Yesterday in cross-examination you spoke about a French diplomatic
organization, formed under the French Ambassador Scapini, for Frenchmen
in Germany. Is it true that it was at Defendant Ribbentrop’s wish that
this organization was formed?
SAUCKEL: At our mutual wish and agreement. We both had the same
interests. That is correct.
DR. BALLAS: Can you tell me the reasons which caused Von Ribbentrop to
create this organization?
SAUCKEL: The reason for this was, in my opinion, to bring about an
understanding between the French and German populations by giving
assurance that particular care would be taken of Frenchmen working in
Germany.
DR. BALLAS: This diplomatic organization was also responsible for the
treatment of French prisoners of war? Can you tell me for what reasons
the German Foreign Office decided on so unusual an arrangement at a time
when a state of war still existed between France and Germany?
SAUCKEL: There were conferences between the French Government of Marshal
Pétain and the German Government, and both nations tried conscientiously
to bring about an understanding.
DR. BALLAS: And because of that came these unusual measures concerning
prisoners of war?
SAUCKEL: Not only because of that; I considered it a particular
necessity, and I might mention in this connection that this organization
was later divided or supplemented. In addition to M. Scapini, who took
care of French prisoners of war in particular, a M. Broehne took special
charge of French civilian workers.
DR. BALLAS: Is it true that Defendant Von Ribbentrop in the Foreign
Office created an organization to bring into Germany from occupied
countries artists, lecturers, newspapers, books, _et cetera_, for
foreign workers so that these workers would return home well inclined
toward an understanding with Germany?
SAUCKEL: It was the purpose of an agreement established by the Reich
Foreign Minister in collaboration with the Reich Ministry of Propaganda,
the German Labor Front, and my office, to improve the leisure time of
the foreign workers by means of foreign artists and lecturers. Many
Russian artists were in Germany for this purpose. It also had the
purpose of bringing libraries and periodicals to these people from their
home countries.
DR. BALLAS: Thank you. I have no further questions.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, in order to rectify an error in a chart in
Document Sauckel-1, I just want to have the witness’ confirmation.
[_The document was handed to the defendant._]
Witness, among the employers of labor you mentioned the departments of
Minister Funk, did you not?
SAUCKEL: Yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: And going down you find written in the third square
“armament inspectorate,” and under that, “Reichsautobahn.” These two
squares have been incorrectly put in. They do not belong there. Is it
true that these two squares should be crossed out?
SAUCKEL: Yes, that is correct.
DR. SERVATIUS: I therefore ask that the chart be rectified by having
these two squares crossed out. They belong to Speer’s Ministry, but I
have not given any close attention to that side, and I do not wish to
discuss it here.
Then, from the Buchenwald photograph album there were a number of
pictures submitted which show the defendant together with Himmler.
Witness, can you tell from the picture the approximate time of that
meeting? There are certain indications which you discussed with me
yesterday. Will you briefly describe these?
SAUCKEL: Yes. The left-hand top picture shows that construction is still
going on; I can see unfinished roadbeds and the like. This may therefore
be during the construction period.
DR. SERVATIUS: And what can you say about the time from the dress of the
various people?
SAUCKEL: The dress shows quite clearly that this is at a time before the
war, for Himmler is wearing a black uniform which he never wore during
the war. Apart from that he is wearing a sword, which was forbidden
during the war. It is quite clear that this meeting took place before
the war.
DR. SERVATIUS: Are these people wearing decorations?
SAUCKEL: I cannot see whether they are wearing decorations; no.
DR. SERVATIUS: And so I can conclude that this picture was taken
sometime before the war?
SAUCKEL: Quite definitely sometime before the war, because I myself did
not wear an SS uniform during the war.
DR. SERVATIUS: Document Number F-810 was submitted yesterday. That is a
report about the meeting at the Wartburg. Beginning on Page 25 of the
German text there is a report by Dr. Sturm, which was shown you and in
which it is said among other things that there was collaboration between
the Gestapo and the concentration camps and that that was the right road
to take. You were asked whether that was your view too, and whether such
collaboration was correct.
What did you understand by that? Do you mean that you agreed to the
methods used in concentration camps, as practiced by Himmler?
SAUCKEL: Under no circumstances, I wanted to indicate that it was
correct, as the document shows, that workers’ discipline should be
enforced step by step, as provided for in cases of disobedience: First a
reprimand, then small fines imposed by the factory, as laid down, in
fact, in my Decree Number 13, which I want to submit as documentary
evidence. Only then, after reprimands and small disciplinary penalties
at the factory had proved inadequate, should there be further treatment
of these cases, as is mentioned in the document, by having them brought
to court by the public prosecutor. I called a proper penal procedure
correct. By no means did I want thereby to characterize methods in
concentration camps as correct. I was not at all familiar with these
methods at that time.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, I have a document, Number 1764-PS, before
me. I have not been able to ascertain when and if it has already been
submitted. I have just received it in the form of a photostatic copy. It
is the so-called Hemmen report, a report which Envoy Hemmen made about a
sector of the labor allocation in France. I want to read a short passage
to the defendant which deals with the number of Frenchmen employed in
Germany, and I want him to confirm it.
[_Turning to the defendant._] Witness, I shall read you a passage and
ask you to...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, it is not usual to allow documents to be
put in re-examination. Why was this not used in examination-in-chief?
DR. SERVATIUS: The figures were questioned during the cross-examination,
not before. I attach no great importance to finding out in detail how
many hundred thousands came or went. I can omit this question and come
back to it in the final pleadings.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal was not saying you could not use it now. As
it arose out of the cross-examination, I think you may be able to use
it.
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, I should like briefly to read to you the
relevant passage; and I want you to tell me whether the views presented
there are correct.
Envoy Hemmen reports here, in a letter received at the Foreign Office on
6 February 1944, under Paragraph III as follows:
“Allocation of Labor in Germany:
“It started with the voluntary recruitment of workers which, up
to the end of 1942, produced 400,000 men. During the first half
of 1943 two further voluntary recruitments of 250,000 men each
were effected. The first, by granting the privileges of the
_relève_—which allowed leave for prisoners of war at a ratio of
1 prisoner to 3 recruits—or the granting of worker status,
produced some 200,000; whereas the second could be carried out
only by using the new compulsory service law, that is to say,
coercion, and produced only 122,000 men.”