THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Defendant Sauckel, I want to ask you a number
of questions. And will you try to speak a little more quietly, and will
you listen carefully to the questions and try to make your answers
responsive to the questions?
SAUCKEL: Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Now, first, I am going to ask you a little
bit about your personnel. You had one large central office, I take it,
did you not—one large central office?
SAUCKEL: I had a small central office, Your Honor.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): A small central office. And how many
people...
SAUCKEL: An office of my own.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): How many employees were in that office?
SAUCKEL: In this personnel office, Your Honor, there were two personnel
experts; a Ministerialrat, Dr. Stothfang; a Landrat Dr....
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Just a moment; how many, just how many?
SAUCKEL: Two higher officials and about eight middle and lower officials
as assistants and registrars.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Did your inspectors work out of that office?
SAUCKEL: The inspectors belonged to Department 9 of the Reich Ministry
of Labor which had been installed there. That was a special department
which was established in the Reich Ministry of Labor at my request, with
higher officials who...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Now the inspectors worked, I suppose, under
your instructions and reported to you, did they?
SAUCKEL: The inspectors reported first to Department 5 in the Reich
Ministry of Labor. I was informed in important cases. The inspectors had
the right and the duty to correct bad conditions on the spot when they
were confirmed in the labor administration.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): How many inspectors were there?
SAUCKEL: There were in Department 9, I believe...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): No, no—in all, how many in all?
SAUCKEL: There were various inspection offices, Your Honor. This
inspection...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): One moment, Defendant. Just listen to the
question. I said how many inspectors in all the inspection offices were
there?
SAUCKEL: From my own knowledge I cannot say how many there were in the
Labor Front. The extent of inspection offices in the Labor Front would
have been a matter for Dr. Ley to explain. That I do not know in detail.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well, do you know about how many inspectors
were working to inspect the labor work. You must know about how many
were there, don’t you?
SAUCKEL: I cannot give you accurate figures, but it may have been
approximately 60 or 70, if you take all of them together including those
of the German Labor Front.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Now, did they go outside of Germany, or did
they work only in Germany?
SAUCKEL: These inspectors worked for the most part only in Germany.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And they would inspect such matters as food
and travel and conditions of the camps, and so on, would they not?
SAUCKEL: That was their task.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Yes. And the important reports would come to
you?
SAUCKEL: No. According to an agreement the reports had to be sent to the
highest competent Reich authorities for bad conditions to be corrected.
For bad conditions in industry and in camps the competent authority was
the Industrial Inspectorate under Reich Minister of Labor Seldte. That
was the highest...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well, did not any of them come to you?
SAUCKEL: Complaints were also brought to me, but I could do nothing but
send them back to the competent offices and ask that everything be done
to remedy the conditions; and that is what I did.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Did the inspectors’ reports come to you, any
of the inspectors’ reports?
SAUCKEL: The reports did not come to me directly; they went through
channels to those offices which were concerned with correcting such
abuses.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Defendant, I am asking you not whether they
came directly; but did they come to you eventually? Did you get them?
Did you see them?
SAUCKEL: Such reports came very seldom to me.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): So you do not know what the conditions were
then, since you did not get the inspectors’ reports, is that right?
SAUCKEL: Four times or twice a year I also sent my assistants and these
inspectors in person to the Gauleiter in the German Gaue, and I received
reports on what they discussed during these private conferences with the
regional offices and on what they inspected and observed. There was
nothing of a catastrophic nature, merely shortcomings in the execution
of the directives which I had issued. I was informed about things of
that sort...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): So you are telling us that you never got any
reports or complaints of a catastrophic nature; is that right?
SAUCKEL: I did not quite understand that question.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You never got any reports or complaints of
what you call a catastrophic nature; is that right?
SAUCKEL: Within Germany—I received reports and complaints such as I
described to my counsel from Field Marshal Kluge, or else they were made
known to me in discussions with Rosenberg. Immediately I took the
necessary measures. But that was not frequently the case...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Defendant, if you would listen to the
question and try to answer it, I think we would get along much faster.
You used the expression “catastrophic nature”; those were your words.
Did you get any reports of a catastrophic nature?
SAUCKEL: I learned through Field Marshal Kluge, and through reports,
which have been mentioned here, from Rosenberg, about a few cases which
I considered catastrophic and tried to correct.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): These were what you call catastrophic cases?
SAUCKEL: Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): What were they?
SAUCKEL: There was the case in the East which Field Marshal Kluge
reported to me, where motion picture houses were surrounded by
recruiting agents. I considered that catastrophic. The second case was
the case of the returning transport, where according to the report—it
is called the later report, but I do not remember the number of the
document—children are said to have died on the way and been placed
outside the train. I considered that catastrophic. But there could...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You have answered.
SAUCKEL: But...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You have answered that now.
Did you get any complaints about Koch?
SAUCKEL: I received complaints about Koch at times from the Minister for
the Occupied Eastern Territories, Rosenberg, and also from another
source. Koch, of course, always defended himself very vehemently.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Then you had complaints from several people
about Koch?
SAUCKEL: Yes. I could...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And the complaints said what Koch was doing,
did they?
SAUCKEL: I did not receive complaints from many sides about Koch, but
rather from one side...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Now, wait...
SAUCKEL: But from several people...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Wait. Won’t you answer the question? I did
not ask you if you have received many complaints. I said, “The
complaints said what Koch was doing.” Is that right?
SAUCKEL: Yes, in some cases.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And what did you do with those complaints?
SAUCKEL: As far as my field of work was concerned, when I received
complaints such as have been discussed here, I called a conference in my
office. That was the case immediately after the complaints from
Rosenberg, and on that occasion I adopted the attitude which my defense
counsel cited and pointed out with respect to the conference of 6
January 1943.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And the Koch matter ended after the
conference, I take it? That was all you did?
[_There was no response._]
That was the end of it as far as you were concerned?
SAUCKEL: As far as I was concerned, I personally pointed out to the
Führer on several occasions that I considered it quite out of the
question to treat the Eastern Workers and the people in the East badly;
and by means of the decrees which I issued continually, and which are
contained in my documents, I did whatever I could to protect them. I
ask...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I have asked you about your central office.
Did you have any branch offices?
SAUCKEL: No, I had no branch offices. Two departments of the Ministry of
Labor, 5 and 6, were put at my disposal for the carrying out of my tasks
of an administrative and technical nature.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): All right. That is enough.
SAUCKEL: There business matters of an administrative nature were carried
on. I ask...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Wait a minute. Now, were the recruitment
offices in the Ministry of Labor?
SAUCKEL: No. In the Ministry of Labor there were...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Never mind. That is all you have to say.
Where were they, where were the recruitment offices?
SAUCKEL: The recruitment offices were in the occupied territories.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I understand that. But under what office?
What administration? What department?
SAUCKEL: The departments for labor were themselves incorporated in the
administration of these territories. That can be seen very clearly from
my Decree 4, for that had been done in the same manner before I came
into office. They were integral parts of the local administration.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Of the local administration? When you
mentioned the 1,500 district offices, were those the recruitment
offices?
SAUCKEL: Those were the offices in all the various territories which
represented these various administrations on the lowest level, as I have
just mentioned.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You do not answer the question. I asked you
whether they were recruiting offices. Were they recruiting offices?
SAUCKEL: They were not only recruiting offices, they were the offices of
the territorial labor administration on the lowest level.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): So they did administration and recruiting?
[_There was no response._]
They did recruiting, did they not?
SAUCKEL: I understand that that was one and the same thing. The
recruitment was carried on according to German principles as part of the
administration. Outside the administration recruitment could not be
carried on.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): They were recruiting offices, then? The
answer is “yes,” is it not? They were recruiting offices?
SAUCKEL: Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Right. You should have said that in the
beginning. That is what I wanted to know. Now, I want to know the
relation of your offices to the Party offices. The Gaue and the
Gauleiter worked in co-operation with you as plenipotentiaries, working
with you, did they not?
SAUCKEL: No, Your Honor, that is a mistake. The Gauleiter had nothing to
do with recruiting, that was...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Now, wait. I said nothing about recruiting. I
asked you the relation of your offices to the Gauleiter. The Gauleiter
co-operated with you in the general program, did they not?
SAUCKEL: Not in the general program, Your Honor; only in the program of
caring for German and foreign workers.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I see. The Gauleiter, then, had nothing to do
with recruiting; is that right?
SAUCKEL: No; that is right.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): That is right? They looked after the care and
comfort of the men who were recruited, is that right?
SAUCKEL: If they were working in the Reich, yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): In the Reich?
SAUCKEL: In the Reich.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Did the Gaue outside the Reich in the
occupied territories also work for you, or do you consider that they
were part of the Reich?
[_There was no response._]
Let me ask the question again. I do not think it is very clear. Certain
of the occupied territories had been incorporated into the Reich, had
they not?
SAUCKEL: In the East only the territories Wartheland and West Prussia
were incorporated into the Reich...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Now again I am not asking you the number that
was incorporated; I just said certain of the occupied territories,
certain parts of them, were incorporated into the Reich. Is that right?
SAUCKEL: Yes, that is correct.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Yes, and when you say the Gauleiter in the
Reich, that includes, does it not, the Gauleiter in those territories
which had been incorporated into the Reich; is that right?
SAUCKEL: Yes, but in this case they could not function in their capacity
as Gauleiter, but only if they were Reichsstatthalter, that is, only if
they had a state administration under them. These were two entirely
separate institutions with different personnel.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Did each Gauleiter have a labor office
connected with his Gau, in his Gau?
SAUCKEL: May I ask if you mean all German Gaue, or only those Gaue of
which we have just spoken, Your Honor?
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I mean only the Gaue of which we have spoken.
They each had a labor office, had they not?
SAUCKEL: They had a labor administration at the head of which there was
a Gau labor president.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): That’s right. That is enough. Now, do you
know the organization of the Gau in the labor administration? Did they
also have a Kreisleiter who attended to the labor work?
SAUCKEL: No, they did not have that.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And I take it there were no Ortsgruppenleiter
that worked on the labor program, then?
SAUCKEL: No, that was not the case; rather that was a strictly separate
administrative concept...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): That is all right.
SAUCKEL: But that was...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): No, that is all right.
Now I would like to know a little bit about what you call this private
recruitment. Who appointed the agents who were to do private recruiting?
Who appointed them? Did the employers hire agents to get workmen for
them?
[_There was no response._]
Do you know what I mean by private recruiting?
SAUCKEL: Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): That was done by agents, was it not?
SAUCKEL: Only in one case: In the year 1944 in France and in part in
Belgium, by way of exception, I permitted agents to act on the basis of
agreements with these French organizations.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Again, Witness, I did not ask you that at
all. You do not listen. I said: Who appointed these agents that worked
as private recruiting agents? Who appointed them?
SAUCKEL: In those countries, the commissioner for labor allocation
appointed them—I myself could not appoint them—together with the
French organizations. That was an understanding, not a set
appointment...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I see. And they would be paid on, I think you
said, a commission basis; is that right? They would be paid, in other
words, so much per workman? Every workman they brought in, they would
get a fee for that; is that right?
SAUCKEL: Yes. I do not know the details myself any more, but for the
most part that is correct.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Now, I take it when you used the word
shanghai, which you referred to and explained, that simply means private
recruiting with force. That is all it means, is it not?
[_There was no response._]
That is all it means, is it not? Private recruiting with force?
SAUCKEL: No...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Now, wait a minute. Can you shanghai a man
without using force? You do not mean that you shanghaied them by
persuasion? Did you?
SAUCKEL: Yes, for I wanted to recruit these French associations in just
this voluntary, friendly way, over a glass of beer or wine in a café,
and not in the official offices. I don’t mean shanghai in the bad sense
as I recall its being used from my sailor days. This was a rather
drastic expression, but not a concrete representation of the actual
procedure. Never, Your Honor, in France or anywhere else, did I order
men to be shanghaied, but rather...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Oh, I know you did not order it. That was not
my question. You mean that “shanghai” just meant that you had a friendly
glass of wine with a workman and then he joined up? Was that what you
meant?
SAUCKEL: I understood it in that way. I described it to the Central
Planning Board in a somewhat drastic form in order to answer the demands
made of me with some plausible counterarguments as to the efforts I was
making.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Why did you object to this private
recruitment? What was the objection to it?
SAUCKEL: In this case I did not object, but it was contrary to German
ideas concerning the procurement of labor. According to German
principles and...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Was it contrary to German law?
SAUCKEL: It was against my convictions and contrary to German laws.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I did not ask you that. I am not interested
for the moment in your convictions. I said: Was it contrary to German
law? It was, wasn’t it, against law?
SAUCKEL: It was in general contrary to the German labor laws. As far as
possible no private recruitment was to take place. But may I say as an
explanation, Your Honor, that after the workman had been won over, he
nevertheless entered into an obligation on the basis of a state
contract. Thus it must not be understood to mean that the worker in
question came into the Reich without a contract approved by the state; a
contract was granted to him just as it was to all others.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You mean, a laborer that was shanghaied by
private agents had the same rights, once he was in the employment, as
anyone else; is that what you mean?
SAUCKEL: The same rights and assurances that everyone else had.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): That is right. Now I am going to come to
another subject for a moment. I simply want to understand your defense
and what your point of view is. Now see if this is correct. You did no
recruiting yourself. The Police did no recruiting. Your main job was, in
the first place, to see that everything was done lawfully and legally.
Was not that right, that was your important function?
SAUCKEL: That was my endeavor.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): In order to do that you had to arrange to
have the proper laws passed so as to have the recruiting done under the
law; that is right, isn’t it? That was your job?
SAUCKEL: Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Yes. And very often those laws—by the way,
those laws were simply decrees, of course. They were just orders that
were signed by the Führer, or by you, or by some of the ministers. When
you say laws, you mean, of course, decrees?
SAUCKEL: The laws in the occupied territories for the recruitment of
manpower had to be decreed by the Führer and issued by the chiefs in the
territories.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): What I mean is, in order to make this use of
foreign labor lawful, you simply had to get certain decrees signed; that
was part of your duty, to get them signed? Now...
SAUCKEL: I did not sign these decrees...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I understand that. I did not say you signed
them. I understand that. You have explained that in great detail. Now
let us see where the Police came in. They had nothing to do with the
recruiting. Once a decree was signed, it became law, did it not? When a
decree was signed, it was law?
SAUCKEL: Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And if any man resisted being brought in as a
workman, or did not register, or did not live up to his contract, he
became a criminal. That is right, isn’t it?
SAUCKEL: In this case he violated the law. We did not call it a crime,
but rather an offense.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): But he broke the law?
SAUCKEL: Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You mean he did not commit a crime? Did he or
did he not commit a crime? Supposing a man failed to register when he
was told to register for work, was that a crime?
SAUCKEL: No, that was not a crime. We called that an offense in Germany.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And then when he committed this, he was then
turned over to the Police. Is that right?
SAUCKEL: Not immediately; in the preliminary proceedings he was told by
the local labor office to appear and to report and...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well, you explained all that. He got 3 or 4
days, and then if he did not finally register, for the offense he was
turned over to the Police? Is that right?
SAUCKEL: How that was actually handled in the various territories I
cannot say. It differed greatly, and was in part very lax.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You told us already in your cross-examination
that if a man broke the law that was when the Police came in. The Police
were there simply to see that the law was not broken. That is right,
isn’t it? That was their function?
SAUCKEL: No, that was not my task; that was the task of the service
authorities.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well, why do you always say, “it was not my
task”? I did not ask you if it was your task. I am just talking about
the Police; I am not talking about you. Now when those labor decrees
were violated, then it was, at a certain time, that the Police began to
function. Isn’t that right?
SAUCKEL: That would have been the normal way, the correct way.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Good. Or after the men—let us say in
Paris—were rounded up, if they offered physical resistance, then the
Police had to be called in, had they not? If there was physical
resistance you had to call in the Police, had you not?
SAUCKEL: Yes, but I can say that that was hardly ever reported to me. In
most cases the men were then released. It can be clearly seen from the
lists of the workers’ transports—for instance, in the year 1944—that
of a large program not even 10 percent came to Germany. Then there was
nothing else for us to do but to shanghai.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Please don’t go on. You have given all that
evidence before. I just want to get a picture of the whole system. Now
the Army. I think you said the role the Army played was where there had
been sabotage or resistance in the occupied territories the Army would
have to clean that out, so that the labor administration could work.
That would be right, wouldn’t it?
SAUCKEL: In so-called resistance areas in which the administration was
handicapped by resistance movements, not only in the field of labor
allocation but also in other directions, and the public safety of German
troops could no longer be guaranteed.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I am not interested in other functions. I am
interested particularly in the field of manpower at this time. So that,
for instance, in Poland or Russia, where it was impossible to recruit
people on account of the resistance to the recruiting or the resistance
to the Army, the Army would go in and help with the recruiting. It would
not be unfair to say that, would it?
SAUCKEL: One can say that.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): That is right. Now, by the way, did any of
these workmen who resisted or who broke the law or who did not register
after 3 days, were they ever tried by a court, or were they simply
handled by the Police if necessary? They were never tried by court, were
they?
SAUCKEL: That I cannot tell you in detail or in general. Probably there
were various ways of handling that. I do not know the details.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well, let us get that in particular. Did any
of your decrees provide for trial by a court of such persons?
SAUCKEL: No, my decrees did not do that. I was not authorized to issue
such decrees within the territories with regard to court proceedings,
because I was not the competent regional authority.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): All right. I am not very clear on this
picture of camps. Let us look at that for a moment. There were what you
called, I think, distribution or transition camps, were there not?
SAUCKEL: Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): How many?
SAUCKEL: That I cannot tell you from memory.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): No, of course not; but do you think there
were more than a hundred?
SAUCKEL: No, I do not think so.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Hardly. But perhaps nearly a hundred?
SAUCKEL: No, I do not think that is quite correct either.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You could give no figure on that?
SAUCKEL: I assume that perhaps in the Reich there were 30 or 40
transition camps.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): In the Reich?
SAUCKEL: In the Reich.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And were those transition camps also in the
occupied territories, or in France?
SAUCKEL: In the occupied territories? Whether there were any transition
camps in France and, if so, how many, that I cannot say. In the West,
along the border, there were reception stations; and in the East, along
the border, there were transition camps which had as their purpose an
additional physical examination, delousing of clothing, and...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I think that is enough. I think you have
answered that enough. Now there were also what you called the labor
training camps. Do you remember, you said there were also labor training
camps?
SAUCKEL: These training camps...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Can’t you say “yes” or “no”?
SAUCKEL: No.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): How many?
SAUCKEL: Of that I have no idea...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): So you have no idea of that? Maybe 50 or 100?
SAUCKEL: No. I cannot tell you even approximately how many because I
have never received a list. They were not under me.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): To whom were they subordinate?
SAUCKEL: They were subordinate exclusively to the Police, that is, as
far as I know, to Gruppenführer Müller.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And I presume that they were staffed and
officered by the SS, as were the other concentration camps?
SAUCKEL: I have to assume that also, but I cannot say definitely because
I have never seen any such camps.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): But that would not be improbable, would it?
SAUCKEL: No. These camps were subordinate exclusively to the Police.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): To the Police. Now who went to the labor
training camps? Who was sent to them?
SAUCKEL: As far as I know—I heard very little about that—people were
sent there who in a number of cases had committed violations of the
labor regulations, or of discipline in the factories, and so on.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): That is right. That is fine. Thank you very
much. That is all I want to know about that point. In other words,
people who did not turn up for registration, or who broke their
contracts, were sent for training. Now what was the training? What does
that mean, “training”? How are you trained?
SAUCKEL: That I cannot tell you. I assume that they had to work. A
period of time was provided of from about 8 days to 56 days, I believe;
I cannot say exactly. I also heard about that in this courtroom for the
first time.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well, let us get a little more light on that
subject. You see, you were after all, were you not, Plenipotentiary, so
you must have known something about these matters. There were labor
camps as well as labor training camps, were there not?
SAUCKEL: Yes, and I want to distinguish between them...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I will distinguish. Let me ask you the
question. The labor camps were camps where workmen were sent and housed
who were working in industry; isn’t that right? They were simply camps
where workmen were housed and lived. Is that right?
SAUCKEL: They were camps where workers were billeted; where they lived.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): That is right; and labor training camps were
different from the labor camps, weren’t they?
SAUCKEL: They were basically different. The labor training camps were an
institution of the Reichsführer SS; the labor camps, in which they
lived, were set up by the factory or group of factories where the
workers were employed.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): So when a man was sent to a labor training
camp, he was not sent simply to labor; he was being punished, wasn’t he,
for having broken the law? That must be right, is it not?
SAUCKEL: To my knowledge, he came to a labor training camp in order to
be trained to be punctual at work, and at the same time it was a
punishment for his offenses at the factory.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Were there any decrees with respect to the
labor training camps, any regulations?
SAUCKEL: I know of no regulations. They had to be issued by the
Reichsführer SS, by the Chief of Police. I issued no regulations.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): So, although part of your duty was to look
after the foreign laborers who were brought over here, that stopped
after they were turned over to the Police, and you had no more
jurisdiction; is that right?
SAUCKEL: That is right; but in one respect I have to correct that. I did
not have the task of looking after the workers; I merely had the task of
getting workers for the industries. The supervision of the camps and the
care of the workers was in no way my task. I have...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Stop, Defendant, we clearly understand that.
You had practically no executive functions, but you repeatedly said that
you passed decrees—by the hundreds, you said—for improving the
condition of the men. Now, we know that you didn’t have the job to feed
them or to house them; but you did have one of your main jobs—one of
your main jobs was to try to keep them in as good condition as possible,
and that was the reason you were interested in any complaints. We all
understand that, don’t we? That is correct? One of your functions was to
do that, wasn’t it?
SAUCKEL: I had taken over this task; it was not one of the duties with
which I had been entrusted. The complaints with which I was confronted
every day were to the effect that there were not enough workers
available. My task was the direction and the acquisition of workers, but
in my own interest I pointed out the necessity of caring for the workers
and keeping them in good condition.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I see, that was a voluntary job on your part.
It was not part of your duty, but nevertheless you did it. But, now, let
me come a little bit to the workers themselves. I think we are very
clear, or comparatively so, as to the numbers that were brought in. I
want to know how many were voluntary and how many were involuntary. Now,
before you answer that, I mean those workers who were brought in, not
under law, but simply who volunteered for work of their own accord.
There were not very many of those, I suppose, were there?
SAUCKEL: Yes, there were a great many workers who volunteered without
legal compulsion, as the result of propaganda and recruitment and
because of the fact that in Germany wages and such things were
comparatively high and regulated. There were a great many workers...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Now, let us take a look at that. There came a
time when the laws applying to German workers were applied to workers
for foreign countries; is that not true?
SAUCKEL: Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I mean, every German had to work, had he not,
under the law? Right?
SAUCKEL: Yes, that is right.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And that law was finally applied to foreign
workers as well, as you just said. Right?
SAUCKEL: That law was also introduced into the occupied territories.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Right. For everyone alike. So that after that
law was introduced, there was no such thing as voluntary work because
after that law was introduced everyone had to work, had they not?
SAUCKEL: Yes, as far as demands were made for them in the occupied
territories and elsewhere, according to need.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): So when you were talking about involuntary
work, that must have applied to the time before that law was passed?
Right?
SAUCKEL: Yes, however...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): When was the law passed?
SAUCKEL: That law was introduced at various dates in the late autumn of
1942. I cannot tell the exact dates in the various territories, but I
should like to say that under this law, as well, voluntary workers still
came voluntarily, to Germany. They...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You are right. If they had not, they would
have gone involuntarily, wouldn’t they?
SAUCKEL: No.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Why not?
SAUCKEL: Only certain quotas were raised but not all the workers were
demanded for Germany.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well, then those certain quotas that were
requested would have to have gone involuntarily; right?
SAUCKEL: No. There was also voluntary recruitment carried out, and that
means that among the workers...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Wait, wait, Defendant. Don’t let us fool over
this. It is quite simple. If there was a law which made it necessary for
men to work when their quotas had been called up, they had to work, had
they not? Right?
SAUCKEL: Yes, they had to work, in their own countries first of all, but
they also could volunteer to work in Germany instead of working in their
own country. And we attached great importance to this.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): In other words, a man had a choice of forced
labor in an industry in France or in Germany, so in that sense it was
voluntary; is that right?
SAUCKEL: Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Now, just two or three more questions. You
have answered clearly, I think. I just want to ask you about three
documents. I think that is all. I am not going into detail. Do you
remember the document known as R-124, which was the conference on March
1st of 1944? You remember that conference?
Would someone show him the German notes of that, please, if you have
them?
[_Turning to the defendant._] Do you remember the conference? Have you
looked at the notes?
SAUCKEL: That was the conference about the Central Planning Board.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Yes, that is right. Did you look over those
notes?
SAUCKEL: Now?
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Yes.
SAUCKEL: Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Do they tell about what took place in
substance? In substance, there was an account of the conference, wasn’t
there?
SAUCKEL: Yes, at this moment—I beg to be excused—I cannot remember the
concrete topic of discussion at that conference.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well, did you find anything in the notes, as
you read them, over, which you thought in substance was a great mistake?
SAUCKEL: I cannot tell now what subject is meant.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Have you read the notes? Have you read them?
SAUCKEL: I did not read all the notes about the Central Planning Board.
At that time the notes about the Central Planning Board were not
available to me. Therefore I did not know that notes were taken about
the Central Planning Board.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Don’t go on with all this talk. I simply
asked whether you read them and you said you had not read them all. That
is all we need.
SAUCKEL: No, I have not read them all.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Of the portion that you read, did you find
any mistakes?
SAUCKEL: I found inexact passages, yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Inexact passages?
SAUCKEL: Inaccuracies. For instance, the report of my interpolation
“200,000 to 5,000,000”; that is an utterly impossible proportion.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Quite. Now, you used one expression in those
notes which I did not understand; and I am going to ask you what you
meant by it. You spoke of your special labor supply executives. Was that
the committee for social peace that you spoke about yesterday—about a
thousand people in it? Do you remember?
SAUCKEL: Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): That is the same thing? That was the
committee that you said had to be specially trained by the SS, I think,
and by the police in France, or wherever they were used?
SAUCKEL: Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): By the way, you spoke of them being armed.
Why were they armed? Why did they carry arms?
SAUCKEL: For their own protection and for the protection of those whom
they recruited; they had to have some means of defense against attacks.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You did not usually have anything to do with
the Police, did you? Why did you organize this police corps? Why did you
help organize this police corps, an armed police corps? Why did you do
it?
SAUCKEL: That was not an armed police corps in the usual sense, rather
it was...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Never mind describing it. We know what it
was. Why did you organize it? I thought you kept away from police
measures.
SAUCKEL: In order to have protection for these people and for these
places which frequently were raided, demolished, or harassed by the
resistance movement.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I see what you mean. This was an organization
to protect the recruiting that was going on; is that right?
SAUCKEL: Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I see. Now, I just want to ask one question
about another manuscript, 016-PS, dated 20 April 1944, which was the
labor mobilization program. That is the program which you issued and
signed, is it not? You look at it. That is the program you signed?
SAUCKEL: No.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): It is not? I do not know what you mean.
SAUCKEL: I have not understood you correctly, I believe. I understood
1944. It was...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): No, no, on 20 April 1942. You issued the
labor mobilization program. Is that the program signed by you, shown in
the Document 016-PS? That is the program, is it not?
SAUCKEL: The program—may I say the following in this connection: It was
a program which did not become effective immediately...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Defendant, please answer the question. All I
want to know is, first, you did issue a mobilization program, did you
not?
SAUCKEL: That I did, but...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Right. And that is the one shown in that
exhibit, is it not? I am simply identifying it.
SAUCKEL: Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Right. I wanted to ask you a little bit about
bringing the youths of the occupied territories into the Reich. Certain
of the youths were brought in, were they not?
SAUCKEL: Youths were brought in, but against my...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Against your desire, you said. How many were
brought in?
SAUCKEL: That I cannot possibly say from my own knowledge. I do not
know. There were youths...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well, what were the ages? How young were
they?
SAUCKEL: That I cannot say either—what age the youths were—because
they were with their families who came into the Reich as a result of
refugee measures or the evacuation of other localities. Then another
time, in connection with the so-called “Hay Action” in 1944, youths came
to the Reich, but without my having anything to do with it.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You know there were young adolescents, of
course, young adolescent children, do you not? You know that, do you
not?
SAUCKEL: Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): What was the purpose of bringing them in?
Were they recruited for labor, or were they to be trained in the Reich
and educated?
SAUCKEL: There are various explanations for the fact that youths were
brought into the Reich. Some of these youths were not recruited or
brought in by agents; rather they came with their families, at the
latter’s wish, when refugee and evacuation measures were carried out.
Others came...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Wait a minute. We will leave out the ones
that came with the families. Some were recruited for labor, were they
not? Some for work, were they not?
SAUCKEL: Youths under the legal age of 14 years could not be brought in
for work. By agreements, such as can be found in the documents, other
offices brought youths in to train and care for them.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You just do not answer the questions. I asked
you whether some were brought in for work. Children over 14, who were
still under 20, were brought in for work, were they not—recruited for
work?
SAUCKEL: But only volunteers were brought in.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Only volunteers were brought in?
SAUCKEL: Youths were supposed to be brought in only as volunteers.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You did not recruit any youth involuntarily;
you mean that?
SAUCKEL: I did not.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I do not mean you personally; I mean the
administration.
SAUCKEL: No, the labor administration was not supposed to bring in any
youths, especially girls, by compulsion; only voluntarily. Domestic
servants were only volunteers.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Some were brought in to be educated in
Germany and to become German citizens, were they not?
SAUCKEL: That I found out from the documents; but I was not responsible
for that.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You did not know about that before? Did
anyone advise you that it was in accordance with international law to
force people in occupied countries to come to Germany to work?
SAUCKEL: I was expressly urged by the Führer to take that measure, and
it was described to me as admissible. No office raised any objections to
or had any misgivings about this measure; rather it met with the
requirements of all offices.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I did not ask you that. I asked you whether
anybody advised you that it was in accordance with international law.
SAUCKEL: No.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You knew, did you not, that the Foreign
Office had to consider such matters?
SAUCKEL: I spoke with the Foreign Office on various occasions and this
was found to be in order, because we were convinced that in these
territories, on the basis of the terms of surrender, the introduction of
German regulations was permissible and possible under the conditions
prevailing and in view of existing agreements. That was my belief.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Do you say that you were advised by the
Foreign Office that you were entitled under international law to force
people to come from Russia to work in Germany?
SAUCKEL: The Foreign Office never told me anything to the contrary; but
the Foreign Office, I believe, was not competent for questions
concerning the East: I do not know.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Whom did you ask for advice on the subject?
SAUCKEL: I found these regulations in existence before I took office.
These regulations had already been issued. The Führer expressly charged
me to carry them out.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Then, the answer is that you asked nobody? Is
that right?
SAUCKEL: I did not ask anybody. I could not ask anybody, because all
offices wanted these measures and accepted them. There was never any
discussion to the contrary.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And did you say that it was not the task of
the Police to enforce recruiting for labor?
SAUCKEL: It was not the task of the Police to carry out recruitment.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well, why did you say at the conference on 4
January 1944, which is reported in the Document 1292-PS, that you would
do everything in your power to furnish the requested manpower in 1944;
but whether it would succeed depended primarily on what German
enforcement agents would be made available, and that your project could
not be carried out with domestic enforcement agents? Does that not mean
that the Police would have to enforce your recruitment programs?
SAUCKEL: No, it means—the reproduction of these minutes is not very
exact—I explained to the Führer that I probably would not be able to
carry out his program because there were very large partisan areas; and
as long as these partisan areas were not cleared up, so that a regular
administration could be established there, no recruitment could take
place there either. First of all, therefore, normal administrative
conditions would have to be established again. That could be done only
by those organs whose task it was.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): What did you mean by German enforcement
agents?
SAUCKEL: By German enforcement agencies I meant the normal
administration as such, but in some territories that was too weak.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well, then, why was it that the Reichsführer
SS explained that the enforcement agents put at his disposal were
extremely few, if those enforcement agents were not police agents?
SAUCKEL: I did not understand the question correctly in the first place.
The Reichsführer, I believe, said—according to my recollection—that
for the pacification of these areas he did not have troops enough
because they were all at the front. That did not refer to the
recruitment and management of compulsory labor, but to the
re-establishment of normal conditions in these areas.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well then, are you saying that it was not the
task of the Police to help you in recruitment, but that it was the task
of the military?
SAUCKEL: That differed greatly depending on the various regulations in
the territories. There were areas in which the military commanders had
the sole executive power, and there were areas in which civilian
authorities had the executive power on the German side. There was a
third kind of area, military operational zones with rear areas, in which
the commanders of the armies had the executive power.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well, then, either it was the Police, or it
was the military, or it was some other force which was going to carry
out your forcible recruiting; is that right?
SAUCKEL: Yes, but in these areas as well, the machinery of the civilian
administration was available, which was not identical with the military
or with the Police, but represented within these Wehrmacht organizations
separate branches of the administration under a special administrative
chief.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well, I don’t understand then what you meant
by saying that your project could not be carried out with domestic
enforcement agents.
That is all I have to ask. Then the defendant can return to the dock.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, I am asking the Tribunal to look at
Document Sauckel-3, which is a list of Sauckel’s offices, to see the
position of the witness whom I am about to call.
Under Sauckel in the Reich Ministry of Labor there were various
departments, one of which, the department of the witness Timm, was the
so-called Europe Office, which had three subdepartments—one for the
West, one for the East, and the third for the South and Southwest.
With the permission of the Court, I call the witness Timm.
[_The witness Timm took the stand._]
THE PRESIDENT: Will you state your full name.
MAX TIMM (Witness): Max Timm.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath after me: I swear by God—the
Almighty and Omniscient—that I will speak the pure truth—and will
withhold and add nothing.
[_The witness repeated the oath._]
THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down.
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, you worked in the Reich Labor Ministry in the
Allocation of Labor department?
TIMM: Yes, that is correct.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were you already there when Sauckel took office?
TIMM: Yes, and I had been in the labor administration for some years
before that.
DR. SERVATIUS: What was the impression you had of your new superior when
Sauckel took over the office?
TIMM: When Sauckel assumed office, I had the impression of a very
energetic, hard-working man, who was inclined to get excited at times,
even angry no doubt, and who demanded much of his co-workers, but also
made great demands on himself.
DR. SERVATIUS: How was he in carrying out his measures?
TIMM: When he assumed office there was a good deal of confusion in the
field of labor allocation. Everybody had something to do with labor
allocation.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was that the reason why that office was created?
TIMM: The previous chiefs had not had enough force to push their program
through against the opposition of various offices; and Sauckel was the
strong man, and particularly the strong political figure, who was to put
things in order.
DR. SERVATIUS: How did Sauckel approach this new task? Did he adhere to
the administrative regulations, or did he do it in his own way, in—as
one says—an unrestrained new manner?
TIMM: He considered his task very much a political task, but he always
did his best to handle administrative matters in an orderly way. He was
known generally as a Gauleiter who was friendly to the civil servants.
Also, in order to instruct all the offices under his administration, he
held so-called staff meetings at regular intervals in which the most
important things were discussed.
DR. SERVATIUS: What was your position in that office?
TIMM: In the Allocation of Labor department I had first a subdepartment
and later a department.
DR. SERVATIUS: What did that department deal with?
TIMM: That department had to deal with all questions concerning the
assignment of labor, particularly the classification of skilled workers,
training of workers, vocational advice, and employment agencies for
apprentices.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was your office called the Europe Office?
TIMM: Yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you have an over-all view of what went on in the
office?
TIMM: Not completely, owing to the fact that Gauleiter Sauckel at the
same time remained Gauleiter in Thuringia and he worked in Berlin in
Thuringia House, whereas the special departments put at his disposal
remained in the Ministry of Labor.
DR. SERVATIUS: No, you did not understand my question. The question was
whether you, from your office, had an over-all view of what went on in
the field of labor allocation without regard to Sauckel’s activity.
TIMM: Yes, but not entirely, because we were not informed about all
events, due to the separation of the offices.
DR. SERVATIUS: What were the staff meetings? Who took part in them and
of what kind of people were they composed?
TIMM: For the most part the liaison men of the various branches were
called to staff conferences.
DR. SERVATIUS: What kind of people were they?
TIMM: There were various kinds of people, civil servants but also
economists, and the like.
DR. SERVATIUS: But you should tell us from what offices these people
came, or were they people who were in Sauckel’s office?
TIMM: They were mostly people from other branches, as, for instance, a
representative of the Delegate for the Four Year Plan, the
representatives of the Ministry for Armament and War Production, of the
Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories, and of other departments.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was that the so-called specialist labor staff?
TIMM: That was the specialist labor staff.
DR. SERVATIUS: About how many people were in it?
TIMM: In my estimation there were probably about 15 to 20 people.
DR. SERVATIUS: Besides that, Sauckel had a personal labor staff. What
kind of people were in that?
TIMM: The personal labor staff consisted mostly of men whom Sauckel had
brought with him from Weimar, men of his own immediate circle.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did he also have consultants? Who were these?
TIMM: He had two personal consultants, Landrat Berch and Ministerialrat
Dr. Stothfang.
DR. SERVATIUS: And what position did Dr. Didier hold?
TIMM: Dr. Didier, as far as I remember, was the press expert.
DR. SERVATIUS: How were these staff meetings carried on? What was
discussed?
TIMM: At those staff meetings all matters of labor allocation, that is
the entire German labor allocation program, were discussed; and the
sessions were generally opened with a complete report by Herr Sauckel,
in which he explained his plans for the future.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were questions of recruitment in occupied territories
also discussed; and what is of importance here, the difficulties which
existed then, and the methods of which we have heard? What was said
about that?
TIMM: Questions of recruitment were generally not discussed there so
much but rather questions concerning the Reich.
DR. SERVATIUS: I asked you first about the occupied territories. Was,
for instance, that case discussed which has been brought up here, the
surrounding of a motion picture house and the seizing of people there,
and similar cases?
TIMM: Yes, the case of the motion picture house is known to me.
DR. SERVATIUS: That was discussed?
TIMM: Yes, that was discussed.
DR. SERVATIUS: And what was done about it?
TIMM: Sauckel at once instructed several gentlemen—I don’t remember
whom—to make all possible investigations in order to clarify the case.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were other cases reported?
TIMM: There were no other cases which could be compared in seriousness
with that case which has just been described.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was there also discussion about the question of labor
conditions in Germany for foreign workers?
TIMM: There were discussions at the staff conferences about labor
conditions.
DR. SERVATIUS: And was it not reported there that conditions existed in
individual camps or industries which were objectionable?
TIMM: Cases of that kind were discussed. In general they concerned
clothing, nutrition, and similar things.
DR. SERVATIUS: How did these reports come to the staff conferences? Who
reported them? From what source did one find out about them?
TIMM: Herr Sauckel always attached importance to having these things
examined on the spot, and he maintained an extensive system of
inspection in order to get an accurate picture of these questions; and
these inspection reports were then discussed in detail at the staff
conferences.
THE PRESIDENT: I have an announcement to make.
Upon consideration of the motion of the Prosecution, dated the 21st of
May, and the memorandum of the Defense Counsel in reply thereto, dated
the 29th of May, the Tribunal makes the following order:
The motion of the Prosecution that arguments as to the guilt or
innocence of the individual defendants be heard at the conclusion of the
evidence relating to the individual defendants and before the
introduction of evidence relating to the accused organizations is
granted. The Tribunal, however, will not decide the question of the
guilt or innocence of any defendant until after all the evidence has
been heard; and, if any of the evidence relating to the accused
organizations is thought by counsel for any defendant to support his
defense, he may ask to be heard further with regard thereto. The
Tribunal, at the conclusion of the evidence relating to the individual
defendants, will accordingly hear first the argument in their behalf,
and then the summing up of the Prosecution. The statements of each of
the defendants in his own behalf will be heard at the conclusion of the
Trial before judgment.
The Tribunal is of opinion that the argument relating to the guilt or
innocence of the individual defendants will be more helpful if heard
immediately at the conclusion of the evidence bearing thereon, and
before the Tribunal has departed from this and goes into the branch of
the case relating to the organizations. This arrangement, furthermore,
will give the commissioners, who are taking the evidence as to the
organizations, further time in which to complete their work. The
defendants will not be prejudiced in any way by this arrangement; for,
apart from the fact that their cases are essentially different from the
cases of the organizations, they will be allowed to call to the
attention of the Tribunal any circumstance developed on the hearing of
the organizations which is thought to be helpful to their defense. The
Tribunal finds nothing in the Charter which forbids this procedure, and
Article 9 leaves to the discretion of the Tribunal the manner of hearing
evidence on behalf of the accused organizations.
Counsel for the individual defendants will not be permitted to
cross-examine the witnesses called by counsel on behalf of the
organizations, or to take part in such proceedings save when specially
authorized to do so by the Tribunal.
That is all.
The Tribunal will sit tomorrow at 10 o’clock in open session until 1
o’clock.
[_The Tribunal adjourned until 1 June 1946 at 1000 hours._]
ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY-FOURTH DAY
Saturday, 1 June 1946
_Morning Session_
DR. KUBUSCHOK: May I ask permission for the Defendant Von Papen to be
absent on Monday and Tuesday to prepare his case.
He will be represented by my colleague Dr. Nelte.
[_The witness Timm resumed the stand._]
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, yesterday we were speaking, at the end, of the
staff conferences. I should like to leave this question now, but we will
come back to it later when we talk about controls. First, I should like
you to explain the relationship of Sauckel’s office to the higher
authorities. Whom did Sauckel come under?
TIMM: The Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor was under
the Delegate for the Four Year Plan.
DR. SERVATIUS: And what did he have to do with Hitler?
TIMM: The Plenipotentiary General kept in the closest touch with Hitler,
and as far as possible he presented his plans to Hitler at personal
discussions.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was there a constant connection with the Four Year Plan
through a liaison man, or how was that done?
TIMM: There were various ways of keeping the contact active. There were
liaison men on both sides. The Plenipotentiary General sent men from his
select staff to the office of the Four Year Plan for a preliminary
co-ordination of his plans, and on the other hand, as far as I can
recall, there were almost constantly delegates from the office of the
Four Year Plan who took part in the staff conferences.
In addition, the Plenipotentiary General frequently had personal talks
with the Delegate for the Four Year Plan.
DR. SERVATIUS: How was the co-operation with the other ministries
conducted? With Goebbels, to begin with?
TIMM: The Plenipotentiary General felt in principle that it was
important to keep as close a contact as possible with the other
departments and to have his plans and intentions co-ordinated
beforehand. Co-operation with the Ministry of Propaganda was no longer
so good, especially at the time when the Minister, Dr. Goebbels, was
Delegate for Total War Effort.
DR. SERVATIUS: After the proclamation of total war was Sauckel
subordinate to Goebbels?
TIMM: The relationship was never quite clear. In my opinion it had to be
looked at this way: The Delegate for Total War Effort received
comprehensive powers for all tasks, and was therefore in fact superior
to the GBA (Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor).
DR. SERVATIUS: What was the relation with the other authorities, for
instance with the Reich Ministry for Food?
TIMM: The co-operation with the Reich Ministry for Food was very good.
The relations with State Secretary Backe especially were always very
good as far as I could judge. There were also continual conferences
between the experts of both offices on questions of feeding in general.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, what was the date of the proclamation of
total war?
DR. SERVATIUS: Does the witness know when total war was declared?
TIMM: I do not remember the date.
DR. SERVATIUS: It was after the fall of Stalingrad. I cannot give you
the exact date.
THE PRESIDENT: Go on, please.
DR. SERVATIUS: As to relations with Himmler, what co-operation was there
with that office?
TIMM: I know nothing of any close personal relations between the GBA and
Himmler. On Sauckel’s labor staff there was a liaison man from the
Reichsführer SS, especially for any general police questions that might
arise concerning the allocation of labor.
DR. SERVATIUS: What kind of questions were there?
TIMM: All kinds of questions; especially the question of badges in
connection with the employment of foreigners.
DR. SERVATIUS: And probably also questions concerning barbed wire?
TIMM: Yes; questions concerning barbed wire, and all the questions which
arose in police spheres.
DR. SERVATIUS: And also the question of labor training camps?
TIMM: As I was not an expert on those questions I cannot remember very
well, and I do not know whether there were any detailed conferences
about them.
DR. SERVATIUS: Now, I should like to pass on to the connection of the
authorities with the occupied territories.
With whom were negotiations carried on and to whom did one apply when
making demands on the occupied territories?
TIMM: One had to apply to the respective district governments at the
time—military commanders, Reich commissioners or something similar.
DR. SERVATIUS: What kind of position did Sauckel’s deputies have?
TIMM: The deputies were organized and intended to be men who were to
exert a direct and vigorous influence on the execution of Sauckel’s
plans, instructions and orders.
This goal, however, was not reached as they were not able to succeed. I
remember that the Plenipotentiary General therefore intended to ask
Hitler for more comprehensive instructions and more comprehensive
powers.
I seem to recall that the Plenipotentiary General once announced that he
had learned from Hitler himself, or from his entourage, that Hitler was
not inclined to extend these powers as he could not release the local
governments, especially the military commanders, from their
comprehensive responsibility and powers; so the Plenipotentiary General
had only one recourse, that of putting forward his wishes through the
channel of direct negotiations.
DR. SERVATIUS: Why were the deputies not able to succeed?
TIMM: The deputies could only try to consult with the existing regional
governments, but the opposition was so strong that they could not carry
any weight.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did these deputies not hold another position at the same
time?
TIMM: As they could not attain an independent position, the deputies
were generally incorporated into the existing local administration by
way of negotiations. With few exceptions they were entrusted with the
management of the labor section, or were incorporated into the section
for economy and labor.
Generally they were placed within the staffs of the military commanders
as administrative officials and that was the position which they held
ostensibly.
DR. SERVATIUS: So it was a combination of two or more positions held by
one person?
TIMM: It was, to a certain extent, a combination of different positions
held by one person, of which, without doubt, the most important was the
position of section chief in the existing regional government.
DR. SERVATIUS: With whom did this arrangement of a dual position
originate?
Was it Sauckel who insisted on it, or the responsible regional
authorities?
TIMM: As far as I know, it resulted from talks with the regional
governments on the question of the position of the deputies. The
regional governments wanted on no account to have any men in their
districts who were independent of their administration and had special
powers.
DR. SERVATIUS: So that curbed the initiative of the deputies?
TIMM: Their initiative as originally planned was no doubt checked.
DR. SERVATIUS: How did Sauckel exercise his authority to issue
instructions?
TIMM: The authority to issue instructions to the offices abroad was
generally exercised by means of sending instructions, directives, and
decrees through normal administrative channels via the central offices.
DR. SERVATIUS: Could he issue instructions to cover everything that
happened there, or were there other offices which dealt with the
recruitment of labor?
TIMM: At that time, unfortunately, the situation was such that even
after the appointment of the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation
of Labor other agencies there repeatedly interfered in labor matters or
carried on recruiting too—that is, agencies which had neither the power
nor the authority to do so.
THE PRESIDENT: What time is he talking about; he says “at that time”?
DR. SERVATIUS: I did not quite understand.
THE PRESIDENT: I say what time. He said “at that time.” At what time?
What time is he speaking about?
DR. SERVATIUS: [_Turning to the witness._] What time are you speaking
about?
TIMM: It was at the time when the Plenipotentiary General for the
Allocation of Labor was appointed.
DR. SERVATIUS: When was he appointed?
TIMM: He was appointed in March 1942.
DR. SERVATIUS: How was the recruiting carried out? Was it voluntary? How
would you differentiate between the types?
TIMM: In principle, recruiting was carried out on a voluntary basis
because from the technical point of view—that is, from the point of
view of the utilization of the labor recruited—only voluntary
recruiting could lead to success. That is to say only voluntary
recruiting could bring people who were happy and willing to work, and
who could achieve the output necessary for production.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was that the point of view which Sauckel emphasized?
TIMM: During the whole time that I worked with Sauckel in the Ministry
of Labor I never heard of any events which indicated any other point of
view. He repeatedly emphasized that the basis of recruiting must be
voluntary.
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes. He issued many directives and held many speeches.
But did he not within the select circle...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, and Witness, will you try and pause
between the sentences, and between the questions and the answers? The
witness’ sentences seem to me to be running on, whereas if he would
pause it would give the interpreter some chance.
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.
[_Turning to the witness._] Sauckel issued a number of directives and
made speeches to that effect. Did he not give you more precise
instructions for the guidance of the department?
TIMM: The instructions which we received always agreed in principle with
the instructions which he issued to larger circles at presidential or
similar conferences.
DR. SERVATIUS: What was the result of voluntary recruiting? Did the
workers come solely on the basis of that recruiting, that is on the
basis of the conditions as described to them?
TIMM: Yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: About how many were there?
TIMM: It is, of course, not possible for me to give exact figures.
Thinking it over I believe I can say that about 2 to 3 million workers
might be considered voluntary workers.
DR. SERVATIUS: Other workers came by virtue of the compulsory service
laws which were introduced in those countries?
TIMM: Yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: What do you estimate the number of those people to be?
TIMM: I can hardly give an estimate. As about 2 to 3 million may be
considered volunteers, the rest must reach this figure too.
DR. SERVATIUS: People were deported too. Do you understand what is meant
by deportation?
TIMM: If I may ask, does that mean the people who were transported for
military or similar reasons? I am not quite clear as to what you mean by
that.
DR. SERVATIUS: You do not know what deportations are?
TIMM; You mean forcible deportations, do you not? I cannot remember and
do not know anything about such measures in connection with the activity
of the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor.
DR. SERVATIUS: In connection with the obtaining, recruiting, and
conscription of labor, there are quite a number of serious charges
concerning abuses which occurred. To what extent did you learn of them?
TIMM: I understand your question to mean abuses in the recruiting
itself?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.
TIMM: I have no practical knowledge of the recruiting itself. As far as
I had a general view of the situation, serious abuses, such as you
mention in your question, were not reported to the GBA. Yesterday in an
answer I pointed out that I knew of the case of the surrounded cinema,
and that I could recall no events surpassing that case in gravity.
DR. SERVATIUS: Now I come to conditions in Germany. Did you hear
anything about conditions of the worst kind there? You probably read the
papers and know what these charges mean. You were one of the people most
closely involved there, so what did you learn?
TIMM: Complaints about the treatment of foreigners came through various
channels to the GBA too. They referred in general to questions of
clothing and food, and that of barbed wire which came up repeatedly, and
the question of badges, the marking of foreign workers.
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, the Prosecution is speaking here of Crimes
against Humanity.
TIMM: Yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: Are those only things which happened daily in a normal
administration, or are they, so to say, things which were reported?
TIMM: Such things as you call catastrophic, Doctor, did not come to my
knowledge, because if they had, I should still remember them now.
DR. SERVATIUS: Who supervised the execution of the orders, and how did
that come to your knowledge, or how should that have come to your
knowledge?
TIMM: Various authorities were concerned with supervising the work of
foreign workers. These were five or six different offices. There was in
particular the German Labor Front, which, on the basis of a so-called
Führer decision, claimed for itself the question of the treatment and
care of foreign workers. And I may mention in this connection that it
repeatedly said this assignment went beyond the order given by the
Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor to the German Labor
Front, and that to a certain extent it was bound by a higher authority
to carry out this task of welfare and control of treatment, _et cetera_.
On this fundamental question there were repeated conferences between the
office of the GBA and the German Labor Front, and these later led to an
agreement according to which the GBA also transferred this question to
the German Labor Front. To settle these matters, the German Labor Front
established a central inspectorate whose mission it was to look after
foreign workers throughout the whole Reich. In addition to this central
inspectorate, the Office for the Allocation of Labor within the German
Labor Front was still functioning.
DR. SERVATIUS: We will come to that in a minute.
TIMM: Yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: What connection was there between Sauckel’s office and
this inspectorate of the Labor Front? How were contacts maintained?
TIMM: In the first place, a man from the German Labor Front worked as
liaison man on Sauckel’s technical staff...
DR. SERVATIUS: Who was that?
TIMM: That was Herr Hoffmann. And secondly, the central inspectorate of
the German Labor Front constantly had conferences on their inspection
activities to which an official of the GBA was invited.
DR. SERVATIUS: This liaison man, Hoffmann, presumably reported on what
he heard from the Labor Front?
TIMM: Yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: What did he report?
TIMM: The things which he reported covered the same ground as I have
already told you about.
DR. SERVATIUS: The German Labor Front already had this task before
Sauckel’s office was set up?
TIMM: The German Labor Front was of the opinion, as I, for several...
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, you must answer me. The German Labor Front had
this task before Sauckel came?
TIMM: Yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did it consider that its authority was restricted by the
fact that Sauckel was appointed?
TIMM: I was just about to explain that it considered its task a general,
comprehensive one; and when the newly appointed Plenipotentiary General
for the Allocation of Labor occupied himself so intensively with these
matters, it did see in this a certain encroachment on its task.
DR. SERVATIUS: And was this agreed upon between Ley and Sauckel?
TIMM: Yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: At whose instigation was this agreement reached?
TIMM: As far as I can recall the suggestion was the outcome of a wish of
the German Labor Front.
DR. SERVATIUS: And what was the aim?
TIMM: Of course, I can give only my personal opinion. I believe that the
aim was in any case to express the fact that the German Labor Front was
generally competent for these questions.
DR. SERVATIUS: Who presented the agreement, Sauckel...?
THE PRESIDENT: Have we not got the agreement between Sauckel and Ley?
DR. SERVATIUS: It was submitted by the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: If we have it, we do not want to have his personal
recollection of it, do we?
DR. SERVATIUS: The witness goes back too far. I would like to know who
suggested it and drew it up, and when it was signed. There are two dates
at the foot of this document as far as I remember today.
M. HERZOG: Mr. President, the document which is being mentioned now was
submitted to the Tribunal. It is Document Number 1913-PS.
DR. SERVATIUS: It is in my document book, in the first document book,
Page 79. In the English book it is Page 74. Here in the first text may
be found...
THE PRESIDENT: What are you after? There is no use in getting the
evidence of a witness, who said he does not remember in detail about it,
about a document which we have got before us. It does not seem to me to
be in the least bit useful to know who suggested that the agreement
should be entered into.
DR. SERVATIUS: [_Turning to the witness._] There were still other
inspectorates. For example, the Gauleiter was an authorized agent for
the Allocation of Labor Department. To what extent did the Gauleiter
report things which occurred in their Gaue during the allocation of
labor?
TIMM: The Gauleiter were appointed by the Plenipotentiary General for
the Allocation of Labor by virtue of his Decree Number 1, to be his
authorized agents, with the task of applying themselves precisely to
this question.
DR. SERVATIUS: What did they report?
TIMM: I do not know of any written reports from the Gauleiter on this
question; at least, not to any extent worth mentioning. Hardly any
written reports from the Gauleiter came in on this question; at least,
not to our office.
DR. SERVATIUS: At this opportunity I should like to clear up the
question of the position held by the Gauleiter as authorized agents for
the Allocation of Labor in relation to the Gau labor offices. Was the
Gauleiter president of the Gau labor offices, or in what relation did
they stand to each other?
TIMM: In administration and matters of personnel, the president of the
Gau labor offices was undoubtedly subordinate to the Plenipotentiary
General for the Allocation of Labor, or to the Reich Minister for Labor.
But the Plenipotentiary General had made it the duty of these presidents
to keep in closest contact with the Gauleiter and to make constant
reports on the things which occurred in their sphere of work. In
particular, if there were any tension or difficulties in the Gau, they
were to apply to the Gauleiter for aid.
DR. SERVATIUS: If I understand you correctly, the Party as such had
nothing to do with the actual utilization of labor itself?
TIMM: I believe that is so. If the question is to be considered in that
way, I would say that the institution of a Plenipotentiary General
emphasized the political aspect of the Allocation of Labor, and that the
Gauleiter, according to their varying personal opinions, concerned
themselves to a greater or lesser extent with the Allocation of Labor.
DR. SERVATIUS: As an organ for care and control?
TIMM: Yes; for all questions concerning labor allocation.
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, you will understand that your testimony
concerning your knowledge of the events submitted by the Prosecution is
received with great skepticism. Did you not unofficially hear and see
things which, if they did not come to your attention officially,
certainly should have given you cause to investigate them more
thoroughly?
TIMM: Of course, one heard here and there of cases where foreign workers
were allegedly ill-treated in some way. As far as such things came to my
attention I always considered them official matters, and made out a
report accordingly or had them attended to. In such cases, the necessary
investigations were made immediately and everything necessary was done
to clear up the matter.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were these individual cases not symptoms of conditions as
a whole?
TIMM: I do not believe so. At any rate, events which one might call
catastrophic never came to my attention. As I have already said, they
were nearly always only things which were connected with the question of
treatment—that is to say, questions of accommodations in camps,
clothing, and so forth.
DR. SERVATIUS: What was the output and the morale of the workers?
TIMM: The output achieved by foreign workers varied. The output of the
Eastern Workers was especially good. In general, because of this output,
the demand for Eastern Workers was great. The output was also very good
in particular of the skilled French workers...
DR. SERVATIUS: That is enough. Now, I must come back again to your
connections with the occupied territories. Did you take part in
negotiations with authorities in the occupied territories?
TIMM: Not in the East. A few times I went on journeys in the West with
the Plenipotentiary General and took part in negotiations.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were you with him once when he visited General
Falkenhausen?
TIMM: Yes, I was present at the negotiations.
DR. SERVATIUS: Of what nature were these negotiations, as far as the
atmosphere was concerned? Were they tense, were they friendly, or what
were they like?
TIMM: The conferences with General Falkenhausen at which I was present
were generally comparatively short. I had the feeling that the two
gentlemen did not care for each other...
THE PRESIDENT: What does it matter whether they were tense or friendly
or short?
DR. SERVATIUS: General Falkenhausen made an affidavit, which was
submitted here, in which he said that Sauckel gave him orders and
negotiated with him in a manner which caused him to offer the strongest
opposition.
THE PRESIDENT: If you want to contradict Falkenhausen’s affidavit you
can put it to the witness, if that’s what you are trying to do.
DR. SERVATIUS: I do not have it here at the moment. I will forego that
question.
[_Turning to the witness._] You were in France?
TIMM: Yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were you present at negotiations with the French
authorities?
TIMM: I was present at negotiations with Laval, who was Premier at that
time.
DR. SERVATIUS: Of what nature were these negotiations?
TIMM: One can certainly say that the negotiations were carried on in a
very friendly manner.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did the French not bring any complaints?
TIMM: Individual complaints were made. I remember that the complaints
were especially about the question of the transfer of wages.
DR. SERVATIUS: I should like to ask you whether complaints about
treatment, the methods of recruitment, coercive measures, and so
on—whether complaints were made about those things?
TIMM: No, I do not remember any complaints of that sort. I should
certainly remember them if there had been any.
DR. SERVATIUS: I have a few more questions concerning Sauckel’s
relations with the Central Planning Board and with Speer. You yourself
repeatedly represented Sauckel at the Central Planning Board. Is that
correct?
TIMM: Yes, a few times.
DR. SERVATIUS: What was the position of the Central Planning Board as
far as Sauckel was concerned?
TIMM: The Central Planning Board was a branch of the Four Year Plan. Its
task, as far as the GBA was concerned, was to collect the demands for
workers made by the big employers, and to adjust these demands at
regular sessions. As the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of
Labor could not judge himself the importance of the use made of workers
by the various industries, this question was decided in the Central
Planning Board. An attempt was made, for certain periods of time, for as
long a time as possible, to work out a balance of workers, I might say,
and in connection...
THE PRESIDENT: Defendant Sauckel told us all about this already, didn’t
he?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Then there is no need to go into it with another witness.
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, Mr. President.
[_Turning to the witness._] Do you know Speer’s position?
TIMM: Yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: What was Speer’s position in relation to Sauckel and vice
versa? Could Speer give orders to Sauckel in particular?
TIMM: Speer was Plenipotentiary General for Armament while Sauckel was
Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor, and Speer held the
point of view that he, as Armament Minister, should have decisive
authority in all matters pertaining to the production of armaments, that
is raw materials, coal and consequently also the allocation of labor.
DR. SERVATIUS: Could Speer give Sauckel orders and instructions, or did
he actually give them?
TIMM: Yes, as a matter of form. As I have just said, the question was
not quite clear, and the two conceptions were opposed. In reality there
was always a certain tension between the two men because the Armament
Ministry wanted more or less to claim the power to issue instructions.
This tension was generally cleared up through talks, or the exchange of
letters between the two men. Sometimes it led to what one might call
“agreement conferences,” headed by Reichsminister Lammers, as he was at
that time.
DR. SERVATIUS: What was the result of these conferences, these agreement
conferences?
TIMM: These conferences led to agreements which, as far as I remember,
were several times taken down in writing, and in my opinion they led to
an increasingly strong influence by the Armament Ministry on questions
concerning the allocation of labor.
DR. SERVATIUS: I have no more questions to put to this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other counsel want to ask any more questions?
DR. HANS FLÄCHSNER (Counsel for Defendant Speer): Witness, in connection
with your last statement, I should like to ask one question. You have
testified to tension between the Defendants Sauckel and Speer because
Speer claimed the right to give instructions. Do I understand you
correctly if I assume that the tension arose from the fact that Sauckel
energetically disputed this right to issue instructions?
TIMM: As I wanted to express in my last answer, the difficulties
consisted in the fact that Speer, as Plenipotentiary General for
Armaments said: “I must have control of all the things which belong to
actual manufacture. So it is essential for me as regards the direction
of labor allocation...”
DR. FLÄCHSNER: I understood that, Witness; my question is only, did this
tension arise from the fact that Sauckel emphatically refused to
recognize this right to issue instructions which you say was assumed by
Speer?
TIMM: As Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor Sauckel
felt himself competent and responsible for all questions concerning it.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: With regard to the demands of the Armament Ministry which
he did not feel he could consider justified, did Sauckel not hold the
point of view that he was responsible only to the Führer?
TIMM: I do not remember anything so definite. He was Plenipotentiary
General for...
THE PRESIDENT: Surely this is very far removed from anything we have got
to deal with. He says that the tension was cleared up by conferences.
What more is there to discuss?
DR. FLÄCHSNER: That was the last question I wanted to ask the witness.
Witness, you spoke of conferences which are supposed to have taken place
with Minister Lammers. In the minutes of the session of 11 July 1944 and
of 4 January 1944, which have been previously submitted here, there is
no mention at all of such differences. I would be grateful to you, if
you could tell me what session with Lammers you have in mind?
TIMM: Unfortunately, I cannot give the dates of the sessions exactly. I
know only that the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor
several times wished to report these circumstances to the Führer, and
that the two men, as far as I can remember, agreed that these questions
should be discussed with the Führer. Then, however, in order to avoid
always taking things to the Führer they agreed to have matters talked
over with Reichsminister Lammers.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: You cannot give any details about that?
TIMM: Only if—I remember, for example, that the question of the blocked
industries in France was discussed.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: Very well.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the Prosecution wish to cross-examine the witness?