“Moreover, the head of the French representatives is granted the
diplomatic privileges of personal immunity for the execution of
his tasks, as well as exemption from German jurisdiction and
from coercion by the police.”
That is the citation.
[_Turning to the defendant._] How did that office actually work with
you?
SAUCKEL: That office actually worked with both the DAF and with me. The
representative of that office took part in the negotiations in France
with the French Government. The office changed later to the extent that
the care of the civilian workers was taken over by M. Brunedon in the
place of M. Scapini who looked after prisoners of war only.
DR. SERVATIUS: Then, it was only a change of personnel?
SAUCKEL: Yes, it was only a change of personnel. I frequently talked
with these gentlemen and acted according to their wishes.
DR. SERVATIUS: What did the Central Inspection Department for the
peoples of the Eastern Territories do?
SAUCKEL: The Central Inspection Department for the peoples of the
Eastern Territories was an office under the Reich Commissioner for the
Eastern Territories.
DR. SERVATIUS: How did that office work?
SAUCKEL: It worked in the same way as the French office, except that it
was a German organization and Germans were in charge. It had the
confidence of the Eastern Workers who worked with us as allies.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you receive any complaints from that side?
SAUCKEL: None, apart from the cases which Rosenberg reported to me and
which I discussed with him. Everything was attended to there.
DR. SERVATIUS: Now I come to the question of the maintenance of labor
discipline. What sort of regulations were there in order to maintain
labor discipline—punctuality and good work? What kind of regulations
existed?
SAUCKEL: In Germany the regulations concerning labor discipline was a
matter for the factories themselves. Each factory had its regulations
which in normal times were agreed to between the management, the
foreman, and the workers’ council. This council could take disciplinary
action in the form of fines. During the war labor discipline had become
more strict, because owing to the scarcity of workers it was not
possible to maintain the right of the employer or the employee to give
notice. So the German worker, and German labor and industry were under
wartime decrees and laws. In order to enforce these, I later issued
Decree Number 13 at the suggestion of the Ministerial Council for the
Defense of the Reich. This decree, which has been submitted, provides,
first of all, for varying degrees of punishment within the industries
for infractions of labor regulations, tardiness and unexcused absence
from work.
DR. SERVATIUS: That is Document Sauckel-23 in the Sauckel document book;
in the English text, Number 1, Page 62. The witness has given you the
essential contents. I merely refer to it now.
SAUCKEL: These measures within the industries for the maintenance of
labor discipline started with a warning, and then went up to a fine, or
the loss of a day’s or week’s pay.
DR. SERVATIUS: What happened in the case of gross offenses?
SAUCKEL: If they could not be dealt with by the courts of honor of the
Labor Front, cases of constant and obstinate bad conduct had to be
reported to the police.
DR. SERVATIUS: This law applied to foreigners as well as to Germans?
SAUCKEL: Yes, that applied to Germans and foreigners.
DR. SERVATIUS: And what was done in case of criminal offenses?
SAUCKEL: They also had to be reported to the police. The labor
authorities had no competence in criminal and similar cases.
DR. SERVATIUS: To whom were the complaints sent if the regulations were
not applied correctly; that is, if instead of fines corporal punishment
had been inflicted?
SAUCKEL: Complaints of this kind were sent to the Labor Front, or to the
liaison men for the foreign workers.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were any such cases reported to you?
SAUCKEL: None were reported to me, because that was not within my
competence.
DR. SERVATIUS: What were the labor correction camps?
SAUCKEL: They were institutions of the Reichsführer SS.
DR. SERVATIUS: Who was put into these camps?
SAUCKEL: Those who were punished by the authorities for infractions of
labor discipline which could not be dealt with by the factory
regulations.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were they the same as concentration camps?
SAUCKEL: No; in my opinion, no. These labor training camps were not
under the supervision of the Reich Labor Ministry, nor under mine. They
were a police institution.
DR. SERVATIUS: You know from these proceedings that quite a number of
workers did, in fact, come into the concentration camps. How can you
explain that?
I shall hand you Document 1063-PS, Exhibit USA-219. It is a letter of 17
December 1942; in the English document book it is Number 28 of the Slave
Labor Book. It is a letter marked “Secret,” sent by the Chief of the
Security Police and the SD to all SS offices; at any rate, not to you. I
quote:
“For reasons of war necessity which cannot be discussed further
here, the Reichsführer SS and Chief of the German Police ordered
on 14 December 1942 that by the end of January 1943, at the
latest, at least 35,000 prisoners fit for work are to be sent to
the concentration camps. In order to obtain this number, the
following measures are required: 1. As from now (until 1
February 1943) Eastern Workers, and those foreign workers who
are fugitives, or have broken their contracts ... are to be
brought by the quickest means to the nearest concentration
camps....”
THE PRESIDENT: Presumably the witness knows the document.
DR. SERVATIUS: Do you know that document?
SAUCKEL: I saw that document here for the first time.
DR. SERVATIUS: You have not yet looked through it?
SAUCKEL: I saw an excerpt here in Nuremberg for the first time.
DR. SERVATIUS: Then I should like to draw your attention to the decisive
passage. Will you please read at the bottom of the first page. It says
the following:
“In case of necessity, offices not directly involved must be
given to understand that each and every one of these measures is
an indispensable Security Police measure, and be told the
specific reasons in individual cases, so that complaints can be
prevented, or at any rate eliminated.”
What did you know about that decree?
SAUCKEL: Nothing was known to me about that decree. It explains many
things which puzzled us. It appears to be a letter from Gruppenführer
Müller and, to my surprise, it states quite clearly that other
offices—and they can only refer to my offices or Speer’s—should be
informed that these measures are necessary Security Police measures.
That was downright fraud with the intention of misleading us.
DR. SERVATIUS: What do you understand...
THE PRESIDENT: Before you pass from this document—I understood the
defendant to say that workers were sent to labor camps for infraction of
labor rules. That was what you said, wasn’t it?
SAUCKEL: If workers, in spite of repeated warnings and fines in the
factory, did not show improvement or continued the offenses, they were
reported by the factories, not by me, to a police office. As far as I
know, this police office had an agreement with the Reich Minister of
Justice according to which...
THE PRESIDENT: I asked you where they were sent when you said that they
were sent to labor camps for infraction of labor rules, and for no other
reason. Did you say that?
SAUCKEL: For no other reason; for infractions or for criminal offenses.
THE PRESIDENT: Then how do you explain the first words of Paragraph 1 of
this document:
“As from now, all Eastern Workers must be sent to the nearest
concentration camps...”?
SAUCKEL: It says here, in the German text, Your Lordship:
“As from now, until 1 February 1943, Eastern Workers, and those
foreign workers who are fugitives, or who have broken contracts,
or who do not belong to allied, friendly, or neutral states, are
to be brought by the quickest means to the nearest concentration
camps, in observance of the necessary formalities as given under
Figure 3.”
That is the arbitrary directive of that office which I did not know
about.
DR. SERVATIUS: What do you understand by “extermination by labor”?
SAUCKEL: I heard that expression “extermination by labor” for the first
time here in the courtroom. Such a concept was of necessity absolutely
contrary to the interests which I stood for in my position.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you have anything to do with the employment of
concentration camp inmates?
SAUCKEL: I had nothing to do with the employment of concentration camp
inmates, and I also told my colleagues that we would have nothing to do
with the employment of that kind of labor. I had nothing to do with
punitive measures of any kind.
DR. SERVATIUS: Who put the concentration camp inmates to work in the
armament industries?
SAUCKEL: I cannot tell you that from personal knowledge because I had
nothing to do with it, and I never participated in discussions dealing
with this subject.
DR. SERVATIUS: It has been alleged here that you used the Nacht and
Nebel Order to get workers to Germany.
SAUCKEL: I did not know the Nacht and Nebel Order. I only found out
about it here. It had nothing to do with the allocation of labor and my
duties.
DR. SERVATIUS: What about the employment of Jewish workers?
SAUCKEL: I had nothing to do with the employment of Jews. That was
exclusively the task of the Reichsführer of the SS.
DR. SERVATIUS: I submit the Document R-91. That is Exhibit USA-241, and
Exhibit RF-347. It is not included in the document books. It is a letter
from the Chief of Security Police and SD Müller to the Reichsführer SS,
field headquarters, dated 16 December 1942. It says there, and I quote:
“In connection with the increased assignment of manpower to the
KL”—that should probably read KZ—“which is ordered to take
place before 30 January 1943, the following procedure may be
applied in the Jewish sector: total number, 45,000 Jews.”
Then there is a more detailed specification, and among other things, it
says at the end, “3,000 Jews from the occupied territories of the
Netherlands,” and further, “The number 45,000 includes those unfit for
work....”
What had you to do with that letter?
SAUCKEL: I have just learned of that letter for the first time. I did
not know of it before, and I can only emphasize that these transports
and this procedure had nothing to do with my work, and that I had
nothing to do with them at any time.
DR. SERVATIUS: Then we have here Document L-61, which has been
submitted. That is Exhibit USA-177; in the English document book on
slave labor, it is Document Number 6. The document is in the first list
of documents which was made available to the Defense, and it was listed
as an original letter from Sauckel which admitted the deportation of
Jews.
Will you please read this letter to yourself and state your position as
to how far you had anything to do with the deportation of Jews. I shall
briefly state what the contents are. It says there in that letter of 26
November 1942:
“By agreement with the Chief of the Security Police and the SD,
Jews who are still in employment are from now on also to be
evacuated from the territory of the Reich and are to be replaced
by Poles who are being deported from the Government General.”
This letter ends by saying:
“I transmit the foregoing copy for your information. Insofar as
this affects the removal of Jews employed in your area, I
request that you take the necessary measures in agreement with
the competent offices of the Chief of the Security Police and
the SD.”
Then it says, “Signed, Fritz Sauckel.”
Will you state your position with respect to that letter, please?
SAUCKEL: May I say with respect to this document that it was shown to me
already in the preliminary interrogations. I had it only for a short
time then, and when it was presented to me again in the course of the
proceedings I found that it was not an original document which I had
signed. My name is typewritten at the bottom.
Secondly, it appears very peculiar to me that this letter, which I am
supposed to have signed, was not dated by my office. My office, as can
be seen from numerous documents, was in Berlin, in Mohrenstrasse. This
letter was dated by the Saarlandstrasse office.
As far as the contents are concerned, I have to state that I at no time
had a personal arrangement or agreement with the SD and Security Police
in the sense of that letter; neither had I any knowledge of that letter,
and I cannot remember it now either. The only thing in that letter which
is correct is that I was obliged to replace the loss of manpower in
German industry—whether Jews, soldiers, or others—within 2 weeks. It
is possible that this letter came from the Saarlandstrasse office, from
a subordinate office. I cannot say anything else about it.
DR. SERVATIUS: How is it, then, that the ending, “Signed, Fritz Sauckel”
is on the letter?
SAUCKEL: I cannot understand that. If it were an authentic copy, it
would have had to be signed.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you got the original?
DR. SERVATIUS: No, I have not got the original. It has been submitted by
the Prosecution and is therefore in the files of the Tribunal as an
exhibit.
SAUCKEL: The appendix deals with events which also occurred before my
time in office—that is, before I came into office these happenings had
practically all taken place.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you have any knowledge as to what would happen to the
Jews?
SAUCKEL: Do you mean...?
DR. SERVATIUS: The final solution.
SAUCKEL: No, I had no knowledge of that. It would have made my task much
easier and I would have had much less difficulty if all these people, as
far as they were capable of working, had been brought into the labor
plan in a more reasonable manner. I knew absolutely nothing about this
final solution, and it was entirely contrary to my interest.
DR. SERVATIUS: Concerning the question of wages, who was responsible for
the regulation of wages?
SAUCKEL: I was responsible for the regulation of wages during my term of
office.
DR. SERVATIUS: What kind of wages were paid? Leave out the Eastern
people for the moment.
SAUCKEL: In principle, all foreign workers were paid the wages which had
been agreed upon by contract with the liaison offices and the
governments, and which were in accordance with the wage scales
recognized as legal in the different regions in Germany.
DR. SERVATIUS: What about the so-called Eastern Workers?
SAUCKEL: As far as the Eastern Workers were concerned, when I took
office I found that under the existing regulations most of their wages
were deducted as taxes in favor of the Reich. This was in accordance
with a decree of the Ministerial Council for National Defense.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were you satisfied with that, or did you take steps to
improve conditions?
SAUCKEL: It can be seen from the documents—that is to say, from the
decrees which I issued during my term of office—that these regulations,
which I considered intolerable, were improved step by step, as far as I
was able to overcome opposition, until in 1944 the Eastern Worker stood
on the same level as the German worker. The first improvement was made
in June 1942 when wages were doubled, the second in 1943, and the last
in March 1944, by Decree 11.
DR. SERVATIUS: I refer here to the following documents, which I shall
not read: Document Sauckel-50, in Sauckel Document Book 2, Page 134;
Document Sauckel-17, in Sauckel Document Book 2, Page 137; Document
Sauckel-52, Sauckel Document Book 2, Page 143; Document Sauckel-58,
Sauckel Document Book 2, Page 156; and finally, Document Sauckel-58(a),
Sauckel Document Book 2, Page 161. I submit the original in a
collection, “Regulations Governing Allocation of the Eastern Workers.”
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, I understood the defendant to say just now
that that Document L-61 was drawn up before he took charge of the labor
commitment.
DR. SERVATIUS: It refers to things which existed before his term of
office and were almost completed at the time when that letter was
drafted—that is, that state of things already existed.
THE PRESIDENT: There is nothing in the document to show that, is there?
DR. SERVATIUS: It can be seen from the date.
THE PRESIDENT: The date is 26 November 1942.
DR. SERVATIUS: The appendix refers to a decree of 27 March 1942. The
second appendix, if we go back further, is an appendix of 21 January
1942 which also deals with that question. What we have quoted here was
only the last letter, the final letter.
THE PRESIDENT: I see. We have not got the full document before us then.
DR. SERVATIUS: I will submit it.
[_Turning to the defendant._] Regarding the wages of the Eastern
Workers, did the Eastern Workers receive any remuneration besides these
wages?
SAUCKEL: The Eastern Workers, as a result of my efforts, received
remuneration in the form of premiums for good work, and Christmas
bonuses, in the same way as the German workers; and in addition there
was an agreement with the Eastern Ministry according to which the
families of Eastern Workers were to receive the amount of 130 rubles per
month upon request.
DR. SERVATIUS: I refer here to some documents. They are Document
Sauckel-22, in the English book, Volume I, Page 9; a decree, Document
Sauckel-54, concerning premiums, which is in Volume II, Page 151; and
Document Sauckel-57, concerning Christmas bonuses, Volume II, Page 155.
[_Turning to the defendant._] What remained for the Eastern Workers in
cash wages?
SAUCKEL: When I started in office—that is before the regulations
introduced by me—the Eastern Worker, after his expenses for food and
lodging had been deducted, had about 4 marks 60 pfennigs per week left
over, if one takes as an average example the rate of 60 pfennigs an hour
for an average worker in German industry.
The same worker’s net pay, or “Freibetrag” as it was called, was
increased in June 1942, after I had had an opportunity of looking into
these things, by about 100 percent to 9.10 marks.
May I state that it would have been quite impossible for a German worker
at the same wage level to have had more left over for saving when one
considers his taxes and social contributions, his expenses for rent,
heating, and food. That was the principle laid down for me by the
Ministerial Council for Reich Defense for the payment of this labor. It
was not my wish. However, as early as March or April 1943 the wage of
the Russian worker, again due to my intervention, was increased to about
12 marks, and in the spring of 1944 it was increased to about 18 marks.
THE PRESIDENT: I don’t think we need to have all this in detail. There
is no particular charge against the defendant that he did not pay any of
the workers, is there? I mean, he says, he paid them and we do not want
the details of the number of marks.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, the accusation of slave labor has been
made, and this as a rule is unpaid labor. The French report, Document
RF-22, has estimated a loss of 77 milliards which is supposed to have
been suffered by France through the use of her workers. It is
interesting to hear at least...
THE PRESIDENT: You do not want exact details of it, do you?
DR. SERVATIUS: [_Turning to the defendant._] What have you to say about
the facilities for transferring these wages?
SAUCKEL: I first had to create facilities for transferring wages,
because the only real attraction for a foreign worker to work in Germany
was that he could support his family at home by sending part of his
earnings to his native country. That was done on the basis of agreements
reached with the President of the German Reichsbank. He himself has
testified to that.
DR. SERVATIUS: Concerning the question of wages, I refer to Document
021-PS, which has been submitted as F-44. It is not in either of the
document books. It is dated 2 April 1943. It shows how rates of pay were
calculated and deals with the improvement of the wages of Eastern
Workers. I do not want to quote it in detail; but a study will reveal
that serious attempts were made here to bring about an improvement and
an equalization.
[_Turning to the defendant._] What was the duration of labor contracts?
SAUCKEL: The duration of labor contracts depended on agreements which
had been concluded with the governments in question. For the western and
southern countries the contract was for 6 months, 9 months, or 1 year.
As for the eastern countries and the Soviet workers, when I came to
office, the existing regulations provided for an indefinite period. As I
considered a definite period to be necessary in spite of the greater
distances, here too I finally succeeded in obtaining a time limit of 2
years.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was it intended to continue to use this manpower after
the war, and were these foreign workers to remain in Germany? I ask that
question because the French Prosecution quoted the following passage
from the book, _Work for Europe_, Exhibit RF-5, Page 23:
“A large percentage of foreign workers will remain in our
country even after the victory, and then, having been trained
for construction work, they will continue and complete the
projects interrupted by the war.”
From that was it concluded that forced labor was to continue even after
the war?
SAUCKEL: That was partly or entirely the opinion of the author of that
article, but I believe that it was also mentioned that the workers would
return home and there use, for the benefit of their own homeland, the
knowledge and skill which they had gained from new work in Germany. I
had absolutely no intention of keeping foreign workers in Germany after
the war, and in any case I could not have done so. On the contrary, I
even ordered that a card index of foreign workers, a central register,
should be carefully kept on the basis of which, in case of a favorable
conclusion of the war, it would be possible for me faithfully to return
these workers to their native countries and have a record of them.
DR. SERVATIUS: If I understood you correctly, it was not a question of
forcibly retaining the workers, but of keeping them here by recruitment?
SAUCKEL: Yes; it was not reported to me that a large number of foreign
workers wanted to stay in Germany of their own accord. That is an
assumption.
DR. SERVATIUS: What about the compulsory labor? What was the duration of
the contracts?
SAUCKEL: There was no difference in pay or length of contract between
voluntary work and compulsory work, or what we called in the language of
the decree, “Dienstverpflichtungen.” This held true for all countries.
If a Frenchman doing compulsory labor had a contract for 6 or 9 months,
he had the same right as the voluntary worker to return after 9 months.
It was possible to extend the period.
DR. SERVATIUS: In which cases was the contract extended?
SAUCKEL: The contract was extended when the worker wanted of his own
free will to continue his services, or when there was an emergency or
shortage of manpower in a particular factory which justified an
extension. Then that had to be arranged with the liaison officers.
DR. SERVATIUS: Besides civilian workers, were prisoners of war also used
in Germany? What did you have to do with that use of manpower?
SAUCKEL: The employment of prisoners of war was quite complicated,
because it had to take place in agreement with the general in charge of
the Prisoners of War Organization. The so-called technique of
transposition caused me difficulties. Allow me to explain this.
There existed the Geneva Convention, or the Hague Convention, according
to which prisoners of war could not be used in armament or ammunition
industries. When, however, we spoke of prisoners of war being engaged in
the armament industry that meant that so-and-so many German women or
workers were transferred to industries in which the Geneva Convention
prohibited the use of prisoners of war, and that prisoners of war took
their place. That was done in agreement with the offices of the general
in charge of the Prisoners of War Organization.
DR. SERVATIUS: And who saw to it that the Geneva Convention was
observed?
SAUCKEL: The general in charge of the Prisoners of War Organization and
we ourselves, or the “Arbeitseinsatz” administration, adhered to the
rules of the Geneva Convention and several times compiled a catalog of
the types of work for which prisoners of war could be used. Also during
my time, in 1943 and 1944, a special edition of this catalog was
published, and it can be found in the so-called _Blue Book_.
DR. SERVATIUS: Have you known cases where prisoners of war were used
contrary to the Geneva Convention?
SAUCKEL: Certain agreements were made with the French Government, as far
as volunteers were concerned, and this applied to a certain extent to
Eastern Workers.
DR. SERVATIUS: Who was responsible for the housing, feeding, and care of
prisoners of war?
SAUCKEL: The offices of the general in charge of the Prisoners of War
Organization were solely responsible.
DR. SERVATIUS: Is it known to you that millions of prisoners of war had
perished by the time you had assumed office?
SAUCKEL: It had become known to me before I assumed office that a great
number of prisoners of war perished in the so-called battles of
encirclement in the East. These battles lasted a long time, and owing to
our enormous transport difficulties we could not move the prisoners, and
they were left on the battlefield in a state of utmost exhaustion. That
is all I know about that.
DR. SERVATIUS: At the beginning of your activities you had to deal with
prisoners of war, had you not? What did you find out at that time, or
what did you do?
SAUCKEL: I found out that some of the Russian prisoners of war were
terribly undernourished.
DR. SERVATIUS: What did you do?
SAUCKEL: Together with the general in charge of the Prisoners of War
Organization I arranged for all these prisoners of war—as far as I know
and remember there were about 70,000 in the Reich at that time—to be
billeted with German farmers, in order to build up their strength. The
farmers were obliged to feed these prisoners of war for at least 3
months, without putting them to work. As compensation the farmers were
given the assurance that these prisoners of war would stay with them and
work for them until the end of the war.
DR. SERVATIUS: During the course of the war did prisoners of war obtain
the status of free laborers?
SAUCKEL: Yes. As far as French workers were concerned, I was
instrumental in seeing that they were employed only by agreement with
the French Government. These agreements were concluded under the
sponsorship of the German Ambassador in Paris. The quotas were
negotiated in accordance with instructions given me by the Führer and by
the Reich Marshal. The first quota was 250,000 French laborers and
150,000 skilled workers.
As a compensation for the use of these voluntary workers—and I
emphasize voluntary—50,000 French prisoners of war who were farmers
were to be, and actually were, returned to the French Government in
order to improve the cultivation of French farm land.
That was the first agreement.
DR. SERVATIUS: What was the _Relève_?
SAUCKEL: The _Relève_ was an agreement between the French Government and
my office according to which for every three French workers who came to
Germany one French prisoner-of-war was released and sent home by the
Führer.
DR. SERVATIUS: And who brought about this agreement?
SAUCKEL: This agreement was concluded on the basis of a discussion
between the French Premier and myself. I was much in favor of this
agreement, because I myself spent 5 years behind barbed wire during the
first World War.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did it make it easier for the prisoners? Did they return
home?
SAUCKEL: Yes, they returned home.
DR. SERVATIUS: And how did the civilian population react to that? Above
all, how did the workers feel who had to go to Germany?
SAUCKEL: This was an act of comradeship, and according to the reports I
received the feeling was favorable.
DR. SERVATIUS: Then in reality instead of one prisoner-of-war there were
three imprisoned workers?
SAUCKEL: No. These workers could move about freely in Germany in the
same way as the other French workers and the German population.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did they have to come to Germany for an indefinite period
of time?
SAUCKEL: No, they stayed according to the length of their contracts,
just like the other workers.
DR. SERVATIUS: What was the average duration of a contract?
SAUCKEL: 9 months.
DR. SERVATIUS: Then the result was that after 9 months the prisoners of
war, as well as the other workers, could return home?
SAUCKEL: Yes. This continual exchange necessitated new quotas and new
agreements with the French Government, for there always had to be
replacements.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were these negotiations carried on under a certain
pressure?
SAUCKEL: No. I beg you to hear witnesses on this. They were conducted on
a free diplomatic basis.
DR. SERVATIUS: To what extent was this _Relève_ carried through? Was it
on a very large or only on a small scale?
SAUCKEL: It was carried out on the basis of 250,000 workers who were to
go to Germany.
DR. SERVATIUS: The French Prosecution in their government report said
that only weak and sick people were sent back who could not work anyway.
What have you to say to that?
SAUCKEL: As far as I know, French soldiers who were prisoners of war
were sent back. The sending back and the selection of the soldiers was
not my task but that of the general in charge of the Prisoners of War
Organization. I consider it possible that sick soldiers were also sent
back to their homes in this way if they wished it. But certainly it was
not the intention to send back only sick or older soldiers, but soldiers
in general. That was the basis of the agreement.
DR. SERVATIUS: There was a second course which was chosen—the improved
status which the French called “transformation.” What kind of
arrangement was that?
SAUCKEL: The improved status was a third agreement which included the
provision that French prisoners of war in Germany were given the same
contracts and the same status as all other French civilian workers.
DR. SERVATIUS: When a new French worker came to Germany? The ratio
therefore was 1 to 1?
SAUCKEL: 1 to 1.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did these French workers have to bind themselves
indefinitely, or was there a time limit here too?
SAUCKEL: Exactly the same as applied to the _Relève_.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was this improvement in status welcomed by the French
soldiers, or did they disapprove of it?
SAUCKEL: They did not disapprove of it but welcomed it, according to the
attitude of the individual soldier. A large number rejected it; others
accepted it gladly, for by this measure the workers received high wages
and all the liberties that were accorded outside the barbed wire, and
the like. I myself saw how an entire camp accepted this new status. They
had been told that the gates and barbed wire would be done away with,
the prisoner regulations discontinued, and the surveillance abolished.
DR. SERVATIUS: Could these prisoners who had been turned into workers
also go home?
SAUCKEL: My documents show that they were allowed to go home.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did they receive any furlough?
SAUCKEL: Yes, they did. Many of them came back, and an equally large
number did not.
DR. SERVATIUS: I should like to refer to Document RF-22, German text,
Page 70 of the French Government report. This document shows and admits
that the prisoners received leave to go home at the beginning of this
transformation, and I quote, “The unfortunate men did not return,
however, and therefore this procedure was discontinued.”
[_Turning to the defendant._] Have you heard of the idea, “indirect
forced labor”?
SAUCKEL: No. Please explain it to me.
DR. SERVATIUS: [_Turning to the Tribunal._] The French report contains
the argument that those workers who worked in France in armament
industries did so for the benefit of Germany. Sauckel was not connected
with this in any way. This French report, which deals at length with the
economic side of the Arbeitseinsatz, says that it worked according to a
well-conceived and flexible system, and at first negotiations were
friendly. The measures then became harsher in accordance with the
circumstances.
[_Turning to the defendant._] Was there a definite plan? Did you have to
carry out certain instructions, or what system was adopted?
SAUCKEL: I should like to be allowed to explain this. A plan of the sort
you have just outlined never existed. The only thing towards which I
worked was the program which I drew up and which is in the possession of
the Tribunal; a program which I admit, and for which I take all the
consequences and the responsibility, even for my subordinates. This
program was carried out through my decrees, which are also available in
full. The development of the war did not permit me to give full
consideration to the circumstances which now, _post factum_, appear
obvious. We ourselves stood in the midst of the flow of events as the
war developed and did not have time to ponder over such matters.
DR. SERVATIUS: What were the “Sperrbetriebe” and the “Ausnahmebetriebe”
in France?
SAUCKEL: The Sperrbetriebe were industries which were the result of an
agreement between Reich Minister Speer and, I believe, the French
Minister of Economics, Bichelonne. They were industries which worked
partly for German armaments and partly for German civilian requirements,
and did not come under my offices.
DR. SERVATIUS: What was the number of workers who were brought to
Germany from foreign countries?
SAUCKEL: The number of workers brought from foreign countries to
Germany, according to careful estimates and the records of the
statistical department of the Reich Ministry of Labor, might be said to
be about 5 million.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you determine how far these laborers were to be used,
and how many were to be brought in?
SAUCKEL: No, I could not determine that, for I did not represent the
German economy, and I myself could not decide the extent of the German
armament and agricultural programs.
DR. SERVATIUS: Apart from the current quotas which you had to supply,
there were certain so-called program orders made by the Führer. Is that
true?
SAUCKEL: Yes, because the Führer drew up the armament program, as far as
I know.
DR. SERVATIUS: You have told me of your programs. I shall read the
figures, and perhaps you can confirm them.
The first program in April 1942: the demand was for 1.6 million workers;
1.6 million were supplied, the entire figure being made up of
foreigners.
The second program in September 1942: 2 million, and 2 million were
supplied, of which 1 million, that is only half, were foreigners.
In 1943: the demand was for 1 million, and 1 million were supplied, the
entire figure being made up of foreign workers.
Then the last program on 4 January 1944: the Führer demanded 4 million,
and the demand met with 0.9 million.
SAUCKEL: Allow me to correct you. The figure should read, demand met
with 3 million.
DR. SERVATIUS: Demand 4 million; demand met with 3 million. And how many
were foreigners?
SAUCKEL: 0.9 million.
DR. SERVATIUS: 0.9 million foreigners. How many workers came from the
East, how many from the West, and how many from other regions?
SAUCKEL: I naturally cannot give you the exact figure here without data
or statistics, but on an average I would say that the figure for each
group might be about 30 percent; the percentage of workers from the East
was certainly somewhat higher.
DR. SERVATIUS: And how were the requirements ascertained?
SAUCKEL: Through the demands of the employers of labor.
DR. SERVATIUS: And what were the employers of labor?
SAUCKEL: They were the Economic Ministry, the Armament Ministry, the
Agricultural Ministry, the various trades, the State Railways, the
mines, _et cetera_, all big undertakings.
DR. SERVATIUS: And to whom did they present their demands?
SAUCKEL: Usually the demand was made simultaneously to the Führer and to
me, or to the collecting agencies provided for by the Four Year Plan.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were they the reduced requirements, if their demands had
to be checked, or were they the original demands?
SAUCKEL: I have just said that it varied. The demands were sent in to
me, and at the same time they were almost always sent to the Führer,
because the Führer had to approve these demands.
DR. SERVATIUS: And what was the position of the Central Planning Board?
SAUCKEL: The Central Planning Board was an office where above all, as
far as I know, the quotas for raw materials were fixed, but where
questions of work and manpower were also discussed.
DR. SERVATIUS: Could you receive orders from the Central Planning Board?
SAUCKEL: Yes, the demands which were put to me I had to consider as
orders, for the Führer had laid on me the duty of meeting the demands of
the war economy.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you belong to the Central Planning Board yourself?
SAUCKEL: No, I was only called in when there were to be debates on the
use of manpower.
DR. SERVATIUS: What was the relationship between your office and
Speer’s?
SAUCKEL: My office had to meet the demands made by Speer.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did Speer have his own machinery for directing labor?
SAUCKEL: Yes, he had to have that in his ministry, and he did have it.
That was essential.
DR. SERVATIUS: Could you meet all the demands made of you?
SAUCKEL: No.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were your labor reserves exhausted?
SAUCKEL: According to my conviction, yes; for already in 1943—and it
was one of the purposes of my manifesto—I pointed out that the economic
problems of the occupied countries were very serious and had to be
regulated and settled so as to avoid confusion.
DR. SERVATIUS: What labor reserves were still left in Germany?
SAUCKEL: In Germany after 1943 there were no more really usable reserves
of manpower left. Many discussions took place on this problem, but the
labor most in demand was skilled labor, miners, and workers for the
heavy industries.
DR. SERVATIUS: And what manpower reserves were there to be gotten out of
France?
SAUCKEL: I must say that from our point of view, and according to our
judgment concerning economic and labor questions, there was a great deal
of manpower and very extensive reserves in the occupied territories.
DR. SERVATIUS: Do you mean that in comparison the economic forces of
Germany were far more exhausted than those of the occupied countries?
SAUCKEL: Perhaps I can show it by a comparison with the first World War.
In the first World War, 10 to 12 million Germans were mobilized for
labor. In this war about 25 million German men and women were used, and
more than half were women. I must add that all the women who did Red
Cross or other welfare work in Germany were not included in my
statistics. They were included in other countries.
DR. SERVATIUS: I have a concluding question: If you view your activity
as Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor from today’s
standpoint, what would you say about the use of foreign labor in
general?
SAUCKEL: It is very hard for me to answer this question. I myself and
the entire German people were of the opinion, and had to be, that this
war was neither willed nor brought about by the German people—and, to
be truthful, I must include the Party. Our standpoint was that we had to
do our duty to our people.
DR. SERVATIUS: It is not intended that you should give an explanation in
the wider sense, but that you should limit yourself to the general
aspects of the question of labor allocation, and tell us whether today
you consider your activity justified or not.
SAUCKEL: From the point of view of the war situation and of German
economy, and as I saw and tried to carry out my allocation of labor, I
considered it justified, and, above all, inevitable; for Germany and the
countries we occupied were an economic whole that could not be split up.
Without such an exchange of eastern and western manpower Germany could
not have existed for even 1 day. The German people themselves were
working to the extreme limit of their capacity.
DR. SERVATIUS: I have concluded my questioning of the defendant.
DR. ALFRED THOMA (Counsel for Defendant Rosenberg): Witness, did the
Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories often try to cut down the
labor quotas demanded by you?
SAUCKEL: Not only the Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories
tried to do that, but I myself tried very hard to do so by intervening
with the Führer and all the employers of labor.
DR. THOMA: I should like to put several questions to you with regard to
Document Number 054-PS, which describes the abuses in the recruiting and
transporting of Eastern Workers. Did you personally take steps to put an
end to the abuses which are specified here?
SAUCKEL: Yes, of course. Please interrogate the witnesses on this.
DR. THOMA: Did you notice that this report deals with the city and the
region of Kharkov in the Ukraine, and do you know that this entire
district was never under the civilian administration of the Ministry for
the Occupied Eastern Territories?
SAUCKEL: Yes, I know that, and I testified that this report was not sent
to me but to an Army office. This Army office had its own labor
department which was directly subordinate to it.
DR. THOMA: In this report did you especially notice the following
paragraph on the first page:
“a) With few exceptions, the Ukrainians who are being employed
in the Reich as individual workers for example, in small trade
enterprises, on farms...”
SAUCKEL: Will you please tell me where it says that?
DR. THOMA: On Page 1, the last paragraph: “Judging from the discussions
with the gentlemen and the reading of the reports, it can be said in
general...”
SAUCKEL: Which documents? There are several documents.
DR. THOMA: I mean 054-PS, of course.
SAUCKEL: Which?
DR. THOMA: I think it is the first, second, third paragraph, “d”—the
second paragraph.
SAUCKEL: Yes, I have found it.
DR. THOMA: It says there that the Ukrainians who were being employed as
individual workers in the Reich, were “very satisfied with the
conditions.” But: “b. On the other hand the Ukrainians living in
community camps complain a great deal...”
Is that correct?
SAUCKEL: Yes. In my testimony I quoted the passage in which the author
of the letter said that this was the case during the first few months
only, for I immediately had the camps inspected and improved. I even
went so far as to get the Reich Labor Minister to issue new camp
regulations, all as a result of this complaint.
DR. THOMA: Did you personally visit the Occupied Eastern Territories on
several occasions and speak to the administrative authorities there; for
example, in Riga, Kovno, Zhitomir?
SAUCKEL: Not only did I speak to the administrative authorities there,
but I compiled this manifesto in Russia and had it published there, and
everything that is contained in the manifesto was communicated to these
offices in the same way.
DR. THOMA: Yes. But is it correct that you emphasized the special
urgency of the Führer decree?
SAUCKEL: That was my duty; that was what I was there for.
DR. THOMA: That is not right from the legal point of view; for your
actual authority came from Göring, as the Delegate for the Four Year
Plan.
SAUCKEL: Yes, that is correct. The official channel was: Führer, Göring,
Four Year Plan—that was the order.
DR. THOMA: Then, if you said it was the Führer’s order, you did so to
give a special emphasis?
SAUCKEL: No, that was not my intention. The Führer commissioned me to
replace the loss of German soldiers, Doctor. These were instructions
which I had received directly from the Führer or Göring on the basis of
the requirements of the employers of labor.
DR. THOMA: Was a written order sent to you?
SAUCKEL: Yes, written orders were also sent.
DR. THOMA: From Hitler personally?
SAUCKEL: Yes, from Hitler and from Göring; from both of them.
DR. THOMA: Do you recall that you made an agreement with Rosenberg to
the effect that Eastern Workers in Germany, after their return to their
own country, were to receive land so that they would not be at a
disadvantage as compared with the people who had remained?
SAUCKEL: Yes, that was agreed between Rosenberg and myself; that is
correct.
DR. THOMA: Was this actually carried out?
SAUCKEL: Just how far this was carried out, I am unable to state. That
was a task for the Ministry of the Occupied Eastern Territories. I
assume that it was carried out as far as possible.
DR. THOMA: Do you recall that Rosenberg constantly advocated the doing
away with the so-called Eastern Worker’s badge?
SAUCKEL: Rosenberg, as well as I myself, advocated the abolition of the
Eastern Worker’s badge. There is a letter from the Reichsführer SS
refusing this; but I know for certain that at the end of 1943 or the
beginning of 1944 we succeeded in abolishing this Eastern Worker’s
badge, and it was replaced by a national emblem as worn by the other
foreigners.
DR. THOMA: Why was this Eastern Worker’s badge to be abolished?
SAUCKEL: This Eastern Worker’s badge was to be abolished for various
reasons, but above all to eliminate the demoralizing effect produced on
the Eastern Workers by the wearing of a discriminating badge.
DR. THOMA: I have one last question. You said that you did not recall
having received any complaints except those that you discussed with
Rosenberg. Now, numerous complaints were constantly being investigated
by the Central Agency for Eastern People together with the DAF. Did the
DAF report to you on this?
SAUCKEL: The DAF reported that, in accordance with my directives, it had
to put a stop to abuses and bad conditions wherever they were found.
That was its duty. In order to remedy these abuses the DAF had not to
apply to me but to the trade inspection department of the Reich Ministry
of Labor, whose task it was.
DR. THOMA: Did you make sure whether this inspection department stopped
these abuses?
SAUCKEL: I installed my own inspection agencies there, as mentioned by
Dr. Servatius. However, the trade inspection department was the only
authorized agency which had the legal authority to use compulsory
measures and it was supervised by the Reich Labor Minister who had full
authority.
DR. THOMA: I have no further questions. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the emblem that you have been speaking about?
SAUCKEL: The Eastern Worker’s emblem or badge consisted of a
bluebordered square, which bore a blue inscription “Ost.” The
Reichsführer SS first ordered it to be worn on the right side of the
breast; later, on the sleeve. Still later I was instrumental in getting
this changed to a national emblem—blue, I think, or something
similar—like the Russian colors, as the people themselves wished.
DR. OTTO NELTE (Counsel for Defendant Keitel): Herr Sauckel, the
Defendant Keitel and the OKW are accused by the Prosecution of the
deportation of civilian people for the purposes of the mobilization of
labor. You were also interrogated before the start of this Trial as to
whether the OKW, and Keitel as Chief of the OKW, participated in the
procurement, recruitment, and conscription of people in the occupied
territories.
A number of things which were not clear and which are contained in the
record have been cleared up by your testimony. Especially in answering
the last question of my colleague, Dr. Thoma, you made it clear that the
organizational official channel was as follows: The Plenipotentiary
General for the Allocation of Labor, the Four Year Plan—Göring, and the
Führer. Is that correct?
SAUCKEL: Generally speaking, yes.
DR. NELTE: I am interested in determining whether in this official
channel the OKW was included, or the Führer in some other function than
Supreme Commander of the Wehrmacht.
SAUCKEL: I myself was not a soldier, and I am not familiar with the
detailed organization of the OKW and the OKH. It was often difficult for
a layman to make the distinction between these things. It is true that
the OKH was competent for the recruitment of workers in occupied
countries controlled by army groups. Therefore, labor regulations for
the occupied countries which were under the authority of the Army had to
be issued through laws or directives by the General Staff.
DR. NELTE: You probably mean the Quartermaster General of the Army?
SAUCKEL: The Quartermaster General was, as far as I know, next to the
Commander-in-Chief of the Army.
DR. NELTE: And by this you mean to say that the OKW and the Defendant
Keitel had no competence concerning the procuring, recruiting, and
conscripting of manpower in the occupied territories?
SAUCKEL: He had no competence in this respect. I came into contact with
Field Marshal Keitel, because the Führer repeatedly instructed me to ask
Field Marshal Keitel to transmit his orders to the army groups by
telephone or through directives.
DR. NELTE: And what about the question of the allocation of workers? Did
the OKW, and specifically the Defendant Keitel as Chief of the OKW, have
any competence concerning the allocation of workers at home?
SAUCKEL: No, for the workers were used in those economic branches for
which they had been demanded, and they had nothing at all to do with the
OKW.
DR. NELTE: Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT: Do any members of the Prosecution wish to cross-examine?
M. JACQUES B. HERZOG (Assistant Prosecutor for the French Republic):
Defendant Sauckel, you joined the National Socialist Party in 1925,
didn’t you? Is that correct?
SAUCKEL: I joined the National Socialist Party for the first time, as an
ordinary member, as early as 1923. When the Party was reorganized in
1925 I again became a member.
M. HERZOG: But you had supported the policy of National Socialism since
1921, had you not?
SAUCKEL: From 1921 onwards, I supported a German policy. In 1921 I did
not as yet belong to the Party. I knew about the Party, and I was in
sympathy with its ideas; that is probably the right way to put it.
M. HERZOG: Did you not make speeches in favor of National Socialism from
that time on?
SAUCKEL: From about the middle of 1921 I made speeches in favor of
Germany, not expressly for the Party and only in a very small way, at
small gatherings, and as my conscience guided me.
M. HERZOG: You were Gauleiter, member of the Landrat, Minister of the
Interior, and Governor of Thuringia. Is it correct that in this capacity
you brought about the Nazification of your Gau?
SAUCKEL: I was Prime Minister of Thuringia from August 1932, and I was
Minister of the Interior as well.
M. HERZOG: I am asking you the question again: Is it correct that, in
your capacity as Gauleiter and Governor of Thuringia, you brought about
the Nazification of your Gau?
SAUCKEL: Nazification is a term with which I was neither familiar nor do
I consider it correct. I recruited for the National Socialist Party and
I supported it.
M. HERZOG: You were Obergruppenführer of the organization of the SS,
were you not?
SAUCKEL: I do not quite understand. Of the SS?