SAUCKEL: I assume that Herr Seyss-Inquart did.
M. HERZOG: Is it correct that the orders signed by the Defendant
Seyss-Inquart constituted only a local application of the general
program which you were charged with carrying out?
SAUCKEL: A local application in Holland? I do not quite understand it
the way it is put in German.
M. HERZOG: Is it not correct that by signing the orders concerning
forced labor in Holland the Defendant Seyss-Inquart was but implementing
your program of forced labor?
SAUCKEL: It was a realization of the Führer’s labor program as he, the
Führer, had ordered it.
M. HERZOG: Did you go to Belgium or to Holland in order to control the
implementation of the laws on forced labor?
SAUCKEL: Not to control. I was in Belgium and Holland only for a very
short time. I had conferences there with the leading men, and according
to my recollection I visited the labor authorities in Antwerp and saw
how they functioned—the German ones.
M. HERZOG: And in the course of these journeys you were preparing
detailed measures for the implementation of the labor program, is that
not true?
SAUCKEL: I did not draft them during those journeys; I discussed them
there. Of course, I did some work while traveling.
M. HERZOG: I submit to you Document Number PS-556, Exhibit Number RF-67.
It is a letter which you wrote to the Führer on 13 August 1943. In this
you declare, Paragraph 1 of the letter:
“My Führer,
“I take the liberty of informing you of my return from France,
Belgium, and Holland, where I went on official business. After
difficult and lengthy negotiations I have imposed upon the
occupied territories of the West, for the 5 last months of the
year 1943, the program which is indicated below; and I have also
prepared detailed measures for its implementation—in France
through the military commander, the German Embassy, the French
Government; in Belgium through the military commander; and in
Holland through the offices of the Reich Commissioner.”
Do you still dispute, Defendant, the fact that you went to Belgium and
Holland in order to prepare detailed measures there?
SAUCKEL: I have never denied that, I would like to say that I do not
resent the expression, but only the way you present it now and then. It
says quite clearly that they were discussed there; that is what is meant
by preparation.
M. HERZOG: One last question on this matter: What is your estimate of
the number of Dutch workers who were deported to Germany?
SAUCKEL: I cannot tell you exactly from memory how many Dutch workers
were employed on the basis of contracts with them and on the basis of
these laws. Maybe there were 200,000 or 300,000, maybe more. I cannot
tell you offhand what these Dutch figures were.
M. HERZOG: Thank you. Is it correct that the forced recruitment of
foreign workers was carried out with brutality?
SAUCKEL: Regarding the instructions which I issued, that was discussed
adequately and clearly yesterday. My instructions are available
practically in their entirety, and discountenance any brutal recruitment
which...
THE PRESIDENT: Defendant, you were not asked about your instructions,
but you were asked whether brutality was shown. If you know, you can
answer.
SAUCKEL: I cannot know. From time to time I heard about excesses, and I
stopped them at once, and I protested against them when I heard of them.
M. HERZOG: Did you have knowledge of protests concerning the manner in
which the recruitment of workers was carried out in the occupied
territories?
SAUCKEL: I received protests, and that was discussed yesterday with my
counsel.