“I have, therefore, charged the presidents or the provisional
chiefs of the newly formed Gau labor offices to set up a
corresponding organization in the _départements_ which they are
sponsoring; and I request you, in your capacity as my
Plenipotentiary for the Allocation of Labor, in agreement with
Reichsleiter Bormann, to promote and give your fullest support
to the new task allotted to your Gau labor office. The president
or the provisional chief of your Gau labor office is instructed
to keep you informed of all details concerning the carrying out
of these measures.”
Are not these measures an attempt to subordinate French territory to
German territory as far as the organization of labor is concerned?
SAUCKEL: Yes. But I should like to ask you and the High Tribunal to
allow me to say the following in explanation: On the first page,
Paragraph 1—I quote from the third line—it says, “...with the full
consent of the Führer I am to take far-reaching and urgent measures in
France in negotiation with the head of the French Government and the
competent”—now comes the important part—“German authorities;”—that
is, the military commander’s department, in which these labor
authorities and this delegate were incorporated and to whom they were
subordinate.
And on Page 4, I should like to read about the special purpose of this
system of sponsorship which should have nothing unfriendly about it. I
read from Page 4 in the German text, under the letter “a”:
“Prejudice, suspicion, lack of care, failure to redress and look
into complaints”—that is, complaints by the workers—“which are
prejudicial to the employment of manpower in Germany, all these
things can be very largely eliminated by the relations between
the Gau and its sponsored _département_.”
Now I read under letter “b”:
“Every French worker in such a _département_ knows exactly where
and under what conditions he will have to work in Germany.
German propaganda and explanatory material will tell him about
the locality in which he will have to work and about all matters
which are of interest to him.”
And that was the purpose of that arrangement. It was something I wanted
to do for the French workers, besides looking after German interests.
M. HERZOG: Please answer me “yes” or “no.” Was this arrangement an
attempt to bring about a joint administration between the French
_départements_ and the German Gaue as far as the employment of labor was
concerned? Answer me “yes” or “no.”
SAUCKEL: No. I should like to give an explanation to this negative
answer. The purpose of this arrangement was to clear up unsolved
problems between the French Government, between the French
_départements_, between French industrialists and factories, on the one
hand, and the administrative offices in Germany where the French workers
were to be employed. That was the real purpose—to settle complaints and
clear away mistrust.
THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now.
[_A recess was taken._]
M. HERZOG: Defendant, is it true that your Codefendant Göring placed
under your control all the organizations of the Four Year Plan which
were concerned with the recruiting of labor?
SAUCKEL: The various organizations of the Four Year Plan which had to do
with manpower were dissolved. Departments 3 and 5 of the Reich Ministry
of Labor continued to deal exclusively with these matters.
M. HERZOG: Is it true that the powers of the Reich Minister of Labor
concerning the employment of labor were transferred to you and that as a
result of this transfer you had powers to issue regulations and laws?
SAUCKEL: Only insofar as the work of Departments 3 and 5 were connected
with my own task. Otherwise the functions of the Reich Ministry of Labor
remained independent under the Reich Minister of Labor.
M. HERZOG: But within these departments you exercised the powers of the
Reich Minister of Labor after your appointment as Plenipotentiary
General for the Allocation of Labor?
SAUCKEL: Within my office as Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation
of Labor. But I must emphasize that these departments were not under me;
they were merely at my disposal. Great importance was attached to this
difference at the time. The departments continued to work independently
within the whole framework of the Ministry of Labor.
M. HERZOG: But as a result of this situation you exerted administrative
autonomy in matters concerning labor?
SAUCKEL: Not an autonomy; it was done by vote. I could not issue
decrees, but could only give instructions. In every case I had to get
the agreement of the other administrative authorities and Reich
ministries, and the agreement of the Führer or of my superior office.
M. HERZOG: Did you not have carte blanche from the Führer for the
recruiting and the utilization of labor?
SAUCKEL: Not for recruiting and utilization, but for guiding and
directing. If I may express it in this way, it was never a case of the
workers’ agent—that is, of course, what allocation of labor really
means—employing these workers himself. The firms employed the workers,
not the agent.
M. HERZOG: For the recruiting of labor you had carte blanche from the
Führer. Is that not true?
SAUCKEL: Not absolutely, and only after there had been a vote and after
the agreement of the regional authorities concerned had been obtained,
especially in the case of foreign countries. I never recruited workers
in France without the express agreement of the French Government and
with their collaboration. The French administration was used here.
M. HERZOG: Defendant Sauckel, you have on several occasions mentioned
the agreements and arrangements made in France with those whom you
yourself call “the leaders of collaboration.” You know better than any
other that these leaders of collaboration, imposed upon France by the
enemy, bound themselves only and that their acts were never ratified by
the French people as a whole. Besides, these leaders of collaboration,
whose testimony cannot be suspect to you, have themselves revealed that
pressure was exerted upon them, and we will discuss that now. Is it true
that on 16 April 1942, that is to say, less than a month after your
appointment, you stated in a letter to the Defendant Rosenberg—which
states your program and which was presented to you yesterday—that you
included the recruiting of foreign workers in your program for the
utilization^{*} of labor?
SAUCKEL: I resent the term “exploitation.”^{*} By strictest orders from
the Führer, it is true that recruitment of foreign workers had to be
included in my program.
-----
^{*} The word _utilization_ used by the French prosecutor was wrongly
interpreted into German as “Ausbeutung” meaning “exploitation.”
-----
M. HERZOG: Is it true that you included the recruitment of foreign
workers in your program of 16 April 1942? You admitted this yesterday,
and I ask you to confirm it.
SAUCKEL: Yes, it is true. I only emphasize that I did it on the
strictest orders from the Führer.
M. HERZOG: Is it true that this program of 16 April 1942, that is to
say, 3 weeks after your appointment, already contained the principle of
forced recruiting?
SAUCKEL: It was done by express order of the Führer, in case voluntary
recruitment proved to be inadequate. I said that yesterday to my
counsel.
M. HERZOG: Do you remember the decree that you issued on 29 August 1942?
This decree dealt first and foremost with the employment of labor in
occupied territories—Decree Number 10 of 22 August by the
Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor. It was submitted to
the Tribunal as Exhibit Number RF-17 (Document Number RF-17). Do you
remember it?
SAUCKEL: I do remember Decree Number 10.
M. HERZOG: Was this decree applicable to the occupied territories which
were under German administration?
SAUCKEL: As far as I can remember—I have not the exact wording and the
separate paragraphs before me—it dealt with the regulation of working
contracts drawn up by German firms. The purpose was to prevent a muddle.
M. HERZOG: Is it true that you went on a mission to Paris in August
1942?
SAUCKEL: That is possible; but I, of course, cannot remember the
individual dates.
M. HERZOG: Is it true that you went on a mission to Paris in January
1943?
SAUCKEL: That is also possible, even probable.
M. HERZOG: Is it true that you went on a mission to Paris in January
1944?
SAUCKEL: Also probable, yes; but I do not know the individual dates.
M. HERZOG: You therefore went on missions to Paris before the French
authorities, the French de facto authorities, had published the
legislative decrees of 4 September 1942, 16 February 1943, and 1
February 1944. Is that not true?
SAUCKEL: I did not understand your question exactly.
M. HERZOG: I asked you whether it is true, that before the French de
facto authorities published the three fundamental laws on forced labor
of 4 September 1942, 16 February 1943, and 1 February 1944, you went on
missions to France, to Paris?
SAUCKEL: I only went on journeys to Paris for the purpose of negotiating
with the French Government, and I want to add that for me and in
accordance with my convictions...
M. HERZOG: Do you admit that in the course of these missions you imposed
on the French authorities the laws on forced labor?
SAUCKEL: It is not correct to put it in that way, rather...
M. HERZOG: You therefore contest the fact that the laws on forced labor
were issued under pressure by you?
SAUCKEL: I dispute the word “pressure.” I negotiated most correctly with
the French Government before such laws were published. I expressly
resent the word “pressure,” and there were plenty of witnesses during
these negotiations.
M. HERZOG: Do you remember the telephone conversation that the Defendant
Speer had with you from the Führer’s headquarters on 4 January 1943?
SAUCKEL: Yes, I probably had several conversations with Speer. I do not
know which particular conversation you are referring to.
M. HERZOG: Do you not remember a note that you sent to your various
offices as a result of this telephone conversation of 4 January 1943?
SAUCKEL: Yes. Quite probably I did make several notes. I had to make
notes when I received a telephone conversation containing an
instruction.
M. HERZOG: I now submit Document Number 556-PS, which has already been
submitted to the Tribunal under the Exhibit Numbers USA-194 and RF-67. I
will read that document, or at least its first paragraph:
“On 4 January 1943, at 2000 hours, Minister Speer telephoned
from the Führer’s headquarters to inform me that according to
the decision of the Führer it is no longer necessary, when
engaging skilled and unskilled labor in France, to show any
special consideration for the French. Emphasis or more severe
measures may be used in order to recruit labor.”
I ask you, Defendant, what you mean when you say that it is not
necessary to show any special consideration for the French?
SAUCKEL: This note or rather this decision did not come from me. This
was a communication which came from the Führer’s headquarters, based on
a decision made by the Führer. In spite of that—and I want to emphasize
that particularly—my attitude towards the French Government did not
change, and it does not say so in this record either. I continued to
adopt the same polite attitude in my negotiations with the Government,
and I ask the Tribunal to be allowed to make a short statement on how
these negotiations with the French Government were conducted.
M. HERZOG: You will give it later in your examination. Do you remember
the discussion that you had on 12 January 1943, at the German Embassy in
Paris, with the French authorities?
SAUCKEL: As far as I know, I only talked to French ministers in the
German Embassy in Paris.
M. HERZOG: That is exactly what I am asking you. Do you remember this
conversation that you had with the French authorities on 12 January
1943?
SAUCKEL: Not in detail, no; but that I did negotiate is possible.
M. HERZOG: Do you remember the persons who took part in this
conversation?
SAUCKEL: Yes. Usually the French Premier, the French Minister for Labor,
Minister Bichelonne, took part in such discussions. On the German side,
the Ambassador; on behalf of the military commander, Dr. Fischer; and,
as my representative, probably Dr. Hildebrandt or some other gentleman.
M. HERZOG: And you do not remember what Laval said to you at this
meeting of 12 January 1943?
SAUCKEL: Very many matters were discussed in great detail during these
conferences, and I do not know what you mean.
M. HERZOG: Well, I will submit to you the minutes of this meeting. It is
Document Number F-809, which I submit to the Tribunal under Exhibit
Number RF-1509.
In the course of this discussion Laval made a long statement to you;
more exactly, several statements.
THE PRESIDENT: Where shall we find this?
M. HERZOG: It is in my document book, Mr. President. It must be marked
with a slip 809.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh yes, I have got it.
M. HERZOG: First, I read Page 7 of the French text and of the German
text:
“Gauleiter Sauckel demands a further 250,000 new workers.
Gauleiter Sauckel knows very well—and his offices have
certainly informed him about this—the difficulties which the
French Government had in carrying out the program last year. The
Gauleiter must realize that as a result of the number of
prisoners of war and workers who are already employed by
Germany, the sending of another 250,000 workers will increase
even further the difficulties of the French Government. I cannot
conceal these difficulties from the Gauleiter, because they are
evident; and the Germans who are in Paris know these
difficulties. When the Gauleiter replies that they have had to
overcome the same difficulties in Germany and when he even
states that French industry must be expanded, it seems to me
that I must remind him that Germany not only demands workers of
France, but is also beginning to take away the machines from
factories in order to transport them to Germany. France may have
nothing left, but until now she still had her means of
production. If these too are taken from her, France loses even
her possibilities for working.
“I do everything to facilitate a German victory”—and you see
Laval could hardly be suspect to you, Defendant—“but I must
admit that German policy makes heavier demands on me nearly
every day and these demands do not conform to a definite policy.
Gauleiter Sauckel can tell the German workers that they are
working for Germany. I cannot say that Frenchmen are working for
France.
“I see that in many fields the French Government is not able to
act. One would almost believe that on the German side they set
no value on the good will of the French and that they are bent
on instituting a German administration throughout France. My
task is being made more difficult every day. It is true that I
do not allow myself to be discouraged; but I consider, however,
that it is my duty to remind the Gauleiter of the gravity of
Franco-German relations and of the impossibility of continuing
along this path. It is no longer a matter of a policy of
collaboration; rather, it is on the French side a policy of
sacrifice, and on the German side a policy of coercion.”