SAUCKEL: I certainly would not have made those statements in the way I
did, if I had been able to act freely and according to my own will.
M. HERZOG: The Tribunal will consider it. Is it a fact that you were
appointed...
THE PRESIDENT: M. Herzog, the Tribunal thinks that the document is
before the witness and he should be asked to point out in what way he
says the document is wrong.
M. HERZOG: Defendant Sauckel, you heard what the President has said. You
say that this document does not correspond to the truth. Will you kindly
tell the Tribunal in what way it does not.
SAUCKEL: May I take this document point by point? I was 100 percent in
agreement with the social program, and I told my counsel that when he
examined me.
THE PRESIDENT: Defendant, what the Tribunal wishes is that you should
take the document and point out, sentence by sentence, what is wrong in
it.
SAUCKEL: In Paragraph 1, the year 1921 is incorrect.
I became a member, as my first membership card shows, only in 1923 or
1925. Before the year 1923 I was in sympathy with the Party.
As to being 100 percent in agreement with Adolf Hitler’s program, I
meant 100 percent insofar as the program appeared to me to be justified
legally and constitutionally, and according to ethics and morality.
Just how many meetings I conducted I cannot say. My speeches and
lectures were based mainly on my life and on my experiences. Those were
the only things that I could talk about, and I wanted to reconcile the
German social classes and the German professions to National Socialist
ideology.
THE PRESIDENT: Defendant, I have pointed out to you that what the
Tribunal desires is for you to take the document and say what sentences
in it are wrong, and not to make speeches.
SAUCKEL: In my eyes, all the sentences are wrong. I would not have put
them that way if I myself had been able to formulate them. The way they
stand, I dispute each and every sentence, for I did not write them and I
was not consulted. These sentences were put before me as they are now.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, may I be permitted to give an explanation
of this matter? This statement is practically a summary of all the
interrogations in which the various points appear as a confession in the
sense of the Indictment. The defendant could not say a word in his own
defense if this were correct. Since it is a résumé and since conclusions
can be drawn from it, he must have the opportunity of refuting these
conclusions; and that necessitates a statement. These are not definite
facts which can be answered with “yes” or “no.”
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant has just said that the whole document is
wrong, and he has also said that the document was obtained from him
under duress.
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: And it is therefore not any use to go through it in
detail. But the Tribunal would like to hear from the American
Prosecution if they have anything to say about the matter.
MR. DODD: I do not have a copy of the document before me in English, but
I...
THE PRESIDENT: You see, Mr. Dodd, M. Herzog has said that it was offered
in evidence under the Exhibit Number USA-223.
MR. DODD: My recollection is that—I will check the record, Mr.
President—my recollection is that in the presentation of the case on
Slave Labor, we included this in our document book but did not offer it
in evidence. I think I said to the Tribunal at the time that we had
decided not to offer it. It had been printed and put in the document
book.
My memory may be faulty, but my recollection is, Mr. President, that the
President of the Tribunal asked me if I did not intend to offer it, and
I then stated that we had thought it over and decided not to use it.
THE PRESIDENT: I do not understand how it gets an exhibit number if it
isn’t offered in evidence.
MR. DODD: I don’t either. I think it is an error.
THE PRESIDENT: I see. Mr. Dodd, do you know whether this is a résumé or
a summary of a number of interrogations which were taken?
MR. DODD: My understanding is to the contrary. I think it was taken
before the Defendant Sauckel was in Nuremberg and before any
interrogations were conducted on the part of the interrogation division
of the American Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Were you aware Dr. Servatius was objecting to the
document on the ground that it was obtained under duress?
MR. DODD: My recollection is that at the time of the presentation of the
Slave Labor case Dr. Servatius made some objection, and I think that is
what brought the matter up at that time; and that is why we did not use
it.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Then you had better pass from it.
M. HERZOG: [_Turning to the defendant._] You were appointed
Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor by an ordinance of
21 March 1942?
SAUCKEL: Yes, that is correct.
M. HERZOG: Is it correct to say that this decree was countersigned by
the Codefendant Keitel?
SAUCKEL: The decree, I believe, was countersigned three times. I believe
that is right. At the moment I cannot confirm it with certainty.
M. HERZOG: Would you kindly explain to the Tribunal under what
circumstances you were appointed to that office?
SAUCKEL: I answered that question when it was put to me by my counsel
yesterday. It was a surprise to me.
M. HERZOG: Did Speer, the Reich Minister for Armaments, have anything to
do with your appointment?
SAUCKEL: I cannot tell you that from my own knowledge. Bormann’s
announcement said it was at the suggestion of Speer; but I cannot tell
you that from my own knowledge.
M. HERZOG: Do you recollect having made any statement on that subject in
your interrogation on 12 September 1945?
SAUCKEL: At this moment I cannot remember the statement.
M. HERZOG: On 12 September 1945 you were interrogated by Major Monigan;
and you appear to have stated the following—the Tribunal will find this
on the first page of the extracts of the interrogatory which has been
handed them:
“In March 1942 I was summoned rather suddenly by Minister Speer,
who had been appointed a short while previously. Speer told me
that it was urgent that I should assume...”
THE PRESIDENT: Could you move those papers away from the light; you
cannot see the light which is constantly going on.
M. HERZOG: “...Speer told me that it was urgent that I should
assume new functions in connection with the question of labor. A
few days later he asked me to go with him to general
headquarters, and I was introduced to the Führer who told me
that I must accept this new appointment without fail.”
Do you confirm that statement?
SAUCKEL: It is correct; only I cannot say whether that was before a
decision—whether my appointment was previously arranged before these
meetings through the initiative of some other gentlemen; but except for
that, the facts are correct.
M. HERZOG: But you confirm that the Defendant Speer, Minister for
Armament and War Production, took you to Hitler’s headquarters on the
occasion of your appointment.
SAUCKEL: Yes, that is correct.
M. HERZOG: Yesterday your counsel submitted a chart showing the general
organization of your service and how it was connected with the other
organizations of the Reich. You declared that chart was correct. I would
ask you to confirm, by saying “yes” or “no,” whether you think that
chart is correct.
SAUCKEL: According to my own personal recollection, yes.