“The French Government...”—It is the last paragraph but one
before the end of Page 4.—“The French Government is composed of
nothing but adepts at temporization. If the first 250,000
workers had arrived in Germany in time, before the autumn—the
negotiations with the French Government having already been
begun in the preceding spring—we might perhaps have been able
to recruit key men in the Reich earlier and form new divisions;
and it might then not have come to the cutting off of
Stalingrad. In any case, the Führer is now absolutely decided to
rule in France, if need be even without a French Government.”
When you made this declaration, did it not reflect the pressure which
you were exerting on the French Government?
SAUCKEL: This is not a conference with the French Government. This is a
statement of facts.
M. HERZOG: I did not say that it was a conference with the French
Government. I asked you what you meant when you stated that the Führer
was determined to rule in France, even without the French Government.
Was that not pressure?
SAUCKEL: That was a straightforward decision and a statement from the
Führer, for which I am not responsible. I merely repeated it, and in any
case it was never realized.
M. HERZOG: Why did you transmit it to the occupation authorities in
France in the course of a conference that you were holding with them
concerning the recruitment of labor?
SAUCKEL: Because it was my duty to give a description of the situation
as I saw it at the time.
M. HERZOG: But do you not think that, in expressing to them this
declaration of the Führer, you were using it to exert pressure?
SAUCKEL: I could not exert any pressure by that, because this was merely
transmitting a statement of the situation. I did not tell the French
Government that the Führer would remove them and that therefore they
would have to do such and such a thing. I merely negotiated.
M. HERZOG: But you did state, and I ask you to confirm it, you did state
in the course of that conference that the Führer had decided to rule in
France, if need be, even without a French Government?
Did you say that? I ask that you answer me “yes” or “no.”
SAUCKEL: Yes, I repeated that, but not with the intention of doing that.
M. HERZOG: Do you remember the discussion which you had on 14 January
1944 in Paris with various German personalities?
SAUCKEL: Yes; it is possible that I had a discussion there at that time,
but I cannot remember at the moment what it was about.
M. HERZOG: You do not remember a discussion which you had on 14 January,
and you do not remember the German personalities who were present, at
this meeting?
SAUCKEL: Probably there were several conferences, but I cannot tell you
now which one you are talking about. Neither do I remember, of course,
what the actual subjects of the discussions were.
M. HERZOG: On 14 January 1944 you had a conference in Paris with Abetz,
Von Stülpnagel, Oberg, and Blumentritt. Do you remember that in the
course of that discussion you submitted to your listeners the draft of a
law which you had drawn up and which you wanted to impose on the French
authorities?
SAUCKEL: I was not trying to impose it. I was trying to discuss it. I
was negotiating. I was not trying to impose it upon them. The wording of
the minutes shows that quite clearly.
M. HERZOG: Do you dispute the fact that you yourself drafted a law which
you transmitted to the French Government?
SAUCKEL: No, that I do not deny. That I submitted such a draft law and
that I drafted it, I do not deny.