One Hundred and Forty-first Day, Wednesday, 29 May 1946,
Morning Session 1
Afternoon Session 36
One Hundred and Forty-second Day, Thursday, 30 May 1946,
Morning Session 63
Afternoon Session 100
One Hundred and Forty-third Day, Friday, 31 May 1946,
Morning Session 132
Afternoon Session 169
One Hundred and Forty-fourth Day, Saturday, 1 June 1946,
Morning Session 212
One Hundred and Forty-fifth Day, Monday, 3 June 1946,
Morning Session 253
Afternoon Session 288
One Hundred and Forty-sixth Day, Tuesday, 4 June 1946,
Morning Session 311
Afternoon Session 338
One Hundred and Forty-seventh Day, Wednesday, 5 June 1946,
Morning Session 370
Afternoon Session 400
One Hundred and Forty-eighth Day, Thursday, 6 June 1946,
Morning Session 435
Afternoon Session 474
One Hundred and Forty-ninth Day, Friday, 7 June 1946,
Morning Session 512
Afternoon Session 546
One Hundred and Fiftieth Day, Saturday, 8 June 1946,
Morning Session 574
One Hundred and Fifty-first Day, Monday, 10 June 1946,
Morning Session 610
Afternoon Session 640
ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY-FIRST DAY
Wednesday, 29 May 1946
_Morning Session_
THE PRESIDENT (Lord Justice Sir Geoffrey Lawrence): The Tribunal will
adjourn this afternoon at 4 o’clock in order to sit in closed session.
MR. THOMAS J. DODD (Executive Trial Counsel for the United States): Mr.
President, the day before yesterday the Tribunal asked if we would
ascertain whether or not Document Number D-880 had been offered in
evidence. It consists of extracts from the testimony of Admiral Raeder,
and we have ascertained that it was offered, and it is Exhibit Number
GB-483. It was put to a witness by Mr. Elwyn Jones in the course of
cross-examination, and it has been offered in evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
MR. DODD: Also, with respect to the Court’s inquiry concerning the
status of other defendants and their documents, we are able to say this
morning that with respect to the Defendant Jodl the documents are now
being translated and mimeographed, and there is no need for any hearing
before the Tribunal.
The Seyss-Inquart documents have been heard and are now being translated
and mimeographed.
The Von Papen documents are settled; there is no disagreement between
the Prosecution and the Defendant Von Papen, and they are in the process
of being mimeographed and translated.
With respect to the Defendant Speer, we think there will be no need for
any hearing, and I expect that by the end of today they will be sent to
the translating and mimeographing departments.
The documents for the Defendant Von Neurath have not yet been submitted
by the defendant to the Prosecution.
And with respect to the Defendant Fritzsche, our Russian colleagues will
be in a position to advise us more exactly in the course of the day. I
expect that I shall be able to advise the Tribunal as to the Defendant
Fritzsche before the session ends today.
THE PRESIDENT: Does that conclude all questions of witnesses?
MR. DODD: Yes, I believe—at least, we have no objection to any of the
witnesses.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, then; there need not be any further hearing in
open court on the cases of the Defendants Jodl, Seyss-Inquart, Von
Papen, and Speer until their actual cases are presented.
MR. DODD: Yes, Sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
DR. ROBERT SERVATIUS (Counsel for the Defendant Sauckel): Mr. President,
I have a technical question to bring up. Yesterday the witness
Hildebrandt arrived, but again it was the wrong Hildebrandt. This is the
third witness who has appeared here in this comedy of errors. It was the
wrong one for Mende, the wrong one for Stothfang, and the wrong one for
Hildebrandt. But this witness knows where the right ones are.
The witnesses had received information in their camp that they were to
appear here and they were then taken to the collecting center for
Ministerial Directors in Berlin-Lichterfelde. Perhaps it will still be
possible to bring these two witnesses here. Especially the witness
Hildebrandt, who can testify about the French matters, would be of
importance if we could still get him.
THE PRESIDENT: Was the name given accurately to the General Secretary?
DR. SERVATIUS: The name was given accurately. The other man’s name was
also Hildebrandt, only not Hubert but Heinrich. He was also a
Ministerial Director...
THE PRESIDENT: I do not mean only the surname but all his Christian
names.
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, one name was Heinrich and the other Hubert, and
abbreviated it was “H” for both, Dr. H. Hildebrandt, which apparently
caused the confusion.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I say the names of all witnesses had better be
given in full; really in full, not merely with initials.
DR. SERVATIUS: I had given the name in full. As to the physician, the
Witness Dr. Jäger, I received his private address this morning. He is
not under arrest. He was at first a witness for the Prosecution. His
private address is in Essen, in the Viehhof Platz, and he is there now.
THE PRESIDENT: I think you had better take up all these details with the
General Secretary, and he will give you every assistance.
DR. SERVATIUS: Concerning the case of Sauckel, I should like to make one
more remark to the Tribunal.
There are about 150 documents which have been submitted by the
Prosecution, and some of them are only remotely connected with Sauckel.
No trial brief and no special charges were presented here orally against
Sauckel, so that I cannot see in detail to what extent Sauckel is held
responsible. The case was dealt with only under the heading of “Slave
Labor,” and so the ground of the defense is somewhat unsteady.
I do not intend to discuss every one of these 150 documents, but I
should like to reserve the right to deal with some of them later if that
should appear necessary. I want to point out only the most important
ones, and then return to them in the course of the proceedings. At any
rate, may I ask you not to construe it as an admission if I do not raise
objections against any of these documents now.
THE PRESIDENT: No admission will be inferred from that. Dr. Servatius, I
have before me here a document presented by the French Prosecution
against the Defendant Sauckel. I suppose what you mean is that that
document, that trial brief entitled _Responsabilité Individuelle_, does
not refer to each of these 150 documents.
DR. SERVATIUS: There was, first of all, a document book, “Slave Labor,”
submitted by the American Prosecution, which is not headed “Sauckel” but
“Slave Labor”; and I cannot say, therefore, which parts concern Sauckel
in particular.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it does say, “...and the special responsibility of
the Defendants Sauckel and Speer therefore...” That is the American
document book. It does name Sauckel.
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: And there is this other trial brief presented by Mr.
Mounier on behalf of the French Delegation, which is definitely against
Sauckel. But no doubt that does not specify all these 150 documents that
you are referring to.
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.
[_The Defendant Sauckel resumed the stand._]
Witness, yesterday near the end of the session we spoke about a
manifesto—that memorandum which was intended to impress upon the
various offices their duty to carry out your directives and to remove
the resistance that existed. Now, you yourself have made statements
which are hardly compatible with your directives, it seems. I submit to
you Document Number R-124. That concerns a meeting of the Central
Planning Board of 1 March 1944. There, with regard to recruitment, you
said that, in order to get the workers, one ought to resort to
“shanghai,” as was the custom in earlier days. You said:
“I have even resorted to the method of training staffs of French
men and women agents ... who go out on man hunts and stupefy
victims with drink and persuasive arguments in order to get them
to Germany.”
Have you found that?
FRITZ SAUCKEL (Defendant): I have found it.
THE PRESIDENT: Whereabouts in 124 is it?
DR. SERVATIUS: That is Document R-124.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but it is a very long document.
DR. SERVATIUS: It is in the document itself, Page 1770.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I have got it.
SAUCKEL: That is, as I can see, the report or record of a meeting of the
Central Planning Board of the spring of 1944. During that year it had
become extremely difficult for me to meet the demands of the various
employers of labor represented in the Central Planning Board. At no time
did I issue directives or even recommendations to “shanghai.” In this
conference I merely used that word as reminiscent of my days as a
seaman, in order to defend myself against those who demanded workers of
me, and in order to make it clear to the gentlemen how difficult my task
had become, particularly in 1944. Actually, a very simple situation is
at the root of this. According to German labor laws and according to my
own convictions, the “Arbeitsvermittlung” (procurement of labor)—the
old word for “Arbeitseinsatz” (allocation of labor)—was a right of the
State; and we, myself included, scorned private methods of recruitment.
In 1944 Premier Laval, the head of the French government, told me that
he was also having great difficulties in carrying out the labor laws
where his own workers were concerned.
In view of that, and in agreement with one of my collaborators, Dr.
Didier, conferences were held in the German Embassy—the witness
Hildebrandt, I believe, is better able to give information about
that—with the head of the collaborationist associations, that is to
say, associations among the French population which advocated
collaboration with Germany. During these conferences at the German
Embassy these associations stated that in their opinion official
recruitment in France had become very difficult. They said that they
would like to take charge of that and would like to provide recruiting
agents from their own ranks and also provide people from among their
members who would go to Germany voluntarily. Recruitment was not to take
place through official agencies but in cafés. In these cafés, of course,
certain expenses would be necessary which would have to be met; and the
recruiting agents would have to be paid a bonus, or be compensated by a
glass of wine or some gin. That way of doing things, naturally, did not
appeal to me personally; but I was in such difficulties in view of the
demands put to me that I agreed, without intending, of course, that the
idea of “shanghai” with its overseas suggestions and so forth should be
seriously considered.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did this suggestion come from the Frenchmen, or was it
your suggestion?
SAUCKEL: As I have said already, the suggestion was made by the French
leaders of these associations.
DR. SERVATIUS: If you read on a few lines in the document, you will find
that mention is made of special executive powers which you wanted to
create for the allocation of labor; it says there:
“Beyond that, I have charged a few capable men with the
establishment of a special executive force for the Allocation of
Labor. Under the leadership of the Higher SS and Police Leader a
number of indigenous units have been trained and armed, and I
now have to ask the Ministry of Munitions for weapons for these
people.”
How do you explain that?
SAUCKEL: That, also, can be explained clearly only in connection with
the events that I have just described. At that time there had been many
attacks on German offices and mixed German-French labor offices. The
Director of the Department for the Allocation of Labor in the office of
the military commander in France, President Dr. Ritter, had been
murdered. A number of recruiting offices had been raided and destroyed.
For that reason these associations who were in favor of collaboration
had suggested, for the protection of their own members, that a sort of
bodyguard for the recruiting organization should be set up. Of course I
could not do that myself because I had neither the authority nor the
machinery for it. In accordance with the orders of the military
commander, it had to be done by the Higher SS and Police Leader; that
is, under his supervision. This was carried out in conjunction with the
French Minister of the Interior at that time, Darnand; so as to be able
to stand my ground against the censure of the Central Planning Board, I
used an example in this drastic form. As far as I know, these
hypothetical suggestions were not put into practice.
DR. SERVATIUS: Who actually carried out the recruitment of the foreign
workers?
SAUCKEL: The actual recruitment of foreign workers was the task of the
German offices established in the various regions, the offices of the
military commanders or similar civilian German institutions.
DR. SERVATIUS: You ordered recruitment to be voluntary. What was the
success of that voluntary recruitment?
SAUCKEL: Several million foreign workers came to Germany voluntarily, as
voluntary recruitment was the underlying principle.
DR. SERVATIUS: Now, at the meeting of the Central Planning Board—the
same meeting which we have just discussed—you made a remark which
contradicts that. It is on Page 67 of the German photostat, Page 1827 of
the English text. I shall read the sentence to you. Kehrl is speaking.
He says, “During that entire period, you brought a large number of
Frenchmen to the Reich by voluntary recruitment.”
Then an interruption by Sauckel: “Also by forced recruitment.”
The speaker continues, “Forced recruitment started when voluntary
recruitment no longer yielded sufficient numbers.”
Now comes the remark on which I want you to comment. You answered, “Of
the 5 million foreign workers who came to Germany, less than 200,000
came voluntarily.”
Please explain that contradiction.
SAUCKEL: I see that this is another interruption which I made. All I
wanted to say by it was that Herr Kehrl’s opinion that all workers had
come voluntarily was not quite correct. This proportion, which is put
down here by the stenographer or the man writing the records, is quite
impossible. How that error occurred, I do not know. I never saw the
record; but the witness Timm, or others, can give information on that.
DR. SERVATIUS: I refer now to Exhibit Sauckel-15. That is Directive
Number 4, which has been quoted already and which lays down specific
regulations with regard to recruiting measures. It has already been
submitted as Document Number 3044-PS. Why did you now abandon the
principle of voluntary recruitment?
SAUCKEL: In the course of the war our opponents also carried out very
considerable and widespread countermeasures. The need for manpower in
Germany, on the other hand, had become tremendous. During that period a
request was also put to me by French, Belgian, and Dutch circles to
bring about a better balance in the economy of these territories and
even to introduce what we called a labor draft law, so that the pressure
of enemy propaganda would be reduced and the Dutch, Belgians, and French
themselves could say that they were not going to Germany voluntarily but
that they had to go because of a compulsory labor service and because of
laws.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did the proximity of the front have any influence on the
fact that people no longer wanted to come voluntarily?
SAUCKEL: Of course I came to feel that; and it is understandable that
the chances of victory and defeat caused great agitation among the
workers; and the way things looked at the front certainly played an
important part.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did purely military considerations also cause the
introduction...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Francis Biddle, Member for the United States): Dr.
Servatius, will you ask the witness what he means by a labor draft law.
Does he mean a law of Germany or a law of the occupied countries?
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, you heard the question, whether you mean a
German law or a law of the administration of the occupied countries?
SAUCKEL: That varied. The Reich Government in some of the territories
introduced laws which corresponded to the laws that were valid for the
German people themselves. Those laws could not be issued by me, but they
were issued by the chiefs of the regional administrations or the
government of the country concerned on the order of the German
Government.
In France these laws were issued by the Laval Government, in agreement
with Marshal Pétain; in Belgium, in agreement with the Belgian general
secretaries or general directors still in office or with the ministries.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you mean, in the other countries, by the German
Government or the German Government’s representatives? You have only
spoken of...
SAUCKEL: The order to introduce German labor laws in the occupied
territories was given by the Führer. They were proclaimed and introduced
by the chiefs who had been appointed by the Führer for these
territories, for I myself was not in a position to issue any directives,
laws, or regulations there.
THE PRESIDENT: Go on.
DR. SERVATIUS: How were these laws carried out?
SAUCKEL: The laws were published in the official publications and legal
gazettes, as well as being made known through the press and by posters
in those territories.
DR. SERVATIUS: I mean the practical execution. How were the people
brought to Germany?
SAUCKEL: They were summoned to the local labor office, which was mostly
administered by local authorities. Cases had to be examined
individually, according to my directives, which have been submitted here
as documents. Cases of hardship to the family, or other such cases, were
given special consideration. Then, in the normal manner—as was done in
Germany also—the individual workers or conscripted persons were brought
to Germany.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were you present—did you ever witness this procedure?
SAUCKEL: I observed this procedure personally in a number of cities in
Russia, France, and Belgium; and I made sure that it was carried out in
accordance with orders.
DR. SERVATIUS: If compulsion was necessary, what coercive measures were
taken?
SAUCKEL: At first, such compulsory measures were taken as are justified
and necessary in every normal civil administration.
DR. SERVATIUS: And if they were not sufficient?
SAUCKEL: Then proceedings were proposed.
DR. SERVATIUS: These were legal measures, were they?
SAUCKEL: According to my conviction, they were legal measures.
DR. SERVATIUS: You have stated repeatedly in documents, which are
available here, that a certain amount of pressure was to be used. What
did you mean by that?
SAUCKEL: I consider that every administrative measure taken on the basis
of laws or duties imposed by the state, on one’s own nation, or in any
other way, constitutes some form of stress, duty, pressure.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were not measures used which brought about some sort of
collective pressure?
SAUCKEL: I rejected every kind of collective pressure. The refusal to
employ collective pressure is also evident from decrees issued by other
German offices in the Reich.
DR. SERVATIUS: Is it not true that in the East the villages were called
upon to provide a certain number of people?
SAUCKEL: In the East, of course, administrative procedure was rendered
difficult on account of the great distances. In the lower grades, as far
as I know, native mayors were in office in every case. It is possible
that a mayor was requested to select a number of workers from his
village or town for work in Germany.
DR. SERVATIUS: Is that the same as that form of collective pressure,
where, if nobody came, the entire village was to be punished?
SAUCKEL: Measures of that kind I rejected entirely in my field of
activity, because I could not and would not bring to the German economy
workers who had been taken to Germany in such a manner that they would
hate their life and their work in Germany from the very outset.
DR. SERVATIUS: What police facilities were at your disposal?
SAUCKEL: I had no police facilities at my disposal.
DR. SERVATIUS: Who exercised the police pressure?
SAUCKEL: Police pressure in the occupied territories could be exerted on
order or application of the respective chief of the territory, or of the
Higher SS and Police Leader, if authorized.
DR. SERVATIUS: Then it was not within your competence to exert direct
pressure?
SAUCKEL: No.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you exert indirect pressure by your directives, by
cutting off food supplies, or similar measures?
SAUCKEL: After the fall of Stalingrad and the proclamation of the state
of total war, Reich Minister Dr. Goebbels in Berlin interfered
considerably in all these problems. He ordered that in cases of
persistent refusal or signs of resistance compulsion was to be used by
means of refusing additional food rations, or even by withdrawal of
ration cards. I personally rejected measures of that kind energetically,
because I knew very well that in the western territories the so-called
food ration card played a subordinate role and that supplies were
provided for the resistance movement and its members on such a large
scale that such measures would have been quite ineffective. I did not
order or suggest them.
DR. SERVATIUS: At the meeting of the Central Planning Board on 1 March
1944 you also stated that, if the French executive agencies were unable
to get results, then one might have to put a prefect up against a wall.
Do you still consider this to be legally justified pressure?
SAUCKEL: That is a similarly drastic remark of mine in the Central
Planning Board which was never actually followed by an official order
and not even by any prompting on my part. It was simply that I had been
informed that in several departments in France the prefects or
responsible chiefs supported the resistance movement wholeheartedly.
Railroad tracks had been blown up; bridges had been blown up; and that
remark was a verbal reaction on my part. I believe, however, I was then
only thinking of a legal measure, because there did, in fact, exist a
French law which made sabotage an offense punishable by death.
DR. SERVATIUS: May I refer to the document in this connection?
THE PRESIDENT: Is it in Document Number R-124?
DR. SERVATIUS: It is on Page 1776, where it says that on the basis of
the law it would then be necessary to put a mayor up against a wall.
[_Turning to the defendant._] Do you know what laws existed in France
compelling co-operation from the French authorities, or whether there
were such laws?
SAUCKEL: Yes, such laws existed.
DR. SERVATIUS: A number of reports, which were submitted here,
concerning the application of measures of compulsion, mentioned abuses
and outrageous conditions allegedly caused by recruitment measures. What
can you say about that in general?
SAUCKEL: I did not quite understand your question.
DR. SERVATIUS: Concerning the use of compulsion, a number of reports
were brought up here, and you have heard them; reports setting forth
measures which must surely be generally condemned. You heard of the
burning down of villages and the shooting of men. What can you say to
that in general?
SAUCKEL: All these measures are clearly in contradiction to the
directives and instructions which I issued and which have been submitted
here in large numbers, and to these I must refer. These are methods
against which, when I heard as much as hints of them, I took very severe
measures.
DR. SERVATIUS: And who bears the immediate responsibility for such
incidents?
SAUCKEL: The responsibility for such incidents rests with the local
authorities which did these things.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were there any other offices besides the local
authorities which dealt with recruitment of labor?
SAUCKEL: That is exactly what I was fighting for from the very
beginning—to eliminate and combat the intricate maze of offices which,
without restraint or control, recruited workers by compulsion. That was
part of my job.
DR. SERVATIUS: What kind of offices were they? Local offices?
SAUCKEL: They were offices of all kinds. I myself heard about most of
them only here.
DR. SERVATIUS: What was the situation with regard to the Todt
Organization?
SAUCKEL: The Todt Organization for a long time recruited and used
manpower independently in all territories.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did the labor service have anything to do with that?
SAUCKEL: Do you mean the labor service of Reichsarbeitsführer Hierl?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.
SAUCKEL: That I cannot say; that was a German military organization for
training for manual work.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were workers taken for the Armed Forces?
SAUCKEL: Workers were employed for local urgent work, of course, by army
groups, by construction and fortification battalions, and so on, which I
neither knew about nor was in a position to control. Road building...
DR. SERVATIUS: How about the Reichsbahn?
SAUCKEL: The Reichsbahn repaired its tracks itself and recruited or
hired the workers for its requirements whenever it needed them.
DR. SERVATIUS: These offices were not under your supervision?
SAUCKEL: No.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did they carry out your instructions or were they
required to carry them out?
SAUCKEL: They were not obliged to carry them out; and for that very
reason I sent out, and in a very emphatic form, that manifesto which was
mentioned yesterday. As, however, I myself had no supervision over the
executive authorities, I had to leave it to the various offices to take
these instructions into consideration.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was the number of workers recruited in the various
territories in that manner very large?
SAUCKEL: There were certainly very large numbers of them.
DR. SERVATIUS: There were also Reich offices which dealt with the
question of manpower. What about the deportations carried out by
Himmler? Did you have any connection with those?
SAUCKEL: With reference to the question of these deportations, I can
only say that I did not have the least thing to do with them. I never
agreed—I never could have agreed, in view of my own outlook, my
development, and my life—I could not have agreed to the use of
prisoners or convicts for work in that manner. That was absolutely
foreign to my nature. I also have the firm conviction that, on account
of my forcible statements and measures, I was intentionally kept
uninformed about the whole matter, because it was quite contrary to my
own views on work and on workers. I said very often—and it can be seen
in documents here—that I wanted to win the co-operation of the foreign
workers for Germany and for the German way of life, and I did not want
to alienate them.
DR. SERVATIUS: These then were the various offices which, apart from
you, had to do with recruitment of workers?
SAUCKEL: May I make a short statement in that respect? I heard the word
“deportation” a few times in Germany and I always rejected the idea very
emphatically because I knew nothing about such operations. According to
the use of the word in the German language I understand “deportation” to
mean the sending away of prisoners and of people who have committed some
punishable act against the State. I never carried out deportations
because of my own views on the ethics of work. On the contrary, I gave
the workers recruited through my office—and that was the point on which
I finally obtained Hitler’s consent at the beginning of my job, and it
was not an easy matter—I gave all foreign workers legal contracts,
whether they came voluntarily or through German labor conscription. They
should and must receive the same treatment, the same pay, and the same
food as the German workers. That is why I rejected the idea of
deportation in my methods and my program. I can testify here with a
clear conscience that I had nothing at all to do with those
deportations, the terrible extent of which I learned only here.
DR. SERVATIUS: You have pointed out repeatedly that this labor had to be
brought to Germany under all circumstances, that one had to proceed
ruthlessly, that it was an absolute necessity to get the workers. Does
that not show that you agreed with such measures?
SAUCKEL: I should like to point out the following distinction:
My directives and instructions can be clearly seen in numerous
documents. I could issue only these because I had no executive power and
no machinery of my own. All these directives, from the very beginning,
prescribe legally correct and just treatment. It is true, however, that
I used the words “under all circumstances” when communicating with
German offices—the Führer himself had impressed these words on me—and
I used the word “ruthlessly,” not with respect to the treatment of
workers but with respect to the many arguments, disputes, arbitrary
acts, and individual desires which the German offices, with which I had
to contend fiercely, had among themselves and against me. For the most
part they did not understand the importance of the allocation of labor
as an economic measure in time of war. The military authorities, the
army commanders, very often told me, for instance, that it was nonsense
to bring these people to Germany. There was the Vlassov Army under the
Russian general of that name, and the military authorities wanted these
Russian workers to join the Vlassov Army. I opposed that. I did not
consider it right, nor did I consider it sufficiently reliable. These
were the things against which I had to proceed ruthlessly in my dealings
with the German administration in those territories.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were there other circumstances, too, which led to the
transportation of people to Germany?
SAUCKEL: Yes, there were other circumstances which, however, were not
connected directly but indirectly with the allocation of labor, and they
often took me by surprise; for example, the evacuation of military
zones, which frequently had to be carried through at a moment’s notice
or after only a very short time of preparation. And when such an
evacuation had been carried out it was the task of the local labor
offices to put the evacuated population to work in areas in the rear or
to bring to Germany such workers as could be used there.
This sort of labor allocation entailed, of course, considerable
difficulties for me. There were families and children among the
evacuated people; and they, naturally, had also to be provided with
shelter. It was often the very natural wish of the Russian fathers and
mothers to take their children with them. That happened, not because I
wanted it, but because it was unavoidable.
DR. SERVATIUS: And did you always use this labor, or only occasionally?
SAUCKEL: To a large extent those people were used by the local
authorities in those territories and put into agriculture, industry,
railroads, bridge building, and so on.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you have anything to do with resettlement?
SAUCKEL: I never had anything to do with resettlement. By a decree of
the Führer that task was expressly delegated to the Reichsführer SS.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did Rosenberg not report to you about bad conditions
which existed in his sphere?
SAUCKEL: Yes. I had about four conversations with Rosenberg, at his
request; and he told me about the bad conditions. There was no doubt on
my part that such conditions were to be utterly condemned.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did he speak about Koch?
SAUCKEL: The Reichskommissariat Ukraine was mainly involved. There were
considerable differences between the Reich Minister for the Occupied
Eastern Territories, Rosenberg, and Reich Commissioner Koch.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were you in a position to take measures against Koch?
SAUCKEL: Koch was not subordinate to me either directly or indirectly. I
could not give him any instructions in such matters. I let him know from
the outset that I could not possibly agree with such methods as I had
heard about, to some extent through Rosenberg, although I could not
prove them.
Koch was of the opinion—and he explained that in his letters to
Rosenberg—that in his territory he was the sole authority. He also
pointed that out to me.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did Rosenberg not think the cause for these conditions
was that your demands were too high?
SAUCKEL: I also spoke to Herr Rosenberg about that. I personally was of
the opinion that, if the demands could be divided up and orderly
recruitment and conscription could take place, it was quite possible to
fill the quotas. After all I had orders and instructions from the Führer
and the Central Planning Board.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you ever talk about the methods which should be used?
SAUCKEL: The methods that should be used were not only frequently
discussed between us, but I published them in many very clear
directives. I even went so far as to issue and distribute my manifesto
over the head of this higher authority to the subordinate offices so
that they could be guided by it.
I have to point out emphatically, however, that these were incidents
which occurred for the most part before my directives came into effect
and before my appointment.
DR. SERVATIUS: I want to refer you to Document Number 018-PS. That is in
the “Slave Labor Brief,” Page 10.
THE PRESIDENT: That is not Page 10. It is Number 10.
DR. SERVATIUS: It is Exhibit Number USA-186. In the English “Slave
Labor” Book it is Document 10. It is a letter of 21 December 1942.
[_The document was handed to the defendant._]
If you go through that document, you will see that Rosenberg complains
about the methods used by your agents and collaborators. What are these
offices for which you are being made responsible here?
SAUCKEL: There is an error in this letter on the part of Herr Rosenberg,
because it was not I who had offices there but the Reich Commissioner.
DR. SERVATIUS: In other words you are saying that he addressed himself
to the wrong person?
SAUCKEL: Yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: Then will you lay that document aside.
SAUCKEL: Rosenberg writes on Page 2, “I empowered the Reich Commissioner
for the Ukraine...”
DR. SERVATIUS: You assume, therefore, that the writer of this letter did
not himself know exactly who the authorities in his territory were?
SAUCKEL: Yes, that was quite possible, because I myself had only been in
office a short time.
DR. SERVATIUS: What did you do as a result of the complaint which
Rosenberg made? Did you do anything at all?
SAUCKEL: After receiving Rosenberg’s letter I had a discussion with him
immediately. As it was shortly before Christmas, 21 December 1942, I
called by telegram an official meeting at Weimar for 6 January, to which
representatives of the respective offices in the East were invited. I
also invited Reich Minister Rosenberg to that meeting. And at that
conference these officials were again told clearly and unmistakably,
that it was their duty to use correct and legal methods.
DR. SERVATIUS: In that connection I would like to refer to Document
Number Sauckel-82. It is in the Sauckel Document Book Number 3, Page
207. I submit the handbook itself, which contains a number of documents
for judicial notice.
I quote one sentence from the speech on the principles of recruiting
which Sauckel made there before 800 people who were employed in the
Allocation of Labor program.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you say 800?
DR. SERVATIUS: Page 206.
THE PRESIDENT: It is 8,000 in my copy. Isn’t it 8,000?
DR. SERVATIUS: The third book, Page 206, Document Number 82.
THE PRESIDENT: I am looking at Document Number 82. I thought you said
800 men were employed. I am looking at the beginning of Document 82.
DR. SERVATIUS: It begins on Page 204. He spoke before 800 people, not
8,000. It should be 800. That is a mistake in the translation of the
document.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. SERVATIUS: The following is stated here:
“Principles of our recruiting:
“1) Where the voluntary method fails (and experience shows that
it fails everywhere) compulsory service takes its place....”—I
skip a few sentences.
“It is bitter to tear people from their homes, from their
children. But we did not want the war. The German child who
loses its father at the front, the German wife who mourns her
husband killed in battle, suffer far more. Let us disclaim every
false sentiment now.”
THE PRESIDENT: You have left out some of the document, have you not?
DR. SERVATIUS: I did not quite understand.
THE PRESIDENT: You have left out some of the document.
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, I omitted some sentences and I said so. But I can
read all of it.
THE PRESIDENT: I only mean on Page 206. I didn’t mean the whole
document. On Page 206 you have just skipped two sentences.
DR. SERVATIUS: I have four sentences there. I will read them again:
“Where the voluntary method fails, compulsory service takes its
place.”
Then I omitted two sentences, which I shall now read:
“This is the iron law for the Allocation of Labor for 1943. In a
few weeks from now there must no longer be any occupied
territory in which compulsory service for Germany is not the
most natural thing in the world.”
THE PRESIDENT: Didn’t you also leave out the words “experience shows
that it fails everywhere”?
DR. SERVATIUS: I read that the first time; I wanted to save time.
“We are going to discard the last remnants of our soft talk
about humanitarian ideals. Every additional gun which we procure
brings us a minute closer to victory. It is bitter to tear
people from their homes, from their children. But we did not
want the war. The German child who loses its father at the
front, the German wife who mourns her husband killed in battle,
suffer far more. Let us disclaim every false sentiment now.
“Here we must be guided by the realization that in the long run
a high output can be demanded of foreign workers only if they
are satisfied with their lot. I will not tolerate men being
treated badly.
“3) Under no circumstances are you, as the recruiting commission
abroad, permitted to promise things which according to the
directives and regulations issued are not possible and cannot be
carried out on account of the war. It is much better to
introduce labor conscription and say, ‘You must take this upon
yourselves and in return you will enjoy the rights of the
workers employed in Germany.’ Anyone who works in Germany has
rights in Germany, even if he is a Bolshevist. We shall watch
very carefully to insure that the German name be not sullied.
You can demand of me any protection in your field of work, but
none for any crimes. The name of our nation is holy. For the
first time in German history you must represent for the Reich
the principles of German labor. Be conscious of that at all
times.”
[_Turning to the defendant._] Apart from the information which you
received from Rosenberg, did you receive any other reports concerning
recruiting methods?
SAUCKEL: Apart from the information from Rosenberg and his letters of
that time, I did not receive any other direct complaints. But I had
issued emphatic orders that any complaints received by my office were to
be forwarded immediately to the competent Reich authorities for
investigation, punishment, and the remedying of the grievances. I should
like to state this: My office received a great many complaints which
concerned me; but they were complaints about insufficient numbers of
workers provided by me. It was my duty to correct this. For the
correction of inadequacies in administration, for eliminating unjust
measures in various fields or various agencies, I could not be
competent, as the Reich authorities themselves were competent in that
respect.
DR. SERVATIUS: But it should have been of great interest to you what
happened there. Did you not hear anything of these incidents? Was
nothing reported to you?
SAUCKEL: That I was interested from a humane and personal point of view
can be seen from the fact that I was concerned about these things,
although they did not come within my office.
DR. SERVATIUS: But you spoke here about one case in which it was
reported to you that a cinema had been surrounded. Perhaps you remember
that case?
SAUCKEL: When on a visit to Field Marshal Kluge, I heard from him that
he had been informed that in the area of his army, or army group, a
cinema had been surrounded and the people attending the cinema had been
brought to Germany to work. I immediately had that case most carefully
investigated, and the investigation took 3 months. Witnesses will be
able to testify to that when they appear here. The result of the
investigation was the following: It was not a case of labor recruitment
for Germany. A construction unit near Rovno was celebrating in that
cinema the end of one of its tasks; and in the middle of that
celebration the order was received that this unit had to be put on a new
job, a different place of work. The contractor thereupon interrupted the
celebration in a very drastic way by having the immediate transport of
these workers carried out by a force of police. That, of course, had
nothing to do with my work and my organization; but it took me 3 months
to discover the true facts of this complaint by Field Marshal Kluge. In
every case where such complaints came to my attention I investigated and
dealt with them and condemned them, because they did not help me.
DR. SERVATIUS: We will leave this matter of recruitment now and turn to
the question of the transportation of these people to Germany. Who was
responsible for their transportation?
SAUCKEL: For transportation the German Reichsbahn and the authorities
designated in my Directive Number 4—regional offices and regional labor
departments—were responsible. Immediately on assuming my office I had a
detailed discussion with Dr. Dorpmüller, Reich Minister of Transport;
his state secretary, Dr. Ganzenmüller; and before him Dr. Kleinmüller;
and it was agreed that the transportation of workers to Germany should
be carried out in an unobjectionable manner; that the transport trains
should be supplied with food for the duration of the journey; that, if
Russians were included in these transports, the cars should under no
circumstances be overcrowded; and that, if at all possible, passenger
coaches should be used for these transports. We agreed on this, though
the Reich Minister of Transport said that he could not be expected to
provide the people with better transport than the German soldiers had;
still, he could at least guarantee that the cars would not be
overcrowded.
DR. SERVATIUS: You have seen the Molotov report, that is Exhibit Number
USSR-51. You know its contents, describing the conditions of these
transports, saying that the cars were overcrowded, that the dying were
thrown out and left lying on the tracks, and that newly born children
died immediately. Were such conditions reported to you, or did you hear
of them in your official position?
SAUCKEL: Such incidents were not reported to me in my official position,
and they could not possibly have referred to worker transports of my
office.
DR. SERVATIUS: What kind of transports could they have been then?
SAUCKEL: As far as I could determine from the proceedings here, they
must have been transports of inmates of concentration camps who were
being evacuated. I do not know for certain; but I cannot explain it
otherwise because I would not tolerate such conditions under any
circumstances, nor did I hear about them. Such things were of no
advantage to us.
THE PRESIDENT: Where is that document, USSR-51?
DR. SERVATIUS: USSR-51 is the official report which I received in
printed form. I have a printed German copy. I assume that it has been
submitted to the Tribunal already. If not, I will obtain it and submit
it myself.
THE PRESIDENT: If it has got the Number USSR-51, it must have been
submitted to the Tribunal. That is the exhibit number. I wonder whether
it has got some other number by which we can identify it?
DR. SERVATIUS: The Prosecution handed me Document Number 054-PS: that is
Exhibit Number USA-198. That is Number 13 in the English “Slave Labor”
Book.
[_Turning to the defendant._] There, on Page 4, mention is made of a
return transport, and in connection with it very bad conditions are
described and censured. Did you find it? The passage begins:
“Very depressing effects on the morale of the skilled workers
and the population are caused above all by people returning from
Germany in a condition unfit for work, or who were already unfit
before they came to Germany.”
SAUCKEL: These can only be incidents which occurred before...
THE PRESIDENT: We haven’t had the question yet, have we? The question
didn’t come through, I think.
DR. SERVATIUS: I will put the question again.
In this document mention is made of return transports from Germany to
the East, and two transports are denounced on account of the abominable
conditions which are described. I quote from the document:
“Very depressing effects on the morale of the skilled workers
and the population are caused above all by people returning from
Germany in a condition unfit for work, or who were already unfit
before they came to Germany. Several times already transports of
skilled workers on their way to Germany have passed returning
transports of such unfit persons, and they have stood on the
tracks alongside each other for some time. On account of the
insufficient care given these returning transports (sick,
injured, or weak people, mostly 50 or 60 to a car, often many
days without sufficient care and food, usually escorted by only
3 or 4 men), and through the frequently very unfavorable—even
if exaggerated—statements of these repatriates about their
treatment in Germany and en route, added to what the people
could see with their own eyes, a psychosis of fear developed
among the skilled workers and others being transported to
Germany. Several transport leaders, especially those of the 62d
and the 63d Transports, reported details in this connection. In
one case the leader of the transport of skilled workers observed
with his own eyes how a person who had died of hunger was
unloaded on the side track from a returning transport. (1st Lt.
Hofmann of the 63d Transport, Darniza Station.) On another
occasion it was reported that en route three dead...”
THE PRESIDENT: I don’t think you need read all of this to the defendant.
He probably knows it and he can give his answer upon it.
DR. SERVATIUS: You see that reference is being made to a report; will
you please comment on it?
SAUCKEL: Concerning this report, may I say the following: These terrible
conditions had to be investigated at once by the local authorities
concerned. A report on the result of the investigation did not reach me.
This report here was also not made to me. I may point out that the
transportation to Germany of sick people unfit for work was strictly
prohibited by me, because that would have been a crime and an
impossibility from the economic point of view. I could not possibly say
who sent these trains back. It was also not established what kind of
transports they really were. The report describes conditions which
already existed before I came into office. I, personally—and I should
like to emphasize this particularly—issued a decree according to which
sick people or pregnant women—I personally issued orders that, if a
return transport of sick people were necessary, the German Red Cross
were to furnish personnel to accompany these people all the way back to
their native place. These orders can be found among the codes. Such
terrible cases of negligence and crime are, therefore, in contradiction
to the clear regulations issued by the German labor authorities.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you not equip Bad Frankenthal for sick people who
could not return?
SAUCKEL: In my own Gau it was not Bad Frankenthal but Bad Frankenhausen,
Kyffhäuser, which I made available for sick Soviet workers. In addition,
I had a large school set aside in Edendorf near Weimar with 100 beds for
typhus patients and Russian prisoners of war. So, on my own initiative,
I myself did everything possible to help in dealing with cases of
sickness and similar matters. It was also prohibited to return people
while they were in a sick condition.
THE PRESIDENT: We had better adjourn now.
[_A recess was taken._]
DR. SERVATIUS: When the workers arrived in Germany...
SAUCKEL: May I say something about Document Number 054-PS to supplement
my testimony? It is very important.
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.
SAUCKEL: On Page 5, near the center of the page, I should like to call
your attention to the following sentence of the reporter—this is a
report within a military authority: “These extreme incidents which took
place in transports in the first few months did not, to our knowledge,
repeat themselves in the summer.” In the first months of the year 1942 I
was not even in office, and my program did not commence until May. In
the summer of that year, as it is correctly stated here, an end was put
to this state of affairs.
Furthermore, I should like to call attention in the same document,
054-PS, I believe on Page 10, to a copy of a letter of complaint which
says, “As I informed you in my letter of 20 April 1942...” It is
evident, therefore, that this letter deals with complaints about
conditions which must have been disclosed before I assumed office.
DR. SERVATIUS: I was going to ask you about the arrival of workers in
Germany. What happened when a transport arrived in Germany?
SAUCKEL: Upon their arrival in Germany the people of the transport had
not only to be properly received but they also had to be medically
examined again and checked at a transit camp. One examination had to be
made at the time and place of recruitment, and another took place at a
fixed point before the border. Thus, from the time of recruitment until
being put to work three medical examinations and checks had to be made,
according to my directives.
DR. SERVATIUS: What were the transit camps?
SAUCKEL: These transit camps were camps in which the people from the
various transports came together at the border, and where they were
examined and registered in the proper manner.
DR. SERVATIUS: I submit Document Number UK-39 to you. I have no exhibit
number for it.
THE PRESIDENT: It is a British exhibit?
DR. SERVATIUS: I could not establish whether it already has an exhibit
number; I shall have to check on that. At any rate, it was given to me.
THE PRESIDENT: You gave the Number UK-39?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, UK-39.
THE PRESIDENT: It must be a British exhibit number, must it not?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE (Deputy Chief Prosecutor for the United Kingdom):
The series is not a British exhibit; our exhibits are “GB.” It is an
earlier series of documents that we have prepared. But we will try to
find out.
DR. SERVATIUS: If you will look at this document, it is a letter of the
Reich Security Main Office, dated 18 January 1943, concerning
“Concentration Camp Hertogenbosch.” Then it says, “This camp will be
equipped as a transit and reception camp.”
Was that a place to which your workers were sent?
SAUCKEL: The Allocation of Labor had nothing at all to do with these
camps and concentration camps. This was not a transit camp for workers
but was obviously the transit camp of a concentration camp. These were
not at all known to me. I never had to and never did concern myself with
such transports and transit camps; and I would not have done it.
DR. SERVATIUS: A report of the French Government was submitted here; it
is Document Number UK-78 and French Exhibit Number RF-87. The heading is
“Third Study.” It is a very comprehensive report. I shall quote from my
notes. The report contains the following, roughly: “Immediately, upon
their arrival the workers were taken to these actual slave markets which
were called sorting houses. The living conditions there were miserable.”
Is that one of your transit camps which is so described?
SAUCKEL: That is absolutely impossible; such a camp never existed.
DR. SERVATIUS: How was the distribution of the workers carried out in
practice? I refer once more to the Molotov report, Document Number
USSR-51. The Soviet Delegation says here that this document was
submitted under that exhibit number. The report says that the workers
were taken to the slave market and were sold for 10 to 15 marks. What do
you have to say to that?
SAUCKEL: I believe every German employer who received these workers,
either in agriculture or in war industry, is a witness to the fact that
a procedure of this sort never took place in any form; that it was quite
inconceivable that such slave markets were instituted through the
authority of the Reich Ministry of Labor; but that these workers who
passed through National Socialist labor exchanges received exactly the
same contracts and conditions as the German workers themselves, with
some variations, and in no case were they put to work like slaves
without rights or pay, without a contract, without sickness insurance,
or without accident insurance. That may be seen from the numerous
directives and decrees which were issued by the Reich Ministry of Labor
and by me for every race involved.
DR. SERVATIUS: What were the general living conditions of foreign
workers in Germany?
SAUCKEL: The general living conditions of foreign workers in Germany as
far as they were recruited through the offices of the Allocation of
Labor, were exactly the same as those of German workers who were
accommodated in camps. Living conditions were dependent on the
circumstances of war and, in contrast with peacetime, were subject to
the same limitations as applied to the German population. The adjutant
of Herr Von Schirach, a man unknown to me, who appeared here as a
witness yesterday, described conditions in Vienna; those conditions
existed in other German cities too.
DR. SERVATIUS: What were the security measures in these camps?
SAUCKEL: In the camps themselves?
DR. SERVATIUS: Well, I mean generally.
SAUCKEL: The security measures were the responsibility of the Police,
not mine, because the camps came under the various industries and the
German Labor Front.
DR. SERVATIUS: Now, I submit Document Number EC-68. It contains
directives issued by the Regional Food Office of Baden regarding the
treatment of Poles in Germany. This is Exhibit Number USA-205, to be
found in the American Document Book “Slave Labor,” the fourth document.
I shall now read the beginning of this document, which you have already
seen. It says there:
“The offices of the Reich Food Administration—(Regional Food
Office) of Baden—have received with great satisfaction the
result of the negotiations with the Higher SS and Police Leader
in Stuttgart on 14 February 1941. Appropriate memoranda have
already been sent to the district food offices. Below I
promulgate the individual regulations as they were laid down
during the conference and are now to be supplied accordingly:
“1. In principle farm workers of Polish nationality no longer
have the right to complain; consequently, no complaints may be
accepted by any official agency.
“2. Farm workers of Polish nationality may no longer leave the
localities in which they are employed.”
Now, I shall omit some points and just confine myself to the essential
parts. I turn to Point 5:
“5. Visits to theaters, cinemas, or other cultural
entertainments are strictly prohibited for farm workers of
Polish nationality.”
Other regulations follow, prohibiting use of the railroad, and under
Number 12 there is a vital provision:
“12. Every employer of Polish farm workers has the right to
administer chastisement...”
Please comment on this document and tell us to what extent you approve
of it.
SAUCKEL: First of all, I should like to point out that this document is
dated 6 March 1941—that is, more than a year before I assumed office.
Such an absurd and impossible decree never came to my attention during
my term of office. But since I am now being confronted with the document
and am learning about it, I should like to refer to my own decrees,
which I issued entirely independently of what had gone before and which
automatically revoked such decrees. In order to prevent these absurd
decrees of some agency in the Reich from being effective, I had my
decrees collected and published in a handbook in which it says—because
of the time factor and out of respect for the Tribunal, I cannot ask the
Tribunal to look at all of them; but they are in direct contradiction to
such views. I would like to ask that I be permitted to quote just one
sentence from the manifesto already referred to, which is directed
against such nonsense and against the misuse of manpower. I refer
particularly to my directives for fair treatment. The sentence reads as
follows:
“...these orders and directives, as well as their supplements,
are to be brought very forcibly to the attention of works
managers and leaders of camps for foreign nationals, as well as
their personnel, at least four times a year by the regional
labor offices. Actual adherence to them is to be constantly
supervised.”
DR. SERVATIUS: Does the manifesto end with that?
SAUCKEL: That is a paragraph from the manifesto which refers
specifically to my orders prescribing just and humane treatment,
sufficient food, leisure time, and so forth.
DR. SERVATIUS: You issued a great number of directives. Did you notice
any opposition to your basic regulations; and, if so, what did you do?
SAUCKEL: As soon as I noticed opposition I made special reference to my
decrees, of course, because they had been approved by the Führer, upon
my recommendations, for my field of activity.
DR. SERVATIUS: As far as care and welfare were concerned, did the
DAF—the German Labor Front—play a special role? What was the task of
the DAF?
SAUCKEL: The task of the DAF was to care for German workers and look
after their interests. In this capacity it had to concern itself, as a
matter of course, with the welfare of foreign workers. That was its
ordinary task; and at the same time it had a corrective influence on
state labor administration, an influence similar to that exerted by the
trade unions on state control, as far as it exists, in other countries.
DR. SERVATIUS: What tasks did the works managers have?
SAUCKEL: They had the task of regulating the total production of their
works; and, of course, they were fully responsible for their workmen and
for the foreign workers who had been assigned to them.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were they primarily responsible, or was the DAF
responsible?
SAUCKEL: The employers were primarily responsible, according to the law
regulating German labor.
DR. SERVATIUS: Now the workers were mostly billeted in camps. Who
supervised the accommodations in these camps?
SAUCKEL: The accommodations in these camps were under the final
supervision of the German trade inspection office, which was under the
Reich Ministry of Labor. The trade inspection office had the authority
and power to enforce observance from employers who failed to comply with
the orders of the Reich Minister of Labor.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you yourself issue any orders or decrees concerning
the camps?
SAUCKEL: I personally issued orders concerning the camps, but they could
be put into effect and supervised only by the Reich Minister of Labor.
DR. SERVATIUS: So much about the accommodations of the camps. Now what
were the living conditions within the camps? Who was responsible for
them?
SAUCKEL: In the camps themselves the camp leaders were responsible. The
camp leader was appointed by agreement between the DAF and the works
manager, and to my knowledge—this was not within the range of my
duties—his appointment had to be confirmed and accepted by the security
authorities.
DR. SERVATIUS: You speak of the security authorities. To what extent did
the Police take part in the surveillance of these camps, the maintenance
of discipline, and such matters?
SAUCKEL: Surveillance of the camp and maintenance of discipline was the
task of the camp leader, and had nothing to do with the Police. The
Police had, as I believe is the case in every country, surveillance and
control rights as regards espionage and the secrecy of the plant, _et
cetera_. Beyond that, the Police had nothing to do with the camp.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were these camps shut off from the outside world? What
was the situation in that respect when you assumed office?
SAUCKEL: When I assumed office, the camps, particularly of the Eastern
Workers, were very much shut off from the world and were fenced in with
barbed wire. To me this was incompatible with the principle of employing
productive and willing workers; and with all the personal energy I could
muster, I succeeded in having the fences and barbed wire removed; and I
also reduced the limits of the curfew regulations for Eastern Workers,
so that the picture which was presented here yesterday could eventually
be realized. Anything else would have been incompatible, technically
speaking, with the workers’ willingness to work, which I wanted.
DR. SERVATIUS: Now the question of food. What was the food of these
foreign workers?
SAUCKEL: The feeding of the foreign workers came under the system that
was applied to the feeding of the German people, and accordingly
additional rations were allotted to people doing heavy, very heavy, or
overtime work.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did this situation exist when you assumed office?
SAUCKEL: When I assumed office and received the order from the Führer
that in addition to the foreign workers who were already in the Reich I
was to bring further quotas into the Reich, the first step I took was to
visit the Reich Minister for Food, for it was obvious to me that
bringing in foreign workers was in the first place a question of
feeding; poorly fed workers, even if they want to, cannot turn out
satisfactory work. I had many detailed conversations with him; and by
referring to the Führer and the Reich Marshal, I succeeded in obtaining
suitable food for the workers, and food quotas were legally fixed. It
was not easy to do this because the food situation, even for Germans,
was always strained; but without these measures it would not have been
possible for me, also from a personal point of view, to carry through my
task.
DR. SERVATIUS: Details with regard to the food situation were mentioned
here which would justify the assumption that extremely bad conditions
existed. Was nothing of this sort brought to your attention, or did you
yourself not hear anything?
SAUCKEL: As far as bad feeding conditions in the work camps of civilian
laborers is concerned I never had any very unfavorable reports. I
personally made repeated efforts to have this matter in particular
constantly looked into. The works managers themselves took the problem
of food very seriously.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you not, in a decree and letter to the Gau labor
offices and Gauleiter, deal with the subject of good treatment of
foreigners; and did you not on that occasion criticize existing
conditions?
SAUCKEL: Immediately after I assumed office, when the Gauleiter were
appointed as plenipotentiaries for the Allocation of Labor in their
Gaue, I called their attention to the food situation and ordered them to
give their attention to that question and also to the question of
accommodation. I heard that in two Gaue my instructions were not being
taken seriously enough. In one case I myself went immediately to Essen
and remedied the situation there—it concerned the barbed wire—and in
another case, in eastern Bavaria, I also intervened personally. Besides
that, I made use of these two incidents to write to the Gauleiter and
the governments of the German Länder and provinces and again pointed out
the importance of observing these instructions.
DR. SERVATIUS: I refer to Document 19, that is in the English Book
Number 1, Page 54; Document Sauckel-19.