He received his instructions and orders from the Führer
through the Four Year Plan, or, as was the Führer’s way, from him
direct.
Sauckel’s headquarters were at the Reich Ministry of Labor. It is the
big space outlined in yellow to the left, below Sauckel’s office which
is in brown. Sauckel only became included in the Reich Labor Ministry by
having a few offices put at his disposal. The Reich Minister of Labor
and the whole of the Labor Ministry remained.
In the course of time Sauckel’s position became somewhat stronger,
individual departments being necessarily incorporated into his, over
which, to a certain extent, he obtained personal power; but the Reich
Ministry of Labor remained until the end.
I should now like to explain how the “Arbeitseinsatz” was put into
operation. Owing to operations in Russia and the great losses in the
winter, there arose a need for 2 million soldiers. The Wehrmacht, OKW,
marked in green at the top next to the Führer, demands soldiers from the
industries. It is marked here in the green spaces which run downwards
below the OKW. The line then turns left downwards to the industries
which are marked as having 30 million workers. The Wehrmacht withdraws 2
million workers but can only do so when new labor is there. It was at
that moment that Sauckel was put into office in order to obtain this
labor.
The number of men needed was determined by the higher authorities
through the so-called “Requirements Board,” marked at the top in yellow,
which represented the highest offices: the Armaments and Production
Ministries, the Ministry of Air, Agriculture, Shipping, Traffic, and so
on. They reported their requests to the Führer and he decided what was
needed.
Sauckel’s task was carried out as follows: Let us go back to the brown
square. On the strength of the right of the Four Year Plan to issue
orders, he applied to the space on the right where the squares are
outlined in blue. They are the highest district offices in the occupied
territories, the Reich Ministry for the Eastern Territories, that is,
Rosenberg; then come the military authorities; and as things were
handled a little differently in each country, here are the various
countries, Belgium, Northern France, Holland, _et cetera_, marked in
yellow. These agencies received the order to make labor available. Each
through its own machinery referred the order to the next agency below
and so on down to the very last, the local labor offices which are under
the district authorities, and here the workers were assigned to the
factories. That is the reserve of foreigners. Beside that there are two
other sources of labor available, the main reserve of German workers,
which is marked in blue to the left at the bottom, and the reserve of
prisoners of war.
Sauckel had to deal with all these three agencies. I will now put
relevant questions to the witness. This is only to refresh our memories
and to check the explanation.
I will submit other charts later. There is a list of the witnesses drawn
up according to their offices so that we know where they belong; and
later there will be another chart showing the inspection and controls
which were set up.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, you will no doubt be asking the witness
whether he is familiar with the chart and whether it is correct.
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, you have seen this chart. Is it correct? Do you
acknowledge it?
SAUCKEL: To the best of my memory and belief it is correct, and I
acknowledge it.
DR. SERVATIUS: On 21 March 1942 you were made Plenipotentiary General
for the Allocation of Labor. Why were you chosen for this office?
SAUCKEL: The reason why I was chosen for this office was never known to
me and I do not know it now. Because of my engineering studies and my
occupation I took an interest in questions concerning labor systems, but
I do not know whether that was the reason.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was your appointment not made at Speer’s suggestion?
SAUCKEL: Reichsleiter Bormann stated that in the preamble to his
official decree. I do not know the actual circumstances.
DR. SERVATIUS: I beg to refer to Sauckel Document Number 7. It is in
Document Book 1, Page 5.
SAUCKEL: I should like to add that this appointment came as a complete
surprise to me, I did not apply for it in any way. I never applied for
any of my offices.
THE PRESIDENT: What number are you giving to this document?
DR. SERVATIUS: Document Number 7.
THE PRESIDENT: I mean the chart. What number are you giving to the
chart?
DR. SERVATIUS: Document 1.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I see, and Document Number 7, Page 5.
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes. This document is a preamble added by Reichsleiter
Bormann to the decree and which shows that it was Speer who suggested
Sauckel for this position.
Was it an entirely new office which you then entered?
SAUCKEL: No. The Arbeitseinsatz had been directed by the Four Year Plan
before my appointment. A ministerial director, Dr. Mansfeld, held the
office then. I only learned here, during these proceedings, that the
office was already known before my time as the office of the
Plenipotentiary General.
DR. SERVATIUS: On taking up your office did you talk to Dr. Mansfeld,
your so-called predecessor?
SAUCKEL: I neither saw Dr. Mansfeld nor spoke to him, nor did I take
over any records from him.
DR. SERVATIUS: To what extent was your office different from that of the
previous Plenipotentiary General?
SAUCKEL: My office was different to this extent: The department in the
Four Year Plan was given up and was no longer used by me. I drew
departments of the Reich Labor Ministry more and more closely into this
work as they had some of the outstanding experts.
DR. SERVATIUS: What was the reason for this reconstruction of the
office?
SAUCKEL: The reason was to be found in the many conflicting interests
which had been very prominent up to the third year of the war in the
political and state offices, internal administration offices, Party
agencies and economic agencies, and which now for territorial
considerations opposed the interdistrict equalization of the labor
potential, which had become urgent.
DR. SERVATIUS: What sort of task did you have then? What was your sphere
of work?
SAUCKEL: My chief sphere of work was in directing and regulating German
labor.
DR. SERVATIUS: What task were you given then?
SAUCKEL: I had to replace with suitably skilled workers those men who
had to be freed from industry for drafting into the German Wehrmacht,
that is, into the different branches of the Wehrmacht. Moreover, I also
had to obtain new labor for the new war industries which had been set up
for food production as well as for the production of armaments, of
course.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was your task definitely defined?
SAUCKEL: It was at first in no way definitely defined. There were at
that time about 23 or 24 million workers to be directed, who were
available in the Reich but who had not yet been fully employed for war
economy.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you look on your appointment as a permanent one?
SAUCKEL: No. I could not consider it as permanent.
DR. SERVATIUS: Why not?
SAUCKEL: Because in addition to me the Reich Labor Minister and his
state secretaries were in office and at the head of things; and then
there was the whole of the Labor Ministry.
DR. SERVATIUS: What sources were at your disposal to obtain this labor?
SAUCKEL: First, there were the workers who were already present in the
Reich from all sorts of callings who, as I have said, had not yet been
directed to war economy, not yet completely incorporated in the way that
was necessary for the conduct of the war. Then further there were the
prisoners of war as far as their labor was made available by the army
authorities.
DR. SERVATIUS: At first then, if I have understood you correctly, proper
distribution, and a thrifty management of German labor?
SAUCKEL: When my appointment ...
THE PRESIDENT: Defendant, I do not understand the German language, but
it appears to me that if you would not make pauses between each word it
would make your sentences shorter; and pause at the end of the sentence.
It would be much more convenient for the interpreter. I do not know
whether I am right in that. That is what it looks like. You are pausing
between each word, and therefore it is difficult, I imagine, to get the
sense of the sentence.
SAUCKEL: I beg your pardon, Your Lordship.
THE PRESIDENT: Go on, Dr. Servatius.
DR. SERVATIUS: What did you do to carry out your task?
SAUCKEL: I will repeat. First, as I had received no specific
instructions I understood my task to mean that I was to fill up the gaps
and deficiencies by employing labor in the most rational and economic
way.
DR. SERVATIUS: What was the order you received? How many people were you
to obtain?
SAUCKEL: That question is very difficult to answer, for I received the
necessary orders only in the course of the development of the war. Labor
and economy are fluid, intangible things. However I then received the
order that if the war were to continue for some time I was to find
replacements in the German labor sector for the Wehrmacht, whose
soldiers were the potential of peacetime economy.
DR. SERVATIUS: You drew up a program. What was provided for in your
program?
SAUCKEL: I drew up two programs, Doctor. At first, when I took up my
office, I drew up one program which included a _levée en masse_, so to
speak, of German women and young people, and, another, as I already
said, for the proper utilization of labor from the economic and
technical point of view.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was the program accepted?
SAUCKEL: The program was rejected by the Führer when I submitted it to
him and, as was my duty, to the Reich economic authorities and
ministries which were interested in the employment of labor.
DR. SERVATIUS: Why?
SAUCKEL: The Führer sent for me and in a lengthy statement explained the
position of the German war production and also the economic situation.
He said that he had nothing against my program as such if he had the
time; but that in view of the situation, he could not wait for such
German women to become trained and experienced. At that time 10 million
German women were already employed who had never done industrial or
mechanical work. Further, he said that the results of such a
rationalization of working methods as I had suggested, something like a
mixture of Ford and Taylor methods ...
DR. SERVATIUS: One moment. The interpreters cannot translate your long
sentences properly. You must make short sentences and divide your
phrases, otherwise no one can understand you and your defense will
suffer a great deal. Will you please be careful about that.
SAUCKEL: In answer to my proposal the Führer said that he could not wait
for a rationalization of the working methods on the lines of the Taylor
and Ford systems.
DR. SERVATIUS: And what did he suggest?
SAUCKEL: May I explain the motives which prompted the Führer’s decision.
He described the situation at that time, at the end of the winter of
1941-42. Many hundreds of German locomotives, almost all the mechanized
armed units, tanks, planes, and mechanical weapons had become useless as
a result of the catastrophe of that abnormally hard winter.
Hundreds of thousands of German soldiers had suffered terribly from the
cold; many divisions had lost their arms and supplies. The Führer
explained to me that if the race with the enemy for new arms, new
munitions, and new dispositions of forces was not won now, the Soviets
would be as far as the Channel by the next winter. Appealing to my sense
of duty and asking me to put into it all I could, he gave me the task of
obtaining new foreign labor for employment in the German war economy.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you have no scruples that this was against
international law?
SAUCKEL: The Führer spoke to me in such detail about this question and
he explained the necessity so much as a matter of course that, after he
had withdrawn a suggestion which he had made himself, there could be no
misgivings on my part that the employment of foreign workers was against
international law.
DR. SERVATIUS: You also negotiated with other agencies and there were
already workers within the Reich. What were you told about that?
SAUCKEL: None of the higher authorities, either military or civilian,
expressed any misgivings. Perhaps I may add some things which the Führer
mentioned as binding upon me. On the whole, the Führer always treated me
very kindly. On this question, he became very severe and categorical and
said that in the West he had left half the French Army free and at home,
and he had released the greater part of the Belgian Army and the whole
of the Dutch Army from captivity. He told me that under certain
circumstances he would have to recall these prisoners of war for
military reasons, but that in the interests of the whole of Europe and
the Occident, so he expressed himself, only a united Europe, where labor
was properly allocated, could hold out in the fight against Bolshevism.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you know the terms of the Hague land warfare
regulations?
SAUCKEL: During the first World War I myself was taken prisoner as a
sailor. I knew what was required and what was laid down with regard to
the treatment and protection of prisoners of war and prisoners
generally.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did foreign authorities—I am thinking of the
French—ever raise the objection that what you planned with your
Arbeitseinsatz was an infringement of the Hague land warfare
regulations?
SAUCKEL: No. In France, on questions of the Arbeitseinsatz, I only
negotiated with the French Government through the military commander and
under the presidency of the German Ambassador in Paris. I was convinced
that as far as the employment of labor in France was concerned,
agreements should be made with a proper French Government. I negotiated
in a similar manner with the General Secretary in Belgium.
DR. SERVATIUS: Now a large part—about a third—of the foreign workers
were so-called Eastern Workers. What were you told about them?
SAUCKEL: With regard to the employment of workers from the East I was
told that Russia had not joined the Geneva Convention, and so Germany
for her part was not bound by it. And I was further told that in the
Baltic countries and in other regions, Soviet Russia had also claimed
workers or people, and that in addition about 3 million Chinese were
working in Soviet Russia.
DR. SERVATIUS: And what about Poland?
SAUCKEL: As regards Poland I had been told, just as in the case of other
countries, that it was a case of total capitulation, and that on the
grounds of this capitulation Germany was justified in introducing German
regulations.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you consider the employment of foreign labor
justifiable from the general point of view?
SAUCKEL: On account of the necessities which I have mentioned, I
considered the employment of foreign workers justifiable according to
the principles which I enforced and advocated and to which I also
adhered in my field of work. I was, after all, a German and I could feel
only as a German.
DR. SERVATIUS: Herr Sauckel, you must formulate your sentences
differently, the interpreters cannot translate them. You must not insert
one sentence into another.
So you considered it justifiable, in view of the principles you wished
to apply and, which as you said, you enforced in your field of work?
SAUCKEL: Yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you also think of the hardships imposed on the
workers and their families through this employment?
SAUCKEL: I knew from my own life even if one goes to foreign countries
voluntarily, a separation is very sad and heartbreaking and it is very
hard for members of a family to be separated from each other. But I also
thought of the German families, of the German soldiers, and of the
hundreds of thousands of German workers who also had to go away from
home.
DR. SERVATIUS: The suggestion has been made that the work could have
been carried out in the occupied territories themselves, and it would
not then have been necessary to fetch the workers away. Why was that not
done?
SAUCKEL: That is, at first sight, an attractive suggestion. If it had
been possible, I would willingly have carried out the suggestion which
was made by Funk and other authorities, and later even by Speer. It
would have made my life and work much simpler. On the other hand, there
were large departments in this system which had to provide for and
maintain the different branches of German economy and supply them with
orders. As the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor I
could not have German fields, German farming, German mass-production
with the most modern machinery transferred to foreign territories—I had
no authority for that—and those offices insisted that I should find
replacements for the agricultural and industrial workers and the
artisans whose places had become vacant in German agriculture or
industry because the men had been called to the colors.
DR. SERVATIUS: You said before that the manner in which you had planned
the employment of workers was such that it could have been approved.
What then were your leading principles in carrying out your scheme for
the employment of labor?
SAUCKEL: When the Führer described the situation so drastically, and
ordered me to bring foreign workers to Germany, I clearly recognized the
difficulties of the task and I asked him to agree to the only way by
which I considered it possible to do this, for I had been a worker too.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was not your principal consideration the economic
exploitation of these foreign workers?
SAUCKEL: The Arbeitseinsatz has nothing to do with exploitation. It is
an economic process for supplying labor.
DR. SERVATIUS: You said repeatedly in your speeches and on other
occasions that the important thing was to make the best possible
economic use of these workers. You speak of a machine which must be
properly handled. Did you want to express thereby the thought of
economic exploitation?
SAUCKEL: At all times a regime of no matter what nature, can only be
successful in the production of goods if it uses labor economically—not
too much and not too little. That alone I consider economically
justifiable.
DR. SERVATIUS: It was stated here in a document which was submitted, the
French Document RF-22, a government report, that the intention existed
to bring about a demographic deterioration, and in other government
reports mention is made that one of the aims was the biological
destruction of other peoples. What do you say about that?
SAUCKEL: I can say most definitely that biological destruction was never
mentioned to me. I was only too happy when I had workers. I suspected
that the war would last longer than was expected, and the demands upon
my office were so urgent and so great that I was glad for people to be
alive, not for them to be destroyed.
DR. SERVATIUS: What was the general attitude toward the question of
foreign workers before you took office? What did you find when you came?
SAUCKEL: There was a controversy when I took up my office. There were
about two million foreign workers in Germany from neutral and allied
states and occupied territories of the East and the West. They had been
brought to the Reich without order or system. Many industrial concerns
avoided contacting the labor authorities or found them troublesome and
bureaucratic. The conflict of interests, as I said before, was very
great. The Police point of view was most predominating, I think.
DR. SERVATIUS: And propaganda? What was the propaganda with regard to
Eastern Workers, for example?
SAUCKEL: Propaganda was adapted to the war in the East. I may point out
now—you interrupted me before when I was speaking of the order given me
by the Führer—that I expressly asked the Führer not to let workers
working in Germany be treated as enemies any longer, and I tried to
influence propaganda to that effect.
DR. SERVATIUS: What else did you do with regard to the situation which
confronted you?
SAUCKEL: I finally received approval from the Führer for my second
program. That program has been submitted here as a document. I must and
will bear responsibility for that program.
DR. SERVATIUS: It has already been submitted as Document 016-PS. It is
the Program for the Allocation of Labor of 20 April 1942, Exhibit
USA-168.
In this program you made fundamental statements. I will hand it to you
and I ask you to comment on the general questions only, not on the
individual points.
There is a paragraph added to the last part, “Prisoners of War and
Foreign Workers.” Have you found the paragraph?
SAUCKEL: Yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: If you will look at the third paragraph you will find
what you want to explain.
SAUCKEL: I should like to say that I drew up and worked out this program
independently in 1942 after I had been given that difficult task by the
Führer. It was absolutely clear to me what the conditions would have to
be if foreign workers were to be employed in Germany at all. I wrote
those sentences at that time and the program went to all the German
authorities which had to deal with the matter. I quote:
“All these people must be fed, housed, and treated in such a way
that with the least possible effort”—here I refer to economics
as conceived by Taylor and Ford, whom I have studied
closely—“the greatest possible results will be achieved. It has
always been a matter of course for us Germans to treat a
conquered enemy correctly and humanely, even if he were our most
cruel and irreconcilable foe, and to abstain from all cruelty
and petty chicanery when expecting useful service from him.”
DR. SERVATIUS: Will you put the document aside now, please. What
authority did you have to carry out your task?
SAUCKEL: I had authority from the Four Year Plan to issue instructions.
I had at my disposal—not under me, but at my disposal—Sections 3 and 5
of the Reich Labor Ministry.
DR. SERVATIUS: What departments did they represent?
SAUCKEL: The departments, “Employment of Labor” and “Wages.”
DR. SERVATIUS: Could you issue directives and orders?
SAUCKEL: I could issue directives and orders of a departmental nature to
those offices.
DR. SERVATIUS: Could you carry on negotiations with foreign countries
independently?
SAUCKEL: I could carry on negotiations with foreign countries only
through the Foreign Office or, when I had received permission, with the
ambassadors or ministers in question.
DR. SERVATIUS: Could you give your orders independently or was agreement
and consultation necessary?
SAUCKEL: My field of work, as in every large branch of an
administration, made it absolutely necessary for me to discuss the
questions and have consultations about them with neighboring
departments. I was obliged to do so according to instructions.
DR. SERVATIUS: With whom did you have to consult, apart from the Four
Year Plan under which you were placed?
SAUCKEL: I had first of all to consult the departments themselves from
which I received the orders, and in addition the Party Chancellery, the
office of Reich Minister Lammers—the Reich Chancellery, the Reich
Railways, the Reich Food Ministry, the Reich Defense Ministry.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did things go smoothly, or were there difficulties?
SAUCKEL: There were always great difficulties.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you have any dealings with Himmler?
SAUCKEL: I had dealings with Himmler only insofar as he gave
instructions. He was Reich Minister and was responsible for security, as
he said.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was not that a question which was very important for you
in regard to the treatment of workers?
SAUCKEL: During the first months or in the first weeks, I believe, of my
appointment I was called to see Heydrich. In a very precise way,
Heydrich told me that he considered my program fantastic, such as it had
been approved by the Führer, and that I must realize that I was making
his work very difficult in demanding that barbed wire and similar fences
should not and must not be put around the labor camps, but rather taken
down. He then said curtly that I must realize that if it was I who was
responsible for the allocation of labor, it was he who was responsible
for security. That is what he told me.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you accept the fact that these strict police measures
now existed?
SAUCKEL: Through constant efforts I had these police measures gradually
reduced as far as they concerned the workers who were employed in
Germany through my agency and my office.
DR. SERVATIUS: What did your authority to issue instructions consist of?
Could you issue orders or had you to negotiate, and how was this carried
out in practice?
SAUCKEL: The authority I had to issue instructions was doubtful from the
beginning because, owing to the necessities of war, the lack of
manpower, and so on, I was forbidden to establish any office of my own
or any other new office or organization. I could only pass on
instructions after negotiation with the supreme authorities of the Reich
and after detailed consultation. These instructions were, of course, of
a purely departmental nature. I could not interfere in matters of
administration.
DR. SERVATIUS: How was this right to issue instructions exercised with
regard to the high authorities in the occupied territories?
SAUCKEL: It was exactly the same, merely of a departmental nature. In
practice it was the passing on of the Führer’s orders which were to be
carried out there through the individual machinery of each separate
administration.
DR. SERVATIUS: Could you give binding instructions to military
authorities, to the Economic Inspectorate East, for example?
SAUCKEL: No, there was a strict order from the Führer that in the Army
areas, the operational areas of the Commanders-in-Chief, the latter only
were competent, and when they had examined military conditions and the
situation, everything had to be regulated according to the needs of
these high military commands.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did that apply to the military commander in France, or
could you act directly there?
SAUCKEL: In France I could, of course, proceed only in the same way, by
informing the military commander of the instructions which I myself had
received. He then prepared for discussions with the German Embassy and
the French Government, so that with the Ambassador presiding, and the
military commander taking an authoritative part, the discussion with the
French Government took place.
DR. SERVATIUS: And what happened as far as the Ministry for the Occupied
Eastern Territories was concerned?
SAUCKEL: In the case of that Ministry I had to transmit my orders to the
Reich Minister for the Occupied Eastern Territories and had to consult
with him. With Reich Minister Rosenberg we always succeeded in arranging
matters between ourselves in a way that we considered right. But in the
Ukraine there was the Reich Commissioner who was on very intimate terms
himself with headquarters, and, as is generally known, he was very
independent and acted accordingly by asserting this independence.
DR. SERVATIUS: How did these authorities in the occupied territories
take your activities at first?
SAUCKEL: In the occupied territories there was naturally much opposition
at the start of my work, because I brought new orders and new
requirements and it was not always easy to reconcile conflicting
interests.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was there any apprehension that you would intervene in
the administration of the territories?
SAUCKEL: From my own conviction I refrained entirely from any such
intervention and I always emphasized that in order to dispel any such
apprehensions, since I myself was not the administrator there; but there
were many selfish interests at work.
DR. SERVATIUS: We will discuss this on another occasion. Now I should
like to ask you: You had deputies for the Arbeitseinsatz—when did you
obtain them?
SAUCKEL: I was given these deputies for the occupied territories through
a personal decree of the Führer on 30 September 1942, as far as I
remember.
DR. SERVATIUS: What was the reason?
SAUCKEL: The reason for appointing these deputies was to do away more
easily with the difficulties and the lack of direction which prevailed
to some extent in these areas.
DR. SERVATIUS: I refer in this connection to Document 12, “The Führer’s
Decree Concerning the Execution of the Decree of the Plenipotentiary
General for the Allocation of Labor.” No, it is Document 13. “Decree
Concerning the Appointment of Deputies”—on Page 13 of the English
document book, and I also refer to Document 12 which has already been
submitted as 1903-PS, Exhibit USA-206.
Did you not have two different kinds of deputies, I mean, were there
already some deputies previously?
SAUCKEL: There were previously deputies of the Reich Labor Ministry who
in allied or neutral countries were assigned to the German diplomatic
missions. They must be distinguished from those deputies who were
assigned to the chiefs of the German military or civilian administration
in the occupied territories.
DR. SERVATIUS: What position did the deputies hold in the occupied
territories?
SAUCKEL: In the occupied territories the deputies had a dual position.
They were the leaders of the labor sections in the local government
there—a considerable burden for me—and at the same time my deputies
who were responsible for the uniform direction and execution of the
principles of the allocation of labor as laid down by me.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you have your own organization with the deputy at the
head, or was that an organization of the local government?
SAUCKEL: I did not have any organization of my own. The local
governments were independent separate administrations with an
administrative chief as head to whom the various departments were
subordinated.
DR. SERVATIUS: How many such deputies were there in one area?
SAUCKEL: In the various countries I had one deputy in each of the
highest offices.
DR. SERVATIUS: What was the task of the deputy?
SAUCKEL: The task of the deputy, as I have already said, was to
guarantee that German orders were carried out in a legal way and, as
member of the local administration, to regulate labor questions which
arose there.
DR. SERVATIUS: What tasks did they have as regards the interest of the
Reich and the distribution of labor for local employment and in the
Reich?
SAUCKEL: It was expressly pointed out that they were to produce labor in
reasonable proportions with consideration for local conditions; they
also had to see to it that my principles were observed with respect to
the treatment, feeding, and so forth of workers from the occupied zones.
That is laid down in the form of a directive.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you not have your own recruiting commissions?
SAUCKEL: There were no recruiting commissions in the sense in which the
expression is often used here and in our own documents. It was a
question of reinforcements of experts which were requested by the local
government, in order to carry out the tasks in the countries concerned.
DR. SERVATIUS: What instructions did these recruiting commissions have?
SAUCKEL: They received the instructions which are frequently and clearly
expressed in my orders and which, as they have been laid down, I need
not mention.
DR. SERVATIUS: I refer here to Document 15 which has already been
submitted as 3044-PS; Exhibit Number USA-206, and also USSR-384.
That is the Order Number 4 of 7 May 1942, which settles in principle all
the problems relating to this question, and gives the necessary
directives to the deputies regarding recruitment.
Were those directives which you issued always adhered to?
SAUCKEL: The directives I issued were not always adhered to as strictly
as I had demanded. I made every effort to impose them through constant
orders, instructions, and punishment which, however, I myself could not
inflict.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were these orders meant seriously? The French Prosecution
has submitted in the government report one of your speeches, which you
made at that time in Posen. It was termed a speech of apology. I ask you
whether these principles were meant seriously or whether they were only
for the sake of appearances, since you yourself believed, as the
document stated, that they could not be carried out?
SAUCKEL: I can only emphasize that in my life I had worked so much
myself under such difficult conditions that these instructions expressed
my full conviction as to their necessity. I ask to have witnesses heard
as to what I thought about it and what I did in order to have these
instructions carried out.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was there any noticeable opposition to your principles?
SAUCKEL: I have already said that to a certain extent my principles were
considered troublesome by some authorities and injudicious as far as
German security was concerned.
When I was attacked on that account, I took occasion, in addition to a
number of instructions to the German Gauleiter, to issue a manifesto to
all the highest German government offices concerned.
DR. SERVATIUS: May I remark that this is Document S-84, in Document Book
3, Page 215.
I submit the document once more in German because of the form in which
it is printed. It is in the form of an urgent warning and was sent to
all the authorities.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it Document Number 84?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.
Witness, did you, in a meeting of the Central Planning Board ...
SAUCKEL: May I be allowed to say a word with regard to this manifesto?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.
SAUCKEL: When I issued the manifesto, I was met with the objection,
mainly from Dr. Goebbels, that a manifesto should really be issued only
by the Führer and not by a subordinate authority such as myself. Then I
found that I was having difficulties in getting the manifesto printed.
After I had had 150,000 copies printed for all the German economic
offices, for all the works managers and all the other offices which were
interested, I had it printed again myself in this emphatic form and
personally sent it once more, with a covering letter, to all those
offices.
In this manifesto, in spite of the difficulties which I encountered, I
especially advocated that in the occupied territories themselves the
workers should be treated in accordance with my principles and according
to my directives and orders.
I respectfully ask the Court to be allowed to read a few sentences from
it:
“I therefore order that for all the occupied territories, for
the treatment, feeding, billeting, and payment of foreign
workers, appropriate regulations and directives be issued
similar to those valid for foreigners in the Reich. They are to
be adjusted to the respective local conditions and applied in
accordance with prevailing conditions.
“In a number of the Eastern Territories indigenous male and
female civilian labor working for the German war industry or the
German Wehrmacht is undernourished. In the urgent interests of
the German war industry in this territory this condition should
be remedied. It is checking production and is dangerous. And
endeavor must therefore be made by all means available to
provide additional food for these workers and their families.
This additional food must be given only in accordance with the
output of work.
“It is only through the good care and treatment of the whole of
the available European labor on the one hand, and through its
most rigid concentration”—here I mean
organizational—“leadership and direction on the other hand,
that the fluctuation of labor in the Reich and in the occupied
territories can be limited to a minimum, and a generally stable,
lasting and reliable output be achieved.”
May I read one more sentence:
“The foreign workers in the Reich and the population in the
occupied territories who are being employed for the German war
effort must be given the feeling that it is to their own
interests to work loyally for Germany and that therein alone
will they see and actually find their one real guarantee of
life.”
May I read still one sentence in the next paragraph:
“They must be given absolute trust in the justness of the German
authorities and of their German employers.”
THE PRESIDENT: I think we had better not go further in this document.
Can you indicate to us at all how long you are likely to be with this
defendant?
DR. SERVATIUS: I shall probably need the whole day tomorrow.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Dodd, would it be convenient for you some time to
deal with the documents of the remaining defendants?
MR. DODD: Yes, Mr. President, any time that you might set aside.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you know how far the negotiations and agreements
with reference to documents have gone.
MR. DODD: I do with some, but not with all. I can ascertain the facts
tonight, or before the morning session, and advise you at that time.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, and you will let us know tomorrow what time will be
convenient?
MR. DODD: Yes, Sir.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn.
[_The Tribunal adjourned until 29 May 1946 at 1000 hours._]
TRANSCRIBER NOTES
Punctuation and spelling have been maintained except where obvious
printer errors have occurred such as missing periods or commas for
periods. English and American spellings occur throughout the document;
however, American spellings are the rule, hence, “Defense” versus
“Defence”. Unlike Blue Series volumes I and II, this volume includes
French, German, Polish and Russian names and terms with diacriticals:
hence Führer, Göring, etc. throughout.
Although some sentences may appear to have incorrect spellings or verb
tenses, the original text has been maintained as it represents what the
tribunal read into the record and reflects the actual translations
between the German, English, French, and Russian documents presented in
the trial.
An attempt has been made to produce this eBook in a format as close as
possible to the original document presentation and layout.
[The end of _Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International
Military Tribunal Vol. 14_, by Various.]