SAUCKEL: I could give abundant proof that I personally always refused to
emphasize the idea of a master race, and said so in my speeches. I am
personally much more interested in proficiency than in ideas about a
master race.
M. HERZOG: Then you did not think that the foreign policy of Germany
should have been conducted according to these two theories; the theory
of Lebensraum on the one hand, and the theory of the master race on the
other hand?
SAUCKEL: I have already stated to my counsel that I did not concern
myself with foreign policy and was not informed about it, as I am not
versed in matters of foreign policy.
M. HERZOG: On the contrary, did you not approve of all the measures of
foreign policy, and did you not participate in them?
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps we had better break off now, and you can repeat
the question tomorrow.
[_The Tribunal adjourned until 30 May 1946 at 1000 hours._]
ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY-SECOND DAY
Thursday, 30 May 1946
_Morning Session_
[_The Defendant Sauckel resumed the stand._]
PROFESSOR DR. FRANZ EXNER (Counsel for Defendant Jodl): Mr. President, I
should like to put a request to you. My client comes next in order and
he would like to be excused, if possible, this afternoon and all day
tomorrow, so that he can prepare his case.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly.
MARSHAL: May it please the Tribunal, the report is made that the
Defendant Von Papen is absent.
M. HERZOG: Defendant Sauckel, I was asking you yesterday whether you
considered that Germany’s foreign policy was based on the Hitlerian
theories concerning living space and the master race.
SAUCKEL: May I ask you to repeat the question? I did not quite
understand it in German.
M. HERZOG: I was asking you yesterday if you considered that the foreign
policy of Germany was based on the two Hitlerian theories, Lebensraum
and the master race.
SAUCKEL: I have understood—whether German foreign policy was based on
the principles of Lebensraum and the master race.
M. HERZOG: Yes, I am asking you to answer whether, in your opinion, it
was so.
SAUCKEL: Not on the principle of a master race. I should like to be
permitted to give an explanation of this.
I personally have never approved of the statements made by some of the
National Socialist speakers about a superior race and a master race. I
have never advocated that. As a young man I traveled about the world. I
traveled in Australia and in America, and I met families who belong to
the happiest memories of my life. But I loved my own people and sought,
I admit, equality of rights for them; and I have always stood for that.
I have never believed in the superiority of one particular race, but I
always held that equality of rights was necessary.
M. HERZOG: That being so, you did not approve of the whole of the
foreign policy of Hitler; and you did not collaborate with him?
SAUCKEL: In answer to the question by my counsel I stated that I never
considered myself to be a politician as regards foreign policy. I
entered the Party by quite a different way and for quite different
motives.
M. HERZOG: Do you remember the declaration which you made on 4 September
1945 to two American officers?
[_Turning to the Tribunal._] This declaration is Document Number
3057-PS. It was submitted as Exhibit Number USA-223.
[_Turning to the defendant._] You said the following:
“I have been a convinced National Socialist since 1921 and
agreed 100 percent with the program of Adolf Hitler. I worked
actively to that end; and during the period from 1921 until the
assumption of power I made about 500 speeches, the sense and
contents of which represented the National Socialist standpoint.
It was for me a particular satisfaction to have raised the Gau
of Thuringia to a predominant position with regard to its
National Socialist views and convictions. Until the collapse I
never doubted Adolf Hitler, but obeyed his orders blindly.”
THE PRESIDENT: You are going a little bit too fast. This has been read,
M. Herzog. I do not think you need read all of it.
M. HERZOG: I would ask you then, Defendant Sauckel, if you confirm the
statements which were made under oath, voluntarily and without any
duress, on 4 September 1945, and which contradict those that you made
yesterday and which you have just made to me.
SAUCKEL: I confirm that my signature is appended to this document. I ask
the Tribunal’s permission to state how that signature came about.
This document was presented to me in its finished form. I asked to be
allowed to read and study this document in my cell in Oberursel and
decide whether I could sign it. That was denied me. During the
conversation an officer was consulted who, I was told, belonged to the
Polish or Russian army; and it was made clear to me that if I hesitated
too long in signing this document I would be handed over to the Russian
authorities. Then this Polish or Russian officer entered and asked,
“Where is Sauckel’s family? We know Sauckel, of course we will take him
with us; but his family will have to be taken into Russian territory as
well.” I am the father of 10 children. I did not stop to consider; and
thinking of my family, I signed this document.
When I returned to my cell, I sent a written message to the commandant
of the camp and asked permission to talk with him alone on this matter.
But that was not possible, because shortly afterwards I was brought to
Nuremberg.
M. HERZOG: Is not your signature at the end of this document in which
you declared that you “made the above declarations voluntarily and
without any duress”?
SAUCKEL: That is correct, but in this situation...